Stryker73[*]Amphibious/Sealift capability – Stays. The Amphibs and the Royal Marines stay. HMS Ocean needs replacement and they need to get started looking for alternatives.
I’m not with you on this. If the British governments position is non-intervention unless interests are directly threatened I can see the loss of a couple of LSD’s and Ocean as a trade off for CVF
Stryker73Roughly, i agree with the scenarios you outline. I’d add, though, that Argentina may not want to retake Falklands with a new invasion, but there’s many other things it could do, namely:
Active opposition to shipping. Closing its ports to ships going to and from the Falklands, closing its air space for flights going to and from the islands
Argentina is legally within it’s rights to do those things and already does.
and it could send its warships escorting the drilling oil rigs and any other vessel away from the Falklands.
This would be an easier move, and Clyde would be unable to oppose it, as would the Typhoons, both for lack of range and even more for lack of adequate weapons, mostly air-launched anti-ship missiles.
In the worst case, the RN would have to escort the ships in and it would be a war of nerves against argentinian vessels which would likely maneuver in aggressive way. Unlikely to reach the stage of firing at one another, but it would be a great strain for the population of the islands, for the RN, for the military budget and for the political will of the UK
Not really, doing what you suggest is basically an act of war on Argentinas part.
also because we can expect Venezuela, Chile and even Brazil to be very vocal about the crisis.
They can be as vocal as they like. They aren’t going to enter conflict over someone elses claim on some Islands whatever they say as policy.
A possibility of serious clash at sea exists depending on how the crisis evolves.
It would be serious for Argentina indeed since they would be commiting an act of war.
Move number two: insert a military team on the oil rigs around the islands and held hostage the crews and the platforms.
Again, an act of war.
Political weight of the event: massive, especially if there was a risk of ecologic disaster tied to the oil platforms.
State sponsored terrorism isn’t going to play well with world opinion.
Stryker73It’s not the same country as it was in 2000, we’re in the middle of a big recession and the population has had its fill of two wars where we’ve seen our soldiers, sailors and airmen die for very little return for British interests!!
There is a big difference between the Falklands/Sierra Leone and Afghanistan. We as a country will absolutely stand up for our interests/people but the vast majority I would say are sick of being involved in these wars.
It may come as a shock to you but the vast majority of Britons don’t care a jot and have limited knowledge of their military so when these stories appear in the mainstream media you will get uninformed comments.
And there have always been self flagelating ‘we no longer have an empire’ types for as long as I can remember. For god sake don’t read the Guardian!!
It amuses me that an Italian gets so worked up over it. 😀
Stryker73£20bn PFI defence contracts face the axe
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/7931900/20bn-defence-contracts-face-axe.html
Stryker73You can’t start foaming at the mouth at every press report. Once again these reports list all the options on the table as if they’re all up for the chop. They are all being considered yes, but not together.
The UK will not get involved in any military escapades on foreign soil for a good decade unless it’s territories are directly threatened. After spending over a decade at war in 2 different places there will be a period of entrenchment and recovery. The British people will not accept it and nor will the government risk it, it would be political suicide – the only change to that is as I said if our territories are directly threatened.
Taking the report at face value – 2 SSN’s are due to be out of service by 2013 anyway. The loss of 3 Amphibs would not be such a hit as long as the intention to have 2 CVF remains.
The SDSR’s job is to role the armed forces of the UK to whatever threats it may face with whatever cash it is given to do the job. Personally i’d have the RAF do home defence, strategic lift & ISTAR, the Navy via its carriers carry the offensive punch and ‘big’ conventional stick and make the army lighter & more mobile mothballing a lot of heavy armour & chally 2’s.
The facts are there is no longer a Soviet army that needs to be faced in Europe and the UK is really in a luxurious position on the map strategically so it doesn’t need to have a large standing army.
Stryker73I know. But for a Navy which thought that the Harrier would be adequate in 2010, the SH should be adequate in 2035.
The RN think the Harrier is adequate against potential UK only threats as a ‘stop gap’ in 2010. Not as its future fighter.
Similarly I would expect they’ll see the SH as a stop gap for later F35 purchases in fiscally better times.
Stryker73So anyway, moving on, what about the RAF then? Will they get F-18’s too or do without?
Could be a cunning plan by the Royal Navy to dissasociate CVF with F35. Offer up a cheaper alternative with a smaller buy and then they get to say to the bean counters look its that nasty RAF who are insisting on the gold plated unaffordable option.
End result. The FAA has its own dedicated airwing once more, and the RAF revert to a single type in the Typhoon losing all its Tornados and will find its future in UAV & UCAV’s.
If the decision is to go with Super Hornet then the RN could also mothball the Harrier and re-role Ark Royal/Illustrious whilst FAA pilots get trained in the US.
Kerching! 😀
Stryker73I tried to do a google search for this news and could not find any sources or links or otherwise
Have the effects on local industry been taken into the equations when cancellations are talked about?
It was in the Sunday Times which is subscription only and doesn’t appear on google news searches anymore.
The UK paid £2bn R&D costs towards JSF, as far as I understand it – workshare on the F35 is not dependent upon purchases by the UK
Stryker73I like the idea of the UK having carriers, but at the cost of so much other capability? Seeing as we are tied done to having the carriers and at the moment will struggle to get even a modest airwing permanently based on them and also the fact it will cost us to cut back on Typhoon numbers, i would go for the idea some have had of sharing a carrier with the French, so if either nation needs 2 carriers they are available, so the french can save the cost of a whole new carrier, the FAA pool aircraft with the french (rafale) and the french don’t lose carrier capability whilst there single carrier is in refit. A great way of pooling european resources to save money, the French can pay for any design changes (cats, etc) and the UK doesn’t have a few billion pounds worth of equipment sailing round with not even enough helo’s on board.
You’ll be wanting a common foreign policy before anything like that happens.
Let’s not underestimate what power projection gives to the UK via its carriers – it elevates the UK’s military capability above others. Cut the ability to project power (very difficult to see how you can do it without air power at sea) and you relegate the UK back into the pack.
Carrier strike means the UK can act independently of other countries say-so. Shelving that capability means we can only take our military where others are willing to let us.
Stryker73so you think they might get rid of the phoon altogether ?
i think they will put in a significant f-35a order when the phoon contracts and exports are sorted, which politically and financially cant be done now
Not a chance, the idea is to have a Typhoon/F35 fleet in the future. No way will it be a F35A/F18SH mix – especially when you throw in concerns about codes being released.
IMO as Jonesy says earlier this is just an ‘option’ on the table, and there are a lot more costs involved if the RN goes to cat/trap/EMALS (more carrier personnel needed for instance) so the difference in savings won’t be as simple as stating F35b cost minus SH purchase.
Stryker73Of course, we could all ignore all the press and ‘one source said’ type stories but that would make for dull forumming 😉
Stryker73Of course the above comment is due to a slightly weary depression setting in at the idea that due to Treasury policies defence is going to be completely wrecked and that Liam Fox does not have enough political clout to stop it and if he quits then Sir Richard Dannatt is likely to get his job when he is raised to the House of Lords, and Sir Richard already in his mind wants to savage the RN and the RAF to support the Army. 🙁
Dannat won’t get the defence job. He’s just quit as a government adviser
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1299401/General-Sir-Richard-Dannatt-quits-Government-defence-adviser.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
At least he’s being consistent, he’s always been anti-carrier. Seriously some of these Army guys are a threat to national security trying to grab all the goodies for the army to be ready for the time when we’re just pulling out of Afghanistan. Thankfully I believe Fox is on the ball to the threat of this.
Fox is more powerful in the Tory party than you think, Cameron & Osborne may not like him but they know they need him to keep the right of the party online.
Stryker73According to reports in the media, the National Security Council appears to be favouring retaining the Armed Forces Capabilities to fight COIN operations and mount small scale / short term interventions at the expense of out ability to fight high intensity warfare.
Actually, from what i’ve seen its more likely to be a complete fudge. Robert Fox in the Evening Standard says we’re looking at binning the entire Tornado fleet, 15,000 Army personnel & a handful of ancient navy destroyers (which would leave us none in service, so he probably means the T22 frigates)
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23861727-treasury-winning-battle-over-army-cuts.do
Would also fit in with Liam Fox constantly banging the drum about not ruling out state on state warfare and that we must retain generic capability.
Stryker73But what the hell.
Does money truly suck to Indians…? How they can possibly spend all this money on weapons when their population dies starving…?
At the height of the British Empire half of London was a slum.
Oh, yeah. UK aid…!
How is it that no one protests again
UK aid doesn’t go to the Indian government but programs lower down. It’s also used as a tool of foreign policy and potential sweetners for trade deals. It’s a bit insulting to the Indians to suggest they can’t afford their own defence and UK foreign aid does have a benefit (if used wisely)
Stryker73The ‘Carrier to India’ story resurfaces
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1298782/Trident-paid-MoD-George-Osborne-tells-Liam-Fox.html
Again, most likely another review ‘option’ rather than anything concrete.
Sign In
