I’d expect the final product to be an EJ200 powered supercruiser. The Ardour version might do for bomb trucking later in a successful air campaign.

Not as likely as that. Air Perhaps or Air Maybe.

Historical patterns

In the circumstances of 1940 so would I. But this isn’t 1940, neither was 2001. There isn’t a third world dictator who can threaten the UK. Al-Qaida can threaten the UK but not the survival of the nation or state, unlike Germany in 1940.

There just isn’t the threat anymore and I really can’t see a threat emerging in the next ten years and I hope the outcome of the SDR reflects that fact.

Regards

In terms of similarities with the past this is more like the early 1930s. A time when Britain cut back rather than run at a deficit. As a consequence she was poorly prepared for rearmament in 1937. Very little of the surviving industry had updated their production equipment and practices in the preceding ten years. So even if there hadn’t been a war, ‘business as usual’ would have been a few steps behind the commercial competition. Analysis after WW2 concluded that convoy escorts should have been the top priority of rearmament. Which is worrying when you see how keen the RAF is to sacrifice the MR4.

National interests lie abroad because Britain must buy and sell abroad to survive (we lack the raw materials, manufacturing and agriculture to be self sufficient). We use the threat of military intervention to ensure/insure we get a fair deal and can trade freely. United State’s commercial and/or security interests don’t always coincide with ours. Sometimes we have to act alone or lose out. Even when we act with others, there are behind the scenes deals done on the basis of significant contributors getting a better deal (either directly through terms or indirectly through political clout with junior partners).

The sea. Above it, bellow it and on it. Is vital to Britain’s economic and diplomatic (which amounts to longer term economic) future. Strategic Raiding isn’t a stance based on preferring particular ‘toys’ or picking on other countries. It is about the core requirements of British defence strategy. Defending everything that is required to sustain British jobs and trade.

In spite of the majority of votes going to parties that espoused a delay before making cuts (next year) to allow the recovery to reinvigorate the economy, we seem to have a ‘mandate’ for 40% cuts ASAP. Democracy? Ha!

It will be argued that the economy has shrunk, we are deep in debt and overspending, so the cuts are needed and they may as well be made now to save money. You could equally argue that a lot of the shrinkage is a temporary fluctuation (months or a year or two not decades) and that cutting back now forces cuts below those required. With this smaller economy it will take longer (or further cuts and taxes) to pay off the debt. A deficit to keep the economy going might have made the debt larger, but the larger economy would still have paid off a larger debt quicker. Many of the excessive spending measures could have been cut back as the economy returned to normal to take up the slack. Also the massive unemployment that the coalition has subscribed to will cause more long term financial problems (and social) than a larger deficit now. With less economy to put it right.

Efficient contracting, management, manufacturing and training makes spending go further and increases the effects sought from defence forces and other government spending. You don’t get efficient by slashing the budget overnight. Cuts in this parliament by all means. A clear majority voted for that. Make it focused and smoothly implemented. Use this year for planning and small starting cuts in waste as the economy picks up.

I feel the public aren’t focused on nationally important issues because printed and broadcast media don’t care. I’m not sure if a nationality requirement for ownership would help (USA does), but something must be changed if this intransigent view of national interest continues. At least you could count on some local interest in outcomes from Labour. With so much funding for Conservative coming from outside the country I wonder if we have a foreign puppet government now.

Protecting our sea lanes is the first priority of UK defence forces. It is the weak link that must be strengthened at all times. Stopping trade to these islands would be disastrous for us.

Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carrier Construction

Oxley to provide LED navigation lights for aircraft carriers
28 Jun 2010

Northrop Grumman Corp. has chosen Oxley Developments to design and create LED navigation and signal lights for two new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy.

Oxley Developments, an LED lighting manufacturer, has been awarded a contract by Northrop Grumman Corporation to provide detailed engineering of LED navigation and signal lights for the two new Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers currently under construction for the Royal Navy. The value of this contract is confidential.

from: http://www.ledsmagazine.com/news/7/6/16

Beginning to see the light?

The true cost of these aircraft carriers is in the other ships and aircraft that have been lost to keep them in the budget up to this point.

I sincerely hope that future governments recognise the RUSA Strategic Raiding option as a signpost to a more navally oriented defence force. The large armies of the 20th century saw Britain drawn into empire crippling battles while leaving her relatively unprepared for defence of vital sea lanes and lucrative interests abroad.

No matter how it is done, ensuring that food and other resources sufficient to supply Great Britain and Northern Ireland can get through is the first duty of any defence force. Immediately after the second world war the lesson learnt was that convoy escort should have been the first area met by pre war build up and that peace time levels of convoy escort capability should have been higher. The geography of the world hasn’t changed enough (channel tunnel, air freight) to change that. Perhaps MPAs have a greater role to play these days, but the principle still holds.

Beyond that Aircraft carrier groups, nuclear submarines, cyber defence, domestic air interception, intelligence, domestic COIN and space communications are clear defence priorities for a state such as ours. Unless we have committed to defend Afghanistan indefinitely (that would be rash) I expect the big saving to be a gradual reduction in the army to less than half it’s current size.

Reading the Guardian and Independent as frequently, if not more so, than the Times and Telegraph doesn’t make me a head in the sand pacifist. I resent this shallow (narrow?) characterisation.

Personally I think a permanent ring fence of 2.75% of GDP on defence spending is far more practical than the 2% suggested earlier in this thread. Excluding operational costs and strategic nuclear deterrent. I’d exclude the Astute class, within that deterrent, too. Four nuclear boats ordered every 7.5 years seems to be the minimum to sustain design and build capability. Build new reactor cores for a thirty year life for a final fleet of 12 SSN and 4 SSBN.

PS the QEs are optimised for about 40 aircraft (to maximise sorties), but you could clog them up with more aircraft in the traditional manner. I doubt that they will ever carry more than 36 F-35s, 4 AEW aircraft and 6 ASW aircraft. Although one squadron of Lightning IIs is the likely peacetime quota.

Yet more unsourced bull**** from the times IMO

A1 assessment. They do this with any proposal, no matter how theoretical.

ps
Too many civil servants? Ladles and Jelly-spoons I give you: The Gray Report – Acquisition Review as PDF
I’ve never seen the MoD get such a pasting.

Is it possible that there are worries that the first engine (F-135) will be so over budget that it will make the price of the aircraft look bad. Excluding the price of the engine will allow customers to draw their own conclusions once they have a choice of engines.

Even if we take the troll bait and ask ‘what would SSNs do without ICBMs?’ the answers include SF insertion, TLAM launch, Torpedo launch and SigInt.

If the US suddenly stopped servicing the ICBMs we would have a long time to come up with our own missile (something that we would have no problem doing) as they don’t all come up for service at the same time.