I think we'll probably manage to equip two carriers when the full 138 have been bought. Unless someone does something daft on the variant choice.

I'd love to know where the idea that one well-placed torpedo or sea-skimmer being fatal comes from. Yes, the stationary and unfortunately unaware Cole got a hole blown in her, by a substantially larger blast warhead than you'd find in most missiles. Strangely that event (nearly 20 years ago now btw) triggered a sea-change in FP measures, which substantially reduces that threat.

You may be interested to know that the USN did a sinkex on one of their decommissioned carriers (ex-America) about a decade ago. The ship had been in reserve for several years, had no DC parties aboard and was therefore significantly less well-prepared to absorb damage than an operational ship would have been. They fired all sorts at her (and in her) and after some weeks of this, ended up having to scuttle her....

Your point being?

From my perspective, our politicians are either deluded or see the electorate as half wits; probably a mixture of both. I was watching the BBC news this morning and a Conservative politician was saying (nothing at all to do with the local elections by the way) that under the Conservative Party Great Britain has now the best defence capabilitiy in the world......
I am not sure what he was on but it cannot be legal.

It's a bit annoying when people like Bromund, who wear their academic credentials like medals, bewail the inadequacy of the money coming into defense and utterly ignore the inefficiency with which it has been spent.

A few weeks back I heard a political hack from a shipyard state outgassing about the desperate need for a 355-ship Navy and whingeing that sequestration had cost the Navy $4 billion in investment. How does that compare with the cost of the Little Crappy Ship? The whole Zumwalt misadventure? The overruns on one CVN?

As for UK air power, where would its strength stand today if the F-35 had arrived on schedule and on cost? The force would be six years past IOC, <80 aircraft in service and arriving at a rate of 12 per year. What if MRA4 had not been gooned up?

I strongly suspect someone has written a staff paper saying 'drones' will do it all within 15 years, and this has hit the desk of a beancounter who already has guidelines saying aircraft must exhibit a 40 year useful life - and he's submitted a GEMS suggestion.

You're a witty chap, BV. But no-one is looking to return to a 1957-sized air force, and nor does anyone think that tossing eight dumb 1,000-lb bombs around is really going to cut it nowadays. But PGMs have been part of the scenery for most of this century, and their use has been routine (unless you're Russian). And a PGM-delivering air force in 2007 had five dedicated AD squadrons to sustainably do QRA and the Falklands, and about a dozen Tornado/Harrier/Jaguar units to do the deployed stuff, whether that was a Telic, or a simultaneous Herrick and Grapple.

​​​​​​​That doesn't seem unreasonable, does it?

Arguing for a 12-18 Squadron FJ force is arguing for an air force that is comparable with nations like Turkey, France and Italy - all of whom spend less on defence than we do. For an air force big enough to support a Granby-sized op. For an air force that can sustain more modest commitments without people becoming so disillusioned by the quality of life that they leave in droves.

My apologies I42. I guess that's 'Agile, Adaptable and Capable' for you. The RAF has some very state of the art kit. just not very much of it. Budgets eh?

This is quite an old argument now, does anyone actually sit down and calculate just how many GR4s are needed as compared with the number GR1s? Are the possible and probable scenarios where HM Forces could be deployed fed into a computer somewhere which then spits out an answer saying something like you'll manage with just x number of GR4s, just don't be careless and allow any to be shot down! Military assets and personnel are given the boot for one multi-facet reason.. Primarily to save money, the driver is the next facet; to secure expected votes by spending savings on other government departments. And of course, the government will always fend off criticism of some unsatisfactory state of affairs in the nation's defence arrangements by saying in a 'lets have no more of this nonsense' tone; We have the fourth/fifth largest blah blah blah budget in the whole wide world! So there!!

FB

Great posts, BV and PN. Good points well made.

But surely the point is that in today's World you don't get sufficient warning to reconfigure or grow your armed forces to meet a developing threat. Nor can you necessarily rely on being able to make only a small tokenistic contribution to a multinational coalition, or to rely overly on a particular ally. In the 1930s we had enough warning to train lots of people, build lots of kit, and to be ready (more or less) when war broke out - though arguably we had to let the Czechs and the Poles down while we completed our preparations.

How much warning would we get of a growth of isolationism in the US that would compel us to take on more of the burden of our own defence?

And remember that these threats emerge quickly and unpredictably.

In 1977, who could have predicted an Argentinian invasion of the Falklands?

In 1986, who was predicting that Saddam Hussein would march into Kuwait?

In 1998 who would have predicted 9/11 and the subsequent war in Afghanistan?

In 2008 who would have predicted the rise of Daesh?

You necessarily have to size and scale your armed forces not to meet predictable threats, but to be able to deal with the unpredictable-yet-conceivable. The old planning assumptions that sought to size the forces to 'do a Granby' or to undertake two smaller commitments simultaneously were not, in my view, unreasonable or unrealistic.

We all know the RAF is not as good as it was " in my day ". I know it has gone downhill since 29 July 2012, because that was the day I retired!

Puts on kevlar helmet, takes tongue out of cheek and ducks!

How do you get the Smilies to work in this new site?

Tengah Type,

Wow! Did you really retire when you were 68?

You have to go to 'Post Reply' instead of 'Quick Reply'.

That exemplifies the Front Line overstretch ;)

Fareastdriver.
Thanks for the steer on the smilies.https://www.pprune.org/images/infopop/icons/icon14.gif

Brian 48nav
Aged 68 yrs 6 months and two days to be exact. After 37 yrs Regular Service, I was lucky enough to be offered a post under the old Retired Officer scheme, and served just shy of 14yrs with a Reserve Commission. I was able to continue later, but thought it was time to go for " a proper job " rather than continue with my hobby. Enjoyed about 98% of it. https://www.pprune.org/images/infopop/icons/icon7.gif

On the software test system today, I 'flew' a trail from Souda to Abu Dhabi, with 4 x receivers who joined at a down route RV point. During the first bracket one of the pods failed, so the trail continued single hose. Then during the second bracket, one of the receivers couldn't fill his external tanks. The software solved both snags very quickly indeed (a few seconds in each case) - but I thought at the time that in VC10K days, probably the only tanker nav who could have solved the problem as quickly was you, Tengah Type!