Defence: Public ignorance, the media, and cutbacks
The people of several Middle Eastern nations would disagree.
The RN needs to build on its key strength - the nuclear deterrent - and structure and justify itself around maintaining and strengthening that unique capability.
The RN actually has an opportunity to do this now with a new Defence Secretary who is a very smart guy, and the RAF effectively giving up coastal command, and the UK SAR fleet facing a wobbly future. They could trade away the white elephant carrier which will at best have hopelessly late and unaffordable F-35s to fly from it, or at worse, be obliged to acquire Rafales.
With the money saved the FAA could bid for control of all maritime surveillance and SAR assets, possibly ending with a decent fleet of say P-8s, P-3s and King Air 350s, with a global reach that could do the core job of shepherding the nuke boats, plus provide decent support to a fleet of long-range frigates and RFA assets for the drug and piracy patrol roles, plus get long-term control of coastal and inland SAR (and give RM M&AW cadre a new role).
I know, all pie in the sky. The RN will insist of having a carrier which will spend most of its life in port, waiting for unaffordable aircraft, waiting for a war to start to justify itself, and will probably get sunk the moment it sets sail in anger due to lack of surveillance cover...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trim Stab,
There would also be a requirement for coastal defence from smaller boats, anti submarine frigates and destroyers. Don't need to purchase hugely expensive bits of kit, just follow the examples given by Norway and Sweden. That way we might be able to afford sufficient numbers to actually defend our coast line.
Unfortunately this does ignore the fact that the large majority of UK supplies are delivered by sea, and by not having deep water vessels we will not be able to protect those supply lines. Cannibalism might then become an option/ necessity.
We will still require airborne assets to provide top cover, detection and offense.
There would also be a requirement for coastal defence from smaller boats, anti submarine frigates and destroyers. Don't need to purchase hugely expensive bits of kit, just follow the examples given by Norway and Sweden. That way we might be able to afford sufficient numbers to actually defend our coast line.
Unfortunately this does ignore the fact that the large majority of UK supplies are delivered by sea, and by not having deep water vessels we will not be able to protect those supply lines. Cannibalism might then become an option/ necessity.
We will still require airborne assets to provide top cover, detection and offense.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whenurhappy,
True, I should, maybe have been somewhat clearer in what I wrote. I was alluding to the Hauk class and Skjold class coastal warfare vessels of the Norwegian Navy along with the Swedish Visby class corvette and vessels like the Triton trimaran.
If you look at paragraph two of my previous posting you will see that I did mention the requirement for deep water vessels. Problem with the Type 45 is that it is hugely expensive (nowt wrong with that if you can afford it) and it is air defence only. We require the anti ship and anti submarine vessels, along with many more big black metal whales, to go with them.
Oh, and the Norwegian Aegis-fitted vessels are cheap? Well, let's get rid of the Type 45 straightaway!
If you look at paragraph two of my previous posting you will see that I did mention the requirement for deep water vessels. Problem with the Type 45 is that it is hugely expensive (nowt wrong with that if you can afford it) and it is air defence only. We require the anti ship and anti submarine vessels, along with many more big black metal whales, to go with them.
Last edited by hval; 1st Nov 2011 at 19:20. Reason: EEK! Can't tell the difference between elude and allude
Thread Starter
For a few years now I have speculated on the demands that the 2012 London Olympics would place upon HM Forces. Well now the talk is of 6000 troops being tasked with London based security duties, as well as others in Dorset for the sailing events.
Army to increase security at London 2012 Olympics
RN and RAF assets will be needed too. Where will they all come from?
Army to increase security at London 2012 Olympics
RN and RAF assets will be needed too. Where will they all come from?
Where will they all come from
However, does this mean that any unit that still has block leave (and by experience of working with the RN the summer block was always in August - a bitch for the singlies!) will find their plans being "re-arranged"?
Thread Starter
When I talked about the Olympics I meant assets - ships/aircraft etc. a Type 45 in the Thames Estuary, no doubt with Typhoons overhead, with Sentry support, and there has also been talk of HMS Bulwark (the LPD that has not been mothballed) going to the Weymouth area for the sailing events - with her command facilities, ability to operate various small vessels and carry a couple of hundred Bootnecks, and her large flight deck. No doubt other assets will be committed.
There are other venues in other parts of the UK. Will the security needs of the Olympics be given priority over operational needs - 2012 is looking like a not entirely peaceful year?
On the subject of risk, a number of newspapers are reporting that HMS Westminster (a T23 frigate) was sent to Libya with only four Seawolf missiles. The Telegraph report is here. Note that the MOD does not deny the story.
Is this a taste of things to come? To me it looks like we are making our deployed forces more and more vulnerable, whilst our politicians still like to talk loudly. I see that more sanctions are being put on Iran. On the subject of Iran, everyone seems to think than Iran cannot attack shipping in the Gulf as it would stop their own exports. They miss the point that specific vessels, heading to our from a certain place or flying a certain flag, can be easily targeted. Even mines can be used against specific ships. Small boat operations can be controlled and coordinated by maritime patrol aircraft.
Likewise the anti ship missiles launched from land, various surface vesels, or aircraft.
Dangerous times ahead - which SDSR did not predict. SDSR seems to predict that all future conflict will be a carbon copy of Afghanistan, which is very unlikely. Can our defence policy adapt to a changing world (consider the OODA concept), or are we locked into waiting until the next defence review in 2015, and things like lessons from Libya and the Arab Spring will be ignored?
There are other venues in other parts of the UK. Will the security needs of the Olympics be given priority over operational needs - 2012 is looking like a not entirely peaceful year?
On the subject of risk, a number of newspapers are reporting that HMS Westminster (a T23 frigate) was sent to Libya with only four Seawolf missiles. The Telegraph report is here. Note that the MOD does not deny the story.
Is this a taste of things to come? To me it looks like we are making our deployed forces more and more vulnerable, whilst our politicians still like to talk loudly. I see that more sanctions are being put on Iran. On the subject of Iran, everyone seems to think than Iran cannot attack shipping in the Gulf as it would stop their own exports. They miss the point that specific vessels, heading to our from a certain place or flying a certain flag, can be easily targeted. Even mines can be used against specific ships. Small boat operations can be controlled and coordinated by maritime patrol aircraft.
Likewise the anti ship missiles launched from land, various surface vesels, or aircraft.
Dangerous times ahead - which SDSR did not predict. SDSR seems to predict that all future conflict will be a carbon copy of Afghanistan, which is very unlikely. Can our defence policy adapt to a changing world (consider the OODA concept), or are we locked into waiting until the next defence review in 2015, and things like lessons from Libya and the Arab Spring will be ignored?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Middle England
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last I heard it was 11000 total requirement with 2500 from the RAF. 'No leave ban' except for those that are pinged for duty......errr so thats a leave ban then.....
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WE_Branch_Fanatic,
and things like lessons from Libya and the Arab Spring will be ignored?
Most of the lessons from virtually every other op have been. That's why we stopped calling them "Lessons Learnt" and started calling them "Lessons Identified" instead. Oh, unless the lessons involved cutting something, in which case they were learnt very quickly.
Such a cynic!
and things like lessons from Libya and the Arab Spring will be ignored?
Most of the lessons from virtually every other op have been. That's why we stopped calling them "Lessons Learnt" and started calling them "Lessons Identified" instead. Oh, unless the lessons involved cutting something, in which case they were learnt very quickly.
Such a cynic!
Originally Posted by BillHicksRules
As to MOD budget cuts, there is a very large and expensive "elephant in the room" that could be cut.
However, no one seems to have the balls to do it.
However, no one seems to have the balls to do it.
No votes to be won there.
