Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Inner Planets
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SaN,
I think the point MM is trying to make is that the Harriers are where they're needed. To answer your specific questions:
Not long and it could probably be accomplished during the CVS transit.
GR4s, Typhoon, coalition assets. Take your pick.
I suggest you speak with the Treasury.
Of course it does!!! It is 'possible' that a resurgent Argentina may attempt Falklands Round 2. It is 'possible' that we made need to conduct a NEO from some imploding thrid world nation. However, servicemen in Afghanistan DEFINITELY need CAS and recce TODAY!
I think the point MM is trying to make is that the Harriers are where they're needed. To answer your specific questions:
Not long and it could probably be accomplished during the CVS transit.
GR4s, Typhoon, coalition assets. Take your pick.
I suggest you speak with the Treasury.
Of course it does!!! It is 'possible' that a resurgent Argentina may attempt Falklands Round 2. It is 'possible' that we made need to conduct a NEO from some imploding thrid world nation. However, servicemen in Afghanistan DEFINITELY need CAS and recce TODAY!
Just out of curiosity, and unless it remians classified, how often does either Ark or Illustrious practice (fully) a redeployment to the Falkland Islands? Appreciate it probably hasn't been able to do so since JFH took on the AFG theatre, and it has reinfroced the Gulf on occasions, but curious how often they have been all the way South since '82. Or is it politically unacceptable and seen as sabre rattling to do such a deployment? Or unachievable?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Harriers
I agree with all the above. The Harriers are needed now and are showing their worth day in and day out. It's doing what it was born for. The GR4 isn't the best fit for Stan.
But I also agree with Sunk. The Harriers are somewhat like the RMs & Paras. They should be high on the pyramid of readiness.
Hopefully the gradual introduction of Typhoon should ease the pressure in the next year or so, and the training pipe should spit out enough pilots to get both 800 and 801 up to strength.
What can we learn? This type of aircraft is very very useful. If the DaveB does what it says on the packet we will have made a fantastic puchase. In fact we should actually look to furnish 5 * 12 plane squadrons so that we have plenty in reserve in the future.
But I also agree with Sunk. The Harriers are somewhat like the RMs & Paras. They should be high on the pyramid of readiness.
Hopefully the gradual introduction of Typhoon should ease the pressure in the next year or so, and the training pipe should spit out enough pilots to get both 800 and 801 up to strength.
What can we learn? This type of aircraft is very very useful. If the DaveB does what it says on the packet we will have made a fantastic puchase. In fact we should actually look to furnish 5 * 12 plane squadrons so that we have plenty in reserve in the future.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 62
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wrath- I'm not aware of any carrier deployment to the South Atlantic since 1982- at least nothing in the public domain. Prior to 1997 there were regular "Group deployments" to the Indian ocean and Far East- every two or three years, the last being the "Ocean Wave" in 1997 for the HK hand over.
Obvious mitigating factors were the deployments to the Adriatic and Persian Gulf- which fully committed our two small carriers (and is another reason why, irrespective of size, even the CVF's won't be able to pull off being in more than one place at a time- we really need three)
I know you chaps like to rib the RN that its all cocktail parties
but there are some serious reasons for this type of deployment- they were very much in demand by our Embasses out East as they raised the UK profile, promoted trade and generally were very good for "defence diplomacy", as well as training opportunities with friendly navies. These days its a single frigate on Bersiaa Lima/Flying Fish with FPDA navies if we are lucky. Bearing in mind the growing importance of the A/P for trade and the general military build up there, our absence for a decade won't have gone unnoticed.
Obvious mitigating factors were the deployments to the Adriatic and Persian Gulf- which fully committed our two small carriers (and is another reason why, irrespective of size, even the CVF's won't be able to pull off being in more than one place at a time- we really need three)
I know you chaps like to rib the RN that its all cocktail parties
but there are some serious reasons for this type of deployment- they were very much in demand by our Embasses out East as they raised the UK profile, promoted trade and generally were very good for "defence diplomacy", as well as training opportunities with friendly navies. These days its a single frigate on Bersiaa Lima/Flying Fish with FPDA navies if we are lucky. Bearing in mind the growing importance of the A/P for trade and the general military build up there, our absence for a decade won't have gone unnoticed.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But Sunk at N you miss the point entirely. Yes we have decided to deploy air power from a carrier but that doesn't mean there must be naval FW pilots doing so in squadrons with RN numbers. The two things are completely different and I for one am pretty fed up with this constant RN dripping about it. What we need is capability - ie substance not symbolism.
... and lets hope that when HMS QE II makes it maiden voyage it embarks a truly joint air package - no squadron number plates and the best man for the job (be it RAF or RN) in command (of the Air Group - god forbid an RAF Air Cdre ever drives a ship
). Perhaps even some AAC could "land on" with AH...
Of course the question still remains how long will the GR9 be the platform of "no other choice" as JSF, for the UK at least, slides further and further to the right ...
). Perhaps even some AAC could "land on" with AH...Of course the question still remains how long will the GR9 be the platform of "no other choice" as JSF, for the UK at least, slides further and further to the right ...
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason a CVS hasn't deloyed to the FI's since 1982 is simple..... Too F'in expensive.
Good point from Wrathmonk... Could a Crab CDRE command HMS Queen Elizabeth ?
Good point from Wrathmonk... Could a Crab CDRE command HMS Queen Elizabeth ?
Suspicion breeds confidence
Could a Crab CDRE command HMS Queen Elizabeth ?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well obviously I disagree with Bag Man - as far as I can tell the future carrier delivered activity is all about what happens in the air and more pointedly what happens over the target (which will be on land). This is why it is core RAF business and whether the airfield is afloat or tethered to terra firma is pretty irrelevant. Yes we will need people who know all about controlling carrier air, getting aircraft off the deck and recovering them - but this doesn't point to a fixed wing naval air cadre. In the RAF these functions are conducted by Ops Support personnel not aircrew.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qualified for the job as in ??? He would be an Air Commodore ...surely that would make him more than qualified to command an Aircraft Carrier?
But his Commander will, and so will his Navigating Officer - Thats their job
So what? He will be an Air CDRE which surely would qualify him to "Command"
Just look at Sir Terry Leahy.... clearly demonstrates that you don't need to understand what the shop floor are doing in order to manage
But, he won't have a BWC"
But, He won't be a Naval Officer
Just look at Sir Terry Leahy.... clearly demonstrates that you don't need to understand what the shop floor are doing in order to manage
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Entering the fray...
Impiger and others,
I've deliberately avoided entering this thread until now - I have a Naval aviation background, as well as some experience on JSF and CVF, and I've been reluctant to enter the discussion on the grounds of being accused of partiality and bias. But I couldn't let the last few posts go unanswered.
In my view, a couple of basic facts are being ignored here. Here they are. 1. Generating aviation from a carrier is NOTHING like doing it from an airfield. 2. A carrier is NOT a floating airfield.
Don't believe me? Get a Google Earth picture of an airfield and put a scale drawing of a CVN on to it. Getting air on and off a carrier in and organised an effective manner is a major challenge that demands a special skill set. Period.
If the UK is to generate a meaningful maritime strike capability, it will have to develop a cadre of professionals who can generate precision offensive capability from a flight deck, execute that strike and then recover to the deck. On a dark and stormy night. The capability will also need people who know how to operate the carrier, support the mission planning, man the flight deck, build and load the weapons on a moving deck, move the aircraft, and so forth.
The assertion that these are all core RAF skills is just a mile wide of the target. Some of them are, but more than a few of them aren't. They're key RN skills. That's why the way forward is joint. I'm also bothered by the assertion that 'the target will be on land' - really? All the time? Ever heard of things called enemy ships?
Quote - 'the future carrier delivered activity is all about what happens in the air and more pointedly what happens over the target...' Actually, I thought the 'carrier delivered activity' is all about what happens AT the target, not over it. The stuff that happens in the air is just a delivery activity - do the RAF want to claim TLAM because it flies? How about claiming RAF ownership of all small arms because the bullets go through the air?
Come on team, let's get real here - the UK has a GREAT chance to build a truly world class capability, able to deploy around the world with a level of freedom most nations can only dream of. 30 F-35s on a CVF are a truly serious force. Or, in other scenarios, we can provide a great platform for SF work, with the ability to carry, maintain and support a shedload of Chinooks. Joint has to be the way to go, surely.
CVF will be commanded by an RN officer. He will commnad the ship and the crew needed to support the embarked Air Wing. The Air Wing Commander will, as I understand it, be either an RN or RAF aviator. Chosen on merit. Sounds good to me.
Ok, that's my put - standing by....
I've deliberately avoided entering this thread until now - I have a Naval aviation background, as well as some experience on JSF and CVF, and I've been reluctant to enter the discussion on the grounds of being accused of partiality and bias. But I couldn't let the last few posts go unanswered.
In my view, a couple of basic facts are being ignored here. Here they are. 1. Generating aviation from a carrier is NOTHING like doing it from an airfield. 2. A carrier is NOT a floating airfield.
Don't believe me? Get a Google Earth picture of an airfield and put a scale drawing of a CVN on to it. Getting air on and off a carrier in and organised an effective manner is a major challenge that demands a special skill set. Period.
If the UK is to generate a meaningful maritime strike capability, it will have to develop a cadre of professionals who can generate precision offensive capability from a flight deck, execute that strike and then recover to the deck. On a dark and stormy night. The capability will also need people who know how to operate the carrier, support the mission planning, man the flight deck, build and load the weapons on a moving deck, move the aircraft, and so forth.
The assertion that these are all core RAF skills is just a mile wide of the target. Some of them are, but more than a few of them aren't. They're key RN skills. That's why the way forward is joint. I'm also bothered by the assertion that 'the target will be on land' - really? All the time? Ever heard of things called enemy ships?
Quote - 'the future carrier delivered activity is all about what happens in the air and more pointedly what happens over the target...' Actually, I thought the 'carrier delivered activity' is all about what happens AT the target, not over it. The stuff that happens in the air is just a delivery activity - do the RAF want to claim TLAM because it flies? How about claiming RAF ownership of all small arms because the bullets go through the air?
Come on team, let's get real here - the UK has a GREAT chance to build a truly world class capability, able to deploy around the world with a level of freedom most nations can only dream of. 30 F-35s on a CVF are a truly serious force. Or, in other scenarios, we can provide a great platform for SF work, with the ability to carry, maintain and support a shedload of Chinooks. Joint has to be the way to go, surely.
CVF will be commanded by an RN officer. He will commnad the ship and the crew needed to support the embarked Air Wing. The Air Wing Commander will, as I understand it, be either an RN or RAF aviator. Chosen on merit. Sounds good to me.
Ok, that's my put - standing by....
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Torygraph: Labour's secret plans to slash the Navy
Ministers have drawn up confidential proposals to slash the number of ships in the Royal Navy, The Sunday Telegraph can disclose. The expected reductions follow a fierce row between Service chiefs and the Treasury over defence spending.
The Ministry of Defence has produced a plan to decommission five warships from next April, which would reduce the Navy's capability to the level where it could carry out only "one small-scale operation". Separate documentation from inside the department suggests that the total number of ships in the Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary could fall from the present level of 103 to 76 in 2017 and only 50 in 2027 — a reduction of more than half.
The information has been supplied in an email from a whistleblowing official inside the MoD, who has given details of a row between senior officials in the department and Andy Burnham, the Treasury Chief Secretary, over the allocation of money to the MoD over the next three years. The deal, sealed under the Comprehensive Spending Review and announced in July, gave the MoD an annual increase of 1.5 per cent above inflation for the years 2008-11.
However, it also contained a commitment to buy two 65,000-ton aircraft carriers, at a cost of £4 billion — meaning savings had to be found elsewhere if the MoD were to meet its "operational commitments." The email reads: "The Chief Sec directed that no further money from the CSR would be allocated to Defence and to maintain force levels the Dept must find the savings/cuts. For the RN [Royal Navy], the poor CSR deal and the commitment to 2 carriers is such that a proposal for the immediate decommissioning of 5 ships (frigates and destroyers) from April next year has been considered. This would reduce the RN's capabilities to just one small scale operation and that is it."
Sources said that under the plan the Navy, once the pride of the Armed Forces, would be unable to provide anything like the 1982 Falklands task force.
In what is likely to be a "worst-case" scenario, with no further commissioning of ships, total numbers of what the MoD terms "platforms" is slated to fall steadily from 103 to 50 within 20 years. The number of submarines would be cut from 13 to 11 in 2007-08 while there would be two aircraft carriers rather than the present three. Frigates would be cut from 17 to nine, while the number of destroyers would go up, from six to eight, but only because more have already been commissioned. There would be no minesweepers or patrol ships, while the number of landing vessels would be cut from eight to six.
The disclosures are likely to embarrass Gordon Brown, who has long been viewed with some suspicion within the Services. During his time as chancellor he was thought to regard the MoD as one of the most "financially wasteful" of all Whitehall departments. However, as Prime Minister he has been keen to be seen as a strong supporter of the Armed Forces.
Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said: "Any reduction in our forces' size at present would be insane, given our unsafe world and the level of our current deployments. No wonder there are suggestions Gordon Brown is considering a complete withdrawal from Iraq. His own cuts to our Armed Forces may leave him with no option."
Colonel Tim Collins, a former Iraq war commander, said: "The Armed Forces are once more facing the squeeze and once again it looks like the Royal Navy will bear the brunt. "There are no votes in defence, as was reflected in last week's conference speech by the Prime Minister in which Afghanistan and Iraq, Labour's wars, were mentioned only once each."
An MoD spokesman said last night: "No decisions have been taken to make changes to force structures. As ever, we continually review the defence programme. The CSR settlement sees the continuation of the longest period of sustained real-terms growth in planned defence spending since the 1980s."
Ministers have drawn up confidential proposals to slash the number of ships in the Royal Navy, The Sunday Telegraph can disclose. The expected reductions follow a fierce row between Service chiefs and the Treasury over defence spending.
The Ministry of Defence has produced a plan to decommission five warships from next April, which would reduce the Navy's capability to the level where it could carry out only "one small-scale operation". Separate documentation from inside the department suggests that the total number of ships in the Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary could fall from the present level of 103 to 76 in 2017 and only 50 in 2027 — a reduction of more than half.
The information has been supplied in an email from a whistleblowing official inside the MoD, who has given details of a row between senior officials in the department and Andy Burnham, the Treasury Chief Secretary, over the allocation of money to the MoD over the next three years. The deal, sealed under the Comprehensive Spending Review and announced in July, gave the MoD an annual increase of 1.5 per cent above inflation for the years 2008-11.
However, it also contained a commitment to buy two 65,000-ton aircraft carriers, at a cost of £4 billion — meaning savings had to be found elsewhere if the MoD were to meet its "operational commitments." The email reads: "The Chief Sec directed that no further money from the CSR would be allocated to Defence and to maintain force levels the Dept must find the savings/cuts. For the RN [Royal Navy], the poor CSR deal and the commitment to 2 carriers is such that a proposal for the immediate decommissioning of 5 ships (frigates and destroyers) from April next year has been considered. This would reduce the RN's capabilities to just one small scale operation and that is it."
Sources said that under the plan the Navy, once the pride of the Armed Forces, would be unable to provide anything like the 1982 Falklands task force.
In what is likely to be a "worst-case" scenario, with no further commissioning of ships, total numbers of what the MoD terms "platforms" is slated to fall steadily from 103 to 50 within 20 years. The number of submarines would be cut from 13 to 11 in 2007-08 while there would be two aircraft carriers rather than the present three. Frigates would be cut from 17 to nine, while the number of destroyers would go up, from six to eight, but only because more have already been commissioned. There would be no minesweepers or patrol ships, while the number of landing vessels would be cut from eight to six.
The disclosures are likely to embarrass Gordon Brown, who has long been viewed with some suspicion within the Services. During his time as chancellor he was thought to regard the MoD as one of the most "financially wasteful" of all Whitehall departments. However, as Prime Minister he has been keen to be seen as a strong supporter of the Armed Forces.
Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said: "Any reduction in our forces' size at present would be insane, given our unsafe world and the level of our current deployments. No wonder there are suggestions Gordon Brown is considering a complete withdrawal from Iraq. His own cuts to our Armed Forces may leave him with no option."
Colonel Tim Collins, a former Iraq war commander, said: "The Armed Forces are once more facing the squeeze and once again it looks like the Royal Navy will bear the brunt. "There are no votes in defence, as was reflected in last week's conference speech by the Prime Minister in which Afghanistan and Iraq, Labour's wars, were mentioned only once each."
An MoD spokesman said last night: "No decisions have been taken to make changes to force structures. As ever, we continually review the defence programme. The CSR settlement sees the continuation of the longest period of sustained real-terms growth in planned defence spending since the 1980s."
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Scotland
Age: 45
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Telegraph seem to be obsessed with pure numbers. Even in the best case scenario we know we're going to lose some hulls from the RN which isn't great. However this article takes no account of the increased capability of the new ships!
Heck why don't the RN scrap the entire fleet and buy 400 motor torpedo boats. A net gain in the view of the Telegraph!
The criticism made of Brown's defence record may have merit, but it's not as if opposition MP's stand up and say "I regret that one of my constituents, little Jenny, can't have her operation because of lack of funds but I accept this because the money needs to be spent on a new Type 45."
And another thing. Is the Torygraph ruling out a conservative election victory until at least 2027?
there would be two aircraft carriers rather than the present three
The criticism made of Brown's defence record may have merit, but it's not as if opposition MP's stand up and say "I regret that one of my constituents, little Jenny, can't have her operation because of lack of funds but I accept this because the money needs to be spent on a new Type 45."
And another thing. Is the Torygraph ruling out a conservative election victory until at least 2027?
Thread Starter
The Telegraph seem to be obsessed with pure numbers. Even in the best case scenario we know we're going to lose some hulls from the RN which isn't great. However this article takes no account of the increased capability of the new ships!
True, however they are not alone. See this article from Janes.
The size of the RN's frigate/destroyer force has seen a significant decline over the past decade, falling from 35 ships in 1996 to 25 today. Admiral Sir Alan West, Adm Band's predecessor as Chief of Naval Staff and First Sea Lord, was public in his opinion that this level is too small to meet the full spectrum of taskings, noting that the figure of 25 was based on analysis of high-intensity warfighting tasks alone and did not address wider maritime security needs, or make any allowance for attrition.
Admiral West told the Commons Defence Select Commitee that about thirty frigates/destroyers are needed to ensure we can respond to events and can take losses without operations around the world being affected.
How does a smaller DD/FF force change our anti air capabilities post Sea Jet? Or defence against submarines? Or Fast Attack Craft? Could current operational commitments be maintained?
True, however they are not alone. See this article from Janes.
The size of the RN's frigate/destroyer force has seen a significant decline over the past decade, falling from 35 ships in 1996 to 25 today. Admiral Sir Alan West, Adm Band's predecessor as Chief of Naval Staff and First Sea Lord, was public in his opinion that this level is too small to meet the full spectrum of taskings, noting that the figure of 25 was based on analysis of high-intensity warfighting tasks alone and did not address wider maritime security needs, or make any allowance for attrition.
Admiral West told the Commons Defence Select Commitee that about thirty frigates/destroyers are needed to ensure we can respond to events and can take losses without operations around the world being affected.
How does a smaller DD/FF force change our anti air capabilities post Sea Jet? Or defence against submarines? Or Fast Attack Craft? Could current operational commitments be maintained?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've said it before & I'll say it again;
For ---- sake let's buy a few Harrier 2+ - I know the radar isn't a patch on Blue Vixen, but it's still AMRAAM capable, has the big engine & lots of 'bring back' capability as well as speed at high altitude ( would I think be slaughtered by a Seajet if a bit lower ).
Say about 20 or more of these, enough to keep a carrier air group operational ( chuck in a few 2 seaters for training ) - and for relative peanuts we have a fighting force to deploy, huge commonality with the existing JFH, with a tried & tested but still state of the art aircraft - of course we can always wait for the JSF, just like I'm waiting for Bo Derek !
For ---- sake let's buy a few Harrier 2+ - I know the radar isn't a patch on Blue Vixen, but it's still AMRAAM capable, has the big engine & lots of 'bring back' capability as well as speed at high altitude ( would I think be slaughtered by a Seajet if a bit lower ).
Say about 20 or more of these, enough to keep a carrier air group operational ( chuck in a few 2 seaters for training ) - and for relative peanuts we have a fighting force to deploy, huge commonality with the existing JFH, with a tried & tested but still state of the art aircraft - of course we can always wait for the JSF, just like I'm waiting for Bo Derek !
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
If we double the capability but halve the number of hulls the net capabilty remains unchanged.
Yes?
Yes, as long as we don't lose one. If we had had one 82 for every two 42s in the Falklands where would we have been? Would the 82s have survived where the 42s had been hit?
Yes?
Yes, as long as we don't lose one. If we had had one 82 for every two 42s in the Falklands where would we have been? Would the 82s have survived where the 42s had been hit?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Scotland
Age: 45
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I appreciate that anyone interested in british naval history (myself included) is sad to see the fleet reduced. I also agree that this is not only an emotional concern but also has serious implications on the navy's operations. Of course this is also true for the RAF and the army.
This being said however, I am trying to think logically about the matter and I can see the other side too. Even if the defence budget had been frozen on a fantasy year when everyone thought the navy had everything it needed, then given the massive costs of new technology and the salaries of skilled personnel to build, run and maintain new ships, then we still would have been unable to support a one for one replacement program. The MoD is often criticised for slashing budgets at a time when other countries are building their military capabilities. However, the majority of these countries are spending "new money" as their economies catch up with ours following the decline of empire. Even so, Britain's defence budget is still something like 4th in the world when using percentage of GDP and purchase power parity comparisons. The only nations which spend more have either larger populations, larger economies or questionable commitment to their own peoples social concerns.
Britain of course could expand its military budget but this is going against the trend and could only be a short term solution because it would have knock on effects on our society and economy that would in the long run reduce even further our ability to maintain such a large navy. It's all about GDP. If we want to be Great Britain and have a large armed service then we need to discover something about GDP that other coutries don't know, have more soup swirling about in our cauldron as it were.
So, until we discover the huge oil deposits under Milton Keynes we will have to convince the rising nations to take more responsibilty for maritime security, accept that we don't have any god given right to be a "great nation", and either retire into obscurity (Classical Greece, Rome, Egypt among others who have fallen from great heights) or work with partner nations (eg EU, Commonwealth) to have a defence community that is greater than the sum of its parts.
Well, er, that's what my logic tells me. I don't claim to be an authority on the matter however. Sorry for the armchair geo-politics
This being said however, I am trying to think logically about the matter and I can see the other side too. Even if the defence budget had been frozen on a fantasy year when everyone thought the navy had everything it needed, then given the massive costs of new technology and the salaries of skilled personnel to build, run and maintain new ships, then we still would have been unable to support a one for one replacement program. The MoD is often criticised for slashing budgets at a time when other countries are building their military capabilities. However, the majority of these countries are spending "new money" as their economies catch up with ours following the decline of empire. Even so, Britain's defence budget is still something like 4th in the world when using percentage of GDP and purchase power parity comparisons. The only nations which spend more have either larger populations, larger economies or questionable commitment to their own peoples social concerns.
Britain of course could expand its military budget but this is going against the trend and could only be a short term solution because it would have knock on effects on our society and economy that would in the long run reduce even further our ability to maintain such a large navy. It's all about GDP. If we want to be Great Britain and have a large armed service then we need to discover something about GDP that other coutries don't know, have more soup swirling about in our cauldron as it were.
So, until we discover the huge oil deposits under Milton Keynes we will have to convince the rising nations to take more responsibilty for maritime security, accept that we don't have any god given right to be a "great nation", and either retire into obscurity (Classical Greece, Rome, Egypt among others who have fallen from great heights) or work with partner nations (eg EU, Commonwealth) to have a defence community that is greater than the sum of its parts.
Well, er, that's what my logic tells me. I don't claim to be an authority on the matter however. Sorry for the armchair geo-politics
Last edited by Caspian237; 1st Oct 2007 at 01:26. Reason: Spelling
ENGINES:
This is a late response to your post which I have just seen. You talk of “Key RN skills” in the context of “generating offensive capability from a flight deck”. You fail to mention operating an effective Air Task Organisation and maintaining an effective Intelligence organisation – both essential tasks in war.
A previous occasion on which the RN had a chance to demonstrate these particular “Key skills” in war was in 1982. Read RAF Harrier Ground Attack Falklands to see just how badly those “Key RN skills” were put into practice by certain Senior RN officers at that time.
In many cases the actions of those Senior Officers hampered or even negated the efforts of the hard-pressed RAF Ground Attack and Recce pilots, who were doing their utmost in the face of almost insurmountable operational difficulties.
Engines, IMHO your are wrong: a carrier is just a floating airfield.
This is a late response to your post which I have just seen. You talk of “Key RN skills” in the context of “generating offensive capability from a flight deck”. You fail to mention operating an effective Air Task Organisation and maintaining an effective Intelligence organisation – both essential tasks in war.
A previous occasion on which the RN had a chance to demonstrate these particular “Key skills” in war was in 1982. Read RAF Harrier Ground Attack Falklands to see just how badly those “Key RN skills” were put into practice by certain Senior RN officers at that time.
In many cases the actions of those Senior Officers hampered or even negated the efforts of the hard-pressed RAF Ground Attack and Recce pilots, who were doing their utmost in the face of almost insurmountable operational difficulties.
Engines, IMHO your are wrong: a carrier is just a floating airfield.