Is The UK going backwards in Military Strength?

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2

LabRat Au Contraire! 1/21/2006 11:18:39 PM

You can't believe all you read in newspapers, especially English ones. I would say that the Royal Navy is evolving from a North Atlantic - anti Soviet submarine force - back into a true global navy, with capabilities it has not possessed for decades. Take the new Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers, these new ships will have three times the tonnage of the Invincibles, also, they will contain a far larger airgroup, which will itself possess an infinately greater operational capability compared to current aircraft. And then you will have the new Type 45 destroyers which will protect the new carriers, again, over twice as large as the Type 42's they are replacing, and with a superior operational capability inherent in the Astor Missile System. The Type 22 Class and Type 23 Class frigates will also be replaced with much more capable vessels. The Amphibious Warfare Force is considerably more capable these days with the recent commissioning of the Albion Class LPDs, you also have HMS Ocean. This is in conjunction with the new Bay Class LSD(A)s, this massive capability upgrade to the Amphibious Warfare Force of the Royal Navy will make it the second largest and second most capable navy in the world. All this, and with the new Asute attack subs as well, the RN may be less in numbers, but with more tonnage, it will be more capable than has been in decades. I would say that the RN of 2015 will be vastly superior to the RN of 1985. I could be wrong about all this, but I am a 'glass half full kinda'guy.

Quote Reply

perfectgeneral RE:Quite the opposite 1/22/2006 9:05:02 AM

Much of what LabRat says is true, but Peter is being robbed to pay for Paul. We are dropping down the naval force league while we prepare this new blue water force. The amphibious capability is there already. We are a specialised nation at present. Our blue water force is outdated compared to amphibious. The old CVS force will be mothballed (one to work alongside Ocean as an LHA until they too retire). Most of the Royal Fleet Auxillary oilers and supply ships need replacing. That project is also on hold until the CVFs and T45s are built. The T23s won't be replaced for some time yet. The MoD are trying to co-ordinate a steady trickle of work after the CVF project to keep military ship building capability viable on a continuous basis. Subsequently the RN will, like painting the Forth Bridge, be an unfinished job from now on.

Quote Reply

Yimmy RE:Quite the opposite 1/22/2006 11:12:37 AM

"Most of the Royal Fleet Auxillary oilers and supply ships need replacing" True, but didnt we recently comission a few new tankers?

Quote Reply

perfectgeneral RE:didnt we recently comission a few new tankers? 1/22/2006 1:34:45 PM

Wave class? Here's Beedall on this (MARS): 'The Royal Fleet Auxiliary urgently needs to replace most of its existing tankers in order to meet an amendment to MARPOL regulations (the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973 and the Protocol of 1978) that requires tankers to be double hulled. With the exception of the new Wave-class tankers, the RFA has a single hulled tanker fleet which will be become non-compliant with MARPOL from 2010, although a waiver can be claimed for government owned ships The seven Leaf and Rover class tankers provide logistic support to Royal Navy vessels at sea, under current plans their decommissioning dates are as follows: Grey Rover (2006), Gold Rover (2009), Black Rover (2010), Brambleleaf (2009), Orangeleaf (2009), Oakleaf ( 2010) and Bayleaf (2010). It is also necessary to replace the now elderly Fort Series I class of stores and armament ships, Fort Rosalie (due to decommission in 2013) and Fort Austin (2014). The two Fort Series II ships (Fort George and Fort Victoria) are also single hull vessels, they are currently both due to leave service in 2019... ... Current Situation By early 2006, it is hoped to select three potential Integrators who will work with the IPT during part of the Assessment Phase. For the subsequent demonstration and manufacture phase, one of these is likely to act a lead contractor in alliance type arrangements. The main investment decision (Main Gate) and the entry in to the demonstration and manufacture phases is now expected in 2008. In August 2005, the DPA issued an ITT for a MARS Alliance Project Friend, an involved but independent party who support the MARS IPT and the Potential Integrators in creating, maintaining and developing an effective MARS Alliance. The choice appears to be between The Advance Consultancy Ltd and Soma Consulting Ltd. Officially MARS construction work is still expected to begin in 2008 and the target date for the first ships to join the Royal Fleet Auxiliary service is 2010, with the last of class in service by 2020. However senior officials will now only say that the first ship will enter service "early next decade".' Hence: "Most of the Royal Fleet Auxillary oilers and supply ships need replacing" I have heard an idea that these might be able to act as patrol craft too. Maybe that would limit there RFA status to when not armed? I don't know how the crew mix would change either.

Quote Reply

Yimmy RE:didnt we recently comission a few new tankers? 1/22/2006 1:42:06 PM

The simple answer would be to leave them armed and crewed as they already are, but ensure the new build vessels have hangar space for a couple of Merlins, or up to four Lynx, with their ground crew and armed appropriately. Would make more sense for a "patrol ship".

Quote Reply

perfectgeneral RE:patrol ship - new tankers 1/22/2006 2:14:14 PM

link link These designs call for one or two merlins, depending on the size of the tanker. I also saw this fast troop transport that made me look twice: link I think you are right about helos being the patrol addition, but would they affect the status of the vessel that they fly off? Would it reclassify as a combatant only when the aircraft are parked up?

Quote Reply

Yimmy RE:patrol ship - new tankers 1/22/2006 2:48:09 PM

"Would it reclassify as a combatant only when the aircraft are parked up?" I think you are nitpicking.... what does it matter? RFA's are legit targets in time of war, whatever title they sail under.

Quote Reply

tiff RE:Is The UK going backwards in Military Strength? 1/22/2006 2:54:13 PM

Don't take my word for it listen to the outgoing first sea lord Admiral Sir Alan West his unprecedented speech is pretty much loud and clear, the fleet is too small if we wish to remain a global power. There are only 6 firm type 45 orders at the moment and rumour has it that this will not be increased to the 8 planned (warships monthly interpretation of the defence industrial strategy) which had been reduced from a planned 12, further to this the MOD would love to pull out of CVF using JSF as the excuse. 'Options for change' in 1994 still sticks in my throat, the haste with which the government slashed the navy was beyond a joke, we were promised a period of consolidation but it has been non stop ever since then. I recall at that time the talk was that we could not sustain the fleet with less than 50 hulls (frigates and destroyers) well we're currently somewhere less than 30 and rapidly heading toward 23. To be frank I'm also getting a bit tired of this 'jam tomorrow' promise, where is the fleet protection today? All the talk is maintaining the illusion of the fleet in 2015 while shafting us today. What use is a CVF with a few Type 45s and no auxiliaries to back them up (the current generation of RFA cannot support the planned CVF) they can only be in one place at one time. My glass if definetely half empty and rapidly pishing out the crack in the side. "We want thirty (just for starters) and we want them now." Unfortunately defence just doesn't seem to be an issue for the current crop of politicians, not a word at the last general election. None of them will do anything unless people make a fuss.

Quote Reply

Donkey RE:Is The UK going backwards in Military Strength? 1/22/2006 3:54:08 PM

The thing is guys, who on earth cares about the state of the UK defence forces (except us)? Professional civil servants don't, they can work in any department, politicians know that the electorate don't, �10 billion for 2 new carriers + JSF OR 10 new general hospitals plus staff to run them & politicians don't care. Depending on their colours, they are busy planning tax cuts or social spending programmes. As it stands at present Blair would rather see �19 billion spent on a pointless ID card, Cameron (next Tory leader after him) on rebalancing the tax system & who knows anything about the Libdems? NO party wants to spend on defence, all of them have seen defence as an easy target, and they always have & always will, right up to the point when the barbarians are at the gate. Then across the floor of the commons, all we will get from our leaders is arguments about ?WHO IMPLEMENTED THE BIGGEST DEFENCE CUTS? The only MP?s that give an impression of caring about defence are those that have defence industries in their constituencies & the very few MP?s that have served in the military. Donk

Quote Reply

Griffin RE:Is The UK going backwards in Military Strength? 1/22/2006 5:20:03 PM

What about the cutback to the British Army and the reduction of tanks units and other 'heavies'?

Quote Reply

interestedamateur RE:Is The UK going backwards in Military Strength? 1/23/2006 6:32:23 AM

Yes, in some sense is going back in strength. Since the late 80's it has less tanks, less ships and less planes. However, before we start to despair perhaps we want to bear these questions in mind: 1. We are spending half the amount of %GDP on defence than we were in the 1989. As Donk points out, that means more hospitals, job creation schemes etc. 2. Do we need all those big shiny toys anyway? If we still maintained a fleeet of 50 ships, 27 combat sqns, and British Army of the Rhine what would they all do? There are no threats that these big ticket items can help us with. So why waste the cash. 3. Most other countries have also reduced their defence capabilities. This includes Europe, Russia and the US. The only countries that are increasing them are China and India and they a long way away. We are still equal with the other major European powers and are still pulling our weight defence-wise. 4. In some areas we have actively increased capabilities. The amphibious fleet is one example, but the new carriers (which will come eventually), the new UAVs, Apache helicopters, mass-production of PGMs and land-attack missiles are others. I know the services would like more money, but as things currently stand they're simply not that important compared to other things that the country needs (such as schools etc).

Quote Reply

BRoger RE:Is The UK going backwards in Military Strength? 1/25/2006 6:33:00 AM

Whilst I agree that there's no current requirement to return to 1989 levels of defence spending and that the British public certainly have different priorities when it comes to spending taxpayer's money, I do think there are some strong arguments for a significant rise in defence spending: 1. The last 5 years have witnessed a dramatic decline in world stability, if our armed forces were the right size for the geo-political environment 5 years ago, then surely they require increased resources now? 2. The issue of access to resources is rapidly rising up the international agenda, sooner or later we will need the ability to secure our trade routes and access to natural resources and potentially independently from the US. 3. We are now in a unique position to get a massive relative return on a relatively small amount of money. For instance a 50% rise in defence spending right now, would put the UK in a hugely pre-eminent position within Europe, effectively having the ability to make or break any largescale military intervention - now that is a superb strategic lever available to pull. Secondly, with such an investment, the UK would be the clear world leader in global power projection after the USA and be the only country other than the US with the ability to deploy independently and globally largescale armed forces. Again, another very powerful strategic lever to use at the international table and one that should not be underestimated. I cannot think of any time in recent history when such an opportunity presented itself. For instance if, during the 1980s the UK had trebled its defence spending, it would have witnessed a very marginal return. Her conventional forces would still have been insufficient to defeat those of the Warsaw Pact and any increas in nuclear capability would have yielded very little benefits. Furthermore, I believe that the political climate in the UK is on the turn. People are becoming more and more aware that throwing massive resources at public services does not return the results that people hope for. As such while I don?t think we will witness swinging cuts in the budgets for the Health Service or Schools, I think spending will start returning to levels lower than GDP growth. This will free up money, some of which I?m sure will go to tax-cuts (if the Tories return to power), but not all of it.

Quote Reply

perfectgeneral RE:Is The UK going backwards in Military Strength? - BRoger 1/25/2006 9:38:05 AM

You make a good arguement for having a strong navy, but we will never have ground forces as large as Germany and France, so it is questionable if they would be swayed over general defence policy. I agree that, taking on the majority of the task, a larger expeditionary naval force would give us greater say in european interventions overseas. I just can't think of any since Suez. Perhaps france will seek greater influence too? With 3 CVF(UK) and 2 CVF(france) and CharlesdeGaulle, europe could poke her head above the parapet at least.This is still half the US carrier contingent (a local superiority perhaps?) with very little behind it in logistics and escorts.

Quote Reply

jamesbaf 2/11/2007 12:33:40 PM

The British military still packs a strong punch but it's SO small and all the regiments with a lot of history are being emerged.
The British military has hardly anything left.

Quote Reply

eldnah 2/11/2007 1:50:19 PM

Perhaps if the British government spent enough money to provide adequate close air support resources the resultant integration and training would lessen the incidence of friendly fire incidents, like the one being reported this week. When a nation relies on an ally for a basic need, even one that speaks the same language and even with the best of intentions the likelihood of error increases because of national differences in equipment, training, doctrine, tactics etc..

Quote Reply

Pages: 1 2

	News As History - August 29, 2008
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us