Shipbuilding Again - Over There

David Axe reminds us that we're not the only ones with shipbuilding chaos. Many if not all of Galrahn's recent updates regarding, for example, the Somalia coast involved the names of RN vessels participating either on their own or as part of NATO forces. If the RN does in fact fall to the levels suggested, it is plausible to project that it will be unable to maintain presence forward except on a 'surge' basis other than perhaps one or two small-craft stations to maintain their NATO commitments. Axe discusses an eventual force level of 45 or fewer, with only six destroyers available to escort two carriers and an amphib and as yet no planned replacement for the RN frigate force.

The RN Type 42 destroyers are down to eight ships, with two on 'reserve' and waiting to be decommissioned in two years. The youngest ship of the class is the second-to-last, HMS Edinburgh (D97) which was launched in 1983 - it is already 25 years old. The replacement class, the Type 45, has been cut to six ships. On the brighter side, the frigate force of Type 22 and Type 23 frigates are all younger, with the oldest type 22 launched in 1985 and the Type 23s stretching from 1991 to 2000. Of course, as Axe mentions, a lack of a viable replacement plan means that unless something is done soon, a significant fleet drop is likely as the frigates all come of age in rapid succession. Sound familiar?

What should the United Kingdom want its Navy to do? Do we, as the U.S., have an interest in the RN remaining a viable on-station force? I would say that Somalia, Georgia and the humanitarian missions ongoing would say we do. It's not just the U.S. which needs to build and wield soft power; the RN offers a badly-needed ancillary capability and a primary perception capability, operating as a NATO member. Like it or not, if soft power is your game, perceptions matter - and it may take a non-U.S. asset to open the way for operations by the full alliance, or by U.S. units.