Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United Kingdom Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Utterly depressing Beedal editorial
EssexBoy    12/21/2006 2:32:19 PM
RB has produced his 2006 review. Grim reading. Hope his inside info is wrong. http:navy-matters.beedal.com
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3   NEXT
Yimmy       12/23/2006 10:36:15 AM


Japan has 45 escorts to our 19? Where did you get 19 from, Yimmy? The Royal navy has 25 escorts.

Sorry, I was looking a couple of years down the line.

 
Quote    Reply

perfectgeneral       12/23/2006 7:59:21 PM
I can't help wondering which country will be first to exploit the weakness of UK armed forces (especially RN)? Argentina might have another crack at the Falklands. The Spanish might insist on joint sovreignty of Gibraltar. Perhaps Chavez might 'liberate' some caribean islands? Any guesses as to who is first in the queue to make gains from UK defence cuts? I find it hard to believe that the answer would/will be 'no-one'. It would be a diplomatic triumph if we have no enemies to defend against at all.
 
Quote    Reply

Padfoot       12/24/2006 10:51:41 PM

I can't help wondering which country will be first to exploit the weakness of UK armed forces (especially RN)? Argentina might have another crack at the Falklands. The Spanish might insist on joint sovreignty of Gibraltar. Perhaps Chavez might 'liberate' some caribean islands? Any guesses as to who is first in the queue to make gains from UK defence cuts? I find it hard to believe that the answer would/will be 'no-one'. It would be a diplomatic triumph if we have no enemies to defend against at all.
PG, I realise you're just  being cheeky when you suggest Argentina, Spain or Colombia might unilaterally attack British interests, but I'm curious to know why you state the British armed forces are weak? The MOD is saying that spending will rise in 2007/08 to some £33,447.00($ 65,470.02 USD). That makes Britain the second largest defence budget in the world. So where are we going wrong exactly? Are we spending on the wrong things - Trident, Dubya's war, Typhoon? Or could it be that the defence forces have had it too good for too long and are need some long overdue fiscal responsibility?

 
Quote    Reply

perfectgeneral       12/28/2006 11:21:06 PM
The statistics on budgets can be read several ways. I don't honestly believe that we will be in the sticky stuff straight away, I'm just nervous about cutting too far to allow for a crisis some day.
 
Quote    Reply

perfectgeneral       12/28/2006 11:24:02 PM
Oh yeah, I think lives have been lost in Iraq and Afganistan due to inferior equipment. You've got to draw the line somewhere, but does it have to be through the bodies of so many squaddies?
 
Quote    Reply

interestedamateur       12/29/2006 6:13:20 AM
For those people interested in international defence budgets, and what the MoD spends its money on, more info can be found at this link:
 
 
Personally I've got two observations:
 
1. We spend a lot more than other NATO powers of a similar size. Italy's total budget is $17 billion, one third of ours! Should we really be spending this money on wars when other countries don't do so?
 
2. Where are the threats? There are no major countries that either want to or can threaten us. We could pay off the Falkland Islanders and pull out of Gibraltar. Then the fleet could be reduced to 8 Frigates, a few RFAs, and some Patrol craft. This would allow us to fulfill our NATO obligations and protect our home waters whilst spending one-quarter or one-fifth the amount we currently do so.
 
Quote    Reply

Donkey       12/30/2006 8:19:18 PM
While it's true that at present, there are few maritime threats to the UK, there are are important reasons NOT to reduce the RN to a flotila of Frigates & a hand full of OPV's. 
 
Internationally piracy is on the increase, shipping lanes have to be maintained, oil tankers have been targeted in the past, why not tomorrow?
 
Falklands Islands aside, I agree that there is unlikly to be a call for a large surface fleet within the next 10 years, but what about the next 11 years?  Many anlysts predict war with China within a generation, our OPV's arn't going to protect our comercial shipping there are they?
 
The next set of threats could come from India/Brazil....we just don't know now do we.
 
It takes upto 7 years to build a decent warship & a life time of experience to fight from one.  Lose our skills now & they are almost gone forever.
 
About the T45's, Though I may be wrong here & I often am, I seem to remember that the origional design specs had then designed as an all round surface escort, large suface gun, SSM's, land attack missiles, but like most MOD projects they were refined....no obvious bluewater threat so no SSM's, Tomahawks to be sub launched for maximum surprise, so no need for the surface fleet to carry them & so on.
 
IF we only get the 6 T45's, how on earth do we use them should we end up fighting a real war , 2 to defend each carrier+2 to defend rest of the fleet?
 
The really annoying thing is in all this talk of re-adjusting the defence budget is the figures that the MOD are quoting.  The navy may lose 6 surface war ships to save £60Million, 2000 personel £160Million....or we could just not buy (sell on) 4 Typhoons.  Again the Navy takes major hits so that the crabs get a few shiney new toys that may never be properly used.
 
Any cuts should go by way of the RAF, to many shiney toys, not enough helicopters & CAS aircraft, which as they are used almost exclusivly in support of the army, they should own them.
 
One way to better use the defence budget is to stop wasting money on home grown projects when there are adaquate off the shelf items that can be brought, read somewhere that the MOD was looking at an option for home built Arleigh Burkes as an alternative to the T45's (after horizon collapse), but was regected becase to many unwanted weapons systems (see above) & about 100 more crew than they wanted.  Instead of looking at a scalled down version, we spend billions more on less ships.
 
2 appologies....1, sorry about the lenth of this post, am currently in rant mode
                       2, appologies for any spelling/gramatical errors....dyslexia & I hate spell checks, darned green & red lines.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Donkey       12/30/2006 8:37:27 PM
Oooops sorry forgot one other thing....Pompey to be down graded?  If true so very wrong....unless they are thinking of keeping the carriers in Southhampton comercial docks, isn't Portsmouth the only place that they can go?
 
If an HMNB is to close it should be HMNB Clyde....okay will explain.   If the SNP do ever get there own way & Scotland goes independant, then the base will close anyway & the subs will have to come south, so lets do that now, Subs to Devenport & the bulk of whatever is left of the surface fleet to pompey.
 
Problem solved!!!
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       12/30/2006 8:38:37 PM


IF we only get the 6 T45's, how on earth do we use them should we end up fighting a real war , 2 to defend each carrier+2 to defend rest of the fleet?


That isn't even factoring in the one which is in long term refit, the one which is doing something else East of Suez, and possibly the one stripped of parts to keep the other five operational.

Concerning the RAF having too many shiny toys, I was really quite gob-smacked to hear that they have very nearly a 1000 aircraft, second only to the USA, with more than Russia (I don't know about China).  I realise this is factoring in helicopters and trainers et al, but even so...

If we really do have to keep the RAF as a service, at the least we could give the maritime warfare Nimrods to the Royal Navy, and the transport helicopters to the army. 

Can anyone actually give a sound argument as to why we are buying 232 Eurofighter Typhoons?

 
Quote    Reply

Donkey       12/30/2006 10:11:56 PM
Were buying 232 shiney toys because we made the Germans sign a contract to stop them from pulling out of buying shiney toys!!!
 
1000 aircraft, really.   That must iclude reserves & gliders & stuff!
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics