They are delusional, I mean look at this quote:
Lmao. No, that indicates that it needs better project management for its ship programs to avoid having almost all their destroyers unavailable“That really indicates - bottom line - we need a bigger navy.”
I don't know about that particular incident but Type 45's IEPS has been nothing but trouble.
View attachment 74767
Per this image, I keep hearing that HMS Defender is now also in trouble but haven't find any official source saying this. Anyone heard anything?
I don't think you could be further from the truth. It was a huge mistake for Tony Blair to cut the number of Type 45s from 12 to 8 and then 6. The cost savings from 12 to 8 could be understood, but they ended up spending as much or almost as much on 6 as 8 would have probably cost. However, because Blair wouldn't advance the MoD the money in a timely fashion the ordering process had to be strung out and the number of hulls had to be cut a second time.Many conservatives in Britain still think they are some sort empire and sitting on same table as America, China, Russia and possibly India. When India goes past UK economically we'll see propaganda onslaught against the ex-crown jewel.
Little offtopic but it explains all the statements coming from UK military.
Whoever is being quoted is both right and wrong. The current limit of active Type 45s is down to problems with the design and random events happening at the same time, e.g. ships being in refit. It's improbable the same propulsion issues will hit the Type 83s because we know what went wrong with the design.They are delusional, I mean look at this quote:
Lmao. No, that indicates that it needs better project management for its ship programs to avoid having almost all their destroyers unavailable
I think his point is that the UK's reduction in budget hasn't led to a similar reduction in their geopolitical hubris.I don't think you could be further from the truth. It was a huge mistake for Tony Blair to cut the number of Type 45s from 12 to 8 and then 6. The cost savings from 12 to 8 could be understood, but they ended up spending as much or almost as much on 6 as 8 would have probably cost. However, because Blair wouldn't advance the MoD the money in a timely fashion the ordering process had to be strung out and the number of hulls had to be cut a second time.
I can promise you virtually all of the discussion in UK politics of India's economy catching up is on the opportunities that presents in terms of increased trade. India is seen fairly well in the UK, so there's not really any reason to feel bad (they also still have huge poverty issues that we don't). There is certainly no pride in the defence sector for the UK having a larger economy, not least because from about 1990 even when we had a much bigger economy successive governments in real terms cut or froze the defence budget.
Whoever is being quoted is both right and wrong. The current limit of active Type 45s is down to problems with the design and random events happening at the same time, e.g. ships being in refit. It's improbable the same propulsion issues will hit the Type 83s because we know what went wrong with the design.
However, it would make perfect sense to order at least 8 Type 83s. Much like with the Type 45s as I noted above, if we order more ships it will lower average hull costs. Having only 6 AAW destroyers can make it difficult to sustain more than one significant deployment at a time, or can threaten a deployment if the only ships you have run into trouble. But 8 gives you a cushion, so you can do things like put ships in for refit/repair without worrying about the impact on fleet operations.
I think his point is that the UK's reduction in budget hasn't led to a similar reduction in their geopolitical hubris.
That wasn't what he said. He was suggesting that calling for more destroyers was somehow delusional or in your words hubris and that there would be anger or upset when India's economy has grown in nominal terms larger than ours.I think his point is that the UK's reduction in budget hasn't led to a similar reduction in their geopolitical hubris.
Have as many type 83 as you wish. So long as the RN stay out of Chinese or Russian waters no one would care. Do you see any Chinese military vessels going up and down in the Irish sea?That wasn't what he said. He was suggesting that calling for more destroyers was somehow delusional or in your words hubris and that there would be anger or upset when India's economy has grown in nominal terms larger than ours.
As I pointed out, there probably would be a budget for 8 Type 83s if the money was provided in a timely fashion rather than stretched out over an artificially long period. Furthermore, India's growth has been well received in the UK because it's seen as a partner and not a competitor. That it used to be part of the British Empire doesn't change that, especially as Indian nationals provided a lot of support for the UK war effort during World War 2.
The idea that countries like the UK and by extension France can only afford 6 major AAW ships, and that wanting more is somehow demonstrating a colonial mindset, makes no sense at all.