IXION’s continuing quest for realism.
These posts were started by yours truly thinking about in particular the RN and the numbers game.
One thing led to another and started me thinking about the other forces and defence in general.
I really don’t mind if people disagreed with anything I wrote free country and all that.
I would like to make it clear there is no agenda here to ’cut as such’. Insofar as there are cuts, it is to live within the actual budget. Not some, ’UOR credit card funded’, or fantasy ’If we hang on long enough there will be more money’, budget. I mean the actual Budget.
Within that budget, the idea was that we would have enough money to properly train troops to use the equipment we have, and fund enough real world logistical support for their proper use; and above all else to actually defend this country, from most likely threats.
I notice that such critics as there are of my proposals, some of whom airily assert that you cannot pick your enemies and where and when and how you fight, and the future is uncertain: Do not by and large then put up any likely threats other than the ones I mentioned which require armoured divisions. Although I make it clear that I am not omniscient and am quite happy to be told there are others.
I could not agree about the uncertainty of the future more!
But we cannot have enough men or equipment to be ready to fight any conceivable threat; like I said the Martians could land in the car park tomorrow, anyone suggesting a space lazar program?
As for the SDR style reassessment of the UK’s foreign commitments I make no apologies:-
- Just because we do business somewhere.
- Just because we are in NATO
- Just because we are 2nd best mates with the USA.
- Just because wherever was once pink on a map.
- Just because there is trouble in some third world toilet
- Just because the umpteenth round of massacre and counter massacre kicks off, in some ethnic / religious war that has been going on for centuries; and will be going on long after our great grandchildren are dead .
- Just because the USA wants to go and kill someone.
- Just because we are ‘globally engaged‘. (Whatever that means).
- Just because WASAWPYK. (We Are Still A World Power You Know).
Trying run some sort of barging basement superpower capability is just dumb. Really
We are ‘Bloody Belgium’. We could also be Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Brazil etc etc etc.
I think it’s fair to say that the Army and the Air force posts were not that controversial.
The navy, OMG the navy, always on this site it is the navy where the wars start!
To those who were of the opinion that we do not need a coastguard style force, that’s OK by me, that’s a reasoned debate etc.
However as predicted there were those who seemingly denied not only that the RN should do it, but that anyone should do it because that would attack the RN’s Budget. The ‘we’re not floating rozers’ crowd were out in force.
That is less understandable. Keeping a pristine RN by leaving gaps in our security is bizarre.
Ok, I accept the scrap the ‘fast pointy Ships’ was an extreme proposition. That part of my post approached (but did not quite reach) trolling. I am not that sure I would go that far myself. But but but….
We cannot go on as we are. The numbers game is catching us up, and we will eventually get caught out.
The CVF and all it’s works will reduce the surface RN to a single bargain basement, one trick pony. ‘Easy Carrier Battle Group’ or perhaps ‘Ryan naval airpower’ IF we can make it all work.
Airy assertions that ‘something else will have to be cut, and the money found’ are just plain pipe dreams. We are not going to have 12 destroyers or 24 frigates or any other increase in numbers that will make a real capability shift.
I would reiterate I if we were going to play world power we should do it properly, I dream of 3 nuclear CBG and a couple of division sized amphibious forces, but it ain’t gonna to happen.
TD mentioned he thought I was ‘isolationist’ I’m not I’m a realist.