|
The FI, just as all other UK assets, need to be protected within the umbrella of UK Defence. The islands also support the UK claim to the large chunk of the Antarctic that we hold. The UK defence of it's territories requires a wide range of capabilities in depth. However, funding is not a bottomless pit of cash and so, to avoid the hollowing out of the core Defence of the realm capabilities, we should not have wasted ££Billions on the ridiculous QEc Expeditionary war capability. TBH, the whole Expeditionary warfare concept is a corruption of UK Defence. UK foreign policy is not one of Crusading AFAIK. The UK is not declared as a nation bent on subjugation of other nations. However, defence can require attack and, the ability to attack and claim territory should be a part of UK Defence core ability. That is the crux. The Expeditionary capability should be drawn from the fully formed, equipped and capable core Defence forces, if required, not the other way around!
The question of how large and capable the core UK Defence forces need to be is simply answered by assessment of the threats and our methods needed to counter them successfully. Some additional elements of capability for limited Expeditionary warfare might be added but, the basic principle must be, core first! Beyond that, unless the UK is considering mounting Crusading warfare against other nations, there is no reason for cutting core Defence capabilities to support Expeditionary pie in the sky and to the great detriment of UK National security. := OAP |
Originally Posted by pr00ne
(Post 10021506)
If that policy was adopted then prepare for HUGE cuts as there is no specific threat to the safety of the UK out there and none on the horizon.
2. Potential threats require a manned, trained, equipped and funded armed forces - otherwise point 1 becomes moot. |
The UK is not declared as a nation bent on subjugation of other nations. https://www.targetmap.com/Thumbnails...THUMB_IPAD.jpg Old habits die hard, as the Iraqis and others are endlessly reminded. |
"The islands also support the UK claim to the large chunk of the Antarctic that we hold."
Actually we don't .. we have a histiric claim as do many others and many of them overlap - the Antarctic Treaty puts these into abeyance Anyone can go anywhere and set up any base in Antarctica - Places liek teh S Sandhcih Islands and S georgia are somewhat different |
Originally Posted by Cazalet33
(Post 10023505)
Mebbe not now that the country is a broken reed, but once upon a time....
https://www.targetmap.com/Thumbnails...THUMB_IPAD.jpg Old habits die hard, as the Iraqis and others are endlessly reminded. |
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry
(Post 10023538)
"The islands also support the UK claim to the large chunk of the Antarctic that we hold."
Actually we don't .. we have a histiric claim as do many others and many of them overlap - the Antarctic Treaty puts these into abeyance Anyone can go anywhere and set up any base in Antarctica - Places liek teh S Sandhcih Islands and S georgia are somewhat different OAP |
Originally Posted by EAP86
(Post 10022846)
Battle of Sedwill's The government is heading for a showdown over the prospect of serious cuts to the armed forces in the forthcoming National Security Capability Review. This will pit Mark Sedwill, newly knighted national security adviser (who developed a close rapport with Theresa May at the Home Office when he was the top civil servant) against Gavin Williamson, the new defence secretary and former chief whip who is under strong pressure from top brass to resist cuts. There is little doubt in Whitehall that the winner will be Sedwill, getting the boost he wants for the intelligence and security agencies, GCHQ and MI5. The message was clear as soon as the review was announced in the summer: the word "defence" does not appear in the title. It is being conducted not by the Ministry of Defence but by Sedwill himself, who regards cyber warfare and terrorism - the domain of the spooks - as the two main threats to Britain's security. The point is not lost elsewhere in Whitehall, notably the Treasury, that the bulk of defence spending on the new fleet of nuclear missile submarines to replace Trident, and two aircraft carriers with empty flight decks, is of little use against terrorists or cyber attacks. The MoD is also under attack from its traditional friend, the Commons defence committee, over reckless spending. The navy is short of ships, the RAF short of pilots, and the army now not much larger than at the time of Oliver Cromwell. But its over-ambitious projects mean the MoD already faces a funding black hole of at least £20bn One way to relieve pressure on the defence budget is to take the cost of the nuclear arsenal out of said budget and pay for it separately. After all, say MoD officials, the decision to maintain a nuclear arsenal is a political one - an argument that will attract little sympathy in the Treasury. The armed forces' only consolation is that Williamson appears to have persuaded May to put off making a decision about how their resources will be cut until later in the year. |
Originally Posted by EAP86
(Post 10023721)
I don't want to be appearing to obsess about Mark Sedwill but by coincidence the following appeared in the latest Private Eye and it is relevant to this topic:
EAP OAP |
Taken them long enough to figure this out..
MoD 'exposed financially' by carrier and jet programme - BBC News They should of asked in here :E |
Originally Posted by NutLoose
(Post 10024454)
Taken them long enough to figure this out..
MoD 'exposed financially' by carrier and jet programme - BBC News They should of asked in here :E OAP |
Originally Posted by NutLoose
(Post 10024454)
Taken them long enough to figure this out..
MoD 'exposed financially' by carrier and jet programme - BBC News They should of asked in here :E What a shame they didn't look at where the money is actually going. QEC isn't even the biggest budget line in the Navy EP. Nor is the combined QEC and F35 the biggest item in the overall EP - in total or in in-year spend. Typhoon is still by far the biggest spend (total and in-year) and FSTA is only just below the combined QEC/F35. That's before you start looking at the submarine budget.... |
Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin
(Post 10024534)
What a shame they didn't look at where the money is actually going. QEC isn't even the biggest budget line in the Navy EP. Nor is the combined QEC and F35 the biggest item in the overall EP - in total or in in-year spend. Typhoon is still by far the biggest spend (total and in-year) and FSTA is only just below the combined QEC/F35.
That's before you start looking at the submarine budget.... OAP |
Originally Posted by Onceapilot
(Post 10024586)
The difference is...The UK Defence forces actually need the Submarine capabilities, the Typhoon capabilities, the long range Tanker transport, the Army etc, etc . UK Defence does not need the QEc ships.
OAP In your opinion. Not that of the JCB.... |
Boffin
Do you think that if we didn't have them right now we'd actually order two carriers?? |
HH, no, Brune ain't PM
|
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry
(Post 10024749)
Boffin
Do you think that if we didn't have them right now we'd actually order two carriers?? |
Excepting of course that the SDSR mandates the capability. i.e. the defence programme is written around QEC/F35 and Nuclear deterrence. These are the last capabilities to ditch according to SDSR.
|
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry
(Post 10024749)
Boffin
Do you think that if we didn't have them right now we'd actually order two carriers?? You might almost ask if we didn't have them right now, would we order Typhoon? Or a Tornado replacement? Or Rivet Joint? Or A400M? Or HC6? Or T26? Or maintain an army of 80000? Or order new tanks/MICV? The fact that the future of the Sentry capability is uncertain is a measure of the situation - a situation that has not been brought about by "the carriers", as only a cursory examination of budgets and where they've been spent would reveal. It is particularly disappointing that the chair of the PAC refers to Carrier Strike as the second biggest expense after the nuclear deterrent - which is patently and demonstrably untrue by spending ten minutes looking at the EP and the NAO major projects reports. If you read the PAC report, it's actually a case of repeating nebulous "facts" - a great example being that the aircraft are "too heavy to land on the ship" - culled from random media sources, as "concerns", despite the fairly firm rebuttals given by the witnesses. If you look at defence as a combination of what is required for national self-defence, plus what really adds value to an alliance (ie NATO), what you end up with is : National Defence Air - AWAC, MPA and DCA Sea - CASD, plus Sea denial and security (SSK, MCMV, OPV) Land - Coastal artillery, COIN light forces Alliance contribution : Air - Heavy lift AT, sigint, and possibly Sentinel Sea - SSN, Amphib and Carrier Strike Land - Possibly heavy armour Everything else (OCA, Deep Strike, Tac AT, DD/FF, Infantry etc) is heavily duplicated throughout NATO. The alliance contribution bit above is that which only the US and in their absence the UK and possibly FR can bring to the table. If you want to add value you do that. If you want to duplicate stuff (check out the VFM there!) you buy from the "everything else" list. |
Just for the record, not everyone on here shares the antipathy to the carriers that has become notably more vocal in some quarters as the vessels approach service entry. And NAB is not a lone voice in the wilderness.
There are some who are clear that binning the carriers is not the way to address current problems and that they represent a level of capability that wouldn't be remotely matched by a purely escort-based navy; and that we're likely to have cause to be glad we have that flexible capability in the years ahead as the world becomes an increasingly unpredictable and dangerous place. None of which is to say that we don't need more escorts, and other conventional capability, because we do. But binning some of the most capable assets we have just invested in isn't the answer. Defence needs to be properly funded and I'd respectfuly suggest that commentators would do well to get behind that idea rather than approaching things from an internecine perspective. |
I'd keep them if the money was there - but it's not " short-term financial exigency" - it's been going on for 20 years
underfunding plus grossly mis-managed budgets and I can't see how that is going to change - especially under this Govt. |
The escort group we can probably afford for the new Carriers is below..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/d...eg?imwidth=480 |
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry
(Post 10024889)
I'd keep them if the money was there - but it's not
There are still manning challenges to overcome, but that is primarily recruitment / retention in pinch trades against authorised strength - as opposed to completely new money. There's an awful lot of myth and legend about. Don't forget that the "options" which started this thread are also primarily about freeing up money for the cyber / spook wish-list in a financially neutral NSCR, not as a direct result of QE/F35. |
[QUOTE=Frostchamber;10024859]Just for the record, not everyone on here shares the antipathy to the carriers that has become notably more vocal in some quarters as the vessels approach service entry....Defence needs to be properly funded and I'd respectfuly suggest that commentators would do well to get behind that idea rather than approaching things from an internecine perspective.
./QUOTE] Blah, Blah, Blah.... What makes you the voice of reason? Why do you think you have the right idea and the authority to preach to others? Sorry old chap, this is a discussion of an important topic. Now, I will give a couple of my thoughts... I have read a certain amount of similar banter from those who supposedly think everyone should be waving bunting for the new boats and "those that don't are the enemy". Well, you can stick that misplaced and abusive criticism where the Sun doesn't shine. :eek: Now, stick to arguing your point and do not abuse others with self righteous and incorrect opinions. := OAP |
[quote=Onceapilot;10024921]
Originally Posted by Frostchamber
(Post 10024859)
Just for the record, not everyone on here shares the antipathy to the carriers that has become notably more vocal in some quarters as the vessels approach service entry....Defence needs to be properly funded and I'd respectfuly suggest that commentators would do well to get behind that idea rather than approaching things from an internecine perspective.
./QUOTE] Blah, Blah, Blah.... What makes you the voice of reason? Why do you think you have the right idea and the authority to preach to others? Sorry old chap, this is a discussion of an important topic. Now, I will give a couple of my thoughts... I have read a certain amount of similar banter from those who supposedly think everyone should be waving bunting for the new boats and "those that don't are the enemy". Well, you can stick that misplaced and abusive criticism where the Sun doesn't shine. :eek: Now, stick to arguing your point and do not abuse others with self righteous and incorrect opinions. := OAP |
Notaboffin,
Probably this bit on the Beeb site But it's not just the cost of the two aircraft carriers that concerns MPs, said the BBC's defence correspondent Jonathan Beale, but the new jets that will fly off them and the other warships needed to protect them. The availability of ships to protect the carriers may also limit how they can be used and there are still technical and cost challenges for the new F-35 jets, he added. |
Originally Posted by Frostchamber
(Post 10025040)
It would appear that in your book anyone who doesn't fall in line with the "bin the carriers" meme is in turn the enemy and has "incorrect opinions" and can be talked down to.
OAP |
Originally Posted by NutLoose
(Post 10025045)
Notaboffin,
Probably this bit on the Beeb site And if you read the actual PAC report and specifically the evidence session - as opposed to the Beeb blurb, you might understand that it's largely recycled media wibble, as opposed to fact... |
Originally Posted by Onceapilot
(Post 10025057)
Please quote me? I will apologise.
OAP Your response just struck me as being unecessarily over the top, and telling me that it's a discussion of an important topic certainly struck me as condescending. You're 100% entitled to disagree with me but I'm not sure I accept that I should stop giving my views because you deem them to be incorrect. I also struggle to see how anything I said could reasonably be described as abusive, but am happy to let others be the judge of that. |
"I'd be interested to hear exactly which bit of the money "isn't there", given that the ships are essentially paid for."
"The hole in the Ministry of Defence's budget is apparently £1.7bn a year, plus the annual cost of up to £500m a year of the UK's Continuous at Sea Nuclear Deterrent. According to a senior government source, "without the cash this would mean cancelling significant conventional capability to affect our operational footprint and status"." Regretfully we are faced with an enormous short-fall in resources What do you suggest cutting going forward so we have enough cash to run the carriers and their associated air wing? |
Originally Posted by Frostchamber
(Post 10025209)
No apology sought OAP,
OAP |
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry
(Post 10025510)
Regretfully we are faced with an enormous short-fall in resources What do you suggest cutting going forward so we have enough cash to run the carriers and their associated air wing? The problems for MOD spending are made worse by the lumping-in of peripheral "defence" spending (to account for 2%), failure to achieve any of the previous "efficiency" savings, and the required growth of cyber/terror costs in a "cost neutral" "Defence" review. The question of "what should be cut instead then?" has been continually ducked by many who support the continued funding of the QEc capability. I predict that any response will be either, "we must push the Gov for more funding" or, "cut back unnecessary costs", ie hollow out! := OAP |
Nothing against a carrier force, I just feel that the time for UK PLC to operate full size carriers has past. The supporting infrastructure is no longer there, defensive shield, auxiliary support fleet and the air power needed.
It all just seems a pointless exercise in overkill and is as if the Navy had fought to regain its carrier force without thinking how they would man, support and pay for them. If we still had squadrons and squadrons of aircraft to operate off them I could understand it, but to build a ship that hasn't got the aviation assets to fill it seems a total waste of money... I still think an angled deck would have also been the way to go because they instantly strangled its capability and interoperability with cross decking at the outset. Fill it with your F35 fleet and one missile and you have lost the lot.. Getting back to the. Original post, with the list of ships being shown as possible cutbacks, one feels a lot of those measures are cutbacks allowing the monies to go into these white elephants..They are and will be for years a draw on the Defence budget we can ill afford or support. I do like the 50 year life of the carriers, that will probably equate to 10 years UK, 30 years Indian or Brazillian Navy, and 10 years someone else's. |
Originally Posted by Onceapilot
(Post 10025531)
Correct. And non forthcoming. :)
OAP |
Take a chill pill.
|
The Royal United Services Institute ‘white paper’provides an interesting insight into the argument of either continuing withE-3D Sentry, at an estimated cost of £2 billion for the capability sustainment programme or, spending a similar sum to replace it in the nearer future and therefore taking the ISTAR programme beyond the Sentry E-3D 2035 out of service date.
The final paragraph of the white paper quotes: “As such, with state-on-state conflict seemingly a growing possibility and new threat technologies already posing challenges for even the modernised E-3s fleets of the USAF and FAF, the RAF should not be reluctant to consider a more unconventional solution for its ABM&S requirements over the next 20 or soyears, instead of simply patching up the E-3D Sentry fleet through a capability sustainment programme in the hope that ‘it will do’ until the US provides aNATOwide E-3 replacement”. From a politicians viewpoint, might this be a likely ‘no brainer’? |
Originally Posted by NutLoose
(Post 10025635)
Nothing against a carrier force, I just feel that the time for UK PLC to operate full size carriers has past. The supporting infrastructure is no longer there, defensive shield, auxiliary support fleet and the air power needed.
It all just seems a pointless exercise in overkill and is as if the Navy had fought to regain its carrier force without thinking how they would man, support and pay for them. If we still had squadrons and squadrons of aircraft to operate off them I could understand it, but to build a ship that hasn't got the aviation assets to fill it seems a total waste of money... I still think an angled deck would have also been the way to go because they instantly strangled its capability and interoperability with cross decking at the outset. Fill it with your F35 fleet and one missile and you have lost the lot.. Getting back to the. Original post, with the list of ships being shown as possible cutbacks, one feels a lot of those measures are cutbacks allowing the monies to go into these white elephants..They are and will be for years a draw on the Defence budget we can ill afford or support. I do like the 50 year life of the carriers, that will probably equate to 10 years UK, 30 years Indian or Brazillian Navy, and 10 years someone else's. |
Just sell them to France- they do have serious overseas dependencies and do not mind using what forces they have without worrying about what others will say.
A complete and utter waste of money. Its not like they will provide a tech leg up to a ship building industry or anything like that and we will certainly not go to war alone again whatever happens to our various dependencies and why should we. say the yanks decided to invade Bermuda to stop it siphoning off corporate tax revenue from USA would we do anything, could we do anything -NO Spain cuts access to Gibraltar=are we going to invade Spain , which would be attacking a NATO country-no of course not. We need to scrap all three forces and replace by a unified structure a la Canada and focus on rapid response ground troops for use in Uk or abroad. A modest fighter defence and ground attack capabilty and Atlantic/inshore navy focused on border protection and defence of merchant vessels. No more nuclear subs -too expensive and who are they targeted on Russia? We have a lot of skill in making military kit and we should focus on making things thata re light manouverable - high lethality capabilityand exportable so we can earn export money from our expertise and history. there you go fixed in ten minutes -who needs an MoD either |
"high lethality capability and exportable"
yes & no - unfortunately a lot of UK kit, especially ships, are very high spec and very costly compared to alternatives in the export trade. We design for top end warfare, most countries don't want or need that capability |
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry
(Post 10025863)
"high lethality capability and exportable"
yes & no - unfortunately a lot of UK kit, especially ships, are very high spec and very costly compared to alternatives in the export trade. We design for top end warfare, most countries don't want or need that capability |
Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin
(Post 10024534)
What a shame they didn't look at where the money is actually going. QEC isn't even the biggest budget line in the Navy EP. Nor is the combined QEC and F35 the biggest item in the overall EP - in total or in in-year spend. Typhoon is still by far the biggest spend (total and in-year) and FSTA is only just below the combined QEC/F35.
That's before you start looking at the submarine budget.... Would be interesting to understand the background. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:20. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.