leonIf 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.
leonThe one thing Nazi Germany did show that’s relevant is that you can’t just wait until Nazi Germany appears before you buy the weapons, by then it’s too late.
With this logic you would have NOW to increase the defence spending to World War Two levels – which no state would survive, because this burden is way to high (inform yourself how ruined Britain was after both World Wars!).
If there would a thread similar to Nazi Germany, one would know this in years in advance – as it was known years in advance in the 1930s. As I have written – Germany was at that time late in re-armament, which was one of the reasons, why it lost (fortunately) the war.
Which of them will not be threatened over the lifetime of a warship programme from design to decommissioning? In otherwords, over the next 40 years, which ones are definately not going to be threatened by which enemies?
Every warship built know will be completely outdated in 40 years and will not be able to survive in a war 😉 And according to your logic you would have not only built much more ships (certainly 3-4 times the current fleet strength), but also you would have to replace them constantly.
But all Britain has to do is surrender,
There is no attacker. To whom you want to surrender?
I know a lot of much more urgent problems, for which I would spent money – than your idea that you need always a fleet size able to deal with a threat on the level of Nazi Germany. If your ideas would be realised, we would live in a very poor society.
leonAs you say they abondoned the 10 year rules in 1932 BEFORE THERE WAS ANYTHING OBVIOUS.
No, in 1932 there was first aggressive actions of the Japanese against China (Shanghai Indicedent) and the British considered a war in the Pacific to be more likely anyway. At that time they had several strongholds in the region, e.g. Singapore. It was logical to think that a war was possible. And it was not to late, because all major powers start their re-armament in the 1930s (e.g. Germany was one of powers who started re-armament very late and therefore had major problems in the war (fortunately!) – but would have even bigger problems, if the Second World War would have started some years later, because the other powers would have been even stronger).
And yet already we have (as already stated) threats to UK mineral claims; threat of Iran; threats due to MMGW
There is no threat to UK mineral claims, there are some minor possible disputes. Additionally these possible conflicts would be with very weak states – nothing compared to the economic and military power of e.g. Germany and Japan in the 1930s.
There is no threat by Iran. Iran is a weak regional power with a weak, outdated military, a weak economic base, no possibility for a big armament because of lacking industrial base. To call Iran a threat is as absurd as it was absurd to call Iraq a thread to Europe (as Bush, Blair etc. stated and which is now known to be based on primitive lies).
MMGW could results in conflicts as could peak oil Рbut this is fare from being sure, not even high likely. We have all technologies to avoid problems, but unfortunately their is a dramatic lack in investments in the energy and transport sector (as their is a dramatic lack in investments in the infrastructure in general of most western states). Most western states have not the money to invest, because the have reduced the taxes too much (this is also one of the reasons, why the fleets are reduced Рthe debts of most western states are too high because of this policy of governments like Thatcher, Blair, Cameron, Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Kohl, Schr̦der, Merkel, Sarkozy etc.).
Maybe you want to go and have a look at the new Russian frigates that the Vietnamese have just bought on the belief that the Spratleys wont involve military confrontation. You dont seem to realise that conventional military deterrence, even if only local, has a major part to play in political interaction.
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).
So what?. Do these states have the same tasking requirements we do?. Are they as overstretched as we are?
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?
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….
France has the right model for the post-cold war world – core warfighting elements with a second tier patrol fleet. The problem is that they have suffered the natural disaster that comes with such a formation. That their Treasury is far happier buying the cheap ships than the expensive ones. Consequently those unsurviveable La Fayettes have been finding their way into French carrier battlegroups for a very long time. Its likely this lesson that has kept the RN from going the same route. The cheap ships are no replacement for the core warfighters they are an augment nothing more.
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. 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.
The UK is quite far from having a Navy on Cold War strength now and it won’t have one when the carriers are commissioned either.
Yes, but there appear to be several here, who constantly complain about this.
leonHave you not been paying attention to the ongoing disputes over mineral wealth exploitation in the Spratley Islands, off the Falklands or the bizarre underwater territorial flag marking activities in the Arctic.
That are possible conflicts – but currently these are still possible political conflicts and except someone going completely crazy, they will be very unlikely future wars. In most cases these problems could be solved without even thinking about the use of military power.
If governments, which are possibly involved, do not have access to a strong military, a conflict is even more unlikely (e.g. the Russian military today is very outdated), because the risk of a military defeat is much higher.
There is nothing comparable to the 1930s or the Cold War – and as consequence there is also no reason to have a navy on Cold War strength.
We have 6 DDG’s and, soon, will be down to 13 FFG.
17 first class destroyers and frigates is much more than most navies have – including navies of states, which are economically stronger than Britain.
France have e.g. only 12 Рmost of them are much older than the current British ships. Additionally France has 20 cheap frigates and avisos, but half of them are also very old. But they had built cheap ships, e.g. the La Fayette class and Flor̩al class, ships which alone cannot survive against a first class military thread.
For sure, there are navies, which are comparable much more oversized, e.g. the Turkish and Greek navies… But they are also a cause (not a cure) for conflicts of these states.
leonIt is good to look at history, but it is all too easy to only pick one period.
The thread by Germany in the 1930s was obvious for everyone and Britain (as all other big powers!) increased spending in military dramatically years before the Second World War – which is also obvious in spending in new ships. It was not that way that everyone ignored the problem and was surprised by the Second World War! You quoted that the danger of a new war was realised by the British government actually in 1932, which is even before Hitler was installed in the government by German military and conservatives in 1933!
Today there is nothing comparable. Or do you know something?
The “place in the sun” is one point, but the big fleet was not built to secure colonies, but was optimised for the North Sea. It was built as Risiko-Flotte (risk fleet), which should mean that for enemies it would be a risk to attack Germany, because its fleet would be too strong. Especially Britain should be deterred from making an alliance with Germany’s enemies – but as I said, the result was the opposite.
@ Jonesy: the Royal Navy is not overstreched because of its peacetime tasks, but because of all the wars, it was and is used – and which costs caused further reductions in fleet size. For the peacetime tasks there is no big fleet of first class warships necessary.
Modern first class warships are very expensive and no state could afford to built them in big numbers. The Royal Navy is struggling with this problems since the First World War (when warships were much cheaper and less complex) – it always searched for the compromise between quality and and quantity and often failed (e.g. the question of smaller cruisers between the World Wars and the case of the Type 42 destroyers). In the 19th century the compromise was a small number of first class ships, whereas gunboats and sloops were built in quantity – ships, which were not capable to survive against ships of other first class navies. Today the situation is very different. Britain is economically much weaker and on the other side the political situation is very different. Britain today is “surrounded” by allies and no enemy with a even second class military is existing.
leonI repeat it again: currently there is no military thread to Britain. And for the near future there is non to be expected. All your arguments demonstrate this complete lack of thread, if you even cite e.g. Spain or Mauritius as thread.
And wars, which were started by the British government, in which Britain is the aggressor, certainly does not qualify as thread to Britain – and it would be absurd e.g. to call Gaddafi a thread to Britain. The British government, as many other European governments, supported Gaddafi to get his oil and because they wanted Gaddafi to prevent refugees to enter Europe.
And I repeat it again: you confuse political question with military ones. The necessary strength of a military depends on the politics. There are obviously different ways e.g. to deal with the status of Gibraltar, than using military force.
Perhaps you could also think about this example: Germany built up a first class navy early in the 20th century. Why? It wanted deter Britain from forming an alliance with its enemies France and Russia. What was the result? Britain felt threatened, allied itself with France and Russia and the result was a complete defeat of Germany in the First World War – to which the navy could do nothing to prevent it, because the war was lost on the battle fields in France and Belgium. The built up of a big army and navy did not prevent a war, but actually made it more likely.
leonFor these commitments the British government is responsible – and it is responsible for any unbalance between tasks and tools (as it is responsible for the unbalance between state income and commitments generating gigantic debts).
And for most of the tasks you have mentioned, not even a navy is necessary, because many of them could be covered with police boats. Exceptions are “deterrence patrols”, but currently there are not necessary at all and anti-piracy, for which cheap OPV would be sufficient. “Defence diplomacy” is also something for the 19th century (gunboat politics) and why you need currently ELINT/COMINT? There is no Cold War any more.
You should not confuse political questions with military ones. The question, how big a Navy has to be, is a political one depending on political decisions.
@ Prom: to call Argentina, Chile, Mauritius and Seychelles, Spain a thread to Britain is ridiculous! We are living in the 21st century! You have e.g. realised the Britain and Spain are both members of the EU and NATO? And do you have realised that the political system today in Argentina and Chile is completely different from 1982? And to even mention Mauritius and Seychelles does not really strengthened your point…
leonWhich British overseas territory is actually threatened by someone? So it would be necessary to protect it? None. Same for French overseas territories or the British coast itself.
leonCompare the Royal Navy to other European countries with an economy of a similar or bigger size and you will see that the RN is oversized. And: ask yourself, if all these commitments are necessary or part of a policy, from which actually nobody benefits from (e.g. Iraq War).
leonThe Royal Navy buys a lot of very expensive first class warships – for sure it will not get many ships for the same amount of money. Even the US Navy had strongly to reduce the number of its ships. Who got more got more ships in this quality for this amount?
There is no reason to complain – Britain has still an oversized navy and spends – compared to its needs – a lot in defence.
And this is no UK bashing – it is only pointing to the facts. There are obvouisly a lot of other countries with similar or even worse problems – but this does not change anything. Currently there is no military thread to Britain (or any other European state) and therefore Britain (or any other European state) has no reason at all to spend even more.
And: the Royal Navy would be with both new carriers more capable than in 1982 – and that was time of the cold war plus all the hot wars, which were somehow connected to the Cold War.
/edit: Japan is an interesting example: Japan has conflicts with China, South Korea and Taiwan over putative oil fields – and there were actually clashes between this state in the last decades. Additionally there is North Korea nearby. Therefore, there are at least some arguments to justify spending in defence – in contrast to European states, which are “surrounded” by allies.
leonIt doesnt surprise me that you dont. The answer is sensor persistence.
This is no answer, why is there are need for this 😉
A year. To build. IF the yard is manned up and properly tooled to start the job.
Yes – in a case of a real need this would be done very fast.
You are aware that we run a YEARLY surplus in the Social Security budget of £8bn in means tested benefits alone?. If you add unclaimed tax credits you can add in another 6bn.
Perhaps you should realise that Britain is in regard of the living standards of a great part of its population not that rich anymore, but actually poor (compared to developed countries) – and one reason is the decline of industry and the constant cuts in spending by the state because of constant tax reductions.
Today there are certainly bigger and more urgent problems than to have a strong navy – in times, where there is no real military thread for Britain at all.
leonYou say 6 destroyers is quite enough yet, were we to have to station a T45 365 days a year to cover Falklands oil resources, in response to an escalation of tensions perhaps, we would need to task half of that destroyer force to eep just one on station.
I see no reason, why there is a need now for a T45. Most countries have no such a ship near their oil resources – even there are conflicts about them. If you mention the word “ignorance”, you need a lot of more arguments than only this statement.
The other thing you miss, Leon, is that, in 5 years time, you cant just throw a few hundred million quid at a shipyard and tell them to build you another T45 same as the last lot – like you’d order a Big Mac!
This was exactly what was made in cases of a real emergency, a real need for such ships. But today there is none, therefore such a built takes a lot of time etc. Such a ships could be built in probably less of year, if it would be really needed (compare it to capital ships of earlier times!).
Is there a case for a two tier Patrol and Fleet composed RN?. Yes, frankly, there is. A ‘cheap’ Leander-sized OPV with a Mk8, light guns, standard MRR and organic chopper capability could do the job we’ve seen LIVERPOOL doing off the Libyan coast at much lower cost. The issue though is that such a capability would be needed to augment the warfighting fleet component and not replace it.
Today such OPV would be much more useful compared to Type 45 destroyers – and considering the economic situation of Britain, which is not capable to spend enough for a lot of urgently needed things in many areas (e.g. education, health etc.), a hugh fleet of Type 45-like ships is not affordable at all. You should remember that also one of the reasons for the cuts in defence are the gigantic spendings for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which overstreched the British and American capacities.
leonYes, probably a heavy gun (at least 7,62 cm), helicopter hangar, two light guns and the possibility to refit it with a CIWS or RAM system.
I am not sure, if these modules are useful. E.g. Norman Friedman is very critical about them arguing that such a ship cannot fulfil all these missions it is designed to, but probably would be suboptimal for all of them (e.g. the US LCS). But modules to update it, are certainly useful, because they make refits easier and cheaper.
leonYes, but the surface ships we’ve recently built, are building, and are planning are not meant primarily for fighting other navies, but for conducting operations against land-based adversaries. Cheap OPVs can chase pirates off Somalia, but can’t bomb Libya, or protect themselves or any other ships against attacks by land-based aircraft, even from a third class air force.
For sure. But for attacking Libya you do not need six Type 45 and 13 Type 23. Two or three such ships would be sufficient (plus the same number as replacement). Libya also show that Britain is high likely not fighting wars alone, but with allies – e.g. France, which additionally decrease the need for first class warships.
Most British ships in the last decades were used for “showing the flag”, patrols against pirates or even not armed commercial vessels (“war against terror”) or some fights against third class navies and air forces (e.g. Iraq or Libya, remember also that in both cases Britain was the attacker). Except of the last cases cheap OPV would be enough – and cheap OPV would have been still sufficient and would have survived e.g. in war against Libya, because there was no attack by something stronger than fast lightly armed launches.
Britain has with his current strength still a oversized navy – both for its economic capabilities and for its needs. We are in the 21rst century – not in the times of the World Wars or the Cold War.
leonI would also say that the quality of the RN will be much better, if it will get the two carriers, if it is compared to the capabilities of the last decades. It is also still – compared to the economic strength of Britain and the dramatic lack 😉 of possible adversaries – an oversized navy.
Current warships are – because of the sensors – too expensive to produce them in quantity – and there much more capable than older ships.
If quantity is important the RN should not buy first class ships, but cheap offshore patrol vessels… Remember that the Royal Navy of the 19th century did the same. It did not built a lot of first class frigates, but a lot of cheap sloops and gunboats – and at that time there was still a British Empire in existence and a lot of possible adversaries, who had navies, which were first class in quantity and quality. Today there is no possible adversary of Britain, who have at least a second class navy (or air force or army).
Sign In
