Oh wind i’m not a massive fan of. I don’t mind some capacity provided for by wind, as long as the green lobby can deal with having oil/coal/gas fired plants on standby as a backup.

Personally, I think nuclear is the best option too, but that some renewables could be useful (Severn Barrage, offshore wind if coupled with for example, wave power to provided a large offshore generating station). This is for the UK only of course, some countries can do a lot more with things like Solar and Geothermal power.

Wrong and wrong, the design phase is ongoing, 12 pipes was mooted as was only 3 boats, however people who know a lot more than Gordon Brown have already said that 4 is the minimum needed and any cut would allow for coverage gaps.

Their have been NO official decisions as to the shape of our Vanguard replacement beyond the memorandum of understanding on the common missile compartment

Experts don’t make policy, Brown does, he stated the 12 and 3 numbers.

I agree that 3 is too few, but that is what the current government are running with.

Grim901

I tried to make this clear before, i’m NOT arguing against you per say. I personally think trade with Europe is a good thing. What I was trying to show you was that if we were to say that we didn’t want the EU telling us how to run our own justice system and farms and foreign policies and the EU got petulant and turned off the trade, we COULD, if necessary, survive.

Exactly – without any difficulty. But in reality we need each other and the trade would never be “turned off” as you put it. It is a comon misconception that we can only trade with the EU countries if we are a member of the club. If that were the case the EU would be a very insular club.

Not what I meant. I don’t honestly think we ever would stop trading with the EU, i’m saying that to get inside those trade barriers and tariffs and to have access to the common subsidies which keep all EU farmers on par, requires us to be within the EU and as such, limited in our sovereign power as a nation.

If we were to step outside of that control, my question is, could we continue to stay within that economic relationship, similar to those of nations within any normal trade bloc, without adverse consequences (punishment of a sort for leaving the EU). I don’t think we could say that we no longer want to listen to EU directives and still have full access to the common market. We’d be in the same situation as other nations who trade with nations in the EU, still happens all the time, but there are more disadvantages and issues.

Indeed. But the EU is not going to turn off the trade, ever. The idea that it can is only supportable if one thinks about ‘the EU’ as something completely different from what it actually is, & something which we are not able to influence. In reality, we have a great deal of influence over EU policy – and some of the most unpopular EU policies are actually British in origin.

BTW, I fear you are suffering from a common misapprehension. The body which is often (usually mistakenly, but sometimes correctly) seen as interfering with our courts is the European Court of Human Rights, which is not an EU institution. The European Convention on Human Rights, for which the court is the enforcement body, pre-dates the EU & is completely separate from it.

The convention was heavily influenced by the UK, & is largely based on English legal principles. It was controversial back in 1950 in many countries, because it was seen as us telling the rest of Europe how to run their justice systems. 😀

As far as I can see, the only negative effect it has had on the UK is a weird & almost invariably wrong notion that various things (some of them explicitly permitted by the court, in rulings on cases brought before it, others which it has never been asked to rule on) aren’t allowed because of ‘human rights’ law.

I’m well aware of the differences thank you. Please don’t mistake me for a “bloke in the pub.”

I’m aware we have a great deal of influence within the EU, but the EU in turn has a large on us, and we are not the only players. The net effect of the EU having ANY power to alter decisions of the British legislature, judiciary or executive is one of a dilution of British sovereignty compared to that of an independent nation. That means we have to strike a balance between how much sovereignty we, as a nation, are willing to give up and the potential benefits of being a member state of the EU. The core of my argument would be that this balance has swung too far in the direction of a loss of sovereignty.

I’m not suggesting total independence from the EU, as I said above, I believe it would be infeasible, or at least partially damaging to our economy and in the long run, it is better to speak with one loud voice, than many quiet ones. What I would suggest is that we “claw back powers” (as the Tories like to say, and yes a little bit of me died inside for using that phrase). We have opt outs in some crucial policies, we should have more. I’d also keep us a way from whole EU defence policy, except in some very limited areas (UN style peacekeeping) and leave that to willing nations/groups within the EU to handle as necessary.

The European Court of Human Rights on the other hand can go to hell. We may have been a major reason and force for its formation, but when it overturns the decisions and ruling of the Law Lords (now Supreme Court) then it is directly and pointlessly interfering with the British judiciary and its right to decide on a nations internal affairs, without external influence. I wouldn’t mind so much if the member states that sit in the Court didn’t have such a diverse set of legal systems and laws. How can a case that has no bearing on anyone but the UK, be overturned by a court that may well have made a decision based on entirely different values (Think about the possible range of laws from Britain, to Holland, to Russia etc.)

Back to topic, anyone watching PMQ’s (quite defence heavy today) and the defence green paper discussion? Can’t decide who is actually advocating a decent defence policy, both shadow/defence ministers seem to be supporting a good idea, but both parties have made statements to the contrary higher up. :S Lib Dems are being their usual (pratty) selves and refusing to accept the Trident decision (one of the few defence issues actually voted on).

Yes, and most of our trade with our neighbours is by sea. Vast numbers of containers arrive on trailers, for example, & we also have a lot of short-distance bulk freight. We also trade gas & electricity directly, via two-way cables & pipelines.

I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make. By value, we trade more with Europe than with the rest of the world put together. We are physically linked, via railways, pipelines & power cables. Those pipes & cables weren’t built for political reasons, but by businesses, for solid business reasons.

You say “we don’t have to”. But it makes sense to! It’s good business.

BTW, 95% is tonnage. Value is much less.

I tried to make this clear before, i’m NOT arguing against you per say. I personally think trade with Europe is a good thing. What I was trying to show you was that if we were to say that we didn’t want the EU telling us how to run our own justice system and farms and foreign policies and the EU got petulant and turned off the trade, we COULD, if necessary, survive.

Again, because you keep missing this, I’m NOT saying we should, I was just pointing out alternative possibilities. Not unlike the MoD planning to sell a carrier to India.

@Pj: this requires further discussion, it’s an interesting argument.

@Aspis: There is a massive counter argument bursting into my head, I just had to write a term paper on the subject, but i’m far too tired for it now, another time perhaps.

Well…he says placing one foot behind the papapet….The largest unilateral war we have fought in the last 50 years was won with a mere 8 Infantry Battalions….so lets keep a “national force” for emergency use of say 24 infantry battalions on top of an enlarged 3Cdo.

Lets place strike in the hands of the FAA and the Carriers and let the RAF concentrate on Multi-role AD/CAS, ISTAR and Transport (so lose the “tornado” sqns). VIP transport complete luxury so bin 32 sqn.

Dare I say nuclear deterrent at the risk of sparking a whole different debate. I would say at least reduce the deterrent, perhaps ALCM-carrier based so we have the option but its far cheaper.

With all the money saved we beef up ISTAR, SF, Commando, RN hull numbers and basically create a modern version of British 18th-19th Century defence policy, supporting our allies with highly trained professional forces that are also able to stand off at sea and hit where they like.

Jumps behind parapet and places fingers in ears.

Seriously though we have money issues in the UK, so what we should consider is keeping the hard skills as i’ve listed, the stuff that takes R&D and shed loads of training and reduce the stuff that can be picked up again in time of crisis. If the Mongol hoarde appeared at Europes gates the army can be bulked out with conscripts that can be turned into decent infantiers in a few weeks, you can’t teach them the skills of ISTAR, SF, Amphib etc quickly though. Just a possible solution to a tough choice.

Recent research (and you will have to give me time to dig out the article) suggests that Empire was cost neutral, we got out what we put in which suggests that it was trade outside the Empire that made the UK rich.

An interesting proposal. How many infantry battalions are we at now? 30 odd? I’d suggest that since we currently seem to need large troop numbers for our current conflict, we should perhaps, not drop numbers as much as you suggest, but alter roles a little. So removing a large number of those troops dedicated to ceremonial duties and re-roling them as infantry. Likewise for a few of the armoured regiments. I can’t see us needing to use more than 100-150 tanks even in the worst case scenario (many of these troops already do serve in Afghanistan as drivers, so it may be useful to train them as far as an infantryman as a matter of routine, thus fewer numbers needed overall but still enough men to perform all roles as needed).

After that i’d cut maybe a couple more battalions and rerole them as TA, less expensive, but there in an emergency and miles better than a conscript.

I’d also say that if your plan were to be used, it would lead to some increases in expenditure in some areas, like the FAA would require a much larger force for strike role, a large number of which it would be unnecessary (costly) to train in carrier ops.

Can’t agree with the nuclear deterrent bit either. If we aren’t going for SLBMs we should get out of the nuke business altogether (no thanks) because any other system is only really for smaller scale tactical strikes which we should need to be making in any case (they nuke us, we end them or they don’t nuke us, we don’t nuke them, what else would we need them for?).

Apart from that I agree with the core of your idea that it’s the high end equipment and the highly skilled people we can’t afford to lose even if it seems counter intuitive to lose battalions during an infantry focused war being fought now. Infantry is quicker to recruit and train than a carrier is to build. As long as we keep a stockpile of weapons laying about for them.

That very last point is interesting, i’ll have to take it up with one of my lecturers.

No it’s not my proposal and I’m not defending it.

You asked me what I think will happen and I gave an opinion.

I’m not saying it’s right or wrong – I’m just saying what I consider the most likely eventuality.

Hmm, I don’t think it would get to quite that point. It is simply too far for any cut to go. The reason I said Taranis would get the job was because the govt. has supported it and kept funding it, thanks to the DIS.

There will HAVE to be some kind of replacement of the GR4’s, 120+ airframes can’t simply be retired without replacement in a force this small. And I think by 2024 a Typhoon buy is unlikely since they’ll be long out of production and F35 is likely to be more expensive and less useful in the GR4 role than Taranis.

Existing airframes will take over their role.

Around 160 Typhoons, of which T1 will be at/past retirement age and T2’s coming towards the end of their lives and a few F35’s? Maybe 30-50 F35’s if the RAF are lucky. That is taking over the role of 60-70 Harriers, 130 odd GR4’s and 60 F3’s?

That is your proposal for replacing the mainstay of Britain’s Ground attack capability?

Do you think it would be viable for BAe to privately fund a prototype stealth airframe, which leveraged Typhoon engines & systems?

Say, for arguments sake – single engined and aimed at the export market (I doubt we’ll be seeing any other RAF fastjet orders aside from the EF&F35 for 30 years)

I’m aware of the Replica but afaik that was just a mock up and a “Plan B” if problems developed in the JSF program. I guess a big issue would be the F-35 and creating a potential market rival to one of the companies main projects, even if as I envision it, it was simpler and didn’t have all the F-35’s capabilities.

So what do you expect to see happen when GR4 needs replacement in 14 years?