Royal Navy 'woefully low' on warships
 

Royal Navy 'woefully low' on warships

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cps...tship624cj.png

Indeed we are woefully low we replaced our 12 type 42 DDG's with just 6, we sold 3 type 23's to Chile and the 13 that remain will be replaced by 8 Type 26's and possibly yet unconfirmed 5 type 31 corvette size vessels (which will if built likely be placed in the gulf).

We used to have 22 Mine warfare ships that number is now down to 15 with more to go very soon.

In 2018 the LPH HMS Ocean is to retire with no replacement RFA Argus is to take her place (strange due to the fact it was found unsuitable for the role back in 95)

We lost one of our four Bay class Assault platforms (RFA) to the R.A.N

The RFA has seen its fleet cut in half from 22 ships 10 years ago to just 11 now although 4 tide class tankers are due to enter service starting next year.

Submarines have been replaced one for one

Carriers we have none but the two new carriers come online starting next year.

So far we have the RFA undertaking the roles in which the RN are supposed to do which include the drugs war in the Caribbean for example

The UK has also since 2010 pulled out of the gulf of Aden anti piracy missions and we have also seen a cut back in our presence in the gulf and the Caribbean.

The UK no longer has the means to deploy a strike group nor does it have the ability to assist in many overseas operations.

But why is this the case, just had a look at this chart:
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/sp...07_2020UKb_30t

(of crs I have not validated the figures)

Have the priorities changed within the U.K armed forces or is the nuclear deterrent just consuming 'too' much money (SSBNS) ?

Ignoring the political challenges, it would make sense that the European member states of NATO have together a SSBN deterrence force. I think we all agree that it would be only used as a last defense line and thus independent from national politics (e.g. like the Iraq war, 2003)