As an alternative to ther F-35 and given that its capabilities are unlikely to be really test for quite a few years, would a combination of Unmanned VLO platforms and high end 4th Gen platforms work? IF the unmanned platforms have modular mission bays they can be tasked with persistant ISTAR in low intensity operation or as a day one striker/SEAD in medium to high end. The manned 4th Gen with the latest avionics would still be very capable and relevant

So maybe we should stop calling them carriers and call them something like Mobile Air Operations Platforms. That way people will know that they are not aggressive “Strike Carriers” but just a floating mobile airfield with many uses.

Form what has been said it appears we intend to operate the new CVs as large Invincibles rather than as a CVBG like the USN and to some extent the French. So we will have a CV at sea sometimes and sometimes it will have fixed wing assets on board and sometimes not.

It is sort of “When is a Carrier not a Carrier?” answer “When it is owned by the RN!” or to say the CVFs are “Fitted for but not with fixed wing platforms”

With this train of thought wouldn’t the RN have been better ordering 3 Large multi-role flat tops like the USN LHDs rather than dedicated carriers if we are not going to use them as such?

The RAF/RN fast jet fleet is going to eventually drop to around 10 front line squadrons plus 2 OCUs. I am hoping that the transfer of the Merlins to the Navy is cancelled and additional Merlins (18 to 24) are ordered for the Navy which have been modified for shipboard use.

There has been alot of talk of the Army getting the lion’s share for funding but I cannot see that really happening. Yes the Army need new equipment but the cost of said equipment is far less than the major capital programmes of the RAF and Navy. The Army’s main shortfalls are in specialist and support manpower not overall numbers, in fact they cannnot deploy much more front line assets than they are doing at the moment because of these shortages. Thsay are getting new recce vehicles and further medium platforms will be purchased to replace the FV432 series and CVR(T) series. In addition the Warrior fleet will be upgraded and to a lesser extent the Challenger 2 fleet.

I can see a reorganisation where Ist Armoured loses one of its Armoured Infantry Brigades but gains the 2 Mechanised Brigades currently in 3rd Division, both of wich are re-rolled are Medium Armoured Infantry Brigades. 3rd Division now becomes the primary Rapid depolyment formation with 1 Medium Armoured Infantry Brigade, 1 Light Infatry Brigade, 1 Air Assault Brigade, and the RM Commando Brigade attached. The latter would lose its organic support units but instead utilise the divisions assets.

The Army’s remaining Infantry Brigades would evolve to contain a higher proportion of TA and Reservists, with these making up ap to a 3rd of each battalion and the majority of specialist and support units.

I am starting to think that the Navy may actually come out the winner in the SDR. It should finally dawn on the powers that be that the Navy has srunck too much over the past decade and to meet its global commitments an expansion in capacity as well as capability is needed. The Carriers are safe but a replacement for HMS Ocean will be put on the back burner with one of the Carriers fulfilling this role if required. I still think that the platform that was/is C2 will be the first off the slipways, being cheaper and more appropriate to policing operations, taking the presure of existing high end units. I can see up to 12 being purchased in two batches starting from 2015. These will be supplimented by up to 6 high end C1 platforms but these will enter service in 2020 at the earliest. Steady orders for Astute SSNs will be placed for an eventual fleet of 8. The low end C3 will be a low priority as the existing Sandown MCVs and River patrol vessels can hopefully have there lives extended. Finally I can see 1 or 2 of the Bay Class LSD(A) going into reserve.

I seriously doubt that the Virginia class would ever be available for export, look at the problems there still are about software etc for the F-35! Astute was a mess, but then there was such a gap between orders for SSNs and BAe tried to do a major step change in the manufacture and design in a very short space of time and tripped up.

There were problems with the WAH-64 but that was mainly doen to poor project management and the engines. The latter however are actually better than the original US ones and has allowed them to operate more effectively in Afghanistan. US AH-64Ds cannot operate over there effectively without removing the Longbow radar to save weight.

The E-3 with upgrades (We have cancelled the latest to pay fo rthe new chinooks) is still a very good platform, able to stay on station longer then most comparable platforms. In addition the requirements of range etc required a large platform and finally at the time the only readily available alternative was the E-2.

The arguement for buying off the shelf has been going on for years. Unfortunately until we get rid of the bespoke mentality within the MoD and the Political interference regarding jobs etc in the UK from the UKs Defence Industry it is difficult. UK exports of military hardware have shrunk dramaticaaly over the last decade with only the Typhoon standing out. Hopefully the SDR will sort out this issue, providing the best kit, at the best price for out military regardless of where it comes from.

I have raised this issue before and will try one last time to see if anyone has any good ideas. Todays budget left the MoD having its budget for the next four years cut by up to 25%. Liam Fox has stated that the MoD may get off slightly better but it is up against other departments also not “Protected” which have a higher public/political profile.

Given there is already a £35Bn hole in the procurement budget major cuts in procurement and existing platforms are now inevitable.

So what platforms and capabilities are the most vulnerable given that everything bar Trident have their heads on the block?

That is a very good point. Being hit by 2 or 3 Torpedoes would ruin the day of any Carrier including a Nimitz class especially if they detonated underneath damaging its spine.

What is the status of USN anti-submarine capability? Given the S-3 Viking have retired and the reliance is on the SH-60 for airbourne operations, has the USN become too reliant on its SSN force and with it shrinking will this affect the vulnerability of all USN forces?

If an actual nation had been responsible for the Twin Towers then the US would have gone in with both feet. The invasion of Afghanistan was to hunt down Osama’s boys and anyone who got in their way. There are historical precidents, “Remember the Maine”, the Lusitania, Pearl Harbour. It would take a nation to launch a mass attack on a CVBG on a bunch of fanatics.

As for Iraq, well ask Dick Chenney/Halliburton on that one.