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: T45 7 & 8 cancelled
EssexBoy    6/19/2008 12:40:20 PM
The govt have finally confirmed what was widely suspected; the seventh and eighth T45s will not be ordered. So we'll be ending up with two carriers, six detroyers and thirteen frigates. Marvellous. EU Navy anyone? Essex
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6   NEXT
prometheus       6/21/2008 6:00:00 AM




Rumours are that the RN agreed to the cut of two T45's in return for reassurances about the capabilities and numbers for the FSC - i.e. the high-grade 'C1' version will provide a significant AAW supplement to the T45s..



 



That said, who knows what budgetary pressures the MOD will be facing come decision time on numbers and capability for those ships.




Can you provide me more info on the C1 version, I was under the impression that FSC was cancelled in 2004 and that there was no firm plan to replace our Frigates with a certain design??


See this wiki link


h!!p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Surface_Combatant


IIRC the C1/C2/C3 concept is still the prefered option, you can find it on Beedal navy matters. There isn't a design as such, yet. Only a philosophy/concept. If we build 8 C1s, the high end ships, with primary ASW outfitting but equipped with aster 15 we'd be able to make up the shortfall in AAW hulls (probably) if we could then get 10 of the C2 design, we could have something akin to the old type 21 general purpose frigates.... That might not be as incredulous as it sounds, particularly if the C2s get a lot of off the shelf tech to bring the price down.
 
Quote    Reply

EssexBoy       6/21/2008 7:12:23 AM


QUASI-AUTONOMOUS NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS

18.02.2008

Russell, Bob


That
this House notes with alarm that quasi-autonomous non-governmental
organisations (quangos) are now responsible for 21 per cent. of public
expenditure, spending £123 billion a year, representing 40 per cent.
more than the total expenditure of local government; further notes that
this represents £2,000 a year per head of the population; deplores the
lack of democratic involvement and accountability which quangos have,
particularly those covering such vital public areas as health, police,
fire and ambulance services as well as education and the arts
; believes
that there is no place in a modern democracy for so many decisions to
be made in the name of the public by those who have no democratic
mandate and accountability; welcomes the report on quangos by the New
Local Government Network; and calls on the Government to come forward
with proposals to transfer the current powers of quangos to bodies
which are democratic and publicly accountable.


Thanks for the link Donkey. I'd be interested to know how much of the £123bn is spent on the areas highlighted above, as much of this expenditure would have to be incurred regardless of whether it was spent by County Councils or Quangos (btw I doubt that my County and District councils would waste less money on admin and bureaucracy than the Quangos - but at least we could vote the buggers out!)
 
Essex
 
Quote    Reply

Armchair Private       6/21/2008 10:14:19 AM




Neither party will make defence a priority as long as their are no votes in it. Neither party contains politicians who are particularly in it for the common good, neither contains politicians who are selfless. Politics is a career for them, and they treat is as such. They make decisions on spending priorities based on whether its good for their career, not on some noble position on the long term benefit of the UK. You two talk as if you think they're making mighty decisions, weighing up difficult decisions, calculating long term benefit. This isn't the case, you're both naive.

Decisions under this Govt and to a lesser extent the previous one are made according to how they will play in the press.  That's it, their is no more consideration.

I actually disagree with this. I know that saying that "politicians are only interested in votes" sounds good (particularly if you don't agree with their priorities) but the fact is that the armed forces just ain't that important. It's the role of government to decide what is and isn't important based on true and fair judgements and I think that's what they try to do. Call me naive, but I don't notice any other political parties wanting to change defence spending so that shows that they all quietly agree with each other on this issue.

 "True and fair judgements" Honestly, what makes you  think this?  Have you got any examples? Any reason for this unreasoned blind faith at all? It always amazes me. Also your argument is circular, "Armed forces ain't important", "it's the role of Government to decide what is and isn't important," no politicians want to increase defence spending, thereby implying that the armed forces aren't important.
 
Crap argument.   

I know lot's of people are going to say that I'm wrong and we need loads of ships to protect trade, and a large army for Afghanistan etc but there are no serious threats to us out there and won't be for a good many years. I've heard all those arguments before but they're irrelevent. I state again that our country wouldn't be in the least bit threatened if:

- The fleet was cut back to 8 frigates and some submarines

- The army was reduced to 4 or 5 brigades

- The RAF transport fleet disappeared and only 10 combat sqns were kept. 
 
Look, it's simple, it's called risk analysis. You may have come accross it before? If something has a low probability but the highest possible impact then it is still a high risk. And you should look to mitigate it on that basis. Your argument about "no serious threats" are irrelevant unless you are a pacifist. Then you have a reasnoble logical position to stand on. Arguing that their is no clear threat today, and therrefore we won't need a navy for the next ten years is utter rubbish.

The only threats that do exist (disaffected kids in Bradford) can't be dealt with by the armed forces anyway. You may have noticed that the government is taking very decisive (and unpopular) measures to deal with this including doubling the secret service and secret intelligence service's budgets. Where there is a genuine threat they will take action.

If you are talking about 42 days then that enjoys popular support, what it doesn't enjoy is the support of for instance the former Attorney General, the head of MI5, two former Home Secretaries, about half of ACPO, the CPS everyone else who has given the issue 5mins thought..... Which rather supports my argument that the decision has been taken with an eye to votes, and not with an eye to good governance or "genuine threats".

 
Quote    Reply

Armchair Private       6/21/2008 10:41:29 AM



No. You're both utterly and totally wrong. Defence spending at 2.2%ish is the lowest its possibly ever been as a proportion of the economy. The idea that a few billion can't be found for two more destroyers is pathetic. God knows who tells you what your opinions should be.

Does anybody tell you what your views should be? No? Then why assume that someone tells me what I believe? My opinions may be wrong but they're mine. Perhaps I should have stated the bleeding obvious that a country with a GDP of about £1.35trillion and public spending of £600bn can easily afford a defence budget of more than £35bn.

Your point that there are no votes in increasing defence expenditure is absolutely correct. If the opposite were the case then the Tories could win votes by promising to put up taxes, increase borrowing or cut welfare payments to fund increased defence expenditure.  However, neither party is going to do this as there are a lot more votes in appearing to be competent in managing the country's finances. The Tories are going to hammer Labour at the next election by  attacking their economic record and at the same time saying that they will look after the NHS etc. They will not give Labour any chance to accuse them of making imprudent, uncosted spending pledges Nor will they want to give Labour any chance of branding them the "nasty" party by making cuts to the NHS or schools system.

 

*ID cards are budgeted to cost £18bn .
This is one area where I think you've got a point. The Tories are opposed to this policy and have promised to scrap the scheme. They haven't said what they'd do with the savings, due to their policy of not making decisions until they see how much of a mess things are when they take over.

*The NHS IT diasaster was budgeted at £12bn.
Has this already been spent? Could it be scrapped now or in 2010/11? What would be the likely political fall-out of cancelling a major NHS project?
*The Olympics is budgeted at £3.3bn, expect that to double easily.
Quite possibly so, but there's nothing either party can do about it now. That money's gone.
*We spend £29bn a year paying the national debt, that's up from £22bn in 2001. Why?
Because government borrowing has increased?
*DBERR costs £6bn and adds nothing. Certainly no business person would prefer having DBERR to say a £3bn corporation tax cut and a £3bn rise in spending on manufacturing through adding that half to the yearly Defence procurement budget.
How may people would this mean sacking? How much would it cost in redundancy and unemployment payments, and how many civil service votes would it lose the governement? I've had nothing to do with the Dti or whatever it is now but I find it hard to believe that it serves no useful purpose.
And yet it doesn't. With the possible exception of UKTI and its fellows if that's still what it's called.

*International development costs us £4.6bn, that is a purely discretionary amount. What is the moral level of spending for a rich country like the UK to spend on the international poor? Why not £20bn or £0.5bn? In fact last year we gave £1bn to a region of India, a country that is richer than us on a PPP basis.
There is no way that either party would scrap foreign aid: the Labour party believes it's a moral obligation to help the third world and the Tories won't expose themselves to the "nasty" tag by cutting the programmes.
As for the 'parlous' state of the finances ask yourself how they manage to be 'parlous' despite Govt. spending being at £600bn the greatest nominal amount ever.
The finances are in a parlous state because the government based its spending plans on over optimistic assessments of economic growth and tax receipts.
I think I may have made similar points as t
 
Quote    Reply

Armchair Private       6/21/2008 10:56:04 AM

That should of be course be Freems delayed to 2011.

 

I think the C1's are a pipe-dream anyway. All of the armed forces need to be far more realistic about what they can do and what is affordable.


The history of the RN over the loast 50 years could be summed up as Jam Tomorrow, when in reality all the time spending has plummeted. So you may be right.
 
However, what is your definition of affordable? Mine is costs that can be incurred with out detriment. And on that basis a defence budget of say 3.5% is totally affordable. This would give the armed service £20bn more each and every year. Plenty.
  
What in your view would be a more realisttic assessment of what "they can do"? And why?
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Armchair Private       6/21/2008 11:27:34 AM

That should of be course be Freems delayed to 2011.

 

I think the C1's are a pipe-dream anyway. All of the armed forces need to be far more realistic about what they can do and what is affordable.


The history of the RN over the loast 50 years could be summed up as Jam Tomorrow, when in reality all the time spending has plummeted. So you may be right.
 
However, what is your definition of affordable? Mine is costs that can be incurred with out detriment. And on that basis a defence budget of say 3.5% is totally affordable. This would give the armed service £20bn more each and every year. Plenty.
  
What in your view would be a more realisttic assessment of what "they can do"? And why?
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Armchair Private       6/21/2008 11:44:51 AM

That should of be course be Freems delayed to 2011.

 

I think the C1's are a pipe-dream anyway. All of the armed forces need to be far more realistic about what they can do and what is affordable.


The history of the RN over the loast 50 years could be summed up as Jam Tomorrow, when in reality all the time spending has plummeted. So you may be right.
 
However, what is your definition of affordable? Mine is costs that can be incurred with out detriment. And on that basis a defence budget of say 3.5% is totally affordable. This would give the armed service £20bn more each and every year. Plenty.
  
What in your view would be a more realisttic assessment of what "they can do"? And why?
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

LB    The RN is near death   6/22/2008 2:42:45 AM
In 1980 the RN had over 60 Destroyers and Frigates and in 1990 there were 50.   The nation did not seem to have an issue funding the navy at that time but now has decided that 19 ships will do.  Nineteen ships is not a Navy nor is it enough to repeat an operation like the Falklands.  Nobody saw the Falklands coming and the next crisis that requires the RN exert itself will probably also be a surprise. 
 
There were 16 type 23's and 3 were given away (sold) even though they had been commissioned in 1989, 1991, and 1997.  Now it's said there is some vague intention to replace the remaining 13 with a new ship whose program does not at present exist.  There were originally going to be 12 type 45's, then 8 and now it's 6.  Why is anyone certain the present number of 19 ships is some hard number?  It could easily be 19, 18, or 16 or less.
 
It's simply an unwillingness to spend what is required or to face the simple fact that spending around 2% of GDP on defense is not enough.  As recently as the 1998 defense review Labor said the RN required 30+ frigates and destroyers.  What strategic review justifies 19?  What war plans show 19 to be enough?  Exactly what missions the people of the UK have grown to accept as being normal peace time missions of the RN can no longer be run?
 
Anyone who has not read "One Hundred Days" by Adm Woodward (the Falklands TF commander) might have some trouble in fully realizing the danger the UK is in accepting this level of the RN.  Then again if you were operating in a small boat in the Persian Gulf near Iran and were a member of the RN it was apparent nobody thought there was much danger there either.
 
Memo:  Weakness is provocative.  

 

 
Quote    Reply

interestedamateur       6/23/2008 4:36:23 AM

My replies in red below







Neither party will make defence a priority as long as their are no votes in it. Neither party contains politicians who are particularly in it for the common good, neither contains politicians who are selfless. Politics is a career for them, and they treat is as such. They make decisions on spending priorities based on whether its good for their career, not on some noble position on the long term benefit of the UK. You two talk as if you think they're making mighty decisions, weighing up difficult decisions, calculating long term benefit. This isn't the case, you're both naive.



Decisions under this Govt and to a lesser extent the previous one are made according to how they will play in the press.  That's it, their is no more consideration.




I actually disagree with this. I know that saying that "politicians are only interested in votes" sounds good (particularly if you don't agree with their priorities) but the fact is that the armed forces just ain't that important. It's the role of government to decide what is and isn't important based on true and fair judgements and I think that's what they try to do. Call me naive, but I don't notice any other political parties wanting to change defence spending so that shows that they all quietly agree with each other on this issue.



 "True and fair judgements" Honestly, what makes you  think this?  Have you got any examples? Any reason for this unreasoned blind faith at all? It always amazes me. Also your argument is circular, "Armed forces ain't important", "it's the role of Government to decide what is and isn't important," no politicians want to increase defence spending, thereby implying that the armed forces aren't important.

Lots of examples - the new Eco-towns are one very good example of a government taking heat over an issue that is unpopular but actually very needed. I don't have unreasoned blind faith in the at all, but I've had alot of dealings with MP's and spend half my life reading policy papers etc, and try to understand why they make the decisions they do. I don't quite understand your last line, but you are mixing my opinion with government thinking so I don't think the argument works.

Crap argument.   

Why?

I know lot's of people are going to say that I'm wrong and we need loads of ships to protect trade, and a large army for Afghanistan etc but there are no serious threats to us out there and won't be for a good many years. I've heard all those arguments before but they're irrelevent. I state again that our country wouldn't be in the least bit threatened if:



- The fleet was cut back to 8 frigates and some submarines



- The army was reduced to 4 or 5 brigades



- The RAF transport fleet disappeared and only 10 combat sqns were kept. 

 

Look, it's simple, it's called risk analysis. You may have come accross it before? If something has a low probability but the highest possible impact then it is still a high risk. And you should look to mitigate it on that basis. Your argument about "no serious threats" are irrelevant unless you are a pacifist. Then you have a reasnoble logical position to stand on. Arguing that their is no clear threat today, and therrefore we won't need a navy for the next ten years is utter rubbish.

Please be clearer. What out
 
Quote    Reply

prometheus       6/23/2008 4:43:48 AM

In 1980 the RN had over 60 Destroyers and Frigates and in 1990 there were 50.   The nation did not seem to have an issue funding the navy at that time but now has decided that 19 ships will do.  Nineteen ships is not a Navy nor is it enough to repeat an operation like the Falklands.  Nobody saw the Falklands coming and the next crisis that requires the RN exert itself will probably also be a surprise. 

 

There were 16 type 23's and 3 were given away (sold) even though they had been commissioned in 1989, 1991, and 1997.  Now it's said there is some vague intention to replace the remaining 13 with a new ship whose program does not at present exist.  There were originally going to be 12 type 45's, then 8 and now it's 6.  Why is anyone certain the present number of 19 ships is some hard number?  It could easily be 19, 18, or 16 or less.


 

It's simply an unwillingness to spend what is required or to face the simple fact that spending around 2% of GDP on defense is not enough.  As recently as the 1998 defense review Labor said the RN required 30+ frigates and destroyers.  What strategic review justifies 19?  What war plans show 19 to be enough?  Exactly what missions the people of the UK have grown to accept as being normal peace time missions of the RN can no longer be run?

 

Anyone who has not read "One Hundred Days" by Adm Woodward (the Falklands TF commander) might have some trouble in fully realizing the danger the UK is in accepting this level of the RN.  Then again if you were operating in a small boat in the Persian Gulf near Iran and were a member of the RN it was apparent nobody thought there was much danger there either.

 

Memo:  Weakness is provocative.  





 





I'm still of the opinion that the RN will get enough hulls from the t-22/t-23 replacement program to bring the escort fleet up to around 25. Of those 60 in 1980, many were lacking in capability, as I stated before, we went south with some very old ships, with ancient radar and 30 year old weaponry, take the Pymouth for example, Woodward was quoted as saying it couldn't do much else but steam around banging away with it's gun.
 
Event he modern ships were lacking, Ironically, the T-22s, which had been derided by some as expensive yachts performed best, however, there were only four and it's forte, ASW was hardly needed. It's close in sea wolf system was of much more use. Which brings me to my next point, the T-42s, whcih were basically fiscal compromises and as a result, terrible ships. Bad sea keepers with thin hullsand ancient radars, the only good thing about them was sea dart missiles. The fact that HMS Daring on it's own has the equivalent fire power to the entire T-42 fleet speaks volumes.
 
The important thing for the Navy is to get the carriers, hence the compromise on the Daring class destroyers with a prommisory note for more C1/C2s later. If, in 2014 the Falklands fell to argentina (not supposed to happen, at the first sign of belligerence you'd be looking to air transport ina  heavy force to Mt Pleasent). Then depsite the scarsity of escort hulls, one carrier group deployed with 40 F-35s, a couple of Astute subs with block 4 Tomahawks and an AAW ship with a real area defence capability against multiple threats.... well, that's a huge leap in capability over the Falklands fleet.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics