When we last looked at the future of UK fixed wing Maritime Patrol in April (click here for a refresher) we came to the general conclusion that it was a capability gap that should be closed as soon as possible, that there was still much debate about the crossover between search and rescue and the more military oriented tasks and that there was a whole load of interesting equipment options ranging from airliner derived fixed wing aircraft, UAV’s, specialist conversions and even lighter than air aircraft that could fulfil some, or part of the complex set of requirements.
But like so many others capabilities, everything came down to money.
The obvious top drawer Nimrod alternative is the P-8 Poseidon but we have a brown ale budget, not Crystal champagne so unless the UK wants to go down the ATR72/C295 route there isn’t a great deal in between.
Announced by Boeing this week at Farnborough was the Medium Sized Maritime Surveillance Aircraft that represents an interesting option should we find some extra cash down the back of the sofa.
The Boeing Maritime Surveillance Aircraft directly applies advanced, proven and fielded capabilities from our P-8, Airborne Warning and Control System, and Airborne Early Warning and Control programs to solve our international customers’ maritime surveillance challenges. We’ve selected a preferred aircraft and are in discussions with a manufacturer about supplying and modifying their aircraft. We hope to have an announcement on that element by the end of this year.
So that looks like squeezing elements on the P8’s mission equipment into a mid-sized business jet. No news on the preferred aircraft but it is said to be platform agnostic.
It seem only to provide ISR capabilities rather than carrying weapons but another interesting option to add to the shopping list I think, carrying a small weapon fit should not represent a huge engineering challenge although obviously this will depend on the aircraft, customer demand and finance.
Perhaps when the budget fairy stumps up the cash to allow the Sentinel to stay in service we might take Boeing up on the offer, buy a handful of additional Global Express aircraft and ask Boeing to do the conversion.
At least we would get the benefits of airframe and engine commonality even though it might be viewed as a poor mans P8.
Whether it would meet our requirements is of course another matter but if that wasn’t interesting enough Saab have partnered with Piaggio to offer an MPA version of their very cool looking P.180 Avanti
Stylish eh
Martin,
best you leave you military theorising to the pages of the Toytown Gazette then. Not really worth a debate with such an unthinking airpower fanboy.
The reality is far grittier than you’d imagine, or have space for in your head.
@ Simon,
what level of capability are you trying to benchmark against? A few Sea Harrier FA / GR1 for six weeks in 1982? Later marks of Harrier for 1/2 hour periods in various theatres since then? WAH-64D off Ocean in 2 Squadron strength for various exercises and a few weeks off Libya in 2011?
You can’t compare an as yet unrealised aspiration to the recent or distant past.
What I’ve consistently argued for is an amphibious force based around JCs, with the ability to embark F35Bs if necessary, instead of as a routine. That doesn’t seem to be too over the top to me. Given that we actually need FJ off carriers on a vanishingly small number of occasions, it seems to me to be the best of both worlds to have some JCs that can when needed embark FJs, instead of a pair of CVFs that cannot embark and land troops. But I’m just a simple taxpayer, not an Admiral who deliberately wants to sail out his days in some Nelsonian glory of a Navy that never will be again, and thus to deliberately block the amphibious element of a future capital ship.
I’m shooting with said Admiral on the Plain in 2 months. Last year, he told me it was about service ethos, and he was proud of his decisions. I wonder what his excuse will be this year. He didn’t like it when I suggested cutting off the arse end of the QEC to allow LC operation, declaring I knew nothing about Naval architecture, which is true. But then he appears to know nothing of the future.
@El Sid
I was aware of the type. So, bottom line they did not target and they did not fire missiles. Nice, cheap bomb-truck… hell-of-a multi-role bird.
@Red Trousers
“£11B for two boats and a handful of aircraft, the latter of which are nowhere near flying properly, and even if they do, not very useful for the UK. Even two of the floaty little boats only gets you something like 66% of availability. If we’d spent £4Bn on such a capability, I’d be a lot more relaxed”
There is zero chance to get such a capability for £4b. Even by using JCIs, which will make very poor carriers, btw. The F-35 will scratch most points of it’s test program in 2012-13. Currently, it has flown with more A2G-systems than a FGR4.
Can we please return to the MPA-topic?
RT,
“What I’ve consistently argued for is an amphibious force based around JCs”
Agreed, that is what you’ve argued, and it’s one I agree with…
“…with the ability to embark F35Bs if necessary, instead of as a routine…”.
I thought you’ve always said that the JCs shouldn’t have the ski-jump to operate mickey mouse jets? You appear to be changing your tune, I’m glad, I happen to agree
Should scale up a little to 40,000 tonners so that we can swing-role between LHD and a 20-jet carrier without having to get the Observer’s oxy torch out every time we need to re-role the things.
“…instead of a pair of CVFs that cannot embark and land troops…”
CVF can embark and land troops – more than JC, in substantially less time, from substantially farther away… by Chinook, Merlin, Lynx, etc. The heavy equipment would come from Albion, Bulwark and Bay – plenty more than you’ll get on a couple of JC.
Martin
I know Lewis page is persona non grata on this site. But he is spot on the serbs bulled out when it became clear the entire NATO force in Germany which had just waived goodbye ot it’s mates in the third shock army and was a bit bored, was packing it’s bags an checking it’s passport for a trip to the balkans.
The serbs having frankly laughed at the magnificent Kevins in their flying machines; by for intance setting fire to old tyres to simmulate a success mission.
Or putting up with the airheads bosting of their repeated destruction of ‘Strategic’ targets like the TV station…. Lovers of Irony will recall the Suns famous ‘Rubble reduced to Rubble afte rit was bombed 5 times in about 2 weeks…
AS for afghan a GBFO Bribe to all concerned did far more than all the ‘Destruction rought by the sky gods’
So yea ROFL.
McZ,
JCs plus Harriers is more than what we need for carrier borne FJ. We don’t need no steeenking F35Bs. (You have to say that in a cod-Mexican voice, or the joke falls flat). But no, seriously, Harriers on JCs is a pretty good capability. And that does work for £4Bn. And no, you don’t get to choose the topic. It is tradition on TD that TD himself puts up a topic and pretty soon we are all back to the FI in 1982, no matter what was put up to start with.
Simon,
couldn’t give a hoot if the deck is flat or ski-jumped – whatever works best. And CVF disembarking troops by helicopter is cheating, so does not count. What happens if it’s a bit breezy and the Kevins claim union rules and refuse to fly? I’ve got six months in South Armagh and six months in Bosnia to persuade me this is the default Kevin position, whereas the Junglies just got on with it. The only disembarkation that counts is in an LC, because you can rely on the |Andrew and the RM to get you ashore. Trust me, I spent 4 months doing this sort of nonsense by both helicopter and LC in Northern Norway. You don’t trust the Kevins, you do the Andrew, even if they make you vomit all the way to the shore.
@McZ
No – sometimes the Tiffies did self-designate. But in general the force as a whole was more effective if they helped out the GR4′s. What matters is the force as a whole, not individual components – in this case the A2A capability of the force wasn’t much tested, but I’d rather have Typhoons in my force mix if A2A was required. Nobody’s saying the situation is ideal, but for now and the foreseeable future, the force as a whole can do the job.
RT
We are where we are.
UK Gov has not ordered JC, but we do have large lumps of QE/PoW. The public will not stand for more billion+ write offs.
@RT
“JCs plus Harriers is more than what we need for carrier borne FJ.”
You must have a bright view of the future to be that sure. I would call your risk assessment over-optimistic.
“But no, seriously, Harriers on JCs is a pretty good capability. And that does work for £4Bn.”
In 2020, this is exactly zero capability and another £4b wasted.
Plus, there is a reason carriers and flat-top amphibs are built to task. One of them is the fact, that an well-deck-amphib sits off the coast while the carrier sits 100-200nm offshore.
“But I’m just a simple taxpayer, not an Admiral who deliberately wants to sail out his days in some Nelsonian glory of a Navy that never will be again, and thus to deliberately block the amphibious element of a future capital ship.”
Then, as a taxpayer, how does it feel to spend £2b a year on pointless interceptors to ‘fly out days of Dowdingian glory of an air force that never will be again’? Still waitin’…
I’ll stop here. Really, we have done this over and over… including the 40k ts vs 70k ts question aso… it really gets ridiculous.
@ John Harltey,
yes, although there’s nothing in concrete to stop us telling LM to stand down on F35B, and instead invest the F35 money in something sensible to fly from the decks of the bloated QECs. In military capability terms, we could come out several times ahead of the current deal for the little jump jets.
The worst crime was not the CVFs, but the aircraft.
Heh-heh,
james is starting to mellow: CVF OK, just what flies off it is the discussion??
F-35B
Really, who knows? Might be great, might be a dog. Price may come down or it may not. Might be cancelled or may be ordered by more nations for their STOVL carriers. I do not know & am waiting to see what happens. If I knew the future, I would have picked the right lottery numbers by now,
ACC, not really. One is about as popular as HIV and an open wound in a jacuzzi, the other like Ebola inserted into a drip in your arm. You can make some judgements between them and pick and choose if you really have to, but in the grand scheme of things you want neither.
RT,
To put things into perspective both CVF would have cost £4b if the powers that be had not buggered about too much. Add to this a couple of Albion (overpriced because of more buggering about) £2b, and four Bay class (overpriced because of more buggering about) £1b. All in today’s money – ish.
That’s £7b for platforms that are equivalent to about 6-8 JC, which would cost more if you let BAe have anything to do with it (Aussie Canberra class)
The bottom line is that what we’ve got is the equivalent of about 6-8 JC. That’s quite a lot really and amounts to about as much as Spain, Italy and The Netherlands have put together.
It’s not in the form you or I would choose and does not benefit from economies of scale or exportability, but hey, this is Britain, and I can’t remember us doing anything else properly, military or otherwise – e.g. Millenium Dome, Wembley Stadium, any motorway, and probably the Olympics
.
Simon,
but given that all of the rest of the boats are / were already on stream, the only fair comparison is between QEC and JC. Now JC has this little party trick in that it can open up the arse end and let some LCs out, as well as host the wagons of a battle group. To which QEC can say nothing, apart from “I am the bastard lovechild of a Thales design being built by BAE Systems because they won the political battle, and am very Scottish because that is where Labour votes are, and I don’t care if I am as much use as a chocolate fireguard, because I have consumed lots of the defence budget and no one dares to cancel me”.
RT,
“…no one dares to cancel me…”
Hee, hee. I’d cancel ‘em. Then I’d break BAe up using the monopolies commission, in doing that I’d nationalise portions of it due to “national security requirements” and prosecute the big-wigs for fraud, money laundering and treason – that’d allow me to recoup the lost money.
Oh, I dream.
James your hiku poem worked much better than the HIV and ebola combined
@ McZ at 1714.
It boils down to the fact that we don’t need the sodding carriers, no matter how much some people say we do. Look at history, look at the future. Carriers are not an essential part. Amphibious shipping is.
And if you want to state that “you can never tell the future” or some similar argument, well I’ve got several hundred land projects that could equally get the go-ahead.
@ ACC, I’d like to administer liquid syringes of the HIV / Ebola mix to about 20 people who signed off on the Navy lark with the carriers, and if that does not work, subject them to more haikus (once I have learned to edit my thoughts into 17 syllables, or failing that, no sod it, firstly, to apply the Queen’s bayonet to their rancid guts).
….even the MoD don’t pretend that we need the sodding things. There’s a sense of embarrassment within the Cap area about them, with the best argument being “well they are on order now, so let’s look on the bright side”. It’s best understood as a political fudge to help Gordon Brown with some local elections in Scotland, but the bill is paid by the rest of us.
RT You make incredibly sweeping statements for someone no longer in the service. You are also quick to have a go at people who you see as unqualified to post in certain areas.
As someone who is still serving and pretty well connected please stop posting things your ex colleagues talk about over a G and T as gospel.
don’t think James has “un/dis-qualified” anyone?
Only had mobile phone internet access last few days so not had a chance to reply to James response to my earlier post – things have moved on a bit so i will make one point which has not been raised so far – unless my memory is faulty, the US have been pushing us to build new carrier and as we need the US as our key ally it seemed very unlikely the would cancel both carriers regardless of how many f-35`s we actually buy. Plus to fair if we end up with a carrier which can deploy 18 odd f-35`s plus some helicopters for the first few months of an enduring operation would we actually be worse off than now? Isn’t that scale of fast jets we would not
Sorry my phone wouldn’t edit the last post and posted before i finished – my concluding point was isn’t 18 fast jets what we would normally offer up in an enduring operation ?
Isn’t that the scale of jets we would deploy anyway…….yes?
Thought so!!!
RT
For political reasons, QE/PoW need to come into service with no more drama, or the pols/public will be unlikely to back anything expensive for any of the armed forces.
APATS,
you are not the TD censor, at least as far as I’m concerned. I self-censor more than you’d think. There’s nothing I post that is not in the public domain somewhere, or that would hurt our currently serving boys and girls.
If you are still serving, I wonder what you are doing on here at all. Very interesting info no doubt, up to date and so on. But do you have your chain of command’s permission? I don’t need any such permission, you risk a lot as you do.
@ JH
I’m not so sure, it’s abit of a tricky one. I don’t think that it’s nailed on that they will both enter service, for example Nimrod scrappage was a bit of a bolt from the blue. First 2 at RAF Kinloss work ups being completed yet still scrapped. But at the same time ask the general public what is/was Nimrod and I bet the vast majority wouldn’t have a clue.
Topman
The Average Joe public or pol would not know what a Nimrod looked like, but can probably remember billions were lost in writing it off.
@ John Hartley,
actually, I agree with you as a matter of tactics, but let’s be honest, it’s an incredibly weak argument to deploy: “keep quiet or they’ll put the spotlight on us and then we’re all buggered”. Hmmmm.
Simon
BAE is hard to defend, but no firm could build to quality, time & budget with a customer that changes spec, numbers & is prone to delays/cancellations on a whim.
RT
Is that not Whitehall in a nutshell?
RT I am very careful with what I post and generally try and stick to the opinion type stuff. I was not inferring that you have ever posted anything you should not have merely pointing out that you can be a bit short with some people as they have never got any dust on their boots.
@ JH
Possibly you’re right but amongst all the other overspends in the public sector in the public’s mind I think it’s a hard one to generalise about.
Christ. I’ve certainly missed a rousing debate,
@ El sid,
– Some of us are up in the wee hours for far more mundane reasons, like working shifts. As for the anti-ship weapons are they cleared for use on Typhoon and could we do that for potential Middle Eastern customers?
@ SI,
– I appreciate that you are serving and so with the greatest respect, and doubtless about to draw a lot of ire, please stop talking bollocks. Specifically, that the Royal Navy is the only service interested in defence and that the RN is the only service with a plan for the future etc.
You claim that the other services have no clue what they might be called on to do in 10 years time, which I don’t understand? They may not know specifically where or against whom, but broadly speaking they can narrow down what they’ll be doing within reason, same as the Navy as well. Unless the funding over run for CVF, Type 45 and Astute was actually funnelled into some secret slush fund to buy a crystal ball.
This is precisely the kind of nonsense that I was talking about in response to Dunservin’ the other day; this mythical idea that some hold to that the Royal Navy is the only service that does anything, knows anything or has a plan for anything. If you geninuely believe that’s true then you need help because you’re clearly a little bit mental.
@ Martin,
– Multiple things to cover.
Now, not that James needs defending by me, but he did make it quite clear that he felt “those Islands in ’82″ were an example of where naval air power played a huge role. Trying to make out that he didn’t is disingenuous.
Next, Ireland gets buy with such a small force (and probably will for many years to come) on account of its largest export partner being right next door with a full QRA, navy, army, and nuclear deterrent.
“Those fast jest won wars in Kosovo, Libya, Afghanistan 2001 without the Army bods firing a shot. They pretty much won Gw1 and GW2 relying on ground forces for mopping up”
– Have a word with yourself. I’m a big advocate of the benefits airpower can bring to land campaigns, but even I’m not that optimistic. Afghanistan and Libya were won by ground forces, who had to be prodded, poked, guided, assisted and, if some reports are anything to go by, actively commanded by western special forces lads. Without someone on the ground to press home the advantage you might as well not bother with airpower because all you’re doing is damaging property with no real change in circumstances.
See the Iraq Wars as an example, where the enemy forces didn’t budge from their positions until the ground forces forcibly ejected them. Air power helped soften the enemy up and disorientate them, but it was the land forces that achieved the decisive effect, and had to fight hard in many cases to do so.
@ Red Trousers,
– I think part of the problem with the grid squares you were talking about is on account of different maps. I think pilots are issued much wider spanning, slightly less detailed maps.
@ McZ,
“The F-35 will scratch most points of it’s test program in 2012-13. Currently, it has flown with more A2G-systems than a FGR4″
– If you’re trying to claim that F-35 is somehow more air to ground ready then Typhoon then I would suggest you find something new to smoke.
@RT
With the fifth largest EEZ area to protect, all except British Antarctica being island based, the concept of a floating base to launch aircraft doesn’t seem like a waste of money. Of course JC designs with their improved amphibious capabilities would seem to have an even greater case.
Ocean, or rather a LHA/LPH design was never the right route for the RN, a LHD is a better concept for a budget our size. Having said that JC and the Mistrals didn’t exist. Hopefully when replacements are sought double roleing of the QEs will be excluded and proper designs will be ocnsidered. So much energy is spent complaining about the cost of Astutes/T45s/QE CVF/F35s etc. but whilst some projects appear to have been badly conceived and managed others perhaps haven’t.
QE CVF has been delayed and criticism has been made about the inability to cancel the contract without significant penalties; but surely the increase in the cost of the ships has been almost entirely due to political goal post moving. The contract cleverly foresaw this and reasonable clauses appear to have been inserted.
The kit we have eg T45 and Astutes appear to be world class, although we don’t seem to be able to get foreign orders, and costs have been inflated on many projects due to reduced orders, whether our kit is too high tech or too expensive is up for debate but it often is comparable to other competitor developed and manufactured kit in price (and usually cheaper than US).
The F35 is full of technology that we are unlikely to be able to afford to develop by ourselves, it will largely produce a plane than can fly and will have a functioning radar, DAS and weapons system working from day one. When did we last build or even buy a plane that didn’t have something as daft as a lump of concrete in its cone? The Typhoon is expensive and development is hardly impressive vs the F35. As someone has said Lockmart seemed to market and advertise a lot of functionality and we have been following a blurred development, design and LRIP process that is novel and maybe not very effective. Typhoon won’t get foreign orders with half baked development though.
LHDs need to come, but the need to replace carriers came first. QE CVF was the right decision, although CATOBAR should have been possible. Personally I don’t think is as bad as you make out, nor many of the procurement decisions for that matter (unless you want to talk about Nimrods or FRES).
And back on topic development of capabilities on new platforms (A300/A400M) would make a lot of sense. Maybe some Vigilant pods and some FOAS bomb bays would be a start. It makes no sense working with Comets and Boeing 707s it just makes everything so bespoke to maintain.
@Chris B
Neither is integrated on Typhoon yet, but both are very doable. Both RBS-15 or Marte Mk2 are real missiles that are currently flying on aircraft (Gripen and Merlin respectively, Marte is also in trials on C-295 and both have been fitted to Typhoon) and in service with the navies of Germany and UAE among others. So by the standards of these things, it’s not very Powerpointy, it just needs someone to actually cough up the money for the integration.
Everything is a bit up in the air at the moment with regard to the Phase 2 Enhancements and the new deals with Oman and Saudi and others, it will probably take until after Ramadan for things to become clearer. I’d say that if UAE come on board, it’s 60:40 that they will pay for Marte integration, otherwise I suspect the others will wait for us to integrate Spear 3. But you never quite know, it’s very fluid and very political. The backstop is RBS-15 for the Germans in 2017 but I think there should be an alternative by then.
Hmm, just wondering what the cost is of doing the integration for something like RBS-15 ourselves versus how much of an influence it would have on potential exports for the region? And if it all goes wrong, at least Faith, Hope and Charity will be better equipped! Tough choices.
Cheers El Sid.
@ Chris B – I can’t believe you’re on James side, and I thought I joined the dark side
I can’t remember saying that James said that we did not need airpower in the FI, Even James is not that big an army fan boy as to argue that case.
I certainly over stated the importance of airpower in many conflicts I am of course aware of the importance of ground forces, however I do not believe it’s nonsense to say that in all those cases airpower was the decisive factor.
It’s easy to get caught up in the COIN actions we have fought recently where airpower has been more of an add on. James assertion yesterday was very much that airpower provided by fast jest was un necessary. I wonder how well the Army would perform in an environment with a determined enemy in control of the skies. Thankfully we have not faced such a situation since 1941 but every time we did it did not work out well for us.
In reference to Ireland and defence who exactly would you expect to invade the UK should we scrap QRA and our nuclear deterrent? What gain would there be in such an operation?
@ Martin,
You commented that James had clearly not been wearing Green during ’82. But James had never said anything about that, except once (might not have been on this thread) we he expressed an opinion that it might have been possible to do it without air support but at an increased casualty rate.
Now James, if I recall correctly, was not abusing airpower in general but the idea of our carrier air power, e.g. CVS launching Harriers and the past iterations of British Carrier power, as being essential (I wish I knew how to do italics). People always use that word, essential, when talking about our contributions from Carriers. I think James is merely trying to argue that seldom has our carrier support been essential to an operation.
And finally, in reference to Ireland, who says they specifically have to be invaded? Russia routinely probes our airspace. That’s not an invasion, but it is an act that requires a military response, something that Ireland does not have to worry about.
Now lets say that 20 years down the line and the Union is split, and now Northern Ireland is on it’s own. Do you think the Republics army would be as small as it is now? Or would it have grown without the presence of a force such as the UK being present. What if an independent Wales started exerting pressure on control of the Irish Sea and the right to stop and search certain vessels? Or the same question with an Independent England in the seas between Cornwall and Ireland?
The presence of the UK and it’s military currently ensures that Ireland has little need for any force of any decent size. We effectively guarantee their sovereignty and territorial waters right now.
@ Chris – I Agree that carrier air is rarely essential. However after going off on a rant that was not what he was arguing rather the argument became fast jets are rarely essential which as I am sure you will agree in nonsense.
My reference to him not being in Green in 82 was to impart that without experience of fighting under a complete air umbrella you can’t make sweeping statement’s like
“Don’t make me laugh about fast jets winning those campaigns you mention. Fast jets counted for jack shit. Were you part of them?”
I am sure if the union dissolved Ireland, Scotland and England would have little to worry about from an independent Wales.
regarding Russian over flight’s. I am all for responding to these but what would happen if we did not? Would the UK suddenly be annexed by Moscow? I think not.
The point I was making is that modern global economics on their own all but prohibit major war. The financial and economic consequences today of say Russia trying to invade the EU would quite literally bring the Russian state to its knees. Our ancestors knew this which is one of the reason they built institutions like the EEC.
Nuclear deterrents also play a major role in this but much more so in the pre 1989 world than today.
Going completely of topic here but has anyone seen the latest report on LCS.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120714/DEFREG02/307140001/LCS-Quick-Swap-Concept-Dead?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
Looks like all the hype of flex modules has not lived up to what we hoped for.
Also a lot of good stuff about the 54mm vs the 76mm. The conclusion seems to point to that fat that LCS is okay for basic anti piracy and security roles but no use for ASW and MCM its primary tasks. Kind of puts the USN and NATO in a tricky spot if our largest navy can no longer perform the most basic of tasks. Especially when we ourselves are cutting number’s.
Maybe we can get the USN on board to buy T26 and SIMMS
“The point I was making is that modern global economics on their own all but prohibit major war”
Actually nuclear weapons do that. Global economics make rather the opposite happen. If you can’t beat them… blow them up. Think about the rebalancing of the world economy that would take place if Russia could shut down German factories and other major European competitors. Far from bringing it to its knees, it could place it in pole position.
And you have no way of predicting for certain what would happen to an independent Wales. Economics, politics and nationalism make a powerful mixture. To just shut this bluntly aside is very short sighted.
“Regarding Russian over flight’s. I am all for responding to these but what would happen if we did not? Would the UK suddenly be annexed by Moscow? I think not”
– You do know what those over flights are designed to test, right? In addition to being a pain in the arse.
As for James’s comment; “Don’t make me laugh about fast jets winning those campaigns you mention. Fast jets counted for jack shit. Were you part of them?”
That was in relation to GW1, Bosnia and Kosovo. In two of those air power was far from campaign winning. In the other it contributed, but soldiers on the ground still found themselves very heavily engaged by the Iraqi ground forces. We have an assumption in the modern era that because aircraft scored a large number of kills on enemy “vehicles” that somehow the Iraqi ground forces didn’t put up a fight. They did and land forces were involved in engagement after engagement with tanks, troop carriers and artillery, something that people often forget.
The ground war was quite bloody for some, so trying to tell them that airpower did it all for them is likely to result in a somewhat harsh rebuke, and in that case perhaps understandably.
Ireland has little need for a larger defence force due to its geographical location and fairly benign foreign policies – there simply aren’t the external threats to Ireland that would require them to beef up their defences, nothing to do with UK forces.
It is quite alarming that English infantry is being cut when we apparently have a potential rogue state right on our doorstep – maybe we should cut a few more Welsh battalions while we still have the chance.
Obviously Wales is quite down on the bottom of the list of potential foes, but if someone is going to use Ireland as an example for the safety of disarming then it has to be addressed. There are no external threats to Ireland precisely because of the UK. Remove the UK and you suddenly have the potential for a restart in the violence in NI, plus over time you have possibilities with Wales.
Not saying it’s guaranteed, nothing is, but you have no idea how an independent Wales would act. What if they hit economic hardship? What if they elected a more extreme form of government? How would Ireland hedge against this new environment; with a slightly larger armed forces.
It might just be a few fishery patrol boats and a beefed up border force with a quick reaction support. Who knows?
It’s a stupid scenario, but then so is using Ireland as an example of how the UK could survive with just a 500 man defence force.
Martin, good find that link on the LCS. The US appears to be facing a prospect of having a third of its surface combatants made up of ships which can do very little!
Lots of thinking going on about seperating usage. LCS1 and sisters countering coastal swarms and LCS 2 and sisters doing ocean ASW with a towed array and helicopters. A get well program if I ever heard one.
Chris B
Have a listen to yourself with all your talk of Welsh ultra-nationalists claiming the Irish see.
Next you will be telling me Scotland can’t be independent because it could not possibly defend itself without England us scots being too poor and stupid to tie our shoe laces.
RE your point on Russian over flights
Before I am mist quoted hear I am not advocating scrapping QRA, The deterrent or anything else but speaking hypothetically: As you say they are probing defences. If there are no defences they are left with three options. Keep probing, start bombing London or just give up and find someone else to probe. I suspect there action would be the later.
A Russian invasion of Germany to corner the international luxury car market seems unlikely. For a start you presume that after the Reds take out the Mercedes plant we would all start driving Lada’s. I don’t know about you but I would be far more likely to switch to Lexus or Jaguar in this event.
Meanwhile back in the real world Russia has taken out its biggest gas customer and can no longer import food from the EU or the USA. Leaving its economy in ruins, its people starving and its Lada plant unable to gain financial support to increase production in its bid to replace Mercedes, BMW and Audi.
Regarding GW1 and air power. I have no doubt troops were faced with a difficult 100 hour battle. However removing the enemy’s ability to maneuver or conduct proper C2 likely made the job significantly easier.
Moving slightly east in the theatre the job that the USMC and Arab partners had to do would have resulted in large scale casualties had the entire Iraq front line force not surrendered immediately. Why did these soldiers surrender immediately? Was it because someone was bombing them for six weeks before hand?
When the Iraq’s moved forward at the battle of Khafji it was air power the eventually beat them back.
Could the allied forces have fought GW1 without airpower. Yes absolutely as long as the enemy did not have control of the skies. Was airpower decisive in the victory? Yes no doubt. As we learned in 1940 if you don’t have C2 and you can’t maneuver you are going to lose.
The Welsh will come and smash your toll gates dressed as women. And rest assured they’ll go down singing.
@ Aussie Johnno – Its certainly worrying. I think I certainly got a little high on the Danish supply of flexi modules and building our frigates out of Lego.
I think if you are not use to very high end capability then the flexi module concept can work. However if you are use to bespoke high end capability then you are going to find it lacking.
I think there was also an under appreciation all round about the skills of the crew and the ability to quickly switch from MCM to ASW.
Lucky we did not try to do any pioneer work on this one. As you say almost a third of the planned US surface combatants will have relatively little capability and of the rest ASW is hardly a strong point. All jokes aside maybe the US could jump on the T26 band wagon. Its cheaper than an LCS and will offer very high end ASW capability.
Not sure how these findings will affect our minor war vessel program however I suspect as we never intended it to do both MCM and ASW we will be okay.
From that same link ” the ships were judged capable of carrying out theater security cooperation and deterrence missions, and maritime security operations, such as anti-piracy.
But the LCS vessels cannot successfully perform three other core missions envisioned for them — forward presence, sea control or power projection missions ”
- so everything you could achieve by fostering local, friendly navies the ships can do
- and everything you are bound to do yourself they can’t do
@ ACC – I Agree a barley armed fishing trawler could perform most of those tasks. Hardly justification for a $400 million speed boat. This will put a major hole in the USN’s plans for the future. The part about fittitng it with Anti Ship missiles was interesting as well.
If I was BAE I would be knocking on LMs door this morning asking them if they wanted a piece of T26.