PhelganIn 1966 as AT payload-range was being enhanced by VC-10/C-130K, Ministers chose AAR/F-111K as strike cover to an airborne Rapid Deployment Force, dumping expensive CVA, duck, sitting, bait for 1st. generation ASMs and SSNs. (In 1968, broke, we gave up on policing the Indian Ocean after Eagle/Ark expired, and let any friends spend to mind their own shop). Now, with C-17A, C-130J, A400M, covered by UCAVs and/or accurate, non-nuke SLCMs to do our intervening, instead/as well, we choose very expensive CVF to brush off Astute-types while swatting stealthy, accurate incoming. Forecast that in 1968 and the white coats would take you away. (Put aside the politics of why we now propose to subsidise, with men and money, nations busily taking our jobs; just stay with the kit: )
Two “eff” words for you – “flexibility” and “Falklands.
Educate me on what I have missed. If you answer that PAAMS will do what Cats/Darts/Slugs could not, then with respect: Quack.
Why?
Sea Slug= early generation SAM
Sea Dart= later generation SAM
PAAMS=even later still generation SAM
Like cars, generally better with each generation, so yes PAAMS probably can do what the other could not.
PhelganDespite the protestations of the army and the RAF, the RN is the most powerful power projection asset the UK has and there is nothing on the horizon that will change that.
Not disputing the importance of the RN’s role now. But we are talking about developments that increasingly outlast the political backing they started with. I doubt CVF would be cancelled, btu whether in 2014 we are looking at the ship we thought we’d be looking at now, remains to be seen.
The point is that any Soviet operation in Europe would have gone nuclear within hours at best, that is the point. Research their doctrine and you will see. The armored divisions were cycological, they represented a kind of vague intention to resist.
Which makes UK/NATO policy at the time largely irrelevant. If the nukes had already flown (even on a limited scale), the RN is baseless, thus on a short life, chasing SSBNs that may have already served their purpose. Even the role of transporting to Norway and Denmark is presumably moot. But they felt it neccessary to prepare for a war, which might not have gone nuclear immediately, so why assume that nothing else would need to be considered?
PhelganVanguard to Trident. Trans-atlantic shipping was not going to be important becouse there was going to be nothing to ship too, all the ports would have been vaporised. The RN abandoned the Broken backed warfare idea quite quickly.
The soviets would have gone nuclear straight a way. Every piece of Soviet Doctrine stipulated the use of nukes to the extent that when they went to Afghanistan they took them with them.
Whcih makes me wonder why they bothered with all those army formations in Eastern Europe, or was it only Britain that was going to nuked?
As to Afghanistan, not sure the significance. Unless i missed something, they didn’t use them there?
Prior to the Falklands the sole role of the UK’s armed forces was fighting the cold war, in that sense getting the Nuclear detterent made the RN very important.
Which is back to the narrow mindedness of the politicians, but I see your point about the importance of the deterant role in that context.
Even now the RN is doing extroardinarily well and is rapidly developing into the UK’s primary power projection force, with a very powerful amphib fleet, Tomahawk armed SSN’s and now the CVF as well.
Indeed, it has – and will have – great potential, IF it is developed properly and maintained. There are potentially too many high-value assets (amphib, CV) without the adequate support, or too few platforms to provide the scope and response (TLAM carrying SSN).
PhelganThe RAF lost out just as much as the RN did, in some ways even more so- who is it who now provides the nuclear deterrent?
The RAF lost out because they couldn’t deliver through either the TSR-2 or the F111. Of course, even if these aircraft had made it to the RAF, would the “string of island bases” been intact to base them?
As to the nukes, what does this give the RN? One rather narrow role, which given current potential conflicts is unlikely to be used.
As for “Stalins follies” had Stalin have not died and the plans followed through they may not have been follies. The sverdlovs certainly scared the hell out of the RN.
Oh, I wasn’t disputing that, thus the follies was in quotes. Ironically, the fact that a Stalin naval force didn’t appear, made the castration of the RN easier to do. A more viable surface threat might have concentrated the minds….
Prior to 1982 the Nuclear role was the only game in town. The Knott defence review may be hated and despised almost universally now, but at the time it was not that out of line. Effectively the only role in town, the Knott defence review orientated the navy around that with a fairly large number of submarines, to hunt other submarines, and a smaller surface force of ASW ships to also hunt submarines. The idea that the RN was going to have a long term campaign escorting convoys across the Atlantic was a ridiculous notion . For the role given to the RN the Knott defence review was not unreasonable, it only became so becouse of the Falklands and then then the collapse of the Soviet Union, but it is imperative to remember that prior to that the RN’s near sole function was to prepare to fight the SU.
The fact that the navy’s “near sole role” was to fight the SU was a political descision, which *hoped* (or was arrogant enough) to assume that no one would trouble us else where. Even in performing that sole role, it was too narrow, concentrating as you say on the SSBN/SSN battle. If war has broken out without an opening exchange of nukes, then of course transatlantic shipping was going to be important, and so to its protection. You’re going to look foolish if you wake up the next day to find you haven’t been nuked, but by-the-way, Soviets are in Paris/Scotland/whereever, oh and we’re out of ammo.
Its not like the possibility of invasion was so completely unheard of. Rumours of earlier build-ups (78?) had existed and been acted on.
PhelganThough apparently a pair of Essex class carriers were offered to Britain following CVA01’s cancellation to keep us in the carrier game. One assumes they may have been ‘Phantomised’.
The question then becomes how would we have replaced these? While the RN would have had more recent operating experience of “proper” CV’s, their would have been even less native ship building experience, assuming the CVL’s never came on line.
I cannot imagine the RN operating a CVN, even were we offered the option to buy one.
PhelganStop chomping on about what could/should have been: be awestruck at what their Lordships did achieve.
Perhaps, but they still lost out to an aggresive RAF, who then couldn’t deliver anyway.
Unlike Ministers, you have hindsight of Stalin’s follies.
To be fair, even when “Stalin’s follies” became evident and the cold war was in full swing, ministers hardly improved things did they?
PhelganAs for outgunned and outnumbered, as I mentioned before, they have slightly better missiles, and a modern radar, versus the Harriers with no radar, and older missiles. In terms of outnumbered, I am not quite so sure, especially since there will only be around 40 or so GR-9s, facing 35 or so A-4ARs, along with the remaining Daggers. This does not really make for a major quantitative advantage to UK forces.
This assumes they’ll have taken the islands without significant loss to their Air Force. Presumably the air force is the only chance they’ll have to take out the RAF station, short of a remarkable SF op.
The alternative being that they leave the flight alone and let sea transports taking a chance with no aircover.
PhelganNATO is not obliged to help in anything south of the Tropic of Cancer. Hence the lack of NATO aid in 1982.
Wasn’t sure how much of 1982 wasn’t a bit of “we don’t need any help” anyway (except for the minor details of pressing the French for Exocet code and US aid).
NATO is not obliged to help anyone invade anywhere. It’s obliged to help its members defend their territory, ships at sea, & aircraft, within the NATO area. That includes Gibraltar – but not Ceuta & Melilla.
Don’t worry, I wasn’t being serious.
BTW, I came across a provision of the 1713 treaty which we’ve been in breach of for a very long time, though for obvious reasons Spain isn’t complaining. It stipulates that “no leave should be given under any pretence whatsoever either to Jews or Moors, to reside or have their dwellings in the said town of Gibraltar”. 😀
Its little historical titbits like that, that I love.:)
As to the actual topic, I cannot see how the Argentinians could invade the islands without serious loss of life, or an amazing capacity to build-up unnoticed. Even if they achieved that, I cannot imagine that they would be able to retain them, and recent foreign policy tells us UK Govt is not going to shy away from the fight, short of a Liberal election win. It might even provide the UK Govt with a way out of Iraq…….
PhelganNATO
Take one look at the cowardice being displayed by must European countries concerning Afghanistan to see how effective NATO actually is.
The “we’ll only send troops if you promise they will not get hurt” brigade? Its quite pathetic I agree, but not what I was getting at here, but rather whether the dispute would have to be about “home soil” or whether dependancies counted.
As to NATO, its largely pointless, except for making some Eastern European countries feel good about themselves and being able to buy US weapons. Most members don’t expect to be called upon to actually fight:rolleyes:
Phelganstirring?
4. UK invoked NATO support and is assisted by French, Spanish and/or Italian navy ships.
Spain will never support any british military action against Argentina in any(hypothetical of course) scenario. Not one ship, not one bullet. No way.
Are NATO obliged to aid in such matters?
If so, would we have to help the Spanish if they invaded Gib?:diablo:
PhelganF-35B is a potential non-starter for two unrelated reasons, only one of which is relevant to F-18E. One is that it might be cancelled. Unlikely, but not impossible. Too late for F-18E to be cancelled.
The other is the software/hardware access & approval for customisation issue, which could also apply to F-18E.
I think if the F35B programme was going to be cancelled by the US, then purchase of the F-18E would be politically difficult. Cannot imagine it happening, but……
And as you say, any fall through over technology will likely apply to the F18E. Even if it didn’t, giving them more money for an inferior plane seems ludicrous.
Now if we cancel F35B (due to rising costs?), then I guess F18E would be a contender.
Phelganrelative costs of F35B and Rafale
A common unit cost for the F35B from 2006 seems to be ca.$62M cf $70M for Rafale. The former figure is going to be more susceptible to change though (reduction in projected buys, overrun costs).
PhelganThings could go wrong, but it could be the C-variant that sees costs escalate or technical problems delay its entry. The only non-JSF options would be Rafale or a navalised Eurofighter (both of which would be more expensive). If JSF failed then it would happen before the carriers were completed and give time to change their configuration.
I can understand a navalised Typhoon being more expensive because of redesign, but why the Rafale? Navalised versions already exist and have been built, so there would I assume be minimal development to carry out (unless we instisted throwing them off a ski-jump of course:rolleyes: ).
If F35B is a non-starter because of US decisions, I can’t imagine Super Hornet getting through, though then again, our politicians have always retained the capacity to surprise/disgust/dismay* me, so….
* – please choose what you feel most appropriate;)
Phelganalternative energy sources
Yeah, I agree, the decissions needs to be taken now as well as first steps. The proplem is that all our way of life is so dependable over consuming energy.
Biggest proplem in there however is that we have let too much power to the Energy companies themselves, and by advocating free markets, we gradually give away all the tools needed to make the changes. I work myself in big energy company and what comes to enveriomental issues, they are only concerned when they can improve their public image by little stunts. All reall steps like investing to Wind and other alternatives are still beyond reality as they dont give profit, and unfortuanetly, that is what the “free world” is all about, profit…
Even nuclear leaves us relying on other nations for fuel, albiet more reliable and trustworthy ones perhaps, and shipping it great distances. Having said that I agree in principal with nuclear energy, but the regulations need to be exceedingly tight and enforced. However (UK) have probably already left it a bit tight to get new stations up and running in a suitable timescale, especially once “public consultations”; protests and the dithering of politicians are all underway 🙁
The costs of the alternative energy sources, nuclear, wind etc. are even now still higher than fossil fuels. There are only two ways they will really get established:- massive subsidies or once the fossil fuel prices have reached uneconomic levels. Cannot see number one happening over here……..We might get the Govts. 20% by 2020 If nuclear is included, but I fear we might need far more than that by then!
Phelganavailable air units
By keeping it busy with cross-decking exercises, they are probably hoping no-one will notice…A NATO CV by default?
Sign In
