British navy 'runs out of fuel'

Source: AFP | Published: Sunday January 23, 10:52 AM

LONDON, Jan 23 - Britain's navy is in disarray, with a lack of money for rising fuel costs keeping the vast majority of its frontline warships confined to port, the Sunday Express reported.

The Royal Navy is facing such a fuel shortage that 36 of its 44 main warships have been confined to port, while captains have been ordered to steam at no more than 15 knots to conserve fuel, it added.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) admitted there was a 'strain' on the Royal Navy's resources but insisted it was ready to deal with any operation.

'We do acknowledge that there is a problem with the Navy, because we have had a large scale of operational commitments over the past year, with Kosovo, East Timor, and Iraq, and a sharp increase in fuel prices, so there is a strain on our resources.

'However the navy remains ready to deal with any operational requirements should they arise.'

The MoD spokesman denied that 36 of the navy's 44 principal warships had been 'confined to port.'

'On January 14 we sent out one of our largest training deployments, led by HMS Illustrious with 10 other ships to the Gulf, which will include a series of goodwill visits to the area.

'By Monday, we will have 24 ships travelling overseas.'

Meanwhile, the Observer reported that Britain's Royal Air Force had grounded two out of every three of its 186 Tornado bombers, while fewer than 40 per cent of other frontline aircraft were ready to fly at short notice.

The RAF was also facing a shortage of trained fast jet pilots, as well as the usual problems of funding, it added.

The MoD spokesman was also at pains to deny that report.

'Those that are not currently flying are in maintenance, not grounded,' he said, referring to the Tornados.

But he confirmed there was a shortage of crack fighter pilots.

http://www.theage.com.au/breaking/0001/23/A40970-2000Jan23.shtml

-- boop (leafyspurge@hotmail.com), January 23, 2000

Answers

Useless bunch of rum guzzlers :o)

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 23, 2000.

...he confirmed there was a shortage of crack...

Now, there's a real crisis. 8^}

-- love taking quotes (out@of.context), January 23, 2000.

[It's been a problem for a while. This is from The Daily Telegraph...]

Sunday 21 February 1999

Royal Navy to slow down its ships

By Andrew Gilligan, Defence Correspondent

BRITANNIA will rule the waves more slowly in future. The Royal Navy is planning to sail its ships at two-thirds of their current speed in an attempt to save money, The Telegraph has learnt.

Reducing the standard cruising speed from 18 knots to 12 is one of several measures proposed at the highest levels to cope with tough spending limits imposed on the Navy in last year's Strategic Defence Review.

One senior officer in the Ministry of Defence last week said: "Spending is extremely tight. We have to think of every possible way to save." Asked for examples of savings that were being considered, he cited the plan to reduce speed.

The reason for reducing the cruising speed is that many ships use less fuel to cover a given distance at 12 knots than at 18 and can go further on a "full tank".

But critics say the move may not save quite as much fuel as might be thought because for some ships 18 knots is the speed at which fuel economy is greatest. Maximum speeds of surface warships range from 15 to 30 knots.

In addition, they fear that a ship taking longer to complete its journey might end up costing more in food, stores and crew time than it saves in fuel.

Captain Richard Sharpe, editor of Jane's Fighting Ships, said: "It tells you a lot about the free-fall in defence spending that the Navy is being forced to do things like this. The Navy is having to save money across the board just to keep some semblance of being a military force."

Filling up any one of the Navy's three aircraft carriers, its largest ships, takes 3,000 tons of fuel oil. Cruising at 19 knots, the carriers can travel 7,000 miles on full tanks.

Part of the rationale behind the plan may be to reduce the need for expensive and time-consuming refuelling at sea, carried out by support tankers of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. Most ships on long deployments are accompanied by at least one RFA tanker with a crew of between 35 and 110 men.

Fuel "rationing" may also mean that ships spend fewer days at sea, or do not go as far from base ports as they used to. "Day runs" and training deemed inessential are likely to be the first casualties of the move.

The Government's Strategic Defence Review cut spending by just under three per cent. The Navy's share of the cuts included losing six surface ships, two submarines, and 1,400 posts. The blow was softened by a promise of two new large aircraft carriers, which would be operational from 2012.

In a service which has already become far leaner - with the average crew per ship much smaller than a decade ago - the Navy is having to dig deeper to find the further savings demanded.

Senior officers at the Ministry of Defence said that "civilianisation" of shore-based support services was also being considered in an attempt to save money.

But the Navy is wary of cutting shore posts, which give sailors a break between spells at sea - and many of the more obvious candidates, such as some shore training and the fleet maintenance organisation, have already been privatised.

[ENDS]

-- John Whitley (jwhitley@inforamp.net), January 23, 2000.

sorry, i didn't realize i had picked up all that extraneous stuff there until after i had posted it. i normally delete anything like that. will be more careful next time.

-- boop (leafyspurge@hotmail.com), January 23, 2000.

The could start taking in passengers. Might be fun.

-- snooze button (alarmclock_2000@yahoo.com), January 23, 2000.

Seems Tony Blair is doing for the British armed forces what our President did for ours.

-- Z (Z@Z.Z), January 23, 2000.

Enjoyed the entire article, didn't see anything that was "off topic".

This may explain why so many of our ships stay in port also...

-- Possible Impact (posim@hotmail.com), January 23, 2000.

it was a mess when i posted it, SYSOPS must have cleaned it up for me. thanks!!!

-- boop (leafyspurge@hotmail.com), January 23, 2000.

US Navy had also cut back number of days of steaming each quarter, and probably also training days at sea...

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), January 24, 2000.