The wrong base at the wrong time

Friday, September 18, 2009

Closing one south coast naval base could cost British defence capability dear, as Gary Streeter MP and Commander John Muxworthy, CEO of the UK National Defence Association, tell DMJ

The future of HMNB Devonport is looking bleak. But closing it could have wider implications for the Royal Navy and Britain, according to MP Gary Streeter and Commander John Muxworthy of the UKNDA.

Plans under the Maritime Change Programme (MCP) to realign the Royal Navy's fleets – effectively leaving Plymouth with a redundant base – could lead to substantial economic problems and risks to national security, officials have warned.

According to Bob Ainsworth, who was the Armed Forces Minister at the time of the announcement, the majority of the surface fleet will be sent to Portsmouth to join the forthcoming Type 45s and new aircraft carriers, while the submarine fleet will be sent to Faslane.

Plymouth Devonport, a base with a long history of supporting both the surface and subsurface fleet, will be left with the minimum requirement to keep it operating as a naval base. The Type 22 and 23 fleet will stay there until they go out of service along with some of the mine hunter-class vessels, the entire amphibious assault fleet and a few other minor support vessels.

Conservative MP Gary Streeter has criticised the review for the fact that it took 22 months, created an uncertain atmosphere that deterred workers and businesses from investing in Plymouth, and largely ignored the case for permanently keeping a third fully operational naval base.

The relocation raises a number of security and economic questions along with concerns about the government's broader commitment to the Royal Navy.

Budget problems have forced the MoD into the position of reviewing the possible closure of one of Britain's three naval bases. With Portsmouth being allocated most of the high-profile surface fleets, as well as being relatively near to Plymouth, Plymouth became an easier target for closure.

Closing Devonport could allow the MoD to rationalise the land and save substantial amounts on base operating costs. It could also lead to job losses and severe damage to Plymouth's economy. Babcock Marine, which operates the Devonport dockyard, is one of the largest employers in the area.

Under the MCP proposals, Streeter fears that the government has made the base's future more uncertain, not less.

"It's very bleak for Plymouth. The way they [the MoD] have arranged things now, another government will have to make the decision over whether to close the base or not," Streeter said.

Once a naval base is gone, it is gone for good, according to Commander John Muxworthy, the CEO of the UK National Defence Association (UKNDA). He questioned whether the reduction of the fleet at Devonport and its possible closure was really in Britain's best interests.

The existence of a third fully operational base, in particular in Plymouth, gives the Navy more operational flexibility and provides additional protection for British interests in the Atlantic area. It also safeguards against future threats.

Muxworthy pointed out that a conflict such as the Falklands arose quickly and with little to no warning. If a similar conflict arose in the future with one less naval base, Britain would essentially be fighting short-handed.

Previous conflicts, such as World Wars I and II, saw the English Channel blockaded or under constant threat, making Portsmouth less than fully operational. The Navy would need a base in Plymouth if a similar situation ever occurred.

A number of MPs have also expressed concerns over security. Alison Seabeck and Linda Gilroy have joined Streeter in petitioning the government over the risks of placing nearly the entire surface fleet at one naval base – which they fear could serve as one gigantic terrorist or military target. While security is tight around the Portsmouth base, having one location for the fleet would make it easier to attack or disable. The Navy's capabilities would also be impeded if conflict were to occur in the English Channel.

Similar concerns have been raised over Faslane where the entire nuclear submarine fleet will now be based. Instead of spreading the submarine and surface fleets throughout the three bases, the Royal Navy and MoD have made it easier for potential adversaries to know what to strike and where, Streeter said.

He also expressed worries over Scotland's possible future independence. Should the SNP ever succeed in removing Scotland from the United Kingdom, the submarine fleet may have to leave. But once Plymouth is closed, as Muxworthy pointed out, it's not coming back, meaning that the Navy would have to find a new location for the nuclear deterrent and the multibillion pound Astute class submarines.

The reduced capability of a naval base and its possible closure overall does not speak highly of the state of the Royal Navy according to Muxworthy, whose organisation UKNDA lobbies for more money in the defence budget. Persistent cuts to the fleet and a lack of funding consistently over the years has made the decision on Devonport easier for the government.

"The Royal Navy is now 'below the bottom line' of required capability and to reduce its base facilities and thus its operational flexibility is incautious and unwise to say the least," Muxworthy said.

"It is now beyond any reasonable dispute that the Royal Navy is under-manned and under-resourced. It has too few escorts and those few (22) that remain are ageing fast, and their projected lifespan has recently had to be arbitrarily extended to try to make operational commitments.

"The Nation's 'Sure Shield' for past generations is, slowly but surely, and by default, being effectively 'scuppered'," Muxworthy said.

Streeter vowed to continue fighting the decision and said that he would make Plymouth's case to the next government, arguing that the MCP decisions do not have to be set in stone.

Muxworthy said of the reductions: "If these measures are implemented, then Plymouth will suffer financially, and the Royal Navy operationally if the surface fleet – perhaps 'Flotilla' would be a more accurate description – was to be transferred to Portsmouth."