Defence: Public ignorance, the media, and cutbacks
Thread Starter
Jacko that's what they said 25 years ago.........then the Argies invaded.
The new carriers (and their air groups) will allow the UK to influence things as never before. Being able to contribute a carrier group with aircraft to any coalition operation (whether it is the US or others) will give us far more influence than just support assets. Why do you think that France, Italy and Spain all feel it important to have carriers? The ability to not depend completely on others? The lessons of 1982 perhaps? The fact that they make your Navy able to operate weapons and sensors at greater ranges? The fact they you can then use your forces (land and air as well as naval) more effectively?
CVF is a keystone of UK defence policy. The entire planned force structure of all three services depends at least in part on them. The entire RN fleet would need redesign without them!
Your mention of Sierra Leone shows your bias. What would land based aircraft (Ascension based?) actually have achieved? Could they have put troops ashore? Supported them with helicopters? Provided medical support? Provided gunfire support (ie medium/large calibre guns, not aircraft cannon) if needed?
Then you ignore the issue of logistics. A detachment of x aircraft ashore somewhere will need logistics, with supplies of fuel, spares, ammunition, food, etc. How does that get there?
Didn't you once suggest that "all Army and land based RN units" should be moved to old airfields to keep them open? Yes, let's have massive disruption and expense to keep open airfields we don't need, for aircraft we haven't got, thousands of miles away from likely theatres. This alone suggests you're not the expert on defence you pretend to be.........
BHR
The same can be said for you. On the Sea Jet (page ninety something) thread you questioned the need for naval forces and suggested a comparison with Germany and Japan, when I said I though France, Italy and Spain were better examples. You replied that you had picked Germany and Japan on purpose (didn't say why though) and asked me to say what I knew of the three nations I mentioned and their Navies, and future plans. You also asked me to do the same for Germany and Japan. I did, but further posts from you on the same thread ignored what I said. I wonder why?
You also wrote that you considered Ultimate Farce as giving a good insight into the SAS etc, but this may have been satire.....
Your views should be taken with an unhealthily large amount of salt.
The new carriers (and their air groups) will allow the UK to influence things as never before. Being able to contribute a carrier group with aircraft to any coalition operation (whether it is the US or others) will give us far more influence than just support assets. Why do you think that France, Italy and Spain all feel it important to have carriers? The ability to not depend completely on others? The lessons of 1982 perhaps? The fact that they make your Navy able to operate weapons and sensors at greater ranges? The fact they you can then use your forces (land and air as well as naval) more effectively?
CVF is a keystone of UK defence policy. The entire planned force structure of all three services depends at least in part on them. The entire RN fleet would need redesign without them!
Your mention of Sierra Leone shows your bias. What would land based aircraft (Ascension based?) actually have achieved? Could they have put troops ashore? Supported them with helicopters? Provided medical support? Provided gunfire support (ie medium/large calibre guns, not aircraft cannon) if needed?
Then you ignore the issue of logistics. A detachment of x aircraft ashore somewhere will need logistics, with supplies of fuel, spares, ammunition, food, etc. How does that get there?
Didn't you once suggest that "all Army and land based RN units" should be moved to old airfields to keep them open? Yes, let's have massive disruption and expense to keep open airfields we don't need, for aircraft we haven't got, thousands of miles away from likely theatres. This alone suggests you're not the expert on defence you pretend to be.........
BHR
The same can be said for you. On the Sea Jet (page ninety something) thread you questioned the need for naval forces and suggested a comparison with Germany and Japan, when I said I though France, Italy and Spain were better examples. You replied that you had picked Germany and Japan on purpose (didn't say why though) and asked me to say what I knew of the three nations I mentioned and their Navies, and future plans. You also asked me to do the same for Germany and Japan. I did, but further posts from you on the same thread ignored what I said. I wonder why?
You also wrote that you considered Ultimate Farce as giving a good insight into the SAS etc, but this may have been satire.....
Your views should be taken with an unhealthily large amount of salt.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 27th Jan 2007 at 21:12.
You can't knock Jacko & BHR for suggesting what many in town are also whispering. However, you can question whether that logic holds up.
If we assume that someone else will always be there to do the "difficult" bits, then you can pretty much wish away all the RAF, less three AD squadrons for UK AD and the AT & SH fleets. All that UK plc needs to do is pitch up with the requisite amount of Percy to deal with the unpleasantness and a few SH & widebodies to get their kit to theatre and support them there. The RN would similarly retrench to a few OPV and MCMV. Loads of money for skoolz n ozpituls.
The problem is that every time such assumptions are made, based on "what the world looks like now" they are invariably wrong. We know that nobody was thinking of doing an unsupported amphibious assault way OOA in 82, because we all thought we'd be fighting a massive air / land war in CENTEUR with a big ASW op to support REFORGER. You can guarantee that no-one in 1UK Div (or 2 or 3 for that matter) were planning on fighting an armoured campaign in the desert in 1989. We nearly binned the heavy armour in the 90s, as we'd always be doing Peace Support ops a la Bosnia / Kosovo and that would have put the mockers on TELIC. Even though 3Cdo are a tad ambitious, I don't think they planned on assaulting a hostile country with heavy armour L,R & C through a very small front until they were told to get on with it. The point is, if we wish to play globally, then we had better have the resources to do it - or leave it to the new players on the block.
BTW Jacko, I think it's a tad harsh to point the distortion of the EP at CVF. If you add Typhoon, Nimrod, ASTOR, FSTA, A400M, Meteor and half JCA together, then I think you get quite a bit more distortion than £3.6Bn over 6 years.......
If we assume that someone else will always be there to do the "difficult" bits, then you can pretty much wish away all the RAF, less three AD squadrons for UK AD and the AT & SH fleets. All that UK plc needs to do is pitch up with the requisite amount of Percy to deal with the unpleasantness and a few SH & widebodies to get their kit to theatre and support them there. The RN would similarly retrench to a few OPV and MCMV. Loads of money for skoolz n ozpituls.
The problem is that every time such assumptions are made, based on "what the world looks like now" they are invariably wrong. We know that nobody was thinking of doing an unsupported amphibious assault way OOA in 82, because we all thought we'd be fighting a massive air / land war in CENTEUR with a big ASW op to support REFORGER. You can guarantee that no-one in 1UK Div (or 2 or 3 for that matter) were planning on fighting an armoured campaign in the desert in 1989. We nearly binned the heavy armour in the 90s, as we'd always be doing Peace Support ops a la Bosnia / Kosovo and that would have put the mockers on TELIC. Even though 3Cdo are a tad ambitious, I don't think they planned on assaulting a hostile country with heavy armour L,R & C through a very small front until they were told to get on with it. The point is, if we wish to play globally, then we had better have the resources to do it - or leave it to the new players on the block.
BTW Jacko, I think it's a tad harsh to point the distortion of the EP at CVF. If you add Typhoon, Nimrod, ASTOR, FSTA, A400M, Meteor and half JCA together, then I think you get quite a bit more distortion than £3.6Bn over 6 years.......
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Several miles SSW of Watford Gap
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We only need a ground force bigger than RIC if Johny G gets ashore. That will relieve the AT pressure, CIV or MIL. It will be much simpler reinforcing the Islands with mud movers and additional interceptors via 8500 ft of black top at MPA than it would have been in '82 via 3500 ft at Stanley. Admittedly, the pressure would still be on the AAR assets.
Thread Starter
Reinforce them with what? Surely deterrence is the key?
The sortie rate achieved by CVF will be similar to that of a US Carrier, so what makes people think that a UK carrier group wouldn't be a useful contribution to operations, particularly when the USN has less carriers and carrier groups than it did a few years ago?
The sortie rate achieved by CVF will be similar to that of a US Carrier, so what makes people think that a UK carrier group wouldn't be a useful contribution to operations, particularly when the USN has less carriers and carrier groups than it did a few years ago?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'cos there ain't gonna be enough carriers to achieve a Middle East/North Korea/China Sea* policy and operate in the South Atlantic. Someone will then have to make a tough decision and sacrifice one of those commitments.
*delete whichever potential threat you deem least important.
*delete whichever potential threat you deem least important.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WE B F
Reinforce with Tonka 4s and, probably, 3s. Repulsing an air supported amphibious assault with 3s (4 EA max and more likely 3 EA) isn't going to work. FI is one of the few places on the planet where we don't need a carrier; unless we're daft enough to lose it again.
The fact we can reinforce the air component faster than they could marshall and launch an assault is the deterrent.
Reinforce with Tonka 4s and, probably, 3s. Repulsing an air supported amphibious assault with 3s (4 EA max and more likely 3 EA) isn't going to work. FI is one of the few places on the planet where we don't need a carrier; unless we're daft enough to lose it again.
The fact we can reinforce the air component faster than they could marshall and launch an assault is the deterrent.
When I was in Basra I met the Staffords, and no words are good enough for me to describe my pride in the work that those young people are doing in very difficult circumstances
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have to agree with what Not a boffin says history shows us we don't get to fight the wars we plan on. And we therefore need an armed forces that is balanced and with suficient quality equipment/personnell and training to make it flexible. Unfortunatley we don't have that at the minite. Our armed forces have to few manned and equipped deployable elements and the culture of robbing peter to pay paul has moved to be the norm.Everytime our powers that be promise us new sturctures to redress the problem they strip the budgets and promise the kit at some date in the future and then increase the comittments. I seam to remember SDR being based on a premis of having 10 years notice of having to fight a conflict......well obviously the crystal ball has broken.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the FI theme, relying on land-based ac would be great - if only they'd built the MPA strip oriented 90 degrees round!
" Hello Mr. Argie, can you only invade when the x-wind is in limits? Thanks, old chap"
At least the carrier won't have that problem.
The point about AAR (or are we still calling it AR now?) is not whether or not you need it, but rather how much more you can achive with it present - that's where the term "Force Multiplier" comes from, methinks. I guess that's just the issue - please Mr. B, all we ask for is a rounded capability - is that too much to ask for?
" Hello Mr. Argie, can you only invade when the x-wind is in limits? Thanks, old chap"
At least the carrier won't have that problem.
The point about AAR (or are we still calling it AR now?) is not whether or not you need it, but rather how much more you can achive with it present - that's where the term "Force Multiplier" comes from, methinks. I guess that's just the issue - please Mr. B, all we ask for is a rounded capability - is that too much to ask for?
Thread Starter
Interesting article from the New Statesman: A matter of security
What happens if, or when, sea levels rise and force millions from their homes in Bangladesh, the Nile Delta and the coastal regions of China? What happens when floods, landslides and storms regularly leave millions unemployed and homeless?
Many in the MoD strongly believe that these are not just environmental or development issues, but vitally important security questions that need to be given far more serious consideration, both within government and by the public. Naturally, failed states and international terrorism are significant current threats to security, but that does not excuse us from focusing on future threats.
What happens if, or when, sea levels rise and force millions from their homes in Bangladesh, the Nile Delta and the coastal regions of China? What happens when floods, landslides and storms regularly leave millions unemployed and homeless?
Many in the MoD strongly believe that these are not just environmental or development issues, but vitally important security questions that need to be given far more serious consideration, both within government and by the public. Naturally, failed states and international terrorism are significant current threats to security, but that does not excuse us from focusing on future threats.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF,
To echo what Tourist said on the Future Carrier thread you might want to restrain your desire to link to articles in every post you make.
The article you linked to was interesting and well composed, however, what was the point you were making beyond bringing it to our attention.
A piece of advice for the future is perhaps rather than linking to someone else's work try writing a piece commenting on an article you have read or an issue that is of interest to you.
Cheers
BHR
To echo what Tourist said on the Future Carrier thread you might want to restrain your desire to link to articles in every post you make.
The article you linked to was interesting and well composed, however, what was the point you were making beyond bringing it to our attention.
A piece of advice for the future is perhaps rather than linking to someone else's work try writing a piece commenting on an article you have read or an issue that is of interest to you.
Cheers
BHR
Thread Starter
The point was the one I quoted - that the war on terror should not and must not blind us to future threats and vulnerabilities.
There is also the possibility that the effects of climate change will need more peace keeping operations, more disaster relief and other low intensity tasks, at the same time that we are reducing our forces and putting extra reliance on technology to make up for numbers.
To go back to my post that started this thread, who can say what will be needed? Troops on the ground, with supporting logistics etc and helicopters and transport aircraft to support them? Naval forces to enforce an arms blockade, or to protect shipments of aid from an agressor - not necessarily a state, maybe pirates or terrorists? Aircraft to provide defence from hostile MiGs, or to provide CAS? What if the agressor has conventional weapons - aircraft, armour, missile, missile attack craft etc? What if the only way you can operate helicopters is from aboard ship? What if the only way to find out what the situation is is to use aircraft to overfly and do a reece? What if forces and NGOs engaged in disaster relief need protecting from terrorists?
There is also the possibility that the effects of climate change will need more peace keeping operations, more disaster relief and other low intensity tasks, at the same time that we are reducing our forces and putting extra reliance on technology to make up for numbers.
To go back to my post that started this thread, who can say what will be needed? Troops on the ground, with supporting logistics etc and helicopters and transport aircraft to support them? Naval forces to enforce an arms blockade, or to protect shipments of aid from an agressor - not necessarily a state, maybe pirates or terrorists? Aircraft to provide defence from hostile MiGs, or to provide CAS? What if the agressor has conventional weapons - aircraft, armour, missile, missile attack craft etc? What if the only way you can operate helicopters is from aboard ship? What if the only way to find out what the situation is is to use aircraft to overfly and do a reece? What if forces and NGOs engaged in disaster relief need protecting from terrorists?
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 10th Feb 2007 at 11:54.
Thread Starter
I found a thread from 2000 discussing very similar issues, before 9/11, the abandonment of SDR mandated force levels, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Hoon cuts, more proposed cuts....
State of the Nation - an open letter
I fear this regime of death by a thousand cuts will continue until it all goes wrong one day and we get thoroughly trashed by some tinpot regime who spent out on a few F16s and a couple of silent electric subs.
We have got too complacent over the last century or more by not losing any wars, our luck cant last, and as long as we continue to get involved in conflicts we had better be ready for the nasty shock which must, inevitably, come. Are our politicians ready for this, and are we, for that matter? It will shake this great nation to its core when it happens, and who knows what will result from the aftershocks.
Agaricus bisporus on page five.
State of the Nation - an open letter
I fear this regime of death by a thousand cuts will continue until it all goes wrong one day and we get thoroughly trashed by some tinpot regime who spent out on a few F16s and a couple of silent electric subs.
We have got too complacent over the last century or more by not losing any wars, our luck cant last, and as long as we continue to get involved in conflicts we had better be ready for the nasty shock which must, inevitably, come. Are our politicians ready for this, and are we, for that matter? It will shake this great nation to its core when it happens, and who knows what will result from the aftershocks.
Agaricus bisporus on page five.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Cambridge/Cambodia
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF,
I think you'll find the gist of that New Statesman issue (and the NS in general) is that we are far better of preventing global warming by investing in alternative energy and emission reduction.
Dreaming up threats resulting from climate change, beefing up the defence forces to protect against them, is not only closing the gate after the horse has bolted but missing the point of defence in that case.
As for the public/media being more amenable to increased defence spending;our illustrious leaders responsible for the commitment of such forces need to prove they can play with their toys sensibly before the public buys more in future. Post 2003 that ability hasn't been displayed particularly effectively.
I think you'll find the gist of that New Statesman issue (and the NS in general) is that we are far better of preventing global warming by investing in alternative energy and emission reduction.
Dreaming up threats resulting from climate change, beefing up the defence forces to protect against them, is not only closing the gate after the horse has bolted but missing the point of defence in that case.
As for the public/media being more amenable to increased defence spending;our illustrious leaders responsible for the commitment of such forces need to prove they can play with their toys sensibly before the public buys more in future. Post 2003 that ability hasn't been displayed particularly effectively.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF,
Is that again someone else's opinion with no opinion either way from yourself?
As Tourist said all this proves is that you read voraciously.
Any chance of posting your own opinions rather than cutting and pasting others?
Cheers
BHR
Is that again someone else's opinion with no opinion either way from yourself?
As Tourist said all this proves is that you read voraciously.
Any chance of posting your own opinions rather than cutting and pasting others?
Cheers
BHR
Thread Starter
How does it prove that I read it? 
With reference to the NS article, it says that the MOD and FCO see climate change as a source of future security problems. My opinion is that we must spend more of research into alternative energy sources, and reducing our energy consumption, but that is another topic.
I feel it is a little unfair on the MOD, which does take enviromental considerations seriously as does the defence industry. I bet the carbon footprint of BAE Systems is lower than that of Tescos.
The two paragraphs that I quoted sum up my fears. By configuring our forces for primarily low tech assymetric threats, an aggresor with a limited amount of conventional systems could wreak havoc that we (both as a nation and as part of the West) would have problems dealing with.
I think I have stated my opinion repeatedly. Incidentally it was offering opinions (and not just facts) that Tourist was critical off. Not surprising since the sub topic under discussion (MASC) does not appear to have been properly considered by the MOD or anyone else, my comments were indeed speculation, but largely based on basic physics.........
With reference to the NS article, it says that the MOD and FCO see climate change as a source of future security problems. My opinion is that we must spend more of research into alternative energy sources, and reducing our energy consumption, but that is another topic.
I feel it is a little unfair on the MOD, which does take enviromental considerations seriously as does the defence industry. I bet the carbon footprint of BAE Systems is lower than that of Tescos.
The two paragraphs that I quoted sum up my fears. By configuring our forces for primarily low tech assymetric threats, an aggresor with a limited amount of conventional systems could wreak havoc that we (both as a nation and as part of the West) would have problems dealing with.
I think I have stated my opinion repeatedly. Incidentally it was offering opinions (and not just facts) that Tourist was critical off. Not surprising since the sub topic under discussion (MASC) does not appear to have been properly considered by the MOD or anyone else, my comments were indeed speculation, but largely based on basic physics.........
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 12th Feb 2007 at 22:56.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Rural Somerset
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Notwithstanding the constant links to other people's work..............I always treat anyone stating that they are a fanatic of the WE Branch (what do they do onboard anyway?).........very suspect.
Thread Starter
I know this will probably count as a bite.........
The name "WE Branch Fanatic" is very much a legacy. When I joined PPRuNe it was the name I selected. The "WE Branch" refers to were I was hoping/expecting to go before things went wrong (and subsequent events highlighted personal issues that relate to this). The "Fanatic" bit was a joke at my own expense regarding my strongly held views. I now part of the naval service in a very different capacity to the one I imagined.
No psychoanalysis please.........not here.
As for the WE departments at sea, in ships where the fighting capabilities are provided by the ship's own sensors and weapons they're responsible for proving this capability. No point in having systems you can't maintain. Aboard a CVS or LPH they may play second fiddle to the air group, aboard a LPD they may be secondary to the landing craft, helicopters and embarked troops, but would you want to fly from a ship without radar, EW, landing aids, communications etc.
I've worked on what might be called WE equipment as a civilian, and one system that come to mind was designed for the Type 23 frigate but also retrofitted to the carriers, Ocean,LPD(R).........
There is a little irony in your comment as the amount of money spend on ships' sensor and weapons and their upkeep has dwindled in recent years, in fact most of it has been spent elsewhere.
The name "WE Branch Fanatic" is very much a legacy. When I joined PPRuNe it was the name I selected. The "WE Branch" refers to were I was hoping/expecting to go before things went wrong (and subsequent events highlighted personal issues that relate to this). The "Fanatic" bit was a joke at my own expense regarding my strongly held views. I now part of the naval service in a very different capacity to the one I imagined.
No psychoanalysis please.........not here.
As for the WE departments at sea, in ships where the fighting capabilities are provided by the ship's own sensors and weapons they're responsible for proving this capability. No point in having systems you can't maintain. Aboard a CVS or LPH they may play second fiddle to the air group, aboard a LPD they may be secondary to the landing craft, helicopters and embarked troops, but would you want to fly from a ship without radar, EW, landing aids, communications etc.
I've worked on what might be called WE equipment as a civilian, and one system that come to mind was designed for the Type 23 frigate but also retrofitted to the carriers, Ocean,LPD(R).........
There is a little irony in your comment as the amount of money spend on ships' sensor and weapons and their upkeep has dwindled in recent years, in fact most of it has been spent elsewhere.