Do away with the Royal Navy? seriously?

[Bubblehead1980]

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

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.

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

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 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!

... like the Danish STANFLEX!

[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...019-16sez.html

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

[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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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]

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

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]

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

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]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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? ) rather than import the rather pricey F-35.

[Takeda Shingen]

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