Glory of the British Navy

The statement by the Deputy Secretary of Defense of the United Kingdom, Tobias Ellwood, that the United Kingdom Navy is no longer able to protect its interests around the world, sounded like a bolt from the blue.

The statement was made after in the neutral waters of the Gulf of Hormuz (according to London) or in the territorial waters of Iran (according to Tehran) the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps detained the tanker Stena Impero, owned by the Swedish company, but marching under the British flag.

This was done in response to the detention on July 4 in Gibraltar of the Iranian tanker Grace 1, which allegedly transported oil to Syria, bypassing the sanctions. Obviously, the British believe that they have the right to behave with the Iranian (and not only Iranian) courts in a pirate manner, but when they arrive in response, they are greatly outraged.

If there is something that the UK is proud of from time immemorial, despite any social and political cataclysms, then this is certainly the British fleet with all its traditions and glorious history. In fact, the history of England and the history of its fleet are inseparable from the early Middle Ages, when the Saxon kings had to repel the raids of the Vikings and the British defended from foreign invasions primarily "wooden walls", that is, ships.

And very successfully: after 1066, when William the Conqueror crossed the English Channel with his Normans and conquered the Anglo-Saxon tribes, not a single continental power invaded the United Kingdom. But Britain itself, as the English historian Stuart Leykok considered, throughout its history invaded almost all countries of the world, with the exception of 22 (his book, which cites these figures, is called: “All countries we have ever intruded, and those few, to which we never got "). And this, too, was made possible by the fleet, which for a long time was the strongest on the planet.

In 1740, the famous song “Rule, Britain, by the Seas ...” was written - and for two hundred years that have passed since then, Britain by the Seas has ruled.

Then the US took over the palm, and the Soviet Navy began to emerge more confidently in second place (mainly thanks to Admiral Sergei Georgievich Gorshkov, wise geopolitics and ardent supporter of the development of the ocean fleet).

In 1982, the British fleet took part in the war with Argentina over the Falkland Islands, and although the victory went to the British, it was not as unconditional as one would expect. Moreover, if the Argentines had not demonstrated a completely fantastic strategic and tactical lack of talent, and their armed forces would not have been significantly affected by corruption, the outcome of the Falklands war could have been different (by the way, today the Air Force and Navy of Argentina are in even more pitiable than 37 years ago, so there’s no need to fear the Argentine revenge for the proud Britons - in any case, in the coming years).

But a lot of time has passed since then, and this time, in general, was not lost: the old destroyers of type 42, participating in the battle for the Falklands, were replaced by the newest destroyers of type 45 Daring, adopted recently in 2009-2013. They are twice as large as their predecessors and can carry from 12 to 16 long-range cruise missiles.

And besides the destroyers, the British Navy has 13 Duke frigates that were commissioned in the last decade of the last century. Frigates of the new generation Global Combat Ship with a displacement of more than 8 thousand tons are being actively built. In 2017, the running trials of the aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth began, which became the largest of the warships that ever descended from the stocks of British shipyards. And for 2020 it is planned to transfer the fleet of the second aircraft carrier Prince of Wales to the fleet.

Thus, from a formal point of view, the British with the fleet are fine, or in any case no worse than they were with the Iron Lady - Margaret Thatcher. Why, then, in Mr. Ellwood's speeches so much alarmism?

Firstly, aircraft carriers have not yet stepped on combat duty (and in tandem will begin to operate no sooner than two years later).

Secondly, even all the ships listed together make the British Navy only a weak shadow of the former fleet, which, according to the Sea Defense Act of 1889, always had to be stronger than the other two strongest fleets in the world combined. Now, with all its technological equipment, by definition, the Izvestia military observer Ilya Kramnik is just “not a very large fleet capable of carrying out only small-scale operations on its own.”

It is worth adding: in a fairly limited number of locations. And certainly not all over the world. So by and large Mr. Tobias Ellwood is right.

Let us imagine - theoretically - that the UK will decide to send a squadron to the Gulf of Hormuz in order to secure the passage of tankers against possible unfriendly actions from Iran. In this case, the United Kingdom will not have too many trump cards: firstly, Tehran has at its disposal numerous “mosquito fleets” of small and very maneuverable boats, some of which can play the role of firefighters, and secondly, in the vicinity of the Iranian shores not even the Navy, and the Air Force. And the aircraft carriers Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales with powerful F-35 fighters will be operational only in 2020 and 2021, respectively.

In this situation, the only unforgettable trump card in London is the submarine fleet. It is impressive in the United Kingdom: four strategic submarines Vanguard, three fairly old multi-purpose Trafalgar submarines, and three new Astute nuclear cruisers (even more modern submarines - Audacious and Anson will come into operation in the near future).

The British submarine of a new generation in the depths of the Persian Gulf can radically change the balance of power in a potential Anglo-Iranian conflict. It will be very difficult to find for the Iranians (Iran’s submarine fleet also has, but much less modern and powerful). With it, you can carry out an attack with cruise missiles - the experience of Syria shows that the British conduct this kind of operation quite effectively.

Simply put: although there is a grain of truth in Tobias Ellwood's words, he clearly exaggerates. In a possible confrontation between Britain and Iran, force will still be on the side of the United Kingdom - if only because it has atomic weapons, while Tehran does not (yet).

Why, then, did the Deputy Minister of Defense make his cry for the glory of the British fleet irretrievably sunk into oblivion?

As often happens, it’s about money.

“The threats we face are ahead of our actions, the world is becoming more complex. If we want to continue to play an important role in the international arena, we need to increase funding for the armed forces and (not least) the Royal Navy. Our navy is too small to defend its interests around the world, ”is the full quote from Ellwood's speech.

Simply put: give the fleet money, otherwise evil Iranians (Syrians, Chinese, Russians) will do with ships under the proud British flag whatever they want.

By the way, about the Russians.

According to the Sunday Mirror newspaper, citing unnamed sources, British intelligence MI6 and the UK Government Communications Center (GCHQ) are seriously working on the version according to which Russia may be involved in the detention of the Stena Impero tanker.

This is despite the fact that the crew of the tanker, detained by the soldiers of the IRGC, includes three Russian sailors (their fate is now the Russian embassy in Tehran). But British intelligence does not embarrass it: all the same unnamed sources report that, according to MI6 analysts, Russia, which has “experience in falsifying GPS data,” helped Iran “lure” the Stena Impero tanker to Iranian territorial waters to give the IRGC reason for detention.

It seems to be nonsense, but the degree of this nonsense has steadily increased since the unsuccessful poisoning of the ex-spy Skripal in Salisbury, in which the British government immediately saw the “hand of Moscow”.

In the Russian segment of the Internet, conspiracy theories are popular, explaining all the evils and problems of our homeland with the machinations of a “wretched Englishwoman.” We will not touch on the question of how close these theories are to the truth. Another thing is surprising: in the mass consciousness of the British, the same role — the backstage evil force that constantly prevents the country from developing normally — is played by Russia.

In the latest British TV series “Years and Years”, which unfolds from 2019 to the beginning of the 2030s, populist Vivien Ruck (very similar in appearance to Marine Le Pen), who almost succeeds in turning old good England into totalitarian dictatorship. The combined efforts of several gays (including a refugee from Russia-occupied Ukraine), lesbians, a transhumanist girl who has connected herself to a computer, and the only heterosexual couple in the entire series (white man and black woman, and the man is a rather unattractive character) save the country from this nightmare . But the matter is not even in this, but in the hints scattered throughout the series that populist Vivien Rook are standing behind - who would you think? Of course, Russians.

Western man is being persistently taught that Russians are so omnipotent that they choose American presidents and British prime ministers.

And the fact that Britain no longer rules the seas is to blame - well, you yourself understand who.

The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.