From the Sunday Times newspaper, dated 31 December 2006

Half of Royal Navy’s ships in mothballs as defence cuts bite

By Michael Smith

HALF of the Royal Navy is to be “mothballed” as it bears the brunt of cuts imposed after a series of expensive procurement projects and the hidden costs of the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Six destroyers and frigates and two other vessels are expected to be put into reduced readiness, known as mothballing, to achieve urgent savings of more than £250m. It can take up to 18 months to bring mothballed ships back into service.

The armed forces have been told to save more than £250m this year, and £1 billion by April 2008, amid a “rebalancing” of the Ministry of Defence’s (MoD’s) spending plans, defence sources disclosed.

The MoD will also cancel the last two of the eight Type-45 destroyers the navy was supposed to get. The navy was promised the government would provide these in exchange for cutting 15 major ships in 2004, sources said.

Julian Lewis, the Tories’ defence spokesman, said the fresh cuts were “absolutely devastating stuff” and that cutting the number of Type-45 destroyers would be “catastrophic”.

“You can’t have a navy without ships. This government is absolutely hellbent on the destruction of the Royal Navy,” said Lewis.

Admiral Sir Alan West, the then first sea lord, has said he only accepted the cuts in return for the “jam tomorrow” of the eight Type-45 destroyers and two large new aircraft carriers he was promised.

Adam Ingram, minister of state for the armed forces, admitted this month that 13 of the Royal Navy’s 44 main vessels were already in mothballs to save cash.

A total of 13 were at sea, and a further 18 in port and ready to go to sea at any time. But the decision to mothball another eight ships will mean that 21 of the 44 are not available. Ingram refused to say which ships were out of action, admitting that this would “enable deductions to be made that could be prejudicial to national security”.

Measures to save money that are already under way include a review of the Royal Navy’s three main remaining bases at Plymouth, Faslane and Portsmouth.

At the height of its power in the 19th century, the Royal Navy was as large as the seven next biggest navies combined. Even as the US and German navies grew at the start of the 20th century, it remained twice as large as its nearest rival.

But the 2004 cuts reduced it to its smallest since before Trafalgar in 1805, and there are suggestions it now needs only two major bases.

The decision last month to renew the Trident nuclear deterrent, based at Faslane, saved the Scottish base and made Portsmouth the favourite for closure.

Mike Hancock, the Liberal Democrat MP for Portsmouth South, said the cuts were “as potentially damaging as the (then defence secretary, Sir John) Nott cuts of the early 1980s, which preceded the Falklands conflict. Closing the Portsmouth dockyard, the most important of the bases, would be an historic mistake. This government keeps cutting back on equipment without cutting back on commitments. It is putting more on crews and undermining the navy.”

The problems with the defence budget are largely caused by cost overruns in procurement projects such as the RAF’s Eurofighter Typhoon, the Bowman communications system, and the Navy’s Astute submarine and Type-45 destroyer programmes. The Eurofighter Typhoon programme costs about £1 billion a year, which will rise in the next financial year to £1.3 billion. The other major programme costs are: the Type-45 destroyer £600m, Bowman £545m and Astute £415m.

The cost overruns on procurement are exacerbated by the Treasury’s refusal to refund the costs of training for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and up to 40% of the cost of actual operations. The Treasury claims to meet the full cost.

The MoD said it was not prepared to provide details of internal government budget discussions but it did not expect to see an overspend in this financial year and no budget had been set for next year.

From the Mail on Sunday newspaper, dated 6 January 2007

Half of our warships 'to be mothballed'

By Mathew Hickley

Half the Royal Navy's warships could be withdrawn from service to save money as defence chiefs struggle to implement crippling spending cuts. Navy top brass are said to be furious over plans to mothball six frigates and destroyers, as well as two minesweepers and support ships, to help cut £250million from defence spending this year.

Serving officers have warned that Britain's once mighty fleet is being reduced to little more than 'a coastal defence force'.

Thirteen vessels are already in 'reduced readiness' - Ministry of Defence jargon indicating they cannot be put to sea. Confining another eight to port would mean almost half the fleet would be out of action.

One report named the ships at risk as Type 22 frigates Cumberland, Chatham, Cornwall and Campbeltown and Type 42 destroyers Southampton and Exeter.

The plans have added to fears that two new giant aircraft carriers - the centrepiece of Labour's future defence strategy - will never get off the drawing board.

The news came as the backlash grew over senior commanders' admission that too many soldiers were living in sub-standard housing.

All three services must undertake drastic cost-cutting measures by the end of this financial year because of a budget crisis.

The strain of simultaneous major operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, coupled with the spiralling costs of ambitious equipment projects, has put defence spending under huge strain.

Vital training exercises are having to be cancelled, and all military parachute training could be scrapped.

The Ministry of Defence insisted yesterday that no final decision had been taken over ship numbers and readiness levels, although sources confirmed that mothballing six or more ships was an option.

HMS Invincible, one of the Navy's three 'mini' aircraft carriers, was withdrawn two years ago to save money, and is now likely to be sold.

Admiral Sir Alan West, recently retired as head of the Navy, has warned that the service is already struggling to fulfil its key tasks and would have to abandon longstanding commitments if it loses more ships.

He said of the latest threatened cuts: 'This is just outrageous. The squeeze on money is very damaging to the Navy while people are focusing on the Army.'

And a serving officer told the Daily Mail: 'For decades we've prided ourselves on being the world's best navy, despite the cuts.

'But there will come a point - perhaps not far off - when we're just too small to maintain core skills and standards.

The politicians and the public need to understand this.'

Another insider added: 'This means we are no better than a coastal defence force or a fleet of dug-out canoes.'

The Government's Royal Navy strategy is based on the two new £3.5billion aircraft carriers, but plans for them to enter service in 2012 and 2015 were officially abandoned two years ago.

Without them Britain's fleet will effectively be unable to operate in hostile waters, unless protected by the U.S.

A review of port facilities could also see one of three bases closed, with Portsmouth seen as the most likely.

From the Daily Telegraph newspaper, dated 5 January 2007

Navy to cut its fleet by half

By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent

Royal Navy commanders were in uproar yesterday after it was revealed that almost half of the Fleet's 44 warships are to be mothballed as part of a Ministry of Defence cost-cutting measure.

Sailors standing on the aircraft carrier HMS Invincible, which may never go to sea again

Senior officers have said the plans will turn Britain's once-proud Navy into nothing more than a coastal defence force.

The Government has admitted that 13 unnamed warships are in a state of reduced readiness, putting them around 18 months away from active service. Today The Daily Telegraph can name a further six destroyers and frigates that are being proposed for cuts.

A need to cut the defence budget by £250 million this year to meet spending requirements has forced ministers to look at drastic measures.

MoD sources have admitted it is possible that the Royal Navy will discontinue one of its major commitments around the world at a time when Sir Jonathon Band, the First Sea Lord, has said more ships are needed to protect the high seas against terrorism and piracy.

News of further cuts to what was once the world's most formidable fleet comes as critics say failings across the Services are becoming increasingly apparent.

More details are emerging of the near-squalor that soldiers are forced to tolerate in barracks when they return from six months of dangerous overseas operations.

Questions have also been raised about the poor pay for troops and equipment failures which continue to dog operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The six warships to be mothballed are the Type 22 frigates Cumberland, Chatham, Cornwall and Campbeltown and two Type 42 destroyers Southampton and Exeter.

It is likely that they will eventually be sold or scrapped. There are also fears in the Admiralty that two new aircraft carriers, promised in 1998, might never be built.

Meanwhile the French navy, which will be far superior to the Royal Navy after the cuts, will announce before the April presidential elections that a new carrier will be built.

Two of eight advanced air defence Type 45 destroyers on the Navy's order books will not be bought, defence sources said. The order is already six months behind schedule and £157 million over budget.

A senior officer, currently serving with the Fleet in Portsmouth, said: "What this means is that we are now no better than a coastal defence force or a fleet of dug-out canoes. The Dutch now have a better navy than us."

Defence sources said it would be unlikely that the Navy could now launch an armada of the kind that retook the Falkland Islands in 1982.

Steve Bush, editor of the monthly magazine Warship World, said the MoD was bankrupt following the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"After 10 years of Labour government, the Royal Navy is on its knees without immediate and proper funding. I cannot see how it can recover —especially if Mr Brown becomes the next prime minister," he said.

There are already reports that ships on operations are ignoring faults to weapons systems in order to save money but will spend cash if it is a health and safety issue.

The Navy is expected to lose one of its three carriers, Invincible, which has been laid up in Portsmouth. One of the three major ports is also under threat of closure. It is believed that the historic Navy headquarters of Portsmouth is most vulnerable.

Two unnamed mine counter-measure vessels and two Royal Fleet Auxiliary tankers, Brambleleaf and Oakleaf, are also under threat.

Adam Ingram, the defence minister, admitted in a Parliamentary answer last month that 13 ships were at sea with 18 in port at 48 hours notice to deploy. The decision to tie up another six frigates will mean the Navy has just 25 warships left. This would mean giving up a major commitment such as the anti-drugs and hurricane support role in the Caribbean.

To protect Britain from attack today, the country has the frigates Monmouth and Montrose available with the carrier Ark Royal about to re-enter service after a lengthy refit.

The MoD said yesterday that it had no plans to cut the destroyer and frigate fleet but it "routinely reviewed" defence capabilities "to ensure resources are directed where our front line Armed Forces need them most".

A spokesman said: "We are some way from any decisions and just because a proposal is looked at does not mean that it will be implemented"

A final decision on the cuts is expected next month.

From the Daily Telegraph newspaper, dated 6 January 2007

Fears over £3.6bn plan for new carriers

By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent

From the Daily Telegraph newspaper, dated 8 January 2007

Promotion freezes as cuts bite in Navy

By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent

Promotion for Royal Navy officers is to be frozen for five years in a cost-cutting measure that has caused fury in the Fleet, The Daily Telegraph can reveal.

If the warship cuts go ahead, 1,500 sailors will probably lose their jobs

Morale is plummeting as officers stand to lose more than £10,000 a year in pay.

An official Navy document passed to this newspaper states that all promotions to the rank of Lieutenant Commander or above will be halted until 2012. The internal memo, labelled Galaxy 36/06, said that a temporary halt will be required to "rebalance in favour of the front line".

With billions being spent on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and on costly procurement programmes, the Ministry of Defence is desperate to make savings. The Navy has become a target and proposals to retire a further six frigates and destroyers to bring budgets into line were revealed by The Telegraph yesterday. The fleet will lose almost half its warships with 19 out of 44 laid up in port.

If the warship cuts go ahead, 1,500 sailors will probably lose their jobs in a service that has already been reduced to 36,000 personnel in recent years.

advertisement It has also been proposed that the 2,900 sailors of the Royal Navy Reserve, which provides a backbone in many specialist areas, will be cut by as much as 20 per cent. There are going to be reductions too in the 1,000 sailors in the Full Time Reserve Service who are asked back to do specific jobs to fill gaps.

The leaked memo, from Vice-Admiral Adrian Johns, the Second Sea Lord, said: "In order to rebalance in favour of the front line we are focusing on officers of Lieutenant Commander and above. I anticipate a temporary reduction in promotion numbers primarily in the officer cadre for the period 2008 to 2010 and recovering to present levels in 2012."

A serving Lieutenant Commander, equivalent to an Army major, who is currently paid £45,000 a year, described the freeze as "an absolute outrage". "People who have worked extremely hard and given their careers to the Navy, have bled for the Navy are now being rewarded like this, he said. "It is also a real kick in the teeth for those commanders who will now probably never have the chance to captain a ship."

Another officer based in Portsmouth, with 27 years service, including action in the Falklands war, was told by his commander that he should start looking for another job.

"I'm in the position of five years until retirement and after having given 27 years service it's now 'so long and thanks for all the fish'," he said.

The Navy is so desperate for savings that it has also proposed putting middle-ranking officers on placements in the defence industry to save on their office overheads.

It would like to axe scores of senior men but cannot afford the redundancy payments in the short term.

Some officers believe the promotion freeze is part of a plan to force them into early retirement.

The brother of another serving officer said there was discussion about suing the MoD for constructive dismissal. "We wonder whether it is a deliberate ploy to get people like him to leave the service," he said.

There are also fears that the promotion freeze will have a negative effect on recruiting bright young officers to a service suffering substantial manning problems. The details on the promotion freeze and RNR cuts are expected in March.

But Lewis Page, a former Navy officer who wrote Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs, an acclaimed book about MoD overspending, said cuts were necessary for the 1,100 Lt Commanders in the Navy because a "staggering" 17 of the rank were based ashore for every one at sea.

"It is becoming increasingly difficult to find even vaguely relevant employment for them all," he said.

A Navy spokesman said the Service was working hard to be more efficient "so that we can focus more of our resources on the front line". "As a result, we have warned our people that there may be a temporary reduction in a few promotion opportunities, particularly for senior officers in headquarters posts."

The Tories accused the Government of "destroying" the Navy over the past decade and refusing to accept its responsibility to defend the nation by slashing the number of ships to pay for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Julian Lewis, the Tory defence spokesman, said: "You can't mortgage the future of the Armed Forces by cutting them to pieces in order to pay for a current campaign."

News of the promotions freeze comes as the Ministry of Defence announced it would extend the maximum recruitment age for the Army from 26 to 33.

It was revealed before Christmas that soldiers will be allowed to serve until they are 55 from next year.

From the official Royal Navy web site, dated 8 January 2007

Navy 'Promotion Freeze' and Navy 'Cuts'

A letter from Cdr John Muxworthy RN to the Prime Minister

The Rt. Hon. Tony Blair

                                                                                            15 January 2007

Last Friday I was privileged to attend your speech on Defence & Security onboard HMS ALBION.  What you said inspired me to write this letter because I am leading on creating a UK National Defence Association (short title ‘NDA’) whose purpose is:

To inform the people of the United Kingdom about the case for sufficient, appropriate and fully funded Armed Forces that the Country needs to ensure its people, their security and vital interests at home and worldwide can be defended effectively.

After eighteen months’ work developing this idea, we will have our web-site (www.uknda.org) up and running by 1^st February.  The aim of this introductory site is to publicise the NDA and identify and quantify the amount of real support there is (or is not) for the creation of an NDA, the raison d’etre for and full details of which are in our Founding Document, a copy of which I enclose.  The target date to ‘launch’ the NDA, assuming sufficient support, is by late spring at the latest.

The NDA is independent, objective and non-political.  As stated on the front cover of our Founding Document we whole heartedly support your wish to develop a debate based ‘Covenant’.  It would be of inestimable help if you would agree to indicate your support for the creation of the NDA, perhaps in the following terms:

"I welcome the creation of the UK National Defence Association and its potential to facilitate the creation of a Covenant between the people, politicians and Armed Forces of this country in discussing how best to provide for the effective defence of the Realm, its people and their vital interests wherever they may be".

I am also writing to David Cameron and Sir Menzies Campbell asking them to support the same statement.  While there will always be strenuous political ‘debate’ and even disagreement on how best to resource and equip the Armed Forces, there should be no disagreement as to the fundamental and common aim – i.e. that the first priority of any Government is to ensure the effective defence of the Realm, its people and their vital interests.

 I enjoyed, appreciated and greatly admired your speech, and agree with the great majority of it.  Speaking for those of us now creating the UKNDA, we would very much value your support.