For the military buffs out there

right now the strategic defence review is going on.....finding will be published in october..

basically, we are going to see a massive shift in the shape and role of our armed forces....it seems that no more will we be capable of an "iraq" or "afghanistan"...or even a "falklands"....

instead the focus will solely be on defence of the UK and our interests..

rumours flying around are...(as there always is..)

over 30k cuts in uniformed personnel

little or no use of tanks for the army (mothballing them for long periods)

transfer of the Royal Marines from the Navy to the Army

Army to totally withdraw from Germany

all support organisations to be drastically cut...

civillian employees of the MoD to be drastically cut

less ships in the navy

Trident replacement and the new aircraft carriers are to be protected

then we have the RAF

rumours are that a radical overhaul of the RAF is to be conducted...it seems (apparently) not fit for purpose...masses of strike fighter jets doing nothing that are £100m a pop...over staffed and wrongly used as a whole..some rumours suggest that this could be the end of the RAF as we know it...with the RN and Army taking over major elements of the organisation...

personally, this is the next step to the end of the 3 seperate service and closer to a UK Defence Force...

one thing I am sure will happen...they will reject the idea of women on subs..

we shall see what rumours were crud and the direction they wish to take us

I tell you pulling out of Germany is a BAD idea, we all know what they are like

Defence costs have to be cut , period. Another case of massive wastage. The armed forces budget must be slashed. Again not in the frontline but the backroom staff.

The need heavy armour, in the amount that we currently have, is a relic of the Cold War and so needs to be chopped back and there is also no need for a British Army Of The Rhine.

The RAF, whilst still needing an air superiority role, needs to become integrated with the army as a close in air support organisation.

Typhoon is again a relic from the Cold War.

Personally I would be much more comfortable having a defensive force on the Japanese model.

Getting dragged into unwinnable wars on the US's coat-tails has to stop - does no-one any good.

We should defend our shores - end of.

Pulling out of Germany isnt a new thing its been slowly closing down over the past few years.

Defence costs have to be cut , period. Another case of massive wastage. The armed forces budget must be slashed. Again not in the frontline but the backroom staff.

Do they? Waste should always be attacked but the army, in particular, have been overstretched for years because spending hasn't increased to match increased demands. The focus needs to be on making sure that funding make more of an impact to the 'front line' but I don't overall cuts should be made

I tell you pulling out of Germany is a BAD idea, we all know what they are like

If it were based on a conversation with what I perceived a very normal german, I think so. That said, I paid no heed to his comments

Chop Trident altogether (and allow women on subs, as I predicted, to much misogynistic and jingoistic bleating on here!).

Cut the MoD to the bone - the most wasteful, useless department in Whitehall.

And model a defence force on comparable (ie 'middle order') those of states like Belgium, Spain or Canada - and one that is equipped to deal with the exigencies of modern warfare, rather than holding on to the exorbitantly expensive fantasy that we're still fighting the Cold War.

Chop Trident altogether (and allow women on subs, as I predicted, to much misogynistic and jingoistic bleating on here!).

 

.

we shall see...in my opinion, it wont happen this time round...but time will tell

Just a view on the rumours

over 30k cuts in uniformed personnel - There will be cust, this equates to about 10% so quite possible espeicially if the RAF relqted rumours come to fruition.

little or no use of tanks for the army (mothballing them for long periods) Makes Sense and likely

transfer of the Royal Marines from the Navy to the Army - Very unlikely more realistic is the transfer of the RAF Regiment

Army to totally withdraw from Germany - Already in train the only reason we have stayed is because of the lack of accomodation and training facilities in te UK due to the Last Toery governemnts massive sel off of Defence Estate Assets.

all support organisations to be drastically cut... Another ongoing policy with more support being outsourced in te belief that it offers better VFM

civillian employees of the MoD to be drastically cut - Already happended DE&S have reduced staff by arond 30% in the last 3 yeasr and have actualy overshot theri target,

less ships in the navy - Quite possible

Trident replacement and the new aircraft carriers are to be protected - Almost certain

Defence has always been in a no win position, the majority of the population are either ill informed or unwilling to recognise and understand the purpose off and need for effective armed forces. The national media are useless at reporting the facts when it comes to all things military whether it is about equipment or personnel they are only interested in negatives. The national media neither inform their readership nor support our forces with their approach. This is sadly exacerbated by a generation of politicians who are equally ill informed about and lacking in understanding of the Armed Forces.

It's strange to take the view of cutting the air force because of the under use of £100m aircraft, but the trident replacement is protected for the same reason.

It's time to move on from the empire days and get an appropriate level of armed forces but are equiped to the highest standard.

It's strange to take the view of cutting the air force because of the under use of £100m aircraft, but the trident replacement is protected for the same reason.

 

It's time to move on from the empire days and get an appropriate level of armed forces but are equiped to the highest standard.

we have moved from the empire days....long long time ago...

We should withdraw from NATO and sign up to a Western European Military Treaty organisation based on the EU to replace it - with a common purchase and supply policy to cut costs. You never know it might act as balance of power between the USA, Russia and whoever else!

Their is no special relationship - only an abusive one!

Make Trident an EU or European Nuclear deterrent - not a UK deterrent - thereby spreading the cost.

Stop legitimising the USA's aggressive and negative foreign policy by no longer acting as there military lapdog.

Base are armed forces on the Japanese Defence Forces and create one combined command structure.

Pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq.

We should withdraw from NATO and sign up to a Western European Military Treaty organisation based on the EU to replace it - with a common purchase and supply policy to cut costs. You never know it might act as balance of power between the USA, Russia and whoever else!

 

Their is no special relationship - only an abusive one!

 

Make Trident an EU or European Nuclear deterrent - not a UK deterrent - thereby spreading the cost.

 

Stop legitimising the USA's aggressive and negative foreign policy by no longer acting as there military lapdog.

 

Base are armed forces on the Japanese Defence Forces and create one combined command structure.

 

Pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Oh its so simple, why haven’t we thought of these things before.

We are already members of the WEU, unfortunately this arrangement will cease to exist in 2011. Europe will only become a balancing power to the US, China Russia et al when it can agree a single command structure, the UK cannot do this alone and I wish you all the very best in persuading the French, Swedes, Italians, Spaniards et al in signing up to such a structure.

Common purchase and supply policy is a very good idea however very difficult to deliver, the most prominent examples Tornado and Typhoon it has been argued resulted in much higher costs than were predicted at the outset. The current state of the A400M programme is also of concern. I was involved in the predecessor programme for the Type 45 Destroyer known as HORIZON, UK, France and Italy. An old hand predicted the projects demise very eloquently when he observed that the Italians required a ship that looked nice, the French required a ship that was comfortable and the British wanted a ship that could fight, whilst a little tongue in cheek it does illustrate that agreeing common requirements and capability is a very difficult and expensive process.

I agree the Special Relationship is a problem and we need to become more independent of US foreign policy.

An EU Strategic Deterrent is a non starter on many grounds not least the fact that the EU’s formal military treaty is enshrined in the Treaty of Lisbon which as stated above will superseed the WEU and only a very immature Foreign Policy combine that with who will sanction its use and act as the operational command it is a totally impractical solution.

The comparison with Japan is again misguided; the Japanese Armed Forces are very capable, however their use in support of international operations including UN is severely restricted by international treaties, therefore whilst their equipment and personnel budget is comparable to the UK their operational cost are smaller. To mirror the Japanese model we would have to radically alter our foreign policy, withdraw from NATO and other international security treaties and agreements, accept a significant loss of influence thereby causing a vacuum for AN Other country to fill (be careful what you wish for) or seed more power to the US, Russia and China.

We have pulled out of Iraq!!

Afghanistan, what a waste of lives and money

The need heavy armour, in the amount that we currently have, is a relic of the Cold War and so needs to be chopped back and there is also no need for a British Army Of The Rhine.

The RAF, whilst still needing an air superiority role, needs to become integrated with the army as a close in air support organisation.

Typhoon is again a relic from the Cold War.

Typhoon is the future of the RAF, along with the Lightning. It's the rest than need to go. The ancient Jaguars have already been retired. The Harrier has had it's day. Tornado's are getting on a bit, but the GR4s have a bit of life left in them. The Nimrod MR4 has been a monumental waste of money rebuilding a 60 year old airplane. Puma's are ancient too.

F2 Typhoons

F35 Lightnings

Nimrod MR4s (The upgraded project was a financial disaster, but they do provide a role)

Puma helis

E3D AWACS

Sentiel

KC330 tanker

Airbus A400 transport

That's the future of the RAF. It's a lot of aircraft to integrate into the Army and Navy and I'm fairly sure it wont happen.

Is war not supposed to be good for a country such as our's economy?

Not sure of the deeper implications of and more so can't ever see it happening but strnghening our European alliances at the cost of the one with the US makes sense to me. I actually feel that it would be better for the US too, they just need to realise that sometimes they are 'on their own' and need to rein themselves in and show a bit of restraint occasionally.

Typhoon is the future of the RAF, along with the Lightning. It's the rest than need to go. The ancient Jaguars have already been retired. The Harrier has had it's day. Tornado's are getting on a bit, but the GR4s have a bit of life left in them. The Nimrod MR4 has been a monumental waste of money rebuilding a 60 year old airplane. Puma's are ancient too.

 

F2 Typhoons

F35 Lightnings

Nimrod MR4s (The upgraded project was a financial disaster, but they do provide a role)

Puma helis

E3D AWACS

Sentiel

KC330 tanker

Airbus A400 transport

 

That's the future of the RAF. It's a lot of aircraft to integrate into the Army and Navy and I'm fairly sure it wont happen.

How has the Harrier had its day, mate? It's still the only aircraft in the fleet with its particular characteristics.

Chop Trident altogether (and allow women on subs, as I predicted, to much misogynistic and jingoistic bleating on here!).

 

Cut the MoD to the bone - the most wasteful, useless department in Whitehall.

 

And model a defence force on comparable (ie 'middle order') those of states like Belgium, Spain or Canada - and one that is equipped to deal with the exigencies of modern warfare, rather than holding on to the exorbitantly expensive fantasy that we're still fighting the Cold War.

I knew things had gone down hill in terms of our world standing over the last 13 years, but Belgium? Jees, I didn't realise things had got that bad.

Is war not supposed to be good for a country such as our's economy?

 

You could have a point as the UK has the 2nd largest defence industry in terms of percentage of GDP and employs over 350,000 people.

chances of not much changing at all?

How has the Harrier had its day, mate? It's still the only aircraft in the fleet with its particular characteristics.

and the only fixed wing aircraft able to fly from the current crop of carrier we have

How has the Harrier had its day, mate? It's still the only aircraft in the fleet with its particular characteristics.

The F35 will be superior in every dept apart from it's lack of vertical take off characteristics. The harrier is limited in this capability in terms of payload anyway, worse so in hot and high climates such as Afghanistan. I'm sure you can find a role for the harrier, but to me it seems like an unnescessary cost. It's extremely slow compared to most other combat aircraft too.

The F35 will be superior in every dept apart from it's lack of vertical take off characteristics. The harrier is limited in this capability in terms of payload anyway, worse so in hot and high climates such as Afghanistan. I'm sure you can find a role for the harrier, but to me it seems like an unnescessary cost. It's extremely slow compared to most other combat aircraft too.

To be fair to Ponty, these things take a little getting used to. My Dad thought there was life in the Spitfire [as he cabled and wired them out] after the war, and there was, but not for the UK. The Harrier has a special place in enthusiastic British hearts. Like the EE Lightning interceptor and the Blackburn Buccaneer, it was the very best at something. There is still no other fixed wing fighter aircraft that can vertically takeoff with any sort of usable payload, except the Harrier and, as proven in the South Atlantic, the Harrier can dogfight with, and beat, aircraft capable of over twice its maximum speed. Of course, even today, maneuverability is more important than absolute speed, in a dogfight. Except that dogfighting is said to be finally exiting military airspace. But they said that before, and look what happened..!

Whats the point in the biggest aircraft carriers in RN history without escort vessels to protect them ? We should go back to a requirement of 12 Type 45s. The UK is an island nation that subs nearly starved twice in the last century, FFS.

I would cancel our F35 commitment, rework 80-odd Typhoons for a navalised version and change the config of the carriers to CATOBAR (already planned for in their design)

I would transfer the Fleet Air Arm and helecopter fleet to the RAF rather than do away with the RAF.

I agree with doing away with heavy tanks, but the small mobile ones and the APCs should stay.

We dont need Trident. We could fulfill the job with gravity bombs and cruise missiles. I'd rather the RN got 4 more Astutes.

Oh, and the chief of the defence staff should always be RN. Stirrup was an embarassment.

I knew things had gone down hill in terms of our world standing over the last 13 years, but Belgium? Jees, I didn't realise things had got that bad.

We should aspire to be like Belgium.

My simple thoughts are bound to be laughed at but never mind here they are.

Increase the Navy and RAF for UK self defence and reduce the Army so that they are

not big enough to be sent to fight foreign wars thereby saving lots of money. IF the UK is

ever invaded again after getting past the RN and RAF there won't be very much left

for an Army to defend anyway.

Never ever rely on fellow Europeans to help defend the UK, they have shown over many

many years they are pretty useless at fighting, the Germans of course can fight as they have

proved.

My simple thoughts are bound to be laughed at but never mind here they are.

 

Increase the Navy and RAF for UK self defence and reduce the Army so that they are

not big enough to be sent to fight foreign wars thereby saving lots of money. IF the UK is

ever invaded again after getting past the RN and RAF there won't be very much left

for an Army to defend anyway.

 

Never ever rely on fellow Europeans to help defend the UK, they have shown over many

many years they are pretty useless at fighting, the Germans of course can fight as they have

proved.

Why should it be laughed at ? I think you will find many of us agree. Its more of less what I am proposing, only I gave some details of how to do it.

We only need an army for civil defence and domestic disaster relief. And Trooping the Colour..

We should aspire to be like Belgium.

why

I agree with increasing the navy...we are an island nation ffs...if we are going to go down the "self defence" route...having a large(er) navy makes sense

Whats the point in the biggest aircraft carriers in RN history without escort vessels to protect them ? We should go back to a requirement of 12 Type 45s. The UK is an island nation that subs nearly starved twice in the last century, FFS.

 

I would cancel our F35 commitment, rework 80-odd Typhoons for a navalised version and change the config of the carriers to CATOBAR (already planned for in their design)

 

I would transfer the Fleet Air Arm and helecopter fleet to the RAF rather than do away with the RAF.

 

I agree with doing away with heavy tanks, but the small mobile ones and the APCs should stay.

 

We dont need Trident. We could fulfill the job with gravity bombs and cruise missiles. I'd rather the RN got 4 more Astutes.

 

Oh, and the chief of the defence staff should always be RN. Stirrup was an embarassment.

cruise missiles and bombs offer NOTHING like the capability of a trident missile...also, the expertise, facilities etc etc for the trident are in place....then you go down the operational capability route..which a submarine launched missiles wins every time

with your last line..of course I will agree....the RN can make up (at any one time) about 25% of the forces in afghanistan...which increases if a large contingent of royal marines arrive....the ships/subs are at breaking point on anti-piracy, anti-drugs, relief and intel/recon patrols and get little recognition

at the same time, have had to deal with major cuts to its front line units/personnel over the last 10 years or so...at the same time being the smallest force....

there is a saying have heard..."those that CAN, do so with the navy or the army, those that CANT enjoy the RAF"

we had an admiral come down and visit recently and he refered to labour as "that lot"....and said that it was a breath of fresh air when Liam Fox was appointed as defence secretary...he is actually pro-navy....

cruise missiles and bombs offer NOTHING like the capability of a trident missile...also, the expertise, facilities etc etc for the trident are in place....then you go down the operational capability route..which a submarine launched missiles wins every time

 

with your last line..of course I will agree....the RN can make up (at any one time) about 25% of the forces in afghanistan...which increases if a large contingent of royal marines arrive....the ships/subs are at breaking point on anti-piracy, anti-drugs, relief and intel/recon patrols and get little recognition

at the same time, have had to deal with major cuts to its front line units/personnel over the last 10 years or so...at the same time being the smallest force....

 

there is a saying have heard..."those that CAN, do so with the navy or the army, those that CANT enjoy the RAF"

 

we had an admiral come down and visit recently and he refered to labour as "that lot"....and said that it was a breath of fresh air when Liam Fox was appointed as defence secretary...he is actually pro-navy....

The 'capability' of Trident, as you put it, is to wipe out civilisations. No one in their right mind is ever, ever going to fire it. Get rid of it and all the 'facilities' that go with a lethal piece of junk that symbolizes a ludicrous keening of politicians of a middling nation to be at the nuclear 'top table'.

The 'capability' of Trident, as you put it, is to wipe out civilisations. No one in their right mind is ever, ever going to fire it. Get rid of it and all the 'facilities' that go with a lethal piece of junk that symbolizes a ludicrous keening of politicians of a middling nation to be at the nuclear 'top table'.

it aint going to happen....

it aint going to happen....

I accept the argument that it does a lot (of destruction and killing) for the money, but the sort of nations or groups we need to be deterring in these times do not have sophisticated air defence networks, or counterforce ability.

FFS, a pair of Tornados with bombs or cruise missiles is enough of a deterrent for us.

I accept the argument that it does a lot (of destruction and killing) for the money, but the sort of nations or groups we need to be deterring in these times do not have sophisticated air defence networks, or counterforce ability.

 

FFS, a pair of Tornados with bombs or cruise missiles is enough of a deterrent for us.

simply do not know who we could be defending ourselves against in 30-50 years time....

http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/11102_84_2sakwa.pdf

this one is very dramatic..but does show some of the bits and bobs that have been going on in the last few years

Whats the point in the biggest aircraft carriers in RN history without escort vessels to protect them ? We should go back to a requirement of 12 Type 45s. The UK is an island nation that subs nearly starved twice in the last century, FFS.

 

I would cancel our F35 commitment, rework 80-odd Typhoons for a navalised version and change the config of the carriers to CATOBAR (already planned for in their design)

 

I would transfer the Fleet Air Arm and helecopter fleet to the RAF rather than do away with the RAF.

 

I agree with doing away with heavy tanks, but the small mobile ones and the APCs should stay.

 

We dont need Trident. We could fulfill the job with gravity bombs and cruise missiles. I'd rather the RN got 4 more Astutes.

 

Oh, and the chief of the defence staff should always be RN. Stirrup was an embarassment.

Whilst on the face of it some of your suggestions appear to have merit the first point reference Typhoons is a non starter. Firstly reengineering a Typhoon for naval operations would be very costly, the airframe was not designed for the additional forces a carrier aircraft experiences, many components in naval aircraft require additional protection to deal with the maritime environment, add to this folding wings comms and avionics upgrades and you are setting yourself up for a very costly and drawn out programme that could not deliver in time for the entry into service of the carriers.

TDD makes the pint well about the ICBM (Trident) vs Cruise missiles option; they are in no way comparable.

Yes the CDS should be Navy but sadly the Army are the blue eyed boys at the moment.

However the bottom line for any defence policy must be based on the fact that we are an island nation and a strong and capable navy is the corner stone of our defence. Whilst the Battle of Britain was a truly magnificent achievement it has been categorically proven from German Wartime records that the deciding factor in the German decision to abandon operation Sealion was their inability to secure mastery of the sea not the air.

Obviously some very intelligent and knowledgeable posts here and I am miles away from understanding them if I am honest.

As a man on the street, can I ask what the reasons are for other nations to be considered threat? I mean, in a majority of cases is it primarily because we are 'on their turf' or still taking what is not rightly ours to take?

Typhoon is the future of the RAF, along with the Lightning. It's the rest than need to go. The ancient Jaguars have already been retired. The Harrier has had it's day. Tornado's are getting on a bit, but the GR4s have a bit of life left in them. The Nimrod MR4 has been a monumental waste of money rebuilding a 60 year old airplane. Puma's are ancient too.

 

F2 Typhoons

F35 Lightnings

Nimrod MR4s (The upgraded project was a financial disaster, but they do provide a role)

Puma helis

E3D AWACS

Sentiel

KC330 tanker

Airbus A400 transport

 

That's the future of the RAF. It's a lot of aircraft to integrate into the Army and Navy and I'm fairly sure it wont happen.

No doubt Typhoon has its place. Every country would look to having an air superiority fighter but under current SOPs the Typhoon hasn't been needed in that role where as ground support has been needed like never before and that was my main point.

Whilst on the face of it some of your suggestions appear to have merit the first point reference Typhoons is a non starter. Firstly reengineering a Typhoon for naval operations would be very costly, the airframe was not designed for the additional forces a carrier aircraft experiences, many components in naval aircraft require additional protection to deal with the maritime environment, add to this folding wings comms and avionics upgrades and you are setting yourself up for a very costly and drawn out programme that could not deliver in time for the entry into service of the carriers.

 

TDD makes the pint well about the ICBM (Trident) vs Cruise missiles option; they are in no way comparable.

 

Yes the CDS should be Navy but sadly the Army are the blue eyed boys at the moment.

 

However the bottom line for any defence policy must be based on the fact that we are an island nation and a strong and capable navy is the corner stone of our defence. Whilst the Battle of Britain was a truly magnificent achievement it has been categorically proven from German Wartime records that the deciding factor in the German decision to abandon operation Sealion was their inability to secure mastery of the sea not the air.

You say that navalisation of the Typhoon is too expensive, but there IS a plan for it already.

A few years back when the US were playing their usual tricks that our F35s would have to be serviced (at great cost) by US technicians because they would not give us access to the avionics software, the Defence Minister of the time told BAE to investigate it.

Eventually the US backed down when the UK government threatened to withold Rolls Royce's vertical take off engine and technology for the F35B

I think we need to understand that we are not the world player of 50 years ago. We need to concentrate on defence and not trying to police the world. The military could make lots of cuts from the top to the bottom, do we need 3 4 stars to rule each service? Do we need 3 head of trades/branches in areas such as intelligence or pti's.

You say that navalisation of the Typhoon is too expensive, but there IS a plan for it already.

 

A few years back when the US were playing their usual tricks that our F35s would have to be serviced (at great cost) by US technicians because they would not give us access to the avionics software, the Defence Minister of the time told BAE to investigate it.

 

Eventually the US backed down when the UK government threatened to withold Rolls Royce's vertical take off engine and technology for the F35B

Your right there was a plan, but it was dismissed as being both too expensive and engineering wise to much of a challenge, additionally the performance would have been degraded. You do make very valid points about the US and there arrogance and superiority in defence deals and our politicians fawning acceptance of it. Hopefully overtime the European defence industries can learn to work together to reduce our reliance on US kit, tough as I pointed out above this has been very difficult to date.

A few thoughts regarding the forthcoming SDR .

The Royal Navy :

1- Continue the CVF programme as contracted - one carrier operational while the other is in reserve/refit until finances improve . 40 F35B ordered for Fleet Air Arm - more in the 2020's

2- Cancel the over ambitious 7000t Type 26 frigate and replace with a more modest 4000t design . A force of least 25 frigates and destroyers to be maintained .

3- Scale back on the readiness levels of the amphibious force .

4- Vanguard class 'Trident' force to be replaced by new combined SSN/SSBN class - effectively an enlarged 'Astute' variant with a 4/6 tube missile section added .

5- Cancel 155mm naval gun project & equip fleet with new BAE/Bofors 57mm .

The Army :

1- Heavy Armoured forces to be reduced to Brigade size - Withdraw Army from Germany and disband/re-role surplus mechanized units .

2- Scale back the FRES programme & evaluate the real value of heavy artillery on the modern battlefield .

3- Concentrate in future on Air Mobile operations - more transport and attack helicopters , less armour .

4- We really can't afford to be the worlds policeman anymore .

The RAF :

1- All helicopters to be transferred to Army Air Corps or Fleet Air Arm control .

2- Final Batch of Typhoon a/c to be canceled or sold (whichever is most cost effective)

3- Nimrod MRA4 force to be fielded as planned - arm them with cruise missiles .

4- Retire Tornado GR4 early - future 'fast jet' force of around 150 Typhoon & F35 a/c only .

5- Can we afford 3 entirely different types of heavy transport aircraft ?

6- Continued investment in new generation UCAV designs is desirable .

A few thoughts regarding the forthcoming SDR .

 

The Royal Navy :

1- Continue the CVF programme as contracted - one carrier operational while the other is in reserve/refit until finances improve . 40 F35B ordered for Fleet Air Arm - more in the 2020's

2- Cancel the over ambitious 7000t Type 26 frigate and replace with a more modest 4000t design . A force of least 25 frigates and destroyers to be maintained .

3- Scale back on the readiness levels of the amphibious force .

4- Vanguard class 'Trident' force to be replaced by new combined SSN/SSBN class - effectively an enlarged 'Astute' variant with a 4/6 tube missile section added .

5- Cancel 155mm naval gun project & equip fleet with new BAE/Bofors 57mm .

 

The Army :

1- Heavy Armoured forces to be reduced to Brigade size - Withdraw Army from Germany and disband/re-role surplus mechanized units .

2- Scale back the FRES programme & evaluate the real value of heavy artillery on the modern battlefield .

3- Concentrate in future on Air Mobile operations - more transport and attack helicopters , less armour .

4- We really can't afford to be the worlds policeman anymore .

 

The RAF :

1- All helicopters to be transferred to Army Air Corps or Fleet Air Arm control .

2- Final Batch of Typhoon a/c to be canceled or sold (whichever is most cost effective)

3- Nimrod MRA4 force to be fielded as planned - arm them with cruise missiles .

4- Retire Tornado GR4 early - future 'fast jet' force of around 150 Typhoon & F35 a/c only .

5- Can we afford 3 entirely different types of heavy transport aircraft ?

6- Continued investment in new generation UCAV designs is desirable .

For some reason, I only really give a sh*t about the Navy.

I would up the destroyer/frigate fleet to 30, keep the type 26 programme the same, but order less of them. They should take over from the 22s/23s on a one-for-one basis, and I would put the Type 45 order back to 12. That is a capable boat.

Like the "enhanced Astute" proposal.

Dont like the carrier proposal - I would like to see both in service, but with decent names like Eagle or Hermes. Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales were battleships, not carriers.I would also keep Ark Royal, remove her Ski jump and have her rotate operation with Ocean.

For some reason, I only really give a sh*t about the Navy.

 

I would up the destroyer/frigate fleet to 30, keep the type 26 programme the same, but order less of them. They should take over from the 22s/23s on a one-for-one basis, and I would put the Type 45 order back to 12. That is a capable boat.

 

Like the "enhanced Astute" proposal.

 

Dont like the carrier proposal - I would like to see both in service, but with decent names like Eagle or Hermes. Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales were battleships, not carriers.I would also keep Ark Royal, remove her Ski jump and have her rotate operation with Ocean.

I feel exactly the same re the Royal Navy Alps - it's closer to the heart than the other services for some reason .

The ideas I've floated are not necessarily what I really want to happen , it just that with the MOD in for a massive 10% budget cut something has to give and these are my proposals to make this cutback as painless as possible .

I too would prefer to see the new carriers given proper carrier names too . I understand the reason they are to be the 'Queen Elizabeth' class is that there is an ancient convention that the navy's first capital ship commissioned during a new monarch's reign are traditionally named after that monarch . It's a pretty sobering thought that although the queen came to the throne way back in 1952 these two carriers are the first major warships the navy has ordered during that long period .

Whilst the Battle of Britain was a truly magnificent achievement it has been categorically proven from German Wartime records that the deciding factor in the German decision to abandon operation Sealion was their inability to secure mastery of the sea not the air.

True, but then the whole point of Germany's air offensive was to achieve air supremacy in order to negate our naval dominance. A strong air defence is at least as important as a strong navy for an island nation. You need both.

As to the need for CVs, they are the only means to project real (air) power for a world player. Question is: are we still a world player?

I feel exactly the same re the Royal Navy Alps - it's closer to the heart than the other services for some reason .

 

The ideas I've floated are not necessarily what I really want to happen , it just that with the MOD in for a massive 10% budget cut something has to give and these are my proposals to make this cutback as painless as possible .

 

I too would prefer to see the new carriers given proper carrier names too . I understand the reason they are to be the 'Queen Elizabeth' class is that there is an ancient convention that the navy's first capital ship commissioned during a new monarch's reign are traditionally named after that monarch . It's a pretty sobering thought that although the queen came to the throne way back in 1952 these two carriers are the first major warships the navy has ordered during that long period .

I thought that SSBNs were supposed to be the new 'capital ships'? They certainly cost enough. But then I guess there's something distasteful about naming a civilisation killer after the reigning monarch.

I thought that SSBNs were supposed to be the new 'capital ships'? They certainly cost enough. But then I guess there's something distasteful about naming a civilisation killer after the reigning monarch.

The US named its first operational SSBN after George Washington.

enchanced astute

would be very surprised if that was on the radar....never really been talked about and we have had visits from "project successor"...(the people building the subs for vanguard replacements)...

as for the number of ships where do you get 30 from..what brings you to that number..... it all depends completely on what the government want the RN to do...if they continue with a presence in the GULF..whilst maintaining one in the carribean, med, southlant, indian ocean, other NATO and treaty commitments, taking on piracy, protecting UK shipping world wide..

whilst having one on permanent readiness for UK response force/Towed array patrol ship...then you will find that 30 is simply not enough..it is not enough now..hence why they are falling apart...

what do you drop..?

Carribean - counter drugs and stops millions upon millions of £££ worth of drugs getting to the UK

southlant - protects the falklands and now vital energy research/drilling

Med - protect UK shipping (being an island nation, that is quite important)

indian ocean - anti piracy which is really causing the international community to have a big head ache

gulf - other than maintaining a presence..protect (again) UK shipping which there is a massive amount

etc etc etc etc

as for names of the ships....it is all political and goes with the times...

as for saying big carriers are for world players..? are you mental..? carriers (or the aircraft on them) will offer the frigates/destroyers air protection "over the horizon"....you can maybe defend some thing "over the horizon" by only risking a few people and their aircraft rather than a whole warship...

also, they actually count as an "air field"...so would we need as many "RAF bases over seas..? another potential saving...why have one in cyprus AND bahrain...when you can have one that can move between the two...???....again, all part of that thing about protecting british interests as I have mentioned above

edit - to add further to the suggestion of building an "enhanced astute"....it is not as simple as making the astute a few meters longer and throw in 4 (will have to be) vertical tubes...to alter the current design like that would mean building/designing a completely new submarine..the hydrodynamics of the thing would all have to be worked out...like what end do you put the tubes..? how do you compensate for the weight..? in what way will you replace the weight of a launched missile..on a boat that size, launching a missle and not flooding the tube could well send it on its side...then you have the command and control systems of the missile system...they are pretty in depth and take up lots and lots of space....

believe it or not, it does not cost a great deal more to build a bigger submarine..(apparently) as many of the parts in them are cheaper as they are not rebuilt "smaller" and kept the standardised size...again, building missiles for an "enhanced astute"...who will design these..? how much will that cost..? the trials, the testing..you will need to have built the sibmarine before you test the weapons...? all will come in way way over budget...as right now, the system and facilites are all in place for the way we do it.

I thought that SSBNs were supposed to be the new 'capital ships'? They certainly cost enough. But then I guess there's something distasteful about naming a civilisation killer after the reigning monarch.

all hardware like ships, subs, tanks are designed for one thing....to dominate a situation and KILL people....

The US named its first operational SSBN after George Washington.

Distasteful

Civilisation killer

US President

QED