I have to comment on this.
The UK is committed to many different theaters of operations across the world, on top of that the UK has many dominions and territories outside of UK controlled air space point in case would be the Pitcairn, Falklands, South Georgia South sandwich islands Ascension island and South Georgia all located in near and around the southern Atlantic, also in the south Atlantic region is a nation who openly threatens the UK that nation is Argentina.
True Argentina could not right now at least the go to war with the UK due to their economic problems however lets not forget what first caused the Argentine invasion of 1982 was the knowledge that the UK had pledged to scrap all of its major surface warships including LPD's and Carriers (it also had arrangements for HMS Invincible to be sold to Australia).
It is for this reason and others the UK requires a operational fixed wing capable carrier, we saw the after effects of 1982 and how quick the defense white paper was U turned by thatcher
The UK has pledged support to the Caribbean nations during hurricane season and also a continual effort by the Royal navy and Royal fleet auxiliary
against drug smuggling in the area
The UK has also got a commitment to NATO and also a separate joint Anglo-Franco alliance.
The case for having a carrier in our fleet is very strong our operations in the Persian gulf in 2003 along side the USN and previous interventions such as the 1995 Bosnian conflict showed a need for such vessels to remain, we went into two more theaters in recent times without carriers Libya and Syria missions were flown from Italian and Cypriot air bases by land based aircraft this has proved extremely expensive and time consuming, in contrast during the Libyan front France operated their carrier in the region at almost a fraction of the expense of the UK operations as a result French aircraft spent more time on station the any UK jet in that theater.
If we wind the clock back to 2004 and the tsunami HMS Illustrious was dispatched to provide relief to the victims and performed this task very well the new QE class being much larger can offer a much bigger package in this field of operations.
The UK maintains one of the strongest and most advanced fleets in Europe and arguably the world the only country it truly is en par with technically is France, true the RN has over the last 10 years declined in numbers but the capability of the vessels has increased ten fold and become larger as a result.
The only faults i can find with the new carriers are that we should have opted for a conventional CATOBAR arrangement instead of the lay out we currently have this would enable the RN to operate cross deck deployments for example a french rafale could land and take off from the deck or a USN E2 or F18 could also operate from the deck unfortunately this missed opportunity could have some consequences.
The other fault i find is not with the carriers its with the escorts it is a fact we posses too few IMHO DDG and FFG types we are relying on allied escorts to work with our own fleet if needed, the UK currently operates 6 type 45 DDG and 13 type 23 FFG escort vessels (to be replaced by the type 26 and likely type 31)
With a two carrier navy i personally believe the minimum number should be increased as follows 8-10 DDG's 16 FFG these numbers due to fleet rotations so in theory using the 1/3 model currently 2 DDG's and 3 FFG's will be the sum total of a task force.
I also think with the CATOBAR option we should have opted for the F35B not the VTOL C variant
As for your comments Skybird about our army:
The UK army unless in time of war has barely been above 100,000 in peace time even during empire it was down to Empire troops mainly to keep the peace backed by a handful of British soldiers.
The UK possess 82,000 in her army and a further 20,000 Royal marines, the training they receive and under go is noted as some of the best in the world indeed it was an army a fraction the size of what is above that took out Argentina's invasion force, what is more much of our army is combat experienced.
As for money for weapons i don't see this and I've spent many years dealing with the MOD and munitions, it is not the case that each time a vessel goes to sea it is fully armed even the USN does not operate fully armed vessels in peace time quite often their submarines go to sea with only a handful of torpedoes or missiles and that depends on area of operations, currently the UK does not have any major threat against it therefore stocking a warship fully and then de stocking it when it returns is nonsensical and i will tell you for a fact Skybird the German armed forces follow the same philosophy (even the Russian do this )
The UK does have a blue water navy and is capable of operating anywhere on the globe it has a fleet auxiliary service that can keep it at sea for extended periods of time and also friendly bases something other nations cannot achieve.
Our current obligations around the world will see us operate this carrier in many roles and i have no doubt it will serve the next 50 years with the RN outstandingly.
Skybird i would like you to put forward your argument as to why you think these are mistakes.
|