For the military buffs out there

[Pugwash]

as for saying big carriers are for world players..? are you mental..? carriers (or the ships on them) will offer the frigates/destroyer air protection "over the horizon"....you can maybe defend some thing "over the horizon" by only risking a few people and their aircraft rather than a whole warship...

also, they actually count as an "air field"...so would we need as many "RAF bases over seas..? another potential saving...why have one in cyprus AND bahrain...when you can have one that can move between the two...???....again, all part of that thing about protecting british interests as I have mentioned above

 

No, I'm not mental and my psychiatrist can vouch for that.

The whole point of a carrier of this size is to project power at a distance, not to protect the activities of frigates/destroyers being employed 'over the horizon' in the numerous and varying roles that they undertake. When these carriers are deployed, frigates/destroyers will be subordinated to a supporting role to protect and serve the 'capital ship'. Whilst you're right that a carrier group is more flexible than land bases, it's not unsinkable and it costs more.

It all boils down to identifying what actually ARE British interests? If we believe that we have a role in 'policing' the world or have significant overseas interests to protect (and I think we do) then the carriers make sense. Otherwise, we retreat to our own borders and have a 15-frigate navy, subs, a small army and a strong air defence.

[Thedelldays]

Otherwise, we retreat to our own borders and have a 15-frigate navy, subs, a small army and a strong air defence.

and sod the massive UK shipping world wide...let them look after themselves...?

we have been offering protection by placing ourselves around the world for god knows how long...95% of UKPLCs trade is done via the ocean...and we trade world wide..one of the worlds major sea traders...with that comes a responsibility to look after our interests...

[Pugwash]

and sod the massive UK shipping world wide...let them look after themselves...?

we have been offering protection by placing ourselves around the world for god knows how long...95% of UKPLCs trade is done via the ocean...and we trade world wide..one of the worlds major sea traders...with that comes a responsibility to look after our interests...

 

Exactly the point I made - "(and I think we do)".

 

The problem is that Joe Public (and a lot of politicians) whose foreign adventures extend to a couple of weeks a year in Florida or Spain don't realise that it's still a wild world out there. Hence we're likely to get the armed services run down with barely any debate.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

 

edit - to add further to the suggestion of building an "enhanced astute"....it is not as simple as making the astute a few meters longer and throw in 4 (will have to be) vertical tubes...to alter the current design like that would mean building/designing a completely new submarine..the hydrodynamics of the thing would all have to be worked out...like what end do you put the tubes..? how do you compensate for the weight..? in what way will you replace the weight of a launched missile..on a boat that size, launching a missle and not flooding the tube could well send it on its side...then you have the command and control systems of the missile system...they are pretty in depth and take up lots and lots of space....

believe it or not, it does not cost a great deal more to build a bigger submarine..(apparently) as many of the parts in them are cheaper as they are not rebuilt "smaller" and kept the standardised size...again, building missiles for an "enhanced astute"...who will design these..? how much will that cost..? the trials, the testing..you will need to have built the sibmarine before you test the weapons...? all will come in way way over budget...as right now, the system and facilites are all in place for the way we do it.

 

I'm not a naval architect dell & I'm more than happy to accept that you obviously know a lot more about subs than I do , and there will indeed be practical problems to be overcome in adapting the Astute design for SLBM's . Nevertheless it seems to me that the problem with traditional SSBN's (apart from their enormous cost) is that they are limited to that one role only - the navy's so small now is that a luxury we can really afford any more ?

 

I propose that a future sub force comprised of say 8 Astute and 4 'Enhanced Astute' hybrid SSN/SSBN's would give the future navy a flexible force of 12 boats available for conventional operations while simultaneously keeping a minimal (but still effective) deterrent force at sea in the event of the UK being threatened with nuclear attack . The Vanguard class after all were specifically designed with the old 'cold war' scenario very much in mind - the world has changed so radically over the last 20 years that simply replacing our current 'bombers' with another large SSBN design may well be seen as 'overkill' by the general public .

 

I think we'd both like to see an enlarged navy in future , but I just can't see that happening any time soon with the defence budget being what it is . So some original 'clear blue water' thinking might be required if we're to keep the RN effective & within budget .

 

 

 

ps- Do we even know anything about the new missile we intend to replace Trident D5 with ? It's hard to discuss the 'weapon platform' without knowing the first thing about the weapon the platform is designed to carry !

[Thedelldays]

I'm not a naval architect dell & I'm more than happy to accept that you obviously know a lot more about subs than I do , and there will indeed be practical problems to be overcome in adapting the Astute design for SLBM's . Nevertheless it seems to me that the problem with traditional SSBN's (apart from their enormous cost) is that they are limited to that one role only - the navy's so small now is that a luxury we can really afford any more ?

 

I propose that a future sub force comprised of say 8 Astute and 4 'Enhanced Astute' hybrid SSN/SSBN's would give the future navy a flexible force of 12 boats available for conventional operations while simultaneously keeping a minimal (but still effective) deterrent force at sea in the event of the UK being threatened with nuclear attack . The Vanguard class after all were specifically designed with the old 'cold war' scenario very much in mind - the world has changed so radically over the last 20 years that simply replacing our current 'bombers' with another large SSBN design may well be seen as 'overkill' by the general public .

 

I think we'd both like to see an enlarged navy in future , but I just can't see that happening any time soon with the defence budget being what it is . So some original 'clear blue water' thinking might be required if we're to keep the RN effective & within budget .

 

 

 

ps- Do we even know anything about the new missile we intend to replace Trident D5 with ? It's hard to discuss the 'weapon platform' without knowing the first thing about the weapon the platform is designed to carry !

 

good comments..the problem would be is you wont have any more flexability as say you have 3-4 "enhanced astutes" they would constantly be in the deterrent patrol cycle like the vanguards now....1 in refit, 1 in a maintenance period, 1 on patrol and one working up to go on patrol...that cycle goes round and round....breaking that would mean breaking the pledge of constantly having a SSBN at sea.....also, allowing a missile carrier to be used for other stuff will almost mean other navys (friend or foe) will get to track it, record its sounds, look at how it works etc etc..which goes against the idea of having these missiles hidden away so no one can find them.....hence why the vanguard class are one of the quietest submarines in the world...no bugger can find them. that simply would not be the case if it was used for training exercises with other units and giving its acoustic signature away. you can even classify a boat by name with an acoustic signature.

 

now, whether we have one constantly at sea is another question...only the UK, US and I think france do this...the russians etc do not...(but then again, russia will have land sites)

hell, even india now have a SSBN!!!!..

 

yes, replacements have been talked about when project successor came down...trouble is (again, to save massive costs) we get the missile itself from our friends across the pond..

[Thedelldays]

if anyone has time to read something for a while...take a look at this..a government white paper into Tridet replacement........

 

http://www.mod.uk/nr/rdonlyres/ac00dd79-76d6-4fe3-91a1-6a56b03c092f/0/defencewhitepaper2006_cm6994.pdf

 

notably, it talks about through life costs for each option (current set up being alot cheaper)

nuclear cruise missiles v intercontintal missiles...etc etc etc

 

worth a read from top to bottom

Edited 24 July, 2010 by Thedelldays

[Joesaint]

We will be able to protest the falklands, and we want to. We need to cut but what we will get is high teck defence. we are a small island but to protect what we have is very improtant.

PS I dont think too much of tanks anyway and to be honest if you have a smaller force standerds increase.

[Joesaint]

Just read some comment and do agree with the one that highlight the importance of the navy, but I feel that with the new ships coming we are OK

[alpine_saint]

enchanced astute

 

would be very surprised if that was on the radar....never really been talked about and we have had visits from "project successor"...(the people building the subs for vanguard replacements)...

 

as for the number of ships where do you get 30 from..what brings you to that number..... it all depends completely on what the government want the RN to do...if they continue with a presence in the GULF..whilst maintaining one in the carribean, med, southlant, indian ocean, other NATO and treaty commitments, taking on piracy, protecting UK shipping world wide..

whilst having one on permanent readiness for UK response force/Towed array patrol ship...then you will find that 30 is simply not enough..it is not enough now..hence why they are falling apart...

 

what do you drop..?

Carribean - counter drugs and stops millions upon millions of £££ worth of drugs getting to the UK

southlant - protects the falklands and now vital energy research/drilling

Med - protect UK shipping (being an island nation, that is quite important)

indian ocean - anti piracy which is really causing the international community to have a big head ache

gulf - other than maintaining a presence..protect (again) UK shipping which there is a massive amount

etc etc etc etc

 

as for names of the ships....it is all political and goes with the times...

 

as for saying big carriers are for world players..? are you mental..? carriers (or the aircraft on them) will offer the frigates/destroyers air protection "over the horizon"....you can maybe defend some thing "over the horizon" by only risking a few people and their aircraft rather than a whole warship...

also, they actually count as an "air field"...so would we need as many "RAF bases over seas..? another potential saving...why have one in cyprus AND bahrain...when you can have one that can move between the two...???....again, all part of that thing about protecting british interests as I have mentioned above

 

 

edit - to add further to the suggestion of building an "enhanced astute"....it is not as simple as making the astute a few meters longer and throw in 4 (will have to be) vertical tubes...to alter the current design like that would mean building/designing a completely new submarine..the hydrodynamics of the thing would all have to be worked out...like what end do you put the tubes..? how do you compensate for the weight..? in what way will you replace the weight of a launched missile..on a boat that size, launching a missle and not flooding the tube could well send it on its side...then you have the command and control systems of the missile system...they are pretty in depth and take up lots and lots of space....

believe it or not, it does not cost a great deal more to build a bigger submarine..(apparently) as many of the parts in them are cheaper as they are not rebuilt "smaller" and kept the standardised size...again, building missiles for an "enhanced astute"...who will design these..? how much will that cost..? the trials, the testing..you will need to have built the sibmarine before you test the weapons...? all will come in way way over budget...as right now, the system and facilites are all in place for the way we do it.

 

Surprised at the negativity and voting for "status quo" of your post. If the Navy keeps that up it will cease to exist.

 

I reckon that 30 modern frigates and destroyers can cover the work of the 50 we had post-Falklands, simply because the ships are better quality, and go much, much longer between refit intervals now. Also because crew size has significantly reduced, they can stay at sea longer. However, one point I will conceed is that I do not know how many are required for the ASW side of protecting the new carriers. If you say it is 20 each (meaning 40) than I will take your word for it. I want to keep the new carriers out of prestige more than practicality I must admit, since carriers are more about offense rather than defence, imo. The only overseas territory we will ever be called upon to defend again is the Falklands, and with all due respect Mount Pleasant airfield is more effective than 3 or 4 Queen Elizabeths. As for Middle East nuclear terrorisim, 6 Tornado GR4s with gravity bombs permanently based at Akrotiri is enough.

 

As for your comments on "enhanced Astutes". If it were anyone but you I would have described them as total b*ll*cks, but I am surprised at your negativity. The last block of Los Angeles subs was updated in exactly the way proposed. I am talking about using cruise missiles here, not about trying to put Tridents in a SS(G)N.

[Viking Warrior]

Wre you a sailor boy then Alps? or just like the white uniform?

 

Moonraker

I was never impressed with stirrup, not be cause he was a blue job more to the fact he was a yes man to the last government.

 

There is a place for all three services but it is the Army that is taking the brunt of casualties due to the current land based conflicts.

 

Oh and I would prefer a navy helecopter pilot than a RAF. Navy boys will fly in all weathers where as the RAF will not fly if there is a sign of rain etc

[aintforever]

I would still build the carriers but pull out of pointless wars abroad like Afganistan and scale back the forces accordingly.

 

The new Trident is a complete waste of money, just keep the old one. Might work, might not - either way it's still a deterrent.

[moonraker]

enchanced astute

 

would be very surprised if that was on the radar....never really been talked about and we have had visits from "project successor"...(the people building the subs for vanguard replacements)...

 

as for the number of ships where do you get 30 from..what brings you to that number..... it all depends completely on what the government want the RN to do...if they continue with a presence in the GULF..whilst maintaining one in the carribean, med, southlant, indian ocean, other NATO and treaty commitments, taking on piracy, protecting UK shipping world wide..

whilst having one on permanent readiness for UK response force/Towed array patrol ship...then you will find that 30 is simply not enough..it is not enough now..hence why they are falling apart...

 

what do you drop..?

Carribean - counter drugs and stops millions upon millions of £££ worth of drugs getting to the UK

southlant - protects the falklands and now vital energy research/drilling

Med - protect UK shipping (being an island nation, that is quite important)

indian ocean - anti piracy which is really causing the international community to have a big head ache

gulf - other than maintaining a presence..protect (again) UK shipping which there is a massive amount

etc etc etc etc

 

as for names of the ships....it is all political and goes with the times...

 

as for saying big carriers are for world players..? are you mental..? carriers (or the aircraft on them) will offer the frigates/destroyers air protection "over the horizon"....you can maybe defend some thing "over the horizon" by only risking a few people and their aircraft rather than a whole warship...

also, they actually count as an "air field"...so would we need as many "RAF bases over seas..? another potential saving...why have one in cyprus AND bahrain...when you can have one that can move between the two...???....again, all part of that thing about protecting british interests as I have mentioned above

 

 

edit - to add further to the suggestion of building an "enhanced astute"....it is not as simple as making the astute a few meters longer and throw in 4 (will have to be) vertical tubes...to alter the current design like that would mean building/designing a completely new submarine..the hydrodynamics of the thing would all have to be worked out...like what end do you put the tubes..? how do you compensate for the weight..? in what way will you replace the weight of a launched missile..on a boat that size, launching a missle and not flooding the tube could well send it on its side...then you have the command and control systems of the missile system...they are pretty in depth and take up lots and lots of space....

believe it or not, it does not cost a great deal more to build a bigger submarine..(apparently) as many of the parts in them are cheaper as they are not rebuilt "smaller" and kept the standardised size...again, building missiles for an "enhanced astute"...who will design these..? how much will that cost..? the trials, the testing..you will need to have built the sibmarine before you test the weapons...? all will come in way way over budget...as right now, the system and facilites are all in place for the way we do it.

 

The format for Successor is far from decided, the idea of stretching Astute may not be simple but it is eminently possible, the R boats were basically stretched Valient's. Th big issue is the SWS as we will be using a US system, the programmes of the UK and US SSBN replacements are out of step and a simple answer is to extend the V boats and delay successor until they are.

Your list of long term commitments illustrates only to well how committed the RN is and it dons't include surveying, EEZ protection, standing force commitments, training etc. etc.

Your right Carriers are one of the most flexible military capabilities, they offer so much more than any other single capability.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hIy-vfpITC4CEJ50CmkAZ6sRV3Mg

 

While one obviously doesn't like to 'blow my own trumpet' too often this does sound eerily similar to my 'Enhanced Astute' hybrid SSN/SSBN proposal :

 

"A third option would to be to go ahead with the plan to build new submarines - but with four rather than 12 missile tubes - and to design them so they operate as either nuclear or conventionally armed vessels."

 

I'm wasted on here you know

[Thedelldays]

well...one thing being talked about is completely abandoning the JSF programme...which will save lots of ££££

and buying a far cheaper bunch of (around 120-150) F/A 18 super hornets from the yanks to use on the new carriers

[Arizona]

well...one thing being talked about is completely abandoning the JSF programme...which will save lots of ££££

and buying a far cheaper bunch of (around 120-150) F/A 18 super hornets from the yanks to use on the new carriers

 

That sounds like a good British solution. Bailing out in favour of a far cheaper option, even though it's 3 decades old and vastly inferior. FA18s are only 10 years newer than the Harriers we're supposed to be replacing.

 

It would be just plain embarassing if we cheaped out of this programme and ended up with inferior equipment to Spain, Norway, Brazil, Canada, Singapore, Turkey and a sh*t load of other countries buying into the JSF programme. Not to mention the fact that the UK has already pumped several billion dollars into the programme.

[Thedelldays]

fair points..but newer does not always mean better..

[Arizona]

I can't see the F35 being anything like inferior to the FA18. STOVL alone is a massive boost, especially opperating in places like Afghanistan where a decent runway is at a premium. Taking figures from the fountain of knowledge that is wikipedia (lets just assume it's roughly accurate):

 

Comparing a few of the advantages the F35 has. FA18 - F35

 

Combat radius: 400nm - 610nm

Service ceiling: 50,000ft - 60,000ft

Runway reuired: F**in' long - very short, can land in a car park.

[Thedelldays]

Unfortunately. Labour have left the cupboard bare and the country is broke. Just another saving that has to be made

[alpine_saint]

I can't see the F35 being anything like inferior to the FA18. STOVL alone is a massive boost, especially opperating in places like Afghanistan where a decent runway is at a premium. Taking figures from the fountain of knowledge that is wikipedia (lets just assume it's roughly accurate):

 

Comparing a few of the advantages the F35 has. FA18 - F35

 

Combat radius: 400nm - 610nm

Service ceiling: 50,000ft - 60,000ft

Runway reuired: F**in' long - very short, can land in a car park.

 

You are forgetting crap range and crap take-off payload.

 

All those extra engine fittings and fans come at a price with the F35B.

 

I cannot believe that the F35B went with the already discredited VTOL (NOT VSTOL) scheme of the YAK-38 Forger. It means all that stuff used for the take-off and landing is just dead weight during the mission.

 

The "supersonic Harrier" P.1154 scheme from the 60s should have been updated.

 

The least we can do if pulling out of the JSF is not an option is to change the order from F35Bs to F35Cs and convert the carriers from STOBAR to CATOBAR config.

Edited 2 August, 2010 by alpine_saint

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I'm starting to warm to the idea of the F18E/F Super Hornet on our new carriers . The reported saving compared to the F35B (£10bn) may mean we can actually afford to give these valuable ships the proper air-group they deserve . I accept that the F18 is cheaper for a reason but a carrier with only half a dozen F35's aboard is very little use to anybody frankly - better surely to accept a decent number of less advanced (but still very capable) F18's now and get the RN securely back into the fleet carrier business .

 

There are plenty of rumours circulating that one of the two QE Class carriers may be cancelled or sold in the forthcoming SDSR - if this proposal saves both ships and allows us to afford aircraft for them as well then I'm all for it .

 

The fly in the ointment is that equiping the carriers with the new technology electric powered catapults and arrestor wires needed to operate the CTOAL F18 may well eat up much of the saving made by ditching the F35B in the first place !

 

Nothing is ever easy is it ?

[Thedelldays]

the electromagnetic capapult being looked into for the new carriers

 

The EMCAT is designed to fit in the space envelope that has been allowed within the aircraft carrier for a catapult. The intention of building and designing a small electromagnetic catapult and then developing the technology so that it could be scaled up was always a de-risking exercise in case the MoD did not choose the STOVL aircraft or it was considered necessary to launch other types of aircraft from these ships. The option would then exist to fit a catapult and operate conventional carrier-borne aircraft," Dannatt said

[Thedelldays]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/7931465/RAF-to-shrink-to-World-War-One-levels.html

 

massive cuts suggested here..

 

hundreds of planes and tanks...lots of ships and subs

 

and thousands of personnel..

[alpine_saint]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/7931465/RAF-to-shrink-to-World-War-One-levels.html

 

massive cuts suggested here..

 

hundreds of planes and tanks...lots of ships and subs

 

and thousands of personnel..

 

The personnel is worrying, but if the main cuts are Tornados and Swiftsure class subs, its not much loss of capability.

 

I would worry more about Typhoon numbers being cut and based at one airfield, and the Hercules's scrapping.

 

Dont care about Challenger 2s being scrapped, we dont need them to defend the UK.

 

What does "three amphibious ships" mean ? Not Albion and Bulwark, I hope...

[Thedelldays]

The personnel is worrying, but if the main cuts are Tornados and Swiftsure class subs, its not much loss of capability.

 

I would worry more about Typhoon numbers being cut and based at one airfield, and the Hercules's scrapping.

 

Dont care about Challenger 2s being scrapped, we dont need them to defend the UK.

 

What does "three amphibious ships" mean ? Not Albion and Bulwark, I hope...

 

swiftsure..?

they have already gone...it would be trafalgar class submarines...one of those has already gone...so it would mean..6 down to 4

amphibious ships would generally mean ocean, albion and bulwark....however, the RFA have a couple that it could also be refering too

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Reducing the RAF transport force (C-130J) makes no sense at all - these are modern aircraft and surely one of the principle lessons of recent conflicts is that we need all the transport capacity we can get - part exchanging them for a few more C-17's may be a plan however . As for the Tornado's , yes we probably can do without so many fast jets - these old crates date back to the 1980's and although there have been (expensively) modernized the Typhoon can do much the same job at less operating cost .

 

It's looking a good bet that HMS Ocean (worn out already I hear) will go and other reductions in our amphibious force will indeed happen . I personally question the entire concept of the opposed amphibious landing anyway . With a mere handful of exceptions (like the Falklands obviously) no navy has carried out any such activity since the tail end of WWII - we're not going to be retaking the Falklands anytime soon or landing a Royal Marine Brigade to fight the Russians in Norway for that matter - so lets stop pretending we will .

 

Cutting a heavy armoured brigade with it's AS90 artillery & Challenger II MBT's out of our army in Germany (why do we still have forces in Germany?) is really a 'no brainer' as they say - light airmobile forces are clearly the future .

 

So in summary , if (big if) the RN gets out of this review with both new carriers still in the programme and with it's escort and SSN force largely intact then those responsible will have made the best of a very bad job I suppose , unfortunately I fear it's going to be more painful than that .

[dubai_phil]

I would still build the carriers but pull out of pointless wars abroad like Afganistan and scale back the forces accordingly.

 

The new Trident is a complete waste of money, just keep the old one. Might work, might not - either way it's still a deterrent.

 

Although history has shown that nobody EVER wins in Afghanistan, and the loss of lives is wrong, nobody should be under any illusions that what is happening there is of vital importance for global security in the future.

 

The world of Islam has many many nutters who's only thought is a world where the people live in their mud huts and pray 5 times a day. Many of those have access to huge wealth as well as a "moral right" in their constituencies" Afghanistan has been and will continue to be a magnet for those nutters.

 

The problem with our presence there is that we are trying to fight with Cold War or out of date equipment. It is the type of conflict and terrain that will keep "being an issue" in the need to defend the UK. Future wars will be in mountains in Asia or Car Parks at Tesco.

 

Helping moderate Muslim nations combat the nutters will determine our future safety. Pakistan is in a mess at this time with violence in the south and Taliban in the north and a useless PM solving the floods by shaking hands in London. Trident is critical, because Iran WILL get nukes and Pakistan COULD fail and suddenly "post Cold War" thinking and the need for a "first strike" capability becomes a whole different ball game, because IF the nutters get Nukes, you won't need a deterrent unfortunately, you'll need the capability to take them out one way or another.

 

Politics is what causes the cost problems in the MoD, not the use of the forces. All very well having tanks in Germany, ain't going to be any use if you have to drive them to a conflict in say India if the nutters start to spread in 15-20 years

[dubai_phil]

Oh, and the REAL problem with Afghanistan? That idiot in the US who couldn't read a map and thought the threat came from Iraq and p*ssed all those resources and lives up against a wall so his buddies could carve up the oil & outsourcing contracts

[Arizona]

Reducing the RAF transport force (C-130J) makes no sense at all - these are modern aircraft and surely one of the principle lessons of recent conflicts is that we need all the transport capacity we can get - part exchanging them for a few more C-17's may be a plan however . As for the Tornado's , yes we probably can do without so many fast jets - these old crates date back to the 1980's and although there have been (expensively) modernized the Typhoon can do much the same job at less operating cost .

 

Five posts ago you were championing the FA-18 which is the exact definition of what you've just posted. Infact the Tornado first flew just 4 years before the FA-18. We need state-of-the-art replacement aircraft now, which will continue to be competitive on the global battlefield for maybe 40 years plus. That is not the FA-18. If we ordered those it would just be plain embarassing, infact many countries are ordering the Lightning to replace some FA-18 models. It wouldn't be cheaper either as you'd be looking at a replacement in as little as 10 years.

[Thedelldays]

arizona..you say embarrassing....the forces are spent mate

the kits and hardware has been falling apart for years...even over the last 10 years or so, when the country was flush, there was always a requirement to cut the forces...god knows what it will look like in 5 years time

 

the UK is now going from a fully comp insurance to a third party fire and theft

[Arizona]

I know. But buying out of date aircraft which already need replacing is not going to cut costs. They will have to be cut elsewhere. In the RAF I would get rid of the Puma, Harrier, Tristar, VC-10 and Herc fleets. Replace them with cheaper to opperate, more modern Merlin, Lighning, KC-330 and A400 Aircraft.

 

If taxes need putting up even more to fund this then so be it, but the military can't carry on using 1950s technology.

[Thedelldays]

I know. But buying out of date aircraft which already need replacing is not going to cut costs. They will have to be cut elsewhere. In the RAF I would get rid of the Puma, Harrier, Tristar, VC-10 and Herc fleets. Replace them with cheaper to opperate, more modern Merlin, Lighning, KC-330 and A400 Aircraft.

 

If taxes need putting up even more to fund this then so be it, but the military can't carry on using 1950s technology.

like i said....the country does not care....they dont want trident, planes, tanks, ships..they want free money, free houses and free health care...

defence is not even secondary

 

for the last 10 years, I have seen nothing but cut back after cut back...that was when the country was pishing money up the wall on anything

 

the % of defence spending to GDP is low...very low..lower than than it has been very a massive amount of time..

 

the country can no longer afford newly developed stuff.....time to face that.

[aintforever]

We obviously spend way too much on defence, we've got to get over this old colonial attitude where we feel the need to **** about in other people's countries.

 

We are just a small skint island of the northern coast of Europe. So what if Iran and Korea have nukes - it's none of our business.

[Arizona]

We can't afford to keep running ancient sh*t either. Can you imagine the running costs of 50 year old VC-10s compared to a modern A330? Fuel burn alone is probably triple. They will be massively maintenance heavy and all the parts have to be specially made by BAE systems at considerable expense. It's a similar story with the most of the aircraft in the RAF. You will not save money by having crap old machinery. Buying brand new, 30 year old planes isn't going to help either.

 

To put it into a football analogy, lets say Saints got to the Prem and needed a new top notch 'keeper. You find two candidates equally good. One is 22 years old and costs £6m. The other is 35 and costs £4m. Which would you go for?

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Five posts ago you were championing the FA-18 which is the exact definition of what you've just posted. Infact the Tornado first flew just 4 years before the FA-18. We need state-of-the-art replacement aircraft now, which will continue to be competitive on the global battlefield for maybe 40 years plus. That is not the FA-18. If we ordered those it would just be plain embarassing, infact many countries are ordering the Lightning to replace some FA-18 models. It wouldn't be cheaper either as you'd be looking at a replacement in as little as 10 years.

 

Those who both fly and maintain the latest generation F-18E/F consider it to be a absolutely first class aircraft by all accounts , and it clearly would be a 'Quantum Leap' ahead of the handful of Harriers the FAA now has - when the RAF lets them borrow them that is .

 

You are perfectly correct the original F/A-18 is indeed an aging design - but the F-18E/F Super Hornet is virtually a new aircraft with little more than a superficial resemblance to its predecessor . This aircraft is in both production and service with the USN (who are hardly in the habit of accepting second rate equipment) and it certainly has a long service life ahead of it - up to around 2035 I understand . So I don't know where your claim that it will need replacing in 10 years time comes from .

 

I'm more than happy to accept that the F-18 is less advanced in many ways than the F-35 , but with the F-35B looking almost unaffordable at this time (in decent numbers anyway) it must surely be better to have a carrier (or two preferably) at sea with a airgroup of 36 F-18's aboard rather than see the whole CVF programme canceled or sold for the want of affordable aircraft to put on them . A aircraft carrier with no aircraft not only serves no purpose , it would be impossible to justify in the current climate .

 

Who knows if we can get the carriers into service with F-18's in this decade it may be possible to supplement the Hornets with F-35C's in the future - or possibly better still , one of the British or US stealth UCAV designs that are now emerging .

Edited 8 August, 2010 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[Thedelldays]

We obviously spend way too much on defence, we've got to get over this old colonial attitude where we feel the need to **** about in other people's countries.

 

We are just a small skint island of the northern coast of Europe. So what if Iran and Korea have nukes - it's none of our business.

 

ummm..we dont pretend we are some sort of colonial power..only someone with no clue would say that

[Thedelldays]

We can't afford to keep running ancient sh*t either. Can you imagine the running costs of 50 year old VC-10s compared to a modern A330? Fuel burn alone is probably triple. They will be massively maintenance heavy and all the parts have to be specially made by BAE systems at considerable expense. It's a similar story with the most of the aircraft in the RAF. You will not save money by having crap old machinery. Buying brand new, 30 year old planes isn't going to help either.

 

To put it into a football analogy, lets say Saints got to the Prem and needed a new top notch 'keeper. You find two candidates equally good. One is 22 years old and costs £6m. The other is 35 and costs £4m. Which would you go for?

 

 

I agree mate

 

try selling that to the public....

 

"hey, we need to spend X in the military in order to save X in 10 years......"

 

hardly a vote winner when all we all care about is how much free money/stuff we can get

the usual response is..."lets stop spending and pretending we are a colonial power"..

[aintforever]

ummm..we dont pretend we are some sort of colonial power..only someone with no clue would say that

 

Iraq and Afganistan must have cost a fortune and they are countries on the other side of the planet that should not concern us. I agree with the afgan war in principle but we should only have a token force there like many countries.

[Arizona]

Those who both fly and maintain the latest generation F-18E/F consider it to be a absolutely first class aircraft by all accounts , and it clearly would be a 'Quantum Leap' ahead of the handful of Harriers the FAA now has .

 

You are perfectly correct the original F/A-18 is indeed an aging design - but the F-18E/F Super Hornet is virtually a new aircraft with little more than a superficial resemblance to its predecessor . This aircraft is in both production and service with the USN (who are hardly in the habit of accepting second rate equipment) and it certainly has a long service life ahead of it - up to around 2035 I understand . So I don't know where your claim that it will need replacing in 10 years time comes from .

 

I'm more than happy to accept that the F-18 is less advanced in many ways than the F-35 , but with the F-35B looking almost unaffordable at this time (in decent numbers anyway) it must surely be better to have a carrier (or two preferably) at sea with a airgroup of 36 F-18's aboard than see the whole CVF programme canceled or sold for the want of affordable aircraft to put on them . A aircraft carrier with no aircraft not only serves no purpose , it would be impossible to justify in the current climate .

 

Who knows if we can get the carriers into service with F-18's in this decade it may be possible to supplement the Hornets with F-35C's in the future - or possibly better still , one of the British or US stealth UCAV designs that are now emerging .

 

Well, for a start getting an aircraft carrier suitable for FA-18 deployment would take the best part of a couple of decades in all likelyhood. The need for the upcoming Queen Elizabeth class carriers was first established at the back end of the '90s and aren't scheduled to enter service for another 5-10 years. If we assumed a similar time frame to build an FA-18 capable carrier, we're looking at an entry into service date of 2030. That gives us just 5 years until the FA-18's best before date is reached. Even if the RAF managed to stretch another decade out of that, it's still only 15 years of service with a 70 year old fighter.

 

Even if we had planned the FA-18 from the off, that's an entry into service date of 2015 with the QE class carriers. Now, The F-35 prototype first flew in 2000. The aircraft is scheduled to first enter service in 2014. So it will probably enter service in 2017. If you take that as roughly the norm for a new fighter these days, you are going to have to start looking for an FA-18 replacement 17 years before the end of it's shelf life. 2035, minus 17 years would be 2018.

 

So... you've got FA-18's costing billions of dollars being delivered in 2015 and by 2018 you're looking for a replacement aircraft. Or if we went for old, off the shelf technology again, then you could probably order some F35s in say 2030 to enter service in 2035. Then you get 20 years out of the FA-18.

 

These are all sh*t scenarios. Why spend billions on FA-18s now, then billions more on F35s in 20 years time, when you could just buy F35s now.

 

Delldays, I think we both agree in principle. The best, most cost effective scenario is never going to win votes. Most people just want the cheapest solution to our needs NOW, without looking at the bigger picture.

[Thedelldays]

arizona..they have already developed/sought out and electromagnetic catapult system...for just this scenario

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Well, for a start getting an aircraft carrier suitable for FA-18 deployment would take the best part of a couple of decades in all likelyhood. The need for the upcoming Queen Elizabeth class carriers was first established at the back end of the '90s and aren't scheduled to enter service for another 5-10 years. If we assumed a similar time frame to build an FA-18 capable carrier, we're looking at an entry into service date of 2030. That gives us just 5 years until the FA-18's best before date is reached. Even if the RAF managed to stretch another decade out of that, it's still only 15 years of service with a 70 year old fighter.

 

Even if we had planned the FA-18 from the off, that's an entry into service date of 2015 with the QE class carriers. Now, The F-35 prototype first flew in 2000. The aircraft is scheduled to first enter service in 2014. So it will probably enter service in 2017. If you take that as roughly the norm for a new fighter these days, you are going to have to start looking for an FA-18 replacement 17 years before the end of it's shelf life. 2035, minus 17 years would be 2018.

 

So... you've got FA-18's costing billions of dollars being delivered in 2015 and by 2018 you're looking for a replacement aircraft. Or if we went for old, off the shelf technology again, then you could probably order some F35s in say 2030 to enter service in 2035. Then you get 20 years out of the FA-18.

 

These are all sh*t scenarios. Why spend billions on FA-18s now, then billions more on F35s in 20 years time, when you could just buy F35s now.

 

Delldays, I think we both agree in principle. The best, most cost effective scenario is never going to win votes. Most people just want the cheapest solution to our needs NOW, without looking at the bigger picture.

 

The 'Queen Elizabeth' or CVF class carrier was right from day one always designed to be capable of accepting the catapults and arrestor wires that CTOAL aircraft such as the F18 (or F35C) would entail . Some extra delay and expense would undoubtedly be incurred , but you have to set that against the money (reportedly £10bn) saved in buying cheaper F18's Hornets compared to the F-35 Lightning . I think we have enough problems on our plate right now to spend too much time worring about what we'll do in 20 years time - the future will have to take care of itself .

 

On the wider point I'm just trying to live in the real world here (realpolitik if you like) with an economy that is very nearly bankrupt & an electorate that cares little and knows even less about the armed forces in all honesty . I'd love to see us buy the planned total of 150 F35's for both the RAF and the RN - but whatever , you , me & Delldays think that just ain't going to happen I'm afraid . The ever increasing unit price of the F-35 represents a clear and present danger to the entire carrier programme - if it comes down to it I'd rather sacrifice the F-35 than the see the RN lose the new fleet carriers altogether .

 

Seeking to always have 'the best' has very often been the enemy of having the 'good enough' in British defence procurement history . It seems to me that even getting the 'good enough' out of this defence review would be a minor triumph for any of the services .

[Thedelldays]

Iraq and Afganistan must have cost a fortune and they are countries on the other side of the planet that should not concern us. I agree with the afgan war in principle but we should only have a token force there like many countries.

 

and that has nothing to do with be "colonial".....if you are not aware, countless countries were/are involved in afghanistan...

 

 

our last "colonial" ding dong was the falklands..

Edited 8 August, 2010 by Thedelldays

[aintforever]

and that has nothing to do with be "colonial".....if you are not aware, countless countries were/are involved in afghanistan...

 

 

our last "colonial" ding dong was the falklands..

 

Colonial or not, we seem to stick our noses in where it's not wanted more than most countries.

 

Afganistan is a problem but it is a World problem, not ours. We should withdraw ALL our forces immediately and just let someone else do it, we have more than played our part for a country of our size.

 

It's complete lunacy talking about defense cuts while we're over there shooting millions of pounds worth of stuff at a bunch of shepherds. Cut 1 should be cut and run - then start doing the maths.

[Arizona]

Colonial or not, we seem to stick our noses in where it's not wanted more than most countries.

 

Afganistan is a problem but it is a World problem, not ours. We should withdraw ALL our forces immediately and just let someone else do it, we have more than played our part for a country of our size.

 

It's complete lunacy talking about defense cuts while we're over there shooting millions of pounds worth of stuff at a bunch of shepherds. Cut 1 should be cut and run - then start doing the maths.

 

We can't just bail out of Afghanistan now. It would leave the country in a complete mess. There would just be decades of civil war and more evil dictatorships as bad as the Taliban vying for power. Not only would it be completely unethical on the poor bastards unfortunate enough to live there, but it would completely nulify the sacrifices of all the servicemen who've dies there. We'd probably just end up doing the same thing in 20 years. Again, it's a short term solution which will leave us up sh*t creek in the long term.

 

P.S. As Delldays has aluded to, this isn't even close to a 'colonial war'. We're in Afghanistan with most of NATO, which I think is some 40 odd countries. It's not just the UK and USA in there, not by a long way.

Edited 8 August, 2010 by Arizona

[Thedelldays]

Colonial or not, we seem to stick our noses in where it's not wanted more than most countries.

 

Afganistan is a problem but it is a World problem, not ours. We should withdraw ALL our forces immediately and just let someone else do it, we have more than played our part for a country of our size.

 

It's complete lunacy talking about defense cuts while we're over there shooting millions of pounds worth of stuff at a bunch of shepherds. Cut 1 should be cut and run - then start doing the maths.

 

do we...france get involved in alot...russia, china, taiwan....even the aussies come across the world to get involved...

canada like to have a sniff..

 

i think you are wrong

 

as for afghan....world problem (but not ours)...hmmm you do realise that god knows how many countries are/were involved in that place...????

 

 

the fact you talk about shepherds is exactly why you have no idea

Edited 8 August, 2010 by Thedelldays

[aintforever]

We can't just bail out of Afghanistan now. It would leave the country in a complete mess. There would just be decades of civil war and more evil dictatorships as bad as the Taliban vying for power. Not only would it be completely unethical on the poor bastards unfortunate enough to live there, but it would completely nulify the sacrifices of all the servicemen who've dies there. We'd probably just end up doing the same thing in 20 years. Again, it's a short term solution which will leave us up sh*t creek in the long term.

 

P.S. As Delldays has aluded to, this isn't even close to a 'colonial war'. We're in Afghanistan with most of NATO, which I think is some 40 odd countries. It's not just the UK and USA in there, not by a long way.

 

I don't suggest everyone pull out, just us. NATO can replace our troops with other country's.

 

For example, according to Wikipedia we have 19,500 there, Sweden have 530. It's time to even things out a bit.

[Arizona]

I don't suggest everyone pull out, just us. NATO can replace our troops with other country's.

 

For example, according to Wikipedia we have 19,500 there, Sweden have 530. It's time to even things out a bit.

 

Okay, please tell me you're having a laugh.

 

Also, is it really 19,000? I though we only had about 10,000 out there.

[Thedelldays]

Okay, please tell me you're having a laugh.

 

Also, is it really 19,000? I though we only had about 10,000 out there.

 

we have 10k troops there...that is it

[aintforever]

Okay, please tell me you're having a laugh.

 

Also, is it really 19,000? I though we only had about 10,000 out there.

 

10,000 or 19,000, it's still more than many other country's.

 

Islamic terrorism is a Worldwide problem, it's Sweden's as much as ours.

 

You are right it is 10K, France can only muster 3,750, Belgium 575, and the good old Irish can only manage to get hold of a mighty 6.

 

Sounds fair to me.

Edited 8 August, 2010 by aintforever

[Thedelldays]

10,000 or 19,000, it's still more than many other country's.

 

Islamic terrorism is a Worldwide problem, it's Sweden's as much as ours.

last time I checked....terrorists never assasinated hundreds of swedes in one go..?

[Arizona]

Sweden has a population of about 10,000. The UK is about 62,000. Proportionately we still have a larger number of troops out there, but I wouldn'y expect Sweden to match the UK's contribution.

 

To be fair, you have a point. It would be nice if countries like France, Spain, Italy and Germany matched our contribution out there.