Grasping the Delusion by Believing in Illusions

I'm really enjoying the March 08 Proceedings, credit the US Naval Institute for a third straight month of a great quality. There is no question 2007 will go down as the worst content year for that publication in at least the last several decades, but 2008 is on its way to being a banner year.

In the always popular "Nobody Asked Me, But..." article, Commodore Manohar K. Banger, Indian Navy (Retired) decides to discuss the Royal Navy and it is nothing more than a swift kick of reality to the UK gonads.

The Royal Navy today, with 25 major warships, cannot truly claim to be a blue-water navy. There has been a drastic reduction in the fleet thanks to the Strategic Defence Review of 1998. Consider that the Indian Navy is now a 100-ship navy yet still considered by the major powers to be a brown-water force. Numbers are important when showing your flag in foreign waters for deterrence purposes (or goodwill visits on the positive side). Of course, one can always debate the quantity versus quality issue. But in the final analysis, numerical superiority is likely to prevail in any eventuality.

This is a critical point, one starting to creep into most of the west, particularly in how it views a rising east.

An August 2006 Naval Review article written by Admiral Sir Jonathon Band, the First Sea Lord, stated that Britain is pre-eminently a maritime nation and shall have unhindered use of the seas. Doubt arises as to how Britain is to make unlimited use of the sea when it does not have the numbers either in its mercantile fleet or the Royal Navy. The challenge is compounded by the successively shrinking defense budgets over the years. The slogan "Small but Better" (alternatively "do more with less") initiated by the Royal Navy in 1982 has now brought the service to its present state. In reality, the slogan is flawed. "Smaller" will invariably precede the achievement of "better." This to some extent explains the urgent need to review the defense budget, notwithstanding the statement of the First Sea Lord that "resources will remain tight in the face of competing demands on Public Expenditure."

The Royal Navy has been reduced from a giant to a dwarf over the years, with associated sectors of the shipbuilding and auxiliary manufacturing industries on the downward slide. The challenge before the First Sea Lord is enormous: to first stem the decline and then build up in the next phase before it's too late.

The Royal Navy will almost certainly be downsized by a full 20% this year as they lose 4 Type 22s and 1 Type 23. This will reduce the fleet to only 20 ships. The CVF has been 'delayed' which we believe is code for 'soon to be canceled", regardless of what is being said. There is simply no evidence the end of the fall is anywhere in sight, and the only thing a delay to CVF does is raise costs, which gives more reason to cancel later.

While some may not believe it, we still believe that as the delays mount costs, someone will call for a review which leads to further delays, and ultimately the review will say what many have already said; the Royal Navy needs a larger fleet and can't afford it with the CVF. We think the odds are better than 50% that only 1 CVF is built, and the second aviation platform to be built is more likely to be a UXV than a CVF.

We are hearing all kinds of rumors of integration problems with the Type 45, specifically the ASTOR and PAAMS/Sampson, which may be why we are also now hearing talk of the MK41 from inside the Commons. This basically means 6, not 8 Type 45s, and the line will shift to UXV when there are no exports. As far as JSF, talk about an easy cut to the budget particularly as the second engine remains unpopular in the US. As we said, we do not see an end anywhere in sight.

Delays and problems means more cost for naval programs, which further leads to more lost when it comes to future purchases, because the government absolutely refuses to increase funding for a nation at war.

The arrogance of western politicians, but most particularly in the UK, that the equipment is so much superior that numbers don't matter would sound very familiar in German halls in the 1930s. It is also very telling that the west believes somehow that absent large defense forces that they have become immune to war in the future, as if political rhetoric will somehow protect their nation. Has the world really changed so much in the last 50 years that we can ignore the history of the human race over the last several thousand?

When observing the rate of construction of the Navy's of India and China, we can't help but observe how often the west claims the "Small but Better" superiority, ignoring in fact that victory in war at sea is most often decided by who wins the war of attrition, not by who has the superior technology. If the Royal Navy gets engaged in a war of attrition, they will lose to most Navies of Europe, and it only gets worse over the next decade.