Chum, Despondency, and Whiplash

This is London calling

I’ve long been worried about the Royal Navy. Britain’s inability to rapidly deploy warships to protect British interests has been revealed by the Iran War. Britain is being forced to confront the shock that its once globe-spanning fleet cannot rule even portions of the seas.

Only the larger buffer of NATO states prevents Britain from losing control of the waters around their island kingdom:

For years, warnings about the declining strength of the Royal Navy have been largely ignored. The crisis in the Middle East has placed the size and readiness of the RN in the spotlight, with various politicians and sections of the mainstream media describing Britain’s naval position as “weak”, “embarrassing” and “a disgrace”. ...

For years, the steady contraction of the RN has occurred largely out of public sight. ...

Events over the past few weeks have changed that. The confused reaction to rising tensions in the Middle East, combined with the difficulty of rapidly deploying a single destroyer, has forced a much broader debate about the true state of Britain’s maritime power. Even traditionally defence-sceptical media outlets have begun asking why a leading naval nation struggles to field ships at short notice.

The decline in my lifetime is far worse than America’s Navy plight:

In the mid-1990s, Royal Navy officers at staff college in Shrivenham were asked to map out their predictions for what the service would look like in 30 years. One submariner said the navy would have 30 of the American Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers, the same number of frigates and 20 attack submarines.

More than a decade earlier, the navy had deployed 127 ships for the Falklands conflict, including 43 warships. The British nuclear submarine HMS Conqueror had sunk the Argentine cruiser ARA General Belgrano, killing 323 sailors onboard.

The submariner, who recently retired, cannot believe the size of the navy now. “Nobody wrote down that you would have six Type 45s [destroyers] that never work, two aircraft carriers we can’t man because we don’t have enough people, and seven frigates, many alongside. Nobody wanted this navy.”

The fleet that once ruled the waves can barely contest the English Channel if the fleet is dispatched abroad:

On 22 April [2025], Carrier Strike Group 25 (CSG25) set sail on an eight-month publicity tour, leaving British waters sparsely defended.

I have long been concerned that Britain was creating a one-hit fleet by putting so much of their naval investments into two carriers:

If Britain is focusing their navy on supporting a single carrier strike group, and having problems even with that limited goal, is the Royal Navy vulnerable to being taken down with one good hit on the carrier at sea?

It made sense before Russia decided to be the Big Bad in 2022:

As Britain moves to an off-shore military role around the globe, Britain stands up Vanguard Strike Companies. …

It sounds like these units are the means of calling down the lightning bolts from Britain's carrier-centric fleet and possibly land-based air power to support a Thin Red Line ashore in support of allies.

Global high quality force multipliers for allies and trade partners was needed. Things changed quickly. And now Britain’s fleet is obviously too small. Much as I advised the U.S. Navy when our declining numbers created a worry, failing to pick a number of ships needed and then building a high-low mix of ships to reach that number is essentially picking a (smaller) number.

Once, the plight of the Royal Navy’s choice was a source of some pointed humor:

UPDATE: Wait. What?

UK to order third aircraft carrier due to Russia threat[.]

Because of Russia, Britain wants a third aircraft carrier? I didn’t think the Royal Navy had enough escorts for more than one! So much for a British Army of the Vistula.

UPDATE: Mere seconds later, I remembered today is April 1st. Well played.

Damn me for posting before I read to the end, where it claimed the ship “will be capable of deploying an estimated infinity-hundred aircraft[.]”

Again. Well played.

UPDATE: If I’d looked more closely at the photo caption or the byline, I surely would have been deprived of the full joy of the article.

Nobody is laughing now when getting a single British warship underway to respond to a military clash in the Middle East is too much for the Royal Navy to carry out quickly.¹ Nobody is waiting with hope for Britain to help them. London Calling simply mocks Britain’s spasm of naval self-destruction:

And if your pucker factor isn’t elevated enough for your comfort, consider the British Army.

NOTE: Chart from The Times of London article.

1. Is Britain’s long naval tradition reduced to (figuratively) nothing more than Churchill’s purported quip? Not that there’s anything wrong with (some) of that.