dark light

Phelgan

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 273 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Private military contractors – anti piracy patrols #2060544
    Phelgan
    Participant

    http://i33.tinypic.com/f4pdnc.jpg

    OMG, where are the puppets?!

    in reply to: CVF #2064844
    Phelgan
    Participant

    But back in June, both were in Portsmouth at dockside.

    in reply to: CVF #2065257
    Phelgan
    Participant

    Keeping the industry alive. Replacing the light carriers and amphibs with a common multipurpose platform, that’s why Cavours.

    Keeping the industry alive for what? Add some escorts if you want to keep the yards busy. With CVF we’re hardly building on the techniques of Invincible.

    in reply to: CVF #2065296
    Phelgan
    Participant

    Richard Beedall has a new piece (dated Oct13) on his website.
    Basically he says that it’s either EF2k Tranche 3 or CVF and his air group.

    Does it come down to the Saudis buying the U.K.’s Tranche 3, or else CVF will be empty of aircraft? If that’s true, CVF should be cancelled NOW, and three or four Cavours been built instead.

    How do having Cavours help? If Typhoon means no JSF, then its CVF(CTOL) or no CV of any shape.

    There could be a lot more said about this all, but basically it comes down to the fact, that the U.K. can’t afford its foreign policy ambitions any more.

    Can’t/won’t

    in reply to: Royal Navy – Austerity version #2066584
    Phelgan
    Participant

    The remaining recapitalisation will be through an issue of ordinary shares which govt underwrites – and may not need to pay up for if (big if) the issue is popular. But again, a provision must be made.

    Hmmm, an interesting risk. Wasn’t the recent HBOS issue blessed with a feeble 8% take-up?

    in reply to: Royal Navy – Austerity version #2066586
    Phelgan
    Participant

    RN disposals

    Two Hunt class are to go to Lithunania, but that was end-July. Not sure actual contract is signed yet.

    in reply to: Royal Navy – Austerity version #2066830
    Phelgan
    Participant

    Funnily enough, cheerful reading on Beedall’s site from yesterday.

    in reply to: Royal Navy – Austerity version #2066912
    Phelgan
    Participant

    If it is only a 15% cut that is needed, and only temporary:

    There is such a thing?:dev2: Okay, maybe I got carried away,:o but one of the biggest funding holes is the upcoming replacements for, well most things, many of which have already been pushed back by a number of years.

    Overall, nothing very dramatic would happen, just less ambitious procurement, and probably slightly fewer days at sea.

    Isn’t this the story of the last 10 years? Its been a lot of odd-ships in extended readiness, fewer days at sea, and so forth adding up.

    in reply to: A case for ultra small 'carriers'..? #2066914
    Phelgan
    Participant

    So do people feel there is a market for lighter carrier aircraft than the F-35B, particularly STOVL?

    in reply to: Royal Navy – Austerity version #2067090
    Phelgan
    Participant

    Now:
    (Re)define what the Navy should be doing!
    (Re)define what the Navy should be doing!
    (Re)define what the Navy should be doing!

    Scrap the CVF programme, with the probable knock-on of scrapping JSF for the RAF as well. Accept the lack of organic air-power and consequential affect on range of operations.
    Withdraw CVL’s – JFH effectively becomes RAF only.
    Cut frigate numbers (to 12?) – with the reduction in escort, downsize the amphib fleet?
    Keep Astute programme to at least 7 hulls

    Future:
    Aim to have a a core of 18-20 surface (escort) warships = 6xT45 and 12x”C1″
    C1 ASW-orientated version of T45 – no landattack, no mcm?.
    Scrap C2/C3 and have a single class requirement of one of the following:

    • C2 – light frigate with modular MCM/survey/relief options slated for C3. Try and keep the ability to operate independently and accept that some would have to take on the C3 postings.
    • C3 – much as currently envisaged perhaps slightly enlarged/enhanced but cheaper than the alternative C2 option and more hulls.

    Use Astute as basis for V-class replacement.

    Off the shelf solution for MARS programme.
    Scrap MASC

    in reply to: Rebuilding the Marine National #2067807
    Phelgan
    Participant

    Britain went to Argentina because it knew it can do it but it lost Hong Kong without fight.

    Two rather different historical situations there old boy! Why would be fighting for HK?

    No amount of investment in aircraft carriers could change outcome so why bother. So its part of wishfull thinking that RN can challenge Russian navy anywhere in the world when it is supported by other arms of Russian armed forces.

    Which, given the lack of strategic cover the Russian Armed Forces, gives the RN plently of scope;)

    in reply to: Rebuilding the Marine National #2068085
    Phelgan
    Participant

    Sorry, as to the original question, I’d agree with the idea that any renewed NAVAL threat to France rests in the North Atlantic along with the RN. By and the large the answers should be the same: SSN, fleet unit escort and the PA2.

    in reply to: Rebuilding the Marine National #2068096
    Phelgan
    Participant

    They havent lost in Afghanistan. There loyal suppporters are part of government still. And that was War fully funded and supported by West against Russians. Russia is waiting for certain decision wrt to Eastern EU from EU countries before it gives final ultimatum wrt to Afghanistan.

    I love this – Soviets topple existing government and eventually withdraw leaving what? The basis for the rise of extreme political Islam. What a victory that was!

    As for ultimatiums, I have heard this before. You may be right, but then other ultimatiums haven’t amounted to much, so who is going to believe you?

    NATO cannot survive for even a single month if Russia chose to take sides. things have changed permanently. better wake up to new reality.

    Really, NATO is a big organisation, much bigger than a single failed superpower. Parts of it may have left themselves in an awkward position wrt Russia, but NATO is bigger than a few European countries.

    PS: things NEVER change permantly – the flow of history and all that.

    Decolonization would not have happened without overhleming Soviet threat to EU. EU militaries would have free to pursue the same policies just like before first second world war.

    What utter trash, though it may have played a role. Just as significant, if not more so, was US influence on post-war European policies. it was the US who put the kibosh on Suez, because THEY held the influence (money that we desperately needed. It most certainly was not the military capabilities of Eygpt or Soviets that stopped that.

    All Islamic countries are very gratefull to Russia as the first to recognize and fight the Islamic threat which destroys there social fabric. U will not find a single criticism from any islamic country with respect to Russian action in Georgia and for that matter gas price increase for EU.

    They are grateful for someone who doesn’t ask to many questions, nothing more.

    in reply to: Rebuilding the Royal Navy #2068795
    Phelgan
    Participant

    I would certainly look to reinstate the Type 45 orders, either just as vanilla T-45s, or possibly a slightly stretched version, a la Global Cruiser. Follow through on the existing C-1/2/3 path, but basically just with slightly higher specs, and higher numbers.

    At least 2 more T45 (just how many groups would we look to have at sea at once?) in their current form, maybe with the addition of the ASuW role they originally looked like having.

    C-1, as we’ve discussed at length, should be an ASW roled T-45 derivative. C-2 ends up being a gap-filler, probably the spiritual successor to the old Leanders or Type 21s; it gets a reasonable, if not especially glamorous, weapons fit.

    If the old focus on Russian subs resurfaces, perhaps the original Type 23 idea – a hull to carry a TA and helicopter would resurface i.e. a cheap ASW frigate relying on a support vessel for AD and aviation support- would reappear? I wouldn’t go this way personally, but it may seem attractive to some.

    The C-3 can still either be a low-end low-threat-level ship, or be a low- to mid-range ship, capable of going into harms way when absolutely necessary.

    Not sure you would want to higher spec the C-3. I think it would make more sense to field the C-3 as it is currently envisaged in your scenario than it actually does now! Concentrate the funds and manpower at the “frontline” end. Better to up spec the C-2, which is part way to warship anyway.

    in reply to: Britain considers JSF pullout #2467449
    Phelgan
    Participant

    I have to say if given the politics behind a JSF pull-out (increasing costs, still no ratified agreement on the tech-share:mad:), Hornet should damn well be a no-go!

    As it is just for us, there does not seem to be a great deal of point in navalising the EF. I certainly agree with the sentiment that the Rafale is the option. Maybe we could use it as encouragement to the French to do something more with PA2…..

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 273 total)