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)

: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.

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....

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.

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. ;)

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.


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.

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

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?

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.

: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.

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.

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.

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-a...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:

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: