SkippyBingChinook recapitalisation programme underway and additional Mermins on order as well as aLunx re-engining project undwerway.
Well the Chinook programme apart from being an example of how not to buy a helicopter has taken ~£400M and 8 years to make 8 aircraft serviceable. The only additional Merlins I’m aware of are the six received from Denmark in ’07 and are already in service and the Lynx engine upgrade doesn’t increase the number of helicopters and hardly provides extra lift. The Defence Select Committee identified a 17% shortfall in helicopter lift in ’06 when we were doing less and so far only a piecemeal attempt at solving the problem has been made, while the F Lynx order was for less aircraft than the originally stated numbers, which were insufficient in the first place.
As for my obsession with numbers, if you’re claiming to be the second most powerful navy in the world it helps to have more than a handful of vessels, the ‘quantity has a quality of it’s own’ argument. Sure the PLAN may not have anything of the capability of the T45, but there’re only going to be six of those which rather limits their geographic coverage no matter how good they are. Your insistance that a large amphibious force constitute power projection is rather simplistic, on their own the UK’s force of LPD’s and LPH have very little in the way of self-protection. You can’t seriously argue a power projection capability if you can’t defend yourself, hence my concern over FF/DD numbers. Othere wise you could just as well use cruise liners and ferries for force projection.
And I wan’t confused, I was referring to the Sherman/Tiger exchange ratio in Normandy as was obvious in the context of the quote I used from you and the fact that neither type existed in 1940. I’m well aware of the programmes currently being undertaken by MoD and the numerous problems therein, you apparant belief that they’re going to make up for the current and future shortfalls displays a naive willingness to believe MoD spokesmen. Meanwhile the MARS programme has been slipped right by around 7 years which on it’s own raises major questions over the ability of the RN to project power worldwide, a requirement of the SDR which is a cornerstone of the doctrine which according to you is driving MoD procurement.
Harry, I’m not saying there are other LPDs etc. with more than a CIWS, that’s not my point. My point is you need a balanced fleet to project power to protect the HVUs and MEUs, and that our current level of FF/DDs is proportionaly too small for that.
As for the Harriers embarking having talked to guys in the NSW they’re worried about the lack of deck time they’re getting and the effect it’s having on the CVS’s capability. It’s all very well letting the USMC and the Spanish operate off our decks but its’ indicative of a shortage of domestic organic air assets.
SkippyBingIn afghanistan actually very few until recently to IED’s, must casualties prior to that were from small arms fire. in the meantime many of the tracked vehicles have been very useful and talk to any British Army commander and he will tell you that the Snatch is still very useful in certain conditions (particularly urban and semi rural). Furthermore the vehicles have not even existed to be procured for very long.
Oh that’s alright then, and something better wouldn’t have been useful in Iraq either. Strange how there’s still a massive deficit in helicopter lift, although I’m sure you’ll tell me that’s fine too.
You mean other than aircraft carriers, tomahawk firing SSN’s, and seven dedicated large amphibious ships backed up by 6 roll on roll off transport vessels? Care to name another force other than the USN that can match that?
That’s not a capability that’s listing hulls. The CVS haven’t worked up properly with a UK fixed wing CAG in ages, the seven amphibs are all very good but have little in the way of self defence capability which if you’re going to project power would indicate some escorts might be in order. Tomahawk firing SSNs are great once the war has started but are self defeating if you’re working on gunship diplomacy. The escorts are the weak link, they’re overworked and there aren’t enough, hence my earlier statement that the RN isn’t a balanced fleet. The PLAN has more weapons carrying platforms which could make life very difficult if they didn’t want the RN to project power somewhere. You can’t power project with a fleet of amphibious ships alone.
And find out how many Tigers were in France in 1940.
I was of course responding to your comment on operations in Normandy, as you could tell from the quote I used in my response which last time I checked was in ’44 not ’40. Now stop sounding like an MoD spokesman and tell me which other European nation is commited to operations on the scale we are that’s suffering the same funding shortfall.
SkippyBingHa ha ha, the UK is procuring hundreds of vehicles specifically for Afghanistan. Do you know what a Jackal is? a Warthog? a Mastiff? a Husky?
:(Oh good how long have we been there now? How many lives have been lost?:diablo: And that still doesn’t resolve the problem with the air bridge out there or a hundred and one other things that are needed if we’re going to move more troops there from Iraq. C***t we can’t even build a dispersal for six Tornados at Kandahar without screwing it up.
A basic knowledge of the PLAN would tell you they have no where near the power projection capability of the UK and their modern surface combatant numbers are not as impressive as you think they are.
:)I’d be interested in what exactly you think the power projection capabilites of the RN are? Certainly the PLAN seem no worse than most of the equipment the RN has more so if you consider T45 isn’t fully operational yet.:eek:
I think you will find that they Soviet combined arms operations on the Eastern front from late 1943 onwards were a masterclass and the combined operations in Normandy were very impressive indeed.
Not sure about the Soviets but I’d say planning on losing what was it three Sherman to one Tiger wasn’t a great tactical plan on the part of the allies. As for the operations imnpressive yes, but essentially relying on brute force to overcome the germans rather than tactical skill.:)
SkippyBingExcept there is only a serious funding deficit for material desired not material required and that is the point. The UK armed forces are no more or less underfunded than any other in western Europe.
They’re spherical and men have them. There is a funding shortage for material required to fulfill the demands of the defence policy which is driven by the doctrine derived from the foreign policy. Or has the RN been putting ships through reduced upkeep because it’s more fun not knowing if it’s going to break down entering harbour? For what is being asked of them the UK armed forces are underfunded, or are you seriously saying Snatch Land Rovers are perfectly adequate for operations in Afghanistan and that having proper mine resistant vehicles is just the Army having un-fundable aspirations?
No other nation in Western Europe has such a gap between what it’s being asked to do and what it’s actually being funded to do, the UK armed forces have been exceeding the operational tempo planned for under the last SDR for something like the last four years, without a commensurate increase in funding. Major equipment programmes such as the A400, CVF, and FRES are being slipped right to fund day to day operations and leaving the replacements for the equipment being worn out now no more real than they were at the start of the decade when the programmes were initiated.
I have a vague knowledge of the development in armoured warfare, and the numbers comment was a flippant remark to lead into my point that in large areas the rearmament commenced in ’35 was too little too late. Although worth bearing in mind the Allied tactics ultimately relied on numerical superiority to win, rather than any tactical superiority.
And you’ve still failed to answer why China doesn’t have the power projection capability of the UK nor if they develop the political will Japan. They have actual serviceable warships in numbers the RN can only dream of.
SkippyBingNo your failure to realise that by comparison to all the other armed forces in the world the UK is actually doing very well paints you as seriously ill-informed.
No it doesn’t, no other armed force* is being required to conduct the level of operations the UK is, and on those grounds it is underfunded. If all we were doing was patrolling European waters then sure you could actually argue that they’re overfunded, but the level of commitments has led to a serious funding deficit that can only be overcome by a radical overhaul of the procurement system or increased funding. I favour the former, as for matching China’s defence spending, are you suggesting we reduce ours?:rolleyes:
Fact, in terms of technology and numbers allied tanks in France matched or exceeded those in German service.
Then maybe they hadn’t procured enough, and we certainly didn’t have enough aircraft or shipping. Or did we just get them from the US after the war had started because there was a balance of payments problem?
*Bar the US obviously.
SkippyBing1 (+1 building) helicopter cruiser (“destroyer”) with no amphibious capability except what might be improvised.
Mmmm, it’s the least Destroyer looking Destroyer I’ve ever seen. As for amphib capaility, it looks like an LPH so I’m guessing helicopters? Certainly it’s got no real AAW capability but it can carry 10+ helicopters and has a hangar, definitely an LPH in my book.
SkippyBingIt is impossible to make that judgement without knowing the outcome of the FSC programme. As it stands the RN is still the second most powerful navy in the world.
Sorry of course, I can see where it mentions power projection in that sentance now, silly me.
At the current rate of progress we won’t have the world wide presence for much longer, there aren’t the number of new hulls coming to replace old ones that are needed. Irrespective of their ability you need a given number of hulls to actually have a presence and carry out the refit/workup cycle, we’re pretty much there now. In some people’s opinion we’re below that by sending RFA LPDs to do jobs traditionally done by FF/DDs e.g. APT(N) where the LPDs low top speed is a handicap.
Meanwhile the only thing stopping Japan carrying out power projection is it’s constitution and the fact their politicians listen to the polpulation. Meanwhile China is enaging in power projection off the coast of East Africa with more ships than the RN.
We are not funding the armed forces to the level needed to achieve what doctrine requires, as evidenced by the UKNDA pointing out that there’s a cumulative £15B shortfall in defence spending which combined with a refusal to cancel any of the planned programmes is leading to delayed and reduced equipment replacement. Your failure to see that paints you either as an MoD stooge or completly divorced from the realities of the current situation.
Rearmament may well have begun in 1935, but it obviously hadn’t achieved the required aim or the superiority of Allied armour in 1940 wouldn’t have led to the British Expeditionary Force having to be evacuated at Dunkirk. As for the RAF being ‘perfectly adequate’ to defend the UK, I’m believe moderation in defence is imbecility.
SkippyBingWell you changed from the RN being the Second Most Powerful Navy in the world to why should we care about China and Japan. If you’re going to do that why not say the RN is the most powerful navy in the World*?
My point is the current Foreign Policy, and by implication Doctrine are based on the UK having a World wide role, that may be optional but UK Plc have put a big tick in the box marked ‘Sign Me Up for a World Wide Role’. Having done so we’re now failing to invest in the necessary equipment to do so, the RAF transport fleet being a non-naval example of the systematic underinvestment at a time of increased operations around the World. I think you see my point, we could scale back, but we don’t seem to be.
I’ve never heard anyone say we were well perpared in terms of procurement in 1939 before now, I’d like to now how you back that up.
*If you ignore anyone outside UK territorial waters, why should we care about them.
SkippyBingI like the way you change the argument.
Anyway, France has one carrier yes, but they’re a lot more current at using it and it’s air group is probably on a par with the two UK carriers combined, as for it’s SSNs being smaller I’m not sure that means they’re any less capable.
China meanwhile has ~26 destroyers, ~49 frigates, ~27 large landing ships 5 SSN and more SSK than you can shake a medium sized stick at on those numbers alone your claim that the RN has the second most powerful fleet looks shakey.
Should the UK worry about China, maybe maybe not but our defence policy assumes a world wide role, therefore they should be considered. My argument is that if you’re going to have this large amphibious fleet that you’re so keen to trumpet you need to protect it with more than we’ve got now unless you assume the people you end up using it against aren’t going to try and defend themselves.
As to the RN only conducting benign peacetime ops I’ll ignore the obvious reposte and instead ask why have we brought the LPDs then, if we’re planning on only conducting benign peacetime ops then we don’t need them. So I’m guessing the doctrine has driven a requirement for them, in which case there’s a requirement for a decent number of escorts. With the typical speed of naval procurement that’s never going to happen.
I’m not proposing the UK has a war with anyone, we don’t often start them anyway, but the UK’s defence policy is based on fighting a number of conflicts of set sizes. It doesn’t say they’re only to be fought in the Persian Gulf region and not involve naval forces, currently the navy is being bled of funding and manpower to contribute to those conflicts leaving it unable to properly fulfill it’s duties in the event of a maritime biased conflict emerging. Do I know who where or why this might be, no, but then it’s worth bearing in mind a foreign office minister when interviewed in the 1970s considered that the Foreign Office has only made two mistakes in the 20th century, in 1914 and 1939 so apparently the experts aren’t that good either.
SkippyBingOff the top of my head, France, has SSNs, a Carrier with an actual air group and FF/DDs etc. Russia, debateable but they seem to like sending their carrier around with fixed wing aircraft embarked and they still have a lot of hulls all of which seem to be ridiculously over armed although I admit it’s debatable how many are actually serviceable. Japan seems to have ~50 FF/DD plus something that looks suspiciously like an LPH or two, they don’t choose to do power projection but it doesn’t stop them being a powerful navy. China meanwhile seems to be building new ships like it’s going out of fashion and have a desire to have a more active blue water capability hence my comment on maintaining that position, if we want to do that we actually have to build some new ships, not just 6 T45 and a pair of carriers. Note the doctrine required between 8 and 12 T45. In much the same way when the question was asked what do you want to replace Wessex and Puma the doctrine based answer was Blackhawk but for some reason the correct answer turned out to be Merlin and a Puma life extension.
The RN is in fact in some danger of becoming unbalanced in the power projection game, most of the Amphibious forces aren’t overly useful in anything other than an Amphibious op or benign peacetime ops. And seriously if you’re using 18000 ton LPD to do counter drugs operations in the Caribbean it’s time to ask about the balance of your fleet, incidently I don’t think an FF/DD is the best answer there either but until/unless we get a three tier FSC programme we’re unlikely to get it anyway.
SkippyBingNo, Doctrine is only mentioned once
No, you said Foreign Policy = Doctrine and Doctrine = Procurement and Military Education, unless you’re saying Foreign Policy = Procurement and Military Education which I don’t think it does.
Foreign Policy feeds in to doctrine, but it doesn’t appear to recognise the funding constraints on the armed forces which are being overstretched by our current commitments despite what government spokesman may wish you to believe.
It’s also arguable that the RN’s position as second most powerful navy in the world is no longer that clear cut, and not enough is being done if we wish the RN to maintain that position. FSC should have been decided years ago but was pushed back to avoid the government having to make a decision while MARS seems to also have been pushed back leaving the venerable fleet of tankers to soldier on well past their planned OSD.
SkippyBingYes, but it’s fairly easy to argue that currently the economy variable isn’t being fed in to the foreign policy equation.
If it was we wouldn’t be doing everything we are at the moment. Instead you appear to have two equations to give doctrine which aren’t related, giving two different answers. One that says we should be doing X, Y and Z and one which says we can only afford Z.
It appears we’re doing X, Y and Z whilst only actually being able to afford Z, hence the £15Billion shortfall between MoD aspirations and budget.
SkippyBingAgain: Economy + International Situation + Society = Foreign Policy
Foreign Policy = Doctrine
And Doctrine = Procurement + Military Education.
Really, I could have sworn Doctrine and Procurement were only tangentially related with the former being changed everytime we realise we can’t afford the later.
Sign In
