Liger30Trident 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.
I don’t give care about Italy lacking a nuclear deterrent, even if i’d like it to have one.
I care about the british armed forces, and a lot. And making the math, i say it is less of a risk to drop Trident deterrent and live under the US/French NATO nuclear umbrella than to have a 3-boats, bad-legged half deterrent that comes at the cost of conventional warfare capabilities that are needed more badly than an indipendent nuclear deterrent.
I’m talking about Marines, Amphibis, even Gurkhas, and all the other assets that are going to be lost forever leaving bleeding gaps that an half-assed, reduced detterent won’t be able to fill up nor hide.
I can ensure you that i never wanted to compare british and italian armed forces. The first, at the moment, are immensely superior, and i am more affectionate to the Desert Rats than i am to the italian Folgore, believe it or not.
I’m deeply worried by the cuts to come, however… and even if i ALWAYS sustained Trident was vital for the UK, if the government is not willing to pay for it, it has to do without it and accept the political consequences. The MOD can’t truly keep cutting back on the SAS, on the boots, on choppers and ships and Marines. It simply cannot. It already cut far too much, and it is going to slash such holes in the forces in October that any additional Trident-caused cut would be totally suicidal.
Your accusation to me is thus ridiculous to no end, sorry if i make you notice.
Liger30Drama, drama, drama! 😉
If you find it funny…
Good for you. Either you don’t give a damn, or you are still dreaming a Defence Review that will never be. I fear you’ll be surprised in October.
Liger30New Press report is announcing today that the Gurkhas brigade is a very good candidate for the chop.
If it is true, i’m really curious to see how the Hell they plan to continue supporting the Afghanistan operation without making soldiers stay for 9 or 12 months instead of the current 6.
The Gurkhas brigade is a regular deployed unit that goes to Afghanistan, together with the Commandos, the 16AB and the 9°, 11° Light and 4° Mechanized brigades.
Ironically, most of these units i just listed, and in particular Commandos and 16AB, seem to be one of the favorite targets for cost saving measures and cut proposals.
Yet another proof that the SDSR is NOT strategic at all. NOT tactical at all, even. NOT smart at all.
It is budget robbing. Pure and simple.
And the other evidence is that the “loser” of the day is going to be, once more, the Navy.
Say that i consider this review totally demented is still being absolutely generous.
At this point, it is clear that no one gives a frigging damn about the defence of the realm, and even less about Trident. Don’t replace it at this point. The scale of the cuts to come in October alone will be enough to make the UK nearly powerless, without cutting even more to fund Trident.
It simply can’t work.
Liger30It’s the Super Tucano the General was talking about
Correct, but i’m pretty sure the Tucano could possibly be armed, even if lightly.
That’s not the point anyway. The point that keeps standing is that the proposal inexorably requires a new buy of new planes. New integration work for weaponry. A new squadron to found and sustain. Be it Super Tucano, Skyraider or even the old enemy Pucara (which would offer the advantage of the TWO engines, always welcome when they fire on you), there would be a quite large sum to money that would have to be splashed out to create a very single-task unit.
End result: NO savings at all. Actually, it would be added costs.
Only the USA have enough money in their defence budget to seriously consider a fleet for all roles of warfare and point to obtain such long-term savings. The UK must do with its little fleets, and have few of them, because each different fleet is a different sustainment, training and support cost. It is essential that its planes can cover as many roles as possible.
As to the AC-130 being vulnerable in day-time, i can agree to a point. It certainly is easy to spot in daylight. But i don’t think it would be so much more vulnerable than choppers flying in and out, and it wouldn’t be any more vulnerable than the Super Tucano.
Most serious threat being MANPADS, and the Spectre is well equipped with adequate countermeasures.
Liger30Actually ARTISAN is also an AESA. Having inherited technology from the Commander radar set it has more operating modes than the Sampson(air traffic control and so on). The area where it falls short of Sampson is probably basic operating characterisitcs: range, no. of targets, target tracking capability etc. In any case it’s (reportedly) quite a bit cheaper than Sampson, and it still has the ability to track supersonic AshMs at 25km or so(hence being coupled with the CAMM SHORAD system).
It is incomparably cheaper than Sampson, but also has far, far less range. For what i heard, the Artisan is anyway a close relative to the Sampson: the aerial of the Artisan is a “sized down” Sampson aerial.
The Sampson, however, has 2 aerials facing opposite directions, and larger ones, giving an obviously massively enhanced capability.
The Artisan 3D is a good radar, anyway. My only doubt is about the range… a bit too limited to act as main sensor for the Type 23 and for the future frigates. For the CVF, however, it seems pretty perfect since it is in couple anyway with the radar for Long Range search sitting atop the other island.
Liger30Of course, but… it is still a funny immage. And “rule” makes it funnier.
Liger30I wonder…..
France a part of the Commonwealth, ruled by Her Majesty?
Now that’s an awesome image. 😀
That would have ensured a RN with nuclear CVFs and a solid nuclear deterrent too. 😉 It kinda makes regret come for saying “no”.
Liger30Anyone know if the favourite aircraft of the Chief of the Defence Staff – the Super Tucano – could land and take-off on the CVF?
Most likely, no. I’m pretty sure they couldn’t. And anyway, i’m surprised that a proposal to arm Tucano planes was considered serious enough for the UK to stay in the air so long. Personally, i think it is… totally absurd a proposal for a whole series of reasons.
1) The RAF has Tucano planes, but they are used for training and i doubt they could be used for any other role, so NEW Tucano would have to be bought.
2) The RAF Tucanos have no weapons capability, nor any credible self-protection electronic suite. Even to fight guerrilla, a Tucano would need to be integrated with weaponry, from Paveway IV to Brimstone to rocket and gun pods, and armed with sensors that allow the usage of this weaponry. All this would have to obviously be paid for, and a series of electronic countermeasures would also need to be added onto the planes.
Result is: buy new planes, integrate weaponry and defenses, and run a “Counterinsurgency” air squadron. Savings over using Tornado and Harrier already available? None, in the short term. To be precise, money (a lot of it) would have to be spent creating this capability.
Same thing would happen using the Hawk or any other “unexpensive” platform.
The hope is to realize “savings” on fuel and running costs.
The most concrete result, anyway, is that there would be even less money to spend on actual planes like the F35, which will be able to do anything from High-Intensity Warfare to Counterinsurgency work.
While the Tucano would be a flying coffin if used against any sort of even weak air defence system and thus is good just for Afghanistan (and not without serious risks either).
And anyway, arguably, the best platform to support from the air an operation like Afghanistan would be a bunch of AC130 Spectre working together in a network with a number of Fire Shadow loitering ammunitions and possibly other drones like Predators.
That would offer:
A) Endurance on the field to ensure the lads on the ground are covered constantly, true 24/24 hours, 7/7 days.
B) Intelligence and overhead observation of the battlefield
C) Selective precision effect against a range of targets, with the ability to go from pin-point accuracy strikes in villages to a potentially devastating barrage of fire to quickly erase any serious resistance or moving group of enemies.
Liger30This image from some years ago shows that the initial plan was to fit Sampson on the CVFs.
Yeah, it was.
Before the hundredth cost cutting exercise kicked in.
Liger30Also I understood the CVF did have C4I as per Navy Matters is this not correct?
The article you linked states it: just after the C4ISR requirement was drafted, inevitable cost-cutting measures ensured the CVF would not get true C4 capability. Possibly, a CVF and a Type 45 working together may be able to work as a command post, but sincerely, i have my doubts.
It is less than optimal a decision, this is clear.
Finally any resource sharing arrangement with the French will be for coalition operations and it will have to work if the French want to operate of our carriers and refuel from our tankers and is there any reason why you think the French would refuse to honour their side of any such agreement?
No agreement exists for the moment. They are proposals. And the one about sharing aircraft carriers is ridiculous and totally unfeasible if the RN stays VTOL. Rafales won’t be able to operate from CVF, and the F35B will struggle to operate decently from Charles De Gaulle.
As for the tankers, that is an agreement i’m hoping to see signed, with french buying hours of usage of the new RAF tankers.
However, my doubts about all this hot-air talk are massive. Cooperative ops are often illusory. If the UK had to tackle a Falklands crisis, the french couldn’t care less, and would never allow the UK to use their warships and risk them being sunk.
In peacetime, it is a thing. In wartime, another.
Besides, Iraq was another operation that the french wouldn’t have collaborated for. Afghanistan itself would have seen collaboration with limits.
Too easy to have unique national interests that simply don’t match. Too many possible scenarios in which there would be no collaboration.
If it was that easy, Europe would already have “Federal” armed forces like the US.
Liger30Perhaps the reason this choice between carriers or amphibious ships is having to be faced is that the Navy made a big mistake in not opting for multi-purpose ships that could fulfil both roles, such as the USN LHA/LHD types, or the similar if smaller ships built by Spain and Italy. It seems the RN never really gave up on CVA-01…
The reason a choice has to be made is that this is a massive Budget cutting exercise with nothing even remotely strategic being considered in it.
Liger30You do not have to invade a country to coerce it surely?
Unfortunately yes, you have. History says it. Ultimately, it always comes down to stepping on the ground and doing the final job and holding ground.
In the 1930 there were men like Dohuet that wrote of future wars entirely shaped by the use of strategic bombing.
It was an illusion. The IIWW, Vietnam, Jugoslavia, Lebanon, Iraq 1 and 2, Afghanistan… they all required troops to get in the area. There’s not a single war that was decided by the air force alone.
The British armed forces are set up for small scale force intervention on its own or can take part in major warfare against other competent countries as part of an allied force.
Currently, yes. And they do it awesomely. Tomorrow probably not, if the SDSR is really heading the way the press outlines.
Liger30You 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.
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.
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.
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.
Liger30As part of a coalition between allies. Could have been done by the US if necessary.
Corporate wasn’t a directly opposed beach assault though.
Well, then they could also have taken Basra, and could they have done without Challenger tanks either.
Then again, it would have been no work of Coalition, but it would have been an US operation.
And the landing on the Falklands wasn’t opposed? Now, this is new!
You mean you want a Omaha beach style “Save Private Ryan” landing operation, perhaps? Is that what you mean as “opposed beach assault”?
Well, then we agree. Only the US and China marines would be able to do a landing with such active resistance. BUT the whole point of the beach assault is to set a foot ashore where the enemy does not expect you.
It is hard to see an enemy being able to actively defend to that extent hundreds of miles of shoreline, which means that a beach assault is carried out with as much surprise as possible, swiftly, in an area where defences are weak.
San Carlos was choosen exactly for that reason, and there were raids all along the coast to prepare the beach assault and ensure argies would not know where the marines would land.
That’s the whole point of beach assault and marines: their strategic mobility.
Used to land on the feet of an Heavy Armor division, of course, then it is suicide, but that is hardly a justification to give up the concept of projection from the sea.
Liger30Seriously, you’re suggesting a UK amphibious assault on Iran without allies? Not going to happen.
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…?
Now, that is hardly a smart way to envision a military operation. People DIES for that kind of easy planning.
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. (USA are obviously a thing for their own)
As to Falklands’ marines wanting more Chinooks, we have no doubts on it. The Atlantic Conveyor was going in there EXACTlY to bring in Chinook choppers. That’s why the RN struggled like hell to get HMS Ocean, too.
As to Marines wanting to go just on Chinooks, no. I disagree. You need a lot of equipment for a serious ops, and landing crafts are invaluable to bring stuff ashore. Also, had the argies bases been closer to the islands, the choppers would have seriously risked nasty meetings with Skyhawks and Mirages and sidewinder missiles that would have made a large scale chopper assault not really healthy.
Besides, back then there were Skorpion light tanks that could slung under a Chinook. With this capability lost, and with CVR(T) to go entirely soon enough, the Marines need more than ever to be able to bring ashore some armor to shield themselves with.
Sign In
