2015 SDSR

[Batman]

I wonder what will get thrown in the bin next year?

 

My guess, HMS Ocean, maybe even 1 SSBN

 

http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/the-big-picture-for-the-royal-navy-leading-up-to-the-2015-sdsr/

[alpine_saint]

Ocean has just had 65m spent on her refit to enable her to take over flag from Illustrious. Seems unlikely, but you never know.

 

Binning an SSBN means giving up on CASD, a significant lowering of our world status imo. Seems even more unlikely.

 

I am guessing they will try to drag out the retirement of the Type 23s and introduction of Type 26s; they may even reduce the number of units ordered to 10 or 12.

Edited 28 October, 2014 by alpine_saint

[Batman]

Ocean has just had 65m spent on her refit to enable her to take over flag from Illustrious. Seems unlikely, but you never know.

 

Binning an SSBN means giving up on CASD, a significant lowering of our world status imo. Seems even more unlikely.

 

I am guessing they will try to drag out the retirement of the Type 23s and introduction of Type 26s; they may even reduce the number of units ordered to 10 or 12.

 

Ocean could see an accelerate decommission when QE sets sail in 18 months

 

All 4 vanguard class SMs will have completed their refit cycle soon, so in effect, there will be "1 extra"

 

Hopefully, none of the above will happen.

Maybe even a few more T45s?? Doubt it

[hutch]

Ocean could see an accelerate decommission when QE sets sail in 18 months

 

All 4 vanguard class SMs will have completed their refit cycle soon, so in effect, there will be "1 extra"

 

Hopefully, none of the above will happen.

Maybe even a few more T45s?? Doubt it

More likely to be P45's

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

The Sunday Times reported last week that Treasury officials had warned the MOD that the department was in line for a further 7.5% budget reduction during the FY 2016/17 to 2021/22 period. With manpower levels already cut to the bone a lot of that will have to come from the equipment budget I would think.

 

With the Army reduced to less than 100,000 men for the first time in over a century, the navy down to just 19 destroyers and frigates and even the normally favoured RAF now having only around 100 fighter jets at its disposal, it's hard to see how we can cut even further into that minimal force structure and still claim to have world class defence forces at our disposal.

 

You can bet however that fact won't stop politicians asking the impossible from our armed forces though ...

[aintforever]

We spend too much on the military anyway, stop getting involved in pointless wars and reduce it further IMO.

[buctootim]

Ocean could see an accelerate decommission when QE sets sail in 18 months

 

All 4 vanguard class SMs will have completed their refit cycle soon, so in effect, there will be "1 extra"

 

Hopefully, none of the above will happen.

Maybe even a few more T45s?? Doubt it

 

I reckon we have have already seen the lowest level of defence spending. A number of states are starting to give defence a higher priority in light of the Russian situation.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

We spend too much on the military anyway, stop getting involved in pointless wars and reduce it further IMO.

 

This nation currently devotes some 2.3% of its GDP to its defence. Hardly an excessive amount I would have thought.

[Batman]

We spend too much on the military anyway, stop getting involved in pointless wars and reduce it further IMO.

 

we spend a pittance compared to our GDP

[aintforever]

This nation currently devotes some 2.3% of its GDP to its defence. Hardly an excessive amount I would have thought.

 

According to Wikipedia only the US, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and maybe France spend more than us.

 

That's a lot of countries who spend less.

[Batman]

According to Wikipedia only the US, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and maybe France spend more than us.

 

That's a lot of countries who spend less.

 

and nearly all the countries in the world have less money to spend

as said, we spend circa 2.3% of the GDP on defence. which is not a lot

[aintforever]

and nearly all the countries in the world have less money to spend

as said, we spend circa 2.3% of the GDP on defence. which is not a lot

 

Italy 1.7%

Japan 1%

Spain 0.85%

Holland 1.3%

Switzerland 0.7%

Ireland 0.56%

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Comparing landlocked, not to mention resolutely natural, Switzerland with a major trading nation such as the UK may not add much to the debate. A 'chalk and cheese' situation if ever I saw one. As for other examples, you could just as easily say that Spain (for instance) does not spend nearly enough on its defence rather that we spend too much.

 

But Japan is a interesting and valid comparison because they spend about us much as we do (in absolute terms) but maintain much larger armed forces on the money. Japan of course has no nuclear ambitions and seldom commits it's forces to oversees campaigns.

 

History shows that nations often only become aware that their defences are inadequate when it is far too late to do anything much about it - with calamitous consequences.

[aintforever]

Comparing landlocked, not to mention resolutely natural, Switzerland with a major trading nation such as the UK may not add much to the debate. A 'chalk and cheese' situation if ever I saw one. As for other examples, you could just as easily say that Spain (for instance) does not spend nearly enough on its defence rather that we spend too much.

 

But Japan is a interesting and valid comparison because they spend about us much as we do (in absolute terms) but maintain much larger armed forces on the money. Japan of course has no nuclear ambitions and seldom commits it's forces to oversees campaigns.

 

History shows that nations often only become aware that their defences are inadequate when it is far too late to do anything much about it - with calamitous consequences.

 

We can be neutral and seldom commit our forces to oversees campaigns as well.

 

Problem is something like Afganistan happens and we send in our forces because we have the capability, and because we get involved we have to keep spending so much. Then the next 'Afgan' happens and we send them in again. It's a vicious circle.

 

Stay the **** out, spend half as much.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

For good or bad Afghanistan is/was a NATO operation that virtually the whole alliance committed forces to. I say that if we are going to send our young men (and women) into battle then the state has a absolute obligation to make sure these young people are provided with the best equipment possible.

 

Are you saying we should withdraw from NATO, or should we just leave all the fighting to others?

[Batman]

SMS would be too big a stadium to house the whole Royal Navy (inc marines)

 

Mental really

[aintforever]

For good or bad Afghanistan is/was a NATO operation that virtually the whole alliance committed forces to. I say that if we are going to send our young men (and women) into battle then the state has a absolute obligation to make sure these young people are provided with the best equipment possible.

 

Are you saying we should withdraw from NATO, or should we just leave all the fighting to others?

 

Definitely leave all the fighting to others.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Ok then.

 

But I hate to think what would have happened to the world had this nation pursued that policy in 1939.

[Batman]

Maybe we should about turn RFA Argus from helping out with Ebola too

[aintforever]

Ok then.

 

But I hate to think what would have happened to the world had this nation pursued that policy in 1939.

 

Most countries in the world just leave the fighting to others, there is no reason why we should be different.

 

WW2 is hardly relevant to today's world, it's 2014 FFS.

[aintforever]

Maybe we should about turn RFA Argus from helping out with Ebola too

 

That sort of thing I agree with, might as well use our warships for something other than sitting around in pompey docks getting rusty.

 

Will be interesting to see how much we spend helping combat Ebola compared to chasing shepherds around Afganistan shooting off millions of pounds in military hardware.

[Whitey Grandad]

We're an island nation that depends on foreign trade. Of course we need a strong navy. What we were hoping to achieve in Afghanistan I just don't know. It's been a vanity project from the start for the politicians but I have the deepest respect for all our military that have undertaken their duties with their customary professionalism.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Most countries in the world just leave the fighting to others, there is no reason why we should be different.

 

WW2 is hardly relevant to today's world, it's 2014 FFS.

 

I say only the dead have seen the end of war my friend.

 

What is more, it seems to me that not only is the world a dangerous place, as the situation in the Middle East shows it may well be becoming more dangerous still. So not the best time perhaps for us to disarm ourselves. However, the isolationist UK you call for may already be on the verge of happening anyway as endless defence cutbacks and the fall-out from controversial wars in Afghanistan and Iraq come home to roost.

 

I'm not convinced myself, but some are now saying that we may have already heard 'The Lions last Roar'.

[Batman]

That sort of thing I agree with, might as well use our warships for something other than sitting around in pompey docks getting rusty.

 

Will be interesting to see how much we spend helping combat Ebola compared to chasing shepherds around Afganistan shooting off millions of pounds in military hardware.

 

If you think we have the warships to sit around getting rusty, then........

[Micky]

That sort of thing I agree with, might as well use our warships for something other than sitting around in pompey docks getting rusty.

 

Will be interesting to see how much we spend helping combat Ebola compared to chasing shepherds around Afganistan shooting off millions of pounds in military hardware.

Serious question, have you ever served?

[alpine_saint]

Ocean could see an accelerate decommission when QE sets sail in 18 months

 

All 4 vanguard class SMs will have completed their refit cycle soon, so in effect, there will be "1 extra"

 

Hopefully, none of the above will happen.

Maybe even a few more T45s?? Doubt it

 

Oh, Ocean is definitely for the scrapyard when QE comes on line. Question is will they wait for IOC, since this is not scheduled until 2020...

 

I am guessing you are implying the Vanguards have just had their last major refit cycle, so CASD can be maintained until retirement date with only 3. Hard to imagine this is the case when the replacements are even off the drawing board yet (so will be further delayed..)

 

More T45s ? Not a chance. The design is a disaster, especially that power plant. Have any of them even received real weaponry yet ? Would rather see us make more effort with the T26 and up the units

[aintforever]

Serious question, have you ever served?

 

God no.

[aintforever]

I'm not convinced myself, but some are now saying that we may have already heard 'The Lions last Roar'.

 

Hopefully

[moonraker]

Ocean could see an accelerate decommission when QE sets sail in 18 months

 

All 4 vanguard class SMs will have completed their refit cycle soon, so in effect, there will be "1 extra"

 

Hopefully, none of the above will happen.

Maybe even a few more T45s?? Doubt it

 

The decision will rest on successor which I believe means we will need 4 Vanguards into the 2020's to maintain CASD, OCEAN and QE are not the same thing and QE will not be operational until at least 2019.

[moonraker]

Most countries in the world just leave the fighting to others, there is no reason why we should be different.

 

WW2 is hardly relevant to today's world, it's 2014 FFS.

 

History is apt to re[eat itself, amd leaving the fighting to others is all very well until the others don't fight. It is sad but true the world is dangerous place and you deplete your defences at your peril.

[Batman]

The decision will rest on successor which I believe means we will need 4 Vanguards into the 2020's to maintain CASD, OCEAN and QE are not the same thing and QE will not be operational until at least 2019.

 

I know that. But that does mean politicians will not enforce cuts.

[moonraker]

I know that. But that does mean politicians will not enforce cuts.

Very true and history tells us that it is the Torries who are far more likely to impose those cuts. They are quite happy provided they have a few pretty soldiers prancing around in Bear Skins and Jogging along on horses!