Strength of the RN with QEC

Leon:

You have convinced me. Britain should scrap the Royal Navy and rely on the League of Nations to protect us.

Did them in History recently, the words Mancheria and Abysinnia spring to mind 😛

you say that you recognise the threats that existed in the cold war but think that both sides committed too much resource?.

In Cold War the USA under Reagan tried ‘virtual attrition’ and its contributed to the collapse of the Warsaw Pact. BUT: also many western states suffered enormously from this strategy, e.g. the USA declined for a very wealthy and economically dominant country to highly indebted (and therefore dependent) economy, of which parts today resemble bombed out regions (e.g. the Rust Belt).

This strategy was not without alternatives. Actually after the decline of the US and British economies relative to Germany and Japan, which leaded to the collapse of the post-war monetary system in 1973, both states reduced defence spending – and at the same time reduced the danger of war with diplomatic means. Reagan reversed this strategy and with this strongly harmed its own country.

Even with zero threat to the home islands we still have no shortage of taskings fo the Royal Navy.

None of this tasks needs first class warships. First class warships are only needed to preserve the ability to develop and built them – for which a small number of ships would be sufficient. And for this also a alternative would exist: increases cooperation of allied navies (a strategy often used, but also often failed because of nationalist egoisms, see the failure of the NFR-90 and Horizon).

When shown that your claims of the UK not being able to afford the navy we have are plainly false you persist in this idiocy of comparing us to other European nations.

Britain does not exist on a different planet. Certainly some people think it is special, an Island Nation etc. But actually this is something long gone. Britain had lost its ability to afford a first class (in regards to quantity) navy soon after the Second World War. The Royal Navy struggled since then between its wish to sustain a big navy and the economic realities. Endless numbers of designs ended in the dustbins – e.g. Friedman’s British Cruiser book if full of them. Since the Second World War the size of the Royal Navy is declining – following declining economic strength.

There are two possibilities for the Royal Navy to adjust itself to the post Cold War realities: to reduce its number of tasks or reduce the quality (and therefore the price) of the majority its ships (few first class ships, many cheap ones). Worse is probably the compromise, because this led to designs as the Type 42 (and no first class AAW ship for decades)…

Interestingly the Royal Navy deployed its worst design of the last decades to Libya: HMS Liverpool. Another argument that currently no first class ships are needed.

I am struggling to respond to this one Leon – you say that you recognise the threats that existed in the cold war but think that both sides committed too much resource?.

Maybe you dont understand this but democratic capitalism won the Cold War without a degradation into general armed conflict. Ask yourself, if you have the intellectual honesty, to quantify the costs of a general war across Europe, Asia and the Atlantic and Pacific oceans in a late 80’s timeframe?. Even if that war somehow failed to go nuclear the devastation wrought would make the billions spent on defence look like pocket change. Easy to look back, after the event, and question things though isnt it?

You have written about threats to Britain and been told that they are irrelevent. Even with zero threat to the home islands we still have no shortage of taskings fo the Royal Navy. You have been told that save for taskings in support of the UK national deterrance very little of the RN’s work is done in home waters. Your response, I believe, was to suggest we cut back on our foreign policy goals!

You have been told that defence diplomacy and maritime mineral wealth protection are both significant tasks for the RN and have tried to deny this. When given specific examples of why these are so you either ignore or attempt to obfuscate obvious truths.

When shown that your claims of the UK not being able to afford the navy we have are plainly false you persist in this idiocy of comparing us to other European nations. Nations who’s taskings for their naval services are far reduced compared to ours. You’ve, again, been told that the RN is overstretched and suffering the effects of the high operational tempo with gapped patrol slots and personnel issues from the number of extended deployments, but, you straight up choose to ignore this.

Leon its great that you’ve shifted your position from the point that the RN is too big to one where it just doesn’t need to be any bigger, but, you do need to look a bit closer at the objective realities. I’ll leave this debate here though as I think I’m wasting my time trying to get you to accept how far from reality you are here.

What is your point there?. We were not well equipped to fight WW2

No state was well equipped to fight a world war – this is impossible. Especially in peace time, no state could afford such amount of defence spending. Even in wartime there are few states, which can afford this – as the ruined British economy after both World Wars clearly demonstrated.

OK you cite in #3 the fact that countries spent a lot to provide strong defences and in #4 appear to say that they weren’t going to be attacked. Not connecting the dots that the low threat of attack may be related to strength of the forces thanks to the spending you decry in #3?!.

This is no contradiction. The high spending of some states was related to the Cold War, in which both camps spend a lot – and actually both camps were economically ruined by this.

During the Cold War there was obviously an threat existing – in strong contrast to today!

Irrelevent.

No – if a state cannot afford a strong military, it is no strategy to use military means, because they will fail.

The concept you need to research is called ‘virtual attrition’. Vietnam, by acquiring more advanced weaponry, is raising the cost, to China, of keeping local tactical superiority.

It this case it will be Vietnam, which will be have the problem of real attrition because of its much weaker economy.

We were talking about maritime resources being a flashpoint for future conflict. You tried to deny they would be. I’m showing you how wrong you are. This was nothing to do with Britain.

I have written about threats to Britain – not about any possible future war. Therefore possible conflicts in which Britain will be not involved, are also no argument to increase spending in British defence!

It is when you consider its money that we have already in the budget. This is not an extra 16bn we have to find its money that we have afforded but not ‘spent’.

As I have written – there are much more debts than 16 bn and are lot of other problems, for much more money would be needed and which are currently urgent, e.g. modernisation of the energy and transport sector because of global warming and peak oil, generation of good jobs to reduce poverty etc.

Now you are acknowledging that not only can we afford what we have, but, we actually have the money for a considerable amount more!.

If you would have a completely different economic policy in Britain, which result in less debts, than you would have more money for the state – but again, there are lot of additional urgent problems and not only a Navy, which is compared to most Europeans navies and compared to the current political situation not small, but relatively big.

You were stating that first line escorts could be dispensed with to be replaced with cheaper units like Lafayette-style patrol frigates.

For most tasks Western navies had to perform today! Today there is no pressing need for first line escorts and there is a very high probability that there will be no need for them in the medium term – as there was no need for them in the last decades. Libya does not show that there is a need for first line escorts, but actually it demonstrates the exact opposite.

Certainly UK could have been equipped better – but that was true for all states involved in the Second World War, also for the attacker Germany, which was even less equipped to fight in 1939. But it would have been in a even worse situation in 1941 or 1942…

What is your point there?. We were not well equipped to fight WW2 even by 1940 yet YOUR contention is that given a couple of years warning that, even with the far more complex weapons of today, a nation could rebuild run-down forces sufficent to fight a war. What you say above is meaningless.

There is no contradiction. You should have at least explained why you think that there is a contradiction.

OK you cite in #3 the fact that countries spent a lot to provide strong defences and in #4 appear to say that they weren’t going to be attacked. Not connecting the dots that the low threat of attack may be related to strength of the forces thanks to the spending you decry in #3?!. Is it not creeping in that Galteiri only pushed forward his Falklands campaign when he perceived British weakness from the 81 defence cutbacks?.

As I have written: Vietnam has no chance to built a military, which could deter or even defeat China. Its economy is too weak compared to China.

Irrelevent.

Actually China concentrates big (but certainly not it biggest!) parts of its much stronger military near Vietnam. It as built e.g. one of its biggest naval bases in these region. Vietnam has also no chance for a local superiority.

The concept you need to research is called ‘virtual attrition’. Vietnam, by acquiring more advanced weaponry, is raising the cost, to China, of keeping local tactical superiority. Unless it deploys significant forces to patrol disputed waters it can find itself at a local disadvantage to strong Vietnamese forces in the tactical scenario. Vietnam certainly does have a chance for local superiority if China doesnt focus forces in the theatre. Something it may find undesirable for political reasons.

I have stated that there is not threat to Britain! The example of Vietnam is not example for a threat to Britain, but to Vietnam! As the arms race in South East Asia is no evidence to a threat to Britain, but an evidence for a threat to the states there!

We were talking about maritime resources being a flashpoint for future conflict. You tried to deny they would be. I’m showing you how wrong you are. This was nothing to do with Britain.

£16bn compared to at least £940.1 debts – certainly not very impressive!

It is when you consider its money that we have already in the budget. This is not an extra 16bn we have to find its money that we have afforded but not ‘spent’.

For sure there is money in Britain, which could be spent for a bigger fleet – but the state has gigantic debts and a lot of other sectors of the state are also underfunded including currently much more urgent and needed sectors than the Royal Navy.

Backtracking now Leon?. I thought you were saying we couldnt afford the navy we have?. Now you are acknowledging that not only can we afford what we have, but, we actually have the money for a considerable amount more!.

I you are still ignoring that this was not problematic at all, because they were used to attack Libya – which has not even a second class military! The La Fayette class was actually overequipped because they did not used most of their weapon systems.

Irrelevent. You were stating that first line escorts could be dispensed with to be replaced with cheaper units like Lafayette-style patrol frigates. I told you what the limitations of those frigates are. I never said they were useless – I said they were useless in terms of fleet operations. First line escorts being capable of both taskings they are the correct vessels to keep in your service if the choice is between the two types.

#1 True of WW I and WWII, presumably you are excluding The Spanish Civil War; Korean War; Falklands War; Yom Kippur war; Iran-Iraq war Gulf War 1 and many others

The Spanish Civil War is not fitting here, because it started by a military coup against the democratic government – in that case parts of the military were the biggest threat to the Spanish society. Obviously a even stronger military would have been a stronger threat – as it was in all those cases, where military coups threatened or overthrow democracy in the 20th century (this is a very long list).

The Korean War was no surprise, but actually expected – but MacArthur underrated the abilities of the North Korean troops (as he underrated later the abilities of the Chinese troops).

There were several warning by RN officers before the Argentinian attack and the military regime in Argentina before had clashed with Chile – therefore it could be at least expected that they will use military power (in contrast the current democratic Argentinian government).

Yom Kippur was a surprise attack, but the war was again not surprise – but both sides were already strongly armed because of former wars and had increased their arsenal since the 1967 war.

The Second Gulf War (1991, the First Gulf War is the Iran Iraq war) was no surprise – Hussein even asked the US ambassador, if he could invade Kuwait.

This leafs the First Gulf War (the Iran Iraq war) as surprise – but probably a more careful analysis would also exclude this war as a surprise.

Virtually all states have had strong economical problems, irrespective of whether they spend a lot on defence

Today this true, because the dominant economic politic has the aim to reduce state incomes automatically generating gigantic debts.

But historically that is not true. As I had already mentioned: in the decades after the Second World War, Germany and Japan overtook Britain and US economically, because they spent much less for defence. The states, which spends most for defence – USSR and US – both declined massively compared to Germany and Japan.

Planning for warfare is hypothesis.

Compare only the threats to Britain identified in this thread to the real ones in history and you will see that currently it is very unlikely that there will be any attack on Britain in the short and medium term. In contrast in 1914, 1939 and 1982 the perspective was completely different. Everyone expected a war in short term (even though in 1982 the most likely enemy was the USSR).

Point 2 is a real stretch – the UK was in no way equipped to fight WW2 by 1940 despite the years of forewarning given and a demo run in Spain.

Certainly UK could have been equipped better – but that was true for all states involved in the Second World War, also for the attacker Germany, which was even less equipped to fight in 1939. But it would have been in a even worse situation in 1941 or 1942…

Points 3 & 4 contradict each other

There is no contradiction. You should have at least explained why you think that there is a contradiction.

point 5 leads to the Vietnam example that you are trying so hard to wish away as it destroys your little theoretical model.

As I have written: Vietnam has no chance to built a military, which could deter or even defeat China. Its economy is too weak compared to China.

….because total war or total peace are the only states to consider here?. Just because China overmatches Vietnam in absolute state-state terms doesnt mean Vietnam cant get local superiority where it chooses for brief periods.

Actually China concentrates big (but certainly not it biggest!) parts of its much stronger military near Vietnam. It as built e.g. one of its biggest naval bases in these region. Vietnam has also no chance for a local superiority.

Anyway the simple fact that they ARE arming to reinforce their stated claims gives lie to your statement.

NO!

I have stated that there is not threat to Britain! The example of Vietnam is not example for a threat to Britain, but to Vietnam! As the arms race in South East Asia is no evidence to a threat to Britain, but an evidence for a threat to the states there!

There is £16bn actually allocated to a budget and accounted for that hasnt been spent.

£16bn compared to at least £940.1 debts – certainly not very impressive!

For sure there is money in Britain, which could be spent for a bigger fleet – but the state has gigantic debts and a lot of other sectors of the state are also underfunded including currently much more urgent and needed sectors than the Royal Navy.

The problem is that the place for them isnt in a carrier battlegroup where, because of the lack of fast fleet escorts, the Marine Nationale has been obliged to deploy them.

I you are still ignoring that this was not problematic at all, because they were used to attack Libya – which has not even a second class military! The La Fayette class was actually overequipped because they did not used most of their weapon systems.

@ swerve: you are right that to point to point to the breakup of the European colonial empires – but these colonial empires did not fit to a democratic society anyway and the colonies should have been released to independence much earlier. Certainly one of the reasons, why the NATO did not defend them.

4.) No NATO state was attacked in the last decades with military means (the only attack after the Second World War was in 1982 by the Argentinian military dictatorship, which exists no more). Most NATO states are surrounded by allies and there is no visible thread for them. There are no major opposing camps as they were e.g. before the First and Second World War and during the Cold War.

India invaded the Portuguese territories of Goa, Daman & Diu in 1961. They’ve been part of India ever since. Portugal has been a member of NATO since 1949.

Indonesia invaded Netherlands New Guinea (then preparing for independence) in 1961. Militarily, it was a failure, but it led to the transfer (via UN control) of the territory to Indonesia. The Netherlands was a NATO member.

All those territories are outside the NATO area, as are the Falklands, Netherlands Antilles (threatened by Venezuela), BIOT, Reunion, Guyane, New Caledonia, St Helena, Martinique, Guadeloupe, Tahiti, Mayotte, BVI . . .

Leon

Right point 1 covered perfectly by PPP. Point 2 is a real stretch – the UK was in no way equipped to fight WW2 by 1940 despite the years of forewarning given and a demo run in Spain. Points 3 & 4 contradict each other and point 5 leads to the Vietnam example that you are trying so hard to wish away as it destroys your little theoretical model.

Vietnam obviously has no chance to win a war against China – and it already lost several of its islands to Chinese invasions. The Vietnamese economy is to weak to able to finance a military on the level of China. It is also to weak to able to finance a military, which could deter China. Vietnam only chance are political solutions (but anyway I am not a fan of the Vietnamese or Chinese regime…).

….because total war or total peace are the only states to consider here?. Just because China overmatches Vietnam in absolute state-state terms doesnt mean Vietnam cant get local superiority where it chooses for brief periods. Anyway the simple fact that they ARE arming to reinforce their stated claims gives lie to your statement. Simply put those ships say you are wrong.

Britain is not in a economic state to afford a bigger navy…

Once again wrong.

“The DWP estimates that £10 billion a year of means-tested benefits remain unclaimed, while Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) figures show that £6.2 billion goes unpaid in unclaimed tax credits.”
www.citizensadvice.org.uk/treasury_ctte_inquiry_budget_2011.pdf

There is £16bn actually allocated to a budget and accounted for that hasnt been spent. That money was able to be allocated to Social Security it could be re-allocated just as easily. Just to reiterate that sum would be sufficient, IN A SINGLE YEAR, to recapitalise our entire frigate fleet, put back the deleted T45’s 7&8, add the 8th A-class SSN, build a dozen Khareef OCPV’s AND pay outright for at least one of the new carriers. Efficient and capable naval assets suitable to outfit the navy for the next two generations on ONE years wastage from the Social Security table.

Affording a more comprehensive Navy is very definitely NOT beyond the UK’s financial means. In fact that spend would be a considerable stimulus package for UK manufacturing in itself!.

for which they are mostly needed. I also have not read that they had problems in the war against Libya – they have used predominantly their 10 cm gun…

You are missing the point though yes there is a place for patrol frigates and the Lafayettes are fine ships. The problem is that the place for them isnt in a carrier battlegroup where, because of the lack of fast fleet escorts, the Marine Nationale has been obliged to deploy them.

The patrol frigate/armed OCPV absolutely MUST be an addition to the properly sized core warfighting fleet. Not a replacement for it as you seem to suggest. There are basic core competencies in ASW, ASuW and AAW that must be retained in a fleet. Escort numbers must be enough to keep those competencies alive and, simultaneously, deployable. Anything else and you end up with the patrol frigates slowing down your fast carrier group.

1.) In all major wars of the 20th century the majority of weapons were produced not 40 or 20 years in advance, but during the war itself or in the years immediately before it.
2.) No major war of the 20th century was a surprise, but in all cases the involved powers increased their armament in advance, because it was obvious that the war will start soon.
3.) All states, who spend a lot in defence, had or have strong economical problems (e.g. USA, Britain, USSR etc.).
4.) No NATO state was attacked in the last decades with military means (the only attack after the Second World War was in 1982 by the Argentinian military dictatorship, which exists no more). Most NATO states are surrounded by allies and there is no visible thread for them. There are no major opposing camps as they were e.g. before the First and Second World War and during the Cold War.
5.) It is necessary to consider the political circumstances – not completely hypothetical scenarios.

I said I would give up, but this is such a load of rubbish that I cannot stay silent (and it is my thread so I can change my mind)
#1 True of WW I and WWII, presumably you are excluding The Spanish Civil War; Korean War; Falklands War; Yom Kippur war; Iran-Iraq war Gulf War 1 and many others
#2. Not true, see #1
#3 Virtually all states have had strong economical problems, irrespective of whether they spend a lot on defence
#4 The dictatorship may be gone, but current govt still maintain their claims. Several people have highlighted various other threats and as has been stated many times, we are looking for threats in 10 or 20 years time. Plus, please, please. It is threat, not thread
#5 Planning for warfare is hypothesis. Certainty is not in the nature of war, nor in the procurement to avoid it. The only thing certain is death. That is what we are trying to avoid

And

The only known example of working deterrence is probably the Cold War

So you have analysed all of history and determined that had not arms been built no wars would have occurred. That would be a major historical work. Except that it is rubbish. To pick a germane example of where it is rubbish – HMS Warrior

That is true, they were also cheaper, therefore affordable in numbers – in contrast to the weapons today, which are too expensive to produce them without need in big numbers.

But there is no other way: it is not possible to afford always a military in scale to be able to defeat any hypothetical attacker. For this you would also have to replace e.g. the ships every 15 years or so – because otherwise they will be outdated (which makes it even more expensive).

1.) In all major wars of the 20th century the majority of weapons were produced not 40 or 20 years in advance, but during the war itself or in the years immediately before it.

The weapons were simpler and could go from concept to production in a much shorter period, not so today.

1.) In all major wars of the 20th century the majority of weapons were produced not 40 or 20 years in advance, but during the war itself or in the years immediately before it.
2.) No major war of the 20th century was a surprise, but in all cases the involved powers increased their armament in advance, because it was obvious that the war will start soon.
3.) All states, who spend a lot in defence, had or have strong economical problems (e.g. USA, Britain, USSR etc.).
4.) No NATO state was attacked in the last decades with military means (the only attack after the Second World War was in 1982 by the Argentinian military dictatorship, which exists no more). Most NATO states are surrounded by allies and there is no visible thread for them. There are no major opposing camps as they were e.g. before the First and Second World War and during the Cold War.
5.) It is necessary to consider the political circumstances – not completely hypothetical scenarios.

The alternative is that Vietnam de facto cede their claim on what they perceive as their part of the Spratleys. They dont seem to like that idea….hence the frigates. Perhaps you can tell them they are going the wrong way about this and they just need to resolve the issue politically.

Vietnam obviously has no chance to win a war against China – and it already lost several of its islands to Chinese invasions. The Vietnamese economy is to weak to able to finance a military on the level of China. It is also to weak to able to finance a military, which could deter China. Vietnam only chance are political solutions (but anyway I am not a fan of the Vietnamese or Chinese regime…).

The only known example of working deterrence is probably the Cold War – which anyway resulted in a big number of hot wars, therefore deterrence was not working perfectly even in the Cold War…

So, effectively, instead of increasing the power of the RN with all the associated benefits that come with that for our manufacturing base, for our ability to honour our commitments etc, etc we should actually reduce our foreign policy goals and commitments so we can shrink down our Navy???.

The UK public debt in July 2011 was £940.1 billion (61.4 per cent of GDP) – including all financial sector intervention it was £2266.3 billion (148.0 per cent of GDP). (reference). Britain is not in a economic state to afford a bigger navy…

Odd that isnt it?. More so for the fact that they have been running to ‘two-tier’ hi/lo escort mix you have been championing for years. Maybe its a very delicate balance to strike?.

No, it is not strange, because France has very similar economical problems, e.g. public debt, to low state income, to high defence spending in the decades before (especially during the Cold War) etc. It is clear that it has to reduce its fleet – and as Britain after the Cold War it also needed less ships.

Actually most NATO states have big economic problems, gigantic debts etc. – most made a very similar economic policy in the last decades, which is e.g. based on a reduced state income (taxes).

The Lafayette design is a 25knt patrol frigate. Its job is patrol not fleet duties.

All I had read about this design points to the fact that it was designed to be able to be part of the carrier groups… Charles de Gaulle has also only a maximum speed of 27 kn. But for sure you are right that it is predominantly designed to be a patrol frigate – for which they are mostly needed. I also have not read that they had problems in the war against Libya – they have used predominantly their 10 cm gun…

@ swerve: you include a lot of not first class ships (e.g. in case of France) and completely outdated warships (e.g. in case of China).

They will not deter, but are part of a arms race in South East Asia, which makes are conflict THERE more likely (but as far as I know Britain has no claims to the Spratleys and I guess it would not like to defend e.g. Vietnam against China).

Britains relevence there is hard to fathom?. I have provided a clear example where maritime resources are driving re-armament. There will be an arms race for those resources…..that was my point all along. The alternative is that Vietnam de facto cede their claim on what they perceive as their part of the Spratleys. They dont seem to like that idea….hence the frigates. Perhaps you can tell them they are going the wrong way about this and they just need to resolve the issue politically. Dont worry if they tell you they’ve been trying to do that for decades and its not worked…..you can always tell them you know better and they simply aren’t trying hard enough.

Why they there are not as overstretched even those their fleets are also constantly reduced? And why should have Britain have more tasks than e.g. France?

So, effectively, instead of increasing the power of the RN with all the associated benefits that come with that for our manufacturing base, for our ability to honour our commitments etc, etc we should actually reduce our foreign policy goals and commitments so we can shrink down our Navy???.

Maybe, when you talk to the Vietnamese, you shoud keep that bit of advice quiet…..I dont know what the local equivalent of a loony bin is over there but I cant imagine its Hilton standard?!.

Actually the French Navy appear to have very similar problems, see e.g. their outdated surface fleet, only one carrier, even though it would like to have two etc….

Odd that isnt it?. More so for the fact that they have been running to ‘two-tier’ hi/lo escort mix you have been championing for years. Maybe its a very delicate balance to strike?.

The La Fayettes are designed to be also part of carrier battlegroups in a high risk environment, but are not designed to fight alone in a high risk environment.

The Lafayette design is a 25knt patrol frigate. Its job is patrol not fleet duties. The French have the F70’s and Horizons for carrier group duties and the Aviso’s/Lafayettes and Floreals for patrol. They are designed to accomplish lone patrols economically. They are not designed to keep pace with a fast carrier group conducting Fleet ASW ops etc?.

They were designed to the political requirements of the last (post Cold War) decades, in which no western power ever had to face strong military opposition. The Type 45, Horizons, F124, LCF, Arleigh Burke etc. were designed for a political environment (Cold War), which is not existing anymore and is very unlikely to return in a near future.

How about the medium future?. Dont tell the Vietnamese about this either….if they think there might suddenly be lots of spare LCF’s, T45’s and Burkes on the market they might not buy any more ships from the Russians and that might make the Russians angry at you!.:cool:

17 first class destroyers and frigates is much more than most navies have – including navies of states, which are economically stronger than Britain.

Which countries?

Countries with larger GDPs (at PPP) than the UK, & their numbers of major surface warships –
USA – 112
China – 82 (38 excluding small frigates) – increasing
Japan – 42
India – 20 (increasing)
Germany – 15
Russia – 20 (ambitious expansion plans – up to 26 frigates, plus larger ships)

Change that to nominal GDP, & you add France (18 major surface combatants), but remove India & Russia. Brazil (9 or 10 major surface combatants) will probably overtake the UK this year in GDP at PPP (not nominal) – but Brazil is far more self-sufficient economically, & is also building up its navy.

Note that some of the above countries (e.g. Russia) also operate smaller warships which would eat cheap OPVs for breakfast.

Germany is a continental country, with long land borders, & thus in a very different situation from the UK.

I think this is yet another case where you can lead a whore to culture but you can’t make her think.

I propose to let this whore carrying on thinking what he/she wants.

I apologise for starting this thread in the light of how it turned out 🙁

*lol*

That means that your arguments are pretty weak – if they would be accurate, you would have no problem to write a clear answer to my statements. But you was unable to bring additional arguments for your flawed logic.

As I have written: if your opinion would be realised, Britain would be completely ruined.

But I’ve not stated an opinion on the force structure, yet you’ve already calculated it costs more than the economy produces 😀

I’m not surprised at this coming from you however, since as Bomberboy has shown, your mathematical abilities are perhaps not so great.

Perhaps think about this: Japan and Germany spend much less on defence in the first decades after the Second World War – and they surpassed the USA and Britain economically, had higher living standards etc. Britain was already ruined by the amount it has to spent for the Second World War – and it was further weakened by the relatively high defence spending in the Cold War. The irony of history is that the loosers of the Second World War were the economically the winners of the second half of the 20th century – whereas all the major winners (USA, Russia, Britain) lost heavily in case of productivity, exports, living standard etc.

Leon, i’m not feeling it for you and i’m trying to see if you have some kind of underlying UK bashing going on there, because that is where I see it coming from? :confused:
I think that believing that germany and Japan were being in someway ‘prudent’, as you would intimate is probably a bit too stretched for my liking.
The fact is, is that the ‘winning nations’ were actually paying the very nations that lost, for that win and investing in one way or the other to try and get those nations back on their feet.
I’m not going to go too far into it, but I believe VW are a good example of that.

How I see it, and no I’m not any kind of naval expert, is that one way or another, I want to see my navy have what it needs in order to cover its obligations and offer me and my friends a good level of protection with good kit.
I don’t know where the threat might come from, but then that is exactly the point at hand.
The fact is that apart from one or two (yourself being one of them), I am constantly told by people who do know more than me, that as a nation WE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH ASSETS – PERIOD, which is good enough for me.
Unfortunately People such as yourself will never ever persuede me with the ‘it’ll be alright on the night’ kind of attitude, when we are already into the next day after the night in question.

I am involved in all kinds of major projects, nothing to do with warfighting, but all to do with infrastructure, which as a nation we do need and it still takes frustratingly too many bloody years to happen.

If I, or many others had a proverbial crystal ball so that we could spend exactly the minimum amount of money at exactly the right time to take care of all issues when they arise, then i’d be a rich rich man because i’d be using it for my own personal gain. The sad fact is we havent and i’m not!!!:( (mores the pity).

17 first class destroyers and frigates..

Please help me out here. You portray yourself as a knowledgeable, rational intelligent individual, whereas there’s me with poor maths for example, please tell me what 13 added to 6 equals? :rolleyes:
You expect people to hear a purported educated argument, yet you fail to even check your posting for a simple maths calculation.

is much more than most navies have – including navies of states, which are economically stronger than Britain..

Excellent, I’m happy with that situation so long may it continue..:diablo:……..once we get there of course which is unlikely. 🙁

Bomberboy

Leon:

You have convinced me. Britain should scrap the Royal Navy and rely on the League of Nations to protect us.

If Leon finds my logic to be wrong, then what I said must be pretty accurate 😎

*lol*

That means that your arguments are pretty weak – if they would be accurate, you would have no problem to write a clear answer to my statements. But you was unable to bring additional arguments for your flawed logic.

As I have written: if your opinion would be realised, Britain would be completely ruined.

Perhaps think about this: Japan and Germany spend much less on defence in the first decades after the Second World War – and they surpassed the USA and Britain economically, had higher living standards etc. Britain was already ruined by the amount it has to spent for the Second World War – and it was further weakened by the relatively high defence spending in the Cold War. The irony of history is that the loosers of the Second World War were the economically the winners of the second half of the 20th century – whereas all the major winners (USA, Russia, Britain) lost heavily in case of productivity, exports, living standard etc.

If Leon finds my logic to be wrong, then what I said must be pretty accurate 😎