Discussion in 'The Quarterdeck' started by WhizzbangDai, Feb 28, 2009.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Well? Has he got a point..
From the article
The Union Jack?
What do you think Dai?
The frightening thing is that as assessments go - this one is a pretty fair reflection of the shape of things to come [IMHO naturally].
Not so certain about there being any T23s about in 2020 though. True we will have some good pieces of kit but we'll knack all to project any kind of presence around the world which means we'll have to pick and choose where we want to be. My concern is also about our future ability to safeguard these large assets. I can't see the Treasury paying out for a half dozen Frigates anytime soon.
Well, insofar as that at the moment with the ships in the pipeline it doesn't look too good. But it hasn't taken into account the fact that the RN is mid-upgrade, and that there are several new classes inc the FSC (whatever that may turn out to be) in the pipeline. It's very bad luck that mid upgrade we got dropped into a war in AF and IQ that sucked billions into essential equipment, and that we hit a financial recession just as all the older ships begin to wear out.
But, as to optomising the RN to operate under US support, I think is a bogus claim. If that were so, then the USN wouldn't have had to give us communications equipment in 2003 so we could work together. The 2006 Strategic Plan would have emphasised the inter-operability if that was where the Rn was driving, but most of it was about power profection - hence 2x big carriers, excellent air defence destroyers so that the carrier aircraft can focus on strike, and a new ASW ship/general flag flyer frigate. This suggests a move towards all round capabilities and defending ourselves without need of US help.
I'd hope, persoanlly that in times of growth and less commitments, we'd squeeze through the aquisition of more T45's and a couple of FSC's. And buy some d*mn corvettes, mainly because I like the word....
edited to add, choosing the Aussies or the Japanese is a ridiculous choice based upon the factors that the australians and Japanese, especially the Japanese, do not hold any wish to fly flags or worry about anything beyond self denfence. The australians do, but their defence budget is so small they are not a realistic choice as an ally, and they are so crippled by lack of manpower they cannot even a manage to crew all their ships.
I wouldn't write the Aussies off, I think they'll become a fairly big player one day. This article is from The Australian which is always worth a look at its defence section.
Let you in on a secret, you defend a task force against air attack using aircraft. The missile armed ships can defend BS was proven during the Falklands War
The 'awesome' Nay will consist of 2 carriers fitted for but not with much. At best 36 A/C, no refueling planes, no COD, no proper AWACS. 6 DDG's fitted with what is basically an updated and long range version of Sea Wolf and not much more of them than a 23 carriesâ€¦ great against missiles, but lacking the BANG to be a good SAM.
A motley collection of a dozen 23's running at twice their design livesâ€¦ Strategic land attack will be limited to which ever T or A boat is around with it's handful of TLAMS.
Hilarious, is your dad an admiral and he told you that?
Sorry, don't know how to do multiple quotes! This is a contradiction, if they gave us this, they gave us that so we could work under them.
Oh really, have you seen the Japanese navy? I have, and their ships look very capable to me and there is no doubting the professionalism of their people. As to their aspirations on a global scale, you think that they're happy to sit back and be nobodies? History tells a different story. :roll:
This does look good, but somehow I can't see it happening in the 15 year time frame given, if at all. As usual they are talking about the sexy hardware items and seem to have forgotten that the RANs most pressing problem is manpower.
The Japanese are a force to be reckoned with. They are easily the best Asian navy and there would be very little to choose between them or any NATO Navy.
I think he has got a point. Defence cuts, plus the massive expense of fighting wars in IQ and AF have just bled the MOD's pot dry and when compared to the need for body armour, armoured vehicles that don't rip apart when hit by IEDs and strike acft/munitions, the RN comes rather a long way down the shopping list. Not saying it's right, but it's the way it is. Our current adversaries; Iraqi insurgents/militias and the Taleban, not to mention home grown Islamic extremists, tend not to affected much by what we deliver. I know there's international piracy, which admittedly is gaining in importance and media coverage, but what use is a super-carrier, or T45 against them?
I agree with squirrel to a degree. The RN is being shaped for a vision for the next 25 years that doesn't have a scenario where we operate independantly of the USN. Having just come back from a multinational conf the same can be said of AUS, CAN, JPN et al and even the USN - they don't and can't see how they can operate alone even with their standing up of their new 4th Fleet.
Our problem is simply money, we're a long way down the totem pole when it comes to getting cash and the politicians and strategists cannot see an urgent need to expand the Fleet. One of the reasons for the latter is possibly because we've lurched into the "make do" culture and respond to every adhoc challenge (Atalanta etc) and make it work despite the pull on resources.
As for a resurgence of AU and JPN; AU have a major shipbuilding programme but are hampered by a lack of personnel further inhibited by an inability to recruit despite major salary reviews, even when they get more platforms and people it will take them a long time to get the experience and training right. JPN have some great platforms but are handcuffed by their constitutuion.
I simply cannot see a scenario where in a major maritime conflict we operate by ourselves.
Ever thought that this was the "old" Labour grand plan? Let "new" Labour use the Military to destroy itself? Also a fair bet that the Voters would be so p**sed of with the body count that they'd be happy to be incapable of offensive action. After all, who are we defending ourselves against? Surely any threat to us is also a threat to the EU and the US?
The intellectual Left's dream come true!
Do you know what? Normally I'm quite forward when offering my view on things but in this instance of ignorant, idle journalism, I just can't be arsed.
Its as if history is repeating itself. Does the goverment not learn?
Lets look at the Falklands, the war that effectivley saved the navy from major budget, ship and as a result, navy power cut. Lucky us, we hadn't thrown our ships away by then...
If you look back as far as pre 1939 history, a naval disarmament left Britain powerless against the Nazi war machine after the second world war. Look what happened there. Of course, you cant compare then to now, but its proof of what potentally could happen with a weakened armed force.
Back int day, our trust was put in the league of nations, which I would say is similar to the United Nations today. In that instance, Britains trust was put in a united force to discourage any agression. When Britain came under attack, where was the league?
My personal view is that the goverment hasn't learnt its historical lessons. On the other hand, thanks to the media in this modern day, pressure on the goverment over a media created "credit crunch" and "depression" is the cause for politicians to be forced to spend money dealing with domestic issues rather than the "why are we in Iraq/Afghaistan" armed forces!
spose we can only hide behind uncle sam as he rolls around in his swimming pools of money!
Since when has the EU ever done anything fo us? Our only hope there would be the French would surrender in such numbers that it would cripple the enemy's logistics...
I suspect that the point of my argument may have been rather lost.
Sorry POL, I get your point, I just can't stand the EU!
Separate names with a comma.