The British Navy In The Nuclear Age

The British Navy is passing through one of the most revolutionary periods in its long history.

The last decade has seen the development of craft powered by gas turbines, the invention of devices which have made aircraft carriers capable of operating heavier and faster aircraft of the jet age, the launching of experimental submarines, the ordering of ships to be equipped with guided weapons, and the development of a propulsion unit for nuclear- powered submarines.

But highlighting all is the radical change in defense policy which followed the Egyptian episode and the resignation of Prime Minister Sir Anthony Eden. It is too early yet to judge the full effect upon the Navy of this change of policy modelled by Defense Minister Mr. Duncan Sandys, but its implications are so far-reaching, not only for Britain but also for her allies within NATO, that before its adoption by Britain the new Prime Minister, Mr. Macmillan, visited Bermuda for defence discussions with President Eisenhower.

It was on Mr. Macmillan’s return to the United Kingdom that the Government issued a White Paper outlining the new policy, and this showed Mr. Sandys’s approach to modern defence problems to be one of stark realism, clearing the decks for the nuclear missile age and calling for a major adjustment in all three Services. The White Paper may be one of the outstanding documents of the century, for, in effect, it ushers in the age of push-button weapons.

There was no means of providing adequate protection for the civilian population against the consequences of attack with nuclear weapons, Mr. Sandy’s White Paper bluntly admitted. This being so, the overriding consideration in all military planning must be to prevent war rather than to prepare for it, and with singleness of purpose, the White Paper added: “The only existing safeguard against major aggression is the power to threaten retaliation with nuclear weapons.”

This clearly means that “the deterrent,” as the power to wage war with nuclear weapons has become known, is now to be regarded by the British Government as first priority, and conventional forces and weapons as of secondary consideration. It will result in drastic economies and reductions in the conventional field, with the ultimate goal of increasing hitting power and giving more specific aims to the three armed Services. It will also sweep away prejudices which have confused defence issues since World War II.

How does the British Navy fit into this revolutionary conception? Its task will be twofold: first, to help to prevent war by making an adequate contribution to meet hostilities on a global scale—a contribution which must be based on ability to wage war successfully with all available weapons; secondly, to be ready, as it has always been, to bring power rapidly to bear in peacetime emergencies or limited hostilities.

All other functions are to be subordinate to these two cardinal purposes and the Government visualizes that a smaller Navy operating within the NATO alliance will be adequate to discharge these responsibilities. To do so the Navy must however, be more mobile, and to attain additional mobility it is proposed in the future to base the main elements of the Fleet on a small number of aircraft carrier task groups—working on a similar principle to the U. S. Sixth Fleet—each composed of one aircraft carrier and a number of supporting ships: a principle new to the Royal Navy which inevitably means that the time-honoured system of Fleets operating from fixed bases will be replaced by flexible roving forces able to replenish and maintain themselves for lengthy periods without returning to port.

The Government, however, admits that it is uncertain as to the ultimate role of the Navy in total war. “It may well be,” says the Defence White Paper, “that the initial nuclear bombardment and counter-bombardment by aircraft or rockets would be so crippling as to bring the war to an end within a few weeks or even days, in which case naval operations would not play any significant part. On the other hand, there is a possibility that the nuclear battle might not prove immediately decisive; and in that event it would be of great importance to defend Atlantic communications against submarine attack. It is, therefore, necessary for NATO to maintain substantial naval forces and maritime air units. Britain must make her contribution, though (for financial and economic reasons) it will have to be on a somewhat reduced scale.”

The new policy is a bold and logical approach to the threatening challenge of the age. It is based on the theory that forces can only be efficient if backed by a strong national economy. The British Services are to be modernized but at the same time tailored to fit the economic capacity of the nation. This policy can be criticized on the grounds that in seeking a healthy economic balance the Government is in danger of overstepping military prudence, but time alone can be the arbiter of this.

Meanwhile, there has been more immediate concern in naval circles because the Government policy statement does not mention the ability of the Navy to strike with nuclear weapons: to some extent it perpetuates a short-sighted British tendency to think only in terms of air and land forces in relation to nuclear weapons. If the Navy is to be recast, then it has an important part to play as a deterrent, say the critics. Nuclear weapons can be delivered by naval aircraft or fired with as much effect from the sea as they can from land. In nuclear war ship launching platforms could be effectively positioned for surprise attack and by reason of their mobility would be less vulnerable to retaliatory attack than static airfields or land missile stations.

It was in some degree reassuring to hear this theory expounded by a Member of Parliament, Mr. Humphrey Atkins, but his was a lone voice in a House of Commons debate. He said:

“One big disadvantage for this country is that, while we may have deterrents, we must also provide places from which to launch them. This is a small island, and such sites might readily be located and charted. We might find them demolished by an enemy at the first onslaught, and then, at one stroke, we should be deprived of our power to retaliate.

“It seems to me that the Navy provides a possible solution to this problem. I do not say that it can be done immediately, but in the future the Navy could provide mobile platforms from which nuclear weapons of one sort or another could be launched. Such mobile platforms could disappear from the ken of a potential enemy. They might be discovered eventually, but at least it would be possible to move them about, and that is something which could not be done with land sites. Whether such mobile platforms should take the form of an aircraft carrier, from which aircraft carrying powerful weapons could take off and return, or whether they should assume some other form from which ballistic weapons could be fired, I do not know, but I think that is a role which the Navy could perform.”

The Navy may be relied upon to press this point of view and to re-emphasize at every opportunity the age-old fact that powers which control the sea control more than two- thirds of the earth’s surface. That control must be maintained by every possible method.

How does the new policy immediately affect the Royal Navy? In all considerations it is necessary to remember that the New Look defence is a long-term policy. Changes will be gradual and present proposals are designed to cover a period of five years.

It is clear from the tone of the White Paper that former doubts about the future of the aircraft carrier, around which all naval planning revolves, have finally been swept away. At last the aircraft carrier is accepted un- questioningly as the premier naval unit. The Government admits that its role is becoming increasingly significant, and the general public has accepted it as the modern capital ship. It has finally driven the battleship into complete retirement.

Indeed, the battleship faces extinction. A death sentence has, in fact, been passed on four King George F-class battleships and a shadow cast over the Vanguard, the only other British battleship. Her destiny will not, however, be decided by Britain alone, as she has been allocated by name to NATO, and other nations would be consulted before she could be relieved of her responsibilities in this respect.

Sea-power to-day, the Government emphasizes, is centred round the aircraft carrier, and when such modern aircraft as the Vickers Supermarine interceptor N.113 and the De Havilland all-weather fighter DH.110 (recently named the Scimitar and the Sea Vixen respectively) and the Blackburn NA.39 strike aircraft come into service, British carriers will be even more formidable than they are to-day.

When ballistic missiles replace manned aircraft, another type of ship may supersede the carrier, but it is generally considered that there will be a further generation of aircraft carriers as they are now known and that there may always be a requirement for specialized types of naval aircraft.

There is still one ship of the present generation to be completed HMS Hermes. She is being built at the yard of Messrs. Vickers- Armstrongs, Ltd., Barrow-in-Furness, which has constructed many famous ships, but it has not been announced when she will join the similar types of carriers in service, the Centaur, Albion, and Bulwark. These ships, together with the larger Eagle and Ark Royal, are the backbone of British carrier forces. They are modern ships, all completed since the war, and equipped, or ultimately to be equipped, with many post-war devices making them very much more efficient ships than their wartime counterparts.

There is only one fleet carrier of World War fame now afloat—HMS Victorious, which fought with distinction in the Pacific war. She is at Portsmouth being modernized and is due to complete later this year. She has been in dockyard hands several years, and it is estimated that her modernization will cost nearly as much as a new ship. When she puts to sea again she will be the equal of the Eagle and Ark Royal and will be an important addition to front-line carrier strength.

The steam catapult, the angled deck, the optical glide-path indicator, audio, and an automatic device by which aircraft are rapidly centred for catapulting have made British carriers very fine ships. Britain has probably contributed more than any nation to the development of the aircraft carrier. As the Canadian Minister of National Defence said at the acceptance ceremony of HMCS Bonaventure at a British shipyard in January:—

“The Royal Navy was the first in the world to take to the air. The world’s first aircraft carrier was a British ship. The first Naval aviators were officers of the Royal Navy, and it was from a British flight deck that a jet-propelled aircraft was first flown.

“Three most important advances—the angled deck, the steam catapult and the mirror landing aid¹—are all British developments, and they constitute continuing evidence that the progressive spirit of the United Kingdom remains as ingeniously active and intelligently determined as ever.”

In carrier task groups, as visualized by the Government, aircraft carriers will operate with powerfully-armed support units—a protective arm which will eventually include guided weapons ships. Four Fleet Escorts to be powered by a combination of steam and gas turbines will be the first new construction ships to be equipped with guided weapons, but there is, as yet, no news of the laying of their keels. Orders have, however, been placed, and it has been decided to equip them with the missile recently named “Sea Slug,” a medium-range ship-to-air weapon capable of destroying enemy aircraft which evade the fighter defences of the Fleet. It will be much longer before the guided weapons ship which can fire both ship-to-air and ship-to-ship missiles is built, but a great deal of research and planning is being directed towards this purpose.

The Fleet escorts will have conventional guns as well as anti-aircraft missile-launching equipment, and their design is being based on the very successful Daring-class ships, two of which were present at the Hampton Roads review. They will be bigger than the Darings and probably of the size of conventional light cruisers. Trials being carried out by HMS Girdle Ness, the Navy’s guided weapons trials ship—which has now fired many test missiles—have provided valuable information for the designers of these ships.

The guided weapons ship which will fire missiles at air and surface targets will undoubtedly be a much larger ship, probably of about 20,000.tons displacement. When she emerges she will have much more than a protective role. She will be a most powerful striking unit and may ultimately challenge the supremacy of the aircraft carrier when pilotless weapons are developed to the extent that they can replace piloted aircraft.

But for the present, the Navy has decided not to proceed beyond the design stages of this ship—a serious decision forced upon the Service by the needs of economy and viewed with much misgiving.

The importance of the submarine, probably second only to the aircraft carrier in offensive power, is increasing rapidly. It has been a deadly weapon in two world wars and seems likely to continue to have lethal qualities. With the development of submarines using high test peroxide and nuclear propulsion systems, the need to surface at regular intervals to recharge batteries will cease, and at the same time much greater submerged speeds will be possible because the vessels will use their main propulsion machinery when submerged without polluting the atmosphere within.

Speeds attainable with the new systems will enable submerged submarines to keep up with all but the fastest surface ships. It is true that as means of offence increase so do means of defence, but it seems likely that the attacking power of submarines may be developed more rapidly than counter-measures.

Recent announcements indicate that Britain is now striding towards the day when her first nuclear submarine will be laid down. In preparation she has earmarked the famous name “Dreadnought” for the first vessel of this type, and has appointed a Rear Admiral Nuclear Propulsion. For more than a year Vickers Nuclear Engineering, Ltd., a company formed in February, 1956, has been engaged on an Admiralty project to design and develop a set of nuclear machinery suitable for installation in a submarine. Good progress has been made on a unit based on a pressurized water reactor, similar to that used in the USS Nautilus. The prototype machinery will first be installed in a land-based hull structure for tests and trials.

The Admiralty is also interested in the application of nuclear reactors to ships other than submarines—particularly long-range tankers—but this, according to an official statement, “is by no means round the corner,” and the immediate concern is for the production of a reactor for a submarine—a project recently reported to have been assisted by discussions between U.S.N. and R.N. nuclear engineers.

Meanwhile, the Admiralty is pushing ahead with the alternative method by which the submarine can be developed, the high test peroxide system. High test peroxide is, however, merely an agent which produces an atmosphere to make it possible for a submarine to operate its main engines when submerged, independent of atmospheric oxygen, thus eliminating the need for batteries. H.T.P. systems are installed in the two experimental submarines, Explorer and Excalibur. Although no official speed has been announced, it is known that a remarkable rate of advance has been achieved by the Explorer when submerged, and it is believed may be the fastest submarine in the world.

Until the appearance of the guided weapons ship with ship-to-air and ship-to-ship missile-launching equipment, the conventional gun cruiser will continue to be an important element of the British Fleet. But one of the most startling factors of the new policy is that cruiser strength, which, in recent years, has appeared to be disturbingly slender, is to be reduced further. The Navy has been holding on to most of the World War II ships until the next generation of cruisers—the guided missile cruisers— emerges. But the gap between the two types of ship is a yawning one, and to bridge it has been decided to complete three conventional Tiger-class cruisers, Tiger, Defence and Blake, with most modern rapid-firing gun armament. It now seems likely that these three ships may at some time have to fill the gap alone and will be the only ships in the Fleet resembling cruisers as they are known to-day.

The Navy’s defence against the underwater menace is mainly in its frigate and minesweeper forces. These are unlikely to be fundamentally affected by the new defence policy, although there may be some reductions. Most new construction since the war has been in the frigate and minesweeper categories, and the past year has seen the frigate programme gain momentum with several vessels coming forward, while a large programme of conversion of wartime destroyers into fast anti-submarine frigates is now virtually complete.

As the Vice Chief of the Naval Staff has said: “It is a sombre thought, but we are faced to-day with the formidable threat of over 475 Russian submarines—greater than the peak threat at the height of the German submarine campaign in the last war.”

It is also sobering to recall the words of Marshal Zhukov at the 20th Communist Party Congress: “In a future war the struggle at sea will be of immeasurably greater importance than it was in the last war.”

To offset this threat of Russian submarine warfare Great Britain and other nations within NATO must have powerful anti-sub- marine forces. This is acknowledged by the Government, but they say it is impossible for any country to protect itself in isolation under modern conditions. The new frigates are therefore regarded as a most important contribution to collective defence, particularly as reports indicate that their design is of high order.

The Commanding Officer of one of the new ships, HMS Torquay, an experienced sea officer, recently reported to the Admiralty: “I consider this to be the most useful class of small ship yet put into service in the Fleet.” Ships of the class can attain thirty knots on 75 per cent of the power required by older destroyers of comparable displacement. They will be the focus of a modern, efficient, and speedy anti-submarine force. But in war against submarines, helicopters using dunking sonar will also play an important role, and a large force of machines of the West- land Whirlwind type is to be built up.

An initial post-war minesweeping programme, now nearly complete, is similarly considered to be of the highest importance, for history records that the Russians have used the mine skilfully and ingeniously in war. There is no doubt that they could use this weapon to saturate inshore and coastal waters, unless adequate measures are taken to meet the threat. It is with such a possibility in mind that a large fleet of coastal and inshore minesweepers has been built at a cost of about £75,000,000. This fleet includes some 250 ships.

These are highlights of British Naval policy and planning. The Royal Navy, though no longer the world’s largest navy, is a potent force, but it is passing through revolutionary and confusing times. On the one hand it is asked to equip itself for nuclear war; on the other it is ordered to economize in men and material. These two apparently conflicting requirements must be reconciled.

With foresight, for which it is renowned, the Navy had, in large measure, anticipated the New Defence Deal. Since the war it has gone a long way towards equipping itself to meet what Sir Winston Churchill described as the three main threats: the mine, the submarine and the air. But the emphasis has been on small ships up to frigate and Daring size. Several aircraft carriers laid down towards the end of the war have been completed, but no ship of the cruiser category has joined the Fleet for twelve years. A major programme of new construction in this category has long been advocated, but in the period of transition ahead—more revolutionary than the transition from the days of sail to the days of steam—it is unlikely that any conventional cruisers other than the three Tiger-class ships will be built.

Instead, there will be continued research and development. There will be progress towards nuclear propulsion and missile ships, there will be experimental types; but marine engineers must solve many technical problems before nuclear-missile ships supersede conventional types.

The outlook is beset with imponderables, but in the tug-of-war between economic stability and military efficiency Britain recognizes that it would be most unwise to forget that major wars have been won by powers who have controlled the sea, and she is mindful of the words uttered by the American Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Arleigh A. Burke, in London:

“There can be no Free World association unless its navies are kept up-to-date. . . .

“For over four centuries the leaders of England have brought independence, prosperity and security to their country through their incomparable understanding of the oceans. To-day, when the ocean spaces clearly hold the key to the future the Free World continues to look to England’s deep, historical knowledge of the sea for inspiration and guidance.”