Do away with the Royal Navy? seriously?
 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-m..._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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I think they should have thought about hybrid ships like the Danish Absalon 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! :har:

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...019-16sez.html

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.