Aircraft Carriers

Well, if the British won't allow the Diegans maybe they could sell the Falklands to Argentina & compensate both island populations for their troubles! Their histories is a textbook example of a !

Wilson instructed his foreign secretary, the vulgar, drunken and erratic George Brown, to negotiate a fifty year lease of the island to America, so Brown signed a document that arranged a handover for the price of 5 million pounds. The money was not in cash. It was the amount that improvident, almost bankrupt Britain owed America for Polaris nuclear missiles, and the clever thing was to hand over Diego Garcia in return for cancellation of the debt. ..The inhabitants still cannot return, even though a British High Court judgment of November 2000 ordered that they should. Lord Justice Laws ruled that eviction of the islanders was an "abject legal failure" and said "I cannot see how the wholesale movement of a people from the land where they belong can be said to be conducive to the territory's peace, order and good government of the territory." Plain and simple, one would think. The people should go back and be compensated for thirty years of poverty-stricken and bloody awful exile.

Click to expand...

The UK has "ruled the waves" for a long time, and IMHO the time has come for Great Britain to limit her Navy for homeland/SLOCs defense.

BLUEJACKET said:

Well, if the British won't allow the Diegans

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

maybe they could sell the Falklands to Argentina & compensate both island populations for their troubles! Their histories is a textbook example of a

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

!


The UK has "ruled the waves" for a long time, and IMHO the time has come for Great Britain to limit her Navy for homeland/SLOCs defense.

Click to expand...

I would never consider excusing anything the Wilson Government did, as apart from keeping Britain out of Vietnam just about everything his administration did was a disaster. As well as the 'drunken and erratic George Brown' who started the ball rolling by opening negotiations with Argentina over the Falklands in the 60s Wilsons Government also included one Denis Healy, one of the most disasterous politicians of the 20th century. As Defence minister in the 60s he destroyed the British Aircraft industry and the RN's carrier force, then ten years later as Chancellor of the Exchequer he brought the economy to it's knees. Al the while he managed to portray himself to the public as a loveable uncle figure by appearing on comedy shows ridiculing himself in a jovial manner.

SLOC defence requires a strong navy with carriers, as Britain trades with the whole world and trouble can flare up anywhere. Recent history has shown that the only nation the US can rely on in a crisis is the UK, or do you want to trust your security to the French (remember they were the guys who sold you out to the Serbs in the Bosnian conflict?), the Japanese (whose constitution forbids any military action other than self defence), the Aussies (good guys but their armed forces are too small to make a difference)...
I could go on, but I don't want anyone to think I have anything against other countries. Their help as part of a combined effort is always welcome, but when it hits the fan who ya gonna call?:nono:

Obi-Wan your expose (accent on the last e, expo-z-a ) has made me realize that the Royal Navy is in worse shape than I thought it was. Britain has always had a strong Navy. It cannot let that tradition die. However it seems that help is on the way with the shiny new CVs and JSFs, although the Trident SSBNs are a sheer boondoogle.

Having had a few minures to think about it in the Shower (some people sing, I ponder future war scenarios. C'est la vie. Pardon my French!), a future invasion of the Falklands would probably start with Argentine special forces being landed by Sub (several trips to build up a sizeable force) who then prepare to attack RAF Mount Pleasant. The Tornados would then be lured away to a decoy incursion by AAF aircraft to keep them occupied whilst the airbase is attacked and taken. The Argentines then have a base to fly in more troops from the mainland and quickly overwhelm the garrison (by weight of numbers, as in 82). More troops are shipped in (has anyone noticed how the impoverished Argentine Navy is still finding funds to invest in amphibious shipping, including converting one of their type 42 DDGs to a fast amphibious transport. The other one may be converted too if funds permit) and within 24 to 48 hours the islands are in Argentine habds once more. We would struggle to send a Task force now as we have nowhere near as many ships (although the amphibious force is about the right size, we have insufficient escorts) and since the withdrawal of the Sea Harrier we have barely adequate fleet defence, the GR9 harrier has no radar and only sidewinders for self defence, no BVR capability. When the SHAR was withdrawn the MOD said air defence would be assumed by the type 42 DDGs, but now these are being paid off with no replacement for most of them.

Click to expand...

Like I said, the RNs situation will improve in several years to decades so if the Argentines are going to pull anything they will have to do it soon. Good invasion plan BTW .

Obi wan, you mentioned some time ago that the RN was considering purchasing two< I think, retired Tarawa class LHA's . But refused them because the ships would need a full SLEP. Do you have any idea how much such such a SLEP would have cost? And what sort of CVW would they have had? I imangine the CVW would have been flexiable..

As I recall, the story came from a politician (Nicholas Soames, Tory MP and former defence minister) who had gotten wind of an RN fact finding mission to a Tarawa class LHA and spun a story from there. The RN denied they were considering actually buying the ships but were researching info for the LPH(R) program to follow HMS Ocean with an enlarged vessel configured with an aft dock, ie something resembling a smaller version of the the USS Makin Island. The Tarawas, whilst being fine ships, would not suit RN requirements simply because they are steam powered and the last RN steam powered warship (the LPD HMS Fearless) was retired in 2002. Steam power is seen as manpower intensive (government speak for expensive to run) and the Tarawas are similar vintage to the Invicibles they would theoretically be replacing. The cost of the SLEP would rival the price of a new hull since ship steel is relatively cheap and a SLEP basically involves gutting an existing (high mileage) hull and filling it with all the expensive systems you would have to fit to a new ship anyway. As for an Air Wing, F-35Bs, Merlin ASW helos and a STOVL/VTOL MASC platform, with an alternative load of amphibious support choppers (Chinooks/ Merlins/ Sea Kings/ Apaches) when in LHA mode. All in all a not very attractive alternative to the CVF project which offers much greater flexibilty. A SLEP for an older ship buys you time if you need to delay new construction, but should not be seen as a realistic alternative to building new ships in the long term, and the CVFs are intended to last fifty years. A 'SLEPped' Tarawa would last perhaps twenty and not give the option of switching to a CTOL air group, so I think it represents a poor return for the British Taxpayer (myself included) compared to the CVF.

Steam power is seen as manpower intensive (government speak for expensive to run) and the Tarawas are similar vintage to the Invicibles they would theoretically be replacing.

Click to expand...

The USN agrees with this..



""MAKIN ISLAND will be the last LHD built in the WASP Class but will be the only one powered by LM 2500+ Gas Turbine Engines and Electric Drive. Additionally, MAKIN ISLAND is the only LHD to feature an all electric design -- no steam is used onboard MAKIN ISLAND.""

The extreme cost and lack of trained personell is one of the reasons the USN retired SLEPed Cv early. They only SLEPed CV comming close to living out is full 20 years of life is the Kitty Hawk. And it will fall short by about two years.

A 'SLEPped' Tarawa would last perhaps twenty and not give the option of switching to a CTOL air group, so I think it represents a poor return for the British Taxpayer (myself included) compared to the CVF.

Click to expand...

Nothing to argue against here. I just hope the UK government properly funds the RN. Espically the CVF.

The state the RN, and the rest of Britain's armed forces, have been allowed to lapse into is a disgrace. My reading of it is that Blair obviously wants Britain to have a big role in the War on Terror, but Gordon Brown won't spend the money and Blair is too weak to force the issue. If the American military was allowed to fall into anything like the state that Britain's is then there would be an uproar. I'm not convinced about the need to replace Trident with a new SSBN system. I'm afraid that it will eat up so much money that the price of it will be the cancellation of one of the CVF's. I'm in favour of a replacement nuclear deterrent but I think that it would be better to go for a LACM system. Britain already has Storm Shadow and Tomahawk, could a nuclear warhead be developed for eitjher of these missiles? Surely the cost of keeping some Typhoons or Tornados on QRA or a TLAM-N equipped Astute class on station must be less than that for an SSBN and the system would have other non-nuclear uses?

Neutral Zone said:

The state the RN, and the rest of Britain's armed forces, have been allowed to lapse into is a disgrace. My reading of it is that Blair obviously wants Britain to have a big role in the War on Terror, but Gordon Brown won't spend the money and Blair is too weak to force the issue. If the American military was allowed to fall into anything like the state that Britain's is then there would be an uproar. I'm not convinced about the need to replace Trident with a new SSBN system. I'm afraid that it will eat up so much money that the price of it will be the cancellation of one of the CVF's. I'm in favour of a replacement nuclear deterrent but I think that it would be better to go for a LACM system. Britain already has Storm Shadow and Tomahawk, could a nuclear warhead be developed for eitjher of these missiles? Surely the cost of keeping some Typhoons or Tornados on QRA or a TLAM-N equipped Astute class on station must be less than that for an SSBN and the system would have other non-nuclear uses?

Click to expand...

The options you outline make much more sense than directly replacing Trident with a similar system. Three boats will mean it will no longer be possible to guarantee one on station so deterence will not be possible 100% of the time. Better to distribute the warheads amongst the Astute class SSNs (thus justifying extra units of the class which will be cheaper than SSBNs) either by fitting four Trident tubes to each Astute or equipping them to launch Nuclear tipped cruise missiles. Additionally nuclear tipped ALCMs would also spread the load (and cost) and provide much more flexible responses to developing crisies. Trident SSBNs were the right choice during the cold war when the Soviet Union was the Threat, but the world has changed a lot since then and flexibility is the key now.

If the Rumoured defence cuts go ahead then they will not be the last and the RN will have ceased to exist as a fighting force before the replacements for Trident enter service. By then they will certainly be the only subs left in RN service...

For those of you interested there is a petition against the cuts at the following site:



Time to stand up and be counted!:nono: :nana:

ff..Hear , hear!! I love to watch the UK Parliment on Tv..I love the way thay banter back and forth. Very intresting and more entertaining than the very drool US Congress.

ff Gentlemen, As a moderator I suggest that you fellows start a new thread about this subject so we can continue our CV discussion. Thank you!

New thread duly opened, meanwhile back in the kingdom of the flat tops...

Here's an off the wall suggestion, how about bringing in the USN as a partner in the CVF project? Before anyone has a coronary, there is a degree of method in my madness. Increasing the project to a three nation deal would guarantee extra finance, lower risk and for the USN, they would be able to buy two CVFs for the price of ONE CVN (and the two crews for the CVFs would still not add up to the crew of one CVN, saving on running costs). I'm not suggesting for a moment that the USN should give up CVN construction, but should consider CVFs as additional ships supplementing the CVN force. This would allow more US shipyards to compete for CV orders (cutting costs hopefully), allow a dedicated training CV to be commissioned releasing a CVN back to the front line fleet and solve the problem of the forward deployed CV in Japan. They would effectively be replacement Midway class vessels available to deploy in other roles if needed (ie larger LPH, hospital ship) while the CVNs remain in the Strike role.

Thoughts anyone?