Super Nimrod
New Member
Well there would be a bit of a flap in Portsmouth, thats for sure
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
Well there would be a bit of a flap in Portsmouth, thats for sure
well in their defence many harrier airframes are going through the gr9 upgrade at cottesmore..
anyway in an emergency i suppose they could recall all the carrier qualified pilots from afghanistan a.s.a.p. and scrape together a couple of planes..
like overlander said.. im just worried that in these times of dwindling platform numbers.. 70 harriers are not going to be replaced by a larger number f35b..
and if present circumstances are anything to go by.. we are going to see the future carriers sailing with empty decks a lot.. or with u.s. planes..
if the newspaper comments about the f35b order being ringfenced at 138 planes are true that would be great news indeed..
anyway in an emergency i suppose they could recall all the carrier qualified pilots from afghanistan a.s.a.p. and scrape together a couple of planes..
like overlander said.. im just worried that in these times of dwindling platform numbers.. 70 harriers are not going to be replaced by a larger number f35b..
and if present circumstances are anything to go by.. we are going to see the future carriers sailing with empty decks a lot.. or with u.s. planes..
if the newspaper comments about the f35b order being ringfenced at 138 planes are true that would be great news indeed..
contedicavour
New Member
You mean Italian and Spanish Harriers may be, no French ones around
By 2015 Italy and the UK (and may be Spain) will be operating virtually identical F35Bs. It will be the 1st time since RN and RAF Harriers aren't the same as AV8B+ in Italian and Spanish service. We'll at last have the possibility of having a carrier always ready with F35Bs from 3 countries available...
cheers
I am still dumbstruck and in awe of what Britain is attempting regarding joining France onto the 'big boy' carrier scene.
I believe it historically correct for France and the U.K to have global naval forces, but can either really financially afford to operate these beasts for extended periods, i think not and as others have commented people are already facing possible future realities of limited air wings and mothballing- we're not the U.S. Consider the drain of operating costs of 2 carriers with attached air wings from not just the defence budget but the naives defence budget. On the flip side of that I really don't see much point of world navies duplicating each other by having myriads of frigates and destroyers steaming around capable of little other than humanitarian aid and drug busting. My view is these are picket ships whose role is to support the main element, not just a SAG. Defencive navies are not to be ignored but as far as offensive navies go i believe they are currently all wrong. For example only 1 country out of the whole world being able to financially support a real modern naval is just wrong in today's world, it used to work 150 years ago but those times are history. Pray for the day, sorry - imaginary day, that there is a truly global organisation with teeth that can commandeer a UN navy to address the real human issues such as hunger and disease. Not just money, sex and power.
I believe it historically correct for France and the U.K to have global naval forces, but can either really financially afford to operate these beasts for extended periods, i think not and as others have commented people are already facing possible future realities of limited air wings and mothballing- we're not the U.S. Consider the drain of operating costs of 2 carriers with attached air wings from not just the defence budget but the naives defence budget. On the flip side of that I really don't see much point of world navies duplicating each other by having myriads of frigates and destroyers steaming around capable of little other than humanitarian aid and drug busting. My view is these are picket ships whose role is to support the main element, not just a SAG. Defencive navies are not to be ignored but as far as offensive navies go i believe they are currently all wrong. For example only 1 country out of the whole world being able to financially support a real modern naval is just wrong in today's world, it used to work 150 years ago but those times are history. Pray for the day, sorry - imaginary day, that there is a truly global organisation with teeth that can commandeer a UN navy to address the real human issues such as hunger and disease. Not just money, sex and power.
well the uk was traditionally a carrier country.. and old traditions die hard..
the fact is.. i do not believe it is unaffordable for the uk to have a big deck carrier capability.. after all we are talking about the second biggest economy in europe..
as far as cross decking f35b's between italy the uk and spain goes.. i believe it is a good situation to have devolop.. however.. making your aircraft carrier capabililty dependant on another country is sort of foolhardy in my book..
in other words.. for an emergency.. yes..
but planning your capability around it.. a defenite no..
especially with the unpredictability of european politics..
the fact is.. i do not believe it is unaffordable for the uk to have a big deck carrier capability.. after all we are talking about the second biggest economy in europe..
as far as cross decking f35b's between italy the uk and spain goes.. i believe it is a good situation to have devolop.. however.. making your aircraft carrier capabililty dependant on another country is sort of foolhardy in my book..
in other words.. for an emergency.. yes..
but planning your capability around it.. a defenite no..
especially with the unpredictability of european politics..
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
Of course it's affordable, at least for the UK. We're the second largest economy in Europe as has been pointed out, with reasonable growth and unemployment.
It's all about political will. If the UK government wants to fund two carrier groups it can without a massive amount of trouble.
You're talking about global government, something that is not going to happen in our lifetime. It is not relevant one jot to the Royal Navy's planning for the future.
if i am allowed to play devils advocate here..
the uk government wants the future royal navy to be an expiditionary force based around a cvf group.. and an amphibious group right..?
this has to happen within a limited budget.. hence the downsizing of force structure we are currently seeing.. with rumours of more cuts floating around..
one can probably understand this given the huge cost of a cvf battle group.. one can even follow their logic up until there..
however a cvf battle group in turn is built around an air group.. this is where their logic fails as many on this thread has pointed out over and over..
i am going to venture outside the scope of this thread briefly as i believe a broader look at uk fighter purchases is neccessary to perhaps understand government thinking on f35b..
if typhoon tranche 3 is cancelled more funding would become available for a f35 purchase and perhaps the full 138 can then be bought..
this would leave the uk with a very capable fighter force of 150 odd typhoon.. and 140 odd f35b plus some tornado gr4 in the mix as well.. (very very strong indeed)
with the added bonus of enough f35b to equip a full carrier air group.. the raf is apparently talking about 8 nine plane f35b squadrons.. 70 aircraft.. that would leave enough f35 for one or two naval air squadrons plus an operational conversion unit.. from the remaining 70 odd..
maybe this is their thinking? who knows?
the uk government wants the future royal navy to be an expiditionary force based around a cvf group.. and an amphibious group right..?
this has to happen within a limited budget.. hence the downsizing of force structure we are currently seeing.. with rumours of more cuts floating around..
one can probably understand this given the huge cost of a cvf battle group.. one can even follow their logic up until there..
however a cvf battle group in turn is built around an air group.. this is where their logic fails as many on this thread has pointed out over and over..
i am going to venture outside the scope of this thread briefly as i believe a broader look at uk fighter purchases is neccessary to perhaps understand government thinking on f35b..
if typhoon tranche 3 is cancelled more funding would become available for a f35 purchase and perhaps the full 138 can then be bought..
this would leave the uk with a very capable fighter force of 150 odd typhoon.. and 140 odd f35b plus some tornado gr4 in the mix as well.. (very very strong indeed)
with the added bonus of enough f35b to equip a full carrier air group.. the raf is apparently talking about 8 nine plane f35b squadrons.. 70 aircraft.. that would leave enough f35 for one or two naval air squadrons plus an operational conversion unit.. from the remaining 70 odd..
maybe this is their thinking? who knows?
TimmyC,
we're spending the lowest proportion of our GDP on the armed forces for 85 years, & last time we were in this position, they were living off the stocks built up during WW1. We don't have such stocks now: most of the Cold War stuff has gone. The UK is richer than it has ever been before. Affording the carriers is easy. Maintaining base defence spending (i.e. excluding the costs of any wars politicians decide on) at the level it was at a few years ago, i.e. about 2.5% of GDP, would permit the funding of the carriers, & all the other planned programmes. We're having a crisis now because spending has been cut at the same time as the demands on the forces (i.e. Afghanistan & Iraq) have gone up. The money which was budgeted to pay for equipment has gone on the wars, as the extra money allocated to pay for them has been far less than the actual cost.
To put this in perspective, the increase in NHS spending in the last few years, as a percentage of GDP, is more than the total defence budget. If the waste accompanying that throwing of cash at the NHS faster than the bureaucracy could handle it had been avoided, & instead given to the defence budget (note: I'm only talking about that part of the increase which it has now been acknowledged has been wasted, not the total increase), the armed forces would now be running around like headless chickens looking for ways to spend it all.
we're spending the lowest proportion of our GDP on the armed forces for 85 years, & last time we were in this position, they were living off the stocks built up during WW1. We don't have such stocks now: most of the Cold War stuff has gone. The UK is richer than it has ever been before. Affording the carriers is easy. Maintaining base defence spending (i.e. excluding the costs of any wars politicians decide on) at the level it was at a few years ago, i.e. about 2.5% of GDP, would permit the funding of the carriers, & all the other planned programmes. We're having a crisis now because spending has been cut at the same time as the demands on the forces (i.e. Afghanistan & Iraq) have gone up. The money which was budgeted to pay for equipment has gone on the wars, as the extra money allocated to pay for them has been far less than the actual cost.
To put this in perspective, the increase in NHS spending in the last few years, as a percentage of GDP, is more than the total defence budget. If the waste accompanying that throwing of cash at the NHS faster than the bureaucracy could handle it had been avoided, & instead given to the defence budget (note: I'm only talking about that part of the increase which it has now been acknowledged has been wasted, not the total increase), the armed forces would now be running around like headless chickens looking for ways to spend it all.
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
Spending has not been cut - it has kept increasing in real terms. The problem is that it has not risen fast enough to cope with the pressures put on the budget, so it has dropped as a percentage of GDP.
TRUE TRUE
EXACTLY
So at the next general election i'll be ticking the box - " Military dictaorship " maybe then we'll see a real increase in the defence budget..
Yes, but a decrease in effectiveness. Military dictatorships tend to be very good at giving the military money, but very bad at making them use it sensibly. Expect a massive increase in the number of officers with multiple houses, very large bank accounts in dodgy tax havens, etc., huge increases in the prices paid for every imaginable item of equipment, & a switch in emphasis in training from warfighting to polishing big shiny things & torturing anyone who dares suggest the government might not be the best thing since sliced bread.
True. My mistake. What I should have said was that spending has not been increased enough to cover the costs of the wars. In effect, there has been a cut in the "base level", the money available to maintain the peacetime force level.
Governments will always 'rob from Peter to pay Paul'
The following quote was taken from defense news, and typifies how current operations influence spending. The UK being heavily committed to war-fighting in Afghanistan and counter-insurgency operations in Iraq is diverting funds to hardening the Army, and to a lesser degree the RAF (UAV’s Lighting III pods, more C17’s), all at the expense of the RN. France on the other hand, which has a much lower-profile and some what risk adverse approach in Afghanistan continues to push funding towards ‘higher-profile’ and prestigious projects (PA2, Fremm Horizon, new SSN's) at the expense of the Army.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=3083616&C=landwar
Industry views the Army (French) as having lost spending rounds compared with the Air Force and Navy.
“There has been a triple decoupling,” said Bruno Rambaud, chairman of GICAT, the French trade association for land systems sup¬pliers. Rambaud is also chief ex¬ecutive of Thales Land and Joint Systems division.
First, equipment spending for the Army has been virtually flat and lagged behind that of the Air Force and Navy during the 2003-2005 period, he said.
Second, France spends about 54,000 euros ($76,600) per soldier, little more than half the 97,000 the British spend on their infantry, according to figures from the Eu¬rodefense trade body.
Third, France lags behind allies such as Britain, Germany, the Netherlands and the United States in the new priority of vehicle protection, Rambaud said. Considering that one-third of the losses are due to roadside bombs, that spending gap was serious, he said. Rambaud declined to say what he thought the right amount of Army spending should be, but pointed to spending on the British Army. “Britain is the closest militarily to France,” he said.
Relative to U.S. spending, the French Army’s budget consumes far less of the total defense budget, only 15 percent compared with about one-third in the United States, he said. “It’s a fact the Army has been badly treated,” said François Géré, chairman of the think-tank Institut Français d’Analyse Stratégique. This raises questions about what missions the Army will be capable of fulfilling.
The following quote was taken from defense news, and typifies how current operations influence spending. The UK being heavily committed to war-fighting in Afghanistan and counter-insurgency operations in Iraq is diverting funds to hardening the Army, and to a lesser degree the RAF (UAV’s Lighting III pods, more C17’s), all at the expense of the RN. France on the other hand, which has a much lower-profile and some what risk adverse approach in Afghanistan continues to push funding towards ‘higher-profile’ and prestigious projects (PA2, Fremm Horizon, new SSN's) at the expense of the Army.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=3083616&C=landwar
Industry views the Army (French) as having lost spending rounds compared with the Air Force and Navy.
“There has been a triple decoupling,” said Bruno Rambaud, chairman of GICAT, the French trade association for land systems sup¬pliers. Rambaud is also chief ex¬ecutive of Thales Land and Joint Systems division.
First, equipment spending for the Army has been virtually flat and lagged behind that of the Air Force and Navy during the 2003-2005 period, he said.
Second, France spends about 54,000 euros ($76,600) per soldier, little more than half the 97,000 the British spend on their infantry, according to figures from the Eu¬rodefense trade body.
Third, France lags behind allies such as Britain, Germany, the Netherlands and the United States in the new priority of vehicle protection, Rambaud said. Considering that one-third of the losses are due to roadside bombs, that spending gap was serious, he said. Rambaud declined to say what he thought the right amount of Army spending should be, but pointed to spending on the British Army. “Britain is the closest militarily to France,” he said.
Relative to U.S. spending, the French Army’s budget consumes far less of the total defense budget, only 15 percent compared with about one-third in the United States, he said. “It’s a fact the Army has been badly treated,” said François Géré, chairman of the think-tank Institut Français d’Analyse Stratégique. This raises questions about what missions the Army will be capable of fulfilling.
Interesting statement, considering France uses armored vehicles (left from the Cold War) far more widely than other nations. Sure, there could be improvements - like a higher percentage of VLRAs and GBC180s getting armored cabs (which, yes, have been mounted in part of the fleets) - but overall, an even somewhat higher percentage of French troops in comparison to British or German troops are "armored" (France, when adjusted for troop numbers, deploys about 20-25% more light armored vehicles than Germany, for example).
Oh, and if i get the math right - from that 97,000 euro figure - the Royal Army only has a ~17% share of the overall British budget either?
I don’t think the argument refers to France’s lack of armor, more to do with whether it’s kept up with recent developments and been modified to meet new threats. How many French vehicles are fitted with reactive or bar-armor and designed with ‘v’-shaped hulls for example? The UK has recently upgraded elements of it’s older 432’s with reactive armor, new engines, electronic counter-measures etc. Plus new orders for Mastiff & Vector, and the speeding up of the Warrior improved fire-power program are all being pushed forward. I bet you will see new orders for Vikings come through as they continue to be used extensively in Afghanistan. All tis has to be paid for out of the exisitng budget or through emergency top-up payments form the treasury.
That is an excellent point. Apart from proposals by Nexter and the likes, I have yet to see say a Le Clerc with an enhanced armour package.
Yet is this solely down to funding or the fact that France has yet to see a real need for such enhancements due to doctrine and current deployment issues?
Not sure that any of this has anything to do with the Royal Navy though... Sorry.
Even though that's getting really off-topic:
Whether current threats are "new" is debatable. The VAB and VBL already include basic blast mine protection with protection somewhat similar (the usual 6 kg anti-vehicle blast mines?) to the various Unimog-chassis based vehicles that are now "in" as mine-resistent vehicles - though for the VAB there's also an additional floorplate available as an upgrade for more than that.
France has the AZUR (Action en Zone Urban) program, which currently encompasses VBL, VAB and Leclerc (though the "Leclerc Azur" is usually the only one that's seen "public"). Demonstrators tossed around with that apparently involve mounting IED Jammers, laser warning receivers, remote weapon stations (both especially to VBL and VAB), applique armor and things like that.
Afaik, the French army is currently evaluating the results of tests of the AZUR program (which were in 2006).
Whether current threats are "new" is debatable. The VAB and VBL already include basic blast mine protection with protection somewhat similar (the usual 6 kg anti-vehicle blast mines?) to the various Unimog-chassis based vehicles that are now "in" as mine-resistent vehicles - though for the VAB there's also an additional floorplate available as an upgrade for more than that.
France has the AZUR (Action en Zone Urban) program, which currently encompasses VBL, VAB and Leclerc (though the "Leclerc Azur" is usually the only one that's seen "public"). Demonstrators tossed around with that apparently involve mounting IED Jammers, laser warning receivers, remote weapon stations (both especially to VBL and VAB), applique armor and things like that.
Afaik, the French army is currently evaluating the results of tests of the AZUR program (which were in 2006).
Super Nimrod
New Member
Back to the Navy. In terms of size, the future RN will operate exactly the same number of carriers as the USA in proportion to its GDP, so I see no reason why the UK cannot afford to run a pair of CVF's. There may be differences in relation to LPD's/LPH's etc, but if we keep it to carriers then the differences are not that large and affordability comes down to government policy and its spending priorities rather than cost.
Agreed - what ever happens I still believe we will end up with an excellent capability - 2 x Carriers, 6-8 T45, 6-8 Astute, plus 20 mixed C1, C2 - C3 ASW / Mine Counter-measure hulls. These assets along with the current Amphib fleet will allow the UK to operate alone if required to undertake medium level strategic-raids to protect our overseas assets (Falklands etc.). I'm keeping my fingers-crossed that a replacement Commando Carrier will also see the light of day.
I only hope Labour gets its butt kicked in the next election.
I only hope Labour gets its butt kicked in the next election.