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:

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?

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!

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)?

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.

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:

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).

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:

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.