Save The RN!
- Thread starter Obi Wan Russell
- Start date
The UK is the best ally the US has. For the UK parliment to cut back the RN has much that is proposed is indeed treasonist!...Once the most powerful navy the the world the RN stands on the verge of ruin.
The RN should be rebuilt. Not scrapped. Build the CVF's. Build the type 45's. Replace the Trident. I implore UK citizens to inform their government that they are not satsified with the direction of the RN. And the RN should be maintained and rebuilt.
The RN should be rebuilt. Not scrapped. Build the CVF's. Build the type 45's. Replace the Trident. I implore UK citizens to inform their government that they are not satsified with the direction of the RN. And the RN should be maintained and rebuilt.
I think to maintain a credible nuclear detarrence, you should have subs with long endurance and SLBM capabilities. Nuke tiped SLCMs are limited in range and in take days or weeks to move to proper launch points. With the BMs you have the ability to strike everywhere within minutes or hours. That may seem overpowering now, but everything different would be a downstep for the UK / RN.
Those defence spending cuts really effect the RN negatively. To me it nearly seems it looses the ability to put together an autonomous strike group and go to a distand ocean to fight.
Those defence spending cuts really effect the RN negatively. To me it nearly seems it looses the ability to put together an autonomous strike group and go to a distand ocean to fight.
"Well Gosh you know, you can trust me I'm just a reguar guy, but hey, do you realise that the UK spends nearly as much on the Royal Navy as it does on important things like Legal Aid on the Fees of Human Rights solicitors? yeah like my wife Cherie and our best friends.
It really is deplorable that millions of people in this country and abroad are being deprivied of essential legal services from the UK tax payer because of an outmoded and no longer relevant adherence to old fashioned doctrines which dictate.........."
It really is deplorable that millions of people in this country and abroad are being deprivied of essential legal services from the UK tax payer because of an outmoded and no longer relevant adherence to old fashioned doctrines which dictate.........."
Exactly! As Obi Wan pointed out what would happen if the Argintine mounted an attack on the Falklands again? How long would it take the UK to respond? what sort of force could they muster up in a short order? The Falklands may fall to the Argintine. I hope it never ahppens.
Neutral Zone
Junior Member
If it was up to me, I'd be using a "1982 scenario" as a minimum requirement for the RN and RAF, basically I'd have them so that they had sufficient forces to carry out an operation like the recapture of the Falklands. So I'd order the CTOL variant of the CVF and buy Hawkeyes to give a stronger power projection capability. I'd supplement this by putting TLAM on the Type 45's. To give better protection for the Falklands, particularly while waiting for the CVF's to come online, I'd upgrade the Mount Pleasant detachment to a full squadron of Typhoons.
Like I said on the aircraft carrier thread, I think an SSBN system is more than Britain needs, it almost seems that polticians regard it as a virility symbol and are going to keep it for the image it projects. So I'd move to a cruise missile based system both sub and air launched. As Scratch says, this would mean having to keep units deployed in areas where they can react quickly to any nuclear attack. Britain still has Akrotiri in Cyprus which would allow the RAF to strike at most targets in the Middle East, should the need ever arise. Realistically, Britain is not going to face a nuclear threat from DPRK or China so I don't think it needs to invest in a system that is potentially capable of hitting targets in the Pacific. Iran is a potential threat, Russia possibly but very unlikely. Assuming that you can get a suitable nuclear capable ALCM to fit on the F-35, I'd give the CVF's the sort of nuclear strike tasking that Charles de Gaulle has with the Super Etendards and ASMP. This means you have a nuclear deterrent force composed of carrier, sub and air launched LACM's that also come in conventional forms and are more useful militarily than the single role SSBN system.
To pay for all this I'd cut 200 MP's and implement some draconian welfare reform, but that's another story!
Like I said on the aircraft carrier thread, I think an SSBN system is more than Britain needs, it almost seems that polticians regard it as a virility symbol and are going to keep it for the image it projects. So I'd move to a cruise missile based system both sub and air launched. As Scratch says, this would mean having to keep units deployed in areas where they can react quickly to any nuclear attack. Britain still has Akrotiri in Cyprus which would allow the RAF to strike at most targets in the Middle East, should the need ever arise. Realistically, Britain is not going to face a nuclear threat from DPRK or China so I don't think it needs to invest in a system that is potentially capable of hitting targets in the Pacific. Iran is a potential threat, Russia possibly but very unlikely. Assuming that you can get a suitable nuclear capable ALCM to fit on the F-35, I'd give the CVF's the sort of nuclear strike tasking that Charles de Gaulle has with the Super Etendards and ASMP. This means you have a nuclear deterrent force composed of carrier, sub and air launched LACM's that also come in conventional forms and are more useful militarily than the single role SSBN system.
To pay for all this I'd cut 200 MP's and implement some draconian welfare reform, but that's another story!
Does the RN have constantly forward deployed vessels/groups anywhere?
I mean are there navel bases with ships on the falklands for example.
And I don't think a full scale nuclear power like the UK shouldn't rely only on any kind of CMs for deterrance some SLBMs should be kept, perhaps some with conventional warheads.
I can't really exspect the UK to give up that capaility. Obi Wan do you otherwise think that should/will be done ?
I mean are there navel bases with ships on the falklands for example.
And I don't think a full scale nuclear power like the UK shouldn't rely only on any kind of CMs for deterrance some SLBMs should be kept, perhaps some with conventional warheads.
I can't really exspect the UK to give up that capaility. Obi Wan do you otherwise think that should/will be done ?
My prefered option would be to fit the Astute class SSNs with four Trident tubes each behind the sail, dispersing the deterrent capability across say eight SSN(B) which could also carry SLCMs to befired from their torpedo tubes, rather than building three specialist SSBNs which could not be used for any other duty. Four Tridents with say four MIRVs each means the capacity to destroy sixteen cities or other targets, which for any country other than the USA, Russia or China means almost total annihilation. Assuming of the eight boats three are at sea at any one time that means 48 targets can be attacked at any time, not counting the cruise missiles both air and sea launched. A much better option than a single SSBN which, if numbers are reduced to three cannot be guaranteed to be at sea at all times.
D
Deleted member 675
Guest
This seems a common misconception amongst some American posters I've seen on various forums. Unlike Congress which does sometimes engage in cuts (or budget increases), Parliament generally follows the spending plans of the government. The problem we have is that Tony Blair is making the MoD fight two wars, but Gordon Brown and the treasury is refusing to fund them fully enough. They're also letting defence spending slip as a proportion of GDP.
However, you are completely right that more money is needed for the RN. It simply won't do to have it decline slowly, as that will just hemorage jobs. Unless Labour seriously wants the RN to turn into a glorified coastguard, we need the first 6 Darings completed (if another two aren't ordered soon they will need to be replaced with something else), 2 CVF, 7/8 Astutes and a real project to replace the F-22s & F-23s.
The one saving grace is that at the moment the rumours of cuts are just that - rumours. Also there is no consensus that they will go ahead on the UK armed forces forums I've visited, even amongst those in the service. This may be a case of the Telegraph stirring up a little trouble, as a pro-Tory newspaper. I can only hope.
Popeye, given the UK's backing in recent American operations (and global diplomacy), can we ever expect to rely on the US for direct military help - you mentioned the Falklands, for example. Or do you think future US Presidents would just shrug their shoulders and complain there's "nothing" they can do if our interests were attacked but the US' weren't?
Hey, I never voted for the git. But sadly too many people were taken in by his smarm. And unfortunately John Major was the wrong man at the wrong time in the wrong position.
Zergling: Merged posts for you. C'mon Fu, you've been here for a while.
Last edited by a moderator:
I would hope so. We Americans "owe" the UK a lot. I mean a whole lot...
You brought up a good point about future presidents and what they would do. Future presidents may not be as willing to suppourt the UK in any future military endeavors. Americans politicans change their minds with the wind.