Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CVF Construction

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • swerve
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Jun 2005
    • 13610

    Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
    I'd like to know what all this certainty is generated from. Are you really so sure? Why?
    In 1981, NO ONE would imagine a war with Argentina.
    In 1990, NO ONE saw the Balkans crisis coming.
    Not true, I'm afraid. In 1981, junior officials in the relevant section of the Foreign Office were expressing concern about Argentina's behaviour & intentions. They were ignored by senior officials & ministers. Granted, few though there was any possibility of a war, but NO ONE is not true.

    In 1990, there was deep worry about Yugoslavia in many quarters, & it was widely reported in the press. I remember reading about it at the time. There was already a crisis in full swing by 1989: it just didn't turn into open warfare until 1991.

    Consider this -
    "At home and abroad, Serbia's enemies are massing against us. We say to them 'We are not afraid'. 'We will not flinch from battle'." Slobodan Miloević, November 19, 1988
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

    Comment

    • Liger30
      Armed Forces supporter
      • Jul 2010
      • 901

      Originally posted by swerve View Post
      Not true, I'm afraid. In 1981, junior officials in the relevant section of the Foreign Office were expressing concern about Argentina's behaviour & intentions. They were ignored by senior officials & ministers. Granted, few though there was any possibility of a war, but NO ONE is not true.

      In 1990, there was deep worry about Yugoslavia in many quarters, & it was widely reported in the press. I remember reading about it at the time. There was already a crisis in full swing by 1989: it just didn't turn into open warfare until 1991.

      Consider this -
      "At home and abroad, Serbia's enemies are massing against us. We say to them 'We are not afraid'. 'We will not flinch from battle'." Slobodan Miloević, November 19, 1988
      Churchill hadn't told everyone about Hitler's danger? Didn't he push the british armored forces all the way to Lubecca, didn't he sent troops to greece and Italy and didn't he pushed for taking Berlin before the Russians because he was warning from long time everyone about Stalin and URSS...?

      The isolated, ignored alarms are good only for regret afterwards, and for praising the capability of certain great men to see into the future events far more clearly than most others could.

      But the great public did expect the war...? If they did, they did not get ready in time. Not for the world war, not for the Cold War, not for the Falkalnds and not even for the Balkans.
      That was what i meant. How much people back then used to say "there will be no war"...? At least as much as there is today.
      The First, the Great World War wasn't supposed to be the "war that will end all wars..."?

      It wasn't. And up to today, 07.13.10, so much people still is ready to swear that there will be no war.
      Not even if there's friction between nations for oil, sovereignty brawls, and the so-often announced climatic changes, potable water shortage, the end of the fossil combustibles, the shortages in the supply of rare metals for the electronic industry, the religious hate, the old hates, the new hates, the economic crisis and all the rest.

      Isn't it a tad careless to claim that in such climate "there will be no wars tomorrow"? For me, it is bull****. Idealistic, wonderful, but it is bull****.
      We can argue about how, when, and how much a nation or another will be involved. But with 17 different wars going on even now in Africa alone and all the other troublespots and with everything that could possibly go wrong... To assume that peace will last is absurd.

      As a matter of fact, we are not at peace. Not even now. Much as so many still refuse to call Afghanistan a war, and so many still try to partecipate in it but not fight it. A contraddiction, again, but a fact.
      "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

      Comment

      • Liger30
        Armed Forces supporter
        • Jul 2010
        • 901

        2 New interesting images of the proposed Merlin AW101 ASaC:





        Full article is found here: http://www.defence-update.net/wordpr...w101_asac.html
        Last edited by Liger30; 13th July 2010, 16:35.
        "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

        Comment

        • PMN1
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Aug 2006
          • 339

          Originally posted by Liger30 View Post

          Mount Peasant works two-way, you know. If they were to capture it, for a thing, they wouldn't have to launch their planes from Tierra del Fuego and have 5 minutes for the attack before running on Bingo fuel.
          That already would be a game-changer factor.
          Argentina has had quite some time to do something about that but there has not been one whisper from anywhere that they are equipping to do so and these days even ludicrous rumours go round the world in minutes.

          Comment

          • Liger30
            Armed Forces supporter
            • Jul 2010
            • 901

            Originally posted by PMN1 View Post
            Argentina has had quite some time to do something about that but there has not been one whisper from anywhere that they are equipping to do so and these days even ludicrous rumours go round the world in minutes.
            What should have done? Invaded Mount Peasant...? I don't get your point. If they do try to invade the airport, IT IS Falklands II starting right away.
            I don't get your point.
            They can't invade or disable the airport without facing all the consequences.
            "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

            Comment

            • nocutstoRAF
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • May 2010
              • 954

              This is response to those who are a little annoyed by the Development Secretary who suggested scrapping the carriers to aid African kids read.

              Personally, I am not annoyed or surprised as he is doing his job come up with ways of aid Southern countries by giving away our money - but I think he fails to grasp that the whole purpose of overseas development and aid is to promote British interests - win hearts and minds to get favourable access for our businesses, reduce economic migration, trafficking of drugs and to help head off problems before they require military intervention. Personally I wish DFID remit was part of the SDSR and tied closely into our foreign policy.

              Also yet more stupid stories in the press this week-end and in the last few days about them either cancelling the carriers (yeah that is going to happen after placing 1.2 billion worth of sub-contracts) as being irrelevant to modern warfare or using the Prince of Wales as a permanent replacement for Ocean - I wish that Liam Fox would come out as soon as possible as say what he is going to do as I am not sure I can stand another few months of stupid press stories.
              If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

              Comment

              • Grim901
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • May 2009
                • 1143

                Originally posted by haerdalis View Post
                Does CVF have a "cooled" deck to compensate for F35B ops? Any links?
                Nope, but has it been proved that its even needed yet?

                Originally posted by John K View Post
                I'm afraid I can't agree with this bleeding heart stuff. The Royal Navy actually ended the slave trade two hundred years ago, and these states have been independent for fifty years. They are not the responsibility of the British state and the British taxpayer. If any private citizens wish to make charitable donations to African education then good for them, it's their decision how to use their own money.
                Certain nations actively made the choice after independence to ignore our arrogant colonial advice and severely break with economic systems we put in place. Those also happen to be some of the worst off nations now. We'd tried to help since we gave them independence and those that rejected it often ended up worse off, that's their own damn fault. We've shown that we're willing to help to improve a bad situation.

                Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
                I know perfectly well of the latest firings of the PAAMS system. But i'll feel better when the Daring itself fires its first Sea Viper and validates the concepts into practice.

                And you are wrong. HMS Conqueror WAS NOT the only SSN down around the Falklands. Even a few of the last diesel-electric subs were deployed south back then, and until the General Belgrano was sunk, the Argies hadn't exactly been waiting in their ports. An ari attack from their carrier, the Venticinquo de Mayo, was erased merely because of adverse weather.
                After HMS Conqueror's victory, the carrier was called back altogether, but that was an (arguable) choice of the Argies.

                If the First Sea Lord almost cried to get at least 8 Astutes, he evidently sees a need for them. Shame that, at the most, 7 will come in line. At the worst, 6.
                And to have 1-2 subs to deploy to a crisis zone swiftly, you need to have a minimum fleet: with the SSNs being in months long cruises, you may have several of them very far away, and others unavailable for refit or other reasons.

                Just as 2 aircraft carriers are the least number required to have one always available (the combined availability of the two CVFs was stated in 550-some days a year, i think), the rest of the fleet has its needs.

                In ten years of labour, over 60 ships left the RN. Only 15 were ordered in the same time. But i see that no one is worried about the shrinking of the fleet.
                I don't like it, personally. Some shrinking was evidently due... but so much...? In ten years the RN grew far smaller. Next thing we see is the replacement of Type 23 and 22 and of the minesweepers. How much smaller will it get...?
                I didn't mean that only one SSN went south, I meant it only took one to send the Argentinians back to port.

                But I do agree the fleet is too small, I just meant that if it came to one short conflict against Argentina we would be able to bring enough to bear to win still.

                Comment

                • 90inFIRST
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Oct 2008
                  • 240

                  Just a point on SSN's The number of SSN's completed is dependent on how many can be completed before the next genaration os SSBN's take up all the construction hall. If the Astute design has more problems then there will be only 6, if they can be built to the current schedule, then 7, if faster or the SSBN is delayed then 8.

                  Comment

                  • Liger30
                    Armed Forces supporter
                    • Jul 2010
                    • 901

                    Originally posted by 90inFIRST View Post
                    Just a point on SSN's The number of SSN's completed is dependent on how many can be completed before the next genaration os SSBN's take up all the construction hall. If the Astute design has more problems then there will be only 6, if they can be built to the current schedule, then 7, if faster or the SSBN is delayed then 8.
                    I strongly have to disagree with you, unfortunately. By now, we've overcome that stage. If there was money and a contract was placed, we could have all Astutes, up to the much needed 8th, no problems.

                    The fact is that there is no money. We've some certainty up to the 6th Astute, some money has been spent on it. A 7th is planned, but we'll see if it'll ever be built.

                    The 8th has already been dropped from plans: the official confirmation came in 2008. At the best, the RN will have 7 Astutes. More likely 6.
                    Unfortunately.

                    And the SSBN may be only 3, no matter the risk of being unable to provide continuous presence at sea. Liam Fox seems to have said it today, for what i read in the news.
                    Most likely, four Vanguards will be replaced by 3 boats at this point. The shrinking continues, regardless of who is in power.
                    Last edited by Liger30; 13th July 2010, 19:37.
                    "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                    Comment

                    • J-20 Hotdog
                      Senior Member
                      • Mar 2008
                      • 3476

                      once the CVF comes out, would the CdG have the 2nd largest carrier air wing in Europe, followed by Cavour?

                      Comment

                      • Stryker73
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Jun 2010
                        • 274

                        Originally posted by Liger30 View Post

                        And the SSBN may be only 3, no matter the risk of being unable to provide continuous presence at sea. Liam Fox seems to have said it today, for what i read in the news.
                        Most likely, four Vanguards will be replaced by 3 boats at this point. The shrinking continues, regardless of who is in power.
                        Except he didn't say that at all, infact you can hear his very words on the subject of 3 or 4 SSBN at 30 mins 17secs here
                        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gU-_s4BxIVw

                        Originally posted by J-7 Hotdog View Post
                        once the CVF comes out, would the CdG have the 2nd largest carrier air wing in Europe, followed by Cavour?
                        'potential airwing' i'd say. It's very unlikely to see CVF with anything more than 15 F35 on board.
                        Last edited by Stryker73; 13th July 2010, 22:04.

                        Comment

                        • harryRIEDL
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Jan 2006
                          • 375

                          Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
                          I strongly have to disagree with you, unfortunately. By now, we've overcome that stage. If there was money and a contract was placed, we could have all Astutes, up to the much needed 8th, no problems.

                          The fact is that there is no money. We've some certainty up to the 6th Astute, some money has been spent on it. A 7th is planned, but we'll see if it'll ever be built.

                          The 8th has already been dropped from plans: the official confirmation came in 2008. At the best, the RN will have 7 Astutes. More likely 6.
                          Unfortunately.

                          And the SSBN may be only 3, no matter the risk of being unable to provide continuous presence at sea. Liam Fox seems to have said it today, for what i read in the news.
                          Most likely, four Vanguards will be replaced by 3 boats at this point. The shrinking continues, regardless of who is in power.
                          sorry to disappoint you gloom but the long leads for Astute 7 have been ordered indicating it will be ordered. This are only plans we have many many of these some they do other they don't. Reducing the deterrent is unlikely Fox has made some interesting comments from Chateem house http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...ght-for-peace/
                          Ive just come back from Chatham House, where Liam Fox has been outlining his thinking on British defence. In a nutshell, he says we have to have the means and the willingness to deploy serious military power in order to deter potential threats to the realm. (Ill try to get a link to the full text soon.)

                          In the question and answer session that followed, Dr Fox was challenged about some of the alleged contradictions in his approach. One of the main issues: how does the whole full-spectrum conventional-forces-as-deterrent notion relate to the admission that the greatest probable threat comes from non-state actors. (Oi, Osama, stop that terror plotting now or I shall unleash my Astute-class subs on you. When I find you, that is.)

                          But my favourite exchange went like this:

                          Q: Are you concerned that you sound like a bellicose neo-con? What happened to peacekeeping?

                          A: I hope that to those who might pose a threat to the UK, I sound bellicose. The trouble with peacekeeping is that there has to be a peace to keep. Sometimes you have to fight for the peace. Sometimes you have to die for the peace.
                          seems that all power projection stuff seem safe to me with those sort of comments.
                          To Be or not TO be That is The Question you all should know the writer of that quote

                          always look on the bright side of life monty python

                          Comment

                          • Liger30
                            Armed Forces supporter
                            • Jul 2010
                            • 901

                            Originally posted by harryRIEDL View Post
                            sorry to disappoint you gloom but the long leads for Astute 7 have been ordered indicating it will be ordered. This are only plans we have many many of these some they do other they don't. Reducing the deterrent is unlikely Fox has made some interesting comments from Chateem house http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...ght-for-peace/
                            Ive just come back from Chatham House, where Liam Fox has been outlining his thinking on British defence. In a nutshell, he says we have to have the means and the willingness to deploy serious military power in order to deter potential threats to the realm. (Ill try to get a link to the full text soon.)

                            In the question and answer session that followed, Dr Fox was challenged about some of the alleged contradictions in his approach. One of the main issues: how does the whole full-spectrum conventional-forces-as-deterrent notion relate to the admission that the greatest probable threat comes from non-state actors. (Oi, Osama, stop that terror plotting now or I shall unleash my Astute-class subs on you. When I find you, that is.)

                            But my favourite exchange went like this:

                            Q: Are you concerned that you sound like a bellicose neo-con? What happened to peacekeeping?

                            A: I hope that to those who might pose a threat to the UK, I sound bellicose. The trouble with peacekeeping is that there has to be a peace to keep. Sometimes you have to fight for the peace. Sometimes you have to die for the peace.
                            seems that all power projection stuff seem safe to me with those sort of comments.
                            I think you don't get me right. I don't talk gloomy because i like to do it. Was it for me, the RN would have 2 CVFs fully loaded with planes out at sea in Us-style carrier battegroups, it would be planning 3 Camberra-like LHD ships to replace, in good time, Ocean, Albion and Bulwark and it would line 4 SSBN successors and no less than 10 Astutes. If the RN gets 7 Astutes, i'm the happier man around.
                            I'd like you to post here a source for long-lead items for the 7th Astute, though, because i heard that there have been long-lead orders for up to the 6th, not the 7th. I'd be very glad to be wrong, if you can prove it. Believe me, i'd like to be wrong.

                            As to the SSBN successors, we'll see. I think that, no matter the good phrases and promising words, Liam Fox will be very hard pressed to sacrifice at least one of four replacement SSBN. And i don't know if he'll be able to stand up the pressure and avoid such an event. I hope he will, but i'm really, really not sure.
                            "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                            Comment

                            • pjhydro
                              Rank 4 Registered User
                              • Apr 2009
                              • 886

                              Originally posted by John K View Post
                              I'm afraid I can't agree with this bleeding heart stuff. The Royal Navy actually ended the slave trade two hundred years ago, and these states have been independent for fifty years. They are not the responsibility of the British state and the British taxpayer. If any private citizens wish to make charitable donations to African education then good for them, it's their decision how to use their own money.
                              "Bleeding heart stuff" such an easy term to throw out there and means nothing other than ignorance of history and the ignorance of the social structure of the UK. I dare you to go into the centre of say Brixton, lewisham, Battersea and stand with a sign on your chest that says "Africa is not MY problem...." Perhaps on your back you could add a line like "I don't care that your relatives live in poverty in the Caribbean"

                              So the Royal Navy's support and defence of the slave trade in the previous 200 years is over looked then? We just concentrate on the dramatic U-turn as it suits our conscience to do so? I'm afraid the story of this tiny rain soaked island that appears to have not much going for it is dramatically changed by Empire and most importantly slavery. Where do you think we got most of the money from? How do you think a poor medieval state that was scraping around in the mud in the 15th Century, barely having an impact on world history, suddenly became the richest most powerful state on earth? I'm afraid (and it is a very bitter pill to swallow) its because we used our navy and merchant navy to seize resources and in particular people from Africa. We took these people, moved them to where we could use them and then worked them for all their worth and raked in the money.

                              Its a problem of our creation, a stable Africa is a peaceful africa and therefore (and I am not suggesting we hand over CVF money) helping to repay the centuries of damage we inflicted has to be a role of the UK and other western governments.

                              Comment

                              • Liger30
                                Armed Forces supporter
                                • Jul 2010
                                • 901

                                Originally posted by pjhydro View Post
                                "Bleeding heart stuff" such an easy term to throw out there and means nothing other than ignorance of history and the ignorance of the social structure of the UK. I dare you to go into the centre of say Brixton, lewisham, Battersea and stand with a sign on your chest that says "Africa is not MY problem...." Perhaps on your back you could add a line like "I don't care that your relatives live in poverty in the Caribbean"

                                So the Royal Navy's support and defence of the slave trade in the previous 200 years is over looked then? We just concentrate on the dramatic U-turn as it suits our conscience to do so? I'm afraid the story of this tiny rain soaked island that appears to have not much going for it is dramatically changed by Empire and most importantly slavery. Where do you think we got most of the money from? How do you think a poor medieval state that was scraping around in the mud in the 15th Century, barely having an impact on world history, suddenly became the richest most powerful state on earth? I'm afraid (and it is a very bitter pill to swallow) its because we used our navy and merchant navy to seize resources and in particular people from Africa. We took these people, moved them to where we could use them and then worked them for all their worth and raked in the money.

                                Its a problem of our creation, a stable Africa is a peaceful africa and therefore (and I am not suggesting we hand over CVF money) helping to repay the centuries of damage we inflicted has to be a role of the UK and other western governments.
                                Britain did nothing that the rest of the world did not do. Slavery was common practice in Africa before than it was in the rest of the world. Most african slaves were regularly bought from other african tribes who enslaved its own people as a daily work.
                                While slavery is not nice, your vision of the "evil empire" is seriously flawed. When africa was powerful, it came in Europe seeking slaves. The saracen pirats didn't do that? The arabs did not do that?
                                How many europeans have been killed, slaughtered, and sold as slaves?

                                It was common practice of an age now gone. The old Britain wasn't evil. Not more evil than anyone else. So, our regret should be commesurate to this simple truth. The rest is bleeding heart stuff. International aid must be used strategically. And UK, Europe, are not responsible of the state of Africa more than Africa itself is. If Africa had been developing before colonialism began, there would have been no colonialism, simple as that.
                                If Europe was building empires with rifles and unitary nations and Africa was fighting with rocks and spears and in tribes, it means they were already underdeveloped well before colonialism began.

                                Proof is the beating that Italy took in more than an occasion trying to build its own empire in Africa attacking the Negus, who had a not-so-underdeveloped army.
                                Or you really believe that, had it been the other way around, with Africa strong and Europe weak, they wouldn't have colonized us...?
                                "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                                Comment

                                • John K
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Jul 2010
                                  • 311

                                  Originally posted by pjhydro View Post
                                  "Bleeding heart stuff" such an easy term to throw out there and means nothing other than ignorance of history and the ignorance of the social structure of the UK. I dare you to go into the centre of say Brixton, lewisham, Battersea and stand with a sign on your chest that says "Africa is not MY problem...." Perhaps on your back you could add a line like "I don't care that your relatives live in poverty in the Caribbean"

                                  So the Royal Navy's support and defence of the slave trade in the previous 200 years is over looked then? We just concentrate on the dramatic U-turn as it suits our conscience to do so? I'm afraid the story of this tiny rain soaked island that appears to have not much going for it is dramatically changed by Empire and most importantly slavery. Where do you think we got most of the money from? How do you think a poor medieval state that was scraping around in the mud in the 15th Century, barely having an impact on world history, suddenly became the richest most powerful state on earth? I'm afraid (and it is a very bitter pill to swallow) its because we used our navy and merchant navy to seize resources and in particular people from Africa. We took these people, moved them to where we could use them and then worked them for all their worth and raked in the money.

                                  Its a problem of our creation, a stable Africa is a peaceful africa and therefore (and I am not suggesting we hand over CVF money) helping to repay the centuries of damage we inflicted has to be a role of the UK and other western governments.
                                  Sorry old boy, but I really don't care if their relatives live in poverty in the Caribbean. I didn't cause it, and it's nothing to do with me. I live in Britain, and I want British taxpayers' money to be spent defending Britain, not wasted on some futile attempt to assuage the neo-colonial guilt of the Guardian reading classes. If Britain is not the world's policeman, it certainly isn't the world's daddy either. India has got larger armed forces than Britain, and we are giving them aid? Come off it!

                                  As a matter of record, slavery did not make Britain rich. It made some British people rich, and made the ports of Bristol and Liverpool rich, but the main impact of slavery on most British people was to rot our teeth with cheap sugar. The industrial revolution made Britain rich, that's what set Britain apart from states such as France, Spain and Portugal which all had large colonial holdings built on the slave trade.

                                  Comment

                                  • Liger30
                                    Armed Forces supporter
                                    • Jul 2010
                                    • 901

                                    Originally posted by John K View Post
                                    Sorry old boy, but I really don't care if their relatives live in poverty in the Caribbean. I didn't cause it, and it's nothing to do with me. I live in Britain, and I want British taxpayers' money to be spent defending Britain, not wasted on some futile attempt to assuage the neo-colonial guilt of the Guardian reading classes. If Britain is not the world's policeman, it certainly isn't the world's daddy either. India has got larger armed forces than Britain, and we are giving them aid? Come off it!

                                    As a matter of record, slavery did not make Britain rich. It made some British people rich, and made the ports of Bristol and Liverpool rich, but the main impact of slavery on most British people was to rot our teeth with cheap sugar. The industrial revolution made Britain rich, that's what set Britain apart from states such as France, Spain and Portugal which all had large colonial holdings built on the slave trade.
                                    Completely agree.
                                    The Guardian is a curse for this country. Worse than even L'Unit here in Italy. Newspapers written by people that seem to live in a completely different world, so absurd are most of their claims.
                                    "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                                    Comment

                                    • nocutstoRAF
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • May 2010
                                      • 954

                                      Originally posted by harryRIEDL View Post
                                      sorry to disappoint you gloom but the long leads for Astute 7 have been ordered indicating it will be ordered. This are only plans we have many many of these some they do other they don't. Reducing the deterrent is unlikely Fox has made some interesting comments from Chateem house http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...ght-for-peace/
                                      I’ve just come back from Chatham House, where Liam Fox has been outlining his thinking on British defence. In a nutshell, he says we have to have the means and the willingness to deploy serious military power in order to deter potential threats to the realm. (I’ll try to get a link to the full text soon.)

                                      (Snipped by nocutstoRAF)
                                      Full text of Liam Fox's speech here - seems to be pushing for martime power projection and increased ability to deliver special forces in-country IMHO

                                      http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files..._130710fox.pdf
                                      If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

                                      Comment

                                      • Liger30
                                        Armed Forces supporter
                                        • Jul 2010
                                        • 901

                                        Originally posted by nocutstoRAF View Post
                                        Full text of Liam Fox's speech here - seems to be pushing for martime power projection and increased ability to deliver special forces in-country IMHO

                                        http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files..._130710fox.pdf
                                        Thanks for the link. Excellent speech. I cannot find a flaw in the reasoning. BUT, we are still going to see the british forces lose pieces with the SDR, so it is not easy to express an opinion right now. In October, we'll better know how much of this remains good words and what becomes (or remains) reality.

                                        One observation does come to my mind: it was truly needed to get to 2010 to re-learn a lesson that enabled the UK to build a global empire?
                                        A more mobile army, well equiped even if maybe "light" compared to the current one, with a navy capable to bring it in the right place at the right time to forcefully kick the door down, was essentially the structure of military force of the UK for all its shiny and glorious empire age.
                                        The absurd focus of an island on continental-bound wars is the true son of the Cold War, where tank disions were needed to counter the 70.000 russian tanks pressing at the borders.

                                        But an island needs a navy more than it needs an army.
                                        However, the army grew so thin already that cutting on it would do no good. But since cuts can't be avoided, they should focus on heavy equipment: self-propelled artillery in the current form is not truly useful. (GMLRS apart, obviously. That is surely going to stay) AS90 SEP guns are overkill. Something like the Bae Archer would make more sense.
                                        The L118 light gun makes more sense. Replace the L118 with M777 and have the navy switch to 155 mm as well would make even more sense in the long term, with everyone using the same stocks of ammo of the same kind and calibre.

                                        But they shouldn't cut on infantry. There's too little deployable infantry already, cutting even more would be harmful.

                                        And on the navy side, this speech should dictate, by itself, the survival of both the CVFs and also imply that the HMS Ocean will be properly replaced when the time will come.
                                        Instead, despite the nice speech, we are far from sure that these things will truly happen.
                                        Let's hope they do!
                                        "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                                        Comment

                                        • MisterQ
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • Jan 2008
                                          • 475

                                          SAo let me get this right, you think that mothballing in service kit in order to buy something new and expensive is a cut, jesus you must work for the MOD, the whole point of making cuts is to save money, not introduce new kit which not only costs money to procure but also needs crew conversion training. AS90 is VERY usefull, just because it hasn't been deployed in the 'Stan doesn't mean it couldn't do a job there (the germans have sent their pzh2000s and their doing fine). It's the same with the C2s, the only reason they aren't in Afghanistan is that others in our NATO battlegroup have their tanks in country instead.

                                          You want to think about saving money, ask yourself why we're buying ASCODs when new build upgraded Warrior chassis would be just as good and slot straight into the existing infrastructure.

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X