Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Stoke
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by junglyAEO
Except of course that USMC FW support predominantly comes from FA18s based on CVNs and their AEW and ASW is all USN provided, again from CVN and DD/FF fleet. But apart from that, get's my vote, but what'll we do with 232 Eurofighters?
As for the Eurofighters . . . I really don't know - that's the beauty of being an arm-chair commentator with no power, no experience and a lack of anything that qualifies me for making any of my comments about military matters besides a keen interest in military history, a JANES subscription and an inquiring mind . . .
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In regards to the comments posted about Britain no longer being a "world power", that is totally untrue. Ofcourse we are no longer a superpower and of course the empire is gone, but that doesn't mean we're not a world power, far from it infact. Let me throw you some statistics;
The Royal Navy is the second largest in the world in terms of gross tonnage.
The UK has the 3rd highest military expenditure in the world.
The second largest spender on military science, engineering and technology in the world.
The UK's power projection capabilities are second only to the US military.
Britain is a major nuclear power.
And i'm sure you'll agree British armed forces are arguably the finest in the world.
(i'm totally of subject but what the hell)
The Royal Navy is the second largest in the world in terms of gross tonnage.
The UK has the 3rd highest military expenditure in the world.
The second largest spender on military science, engineering and technology in the world.
The UK's power projection capabilities are second only to the US military.
Britain is a major nuclear power.
And i'm sure you'll agree British armed forces are arguably the finest in the world.
(i'm totally of subject but what the hell)
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course with any CV we need to suficient escorts to be able to protect it and RFA's to sustain it on long deployments. And with the current appetite for cuts and 'Savings' we won't have the capability to support them if we ever have to deploy them to the other side of the world.
Looking at the way the armed forces is going it won't be to long before the requirement will be for all kit to be able to fit in the back of a C-17.
Looking at the way the armed forces is going it won't be to long before the requirement will be for all kit to be able to fit in the back of a C-17.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FF - there, there. I notice you chose not to actually answer. Quite right, rise above it.
What were the criteria for posting in the Military Aircrew forum again?
But enough petty squabbling...
Rich is right, and we can still sustain a force pretty much anywhere on the high seas with no reliance on HNS. For any largish operation we (and the U.S.) still require STUFT (Ships Taken Up From Trade) in the form of RO-RO/FLO-FLO etc. It's really the only way to move significant amounts of stuff. We will never rely on a C-17 to deploy - it actually can't move nearly enough people/logs and is totally at the whim of a HN and of course massively more vulnerable.
What were the criteria for posting in the Military Aircrew forum again?
But enough petty squabbling...
Rich is right, and we can still sustain a force pretty much anywhere on the high seas with no reliance on HNS. For any largish operation we (and the U.S.) still require STUFT (Ships Taken Up From Trade) in the form of RO-RO/FLO-FLO etc. It's really the only way to move significant amounts of stuff. We will never rely on a C-17 to deploy - it actually can't move nearly enough people/logs and is totally at the whim of a HN and of course massively more vulnerable.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In the dark
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by scottishbeefer
What were the criteria for posting in the Military Aircrew forum again?
Do you need to get your PA to read it for you?
There are a large number of both serving and ex serving military people in Lisbon. I know I qualify for the above, do you?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The Royal Navy is the second largest in the world in terms of gross tonnage."
Must be all the pork pies they eat. Still waiting to see a post from Jungly AEO without Eurofighter in it
regards
retard
Must be all the pork pies they eat. Still waiting to see a post from Jungly AEO without Eurofighter in it
regards
retard
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JAEO
Try getting an Italian, Spaniard and a German to help, you can do take 4 times longer at 16 times the cost. But your posts will be absolutely top notch.
regards
retard
Try getting an Italian, Spaniard and a German to help, you can do take 4 times longer at 16 times the cost. But your posts will be absolutely top notch.
regards
retard
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FF - come on now, your line of attack in this thread has been rather misinformed, based around the foundation that "carriers are rubbish- let's bolster the RAF." To say this is a facile, inaccurate representation of the present, let alone the title of the thread, ie "Future Carrier" is an understatement, and indicates you simply have not been reading your Janes or other accurate open source. We're a joint operation these days, whether the individual service oldies like it or not. That means a coherent joined up plan in the round to get capability. Like it or no, some stuff - like Typhoon has a limited application in the true expeditionary sense. And the idea that we'll be able to stick everything in the back of a C-17 is nonsense.
Ask the guys at Joint Command Lisbon to get you a NATO strike brief, on the (unclas)-sified level, not above. They'll be happy to oblige. If on the other hand you're not based there, then you're presumably ex-mil, enjoying the sun and golf, and are currently out of touch with the grand strategic plan. No worries there but you can't expect to be taken seriously when you post stuff like you have in this thread.
I'm not trying to pontificate here (although I probably am).
Ask the guys at Joint Command Lisbon to get you a NATO strike brief, on the (unclas)-sified level, not above. They'll be happy to oblige. If on the other hand you're not based there, then you're presumably ex-mil, enjoying the sun and golf, and are currently out of touch with the grand strategic plan. No worries there but you can't expect to be taken seriously when you post stuff like you have in this thread.
I'm not trying to pontificate here (although I probably am).
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In the dark
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by scottishbeefer
FF - come on now, your line of attack in this thread has been rather misinformed, based around the foundation that "carriers are rubbish- let's bolster the RAF." To say this is a facile, inaccurate representation of the present, let alone the title of the thread, ie "Future Carrier" is an understatement, and indicates you simply have not been reading your Janes or other accurate open source. We're a joint operation these days, whether the individual service oldies like it or not. That means a coherent joined up plan in the round to get capability. Like it or no, some stuff - like Typhoon has a limited application in the true expeditionary sense. And the idea that we'll be able to stick everything in the back of a C-17 is nonsense.
Ask the guys at Joint Command Lisbon to get you a NATO strike brief, on the (unclas)-sified level, not above. They'll be happy to oblige. If on the other hand you're not based there, then you're presumably ex-mil, enjoying the sun and golf, and are currently out of touch with the grand strategic plan. No worries there but you can't expect to be taken seriously when you post stuff like you have in this thread.
I'm not trying to pontificate here (although I probably am).
Ask the guys at Joint Command Lisbon to get you a NATO strike brief, on the (unclas)-sified level, not above. They'll be happy to oblige. If on the other hand you're not based there, then you're presumably ex-mil, enjoying the sun and golf, and are currently out of touch with the grand strategic plan. No worries there but you can't expect to be taken seriously when you post stuff like you have in this thread.
I'm not trying to pontificate here (although I probably am).
What you fail to realise is there is a larger, and larger difference between what the military wants to do and what the politicians say they will do. It is all well and good argueing how great carriers are and what they can do. It is a politician who decideds where to send them, not the military. You are happy to ignore that fact along with the political implications of us parking a carrier of some country or anothers coastline. The world has changed. Just who do you think we will be fighting against in the future?
At what point have I stated carriers are rubbish? What about the comments other have made that do not agree with your views?
Are you also forgetting the support carriers need?
Accurate open source? I think the Yeti has my copy.
Grand Strategic Plan? I think the Lock Ness Monster has my copy.
Please explain your coments on Typhoon? Is it not allowed out of the UK or something? Did you read this in Janes?
All this forgets the most important man in the military, the grunt on the ground. Without them Air or Sea Power is nothing, just look at Kosovo.
Open your eyes to the real world, sounds like you have been in the service to long. I assume you qualify for this forum some how?
PS I hate golf
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Oxford
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blah
Its a shame when people feel the need to get personal. HM Forces has enough enemies without us turning on each other...
As for carriers, there are several reasons why we will probably get them into service and the primary reason is that they will be built in Scotland and in Gordon Brown's constituency.
There are equally sound military reasons on both sides of the argument - just needs people to accept that. It has already been formally announced that GB military planning assumes we will never go to war without the US during large-medium scale ops.....leaving us going it alone for small scale dust-ups. Immediately after that announcement, questions were asked by intrepid counters of beans why we needed carriers then...oh....alright....perhaps a couple of teensy-weeny ones. There is no debate about that; if you manage to find a senior RN officer alone, slightly tipsy and feeling sorry for himself, then they will (off the record) grudgingly admit that they have stripped the fleet in a frantic attempt to afford 2 carriers with no guarantee they will ever be delivered. I have even found one who confessed that he saw no real value for them for future ops (yes, I have the name.....address...and accept all major credit cards)
Personally, I have my doubts as to the value of carriers (eggs...basket...one..centre of gravity....bang glug glug) unless they can launch (and recover) tankers, AEW, EW etc etc. I also stand by the theory that we will never go to war without USS Uncle SAM.....I might be wrong, hey, its not important.
However, the smartest trick the RN ever pulled was naming them....
As for carriers, there are several reasons why we will probably get them into service and the primary reason is that they will be built in Scotland and in Gordon Brown's constituency.
There are equally sound military reasons on both sides of the argument - just needs people to accept that. It has already been formally announced that GB military planning assumes we will never go to war without the US during large-medium scale ops.....leaving us going it alone for small scale dust-ups. Immediately after that announcement, questions were asked by intrepid counters of beans why we needed carriers then...oh....alright....perhaps a couple of teensy-weeny ones. There is no debate about that; if you manage to find a senior RN officer alone, slightly tipsy and feeling sorry for himself, then they will (off the record) grudgingly admit that they have stripped the fleet in a frantic attempt to afford 2 carriers with no guarantee they will ever be delivered. I have even found one who confessed that he saw no real value for them for future ops (yes, I have the name.....address...and accept all major credit cards)
Personally, I have my doubts as to the value of carriers (eggs...basket...one..centre of gravity....bang glug glug) unless they can launch (and recover) tankers, AEW, EW etc etc. I also stand by the theory that we will never go to war without USS Uncle SAM.....I might be wrong, hey, its not important.
However, the smartest trick the RN ever pulled was naming them....
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Just who do you think we will be fighting against in the future?'
As has been said before, Uk Armed Forces plc has enough enemies as it is. There are enough people outside the services against us getting these carriers (the bean counters!) without the service men arguing about it as well!
Wouldn't you all like to see a big ass carrier sailing down the channel with the navy ensign/union jack etc flying from her masts?!
It would give us an increase in our expeditionary capability - which we all know is the name of the game nowadays - and if the government are thinking about giving us them, then lets all get on the band wagon and dam well support it!
I would love to see 2 CV with CTOL F35 and Hawkeye 2000 - but I doubt very much that the bean counters will give us the (comparitively) extra little cash to realise that pipe dream. But a CV with STOVL F35, realistically speaking a Merlin solution for MASC, and regular embarkation of apaches/chinooks/junglies etc - brilliant!
The navy deserve them, and RN will never be the same if the govt let em down and cancel CVF - too many sacrifices made already!
Although I agree with those of us who would like to see more C17 and/or a bigger fleet of tankers, acquiring these aren't an alternative to CVF thats on the table! On the contrary, if CVF is cancelled, we won't have the savings made to pump back into the defence budget. The cash will disappear (probably to education or the Olympics!) and we will all be worse off.
As for the earlier comment: 'who do you think we will be fighting against in the future'...... are you being serious?! If we knew that then life would be alot easier! However, the world being completely unpredictable as it is, and until you can tell me which station's stores are issueing crystal balls, getting two extremely flexible, mobile, powerful and capable power projecting assets is probably the best way to equip ourselves in order to deal with whoever we will be fighting against in the future!
Cheers
Wouldn't you all like to see a big ass carrier sailing down the channel with the navy ensign/union jack etc flying from her masts?!
It would give us an increase in our expeditionary capability - which we all know is the name of the game nowadays - and if the government are thinking about giving us them, then lets all get on the band wagon and dam well support it!I would love to see 2 CV with CTOL F35 and Hawkeye 2000 - but I doubt very much that the bean counters will give us the (comparitively) extra little cash to realise that pipe dream. But a CV with STOVL F35, realistically speaking a Merlin solution for MASC, and regular embarkation of apaches/chinooks/junglies etc - brilliant!
The navy deserve them, and RN will never be the same if the govt let em down and cancel CVF - too many sacrifices made already!
Although I agree with those of us who would like to see more C17 and/or a bigger fleet of tankers, acquiring these aren't an alternative to CVF thats on the table! On the contrary, if CVF is cancelled, we won't have the savings made to pump back into the defence budget. The cash will disappear (probably to education or the Olympics!) and we will all be worse off. As for the earlier comment: 'who do you think we will be fighting against in the future'...... are you being serious?! If we knew that then life would be alot easier! However, the world being completely unpredictable as it is, and until you can tell me which station's stores are issueing crystal balls, getting two extremely flexible, mobile, powerful and capable power projecting assets is probably the best way to equip ourselves in order to deal with whoever we will be fighting against in the future!
Cheers
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What the UK armed forces needs is time and resources to Balance so we can do the Expiditionary warfare. Remember the BEF was an expiditionary force sent into battle ill equipped to deal with a modern enemey. Reason because in the years following WW1 succesive govts drew a peace dividen and would not modernise the forces. Not strictly the same today but the lack of resources and increased deployments is creating a similar result as forces are reconfigured to fight the last war we took part in.
All three services need to be balanced out IMHO
Naval:
1: 2x CVF
2: 1X LPH (another HMS Ocean)
3: 10x TYPE 45 in addition to those ordered
4: 18+ New designed Frigates to replace Type 22/23
5: 3 more Wave class Tankers
6: 6-8 smaller tankers to replace the rover class
FAA
3 Sqns of carrier capable aircraft eg F35
Airborne AEW and ELINT platform
heavy support helicopter
replacement of seaking HC4 with merlin hc or nh90
Apache sqn for royal marines
replacement of lynx in laison/recce role by battle field lynx
Army
needs to be 3 Divisions
1 Heavy of 3 full armoured Divisions
1 Medium 3 Mech Divisions
1 Light made up of 16 Air assualt, and 2 light role Bdes 9who can operate from Amphib fleet or be airlanded in all kit shold be c130/c17 compatable
CVRT replaced with a propre light armoured recce vehice
Saxon Replaced by a proper Mech inf AFV wheeled
Sufficient non brigaded units to provide support and manpower with out having to strip operational units.
AAC
replacement of Lynx in Laison/recce role ? Battlefield lynx
a GS transport type helecoptor like NH90 to replace lynx in transport role
RAF
increase in Typhoon Fighter so we have Airdefence assets 6 sqns
Typhoon Multi role 6-9 sqns
F35 6 sqns
Tornado GR4 replacement
C17 force to be raised to 10
A400m force of 30
C130J force of 30
Tanker/transport fleet of at least 24 aircraft
Transport Hele
SF dedicated aircraft chinook or merlin fleet of 6-8
Seaking HAR3/3A replaced with Merlin equipped for CSAR
Puma Replaced with Merlin to supplement Lift capability of AAC NH90
additional merlin sqn formed
increased number of chinooks
additional MPA aircraft
UAV ISTAR assets
and increases in ISTAR Assets ground sea and airborne across all 3 services
Just a pipe dream
All three services need to be balanced out IMHO
Naval:
1: 2x CVF
2: 1X LPH (another HMS Ocean)
3: 10x TYPE 45 in addition to those ordered
4: 18+ New designed Frigates to replace Type 22/23
5: 3 more Wave class Tankers
6: 6-8 smaller tankers to replace the rover class
FAA
3 Sqns of carrier capable aircraft eg F35
Airborne AEW and ELINT platform
heavy support helicopter
replacement of seaking HC4 with merlin hc or nh90
Apache sqn for royal marines
replacement of lynx in laison/recce role by battle field lynx
Army
needs to be 3 Divisions
1 Heavy of 3 full armoured Divisions
1 Medium 3 Mech Divisions
1 Light made up of 16 Air assualt, and 2 light role Bdes 9who can operate from Amphib fleet or be airlanded in all kit shold be c130/c17 compatable
CVRT replaced with a propre light armoured recce vehice
Saxon Replaced by a proper Mech inf AFV wheeled
Sufficient non brigaded units to provide support and manpower with out having to strip operational units.
AAC
replacement of Lynx in Laison/recce role ? Battlefield lynx
a GS transport type helecoptor like NH90 to replace lynx in transport role
RAF
increase in Typhoon Fighter so we have Airdefence assets 6 sqns
Typhoon Multi role 6-9 sqns
F35 6 sqns
Tornado GR4 replacement
C17 force to be raised to 10
A400m force of 30
C130J force of 30
Tanker/transport fleet of at least 24 aircraft
Transport Hele
SF dedicated aircraft chinook or merlin fleet of 6-8
Seaking HAR3/3A replaced with Merlin equipped for CSAR
Puma Replaced with Merlin to supplement Lift capability of AAC NH90
additional merlin sqn formed
increased number of chinooks
additional MPA aircraft
UAV ISTAR assets
and increases in ISTAR Assets ground sea and airborne across all 3 services
Just a pipe dream
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In the dark
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sense1
As has been said before, Uk Armed Forces plc has enough enemies as it is. There are enough people outside the services against us getting these carriers (the bean counters!) without the service men arguing about it as well!
Wouldn't you all like to see a big ass carrier sailing down the channel with the navy ensign/union jack etc flying from her masts?! It would give us an increase in our expeditionary capability - which we all know is the name of the game nowadays - and if the government are thinking about giving us them, then lets all get on the band wagon and dam well support it!
I would love to see 2 CV with CTOL F35 and Hawkeye 2000 - but I doubt very much that the bean counters will give us the (comparitively) extra little cash to realise that pipe dream. But a CV with STOVL F35, realistically speaking a Merlin solution for MASC, and regular embarkation of apaches/chinooks/junglies etc - brilliant!
The navy deserve them, and RN will never be the same if the govt let em down and cancel CVF - too many sacrifices made already! Although I agree with those of us who would like to see more C17 and/or a bigger fleet of tankers, acquiring these aren't an alternative to CVF thats on the table! On the contrary, if CVF is cancelled, we won't have the savings made to pump back into the defence budget. The cash will disappear (probably to education or the Olympics!) and we will all be worse off.
As for the earlier comment: 'who do you think we will be fighting against in the future'...... are you being serious?! If we knew that then life would be alot easier! However, the world being completely unpredictable as it is, and until you can tell me which station's stores are issueing crystal balls, getting two extremely flexible, mobile, powerful and capable power projecting assets is probably the best way to equip ourselves in order to deal with whoever we will be fighting against in the future!
Cheers
Wouldn't you all like to see a big ass carrier sailing down the channel with the navy ensign/union jack etc flying from her masts?!
It would give us an increase in our expeditionary capability - which we all know is the name of the game nowadays - and if the government are thinking about giving us them, then lets all get on the band wagon and dam well support it!I would love to see 2 CV with CTOL F35 and Hawkeye 2000 - but I doubt very much that the bean counters will give us the (comparitively) extra little cash to realise that pipe dream. But a CV with STOVL F35, realistically speaking a Merlin solution for MASC, and regular embarkation of apaches/chinooks/junglies etc - brilliant!
The navy deserve them, and RN will never be the same if the govt let em down and cancel CVF - too many sacrifices made already!
Although I agree with those of us who would like to see more C17 and/or a bigger fleet of tankers, acquiring these aren't an alternative to CVF thats on the table! On the contrary, if CVF is cancelled, we won't have the savings made to pump back into the defence budget. The cash will disappear (probably to education or the Olympics!) and we will all be worse off. As for the earlier comment: 'who do you think we will be fighting against in the future'...... are you being serious?! If we knew that then life would be alot easier! However, the world being completely unpredictable as it is, and until you can tell me which station's stores are issueing crystal balls, getting two extremely flexible, mobile, powerful and capable power projecting assets is probably the best way to equip ourselves in order to deal with whoever we will be fighting against in the future!
Cheers
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In 30-40 years, China, India and Brazil are all predicted to be superpowers with economies surpassing that of the United States, that is a fact. What happens if one of these countries decides to throw there weight around? Lets say, if China decides to invade Taiwan, and we say "no or else". We may just find ourselves in WW3!
Also, the EU (whether we like it or not) is expected to become much more "federalised" and will probably have a single foreign policy and armed forces, its already planning to become a counterweight the US, we all know that Britain contributes more than anyone to the EU force and in the future we will have a big role in it, so we're gonna need a fully-effective force. What i'm trying to say guys, is that the world is changing fast, the day of the one superpower is soon to be over and were gonna find that our enemies may just be a little bit bigger than small autocratic regimes.
Hasn't history taught us anything? 60 years ago we were fighting WW2, 20 years ago the world was on the brink of total nuclear destruction...
Also, the EU (whether we like it or not) is expected to become much more "federalised" and will probably have a single foreign policy and armed forces, its already planning to become a counterweight the US, we all know that Britain contributes more than anyone to the EU force and in the future we will have a big role in it, so we're gonna need a fully-effective force. What i'm trying to say guys, is that the world is changing fast, the day of the one superpower is soon to be over and were gonna find that our enemies may just be a little bit bigger than small autocratic regimes.
Hasn't history taught us anything? 60 years ago we were fighting WW2, 20 years ago the world was on the brink of total nuclear destruction...
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Rich_2k6
In 30-40 years, China, India and Brazil are all predicted to be superpowers with economies surpassing that of the United States, that is a fact.
What happens if one of these countries decides to throw there weight around? Lets say, if China decides to invade Taiwan, and we say "no or else". We may just find ourselves in WW3!
Also, the EU (whether we like it or not) is expected to become much more "federalised" and will probably have a single foreign policy and armed forces, its already planning to become a counterweight the US,
we all know that Britain contributes more than anyone to the EU force and in the future we will have a big role in it,
so we're gonna need a fully-effective force.
What i'm trying to say guys, is that the world is changing fast, the day of the one superpower is soon to be over
and were gonna find that our enemies may just be a little bit bigger than small autocratic regimes.
Hasn't history taught us anything? 60 years ago we were fighting WW2, 20 years ago the world was on the brink of total nuclear destruction...
Hasn't history taught us anything? 60 years ago we were fighting WW2, 20 years ago the world was on the brink of total nuclear destruction...
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Read this: http://www.cia.gov/nic/NIC_globaltrend2020_s2.html
Countries such as China, India and Brazil are predcited to rival the US if not succeed it by 2050. The EU is also an emerging superpower, infact, if considered a single unit it is a superpower, the EU has a population of 456 million, compared with America's 292 million. The EU GDP is $12.3 trillion ($11.6 trillion for the United States), and it has 1.9 million military personnel (compared with America's 1.4 million). All it needs is to further intergrate and its there. In regards to other future superpowers, I dont think people realise their potential, and in 50 years the US will NOT be the only superpower.
Countries such as China, India and Brazil are predcited to rival the US if not succeed it by 2050. The EU is also an emerging superpower, infact, if considered a single unit it is a superpower, the EU has a population of 456 million, compared with America's 292 million. The EU GDP is $12.3 trillion ($11.6 trillion for the United States), and it has 1.9 million military personnel (compared with America's 1.4 million). All it needs is to further intergrate and its there. In regards to other future superpowers, I dont think people realise their potential, and in 50 years the US will NOT be the only superpower.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FormerFlake
You forget that when the government allocates money they are thinking about who we will be fighting in the future. Ordering only 2 carriers mean not fighting any one who is going to fight back.
We ordered 3 CVS in the 1970s in order to counter the ENORMOUS Soviet Submarine threat - 3!! Just 3. That is what the government gave us to fight the largest military threat (on the high seas) that we have faced since the Second World War. So, numbers of platforms doesn't really mean anything other than we are getting as many as we can afford/man/protect etc. Acquiring 2 certainly doesn't give an indication that the government will only use them against those countries who aren't going to fight back (and by that I think you mean those without similar capabilities to be able to effectively fight back ie no fighters etc??).
So, IMHO, when HM Govt allocates money they are thinking about how they can best utilise the limited funds available - and that is on 2 CVF. I am sure those that command them, man them and fly from them (as well as EVERYBODY else) would ensure they are used as neccessary!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ordering only 2 carriers mean not fighting any one who is going to fight back.
Politicians absolutely call the shots - no question. (My goodness, we agree on something.)
France, Spain, Italy, India, Brasil, oh and us - all countries who will never engage an enemy with any military capability. Or B...
...they/we all have only 1 or 2 CV's because they're frikkin' expensive and that's all we/they can afford. As an individual nation we could not possibly stand against an Iran, China or N.Korea. However - we see our part in the affairs of the world as having more than just a diplomatic say, we want some teeth as well. Additionally, and possibly more importantly, having our own capability allows us the autonomous action we may wish to pursue, whether it's because we're on the spot first and can't wait, or because we are pursuing a line of action without any other support - the FI spring to mind.
If you want to end up with the niche OC of the Netherlands (and what the Cloggies do, they do right well) then fine - but do not complain when you find yourself queueing up to the EU/UN to get them to do something about your problems. Good luck to us all if that's the path we go down.
France, Spain, Italy, India, Brasil, oh and us - all countries who will never engage an enemy with any military capability. Or B...
...they/we all have only 1 or 2 CV's because they're frikkin' expensive and that's all we/they can afford. As an individual nation we could not possibly stand against an Iran, China or N.Korea. However - we see our part in the affairs of the world as having more than just a diplomatic say, we want some teeth as well. Additionally, and possibly more importantly, having our own capability allows us the autonomous action we may wish to pursue, whether it's because we're on the spot first and can't wait, or because we are pursuing a line of action without any other support - the FI spring to mind.
If you want to end up with the niche OC of the Netherlands (and what the Cloggies do, they do right well) then fine - but do not complain when you find yourself queueing up to the EU/UN to get them to do something about your problems. Good luck to us all if that's the path we go down.
Thread Starter
I understand that the reason that it was decided to order three CVS back in the '70s was because it was assumed one would be in refit etc.......leaving two at varying states of readiness. Times have changed, and modern maintenance and condition monitoring should mean these vessels spend relatively little time in upkeep.
Therefore two will suffice.
Therefore two will suffice.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk(occasionally)
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF
You would think so wouldnt you?
Hahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahha.
Times have changed, and modern maintenance and condition monitoring should mean these vessels spend relatively little time in upkeep.
Hahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahha.