NHS cyber attack ..

Fretwired

darthed1981 said:

1. We can't face Russia or China on our own in any case, so its not relevant.  As part of a large task group with other western ships, we could fight the Russians or Chinese.  There is also the middle ground of a country that has defense capabilities but which can be effectively opposed by a proportion of ours in their back yard, like Argentina in 1982.  Whether we need carriers or not is not a function of THESE carriers, but where you consider our position as a military power.  That's a bit out of scope?

2.  Yes, hypersonic missiles are a huge threat to large high-value ships, that is why they are being built.  At the same time we are modernising our missile systems so they can intercept high-velocity ballistic missiles, move and countermove, its just how military tech works.

3.  No you don't need a multi-billion pound frigate, like I said the T31 frigate is only a good idea if you keep them cheap.  If not, then we likely won't get as many of them as we probably need.  Between the T31 and the new patrol ships, hopefully the Navy can fill the gaps created by the CBG being deployed.

4.  Yes, but politically you stop spending that money and you lose the ability to build those things.  The argument to have chosen many years ago when there was still the option to double down and build everything ourselves like the French chose to is at least as strong as the argument to just buy off the shelf.

5.  The Royal Navy doesn't think the US Marines have a different requirement so why do you think they do?  Yes like I said there was actually a strong argument for CATOBAR, but it isnt what we have and like I said, the US Marines seem pretty happy with F-35.

6.  Well, ultimately the RAF and RN will probably want more than they get, but it depends on our level of international commitment.  There is as you said a level of vanity to it based on Trident, our permanent security council seat and the goodwill bought by WW2 and our significant international aid programs.  There is a political desire to "punch above our weight" and the ability to keep a carrier group on constant deployment sure sits with that.

I'm not sure we disagree that much on the details here, if you are saying that spending billions on miitary equipment when the NHS is struggling to keep its head above water doesn't seem right, well no, it doesn't. 

However I do believe that we have to either invest in keeping top tier military capability so we can go in alongside the US as a junior but very capable partner, or we dont but accept that means we lose our seat at the top table.

The UK is expected to patrol and protect the North Sea and beyond as part of our NATO commitment. The US is repositioning to the Pacific and will cover the Atlantic. The UK could easily face a Russian taskforce. The Yanks can't be everywhere. The Russians have been testing our defences - they sent a sub but as we don't have any patrol aircraft or ships in Scotland we couldn't find it. We asked the French for help. The Russians sent a frigate which anchored off Scotland with a stop watch seeing how many days it would take the only function frigate to get to them from Portsmouth.

The RN operates from ships. The US Marine Corps currently does most of its fighting on land in support of the Marines. The RN attacks ships and land targets. It does not support the UK Marines or the army. A key requirement for the RN was range and payload. The government opted for jump jets which limits both - I've read chapter and verse on this as I was commissioned write write about waste at the MoD for a business magazine. The RN didn't want the jump jets.

Take France. Defence spending is actually less yet their defence industry builds fighter aircraft - Rafale and Mirage, tanks, ships and support vehicles. France has more men, more ships, more planes more tanks and more capability. The MoD wastes money buying shit from BAE. The French design an aircraft that can be a fighter, a bomber and fly off an aircraft carrier. We build the Typhoon which was designed for dog fighting which has gone the way of the dinosaur. The French are pragmatic, get value for money and buy French products. Their defence industries employ more people than ours do ... so you'll forgive me (not having a go at you) for not being impressed with our defence strategy, procurement or the way the government bends over and takes one from BAE in the name of skills. It's all rubbish as to maintain defence capability you have to do R&D and develop new products, not just repair existing kit. BAE have a big presence and factories in the US - that's where they're focused.

The Challenger tank needs upgrading but there's no money. The MoD was looking at the cost of leasing some Leopard II tanks from the Germans. No doubt BAE will beg and money will be found. I want to know why the French do well and we are a laughing stock - subs that leak and ships engines that don't work in warm water - well it wasn't in the spec guv.

If you tot up defence waste in the last 20 years it comes to £80 billion. That's projects over budget, too many items bought. Think what that money could have done for health and welfare. It's scandalous.

darthed1981

Fretwired said:

The UK is expected to patrol and protect the North Sea and beyond as part of our NATO commitment. The US is repositioning to the Pacific and will cover the Atlantic. The UK could easily face a Russian taskforce. The Yanks can't be everywhere. The Russians have been testing our defences - they sent a sub but as we don't have any patrol aircraft or ships in Scotland we couldn't find it. We asked the French for help. The Russians sent a frigate which anchored off Scotland with a stop watch seeing how many days it would take the only function frigate to get to them from Portsmouth.

The RN operates from ships. The US Marine Corps currently does most of its fighting on land in support of the Marines. The RN attacks ships and land targets. It does not support the UK Marines or the army. A key requirement for the RN was range and payload. The government opted for jump jets which limits both - I've read chapter and verse on this as I was commissioned write write about waste at the MoD for a business magazine. The RN didn't want the jump jets.

Take France. Defence spending is actually less yet their defence industry builds fighter aircraft - Rafale and Mirage, tanks, ships and support vehicles. France has more men, more ships, more planes more tanks and more capability. The MoD wastes money buying shit from BAE. The French design an aircraft that can be a fighter, a bomber and fly off an aircraft carrier. We build the Typhoon which was designed for dog fighting which has gone the way of the dinosaur. The French are pragmatic, get value for money and buy French products. Their defence industries employ more people than ours do ... so you'll forgive me (not having a go at you) for not being impressed with our defence strategy, procurement or the way the government bends over and takes one from BAE in the name of skills. It's all rubbish as to maintain defence capability you have to do R&D and develop new products, not just repair existing kit. BAE have a big presence and factories in the US - that's where they're focused.

The Challenger tank needs upgrading but there's no money. The MoD was looking at the cost of leasing some Leopard II tanks from the Germans. No doubt BAE will beg and money will be found. I want to know why the French do well and we are a laughing stock - subs that leak and ships engines that don't work in warm water - well it wasn't in the spec guv.

If you tot up defence waste in the last 20 years it comes to £80 billion. That's projects over budget, too many items bought. Think what that money could have done for health and welfare. It's scandalous.

We patrol the North Sea as part of NATO, a Russian task force would take days to sail into the North Sea, after months of escalation, there would be US, Norwegian, French, Dutch, lots and lots of NATO assets ready to fight WW3.  I agree with you, the RN needs more ships in addition to the carriers, but we would not and could not fight a sustained conflict with Russia or China without support from other NATO forces, and we never have been able to post-WW2.  Heck, if we want to rebuild our military to face down Russia alone we could, we are certainly rich enough, but not really necessary?

The RN doesn't support the marines or army?  Come off it!  The RN's biggest battle in the last 50 years was in San Carlos Water, protecting the amphibious landing from the Argentine Air Force, with both CAP and ground attack provided by STOVL jets flying from carriers!  A carrier in the Libya campaign would again have been an incredible close support asset, rather than flying Tornadoes from Italy.

I'm not arguing there isn't massive waste at the MOD, there clearly is.  I'm also not arguing that the RN wouldn't have wanted CATOBAR and the ability to buy fifty F-18s off the shelf for a fraction of what the F-35 cost if given carte blanche.  I'm saying the carriers, cost notwithstanding, are not white elephants but will provide a powerful and useful military capability, the little Invincible class ships were priceless for over 30 years and had a tiny fraction of the potential of QE.

I also agree about France, we could have gone down that route and the key decision was the cancellation of TSR2 and the supersonic STOVL aircraft back in the 60s.  Ironically, the excuse given was spiralling costs!  Had we proceeded and soaked those up, maybe we would have had our own Mirage series, which is what kept Dassault in the game. 

If the point you are making is that the MOD wastes money, BAE provides insufficient value, and the French built the Rafale and it rocks, cool, I agree with you!  I do however think that the QE class joins a fine fleet as a useful asset, and that now we have chosen to build a big invincible class instead of a baby Nimitz, that we should proceed with it to get some capability, and get back into the carrier strike game ASAP.

Fretwired

darthed1981 said:

The RN doesn't support the marines or army?  Come off it!  The RN's biggest battle in the last 50 years was in San Carlos Water, protecting the amphibious landing from the Argentine Air Force, with both CAP and ground attack provided by STOVL jets flying from carriers!  A carrier in the Libya campaign would again have been an incredible close support asset, rather than flying Tornadoes from Italy.

That was a one-off amphibious landing. I can't see it happening again unless the Argies attack again. The US Marines have their own air force which was operating deep into Afghanistan from land bases. The RN doesn't do that. The US Marines are an elite US fighting force and their air capability has to be close to them which is why they favour jump jets. They currently use British built Harriers.

We should have joined forces with the Yanks and built Harrier 2 - they were willing to put up most of the cash but the government of the day said no. A bigger supersonic Harrier would have sold well around the world. 

darthed1981

Fretwired said:

darthed1981 said:

The RN doesn't support the marines or army?  Come off it!  The RN's biggest battle in the last 50 years was in San Carlos Water, protecting the amphibious landing from the Argentine Air Force, with both CAP and ground attack provided by STOVL jets flying from carriers!  A carrier in the Libya campaign would again have been an incredible close support asset, rather than flying Tornadoes from Italy.

That was a one-off amphibious landing. I can't see it happening again unless the Argies attack again. The US Marines have their own air force which was operating deep into Afghanistan from land bases. The RN doesn't do that. The US Marines are an elite US fighting force and their air capability has to be close to them which is why they favour jump jets. They currently use British built Harriers.

We should have joined forces with the Yanks and built Harrier 2 - they were willing to put up most of the cash but the government of the day said no. A bigger supersonic Harrier would have sold well around the world. 

Well to be fair that's what they said the first time the argies attacked wasn't it?  I'm only arguing that the QE class ships will be a massive asset to the Navy, and fewer abilities on the B vs C notwithstanding we will be the only nation outside the US with stealth aircraft on carriers for a good few years.  They will also prove superb platforms for humanitarian work and flying the flag.

I totally 100% agree about a supersonic third generation harrier, we very nearly built one in the 60s! It was cancelled at the same time as TSR2 and the Lightning was only saved because it was too far along to cancel!

 The RN is a service to be proud of despite the government and BAE, and if they managed to write a legend with the Jervis Bay, they can do great work with the F35 and QE:)