Britain may sell one of its 2 QE class carrier to India

[matthew22081991]

Dry dock no, but I'm sure a QE can berth alongside one of the docks allowing for minor repairs, bunkering and rotation of selected crew members etc.

Yes when I think about it, you're probably right actually.

I think this is just a theory because there hasn't been any open expression by the British govt. to sell their QE class carriers to India nor have I heard India is interested in purchasing British equipment, especially after the rapid warming of ties between India and the US plus India's traditional ally Russia is also on hand.

However I do know that both the major parties have agreed that cutting would be needed as the recession have affected Britain for much longer even when its neighbours (France & Germany) are declared to be out of the economic meltdown

Do you mean both major parties as in India and Britain?

And yeah I pretty much agree, I can't truly imagine them needing or having the capability for it either given their current carrier building schemes.

 

[windscorpion]

"Much longer" in recession, you mean about 3 months if the recovery comes by the new year? I can't see that making that much difference to be honest.

 

[swerve]

Upgrade Gib to allow for the maintenance of an ARG only, thus providing a logisitical support centre close to the Med/Suez Canal. The RN has looked at basing one of the QE's there over extended periods. I'm talking about support upgrade, not an increase in garrison strength.

There is no longer a naval dockyard, & CVF is too big for the largest dock, but alongside ship maintenance is possible, at the Cammell Laird Gibraltar (private, commercial) yard. Ships can certainly be based there, & return to the UK for major maintenance. But close to the Suez Canal? It's twice as far from Gibraltar to the Suez canal as it is from Gibraltar to Plymouth.

Forget Diego, I had a brain fart, I meant the Ascension Islands

Air base only (& no potential for development for shipping), mainly US (though unlike Diego Garcia, we have a share), & maxed out in the Falklands war in 1982. Useful, & used, but only covers western Africa & the South Atlantic, & limited scope.

That is not a long term issue, if the will is there exisitng 'super-bases' can be expanded. There's already talk of consolidating all RM assets on the South Coast, freeing 45 Cdo's Base up. Plus the expansion of UK bases provides a much needed boast to the construction industry. If the RAF start bulling back to larger consolidated airbases (such as Brize), old airfields will become available, ideal as army bases (example SAS move from Stirling Lines to nearby RAF base).

What you are proposing is that we increase spending, to make up for past disposals of bases. Certainly it could be done, at a cost, but you have pointed out one problem yourself: "if the will is there". Another is that you're asking for more spending, in order to move troops from Germany. If it costs more to do it, what is the point? That's what the Treasury will ask. What's your answer?

 

[matthew22081991]

There is no longer a naval dockyard, & CVF is too big for the largest dock, but alongside ship maintenance is possible, at the Cammell Laird Gibraltar (private, commercial) yard. Ships can certainly be based there, & return to the UK for major maintenance. But close to the Suez Canal? It's twice as far from Gibraltar to the Suez canal as it is from Gibraltar to Plymouth.

Air base only (& no potential for development for shipping), mainly US (though unlike Diego Garcia, we have a share), & maxed out in the Falklands war in 1982. Useful, & used, but only covers western Africa & the South Atlantic, & limited scope.

What you are proposing is that we increase spending, to make up for past disposals of bases. Certainly it could be done, at a cost, but you have pointed out one problem yourself: "if the will is there". Another is that you're asking for more spending, in order to move troops from Germany. If it costs more to do it, what is the point? That's what the Treasury will ask. What's your answer?

I particularly agree with these comments. I believe the naval docks at Gibralta are now run by Serco though (my Dad works for Serco). I may be wrong, perhaps it is only some of the work done by Serco. But I am pretty certain I am right.

I agree that basing in Gibralta for maintenance should not be a definate policy, since the escort fleet is in Portsmouth and Plymouth. But the Gibralta idea will certainly be used in some situations.

Ascension Island is incredibly useful, as far as I care let the US build there, it's British territory so if it is ever needed (like in the Falklands War) just use their base, as is our right on our territory, so leave the island as it is/

Removing troops from Germany. Why? What advantage will we get from this? We don't have the space in Britain for them, so why spend money making it with no advantage?

Basically, I pretty much agree with Swerve.

"Much longer" in recession, you mean about 3 months if the recovery comes by the new year? I can't see that making that much difference to be honest.

To be honest it makes a difference to me! I am at university and broke without available jobs!

But anyway, back onto topic, it makes a difference in the sense that the government will use it as an excuse to reduce spending on the armed forces, it's what British governments have enjoyed doing since the 1950s.

 

[riksavage]

I particularly agree with these comments. I believe the naval docks at Gibralta are now run by Serco though (my Dad works for Serco). I may be wrong, perhaps it is only some of the work done by Serco. But I am pretty certain I am right.

I agree that basing in Gibralta for maintenance should not be a definate policy, since the escort fleet is in Portsmouth and Plymouth. But the Gibralta idea will certainly be used in some situations.

Ascension Island is incredibly useful, as far as I care let the US build there, it's British territory so if it is ever needed (like in the Falklands War) just use their base, as is our right on our territory, so leave the island as it is/

Removing troops from Germany. Why? What advantage will we get from this? We don't have the space in Britain for them, so why spend money making it with no advantage?

Basically, I pretty much agree with Swerve.



To be honest it makes a difference to me! I am at university and broke without available jobs!

But anyway, back onto topic, it makes a difference in the sense that the government will use it as an excuse to reduce spending on the armed forces, it's what British governments have enjoyed doing since the 1950s.

My vision of bringing all BAOR garrison forces back to the UK would be dependent upon Britain deciding to focus on expeditionary warfare, leaving the mainland European powers to focus on defending the continent (back to a pre-WWII stance). The old Eastern Block (Poland et al) can stand-in for the UK.

With bases like Brize becoming the centre of excellence for all UK strategic lift (C130, C17, new tanker fleet), it makes sense to me to garrison light infantry units in and around Oxfordshire. 16 Air Assault can remain at Catterick close to their airmobile assets (helo's). Under 'Vision 2020' we are likely to aee a major shake-up in the basing of all the UK's military helicopters, and I suspect like Brize we will see a 'super helo' base develop in the UK. V2020 will almost certainly see the fast tracking of Chinook, bringing the fleet to 70 under RAF command. The RAF's Merlin HC.3/3A transport fleet will be transferred to the Royal Navy to replace SeaKing in support of 3Cdo. This will tidy up the helo force to: Wildcat, Apache, Chinook and Merlin.

The South Coast will become the centre of excellence for all amphibious warfare units based between Plymouth, Portsmouth and Poole. All Commando and Army Commando units (transfer one more army unit to the Navy orbat) will be moved to be in striking distance of maritime embarkation points (45Cdo and 1 x 29Cdo Battery only units impacted). Also they will benefit from the excellent ranges at Lydd & Hyde and be close to training areas on Dartmoor.

All battlegroup live firing will continue to be conducted in Canada (BATUS) and Kenya (pre-Afghan deployment). Jungle training will continue in Belize and Brunei, Arctic training in Norway and desert training in Oman.

Whilst the cost of transferring units back to blightly will be expensive in the short term, the economic value to surrounding communities over the long term can't be underestimated. Entire communities will be dependent upon supporting the garrisons. This also builds an excellent recruiting platform amongst the local community in line with the UK regimental 'county' system.

Britain already has fantastic command, control and intelligence assets in place superior to what most other European countries have outside what is available through joint NATO HQ's. With Northwood and GCHQ providing dovetailed intelligence and C&C facilities capable of coordinating global operations across all scenarios.

Why continue to have UK troops sitting in a landlocked Germany when we we could have them centred around all the UK's purple sea and air transportation assets?