Trident is looking pretty secure. I think the Italian fella is just a bit miffed because the UK has a nuclear deterrent force and Italy doesn’t, and no, American owned and controlled freefall bombs are not an “Italian deterrent force” whatever way you cut it.

No, I think Liger is VERY pro-UK forces & not at all bothered about some UK/Italy rivalry. But I don’t think he’s living in the real world atm.

No, i find it hugely depressing but I am a realist and not a drama queen.

The UK has a defecit of £163bn, it IS the single biggest threat to the nation as a whole and has to be dealt with and defence doesn’t get some kind of get out of jail free card in that respect.

The UK will lose some capabilities in certain areas, that’s a fact but this idea that very knowledgable people who will work their hides off to produce some kind of review with consideration having to be taken about finances, are randomly going to cut things without thinking the strategic effect through is a bit ignorant, no?

Without the option to use ground forces a carrier is useless in most cases. It is a tool for a major conflict with another state. Rebels, terrorists and other irregular forces won´t care if there is a carrier sending F-35s to bomb targets.

The UK Carriers won’t be used to deter or coerce rebels or terrorists anymore than an SSBN would.

Why?
The Royal Marines are also dying in Afghanistan. The PARA too. This does not stop cuts.
Put amphibious ships in extended readiness for a bit (aka: mothball them) until Marines are free from Afghanistan ops. But do not scrap the amphibious capability.
Heavy Armour can and should be cut in place of amphibs. For Afghanistan are needed Mastiff and Vicking and such drivers, and infantry. Do the math.

You have no need to convince me because I essentially agree with you regarding what I’d like to see happen. Believe me when I say it simply isn’t possible to cut the numbers needed in the Army to afford keep both capabilities with the budget currently given to the armed forces whilst the UK is involved in a land war in Afghanistan.

And no, there’s no task written in stone for the UK. BUT reasoning says that, since UK is best at sea-related works, has the second best amphibious capability in NATO already available, expert and ready and well equipped, the sanest decision to take would be to preserve jealously that kind of capability so precious.
Also because it is the capability that fits better in the unique frame of the UK strategical situation and in its interests.

I agree with you again, but I’m just being a realist. The choice is going to be between carrier strike with limited amphibious forces or keep what we have at present. But not both, and the RN will go for the carriers every time. In the scenario that exists in the real world, I agree with them.

No. But you are happily suggesting that allies will do all the dirty job and the UK will walk in happily and without risk, faced by no defences at all…?

You think a landing in Iran would continue to be unopposed even if a landing was established? It’s simple, if the UK is wanted as part of a coalition it will not in future be for its ship to shore capability. Nothing is written in stone that the UK HAS to do that part of the job.

And anyway, my point keeps standing. WHY cut on Marines and Anphibis and not on the army. Arguably, NATO can help the UK a lot more in terms of minesweepers, tanks and land forces than in anphibious warfare, where the only nations with capabilities that rival the UK actual force are Italy to a degree and France.

In an ideal world I would totally agree, and I think CVF+Amphib capability is the direction th UK should go in but in the real world where an SDR is financially constrained and we currently have troops dying in Afghanistan it is simply not going to happen.

The choppers are going to face, say, Iranian air defences

Seriously, you’re suggesting a UK amphibious assault on Iran without allies? Not going to happen.

You’re being overly dramatic again. Of course if British interests are threatened action would be taken, but you will not see an Iraq or Afghanistan from a UK government again for a generation bar initial naval support in an operation or special forces.

I’m not presuming ALL amphibious shipping to be got rid of, and I presume we’ll be left with the bays for moving kit but the UK would undertake operation corporate differently from the air with a vastly improved Chinook & Apache capabilty.