The UK’s Carrier Strike programme marches on
Two good articles from DoD Buzz and Atlantic Sentinel (click the image to read) highlight the recent trip the the US of Secretary of State for Defence, Phillip Hammond MP
This of course makes perfect sense, we will be sharing the same aircraft, the F35C, unless my outside bet comes to fruition and we buddy up with the French for a Rafale/CVF swapperoo and the Royal Navy have only distant memories of operating conventional aircraft carriers.
I thought this was interesting
This is not to say that is how things will pan out but the American encouragement of British plans to expand capabilities like force projection and sea basing are surely not done out of the goodness of Secretary Panetta’s heart. The United States will surely benefit from a friendly carrier out doing the same job as the US Navy, especially one operating the same aircraft, speaking the same language, with officers and men who have worked with the US Navy and with equipment using similar supply chains to the US Navy and allowing American aircraft to land on a conventional carrier deck.
If we look back through various policy statements, evidence to select committees and actual events it should be clear to all the CVF/JCA is deeply rooted in being the partner/bitch of the USN, one would hope that our interests always converge.
I have no doubt whatsoever that service personnel will crack on and make a good job of the transition but as per my previous post, this is not going to be cheap and if we are all honest, the true costs of the conversion, the true impact on all three services and the real outcome in capability terms are still not known.
A leap in the dark it may be but at least we have our cousins to help.
Nice.
Digg it!
Add to Delicious!
Share on Facebook!
Share on Reddit!
Stumble it
Add to Technorati
49 Comments
pie in the sky articles. the US Navy will be too focused on the Pacific and the middle east. if there is going to be cooperation and a ‘sharing’ of assets it won’t be at the operational but only at the training level.
how much work did our two countries do together at the height of the Royal Navy’s strength during the cold war? not much.
British responsibilities and US interests were often far apart on the geographical map. the only thing that really brought us together was the threat of the Soviet Union. add to it the probablility that US carrier strength will decline and i just don’t see much happening.
add to it you’re going to have new countries getting into the carrier business or at least LHD business and it just ain’t happening. S. Korea, Japan, Singapore and maybe Australia will need training slots too.
sounds good but this is just wishful thinking.
soloman
the royal navy existed to block the soviet submarine at the giuk gap so reforger could pass without trouble….
The reason we lost carriers in the first place is they didnt fit mission.
On the previous thread carrier costs took the usual bashing, but James got shot down for the 20bn estimate
- yes, the airwing is expensive – but it is dual use and part of a bigger fleet
TD, above, expresses doubt about enhanced capability. Let me put the question the other way around: What independent expeditionary capability would there there be without a carrier to assist?
But back to the costs, because the operating element came up in the responses to the estimate by James:
Australian Defence Magazine had these examples
- the Spanish build their F-100 Frigates for about $700M each whereas our program for three is advertised at $8B. [from other sources that is about 3 x 1.8, so the residual 2.6bn is for supporting the operation in the first 5 years... to stable flight, so to say]
- same story for the Collins class and its proposed local build replacement ($36B?). At least here (Scottish independence apart) we have the capacity and skill to build; if there is a little help for the EMALS, why not (isn’t that the exact equivalent of the Common Launch module for subs, a unique requirement with very little spin-off into other capability areas – but with a huge cost risk for failure and subsequent rework)
Hi Sol,
You seem to have a very narrow definition for doing things together “how much work did our two countries do together at the height of the Royal Navy’s strength during the cold war? not much.”
- RN is still suffering from a skewed structure, because it took on the task to guard (and hold) the UKIG-gap, while the US carrier groups would have done the quick in-and-outs to neutralise the Northern Fleet bases
- initially the three pocket-carriers were designed to be the flagships for such ASW task forces (no wonder their capabilities for other taskings would have seen sorely stretched, after the RN started trying to get back to some sort of balance in structure and capabilities, as an independent force)
who actually has the narrow view gentlemen? NATO was designed to protect Europe from the Soviet Union. not the US.
your forces were skewed because they implemented what many are suggesting being brought back. smart defense or specialized defense.
personally, with Harriers you had a balanced force projection force. without them you have a navy that is more akin to a coast guard and with out the ability to get the job done in the face of opposition. the reason why so many hate the talk about FI is because they know well and good that if those islands fell, you couldn’t recover them no matter how pretty the Typhoon looks flying in the sky.
how low has a once proud navy sunk when it must look to an ally (either the US or France) in order to get its forces into the field. your nation has made the choice to fund social services for people that would rather not work instead of funding the most important social service. national defense.
i don’t get it. but we have choices on all levels. personal and national and if the UK has decided to go down this path then so be it. but i can tell you that many in the US are definitely tiring of supporting Europe.
troop rotations? you can bet that it will be a full pull out. NATO? its already dead but doesn’t know it. this economic crisis will have bigger ramifications than many realize.
Hi Sol,
I think you answered your own question “who actually has the narrow view gentlemen? NATO was designed to protect Europe from the Soviet Union. not the US.”
- ever heard of: buffer zones, bringing the fight to the enemy, maritime strategy and containment
Isn’t all a matter of perspective? I would argue that NATO was designed to protect the US from a communist European super state stretching from Calais at one end to Vladivostok on the other, if that had happened the US would been seriously stuffed – MAD might have kept the communist’s at bay from the America’s but it would not have stopped them controlling Africa and Asia via a network of client states.
Wasn’t there a saying in the cold war ? The Americans would fight the Russians down to the last German.
you say it was for US protection. i say it was to protect Europe.
careful gents. you can spin history all you want, but the facts are the facts. the Soviets weren’t threatening to invade my nation. they were threatening to invade yours. and talk about fighting to the last German is just US bashing. the real truth is that the UK has a buffer that’s been used historically to keep enemies at bay…its called the English Channel.
funny thing about facts. they don’t respect nationality.
Soloman
A USSR that spread as far as Lisbon would quickly take actual control of Africa and theres little the US could have done to to prevent that.
Once Africa falls, its easy to topple the encircled middle east, and “Fortress America” would eventualy be worn down
The US carried more than its fair share, but it was hardly charity.
@ solomom
‘you say it was for US protection. i say it was to protect Europe.’
Why can’t it be both?
Dominic.
the US would have been more than capable of sustaining itself and a fortress Europe is exactly what many are calling for. the idea that a European takeover by the Soviet Union would lead to the ultimate downfall of the US is laughable. an empire that large would implode on itself. besides keeping that many countries under its fist would have kept the Soviet Union occupied for years. if that was the ultimate outcome then i would bet that a trade arrangement would have worked out similar to whats going on with Communist China.
Topman.
you’re probably right from a certain point of view but i detest the view that some are pushing here. the Royal Navy got unbalanced because it was supporting US policy? they should get real. the biggest threat to the Royal Navy is the Royal Air Force….and the thought that it tailored itself for US wishes is insulting.
No, it tailored itself as part of a NATO collective defence agreement. Everyone knew it, everyone accepted it, each had their part to play.
Anyone with any sense of history will clearly understand the role of the RN, the resultant equipment choices etc, were clearly and irrefutably geared to bottling the Russian northern fleet behind the GIUK gap, thus providing the US and Canada with access to mainland Europe for reinforcement.
Hence the evolving nature of the Type 23, the ultimate expression of a specialist ASW frigate and the role of the Sea Harrier to protect them from long range bombers
This is what allies do when they sign up for collective defence against a very credible threat.
Sol
That was the very real fear, do you not remember domino theory?
Even today, EUrope has a higher share of world GDP than the US, back then, just the “Big 5″ of western Europe were considerably richer than the US.
NATO spent 5% of GDP on defence and had more funds than the USSR that spent 40%
If Europe fell, the US would be on the losing end of that equation.
“you’re probably right from a certain point of view but i detest the view that some are pushing here. the Royal Navy got unbalanced because it was supporting US policy?”
Thats not what we are saying, or certainly not what I’m saying.
But NATO policy did skew the RN towards a very big, very effective anti submarine and anti mine force at the expense of everything else, including carrier strike.
The RN didnt need carriers to sweep subs out of the North Sea, so it lost them.
The crux of my “raider” arguement is that prioritising ASW was the right choice, but it should have been at the expense of the army.
It was utterly bonkers for the UK to have as many tanks in Germany as Germany!
. the biggest threat to the Royal Navy is the Royal Air Force….
Well I guess that’s one way of looking at it…
Was Canada designed to buffer the US from the Soviets? Or was it designed to give the Americans somewhere to run when the Mexicans invaded? I get so confused at times……..
“careful gents. you can spin history all you want”
No we leave that to hollywood.
The effect of NATO’s collect defence on the members defence policy/structure is well documented, it even has a name I believe – “NATOisation”.The only countries which kept virtually balanced armed forces where the US (due to its size) and France, because it left the defence structure of NATO. Having said that even the US force was geared towards a European war (FULDA gap, reinforcements across the Atlantic, etc) and France had to make its forces affordable (Navy’s hi-low structure, scraping of the nuclear triad, etc.)
As we don’t have (much) experience with CATOBAR operations anymore, and one of the justifications for going over to CATOBAR was increased cross-decking/co-operation, this makes a lot of sense.
first .
domino theory was used to get the US into the Vietnam war by Kennedy and then Nixon.
second.
i don’t resent European wealth. i’m good. if the US fell Europe would continue and vice versa.
third.
the US Navy and the Marines both had a reinforcement mission in northern Europe. the US Navy and Marines also had a reinforcement mission in southern Europe and was to battle the Black Sea Fleet.
fourth.
the US built up an impressive submarine force to deal with Soviet subs and as far as the rest of their Navy was concerned i don’t believe anyone was in tremendous fear. as for the Harrier it was built not to battle Soviet bombers…if that was the case then carriers would have remained in service.
fifth.
the Type 23 came into service at the end of the cold war. i contend its purpose was more about protecting British ballistic subs than it was about providing a credible deterrent to the Soviets in the ASW field.
sixth.
someone’s geography is jacked up and as far as Canada being a place for Americans to run to….you’re talking about New Yorkers. the middle and southern parts of this country don’t run. we stand and fight. might be why i joined the military.
seventh.
hollywood can spin but so do blog posts.
Sol, the Type 23 may well have come into service later but it was a child of the cold war
not to the point where they claim to have captured the enigma coding machine, whilst people involved in that were still alive
‘as for the Harrier it was built not to battle Soviet bombers’
Well the sea harrier was IIRC.
Thank you Topman
The articles talk of cooperation and interoperability; I don’t see anything new or controversial.
So we buy some training off the US. So what? The US Navy has the world’s premier carrier fleet, seems the obvious place to go. Some folks seem to think that going to the US to relearn skills we lost back in the ’70s means that the Americans are paying for our ships and aircraft.
It seems quite likely to me that we could see US Navy or Marine personnel embarked on a QE carrier in the future. The British and American forces have exercised together many times in the past – including carrier and assault ship landings landing.
There may not have been operational hosting of USN aircraft or crewmen in the past, but CVS obviously had it’s limits. In the case of CVF, it will take time to get a dozen fast jets up and running and likely several years before the Royal Navy fills one with it’s own aircraft. Plenty of space and time for co-deployment with the Yanks -or French- and what better way to build up British crew’s experience?
Is it any different having a French or American aircraft or crewman aboard a British ship, than it is to have a RAF aircraft hosted by an Italian airbase ashore?
@Soloman: “the biggest threat to the Royal Navy is the Royal Air Force”
And visa versa, after all 1SL Beatty tried to Kill the RAF for 5 out of 6 years in the beginning of it’s life (he famously gave Trenchard “1 year to get your house in order” before he waded in with the attack-dogs).
I’m not sure this is really news – certainly it’s nothing like some of the things that have been mooted, like flying a couple of squadrons of USMC Harriers off QE for a few years just to help get us up to speed on some kind of carrier ops. Given the faff they’re having over LHA-7, that may yet happen – that contract has been delayed, first because they toyed with making it a civilian version for the MPF(F) seabasing concept, and then the potential failure of F-35B would mean the Marines having to rethink their entire requirement for aviation ships. With the imminent un-probationing of F-35B, I guess LHA-7 will go ahead but you can imagine that they’ll end up stretching out either LHA-7 construction or the design process for LHA-8 (which will probably get a welldeck back).
Us having an effective CV/F-35 force is incredibly in the US’ interests. In particular with them losing a CVBG or two, that’s most likely to affect their requirement to keep 1.7 CVBG’s on station between Cyprus and the Indus – particularly the .7 that floats between Israel guard ship and pirate chasing.
Of course, that is somewhere that’s important to us and France as well, plus is well within our logistics capability. So I can see a deal emerging where we coordinate our carrier presence around Suez, so we’re they’re when the USN are not. They might contribute the Med BMD Tico/Burke-III/CG(X) to the taskforce, which gives us more BMD protection and gives it some air cover.
So – CVF gets forward based in Cyprus? It would beat the hell out of spending the winter flogging up and down the GIUK gap….
Oh and one thing, the primary mission of the STOVL jets on both sides was to kill support aircraft – Nimrod/P-3/Il-38/Tu-142 looking for your subs but in particular the ISTAR/MPA platforms like Bear D’s and Badger D’s that found your ships and then guided long-range missiles onto them. Yes if the Harriers could catch up with a few Badger bombers then great, but if bombers are within Harrier range of your fleet, then the fleet is within AS-4/5/6 range of the bombers. Nail the recce platforms and you’re a lot safer.
EEl Sid
you badly misinformed. i seriously doubt that you will EVER see US Marines stationed on the QE. EVER. the Marine Corps is quite busy thank you very much and the thought that we could spare a Squadron or Company of Marines to man the QE is beyond insane.
i don’t know what faff means but what you’re talking about is definitely news to me and i follow Marine Corps issues and amphibious ship issues religiously. i don’t know what you’re talking about when you talk about a civilian version of the MPF(F) being a possible use for the LHA-7! we are already below requirements for amphibious shipping and instead of 38 ships (which is the requirement) we’re going to have to swallow hard and accept a paltry 33. so in summation. you don’t know what you’re talking about.
i must add that a smaller number of carriers will only allow us to go back to cold war manning levels. instead of operating with only 60 odd airplanes aboard each carrier we’ll be able to get back to 100. that makes sense. its a factor of necking down aviation in both the Marines and Navy. smaller number of aircraft carriers….bigger punch per aircraft carrier. again. you don’t know what you’re talking about. in addition, some have proposed using an aircraft carrier slated for mothballing to be used as the aviation ship in the sea base.
Dangerous Dave.
thanks. i didn’t know about that history, i was talking about just modern times. i’ll definitely look it up.
Brian Black.
how is cross decking to an aircraft carrier that has a normal compliment of approx 20 airplanes advantageous to the US? it would make more sense to simply take the Marines off an LHA and using it in the sea control role.
so in summation. you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Hmmm. You obviously don’t follow the Marines quite as closely as you think. Back in around 2007 it was proposed that LHA-7 (to be funded FY2010) and LHA-8 (FY2014) would be the centrepiece of the MPF(F). The designs would be a variant of the America class designated either MPF(F) LHA(R) or T-LHA(R), to be manned by civilians of the MSC and unarmed. A Navy Times blog at the time even suggested they might be built to civilian standards like HMS Ocean, the idea was just to make use of the LHA-6 design rather than start from scratch. The Senate Armed Services Committee killed it in the FY2008 budget as they thought you might as well just build full-fat LHA’s that you could send in harm’s way if needed. So LHA-7 will be the same design/manning as LHA-6 under current plans – the current LHA-7 engineering funding expires in May, so they need to make their minds up soon. I’m sure if you search .gov and .mil for terms like T-LHA(R) you’ll find references to it.
I’m well aware that the USMC is overstretched, with the Bataan away for 10 months recently. That’s exactly why they would be interested in cooperating with the RN. I think you misunderstand me, the Marines wouldn’t be twiddling their thumbs in Portsmouth, CVF would be helping the USMC fulfil her commitments. For instance, imagine the QE arriving off Somalia when the Bataan has been there 5 months. The Harriers and say 100 ground crew cross-deck to the QE, 90% of the crew can then go home and the Bataan herself is free to enter dry dock for maintenance. Meanwhile the Harriers are operating in an airgroup with Merlins and Wildcats, with British engineers and air controllers and laundrymen. The aircrew are no worse off than in a full 10-month tour, but it significantly reduces the pressure on other parts of the system. You don’t need a full ARG to go chasing pirates, but a lot of what the USMC does these days is that kind of low-intensity stuff that needs a fair bit of aviation and not too many boots on the ground. If QE could slot in to that kind of task, that would save a LHD/LHA for “proper” Marine stuff. You implied yourself, USMC just don’t have spare LHA’s to go off doing sea control, they’re too overstretched.
Obviously that’s a ridiculously simplistic model that wouldn’t happen in practice, they would train as part of the CVF group, but it gives you some idea of what’s in it for the USMC.
What the USMC need is more hulls (especially if they effectively lose one for a few years/permanently as a result of cuts/sequestration). They could do a better job of meeting their tasks with 9 Harriers on 10 flat-tops than 10 Harriers on 9 flat-tops. Or even 8 Harriers on 10 flat-tops, to fund some jointery. This would be post-Afghanistan, so you wouldn’t have all those Marine aircrew being stuck in a desert, they’d be available to go to sea.
what he said ^
I don’t understand why it will be a mixture of RAF and RN crews that will be operating the F-35. Surely, the only reason that was initially necessary was because JFH was composed of about three quarters RAF crew. Now that there has been the switch to the C-model and absolutely everything to learn about operating the aircraft must be learnt from scratch, there are longer any benefits of requirements to have “joint-forcing”.
This will solve in the interservice rivalry and the RAF will have there Typhoons and the Navy will have their F-35s; A single fast jet type each.
It took me a while to come round to the idea of Merlins being transfered to the RM but now I see a good deal of sense. The navy can really reduce aircraft types which I imagine at sea is of even greater importance than it normally is. I am going off on a tangent here but I think my point is, to make things simple.
One issue I have is that the Carrier Strike is looking to become another one of those programmes that has been cut to such an extent in capability that it becomes barely worth operating. Similiar thing happened with the Invincible class carriers where there were very few harriers available making it very questionable as to exactly what kind of capability they had. The CVF, the largest every operated by the Royal Navy, will fly 12 F-35s; to me, if you’re not going to do it properly, don’t bother at all. The cost would probably decrease by 20% but the capability by 40%. Those are not calculated figures, just to illustrate a point really.
Anyway, rant over.
@ Chris Morris
I am going to say this because somebody is bound to bite…….
Why RN maintainers etc, for F35? Because people don’t join the RAF to go to sea.
5,4,3,2,1……. :)
chris
remember the jca was a harrier replacement, now its also a tornado replacement, thats one part navy two parts airforce.
I have just had a thought. There has clearly been a cost in designing and developing and perhaps even removing (depending on whether they started physically assembling it) the ski-ramp.
Given that the design was future-proofed allowing for the installation of the catapults, would it not have been better to just not have a ramp designed at all. Surely the flight deck is long enough for one not to have been needed for the STOVL operations. I imagine the length of the deck is similiar to that of UMSC amphib.
@x
I am confused, I was proposing that the F-35 should be entirely FAA crewed meaning that RAF crews would not go to sea.
@ DominicJ
While I agree that what you say makes sense logically, it would be foolish I feel to replace everything on a like-for-like basis. All forces are getting cut regardless so I am suggesting that the RAF would have an all typhoon force of, say, 100 and the Navy probably 60 ish after the numbers are cut and then again..and again…and again.
The role of replacing Tornado will be fulfilled, albeit by a different service. This may not make the RAF happy, but to be honest, I see a development of Taranis as something that I feel is something that should replace the Tornado if I do think on a like-for-like basis, i.e. a land based long range strike platform operated by the RAF).
you’re smoking crack El Sid.
the USMC doesn’t need to operate off European warships. even in an age of cut backs we have more capacity than most of the European countries.
remember someone bragging about European wealth being greater than US wealth? well that’s one reason why subsidizing European defense is such a taboo.
if you want to put troops on the QE i recommend you look around the continent. the US Marine Corps has work to do elsewhere.
i don’t understand the desire to team with the US Marines when it would seem to be a natural to team with another European country.
explain that please. even Canada would be a more suitable partner…or Australia….
What I would say is the UK has had now 20 years since the end of the cold war to build whatever fleet they wanted. NATO naval forces were geared to getting US forces to Europe safely. We built frigates for ASW to make sure we could escort our transports. We have restructured our forces to meet the needs we have and the rest of Europe has to do the same. What I find hard to understand is how Europe has decided that they have no threats. I hope they are right because if they are wrong the cost will be high. I have read other places people talk about making tanks, planes and ships like you can just spit those out.
Everyone is looking at this from one side US on RN ships. With around 50 UK pilots training on the F/A-18 it would make more sense to form a FAA squadron to operate off a US flat top. It would give then experience of squadron operations and with the draw down of US forces probably very welcome. Then when/if the QE class carrier is ready, it would have at least one squadron able to deploy.
Hi Jim,
Is that “With around 50 UK pilots training on the F/A-18 it would make more sense to form a FAA squadron to operate off a US flat top” a cumulative number?
One and a half years ago it was eight “slots” and that is exactly what it is, the resource cost backing up those slots is enormous. You could never have a squadron, without picking up those costs (to no added benefit).
I’d be interested to hear where those pilots who had to take French classes are now…
Chris M
I actualy pretty much agree.
I was actualy thinking more 120:40 than 100:60
Sol
I wasnt bragging, just stating a fact.
Phrank
I disagree, well, we’ve had the time, but we havent used it.
Every spending decision in europes armed forces has been lead by first by cutting costs immediatly, then by service/capbadge turf wars, and a distant third, wondering what we actualy need.
Much as I defend the Navy, its its own worst enemy.
It had 11 active Type 42′s until 2008.
FOR WHAT?
Seriously?
You need one to defend the oilers, one to defend the amphibs, one to defend the carrier, one to defend T23′s in the north sea and two spares to cover refit periods and emergencies.
So six.
The SDSR gave up one vessel from twelve.
At an average cost of £20mn per year to operate (from wiki), giving up those extra 5 in 1997 would have saved £1.5bn by now.
Thats two, maybe three Darings
Not to mention the 4 T22′s
But every service does it.
bragging? the UK has forced its Navy to utilize a supply ship in the anti-piracy role.
i hate to be this blunt, but i see no advantage at all to US forces being co-stationed on a British flat top.
NONE!
if you haven’t noticed, and i’m repeating myself here but the US is soon to divest itself of Europe. we’re pulling out our Brigades and the ‘story’ behind the whole thing is that we’re going to rotate them like Marines or Special Forces into the area.
get real. we’re about to close 10 combat brigades. you can bet two of those brigades will be those in Europe. additionally the requirements in S. Korea, the Middle East and the Pacific will have the Army and Marine Corps quite busy.
you’ve allowed your Navy to atrophy and now you’re re-hashing history to fit a greatness that you’ve pissed away at every turn! and for what! a bigger welfare state? even a liberal democrat president has signaled that the US is not going to subsidize European defense anymore in the dust up in Libya.
want to know how some view the UK? and this is from a Canadian not an American.
“Britain’s constant boast that it punches above its weight internationally rings more hollow by the day. The defence ministry is eviscerating the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force and making deep cuts to the army, too. There have been sweeping redundancies across all three services, the sudden retirement of the fleet of Harrier jump jets, the premature retirement of the aircraft carrier Ark Royal and the likely immediate sale to raise cash of one of two carriers now being built. Even after the current round of Draconian cuts, it is difficult to see how Britain can sustain the force that will remain, let alone underwrite plans for a new generation of nuclear submarines, new frigates and the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
That Britain can no longer even pretend to be a major global player was already obvious to its troops and allies in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Well-trained, brave soldiers from fabled regiments went into battle under-equipped because the British treasury no longer has enough money to pay for the kit required for expeditionary escapades. ”
note:
that’s a canadian not an American. i don’t mean to slam, but you guys need an intervention.
if a defense minded blog is allowing a “all is well” meme to go out and not call bullshit on the cuts then all is lost. well here’s your wake up call. the UK has cut too much, lost too much expeditionary capability and unless it intends to be a small power it needs to reverse itself. as it is the future power will be Poland, Germany and Turkey in the European sphere.
‘if a defense minded blog is allowing a “all is well” meme to go out and not call bullshit on the cuts then all is lost. well here’s your wake up call’
Soloman, it doesn’t really matter what people on here say that much. Within the general population defence matters have a low priority. It is at best seen with disinterest. But bluntly people don’t care. As to the cuts at large people are supportive, they voted on the whole for a party that has cuts everywhere bar two depts (neither of which are MoD).
In fairness most people on the blog try and think of ways to spend the money within realistic boundaries, saying we want more is wholly unrealistic, politically it would never happen.
Sol
“That Britain can no longer even pretend to be a major global player was already obvious to its troops and allies in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Well-trained, brave soldiers from fabled regiments went into battle under-equipped because the British treasury no longer has enough money to pay for the kit required for expeditionary escapades. ”
But its not “cuts” per se that causes that, its the wrong cuts.
I frequently suggest massive cuts to the manpower of the army, but because it frees up a huge amount of cash that can be used to buy ammunition, spares, body armour ect, things that actualy matter in a war.
i hope you gentlemen aren’t misreading me on this issue. i get what you both are saying.
its just that in the US we have one of our two parties that is 100% pro defense spending and the other is for cuts but realizes that if they cut too much then they’ll lose broad popular support.
let me also state that on my spot, i refuted many of this guys arguments because i believe that the UK continues to punch above its weight…and i also believe that it funded UOR’s to such an extent that its somewhat fudged its vehicle mix (we have the same problem)…but i would like to see the UK continue to do so(punch above its weight). i just fear that its on a trajectory to lose that ability. i cringe at the idea of sending a supply ship to fight even pirates. i hate the idea that the UK doesn’t have harriers to fly off its ships.
i just don’t understand how some of your countrymen think…the idea that national defense isn’t the most important entitlement program is amazing to me.
@ Solomon – “i cringe at the idea of sending a supply ship to fight even pirates.” I have to disagree with that; all you really need for anti-piracy is a helicopter, a RHIB, a boarding party, a gun of somesort – MG, 20-30mm cannon) and a ship with good endurance – in other words, an auxilliary
http://grandlogistics.blogspot.com/2011/01/bunga-mas-lima.html
“i hate the idea that the UK doesn’t have harriers to fly off its ships.” – Seconded.
“i just don’t understand how some of your countrymen think…the idea that national defense isn’t the most important entitlement program is amazing to me.” You won’t get much of an argument from most people on this page, one of the stated aims of this website is to generate more interest in defence matters, but we are not the US; we have different views, resources, and startegy (if we ever come up with one).
‘i just don’t understand how some of your countrymen think…the idea that national defense isn’t the most important entitlement program is amazing to me.’
Without going into politics, people in the uk don’t see a threat from anywhere and generally aren’t too keen on us going overseas. The easiest way to put it, is how you (in the USA) see defence is how most people in this country see the NHS. Important above everything else.
un-probationing
I am in awe of this word.