Sea Jet
A sound strategic case?
What, like your mix of outdated Cold War paranoia, your Little Englander
isolationism ('sendA sound strategic case?
What, like your mix of outdated Cold War paranoia, your Little Englander
isolationism ('send a gunboat'), your single service obsessive selfishness,
your inability to recognise the realities of a restricted budget and a
changed world, your inability to answer what I'll admit are hard questions
about cost effectiveness, and your constant harping on about the Falklands
(which are already protected by land-based AD)..........
Much better minds than mine have reached the conclusion that the SHar does
not offer a useful enough capability to justify its retention, and that
other assets are a higher priority for scarce resources.
They acknowledge that there will be a capability gap, but are happy that
that gap will be covered by our coalition partners, or by land-based AD.
They have taken on board the fact that we will no longer undertake
autonomous national operations, and cannot fund or structure our armed
forces on that basis.
They see the most useful role for the CVS in this post-Cold War world, with
its emphasis on littoral ops, peacekeeping and peace enforcement as being
power projection. They recognise that the CVS is too small to embark
sufficient aircraft to conduct OS and AD ops simultaneously.
This isn't rocket science, chaps.
Get defence spending back to Cold War levels and you can have all the
occasionally useful, 'nice to have' kit and capabilities that we had back
then, but otherwise, we must cut our coat according to the cloth, and must
concentrate resources on those core capabilities which are needed every
time, rather than on carriers, which might be useful one day......
What, like your mix of outdated Cold War paranoia, your Little Englander
isolationism ('sendA sound strategic case?
What, like your mix of outdated Cold War paranoia, your Little Englander
isolationism ('send a gunboat'), your single service obsessive selfishness,
your inability to recognise the realities of a restricted budget and a
changed world, your inability to answer what I'll admit are hard questions
about cost effectiveness, and your constant harping on about the Falklands
(which are already protected by land-based AD)..........
Much better minds than mine have reached the conclusion that the SHar does
not offer a useful enough capability to justify its retention, and that
other assets are a higher priority for scarce resources.
They acknowledge that there will be a capability gap, but are happy that
that gap will be covered by our coalition partners, or by land-based AD.
They have taken on board the fact that we will no longer undertake
autonomous national operations, and cannot fund or structure our armed
forces on that basis.
They see the most useful role for the CVS in this post-Cold War world, with
its emphasis on littoral ops, peacekeeping and peace enforcement as being
power projection. They recognise that the CVS is too small to embark
sufficient aircraft to conduct OS and AD ops simultaneously.
This isn't rocket science, chaps.
Get defence spending back to Cold War levels and you can have all the
occasionally useful, 'nice to have' kit and capabilities that we had back
then, but otherwise, we must cut our coat according to the cloth, and must
concentrate resources on those core capabilities which are needed every
time, rather than on carriers, which might be useful one day......
Lupus Domesticus
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the question doesn't appear too dim, can anybody tell me precisely what was wrong with Cold War defence spending levels?
They appeared to be affordable at the time, the sky didn't fall, the people were affluent, gainfully employed and reasonably happy....or have I missed something?
They appeared to be affordable at the time, the sky didn't fall, the people were affluent, gainfully employed and reasonably happy....or have I missed something?
Cold War defence spending was sufficient to provide armed forces big enough to meet peacetime needs, and a small, cheap, nuclear deterrent which would have bought some negotiating time.
But unscrupulous politicians pretended that our Cold War armed forces were sufficient to fight a major war against the 'Bloc, and therefore encouraged the public to expect a 'Peace Dividend' once the Cold War ended. The opportunity was not taken to trim those capabilities which were no longer relevant, and instead, most of the cuts fell on units which could have had a useful post Cold War role (including many of the FJ units which participated in Granby).
That Genie is now 'out of the bottle' and persuading the general public of the need for higher spending (with a commensurate increase in income tax) looks to be an impossible task.
In fact, properly structured armed forces, capable of meeting all likely post Cold War contingencies (and including at least three full-scale carriers!), would cost much more than the Cold War armed forces did. I'd support such spending personally, but recognise that it ain't going to happen.
But unscrupulous politicians pretended that our Cold War armed forces were sufficient to fight a major war against the 'Bloc, and therefore encouraged the public to expect a 'Peace Dividend' once the Cold War ended. The opportunity was not taken to trim those capabilities which were no longer relevant, and instead, most of the cuts fell on units which could have had a useful post Cold War role (including many of the FJ units which participated in Granby).
That Genie is now 'out of the bottle' and persuading the general public of the need for higher spending (with a commensurate increase in income tax) looks to be an impossible task.
In fact, properly structured armed forces, capable of meeting all likely post Cold War contingencies (and including at least three full-scale carriers!), would cost much more than the Cold War armed forces did. I'd support such spending personally, but recognise that it ain't going to happen.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tracy Island
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko
My two questions were carefully posed, since I knew you would be able to answer neither, and indeed you proved me correct.
Your eagerness to launch into rebuke reveals your true grasp of the subject matter. I cannot share your parochial vision of this country and its international political influence. Neither can I share your misguided opinions regarding foreign policy and handing it over wholesale to Washington by allowing them to provide AD for deep sea maritime operations at our behest.
The political ramifications that will be felt as a result of the withdrawal from service of the Sea Harrier could be catastrophic for the Royal Navy and extremely damaging to British interests as a whole.
I will do my upmost to see that this decision is reversed.
FEBA
My two questions were carefully posed, since I knew you would be able to answer neither, and indeed you proved me correct.
Your eagerness to launch into rebuke reveals your true grasp of the subject matter. I cannot share your parochial vision of this country and its international political influence. Neither can I share your misguided opinions regarding foreign policy and handing it over wholesale to Washington by allowing them to provide AD for deep sea maritime operations at our behest.
The political ramifications that will be felt as a result of the withdrawal from service of the Sea Harrier could be catastrophic for the Royal Navy and extremely damaging to British interests as a whole.
I will do my upmost to see that this decision is reversed.
FEBA
The defence assumptions upon which policy (and defence reviews) has been based since the late 1980s, accepted by both Conservative and Labour administrations, do not envisage autonomous national operations of the kind you hark back to.
I should add that they are not my assumptions, nor do they reflect my 'parochial' view of this country's international importance or influence. They are the defence assumptions produced by our democratically elected Government, and they do not differ in substance from those of the previous Conservative Government. It's not me who has decided that we will henceforth only operate in concert with the US or NATO, it's our government.
I would suggest to you that neither party would accept a fundamental move away from these assumptions, with all the implications it would have on the level of spending necessary. Rightly or wrongly, the days of plucky little Britain 'going it alone' without coalition support have gone forever. You and I both think that it is 'wrongly', and probably both think back to Suez and the Falklands as examples of why relying on allies may not always be wise. But I can accept that the change has happened, and that it is irreversible.
If you want your carriers and SHars you will have to justify them within the context of coalition operations, because you will not succeed in forcing any UK Government back to the expense of across the board, unilateral, autonomous capability. Some politicians may one day pay lip service to the idea, but none will ever fund it.
If your case for the SHar is based on a "what if we have to do an op autonomously, and the USA and our NATO allies won't play ball, and if it's out of range of land-based AD" scenario, then I'm afraid that the politicians and the Brass will simply respond that: "That is not what we would do, and that is not what our defence budget would allow us to do."
I think that we should still be able to 'do' a Corporate or a Granby sized operation, but that is not required under the present defence assumptions. Deploy more than 64 fast jets? That's not what we're required to be able to do. And if you don't like it, then you need to convince enough of the elctorate to vote and pay for it, and convince the politicians.
In answer to your original questions.
The sound case for the withdrawal of the Sea Harrier is that:
After exhaustive operational and risk analysis, it is felt that the withdrawal of the Sea Harrier will generate a worthwhile cost saving, without posing an unacceptable risk. The money saved will be better used supporting more useful, more economic and more versatile assets which are required more often and more regularly. Over the short term, the likelihood of encountering a robust air threat has been assessed as low. In any case the CVS vessels were too small to simultaneously carry out AD and OS roles simultaneously (when carrying GR9s, there are too few SHars to provide continuous AD cover), so that if the ships are to fulfil the power projection role outlined under the SDR, they will inevitably deploy with an all-GR9 air wing. It has been assessed that the temporary and short term loss of Fleet AD capability (pending the introduction of JSF) can be adequately covered by land-based assets and by coalition and allied partners.
Withdrawing SHar will also solve a growing manning and supportability problem.
I should add that they are not my assumptions, nor do they reflect my 'parochial' view of this country's international importance or influence. They are the defence assumptions produced by our democratically elected Government, and they do not differ in substance from those of the previous Conservative Government. It's not me who has decided that we will henceforth only operate in concert with the US or NATO, it's our government.
I would suggest to you that neither party would accept a fundamental move away from these assumptions, with all the implications it would have on the level of spending necessary. Rightly or wrongly, the days of plucky little Britain 'going it alone' without coalition support have gone forever. You and I both think that it is 'wrongly', and probably both think back to Suez and the Falklands as examples of why relying on allies may not always be wise. But I can accept that the change has happened, and that it is irreversible.
If you want your carriers and SHars you will have to justify them within the context of coalition operations, because you will not succeed in forcing any UK Government back to the expense of across the board, unilateral, autonomous capability. Some politicians may one day pay lip service to the idea, but none will ever fund it.
If your case for the SHar is based on a "what if we have to do an op autonomously, and the USA and our NATO allies won't play ball, and if it's out of range of land-based AD" scenario, then I'm afraid that the politicians and the Brass will simply respond that: "That is not what we would do, and that is not what our defence budget would allow us to do."
I think that we should still be able to 'do' a Corporate or a Granby sized operation, but that is not required under the present defence assumptions. Deploy more than 64 fast jets? That's not what we're required to be able to do. And if you don't like it, then you need to convince enough of the elctorate to vote and pay for it, and convince the politicians.
In answer to your original questions.
The sound case for the withdrawal of the Sea Harrier is that:
After exhaustive operational and risk analysis, it is felt that the withdrawal of the Sea Harrier will generate a worthwhile cost saving, without posing an unacceptable risk. The money saved will be better used supporting more useful, more economic and more versatile assets which are required more often and more regularly. Over the short term, the likelihood of encountering a robust air threat has been assessed as low. In any case the CVS vessels were too small to simultaneously carry out AD and OS roles simultaneously (when carrying GR9s, there are too few SHars to provide continuous AD cover), so that if the ships are to fulfil the power projection role outlined under the SDR, they will inevitably deploy with an all-GR9 air wing. It has been assessed that the temporary and short term loss of Fleet AD capability (pending the introduction of JSF) can be adequately covered by land-based assets and by coalition and allied partners.
Withdrawing SHar will also solve a growing manning and supportability problem.
Last edited by Jackonicko; 10th Oct 2003 at 08:36.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tracy Island
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko
Cast your mince pies across this then.
MoD failed to tell allies of plan to axe Sea Harriers
By David Graves
(Filed: 15/06/2002)
The Government did not consult Britain's closest military allies or Nato about its plans to axe the Fleet Air Arm's Sea Harriers, the Ministry of Defence has admitted.
Ministers have argued that from 2006, when the Harriers are due to be withdrawn in a cost-cutting measure, the Navy would be able to dispatch a task force with air defence provided by a "coalition" aircraft carrier.
But the MoD has now admitted, after questioning by Tory MPs, that no advance discussions were held with America, France, Spain, Italy and Germany before the decision was announced on Feb 28.
Neither were discussions held with Lord Robertson, the Nato secretary general, Adam Ingram, the Armed Forces minister, said in a Commons written reply.
The decision to withdraw what the Navy regards as Britain's best all-weather fighter is known to have caused alarm among senior officers of the US Navy and US Air Force
Without the Sea Harriers, the Navy could not unilaterally deploy a task force from 2006 until at least 2012 when the planned new Anglo-American Joint Strike Fighter is introduced.
Ministers have argued that they cannot envisage Britain participating in any military action between 2006 and 2012 when the Navy would not be acting in partnership with allies.
But Mr Ingram admitted the MoD had kept its close allies in the dark about the decision and they would be informed officially only in Britain's annual submission to the Nato defence planning questionnaire.
unquote
You may wish to reflect as to why you are in a minority (you and Geoff Hoon) with regard to the premature disposal of the SHar. Why is it that those that command our forces and coalition forces do not share your opinions.
The decision should be reversed and now is a good time to achieve it.
FEBA
If you want your carriers and SHars you will have to justify them within the context of coalition operations
MoD failed to tell allies of plan to axe Sea Harriers
By David Graves
(Filed: 15/06/2002)
The Government did not consult Britain's closest military allies or Nato about its plans to axe the Fleet Air Arm's Sea Harriers, the Ministry of Defence has admitted.
Ministers have argued that from 2006, when the Harriers are due to be withdrawn in a cost-cutting measure, the Navy would be able to dispatch a task force with air defence provided by a "coalition" aircraft carrier.
But the MoD has now admitted, after questioning by Tory MPs, that no advance discussions were held with America, France, Spain, Italy and Germany before the decision was announced on Feb 28.
Neither were discussions held with Lord Robertson, the Nato secretary general, Adam Ingram, the Armed Forces minister, said in a Commons written reply.
The decision to withdraw what the Navy regards as Britain's best all-weather fighter is known to have caused alarm among senior officers of the US Navy and US Air Force
Without the Sea Harriers, the Navy could not unilaterally deploy a task force from 2006 until at least 2012 when the planned new Anglo-American Joint Strike Fighter is introduced.
Ministers have argued that they cannot envisage Britain participating in any military action between 2006 and 2012 when the Navy would not be acting in partnership with allies.
But Mr Ingram admitted the MoD had kept its close allies in the dark about the decision and they would be informed officially only in Britain's annual submission to the Nato defence planning questionnaire.
unquote
You may wish to reflect as to why you are in a minority (you and Geoff Hoon) with regard to the premature disposal of the SHar. Why is it that those that command our forces and coalition forces do not share your opinions.
The decision should be reversed and now is a good time to achieve it.
FEBA
Only me and Geoff?
The decision to prematurely retire the Sea Harrier was considered and discussed as one of the regular 'Options'. The Brass recommended it to the Secretary of State as being one of the 'least painful'. It's been arrived at after due process, I'm afraid.
Any 'option', if exercised, would materially effect Britain's ability to conduct coalition ops, and would inevitably require someone else to cover the gap, whether it was withdrawing the Jaguar, cutting Typhoon Tranche 3, withdrawing a Trident boat, whatever. And such steps are always taken unilaterally, by our own Government, and not collaboratively with our allies. That may be wrong, and it may be 'unhelpful', but it's the way these things are done.
Since you like questions, here are a couple for you.
When, since 1990, would it have been more useful for the RN to despatch an all-SHar air wing than an all GR7/9 air wing?
When would coalition allies or land-based air have been unable to provide sufficient AD cover to meet the actual threat?
Make a sound business case for spending more to retain two eight-aircraft single-role, short range AD squadrons than for retaining three 13-aircraft multi-role squadrons or for retaining four 13 aircraft single-role long range AD squadrons.
The decision to prematurely retire the Sea Harrier was considered and discussed as one of the regular 'Options'. The Brass recommended it to the Secretary of State as being one of the 'least painful'. It's been arrived at after due process, I'm afraid.
Any 'option', if exercised, would materially effect Britain's ability to conduct coalition ops, and would inevitably require someone else to cover the gap, whether it was withdrawing the Jaguar, cutting Typhoon Tranche 3, withdrawing a Trident boat, whatever. And such steps are always taken unilaterally, by our own Government, and not collaboratively with our allies. That may be wrong, and it may be 'unhelpful', but it's the way these things are done.
Since you like questions, here are a couple for you.
When, since 1990, would it have been more useful for the RN to despatch an all-SHar air wing than an all GR7/9 air wing?
When would coalition allies or land-based air have been unable to provide sufficient AD cover to meet the actual threat?
Make a sound business case for spending more to retain two eight-aircraft single-role, short range AD squadrons than for retaining three 13-aircraft multi-role squadrons or for retaining four 13 aircraft single-role long range AD squadrons.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Usefulness of FA2 vs GR7
Jacko said:
When, since 1990, would it have been more useful for the RN to despatch an all-SHar air wing than an all GR7/9 air wing?
Well lest take a look at the facts:
1) The GR7 is a flying target for any fighter. It simply cannot conduct its business if there is the slightest hint of enemy fighters. It cannot fight its way in or out. It cannot defend itself or its ship. It is naive in the extreme to assume that your enemy will just sit still and watch you attack him.
2) The FA2 can fight its way in and out and a mixed fighter/bomber mix of FA2s is much more capable in a high threat environment. Granted its weapons delivery systems are not as good, but at least it stands a chance of getting there to use them.
What the ill-informed tend to forget is that with an all-Shar force, you can sanistise the area of enemy fighters with one of the best radar AMRAAM combinations available and then switch to a mixed fighter/bomber force to acheive your objective AND get back in one piece.
This has been standard naval doctrine since WW2.
I note the USMC and the Italian and Spanish navies have decided that a plane without radar has had its day and are busy re-equipping them with radar, we on the other hand are willing sacrifice our pilots lives and take them off.
Surely a good compromise would be to by a dozen Harrier II+ airframes to give our pilots some protection.
When, since 1990, would it have been more useful for the RN to despatch an all-SHar air wing than an all GR7/9 air wing?
Well lest take a look at the facts:
1) The GR7 is a flying target for any fighter. It simply cannot conduct its business if there is the slightest hint of enemy fighters. It cannot fight its way in or out. It cannot defend itself or its ship. It is naive in the extreme to assume that your enemy will just sit still and watch you attack him.
2) The FA2 can fight its way in and out and a mixed fighter/bomber mix of FA2s is much more capable in a high threat environment. Granted its weapons delivery systems are not as good, but at least it stands a chance of getting there to use them.
What the ill-informed tend to forget is that with an all-Shar force, you can sanistise the area of enemy fighters with one of the best radar AMRAAM combinations available and then switch to a mixed fighter/bomber force to acheive your objective AND get back in one piece.
This has been standard naval doctrine since WW2.
I note the USMC and the Italian and Spanish navies have decided that a plane without radar has had its day and are busy re-equipping them with radar, we on the other hand are willing sacrifice our pilots lives and take them off.
Surely a good compromise would be to by a dozen Harrier II+ airframes to give our pilots some protection.
.........Or we could keep at least some Sea Harriers.
Jacko, Nozzles is going to have you for that. Remember Bosnia etc?
As for power projection - what about amphibious operations?
Jacko, Nozzles is going to have you for that. Remember Bosnia etc?
As for power projection - what about amphibious operations?
Suspicion breeds confidence
CVS Strike sortie capacity
The CVS does have a limited weapons store, but it normally sails with an RFA which has lots of weapons on board, so this is a non-issue.
A CVS can operate 22 fixed wing types if the helo overhead is moved to an RFA as is normally the case.
This means you could have a full squadron of mud-movers and a AD strength of 10 FA2s. That is a perfectly adequate capability most most types of brush fire encounters. CVF will probably operate a standard airgroup of 24 aircraft, but these will have a far greater range/capability.
A CVS can operate 22 fixed wing types if the helo overhead is moved to an RFA as is normally the case.
This means you could have a full squadron of mud-movers and a AD strength of 10 FA2s. That is a perfectly adequate capability most most types of brush fire encounters. CVF will probably operate a standard airgroup of 24 aircraft, but these will have a far greater range/capability.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tracy Island
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko
You're a gift, you really are:
Who says the brass recommended it. As far as they were concerned it was a fait accompli, same went for NATO. As is common practise for this government it was all done behind closed doors and those that were in charge were not consulted. If they were this thread wouldn't exist.
This is a great one, so I'll answer it with a question: when was the last time we dropped an atomic bomb or launched an atomic missile in anger??
Face it Jacko, your defence policy has more to do with the hippy movement than with reality. "lets all get round the table and have a nice cup of tea and a chat" cuts no ice with errant countries. We're still a force to be reckoned with and I and a hell of a lot more want to keep it that way.
One last question for you (i love asking them) How much will Washington charge us for providing AD for our fleet or will it be gratis because they like us so much??
FEBA
You're a gift, you really are:
The decision to prematurely retire the Sea Harrier was considered and discussed as one of the regular 'Options'. The Brass recommended it to the Secretary of State
When, since 1990, would it have been more useful for the RN to despatch an all-SHar air wing than an all GR7/9 air wing?
Face it Jacko, your defence policy has more to do with the hippy movement than with reality. "lets all get round the table and have a nice cup of tea and a chat" cuts no ice with errant countries. We're still a force to be reckoned with and I and a hell of a lot more want to keep it that way.
One last question for you (i love asking them) How much will Washington charge us for providing AD for our fleet or will it be gratis because they like us so much??
FEBA
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
"when was the last time we dropped an atomic bomb or launched an atomic missile in anger?"
Good point, which explains why the RAF got rid of the V force in the 60s and the entire nuclear strike role in the 90s.
The changing threat also explained why the entire F-4 fleet vanished, then RAFG along with a portion of the GR1 force. It also explains the loss of the Maritime strike role and the reduced strength of the Nimrod force. It also helps explain the expected cuts in the Typhoon and/or JSF orders.
What's you justification for being immune from political and economic reality?
If there were any more funds available, I would have thought the present threat would justify a reinforced QRA posture before keeping an aircraft who's main justification seems to be protecting it's own carrier and the ships doing nothing but help support and defend it.
Good point, which explains why the RAF got rid of the V force in the 60s and the entire nuclear strike role in the 90s.
The changing threat also explained why the entire F-4 fleet vanished, then RAFG along with a portion of the GR1 force. It also explains the loss of the Maritime strike role and the reduced strength of the Nimrod force. It also helps explain the expected cuts in the Typhoon and/or JSF orders.
What's you justification for being immune from political and economic reality?
If there were any more funds available, I would have thought the present threat would justify a reinforced QRA posture before keeping an aircraft who's main justification seems to be protecting it's own carrier and the ships doing nothing but help support and defend it.
Navaleye,
Lovely. FA2s boldly sweeping their way into the target, hacking down the hordes of MiG-29s and Su-30s en route. Brings a quiver to the voice and a lump to the throat.
But when has that capability actually been required, since 1990? Remember that you're losing it from 2006 until 2012..... a six year gap. How often will it be needed then?
22 fixed wing with the SAR/ASW/AEW moved to another hugely expensive, vulnerable ship....? OK that doubles the cost of the deployment, but the calculations were that you needed a minimum of 16 AD aircraft to maintain AD cover (at an astonishingly tiny radius, and for an astonishingly short duration, though I suspect those figures are classified, or restricted) and 24 to sustain it for a longer period.
Which leaves room for a worthwhile number of GR7s, which (under present doctrine - mine and Geoff's not agreed with the Chiefs of Staff, of course) is the primary purpose of sending a carrier.
WEBF,
Bosnia? Just ask M2 how 'essential' the SHar was in Bosnia. To refresh your memory, no target in the Balkans required the use of carrier air power because all were within range of land based assets.
FEBA,
Decisions on defence spending cuts are made by the Secretary of State on the basis of advice received from the Chiefs of Staff, whose decisions are, in turn, based on the well-established practise of running and comparing various 'options' put forward by the DECs, etc. The decision as to which options to consider are also taken by the services themselves, so that the RN may not have wanted to look at losing a Trident boat, and may not have put it forward, while the RAF may not have put forward a reduction in Typhoon numbers. But the option of prematurely withdrawing the SHar came from the services, as did the details of the cost savings and operational benefits that would flow from it.
The decision to axe the SHar was no different to any other. To claim that: "As is common practise for this government it was all done behind closed doors and those that were in charge were not consulted." is just plain wrong. It was not presented as a 'fait accompli' to the Admiralty. You're forcing me to defend people I despise, here. But I'm afraid that to think that Geoff and Tone took the decision unilaterally shows a total lack of understanding of how such decisions are actually taken.
Finally (and though I'm tired with your silly insults) it's not 'My' defence policy that "has more to do with the hippy movement than with reality". It's the policy of the Government of the day and its predecessors. Moreover, while it may be amusing (if you're sufficiently infantile) to characterise that policy as "lets all get round the table and have a nice cup of tea and a chat" it is wrong to do so. Acting in concert with our Allies has resulted in:
Desert Storm
Allied Force
Enduring Freedom
Iraqi Freedom
Now forgive me if I've missed something, but those ops seemed to "cut some ice" with some errant countries - Baathist Iraq, Taliban Afghanistan and the Milosovic regime in Serbia. Whereas pretending that we can still strut the globe enforcing our will unilaterally just looks like empty and pathetic posturing.
FEBA: "Send a Gunboat."
Geoff: "That's not the way we achieve foreign policy objectives any more, sir."
FEBA: "Send a Gunboat."
Geoff: "The Gunboats we have aren't really fit for purpose any more, but we could send one configured to salvo rockets, which we think is a better way of employing these hulls."
FEBA: "Send a Gunboat."
Geoff: "Neither the USA nor NATO would support sending a gunboat in these circumstances."
FEBA: "Send a Gunboat"
Geoff: "We don't do that any more, we act in concert with our allies."
FEBA: "Send a Gunboat."
Geoff: "We actually can't afford gunboats any more, and our defence budget is structured on the basis of undertaking coalition ops."
FEBA: "Send a Gunboat."
Geoff: "I'd love to, but I'd have to have a bigger budget and would have to raise taxes. Any sensible suggestions?
FEBA: "Ah, now you put it that way, I'll engage in sensible conversation with you. You see I do have a solution......... Send a Gunboat."
I asked a simple question:
"When, since 1990, would it have been more useful for the RN to despatch an all-SHar air wing than an all GR7/9 air wing?"
Your answer was that: "This is a great one, so I'll answer it with a question..."
No, don't answer it with some irrelvant comparison about nukes, that's an entirely separate debate. Just answer the £@ç&ing question.
You aksed: "One last question for you (i love asking really infantile and silly questions, it demonstrates my grasp of the subject so well.) How much will Washington charge us for providing AD for our fleet or will it be gratis because they like us so much??"
I suspect that Washington will charge us the same for providing AD as we do for providing them with tanker support, PR9s, Nimrods without the pointy tails, etc. etc. That's how coalition ops with your allies work, numb-nuts!
Lovely. FA2s boldly sweeping their way into the target, hacking down the hordes of MiG-29s and Su-30s en route. Brings a quiver to the voice and a lump to the throat.
But when has that capability actually been required, since 1990? Remember that you're losing it from 2006 until 2012..... a six year gap. How often will it be needed then?
22 fixed wing with the SAR/ASW/AEW moved to another hugely expensive, vulnerable ship....? OK that doubles the cost of the deployment, but the calculations were that you needed a minimum of 16 AD aircraft to maintain AD cover (at an astonishingly tiny radius, and for an astonishingly short duration, though I suspect those figures are classified, or restricted) and 24 to sustain it for a longer period.
Which leaves room for a worthwhile number of GR7s, which (under present doctrine - mine and Geoff's not agreed with the Chiefs of Staff, of course) is the primary purpose of sending a carrier.
WEBF,
Bosnia? Just ask M2 how 'essential' the SHar was in Bosnia. To refresh your memory, no target in the Balkans required the use of carrier air power because all were within range of land based assets.
FEBA,
Decisions on defence spending cuts are made by the Secretary of State on the basis of advice received from the Chiefs of Staff, whose decisions are, in turn, based on the well-established practise of running and comparing various 'options' put forward by the DECs, etc. The decision as to which options to consider are also taken by the services themselves, so that the RN may not have wanted to look at losing a Trident boat, and may not have put it forward, while the RAF may not have put forward a reduction in Typhoon numbers. But the option of prematurely withdrawing the SHar came from the services, as did the details of the cost savings and operational benefits that would flow from it.
The decision to axe the SHar was no different to any other. To claim that: "As is common practise for this government it was all done behind closed doors and those that were in charge were not consulted." is just plain wrong. It was not presented as a 'fait accompli' to the Admiralty. You're forcing me to defend people I despise, here. But I'm afraid that to think that Geoff and Tone took the decision unilaterally shows a total lack of understanding of how such decisions are actually taken.
Finally (and though I'm tired with your silly insults) it's not 'My' defence policy that "has more to do with the hippy movement than with reality". It's the policy of the Government of the day and its predecessors. Moreover, while it may be amusing (if you're sufficiently infantile) to characterise that policy as "lets all get round the table and have a nice cup of tea and a chat" it is wrong to do so. Acting in concert with our Allies has resulted in:
Desert Storm
Allied Force
Enduring Freedom
Iraqi Freedom
Now forgive me if I've missed something, but those ops seemed to "cut some ice" with some errant countries - Baathist Iraq, Taliban Afghanistan and the Milosovic regime in Serbia. Whereas pretending that we can still strut the globe enforcing our will unilaterally just looks like empty and pathetic posturing.
FEBA: "Send a Gunboat."
Geoff: "That's not the way we achieve foreign policy objectives any more, sir."
FEBA: "Send a Gunboat."
Geoff: "The Gunboats we have aren't really fit for purpose any more, but we could send one configured to salvo rockets, which we think is a better way of employing these hulls."
FEBA: "Send a Gunboat."
Geoff: "Neither the USA nor NATO would support sending a gunboat in these circumstances."
FEBA: "Send a Gunboat"
Geoff: "We don't do that any more, we act in concert with our allies."
FEBA: "Send a Gunboat."
Geoff: "We actually can't afford gunboats any more, and our defence budget is structured on the basis of undertaking coalition ops."
FEBA: "Send a Gunboat."
Geoff: "I'd love to, but I'd have to have a bigger budget and would have to raise taxes. Any sensible suggestions?
FEBA: "Ah, now you put it that way, I'll engage in sensible conversation with you. You see I do have a solution......... Send a Gunboat."
I asked a simple question:
"When, since 1990, would it have been more useful for the RN to despatch an all-SHar air wing than an all GR7/9 air wing?"
Your answer was that: "This is a great one, so I'll answer it with a question..."
No, don't answer it with some irrelvant comparison about nukes, that's an entirely separate debate. Just answer the £@ç&ing question.
You aksed: "One last question for you (i love asking really infantile and silly questions, it demonstrates my grasp of the subject so well.) How much will Washington charge us for providing AD for our fleet or will it be gratis because they like us so much??"
I suspect that Washington will charge us the same for providing AD as we do for providing them with tanker support, PR9s, Nimrods without the pointy tails, etc. etc. That's how coalition ops with your allies work, numb-nuts!
Suspicion breeds confidence
Jacko,
Do you have life assurance? if so, presumably this is in case of the unexpected. That's what military assets are also for. The unexpected. The Falklands was not expected, but our "assurance policy" saved the day. What the goverment has done is fundamentally dangerous. Now we have to go begging to the French, Spanish, Italians or Uncle Sam. To keep our soldiers, sailors and airmen safe from air attack.
List of country with Migs:
Most African one party states.
N. Korea.
Just about every non-western aligned middle eastern country.
Its a big dangerous world and without the Shar we are blind and helpless.
Do you have life assurance? if so, presumably this is in case of the unexpected. That's what military assets are also for. The unexpected. The Falklands was not expected, but our "assurance policy" saved the day. What the goverment has done is fundamentally dangerous. Now we have to go begging to the French, Spanish, Italians or Uncle Sam. To keep our soldiers, sailors and airmen safe from air attack.
List of country with Migs:
Most African one party states.
N. Korea.
Just about every non-western aligned middle eastern country.
Its a big dangerous world and without the Shar we are blind and helpless.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tracy Island
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC
Good question, wish that I were. This isn't about me, as you well know. It's about a uni-lateral decision to degrade the ability of a fighting force and our political bargaining power. It's almost certainly to do with the demise of naval fixed wing air ops forever, and that isn't good for any of us.
FEBA
Jacko
Thank you. Your vitriol does our cause a great service. I will not dignify your petulance by commenting on it. Now why don't you sit down calm down and have a nice cup of tea.
FEBA
What's you justification for being immune from political and economic reality?
FEBA
Jacko
Thank you. Your vitriol does our cause a great service. I will not dignify your petulance by commenting on it. Now why don't you sit down calm down and have a nice cup of tea.
FEBA
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
"It's almost certainly to do with the demise of naval fixed wing air ops forever"
A bit of an overstatement over a measure made as a stopgap before the purchase of 2 x 50Kt+ carriers and an order for 150 carrier capable JSFs.
A bit of an overstatement over a measure made as a stopgap before the purchase of 2 x 50Kt+ carriers and an order for 150 carrier capable JSFs.
Last edited by ORAC; 11th Oct 2003 at 02:24.
FEBA,
Sorry about the ‘vitriol’. But in view of your record of ignoring the facts and engaging in personal abuse, I thought I’d try and include some abuse and invective in my post, while still doing you the courtesy of treating you like a rational and intelligent person.
I had a lot to match up to, however.
“My two questions were carefully posed, since I knew you would be able to answer neither...”
“Your eagerness to launch into rebuke reveals your true grasp of the subject matter”
“I cannot share your parochial vision of this country..... Neither can I share your misguided opinions”
“You may wish to reflect as to why you are in a minority (you and Geoff Hoon)”
“Your defence policy has more to do with the hippy movement than with reality. "lets all get round the table and have a nice cup of tea and a chat" cuts no ice with errant countries.”
“You're a gift, you really are.”
You have made a lot of emotive points, many of which have been unsupported and unsupportable by evidence and you have shown a complete understanding of the realities of the budgetary pressures facing the services, and of the way in which they respond to those pressures.
I suspect that your lack of any sensible answer to the points I raise explains your failure to respond to them. Or perhaps it’s that I’ve hurt your feelings by being nearly as rude as you, you delicate little flower.
Navaleye,
I have life assurance. I have insurance. I probably don't have enough of either. At times I have had to make do with Third Party Fire and Theft, when Fully Comp has been unaffordable. I don't have earthquake insurance. In an ideal world, with less limited defence spending, I wouldn't bin the SHar. But in the real circumstances, it's a tough but justifiable cut.
Sorry about the ‘vitriol’. But in view of your record of ignoring the facts and engaging in personal abuse, I thought I’d try and include some abuse and invective in my post, while still doing you the courtesy of treating you like a rational and intelligent person.
I had a lot to match up to, however.
“My two questions were carefully posed, since I knew you would be able to answer neither...”
“Your eagerness to launch into rebuke reveals your true grasp of the subject matter”
“I cannot share your parochial vision of this country..... Neither can I share your misguided opinions”
“You may wish to reflect as to why you are in a minority (you and Geoff Hoon)”
“Your defence policy has more to do with the hippy movement than with reality. "lets all get round the table and have a nice cup of tea and a chat" cuts no ice with errant countries.”
“You're a gift, you really are.”
You have made a lot of emotive points, many of which have been unsupported and unsupportable by evidence and you have shown a complete understanding of the realities of the budgetary pressures facing the services, and of the way in which they respond to those pressures.
I suspect that your lack of any sensible answer to the points I raise explains your failure to respond to them. Or perhaps it’s that I’ve hurt your feelings by being nearly as rude as you, you delicate little flower.
Navaleye,
I have life assurance. I have insurance. I probably don't have enough of either. At times I have had to make do with Third Party Fire and Theft, when Fully Comp has been unaffordable. I don't have earthquake insurance. In an ideal world, with less limited defence spending, I wouldn't bin the SHar. But in the real circumstances, it's a tough but justifiable cut.
