Most of that population inhabits small land areas that don’t take all that much to protect and haven’t been invaded(not counting the Falklands) for over 50 years and are unlikely to be in the forseeable future unless for some reason Russia and China go ape**** on Europe.

You don’t get that the military is not there just to keep “the evil enemy away” but also to protect the interests of the nation abroad? In the globalized world, protectionof citizens and interests abroad has become a vital mission. Let’s please grow up from the “invasion” thing and accept the implications of a globalized world where the UK has interests everywhere and is engaged in all sorts of situations.

Besides, the more your armed forces are prepared and strong, the less people will want to mess with you. It’s deterrence, which works, in its way, better than even Trident.
It is also work for hundred thousands of serving men, for a whole branch of industry, and generates a massive amount of richness for the nation itself.

Because amphibious capability made such a difference in Iraq and Afghanistan? Seriously, the idea of the UK launching a sea-to-land invasion on its own anytime in the forseeable future is ridiculous. If it ever happens it will be a US/NATO-led operation, in which case I doubt HMS Ocean and such would make a huge difference.

And the UK already has assets in Falklands big enough to repel any invasion. One thing you folks keep quiet about during defence cuts and brag about everywhere else is that the UK has one of the top 5 armed forces in the world and is seriously overarmed for a country of its size.

Anphibious capability was used by the Royal Marines in Iraq for the capture of the Hal-Faya peninsula. It wasn’t an “overlord” sized op, of course, but it was an anphibious ops, with naval gunfire support and everything.
In Afghanistan there can be no landing because there’s no sea, let’s not point to inconsistent facts, and let’s remember instead that the first UK troops came from the sea, from the decks of the carriers, and that most of the US air support came from aircraft carriers in the Indian Ocean.

Your point about having to face no anphibious operations in the future is laughable to say the least. I’d like to know on which facts such an assumption is based. Because, you know, already once the anphibious assault ships of the RN were going off service, and a few months later a “ridiculous” and “never-to-happen” sea-to-land attack was launched in San Carlos waters under heavy air attacks.

The fact you’d like to slash the defence budget all over to pay all sorts of other things is not a valid strategic fact for giving up Uk’s most valuable assets. Because UK may be small, but has still an international relevance and such globally-spread interests that it needs its force more than any other european nation.

The loss of amphib capability is an acceptable price actually. Given it’s essentially a bunch of island chains(including the Falklands) the UK is more likely to be invaded by sea itself than to do the invading on someone else’s shores.

Strongly disagree. The marines are actually far more likely to be used than any armored cavalry regiment. If they haven’t a beach to storm, they can be used as the best of all Light Infantries, and they have the advantage of being one of the logistically lighter units of the armed forces, relatively easy to deploy and sustain.

And then, sincerely, if you have no anphibious capability, what the hell do you build aircraft carriers for…? Projecting power only with a bunch of planes is something that never worked in history. At the end, land forces always have to do the work and hold the ground, and the Marines are the best at “smashing the door down” and set foot on the area you need to reach.

Again, the SDR is most likely going to assume that Britain risks no invasions. (Unless perhaps in the Falklands, where that can’t be ruled out) Fox keeps saying that Russians won’t come, and i guess he’s right enough…
The UK is far more likely to fight abroad. Africa, Middle-East… not Europe, we all are guessing. It is the least probable scenario.
With 70% of the world’s capital towns being less than 150 miles away from the sea, you’d lose the capability to land on the coast…?

And even if you were right and the risk was to have a few islands invaded… Without anphibious capability means that the invasion is either stopped as it happens… or becomes definitive defeat.
Is UK willing to keep garrisons on the various Falklands, SOuth Georgia and so along…? Garrisons numerous and powerful enough to fight off an invasion…?

I think it makes immensely more sense to keep the anphibious capability. Besides, ships like the Bay or Albion are the best at a wide variety of roles, included disaster relief. They are flexible like nearly nothing else.
It would be a crime to lose them after the RN fought so hard to build such fine capability up.

The F35 is the Joint STRIKE Aircraft and was born mainly to be a strike platform to do the air-to-ground job as the F22 were expected to give cover and keep the sky clean.
As it is, the F35 is mainly a bomb truck for nature. Compare its speed, acceleration, power/weight ratio, and expected veer ratio with those of true fighters like the Typhoon.

The F35 is far behind in these terms, starting from a maximum speed of mach 1.6 (yet to be demonstrated besides) and getting to a power ratio inferior to those of the fighters.
The F35 is superior because it has a better sensor fusion and avionic system. Depending on how much it is stealth at the proof of the fight, it may be able to fire its missile first, from the distance. But it can always miss or be avoided.

And engaged in a dogfight, the F35 would inexorably show its limits because it is not as powerful and agile as true fighters. The plane the F35 mostly resembles, is the Tornado GR4, actually: mainly for strike, even if has good performances enough that the RAF could create the F3 fighter version of the Tornado.

But as a matter of fact, F35 is no dogfighter. And partially not fighter at all.

Nothing much there which are ‘facts’ in the FT article, just options like all the other articles.

When Fox talks of cold war relics, he means Tanks & heavy armour. And the troops stationed in Germany awaiting the Soviets. Fox has actually made the point that the RN doesn’t have enough of a surface fleet, i’m not sure he’s including CVF when he says that but the chances of T45 getting the chop are miniscule (they’re hardly cold war either)

What he’s getting at is probably that T26 will not be gold plated and cheap as chips.

I’m not particularly liking the trade-off statements however, I thought this was going to be a needs based SDSR based on foreign policy rather than bargaining for survival by playing each service off against each other.

You thought that the review was going to be really strategy based…?
You have far more confidence than me in politics and politicians, then.

I don’t want to sound rude, but unfortunately it was more than obvious from the very start that the Review was going budget(cut)-based, and not really informed by any particular strategy.

As to the cold war relics, i agree and disagree.
Troops in Germany are a cold war relic for real, but it is a fact that at the moment bringing them back to the UK would cost money that the MOD does not have, so it is not going to happen tomorrow, but gradually on a quite long term. Besides, the british troops generate 100 millions a year for the economy of Germany, and Berlin will not be that happy to lose that in a moment of economic crisis.

Tanks and self-propelled artillery are cold war relics… in part. They are likely to bear a bad cut, and it is partially acceptable because right now they aren’t needed. But they are still weapons with a future and a relevance, and it is unlikely to see the tank abandoned anytime soon.

The RN needs more ships. For sure. But even if they say so, i’m willing to bet that the Astutes will only be 6, that MARS will suffer a torturous history of delays before a ship is actually built, and that the frontline force of the navy will drop even lower despite the wise words.

The Type 45 is no Cold War relic to me. But apparently, it is for Fox. What other ship the RN has been acquiring that fits the accuse of being “too specialized and high-tech”? It was surely an attack on the Daring. Luckily, as i said myself, the Type 45s are at a stage where cutting on them is impossible.

The Type 26… Your point only reinforces my fear: is UK going to build and use frigates without Harpoons and without missiles, or at the best “fitted for but not with”? The C2 ship always sounded like this, but at least the Type 26, i was hoping, would be a proper ship capable to fight and not a massive, 6000 tons Clyde!

Carriers and Marines: both are the cornerstone of a deterrent/warfighting force. They are the solid capability the UK has to influence events around the world. They are the only true mean of power projection for the nation. Cut on that, and the UK will be about as influent as Sweden.

Meanwhile, this is a new interview with Liam Fox where he very wisely points out that Britain is still surrounded by sea and needs the Royal Navy. http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4722816&c=FEA&s=INT

It is the bits about “cold war legacy systems” that scares me, as always.

Besides, the Financial Times online has been reporting that in past saturday’s meeting to shape up the cuts to the Armed Forces, the RN was reportedly being cornered into either losing one of the carriers or losing its amphibious ships and hand control of the Marines to the army.
Potentially two of the most demented moves ever proposed in history, if not the absolute worst of all. I’m hoping that Liam Fox or whoever saw the idiocy of this army-driven position.

The generals of the army lately have been more than disappointing, i must say. They are the ones that, with the excuse of Afghanistan and “boots on the ground” are asking the other services to sacrifice vital capabilities and leave the nation nearly incapable to project any power at all outside its coasts.
The amphibious capability must stay in place, and the carriers as well, otherwise everything loses sense.

Unfortunately, the press had a lot to say before the meeting actually happened, and now i can’t find any rumor about what was said in the discussion. If someone hears something more, please share!

Apology accepted, in this case at least.

About the AESA, I remember seeing at least one V22 concept that had a triangular radome over the fuselage, presumably a fixed phased array radar. Also given the larger size and capacity of the V22 it could accomodate something much bigger than Searchwater.

As for Lockheed’s plan,

From the above link.

Correct, there were concept arts of a top-mounted triangle radome with an undisclosed radar type, possibly derivated from the Hawkeye’s system.

And as to the Lockheed matter, i did write an idiocy in my precedent post: i wanted to write that it is not Searchwater, and instead i wrote what i wrote. I read about their particular offer, i even was the one to post the link to the article. I just had a lapsus writing my last comment. I’ll edit it now.