A stronger Navy

SIR – Suggestions that the Royal Navy may have to sell its two amphibious ships and some frigates (report, October 26) are at odds with what Sir Michael Fallon, the Defence Secretary, claimed only a month ago.

He stated that the Navy’s strength is now being built up and the force can look forward to a range of new ships. The fleet is well below a credible size and to lose any more ships would render the Navy unable to patrol the areas where it is expected to operate.

It is time for the Government to recognise that, if this country is to have effective armed forces, it must provide the means. One solution would be to reduce the foreign aid budget and transfer a percentage of the savings to the defence of Britain. Talk of further cuts will do nothing for morale in the Services. John James Milford on Sea, Hampshire

SIR – Those at the top of our military and civil services seem to have forgotten the size of the oceans that our Navy is expected to patrol and protect.

There have been many advances in warship design, but the modern warship still takes about as much time to get from A to B as its equivalent 30 years ago. Hence, these ships need to be on station at all times, not sent in belated response to a crisis.

History tells us that however many ships we have of any given type, one will always be undergoing maintenance, a refit or an upgrade. We have swapped three carriers for two; only one will be at sea at any one time.

In a similar vein, 12 (after the Falklands) Type 42 destroyers have been replaced by six Type 45s. Technologically advanced as they are, they cannot be in all the places that used to be covered.

Why do modern ships have to be so big? What can be achieved with a 500ft Type 45 that could not be achieved with a 400ft Type 42? It seems we are building big for the sake of it. I wonder how many smaller, more agile ships could have been built for the £12 billion spent on the two carriers and six destroyers. Peter Cutler

Alresford, Hampshire