CDR Salamander - (mis)RULE (of) BRITANNIA('s armed forces) II: Electric Boogaloo

Last night I bumped into something I wrote in my second month of blogging in August 2004 about a contemporary article by Eliot Cohen in WaPo titled, The Thin Red Line, Getting Thinner.

It was about Tony Blair’s expected cuts announced that year.

What happens to the military in Great Britain matters not just to them, but to the U.S.A. and the entire Western security system.

What Cohen said almost 22 years ago rings even more true today.

…the real significance of this erosion of British strength, and the stake the United States has in stopping it.

First, Britain is the only considerable state that can send substantial forces in the field to operate alongside ours. Others -- the Australians or the Norwegians, to take two very different examples -- have superb niche capabilities, but only the British have the size and sophistication to take on large military tasks. If Iraq has taught anything, it has been the extreme desirability of bringing along a coalition, with all of its awkwardness, to a large geopolitical problem. But to have a coalition one needs at least one large partner. The issue is not just capability in some narrow, mathematical sense but the legitimacy and reassurance that comes from knowing a substantial partner is in the fight with us. And the American military has gotten to be so good, so technologically advanced and so tactically adept that only a handful of militaries can operate alongside ours and hope to keep up. Foremost among those who can are the Brits.

Second, Britain brings to bear real military expertise. Particularly in the field of counterinsurgency, its soldiers have the hard-won knowledge of decades of frustrating small-war experience, in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. Their soldiers and generals have learned a great deal about pacifying distant trouble spots, knowledge from which the Yanks could and have benefited. But as we have learned in the Persian Gulf, numbers of boots on the ground count in this kind of fight -- even when it comes to training indigenous forces.

Finally, Britain is a European power. In NATO it is unique among the militarily serious states. France is hostile to us; Germany is increasingly so, and has debilitated its armed forces by putting them on starvation rations for the past decade. Spain has tilted to France, and Italy, despite pockets of excellence, is an uneven power. The other states are either too small or as yet too poor and inexperienced to provide both muscle and leadership in complex fights.

A few years later in 2010, I re-emphasized another aspect as to why keeping an eye on what is happening in the Mother Country is so important:

One thing that kept coming to mind last week in San Diego, was the goings-on in the mother country. Some of the challenges the United Kingdom is experiencing now are about a decade ahead of us, methinks - if not closer.

If the decline mattered when the above was written—and it did; I remember it well—then what about now?

It took a couple of years for the cuts announced in 2004 to hit, and it looks like most of the first round was in by the end of 2006.

20 years ago.

By 2006, the British Armed Forces had dropped to:

• Army: 108,000

• Royal Navy: 39,000

• Royal Air Force: 49,000

Let’s just see what the Royal Navy looked like at the time. I may be off a frigate or destroyer here or there, but I think this is a solid list.

The major ships commissioned in active service in 2006:

• Aircraft Carriers: 2

  • 2 Invincible class - HMS Illustrious (R06) and HMS Ark Royal (R07)

• Destroyers: 8

  • 8 Type 42 - HMS Exeter (D89), HMS Southampton (D90), HMS Nottingham (D91), HMS Liverpool (D92), HMS Manchester (D95), HMS Gloucester (D96), HMS Edinburgh (D97), and HMS York (D98).

• Frigates:18

  • 4 Type 22 - HMS Cornwall (F99), HMS Cumberland (F85), HMS Campbeltown (F86), HMS Chatham (F87).

  • 14 Type 23 - HMS Argyll (F231), HMS Grafton (F80), HMS Iron Duke (F234), HMS Kent (F78), HMS Lancaster (F229), HMS Monmouth (F235), HMS Montrose (F236), HMS Northumberland (F238), HMS Portland (F79), HMS Richmond (F239), HMS Somerset (F82), HMS St Albans (F83), HMS Sutherland (F81) and HMS Westminster (F237).

• Submarines: 13

  • 4 Vanguard Class SSBN - HMS Vanguard, HMS Victorious, HMS Vigilant, and HMS Vengeance.

  • 7 Trafalgar Class SSNs: HMS Trafalgar, HMS Turbulent, HMS Tireless, HMS Torbay, HMS Trenchant, HMS Talent, and HMS Triumph.

  • 2 Swiftsure Class SSNs: HMS Superb, and HMS Sceptre.

Where are we in 2026?

• Aircraft Carriers: 2

  • 2 Queen Elizabeth Class - HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08) and HMS Prince of Wales (R09).

• Destroyers: 6

  • 6 Type 45 - HMS Daring (D32), HMS Dauntless (D33), HMS Diamond (D34), HMS Dragon (D35), HMS Defender (D36) and HMS Duncan (D37).

• Frigates: 5

  • 5 Type 23 - HMS Kent (F78), HMS Portland (F79), HMS Somerset (F82), HMS St Albans (F83) and HMS Sutherland (F81).

• Submarines: 10

  • 4 Vanguard Class SSBN - HMS Vanguard, HMS Victorious, HMS Vigilant, and HMS Vengeance.

  • 6 Astute Class SSN - HMS Astute (S119), HMS Ambush (S120), HMS Artful (S121), HMS Audacious (S122), HMS Anson (S123) and HMS Agamemnon (S124).

I’ll avoid the complication of digging up the data, but in 2006, the Royal Navy had a higher readiness rate in addition to having more ships on paper. I don't think you will find anyone of substance who will disagree with the statement that, while individual ships in 2026 are generally more advanced than their 2006 equivalents, the quantity and day-to-day readiness of the fleet is considerably worse. The Royal Navy in 2026 has far less ability to sustain multiple operations or surge in a crisis compared to 2006.

We’ve seen that play out this year in spades.

So, that is the state of our most reliable European allied navy. Keep that in mind, and be nice to every Japanese person you meet.

Leave a comment

Share

View the full article