Do away with the Royal Navy? seriously?

[Bubblehead1980]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-margolis/britain-may-pull-the-plug_b_766409.html


This was a link on the main subsim page.Although it's from the Huff post, not exactly a real news source but anyway.

I've heard opponents of defense spending here and in other places such as UK argue we no longer need this or that since the Soviet Union is gone.Really? Are they that naive or just stupid? China will be our next problem, Russia will emerge as a big problem also, they already kind of are.So we need to keep our ability to deter hostility and respond accordingly if it occurs.

I'm sure Argentina would be emboldened if there was not Royal Navy or just a very small one.

Always unfortunate people who have no idea about military matters are in charge of the purse strings.Very unfortunate.

[Castout]

It's a sobering experience one which is forthcoming since long after 1945 and as a logical and inevitable consequences of ceasing being a world imperial power.

I don't believe the Royal Navy will be gone it just have to reinvent itself and of its goals.

The British are proud people they'll never allow the Royal Navy to disappear or become so insignificant that it would more mimic other smaller navies.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

I've heard opponents of defense spending here and in other places such as UK argue we no longer need this or that since the Soviet Union is gone.Really? Are they that naive or just stupid? China will be our next problem, Russia will emerge as a big problem also, they already kind of are.So we need to keep our ability to deter hostility and respond accordingly if it occurs.

Actually, a big problem is the way America holds so much of the military power in our world. The fact of the matter is that the average European nation will not be holding much of a military expedition without the Americans taking the lead. There is a case for saying that if you do not have an independent military capability, maybe you might as well not have one. Weapons are not getting any cheaper, after all.

[Sailor Steve]

I have to agree with Bubblehead1980 on this. It is unfortunate that there is so much money required to maintain a proper military these days, but the Royal Navy has such a place in history that it would be sad to see it even further diminished.

Always unfortunate people who have no idea about military matters are in charge of the purse strings.Very unfortunate.
Sadly that was the case clear back in 1892, when the first modern battleship program was started. The majority of the budget of that time was devoted to the RN, but they still had to answer to the people above them. And to the press, which held an inordinate amount of power in those days.

[TLAM Strike]

I think they should have thought about hybrid ships like the Danish Absalon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absalon_class_command_and_support_ship) class before they built those new LPDs of theirs. Our new LPDs were going to be like the Danie's in terms of capabilities but the builders went so over budget that it was scaled back.

Like us the RN needs a modular LCS style ship... but one that works! :haha:

... like the Danish STANFLEX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StanFlex)! :har:

[TarJak]

The review is not quite as drastic as the title but they are looking at major cuts and early retirement of HMS Ark Royal. http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/britain-scraps-flagship-in-defence-review-20101019-16sez.html

[Tribesman]

The review is not quite as drastic as the title
The article is under the title is as dramatic as the drastic title.
Revenge, a ship trying to do too much which got captured when it didn't run away as fast as the rest of its fleet.
Hood, a ship that wasn't fit for the job but had been delayed again and again for refits that were known to be needed even before she was commisioned in the first place.
Its funny that they use two defeats of the old RN in part due to financial and manpower constraints as glorious examples of what the new RN should follow.
By that logic they should favour not only the early retirement of Ark royal and the delay in replacement for Trident but they should support Ark Royals replacement by INS Viraat and cancelling the Trident replacement altogether while scrapping all but one of the current subs.

[Jimbuna]

Whatever the outcome it will be made public in a few hours time.

I should imagine the likes of Churchill and Nelson et al will be turning in their graves right now :nope:

[Skybird]

I must admit that there is plenty of arguments that mirror my own thoughts on the issue. Iraq 03 at the latest should have been a harsh wake up call for those Britons still romanticising about their "special relationship" they assumed to have with the great hegemon behind the Atlantic. Neither America nor Britain nor any of the major Western military powers really can afford the maintaining of those forces they still stay with, which is especially true for the US that builds it's military might at the price of becoming even more finanically and economically depending on foreign powers, namely China.

That Britain cannot fire "it's" (it's?) Tridents without the US first ulocking them, tells a lot. I first grasped for air in disbelief when reading that, then had to laugh out loud. Not just Blair was Washington's poodle - the whole country and the whole British anvy was.

No, that article gets a lot of arguments correct indeed. That way it paints a the picture of an historic era passing away (or better: that already has passed away), and it also is another symptom of a whole cultural sphere in decline and in the process of loosing importance in the globalised world, yes. But no matter how much that is being regretted and offends our egos, it nevertheless is a a realistic assessement of the realities we have to face. In the end, the Himalaya is only the second highest mountain on earth. The highest moutain is the heap of unpayed bills of ours, and debts we have collected and already were unable to pay back even in times when our economies ran smooth. How much less potency we have to get rid of those debts now in the times of crisis and increased globalised economic rivalry!

Real money, not just bonds, make the world go round. An uncomfortable truth that America obviously is determined to learn the hard way.

I think it is in Britain's best interest to make it's relation to the US object of very critical and brutally realistic analysis. In the past, since the end of the cold war and Iraq 91 at the latest, one has allowed to lie to oneself way too much over that. That was nice for the US. But not for Britain.

[XabbaRus]

That Britain cannot fire "it's" (it's?) Tridents without the US first ulocking them, tells a lot. I first grasped for air in disbelief when reading that, then had to laugh out loud. Not just Blair was Washington's poodle - the whole country and the whole British anvy was.

Wrong, that myth has been pedalled around by everyone in the anti-Trident brigade.

Secondly I think the Navy has come out quite well.

We get two carriers, one sensibly will be a proper carrier. We also get to keep all the subs plus the Type-23s and the Type-45s and no news yet of the amphib capability being hit.

Scrapping the Harrier might not be so smart but we already have FAA pilots in the US learning to do cat and trap ops again. Been going on for some time.

F-35C much better idea than STOVL.

You know skybird you really do give the impression that you like to look down your nose at the UK and the US, just an observation.

[CCIP]

Secondly I think the Navy has come out quite well.

Given the financial pressures involved, I would definitely say so. It's a shame to see Ark Royal go so early, and it's certainly a little concerning to see such a gap in capability, even temporarily - but once the new carriers hit the water, it's certainly looking much better than it was. I agree that it's about time that the RN got a true carrier again.

Otherwise with only so much cash and will available, it was inevitably going to be a compromise, and this is about the best compromise that was possible here.

[Skybird]

You know skybird you really do give the impression that you like to look down your nose at the UK and the US, just an observation.
I often got told that whenever I posted something critical on the US or it'S allies during the Iraq invasion 03.

On some things I do and on others I don't in the meaning of criticising other nations. Like I am also attacking Germany, or the EU, or France, on certain issues. But this willingness of British self-deception to think of Washington using London in a one-sided way as "special relationship", as well as America thinoling it can compensate for lacking economical power by mounting a mighty military that by American fiance power alone it cannot afford and must accept to let foreign powers indirectly pay for that, and by doing so accepting vital American vulnerabilities that cannot be tackled by military means at all - these two things are two isses that certainly do not gain any respect and admiration from me. You could as well demand me to applaud you if you continue to poke your eye with a pencil. washington sees Londown as a vasall - not ore than right that - like it wants to turn all NATO into ancillary troops to assist in the enforcing of American policies. NATO is dominated by the US - and without the US it is almost nothing. That tells something about how the US sees it - and it tells something about the overestimated vitality of the Europeans who would be both unable and unwilling to maintain NATO by themselves if the US would leave. The strength of the one is the weakness of the other, and vice versa. And if we are honest, we must admit: both sides do not want it to be any different. America wants European dependency on America, and Europe wants to leave the lion'S share of NATO maintenance to the US so that it must not invest any more than it does. I want to remind of the fact that Washington repeatedly has torpedoed any ideas and intiiaves by some NATO allies for bilateral internal European military cooperations and bi- or tri-military corps being formed, alwayxs trying to prevent them to function independant from NATO mstructures dominated by America), so that any new military structure remains under American surveillance and can serve as a potential resource to American military interests. And Europe has to admit: it allowed to get torpedoes like that all too willingly, not needing to make investements into such efforts that way.

With friendship or special elations all that has nothing to do at all. It is about one wanting to have vasalls, and the other willing to be the vasall. A pattern repated from older times.

[TarJak]

The article is under the title is as dramatic as the drastic title.
Revenge, a ship trying to do too much which got captured when it didn't run away as fast as the rest of its fleet.
Hood, a ship that wasn't fit for the job but had been delayed again and again for refits that were known to be needed even before she was commisioned in the first place.
Its funny that they use two defeats of the old RN in part due to financial and manpower constraints as glorious examples of what the new RN should follow.
It sounds like the Huffington article was not quite on the mark whilst the SMH one I posted was much closer.

Typical journo's trying to over hype a part story. Pretty lazy journalism if you ask me.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11570593

[Oberon]

I think the one whose going to cop it the worst is the RAF. The Harriers are going, some Tornados might be going too and the Nimrod recons are going too.
The Army are losing a fair bit but the navy (so far) is only set to lose one carrier and will keep both new carriers, although one is going to be a standard cat/trap, I suspect they'll want to try and make a naval version of the Eurofighter or Tornado (Waterspout? :haha:) rather than import the rather pricey F-35.

[Takeda Shingen]

Has anyone else noted the irony of Bubblehead linking to the Huffington Post?

[TLAM Strike]

I suspect they'll want to try and make a naval version of the Eurofighter or Tornado (Waterspout? :haha:) rather than import the rather pricey F-35.

The Eurofighter is actually more expensive than the JSF. 99 vs 96 million. ;)

The Tornado while a decent aircraft is old (1979), whats the point of redesigning for naval operations and restarting production of a 30 year old aircraft? That would be like us making a navalized F-16 today.

I know you Brits like your own jets but I think you would be better off buying the Super Hornet... we would be better off buying more too instead of the JSF. :roll:

I know you guys are going to hate me for it but this is what I would do...

TLAM'S RN FLEET:

Carriers: Cancel QE Class CVs and redesign them in to a large hybrid STOVL design incorporating a stern deck well like on the Wasp class LHDs. Design the aircraft hanger to also act as space for army vehicles and troop quarters built in ISO shipping containers stored below deck. Build 2.

Destroyers: Cap at 3 Darings.

Frigates: Retire all Type 22 frigates. Design a smaller multi-role Type 23 replacement which will also take up the DDG slack:

BritLCS
Dis: <3000 tons (No less than 2,500)
Weps and Sensors: 4 modular hardpoints like on the Danish Frigates and Israeli Corvettes, 3 for weapons 1 for radar. There would be a 5" gun module, a VLS Module (Aster 15 and Tomahawk), a C-RAM module, and a Harpoon module for the weapons and two radar modules a 3D air defense radar and a lower end general purpose radar. Also a heli platform and hanger for a Merlin or two ASW capable SeaScout UAVs. Would also have a stern ramp for RHIBs and RMMV UUVs (UUVs important see below) Build 22 (3 with carrier group, 6 in refit, 1 Persian Gulf, 1 Falklands, 1 Somalia, 3 returning from patrols and 1 as a "surge" ship, 6 as UK patrol ships with minimum modules loaded 2/2/2 deployments.)

'Phibs: No change, they are so new it wouldn't make sense to make any changes.

SSBNs: I agree with the White Paper, cut future SSBNs to 3. Also reduced the number of birds aboard to 12 on the Vanguard Replacement. Early retirement for one Vanguard.

SSNs: Limits Astute production at 4 (2 in refit, 1 with Carrier Group, 1 "Wild Card" for hotspots.) In place of one Astute >4 build three SSKs.

MCM: Decommission all mine warfare ships. Have all the BritLCSs equipped with organic MCM systems such as the Hydroid ROVs in addition to a MCM module that would have larger MCM ROV or additional Hydroids and RHIBs to deploy them from (Hydroids could also be deployed by UAVs or Heli)

[Oberon]

:hmmm:

Can't see much wrong there. I think what the current government is looking to do is pull back and regroup. I suspect that in the future the Afghan withdrawal will be brought forward a bit. It's going to be defence for the home counties and that's about it.
What will happen with the Falklands remains to be seen, but I can't see Argentina letting this opportunity slide for long to be honest, particularly not with those oil reserves sitting under the islands.
We could do with some more SSKs, particularly for the local water defences, now that the Russian navy is back in business we could do with a couple of quiet diesels to sit off the coast and wait for them.
Bear in mind though that we do need a SSN for the Vanguards, because the Russians are now trying to sniff her signature, so an Astute will have to sit by her and chase off any Russian subs that try to get her sonar sig or any French boomers that try to collide with her.

It's the FAA that concerns me, ok, you're right on the F-35/Eurofighter comparison, and the age of the Tornado, however with the Harriers gone we've got nothing, absolutely nothing until about 2014 for our carriers.
F-18s are probably not a bad enough, but again, we've got the wrong type of carrier in service at the moment for it.
So, if anything happens between now and the first QEs coming into service (you know, we might well get some F-18s for that straight deck QE) then we're buggered.

[XabbaRus]

Could of been worse.

I say remove the strike role from the RAF completely.

Limit them to Air defense, transport and CAS for which they can use the Typhoon, A330 and A400M.

Let the FAA do all strike duties....

[The Third Man]

It is the guns or butter choice made by every nation. In this case, like most NATO countries, the choice is made based upon mutual defense, which may crumble in the face of a committed foe, and the social programs which exacerbates itself, because the more 'you' give the more 'they' want.

Eventually you run out of people to tax.

[TLAM Strike]

What will happen with the Falklands remains to be seen, but I can't see Argentina letting this opportunity slide for long to be honest, particularly not with those oil reserves sitting under the islands. Well you guys got fighter squadrons based their now right? I think that would be better than a carrier down there assuming you can defend the airbase. (Shouldn't be hard Argentina has only about 20 fighters and 20 attack jets).

... Frak I just looked it up and you guys only got four pointy nose birds down there. I would increase it to 10. 10 Typhoons should be able to handle 20 Mirages and 20 Skyhawks. Plus some Rapers to defend the home plate. Put a MLRS platoon there too in a nice hidden spot and just use that against any 'phibs that show up.

Its politically bad but buy a cache of US sea mines and store them down there too. I don't think the ARA has any MCM capability right now, a few hundred grand in mines could stop their navy cold.

Keep from losing the islands and the RN doesn't need to go and take them back. ;)

We could do with some more SSKs, particularly for the local water defences, now that the Russian navy is back in business we could do with a couple of quiet diesels to sit off the coast and wait for them. Agree... could also send them south and let the SSNs play with Ivan. A modern SSK or two should be able to bloody the ARA in any war.


Bear in mind though that we do need a SSN for the Vanguards, because the Russians are now trying to sniff her signature, so an Astute will have to sit by her and chase off any Russian subs that try to get her sonar sig or any French boomers that try to collide with her. I think that is a little cautious, I would send the SSBNs to the Mid-Atlantic where they have space to roam and the Russians would be hard pressed to find them.

[TLAM Strike]

Could of been worse.

I say remove the strike role from the RAF completely.

Limit them to Air defense, transport and CAS for which they can use the Typhoon, A330 and A400M.

Let the FAA do all strike duties....

The difference between CAS and Strike is where you put the bombs. :03:

[TLAM Strike]

Sorry for the triple post.

Well I think the RN needs to figure out what they really want from their carrier(s).

If its to defend the Falklands I think that could be cheaper/better handled by a larger airbase there. Concrete is cheaper than steel. Maybe add another base and a larger garrison plus a few CDCM launchers and maybe sea mines.

If its to provide a strike platform then either have it or have tomahawk. Tomahawk might be the better option due to range and it can be loaded on surface combatants and submarines.

If its to provide naval air cover than the QE class is the wrong way to go, too large and quickly becomes the main ship of the fleet rather than the defender of it.

If its for interventions in 3rd world nations than it should be smaller and more versatile like the Wasp class, or use LPDs with UAVs launched from the heli deck.

If its to handle the Russian Navy than its unnecessary, The North Sea is within range of land based aircraft.

I'm starting to come around to the idea that the RN may not need carriers. Brittan has so few enemies that in the event of war the US would not be fighting too that having a RN Flattop would be unnecessary. In such a case why not use Super Hornets from US Carriers?

[Oberon]

I think it's tradition partially and, no offense, the knowledge that the US might not back us up, particularly with your new administration.
You are correct that there are very few local regimes that could threaten the UK anytime in the next decade. Russia is one of them, but it is very unlikely that it would happen, very unlikely to the point of almost disregarding it...however it's still valid, after all we poke them, they poke us, and so on and so forth, that's a game we've played for ages.
The PRC is not the UKs problem anymore, not since we gave them Hong Kong back, Australia and the Commonwealth is something else...but I don't think the PRC has its eyes set on anything other than Taiwan and maybe the Spratleys, so that's not a problem.
Argentina...that's a whole different kettle, I wouldn't put it past them to make a move, but they've been a whole lot too vocal about it, it's when they go quiet and things calm down that you need to worry because that's the time to strike, not when you're shouting that you're going to do it.
Having a large scale airfield on the Falklands is an idea, although I'm not sure what the Argie state of play on area denial weapons and/or runway cratering weapons is, at least with a carrier you can move it, it's a bit hard to move an island...or we would have done it already.
Interventions in Third World countries really need to stop, it's not something the UK can afford to do any more, we need to stop thinking of ourselves as part of the world police because we simply don't have the available resources to do this, we barely have enough to maintain our presence in Afghanistan.
Britain needs a hard reset, our primary and secondary industries are all but gone and so we have very little to provide income except the taxes. We've come into the twenty-first century too fast and without the infrastructure to support a fast movement into the modern era, I dare say other nations pushing hard to modernise will also find themselves in a position where they have to catch themselves up, China for example with its growing divide between the interior and the big cities and industrial hubs.
What does the future hold? I honestly do not know, but short of a miracle, it will probably be more of the same from the rotating spin cycle of Labour, Tories and the Libs, all just as bad as each other.

[Bubblehead1980]

Has anyone else noted the irony of Bubblehead linking to the Huffington Post?


:har: Yes I hated to but the subsim main page linked to it, I just passed the story along.I hate Huffpo as you may have guessed, I even put a disclaimer in my original post lol.

[Bubblehead1980]

My big issue is I've heard a lot of naive politicians and citizens talk about shrinking our capabilities because other nations are no longer our enemies, our enemies are the terrorist.This is incredibly naive and well, stupid.China will be a big problem this century, Russia will also.We must maintain conventional and nuclear deterrents so that they will think twice before showing aggression.

1930's over again in many ways.Inffective leadership, bad economic times for the world, cutting back the military , not thinking ahead about threats from other nations etc.

[TLAM Strike]

Argentina...that's a whole different kettle, I wouldn't put it past them to make a move, but they've been a whole lot too vocal about it, it's when they go quiet and things calm down that you need to worry because that's the time to strike, not when you're shouting that you're going to do it.
Having a large scale airfield on the Falklands is an idea, although I'm not sure what the Argie state of play on area denial weapons and/or runway cratering weapons is, at least with a carrier you can move it, it's a bit hard to move an island...or we would have done it already. Look at the State of the Argentine military I wouldn't worry too much. Their 'phibs are retired so they would have to use civilian ships for that, except for that remaining DDG of theirs which is now a troop transport but can't carry much in the way of vehicles let alone armor.

One of the reasons I suggest a second air base on the Falklands is that with the FAA (the Argentinean, god that's confusing!) limited number of jets they can't hope to take them both out before the other base scrambled and wipes them out. Seriously we are talking 2nd and 3rd generation fighters against 4th and 4.5th generation fighters. The FAA might have been on equal ground with the RAF/FAAUK the last time but the FAA is still flying the same jets today.

I don't think the Condor II SRBM has the range to hit the eastern Falklands even if they had any left (They had two in 1997 and said they were getting rid of them).

Sorry if I make you folks across the pond sad but I can see us carving these guys up in four days with a sub and two destroyers. A Nimitz class birdfarm? Five minutes... :nope:

[Oberon]

Look at the State of the Argentine military I wouldn't worry too much. Their 'phibs are retired so they would have to use civilian ships for that, except for that remaining DDG of theirs which is now a troop transport but can't carry much in the way of vehicles let alone armor.

One of the reasons I suggest a second air base on the Falklands is that with the FAA (the Argentinean, god that's confusing!) limited number of jets they can't hope to take them both out before the other base scrambled and wipes them out. Seriously we are talking 2nd and 3rd generation fighters against 4th and 4.5th generation fighters. The FAA might have been on equal ground with the RAF/FAAUK the last time but the FAA is still flying the same jets today.

I don't think the Condor II SRBM has the range to hit the eastern Falklands even if they had any left (They had two in 1997 and said they were getting rid of them).

Sorry if I make you folks across the pond sad but I can see us carving these guys up in four days with a sub and two destroyers. A Nimitz class birdfarm? Five minutes... :nope:

Tell that to the Coventry. We thought we'd be carving them up easily, right up until the Sheffield was hit.
Ok, it's a different era now, but the second you start dismissing nations as a threat is the second they shove a form of explosive up your backside.
We've been lucky, in the Falklands we were bloodied but we gave them twice what they gave us, in Iraq and Afghanistan it's been a steady bleed but strategically, we gained 'control' of the two nations, we have not been fought to a standstill since...well, since Korea for us and Vietnam for America I'd say.
If we had Americas resources, then I'd be confident too, you've got firepower coming out of your ears over there (certainly in comparison to us), but our fleet gets smaller under every new government and eventually someone will jump us, and like the Falklands, the US might not be so willing to get involved, so we'll have to slug it out ourselves, and yes, we will be victorious because that's one thing you never do with Britain and that is underestimate us, in a tight corner is where we operate best, however there will be casualties that could have been avoided if the black hole of bureaucracy was filled in.
There's some eighty thousand civil servants working with the armed forces, eighty thousand. Do they handle a gun? Do they man a sonar suite? No, they chair powerpoint presentations and efficiency reviews. That's where the cuts should be made, but not in sweeping swathes, because then that will just lead to stuff ups in ordering new equipment and deploying it.
But, the Tories love bureaucracy, they sleep on beds made of it, so it's the quick and easy way to make a fast buck is to cut the armed forces, and so there we are.
Perhaps it is time to roll up the carpet, give the Falklands back to the Argies and just bring everything back into the UK from overseas and focus on getting our own country running again...but, I don't think that's really possible, is it? We're stuck between the US and the EU, we can't go isolationist because we're too dependent on both to actually survive on our own anymore.
Do we even have a future? I really don't know...but if we do, I sincerely doubt it will be as the Britain that was in the history books until now...and that's sad if you're British.

[ABBAFAN]

Why is not Illustrious being decommissioned instead as she is the older of the two remaining carriers?
At least so far they haven't talked about getting rid of any Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships....

I would rather see the whole welfare system scrapped than one ship be taken out of service early.

[Tarrasque]

Why is not Illustrious being decommissioned instead as she is the older of the two remaining carriers?
At least so far they haven't talked about getting rid of any Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships....

I would rather see the whole welfare system scrapped than one ship be taken out of service early.


Actually they have:

http://www.navynews.co.uk/news/939-axe-of-austerity-slices-through-the-fleet.aspx

One Bay class auxiliary, plus non specific RFA reductions.

Today is a very sad day for those of us who believe that Britain was something special. :wah:

[FIREWALL]

It really comes down to haveing forces large enough and efficent dollar wise to handle the battles we have today.

When WWIII happens, and it will, for an instant, we'll know who STARTED it.

Who FINISHED it might be never known. :dead:

[bookworm_020]

I suspect they'll want to try and make a naval version of the Eurofighter or Tornado (Waterspout? :haha:) rather than import the rather pricey F-35.

Tornado is a no go as they have stopped making them awhile ago. The Eurofighter would be to expensive to try and build just a few copies. If you don't want the naval F-35, then what about the F-18F or Rafale M?

[TLAM Strike]

If you don't want the navel F-35, then what about the F-18F or Rafale M?

That's Naval F-35... :haha:

The Rafale M is a great jet but the Superhornet is cheaper and comes in a EW variant. :yeah:

[bookworm_020]

That's Naval F-35... :haha:

The Rafale M is a great jet but the Superhornet is cheaper and comes in a EW variant. :yeah:

Oops!:oops: fixed!

Agree with you on the super hornet! We bought some for the RAAF, with a few that have been prepared to be upgradable to the EW version in the future.

Plus you can see the British would not been keen to park french built aircraft on their ships!

[tater]

All traffic at sea (large, open oceans, not the Black Sea, etc, obviously) on earth operates with the implicit permission of the US Navy.

As a friend of the US, are there scenarios where the UK would need to operate the RN in opposition to the US? If so, can they do so in the face of aggression with the US? If the answer is "no," then the RN isn't really needed.

Not saying it should go away, I like the RN. But that is the geopolitical reality—bothering with a Navy that cannot at least locally challenge the USN is a waste of money (the RN could locally challenge the USN, but as a friend, why would it have to?).

All other navies have to have a role that is separate from general control of the seas to be a reasonable expense.

[Oberon]

All traffic at sea (large, open oceans, not the Black Sea, etc, obviously) on earth operates with the implicit permission of the US Navy.

As a friend of the US, are there scenarios where the UK would need to operate the RN in opposition to the US? If so, can they do so in the face of aggression with the US? If the answer is "no," then the RN isn't really needed.

Not saying it should go away, I like the RN. But that is the geopolitical reality—bothering with a Navy that cannot at least locally challenge the USN is a waste of money (the RN could locally challenge the USN, but as a friend, why would it have to?).

All other navies have to have a role that is separate from general control of the seas to be a reasonable expense.

And when the USN doesn't want to get involved (Falklands)?

[Skybird]

In the face of a miserable financial situation, Britain needs to make a decision on how high any financial investement for some small piece of rocky ground on the other side of the planet can be justified. Is there any benefit for that? Or is it just wallowing in old sentiments over an empire that once was, but now is no more?

With the cuts as planned, the RN will no more be able to wage a war over the Falklands like 30 years ago, I think. And again: it is the other side of the planet, not the defence of litoral British waters near Britain homecoast. Other colonies in Asia have been given up. Comparing to them, the Falklands maybe are the most unimportant and smallest territories.

Argentinia does not seem to become a threat to them soon. Maybe it is wise to make hay while the sun is shining and negotiate and peaceful and favourable handover to Argentinia. Else the inhbaitants maybe should be asked to comensate the British community at home for the immense costs of maintaining military protection for them.

Yeah yeah yeah, I know what some people are howling now. But lets skip the emotional part and the romanticising over glorious pasts. Ask yourself two simple questions: who pays for the costs? What national benefits are gained in return? That's what it comes down to.

Britain has very high debts and an deficitary state budget, like almost all others. Practically, the state is bancrupt. That means poltiics effectiverly are almost unable, are impotent to act, to decide and to carry out, which is the death sentence for a state's order sooner or later. Back at home, in Britain and thorughout europe, sirens are howling and all alarm lights are flashing red. Compared to the vital interests of the communities throughout Europe and certainly also in Britain, imagining future wars to defend the Falklands is a complete non-starter.

I know the population there for the most wants to stay British. But they cannot answer how to come up for the costs, and the Isle of Man or the Orkneys are one thing - the Falklands geographically are something totally different.

That may not be a glory of an opinion. But it simply is realistic. You cannot avoid the money numbers forever.

[ABBAFAN]

Actually they have:

http://www.navynews.co.uk/news/939-axe-of-austerity-slices-through-the-fleet.aspx

One Bay class auxiliary, plus non specific RFA reductions.

Today is a very sad day for those of us who believe that Britain was something special. :wah:


The Bay class are horrible vessels anyway. I don't want to sail on one of those pieces of dog excrement ever again. Ugh! :nope:

[tater]

And when the USN doesn't want to get involved (Falklands)?

The UK clearly has interests where the RN is useful. From a financial standpoint Europe in general has had the luxury of not having to spend as much on defense because the US does it for them.

The RN of course could likely protect the Falklands with submarines combined with land-based air assets (RN CVs are not really air-superiority platforms). I'm not for dissolving the RN, I'm just saying that the UK could certainly get by with a massively reduced Navy. Basically, in the modern world the USN is in the position of the former RN right now (so much more powerful than other navies, they are all second string).

[Oberon]

Wall of text.

You do make a good point Skybird, but I don't think any government would give up the Falklands, it's political suicide, not after the Falklands war. It would be like us suddenly leaving Afghanistan now, it would make everyone ask "Well, what was the point of all these corpses then?".
Plus, you've got that oil discovery, the businesses (which, let's face it, run the government) would howl over the abandonment of the fields to the Argentinians.
Like I said, I think we could still push the Argentinians back, their armed forces are not in a particularly fantastic state either, and once boots are on the ground then the difference in training shows, plus we would gain the propaganda advantage of being the victim rather than the aggressor.

I think in about twenty years time though we will probably return the Falklands to Argentina. Twenty or thirty years I'd say, but at the moment it's just a little too raw on some peoples minds, and the papers would have a field day.

Let's face it though Sky, we should know we're not an Empire any more, we've got...what...fourteen overseas holdings now, and most of them are tiny little islands and/or military bases. The biggest piece of land we own is our slice of Antarctica, in fact, the Falklands is the second biggest, so we're hardly the Empire of the 1800s any more.
Still, the budget is a mess, and it's not going to get any better, the measures introduced today will just increase the rich/poor gap and perhaps (very much perhaps given how apathetic we are in the UK) lead to an overspilling of tensions into the streets (I really hope so, this country could do with a shake up).
It's a mess, but then again, most of Europe is in a mess at the moment, at least we're not at the Greek stage yet...but probably on the train for it...if we could afford the train tickets that is... :hmmm:

[CCIP]

I think the (relative) inaction of the US/USN on Falklands last time is also not necessarily an indication of what would go down in a rematch.

[FIREWALL]

Bring back Tall Ships and those Lord Nelson hats.

The other side will be so busy laughing not a shot will be fired.

[tater]

Bring back Tall Ships and those Lord Nelson hats.

The other side will be so busy laughing not a shot will be fired.

Laughing? I'd be dumbstruck by the shear awesome. Age of Sail RN FTW!

[Raptor1]

They should definitely bring back the hats at least. Everyone knows the side with the best hats always wins...

[Oberon]

I think the (relative) inaction of the US/USN on Falklands last time is also not necessarily an indication of what would go down in a rematch.

To be fair, the US did shove a lot of intel our way, so it wasn't totally inactive...however, Obama has shown a clear wish to stay clear of the question over the Falklands and I do not think that if push came to shove that he could be relied upon to come to the UKs aid in a war with Argentina.

[Bubblehead1980]

To be fair, the US did shove a lot of intel our way, so it wasn't totally inactive...however, Obama has shown a clear wish to stay clear of the question over the Falklands and I do not think that if push came to shove that he could be relied upon to come to the UKs aid in a war with Argentina.


Maybe by the time anything actually happens, Barry will be out of the White House...

[Task Force]

I can not picture the UK without a decent navy. They have had one for hundreds of years

[Jimbuna]

I can not picture the UK without a decent navy. They have had one for hundreds of years

Not any longer....the simple fact is the current twunts in power are prepared to sacrifice whatever it takes to make the countries finances balance.

Camerons name will last long in the annals of infamy should we be weakened to such an extent that we aren't able to do anything other than protect our home island.

[Oberon]

Maybe by the time anything actually happens, Barry will be out of the White House...

There is that...there is that... :hmmm:

[Jimbuna]

To be fair, the US did shove a lot of intel our way, so it wasn't totally inactive...however, Obama has shown a clear wish to stay clear of the question over the Falklands and I do not think that if push came to shove that he could be relied upon to come to the UKs aid in a war with Argentina.

If that ever became the case I should imagine Britain would make a reciprocal gesture in Europe or the Middle East should the opportunity ever present itself.

Personally though, I hope it never comes to that especially considering how steadfast our relationship has been with each other for so many years.

[XabbaRus]

I think jim you are over reacting. The cuts are response to the current fiscal situation.

I actually think the navy hasn't come off too badly, though I disagree with with ditching the MR-4A.

We get the carriers, get the 7 Astutes, Still have the Type 45 and the Type 26 will come in to play too. There isn't anything to say that in 5 years time as funds increase things won't get expanded.

As for the Falklands, I can't see us giving them back and although we aren't an empire any more why should we? I think we should be giving Gibralter back, now that is a dafty.

Also there is too muc oil down by the falklands for us to give it back anytime soon.

and as for list of largest debtors, Britain according to the Sunday Times is has the 7th largest debt....after Germany actually which surprised me. France's is even bigger. Only thing is we don't make much so not sure how we are going to get out of this one. Only thing cameron could do was cut and the military got off lightly compared to other departments.

[FIREWALL]

Maybe buy one or two of "these"....:ahoy::ahoy::p2:

[Skybird]

There isn't anything to say that in 5 years time as funds increase things won't get expanded.

We get told that often by politicians, right - that the future will be bright again, and things return to how they have been before crisis, and basically we will pick up again where we left things behind years ago.

I see zero reasons for assumiong this could ever become true. There is growing, not equal or even reducing, competition on the global markets. The race on ressources is on, with resources becoming rare. Costs for environmentally caused follow-up costs are rising. Globalised markets. Demographic shifts. Population growing planet-wide. China, India, Brasil becoming stronger, not weaker. US, EU becoming weaker, not stronger. Social gap between rich and poor widening throughout the West. Deconstruction of democracy and freedom. Mounting debts, and interests for serving them: resulting in not more but less potence of politics to act. Currency wars to get riud of debts by inflation, practical expropriation of private wealth caused by that.

We were not able to maintain balanced budgets even in times when the economies of ours were running smooth and well. How less can be expected that we will heal our life-threatening sick finances in times of weaker economic going in the future, and China and India and Brasil rising?

No way. Downwards, not upwards, our way goes. Aand we can see the signs throughout Europe, and the US.

We will not recover to former levels again. Not now and not in 10 or 20 years. If we can slow down our decline a vbit, we already should consider that to be lucky. But I personally already thoight thjat even during the bubble bursting from late 2008 on, the next one already was in the making. I correct that assessement now: and turn it from singular to plural.

Wir kriegten und kriegen den Hals nie voll genug - und daran werden wir ersticken.

and as for list of largest debtors, Britain according to the Sunday Times is has the 7th largest debt....after Germany

Keep public and external debts separate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt

And interprete any scores against a coutry's economic power GDP and population size.

[TLAM Strike]

To be fair, the US did shove a lot of intel our way... Not to mention plenty of Lima Sidewinders and Stingers. ;)


Bring back Tall Ships and those Lord Nelson hats.

The other side will be so busy laughing not a shot will be fired. Unless the other side is attacking with submarines. Can't see a funky hat on a sonar screen... :03:

With the cuts as planned, the RN will no more be able to wage a war over the Falklands like 30 years ago, I think. I disagree, RN subs are far more capable today. Back then they just had MK8 and tigerfish torpedoes. Today they have Harpoon and Tomahawk missiles and Spearfish torpedoes. The Royal Navy's subs could easily strike targets inside Argentina in retaliation and engage enemy ships beyond their horizon, something they could not do in 1982.

[XabbaRus]

External debt maybe high, but I am talking what the UK government owns.

shame the times is a pay site now, though I might be able to find it.

National debt as a percentage of GDP the UK is 7th of the G20 countries and that is the one that counts as far as government is concerned and my taxes.

This shows quite a good illustration.
http://www.visualeconomics.com/gdp-vs-national-debt-by-country/

However back to the defence cuts.

UK MoD got of lightly....the problem is the F-35C is going to take too long to come in to service.

I'm not as pessimistic as you Skybird.

Personally I think it is time for a good ol' big war.

[XabbaRus]

Oh as for the Falklands, the US military and intel services were a great help, your politicians less so.

There was a lot of back channel stuff going on behind the politico's backs so we could get the kit we needed.

Also the French were good allies, they didn't provide any more exocet, they let us know how they worked and did DACT combat against their airforce.

[TarJak]

Oh as for the Falklands, the US military and intel services were a great help, your politicians less so.

There was a lot of back channel stuff going on behind the politico's backs so we could get the kit we needed.

Also the French were good allies, they didn't provide any more exocet, they let us know how they worked and did DACT combat against their airforce.
MI5 bought every spare Exocet on the market as well as the French cancelling the Argentine orders. It cost a bit but was worth it.

[Jimbuna]

I think jim you are over reacting. The cuts are response to the current fiscal situation.

I actually think the navy hasn't come off too badly, though I disagree with with ditching the MR-4A.

We get the carriers, get the 7 Astutes, Still have the Type 45 and the Type 26 will come in to play too. There isn't anything to say that in 5 years time as funds increase things won't get expanded.

As for the Falklands, I can't see us giving them back and although we aren't an empire any more why should we? I think we should be giving Gibralter back, now that is a dafty.

Also there is too muc oil down by the falklands for us to give it back anytime soon.

and as for list of largest debtors, Britain according to the Sunday Times is has the 7th largest debt....after Germany actually which surprised me. France's is even bigger. Only thing is we don't make much so not sure how we are going to get out of this one. Only thing cameron could do was cut and the military got off lightly compared to other departments.

You may be right...only time will tell.

I do agree with your points regarding the navy not having come off 'too badly' but my overriding concern is the fact that the precedent has now been set and my living memory tells me that once Government sells the silverware it never buys it back.

Yes, good financial times may well return in the future but there are always new or fresh demands on the pot of money available that outweigh the need to renew something it would be argued we had managed to do without.

Don't vote....it only encourages the buggas :DL:03:

[TarJak]

How do you see the reaction over there to the cuts to other services like police and other public services?

[Jimbuna]

How do you see the reaction over there to the cuts to other services like police and other public services?


TBH I'm simply grateful I'm out of the rat race now.

This government is prepared to put over half a million out of work through one means or another whilst slashing 7 billion off the welfare state/benefits.

Not all of those half million will be entitled to a pension, so where is the safety net?

I'm all for tightening up the welfare state and make it more stringent for claimants to succeed in receiving their entitlements but until a cap is put on immigration and those dependants who soon follow and other anomalies such as paying and sending child benefit (to their original countries) to those who come here from the EU to name just two examples, I can't see the people of Britain putting up with this for too long.

I'd rather see a means tested system where your welcome to enter if you have a skill that is in demand and/or a means of providing for yourself.

Britain is broke, enough is enough and charity should begin at home.

How quaint the only large rise in budget is going to be overseas aid (32 billion).

As for the Police and other Public Services....they have been given fair warning that budgets are to be downsized each year (27% in the next four years for local government) so will have to come up with innovative ideas to provide the same services with less money....if that is possible.

If the same question was asked of a hundred people you'd no doubt get a hundred different views/opinions.

What really annoys me is the fact that no party got a majority at the last election and the most insignificant of the big three (Lib Dems) sacrificed huge parts of their parties pre-election manifesto so Clegg could reside in Downing Street and a half-hearted/lukewarm promise of talks on proportional representation some time in the future.

The day of reckoning for the Lib Dems before the British electorate will be a day worth savouring.

[Tarrasque]

As for the Police and other Public Services....they have been given fair warning that budgets are to be downsized each year (27% in the next four years for local government) so will have to come up with innovative ideas to provide the same services with less money....if that is possible.



With regards to the police, it's not. The only way they'll make the needed savings is to cut their spending on staffing and science.

Therefore that'll mean less specialised units, and much less scientific work done on cases.

I just pity the copper who has to tell a 13 year old rape victim "Unfortunately there is no longer the budget for the forensic work that would have meant your attacker will be put behind bars."

[ABBAFAN]

It seems somewhat ironic that the cuts come in the week of the Trafalgar anniversary.

[bookworm_020]

With the half a million public servants who are getting axed, many of the British Rail staff will be heading down under. Seems like 90% of rail management in Sydney is from the UK!
If there are any trades people or miners in the UK who want work, less tax and a change of scenery, Australia is waiting! Also goes for teachers, nurses, doctors and so on.... last one out switch off the light and hand the keys over to last immigrant to arrive!;)

[TarJak]

With the half a million public servants who are getting axed, many of the British Rail staff will be heading down under. Seems like 90% of rail management in Sydney is from the UK!
If there are any trades people or miners in the UK who want work, less tax and a change of scenery, Australia is waiting! Also goes for teachers, nurses, doctors and so on.... last one out switch off the light and hand the keys over to last immigrant to arrive!;)
They can get used to a losing cricket team again.:O:

[Jimbuna]

With the half a million public servants who are getting axed, many of the British Rail staff will be heading down under. Seems like 90% of rail management in Sydney is from the UK!
If there are any trades people or miners in the UK who want work, less tax and a change of scenery, Australia is waiting! Also goes for teachers, nurses, doctors and so on.... last one out switch off the light and hand the keys over to last immigrant to arrive!;)

LOL :DL

[Oberon]

With the half a million public servants who are getting axed, many of the British Rail staff will be heading down under.

Well, you're buggered then! :har:

[STEED]

Gordon Brown former PM put the order in for the aircraft carriers by buying votes. So why build them as we are in deep do-do? The contract is tighter than a ducks ass, to many clauses in it will cost the country more not to go ahead. So we have no option but to commit to the building of these carriers.

As for the damn mess of labour's boom time spending spree and the greedy bankers I would have no problem putting those people who got us in to this mess in prison.

The coalition has said the bill will be even higher in 5 years time, and that's after there cuts! The world banks have got this country by the balls now, just watch them squeeze and twist this country's balls in years to come.

[sidslotm]

I've heard opponents of defense spending here and in other places such as UK argue we no longer need this or that since the Soviet Union is gone.Really? Are they that naive or just stupid? China will be our next problem, Russia will emerge as a big problem also, they already kind of are.So we need to keep our ability to deter hostility and respond accordingly if it occurs.




I hope the people of England wake up soon and realize the madness of this generations ambitions. Empire is over, we need to leave it to the USA who feel the need to control and police the world, "walk quietly and carry a big stick" one American President famously said, wise words that should be taken to heart and guide our every day thinking.

China, India and Pakistan will do what they want, let them get on with it and discover the price that comes with great power, great resonsibility. Europe moves towards the ideal that Napoleon desired, centralised government and control, American looks toward Bernayes for the answer, I hope that England seperates itself from these immending disasters of control and seeks the freedom she once new and spread around the world.

"The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood"

[bookworm_020]

Well, you're buggered then! :har:

Tell me something I don't know first hand!:damn: At least I know that many of them are getting axed after the next election.
The opposition (aka the next government) has already tapped on the shoulder the bloke who they want to wield the ax. He has a reputation, he retrenched his best friend, as he saw the job wasn't needed! I'm safe as I work at the coal face and they need us all (train drivers) or things wouldn't go. The office munchkins know whats coming and are trying their best to look productive and needed:har::har::har::har::har::har: Many of them are already looking in the jobs section of newspapers to find somewhere new to sponge a living! The operations side of cityrail is looking forward to the bloodletting!:sunny:

[Oberon]

Tell me something I don't know first hand!:damn: At least I know that many of them are getting axed after the next election.
The opposition (aka the next government) has already tapped on the shoulder the bloke who they want to wield the ax. He has a reputation, he retrenched his best friend, as he saw the job wasn't needed! I'm safe as I work at the coal face and they need us all (train drivers) or things wouldn't go. The office munchkins know whats coming and are trying their best to look productive and needed:har::har::har::har::har::har: Many of them are already looking in the jobs section of newspapers to find somewhere new to sponge a living! The operations side of cityrail is looking forward to the bloodletting!:sunny:

Hopefully you won't get the Aussie version of Dr Beeching show up. At least those 'at the coalface' won't be culled, over here I think it'll be those at the coalface that will be hardest hit, quite literally in some cases (particularly if things go Thatcherite) but I wouldn't be surprised to see an influx of people looking for work outside Britain because with the axing of jobs and welfare, it's creating a nice big black hole which people are going to land up in with no employment, little hope of getting employment and pittance to live on.
It's going to be a busy time for shelter workers I think...

[Jimbuna]

Hopefully you won't get the Aussie version of Dr Beeching show up. At least those 'at the coalface' won't be culled, over here I think it'll be those at the coalface that will be hardest hit, quite literally in some cases (particularly if things go Thatcherite) but I wouldn't be surprised to see an influx of people looking for work outside Britain because with the axing of jobs and welfare, it's creating a nice big black hole which people are going to land up in with no employment, little hope of getting employment and pittance to live on.
It's going to be a busy time for shelter workers I think...


It troubles me....because you might just be right http://imgcash4.imageshack.us/img144/4623/scratchchingqv3.gif

[bookworm_020]

It troubles me....because you might just be right http://imgcash4.imageshack.us/img144/4623/scratchchingqv3.gif

Alas, I think you will be right too.....:oops:

[TLAM Strike]

Saw this today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6h8i8wrajA

[Oberon]

Saw this today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6h8i8wrajA

They did one with the army too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYC0P_NBLZw

[Jimbuna]

Bird and Fortune....always highly entertaining :rock: