sealordlawrence[QUOTE=Phil Foster;1374209]
I’m not suggesting you’re saying the defence budget should be slashed, I understand that but I think we are at a cross roads and the government has to go one way or the other. I also think we are arguing the same point but losing something in the crossfire. I think that a combination of smart ‘pragmatic’ procurement (not the ‘smart’ procurement the government tells they are already operating but real smart procurement) and an increase in GPD on defence spending would go a long way to ticking all of the boxes. What is needed is political will and in a funny old sort of way the ressesion might kick start that proccess.
I dont think that anybody would argue that the MoD is not responsible for gross negligence in handling its funds. The point I am trying to get across is that the fundamental reason for the stretch in the defense budget is its optional nature. The UK and western Europe as a whole is still basking in the most favorable security situation it has experienced in history and thus there is no pressure for heavy expenditure.
sealordlawrence[QUOTE=SkippyBing;1374201]
Well you changed from the RN being the Second Most Powerful Navy in the world to why should we care about China and Japan. If you’re going to do that why not say the RN is the most powerful navy in the World*?
In terms of power projection capability as I clearly stated.:rolleyes:
My point is the current Foreign Policy, and by implication Doctrine are based on the UK having a World wide role, that may be optional but UK Plc have put a big tick in the box marked ‘Sign Me Up for a World Wide Role’. Having done so we’re now failing to invest in the necessary equipment to do so, the RAF transport fleet being a non-naval example of the systematic underinvestment at a time of increased operations around the World. I think you see my point, we could scale back, but we don’t seem to be.
Yet the situation is not the great apocalypse that you seem to think it is, the UK still has a worldwide presence.
I’ve never heard anyone say we were well perpared in terms of procurement in 1939 before now, I’d like to now how you back that up.
Rearmament began in 1935. Allied armour in France in 1940 was equal or superior in both number and quality to its German counterparts and at that stage the ocean going U-Boat fleet was still minimal. The RAF was perfectly adequate for the defense of the UK and the German surfcae fleet, with the exception of a few minor successes achieved nothing of strategic importance.
The failure was in not adopting the very doctrine that Britain had penned in 1918 and that is why France fell.
sealordlawrenceI like the way you change the argument.
Anyway, France has one carrier yes, but they’re a lot more current at using it and it’s air group is probably on a par with the two UK carriers combined, as for it’s SSNs being smaller I’m not sure that means they’re any less capable.
China meanwhile has ~26 destroyers, ~49 frigates, ~27 large landing ships 5 SSN and more SSK than you can shake a medium sized stick at on those numbers alone your claim that the RN has the second most powerful fleet looks shakey.
Should the UK worry about China, maybe maybe not but our defence policy assumes a world wide role, therefore they should be considered. My argument is that if you’re going to have this large amphibious fleet that you’re so keen to trumpet you need to protect it with more than we’ve got now unless you assume the people you end up using it against aren’t going to try and defend themselves.As to the RN only conducting benign peacetime ops I’ll ignore the obvious reposte and instead ask why have we brought the LPDs then, if we’re planning on only conducting benign peacetime ops then we don’t need them. So I’m guessing the doctrine has driven a requirement for them, in which case there’s a requirement for a decent number of escorts. With the typical speed of naval procurement that’s never going to happen.
I’m not proposing the UK has a war with anyone, we don’t often start them anyway, but the UK’s defence policy is based on fighting a number of conflicts of set sizes. It doesn’t say they’re only to be fought in the Persian Gulf region and not involve naval forces, currently the navy is being bled of funding and manpower to contribute to those conflicts leaving it unable to properly fulfill it’s duties in the event of a maritime biased conflict emerging. Do I know who where or why this might be, no, but then it’s worth bearing in mind a foreign office minister when interviewed in the 1970s considered that the Foreign Office has only made two mistakes in the 20th century, in 1914 and 1939 so apparently the experts aren’t that good either.
I have not changed my argument at all. Sure China has allot of amphibious ships but they are not ocean going.
You misunderstand the doctrine, amphibs are perfectly useful for benign ops (again I point you to the Dutch) and at no point have i said the carriers should be culled. The point is that the world wide role is entirely optional, there is no need for the UK to adopt such a posture, the UK would not suddenly be crushed if it scaled back its overseas operations.
The interesting thing about both 1914 and 1939 is that they were the culmination of arms races. The UK was very well prepared in terms of procurement in both 1914 and 1939. The military preperation failure was entirely doctrinal in 1939 and it is difficult to find one on 1914.
sealordlawrenceOff the top of my head, France, has SSNs, a Carrier with an actual air group and FF/DDs etc. Russia, debateable but they seem to like sending their carrier around with fixed wing aircraft embarked and they still have a lot of hulls all of which seem to be ridiculously over armed although I admit it’s debatable how many are actually serviceable. Japan seems to have ~50 FF/DD plus something that looks suspiciously like an LPH or two, they don’t choose to do power projection but it doesn’t stop them being a powerful navy. China meanwhile seems to be building new ships like it’s going out of fashion and have a desire to have a more active blue water capability hence my comment on maintaining that position, if we want to do that we actually have to build some new ships, not just 6 T45 and a pair of carriers. Note the doctrine required between 8 and 12 T45. In much the same way when the question was asked what do you want to replace Wessex and Puma the doctrine based answer was Blackhawk but for some reason the correct answer turned out to be Merlin and a Puma life extension.
The RN is in fact in some danger of becoming unbalanced in the power projection game, most of the Amphibious forces aren’t overly useful in anything other than an Amphibious op or benign peacetime ops. And seriously if you’re using 18000 ton LPD to do counter drugs operations in the Caribbean it’s time to ask about the balance of your fleet, incidently I don’t think an FF/DD is the best answer there either but until/unless we get a three tier FSC programme we’re unlikely to get it anyway.
China and Russia dont compare, their sea days and technological advancement are miles away. France has one carrier and its ampihious fleet does not match whilst its SSN’s are smaller. Its very clear cut.
Even if it was why should the UK care about China?
And Japan? Limited power projection capabilities and so what if they have more escorts?
You may not have noticed but the RN does little more than ‘benign peacetime ops’. Who are you proposing that the UK have a war with?
sealordlawrenceNo, you said Foreign Policy = Doctrine and Doctrine = Procurement and Military Education, unless you’re saying Foreign Policy = Procurement and Military Education which I don’t think it does.
Foreign Policy feeds in to doctrine, but it doesn’t appear to recognise the funding constraints on the armed forces which are being overstretched by our current commitments despite what government spokesman may wish you to believe.
It’s also arguable that the RN’s position as second most powerful navy in the world is no longer that clear cut, and not enough is being done if we wish the RN to maintain that position. FSC should have been decided years ago but was pushed back to avoid the government having to make a decision while MARS seems to also have been pushed back leaving the venerable fleet of tankers to soldier on well past their planned OSD.
Its very clear cut, name another other than the US with superior power projection capabilities?:rolleyes:
Equation 1 gives you doctrine, then doctrine gives you procurement. Sure its not idea but that is they it generally works.
sealordlawrenceFSC looks promising but there is no substitute for certain naval tasks than actual hulls. Yes the RN is still up there but it does have a large list of traditional naval committments that 6 T-45’s a half dozen T23’s and a few FCS’s may not be large enough to fulfill.
Again, too early to make any such judgement, and also dont forget the very impressive size of the amphibious fleet. Furthermore compare RN hull numbers with everybody elses, especially in Europe. You will see a similar if not worse trend, in particular glance at France and the Netherlands.
sealordlawrenceGenerally I agree with your point, however I think the trend here is for the RN to become a force that will only have the ability to fulfill the few points you list above.
The more mundane naval tasks (escort, un-rep, mine warfare, anti-piracy, showing the flag, etc.) will become more and more difficult to maintain and it will become less and less likely that the RN will be able to act independently as a single entity. Doing that takes away a significant piece of sovereignty.
It is impossible to make that judgement without knowing the outcome of the FSC programme. As it stands the RN is still the second most powerful navy in the world.
sealordlawrenceYes, but it’s fairly easy to argue that currently the economy variable isn’t being fed in to the foreign policy equation.
If it was we wouldn’t be doing everything we are at the moment. Instead you appear to have two equations to give doctrine which aren’t related, giving two different answers. One that says we should be doing X, Y and Z and one which says we can only afford Z.
It appears we’re doing X, Y and Z whilst only actually being able to afford Z, hence the £15Billion shortfall between MoD aspirations and budget.
No, Doctrine is only mentioned once. In terms of Doctrine the MoD is currently doing everything asked of it, developing a power projection force (amphibfleet/carriers/tomahawk armed SSN’s) maintaining the Nuclear deterrent (Trident renewal) and supporting operations in Afghanistan. Of course it wants more, the more you spend the more the armed forces want but currently the MoD is covering the three main bases.
sealordlawrenceReally, I could have sworn Doctrine and Procurement were only tangentially related with the former being changed everytime we realise we can’t afford the later.
Which is why economy is in the top line of the equation.;)
sealordlawrence[QUOTE=Phil Foster;1373777]
I suppose I might have added the possible requirement for close air support of what has to be regarded as a robust British amphibious assault capability or are the Commandos’ going to rely purely on Apache gunships?
Again, depends on what you want to do with your fleet, sure if you are assaulting a defended beachhead then yes you need air power, but otherwise?
I think I get your point, though you might put a little more thought into the way you address people, your style tires after a while. You are thinking practically within the constraints of the defence budget and fair play it is a realistic train of thought but the government will listen to you no more than those touting the desire to cover all bases.
Defence spending at 2.6% of GDP compared with nearly 6% in 1989 tells a different story.;) Secondly I have never said the UK should slash the defence budget, simply that people need to know why it appears underfunded compared to their desires and that that is not apocalyptic in the way many here think it is.
sealordlawrenceKen
Its an interesting analysis you put forward. The flaw is in the last line though. We’ve done this already and found it to our detriment.
We became the North Atlantic ASW team and were very good at it. We had a Defence Minister, Nott, who was so impressed with what we could do in the GIUK that he decided that there was no point doing anything further. 3Cdo plus the amphibs were to be drawn down, CVS sold on and a navy heavy on tailed escorts and SSN’s to be pressed on with. With the persuant benefits to UK exchequer that Lawrence would find admirable.
The problem is that this over specialisation cost us lives the next year. We forgot that a Navy’s prime responsibility is to undertake the missions it is tasked with. Not the missions that we feel we are able to accomplish. We are not able to go back to the Prime Minister and say ‘not today mate….you didnt give us the money for the systems we need to do x tasking properly so we aren’t going’. Doesnt work that way.
That was then also when we had a clear principle tasking that we could specialise in. As an island nation we will always be vulnerable to sea-denial to some extent so retention of core ASW skills will always serve us. After that what?. Amphibious operations? – yep we’re good at that, but, you need forward tacair to achieve it. MCMW – were good at that too, but, this is what the real poorer nations in NATO contribute so its a bit mean of us to try and steal their crumbs and, lets face it, we should be doing better than that. So the question is what do we role-share as?.
The Nott review, even if pressed through to fruition would have bought few overall spending reductions, much of the Navy’s money was to be redirected towards the Army and the Air Force……….for obvious reasons, compared to the Argetine threat to the Falkland Islands the threat to national survival that was the Soviet Union (and its ultimate removal) was infinitely more important. That comes with everything it entails, including retaining sufficient credible strength to keep the US tied into European and UK defence as well as the basic needs of deterrence.
I have always argued that the Nott review was a step to far but his logic at the time seems almost flawless.
sealordlawrenceLawrence,
Utter nonsense. They have built a carrier force and have yet to complete it!. The requirement was always for the second vessel – a porte avions 2 – to be built to provide guaranteed deployed naval aviation. That they have put it back continually is as a result of the protracted development of DCN’s Romeo/Juliette work, the study as to optimal propulsion choices and the obvious financial issues.
Project Julliete was, IIRC, the conventional successor to the follow on CVN ‘Romeo’ and was shown as the preferred option as recently as the end of 04!. By 05 they had come onboard with UK CVF and thats dragged on through the usual mire that tends to happen when you try to make one design do two jobs for two different customers. Now their design is as mature as ours just their priorities are different as their naval aviation component is not ageing as ours is.
In direct contention with your claim that the French Navy is quite capable of performing its mission they need to recapitalise their escort fleet and generate an enhanced SSN capability. Wisely they are addressing that requirement before commiting to the carrier spend.
Again nonsense. That kind of argument is nebulous and suggests that PA2 may not happen if the public will in France turns against it. The CdeG exists. France has committed herself to a carrier capability and for the maintainance of that capability PA2 has to happen else the spend already made is wasted. The French Defence Minister said exactly this publically a couple of weeks back.
Not really. We have seen multiple issues with overflight and theatre base-in since 1980. The French closing of airspace in El Dorado Canyon, the similar act of the Turks in Iraqi Freedom. The utilisation of naval air in Allied Force. Our experience in 1982. The utilisation of naval air in the opening moves of Enduring Freedom before Kandahar was secured. All these have illustrated and underscored the value of naval air in the pursuit of foreign policy goals.
No nosense at at all Jonesey. If the public does not support sufficient defence spending to support PA2 then it will not exist, as is already shown by the postponement. The needs of the French navy are irrelevant and the cost effectiveness of a sing unit will be of little interest when it comes to deciding whether to cough up for another. My point is already proven by the lack of a second unit. Until France actually builds a second carrierit has not committed to anything.
Do tell, what is the great role that the French navy is currently unable to fulfill that is endangering French national security that will be solved by a second carrier?
sealordlawrenceNo, but they need not be frighteningly expensive (see Juan Carlos I propulsion – she is not a very expensive ship) & they can pay for themselves in reduced running costs.
Very true, but the RN format has so far required development money as well.;)
sealordlawrenceFrance very much wants to be a major power in the world. Also, Carriers are the new Battleships with a great deal of prestage that comes along with it. Personally, I would be surprised if she doesn’t work out something to “Keep up with the Jones”. 😉
True, but one still has to justify them and I would not be surprised to see France go either way, the fact remains however that she is currently not committed enough to PA2 to have taken what would probably have been the easiest opportunity to get one.
The French navies problems go deeper than not having PA2, the Horizon order was halved to 2 and the FREMM order has fallen from 17 to 11 giving her a force of (when all is procured) of just 18 frigates and destroyers. There is somthing much deeper at work than just money for one carrier.
sealordlawrenceDon’t read anything more sinister into this than amusement. What other conversation could we have where the words ‘only‘ and ‘16,000 tons‘ in the same sentence and no one bats an eyelid?!
Al
Nothing more than a demonstration of the scale of the vessels being discussed, I quite agree however.;)
Sign In
