The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 3:08 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post a reply
Username:
Subject:
Message body:
Enter your message here, it may contain no more than 60000 characters. 

Options:
BBCode is OFF
Smilies are OFF
Do not automatically parse URLs
Question
What is the name in the logo in the top left? (hint it's something dot com):
This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
   

Topic review - Defence writer makes case against smaller RN carriers
Author Message
  Post subject:  Re: Defence writer makes case against smaller RN carriers  Reply with quote
carr wrote:
Admiral John Byng wrote:
I am not offended by the idea that the UK might be accused of cowardice. It is certainly a potentially valid point of view. However, I suspect that hypocritical and cheap might be better adjectives to describe us.

You, apparently, are free to criticize the US and UK at will. I, however, am not. I may have to hire you to ghost write my comments!


I think you are taking Martin's comment too much to heart. He said that you were "harsh" in saying the UK could be accused of cowardice. I do not think you were harsh, it is a point of view that has some merit. I did not insult the US or UK, they are nations and therefore incapable of being insulted.

I am not a patriot, nor do I believe in "my country right or wrong". That is why I think the UK needs to either provide its armed forces with the proper equipment and personnel needed for the most extreme of their duties (i.e. fighting a war) or it should accept that it no longer has the capability or will to do so and should withdraw gracefully from the global powers.

Being a puppet of the US as you suggest is not a third alternative, not least because there is no way that the US would tie itself to a lost cause. You referred to cowardice, how do you think it would be seen in Washington if we asked to be taken under your protection because we don't want to pay for our own defence?

There is a third road and that is the one that the UK government is treading. It is "The Emperor's New Clothes". We strut and posture and make fine speeches, but in fact we are naked.
Post Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2018 2:52 am
  Post subject:  Re: Defence writer makes case against smaller RN carriers  Reply with quote
..
Post Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 2:45 pm
  Post subject:  Re: Defence writer makes case against smaller RN carriers  Reply with quote
I am not offended by the idea that the UK might be accused of cowardice. It is certainly a potentially valid point of view. However, I suspect that hypocritical and cheap might be better adjectives to describe us. :)

It is very difficult to recover the ability to engage in warfare once it has been lost. It is not simply the lack of equipment and personnel but the aggressive spirit that is allowed to evaporate. It is hard in a modern society to nurture that pugnacious quality which is out of place among peaceful civillians but so essential to fighting (and winning!) wars.

As to defending freedom, it is a word that is used so much and so vaguely that it has become almost meaningless. I am sure a certain person (whom I shall refrain from naming) feels that his actions in the Ukraine, Crimea and Syria are all justified in defence of freedom. He is certainly free to do as he pleases at the moment.
Post Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 3:00 am
  Post subject:  Re: Defence writer makes case against smaller RN carriers  Reply with quote
SumGui wrote:

As to tankers, I think the F-35 will have some tanker capability in the future? But here is another brilliant decision by the MoD:

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... craft.html

The Airbus tankers are not fitted with the boom system so none of the F-35s will be able to refuel from it. I assume they will address this issue (at vast expense of course) as it must be a problem for NATO commitments.


F-35B (and C) use drogue, so it will work for them. F-35A is boom only at this time. As far as I have read, the UK is only ordering F-35B for now.

https://www.f35.com/media/videos-detail ... -refueling


As the article states, though, the P-8 is currently only fit for Boom refueling. I think the UK needs to look at boom for the Voyager not just for P-8, but C-17 and RC-135 as well.[/quote]

Thanks for the correction. I read somewhere else (forget where) that all F-35s operated the same refuelling system so it is good to know that it is not as bad as I thought.
Post Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 2:47 am
  Post subject:  Re: Defence writer makes case against smaller RN carriers  Reply with quote
..
Post Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2018 3:37 pm
  Post subject:  Re: Defence writer makes case against smaller RN carriers  Reply with quote
carr wrote:
Harsh does not necessarily mean it's untrue. Some truths are harsh.

Indeed they are.
carr wrote:
Apparently, you mean that everyone is entitled to their opinion as long as it's a meek, mild opinion.

Anyone can take a stand and get their point across without insulting or belittling people. My comment was actually meant for everyone - not just you.

I happened to pop into this thread, saw your somewhat dramatic comment, and made mine. I didn't feel like posting twice, so I included my admonishment for everyone to play nice with my original comment.

If you think my moderating is biased, please feel free to take it up with Cadman.
Post Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2018 3:15 pm
  Post subject:  Re: Defence writer makes case against smaller RN carriers  Reply with quote
..
Post Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2018 1:21 pm
  Post subject:  Re: Defence writer makes case against smaller RN carriers  Reply with quote
..
Post Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2018 12:08 pm
  Post subject:  Re: Defence writer makes case against smaller RN carriers  Reply with quote
Admiral John Byng wrote:
DavidP wrote:
can a E-2 aircraft or a tanker be launched using a ramp like on the QE class?


As to tankers, I think the F-35 will have some tanker capability in the future? But here is another brilliant decision by the MoD:

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... craft.html

The Airbus tankers are not fitted with the boom system so none of the F-35s will be able to refuel from it. I assume they will address this issue (at vast expense of course) as it must be a problem for NATO commitments.


F-35B (and C) use drogue, so it will work for them. F-35A is boom only at this time. As far as I have read, the UK is only ordering F-35B for now.

https://www.f35.com/media/videos-detail ... -refueling


As the article states, though, the P-8 is currently only fit for Boom refueling. I think the UK needs to look at boom for the Voyager not just for P-8, but C-17 and RC-135 as well.
Post Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2018 9:49 am
  Post subject:  Re: Defence writer makes case against smaller RN carriers  Reply with quote
carr wrote:
That would make the UK a nation of cowards who have not the courage to defend their freedom and protect and promote the freedom of others.

That's a bit harsh.

Let's remember to keep it civil, gents. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Please discuss like adults.
Post Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2018 9:03 am
  Post subject:  Re: Defence writer makes case against smaller RN carriers  Reply with quote
DavidP wrote:
can a E-2 aircraft or a tanker be launched using a ramp like on the QE class?


As Sumgui has said the Crows nest system will be the AEW for the carriers. However, in typically British fashion it comes as a kit so you either have ASW or AEW. It takes about 12 hours to convert an airframe by pulling out all the ASW consoles etc and fitting the AEW equipment. Given the reduction in Merlins, this will be another example of MoD stupidity.

But at least they have saved a few pennies.

http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/the-roy ... eavy-load/

As to tankers, I think the F-35 will have some tanker capability in the future? But here is another brilliant decision by the MoD:

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... craft.html

The Airbus tankers are not fitted with the boom system so none of the F-35s will be able to refuel from it. I assume they will address this issue (at vast expense of course) as it must be a problem for NATO commitments.
Post Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2018 3:14 am
  Post subject:  Re: Defence writer makes case against smaller RN carriers  Reply with quote
SumGui wrote:
I do wonder how much more capability the RN and UK in general would have by allowing the more non-British systems and design.

The Type 45s certainly have some impressive capabilities, but what if the Type 45 was built in the UK, with AEGIS and Mk41 instead, saving the development and integration costs of a low production number of systems? Is there reason to not switch over to a 127mm gun from wither the US or Italy?

SeaCeptor is looking very appealing right now - no reason that could have have carried on for integration with Artisan and AEGIS, but there are so many British versions of systems and weapons that I feel the UK could have much more capability if some of those items were let go. PAAMS was a joint venture - but a joint venture that only produced 10 systems - six of them British - no economy of scale there. I am not admonishing the performance of the system - just the economic affordability and future supportability of it.


A good example of the over-reach for pride is all the money put into various programs and overlong support to Nimrod. Excellent birds in their time - but did the UK need a Nimrod AEW when AWACS was already there? did the older Nimrods need to keep flying when economic replacements were at hand in other platforms? These strike me as pride decisions - trying to keep every capability in-house, and in the end they did go to the other viable alternatives out there but only after much of the Crown's money had already been thrown into a black hole.

I don't advocate buying everything from overseas - and the UK certainly already does a good job in some areas - but having domestic full capability in everything is simply untenable in an economic sense for a 'Medium Plus' size military force.

The UK is not a superpower - and that's not a bad thing - it tends to mean less trouble comes looking for you - but is is an economic reality.

I believe the UK defence budget could go farther with a broader consideration of the origin of certain capabilities, and allowing the defence development dollars to be focused on decidedly British items and what is done well (and is exportable) within the UK.


The first thing to note about UK defence spending is that defence is not the priority. That is how we have come to be in this mess. Political considerations are what is important. That means safeguarding jobs. For several years BAE had a government contract (which they have now agreed to drop in return for Type 26 orders) which earned them £250 Million a year whether or not they built anything!

As noted in the comedy Yes Minister, the point of the UK defence policy is not to defend the country ("the Russian's know it is not") but rather to make it look as though Britain is defended.

The Type 45 came out of the Horizon frigate project which was meant to provide a common hull for UK/France/Italy. In fact if you look at the Type 45 and the Horizons in French and Italian service you can see the similarities. The RN had slightly different requirements from the other two nations and so the Type 45 was born.

However, I agree that a lot of money could be saved if the UK would buy ships from overseas. The first three Type 26 frigates are going to cost £1,233 Million each. If we got DCNS or Fincantieri to build them I suspect it would be much cheaper.

The Type 26 will be armed with the US 127mm gun.

Nimrod was a typically British mess. How can we produce a good maritime patrol aircraft very cheaply? Use an existing airframe and pack it with state of the art electronics of course! Well the electronics were beyond the capability of the company producing them and the airframe was obsolete. So something cheap becomes a ridiculously expensive matter of pride (political and national) and the whole thing ends up in the toilet.

All UK governments are obsessed with saving money and if they have to spend a fortune to do it then they will!
Post Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2018 3:05 am
  Post subject:  Re: Defence writer makes case against smaller RN carriers  Reply with quote
The UK intends to use Merlin as an AEW platform, much like Invincible saw the Seakings with the Searchwater Radar.

http://defense-update.com/20170118_crowsnet.html

So no E-2.

The E-2 Hawkeye is a rather space demanding aircraft on a carrier deck, as the French found out onboard DeGaulle. And, of course, the E-2 requires catapult and arestor hook systems. It would certainly work if they had gone CATOBAR, but they did not.

I am not aware of any discussions on tanking - I imagine they would look to their new Airbus MRTTs from land bases and allies for tanking.

Nothing says we will not later see drones from QE2, but I am not aware of any formal plans for that at this time.
Post Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 9:08 pm
  Post subject:  Re: Defence writer makes case against smaller RN carriers  Reply with quote
..
Post Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 5:22 pm
  Post subject:  Re: Defence writer makes case against smaller RN carriers  Reply with quote
I do wonder how much more capability the RN and UK in general would have by allowing the more non-British systems and design.

The Type 45s certainly have some impressive capabilities, but what if the Type 45 was built in the UK, with AEGIS and Mk41 instead, saving the development and integration costs of a low production number of systems? Is there reason to not switch over to a 127mm gun from wither the US or Italy?

SeaCeptor is looking very appealing right now - no reason that could have have carried on for integration with Artisan and AEGIS, but there are so many British versions of systems and weapons that I feel the UK could have much more capability if some of those items were let go. PAAMS was a joint venture - but a joint venture that only produced 10 systems - six of them British - no economy of scale there. I am not admonishing the performance of the system - just the economic affordability and future supportability of it.


A good example of the over-reach for pride is all the money put into various programs and overlong support to Nimrod. Excellent birds in their time - but did the UK need a Nimrod AEW when AWACS was already there? did the older Nimrods need to keep flying when economic replacements were at hand in other platforms? These strike me as pride decisions - trying to keep every capability in-house, and in the end they did go to the other viable alternatives out there but only after much of the Crown's money had already been thrown into a black hole.

I don't advocate buying everything from overseas - and the UK certainly already does a good job in some areas - but having domestic full capability in everything is simply untenable in an economic sense for a 'Medium Plus' size military force.

The UK is not a superpower - and that's not a bad thing - it tends to mean less trouble comes looking for you - but is is an economic reality.

I believe the UK defence budget could go farther with a broader consideration of the origin of certain capabilities, and allowing the defence development dollars to be focused on decidedly British items and what is done well (and is exportable) within the UK.
Post Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 4:40 pm
  Post subject:  Re: Defence writer makes case against smaller RN carriers  Reply with quote
..
Post Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 3:57 pm
  Post subject:  Re: Defence writer makes case against smaller RN carriers  Reply with quote
..
Post Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 3:48 pm
  Post subject:  Re: Defence writer makes case against smaller RN carriers  Reply with quote
maxim wrote:
The question exactly is why the NATO was not involved in the Falkland war according to Article 5 of the treaty - it could have be considered as an attack on a member state. But likely Thatcher did not want that, but wanted to demonstrate Britain's power and the ability to act alone. According to the treaty it would have been possible that the NATO would be forced to help Britain (as after 9/11 the terror attack was declared to be an attack on a member state and so the NATO got active in Afghanistan).

Therefore I still do not see any difference. It is already now normal that inside the NATO there is a certain specialisation, e.g. many smaller navies contribute mainly to MCM. E.g. currently the SNMCMG1 has a Belgian commander and consists of Belgian, Dutch, German, and Norwegian ships. Many of the member states, especially the smaller ones, have not the ability to defend themselves alone and are depend on the NATO for its defence (it was anyway always unrealistic that a small country could defend itself successfully against a major power).

/edit: The other question would be for sure, what would be the consequences for Britain: would it be forced to help the USA only in case of an attack or always? The US were not attacked with military means since 1945, but were involved in many wars - in many of which it was legally the aggressor.


NATO is made up of so many different countries that unity is hard to achieve. Spain was hostile to the UK and supportive of Argentina during the Falklands War. A lot of the other nations were indifferent.

The US was more supportive but was friendly with both countries so Reagan sat on the fence for a long time. Caspar Weinberger did supply the latest model of Sidewinder which helped the Harriers to fight the Mirages and Skyhawks.

The UK could not sign such a treaty with the US. It would be surrendering our right to a separate foreign policy. Although the US has been, mostly, a counterbalance to the Soviet Union and now Russia and China, it has also behaved like a bully on occasion. It is not alone in that, the UK started a war with China in the 19th century over the right to sell opium. All empires (or to use a modern term: superpowers) get into the habit of telling other nations how they should behave.

The new RN carriers are ironically, exactly what is needed at this time if the UK is to stand up to Russian aggression. However, given that the government have not even withdrawn the England team from the World Cup, it is not clear to me that they really understand what is happening and they obviously see words as more effective (or at least cheaper) than action.
Post Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 3:07 am
  Post subject:  Re: Defence writer makes case against smaller RN carriers  Reply with quote
The question exactly is why the NATO was not involved in the Falkland war according to Article 5 of the treaty - it could have be considered as an attack on a member state. But likely Thatcher did not want that, but wanted to demonstrate Britain's power and the ability to act alone. According to the treaty it would have been possible that the NATO would be forced to help Britain (as after 9/11 the terror attack was declared to be an attack on a member state and so the NATO got active in Afghanistan).

Therefore I still do not see any difference. It is already now normal that inside the NATO there is a certain specialisation, e.g. many smaller navies contribute mainly to MCM. E.g. currently the SNMCMG1 has a Belgian commander and consists of Belgian, Dutch, German, and Norwegian ships. Many of the member states, especially the smaller ones, have not the ability to defend themselves alone and are depend on the NATO for its defence (it was anyway always unrealistic that a small country could defend itself successfully against a major power).

/edit: The other question would be for sure, what would be the consequences for Britain: would it be forced to help the USA only in case of an attack or always? The US were not attacked with military means since 1945, but were involved in many wars - in many of which it was legally the aggressor.
Post Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:36 am
  Post subject:  Re: Defence writer makes case against smaller RN carriers  Reply with quote
..
Post Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2018 3:53 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group