The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

Hambo

New Member
Ship numbers will be going one way down, regardless of the party, the state of the UK finance require defence cuts. No party has made a commitment to protect the defence budget and there is a reason for that. The Army in a hot war they are not likely to face heavy cuts, these will most likely fall disproportionately on the RN/RAF. I know you think I am mad to suggest pre-emptive measures, but you seem to be in complete denial of the current economic situation.
You could call it denial, though Cameron and Fox have both hinted that a SDR could result in an increase, though I doubt it somehow. However the current political spat is like Gold dust pre election and if spun right by the Admirals could re focus minds. Dont forget the Falklands was Maggies war, the darling Grandee to many in the Tory party,the thought of those devious Argentines angling for the islands could well shape the SDR. Add Hagues mention of global raiding as opposed to regime change and there could be a good chance that the Navy comes out less beaten up than it would a while back. The question of whether we could re fight the Falklands has always been cast as an irrelevance by the other services, that could change now. Also the need to regularly patrol in S.Atlantic seas could cause a minor rejig to the type of ships we order over the next few decades, if there is a massive expansion of oil facilities down there.

There are programes that could be cut. Buy off the shelf C17 vs the risk to UK wing manufacturing capacity if we scraped the cost spiralling A400M? A 6 Trident per boat deterrent on 3 boats if viable? a quicker drawdown of forces in Cyprus (at the cost of a loss of a staging post)?

The economy will pick up, both major parties are targetting 2014 as the year to get debt under semi control, the situation in Afghanistan may be very different then, we can just hope the Argentines keep the subject alive and the Navy gets PR act together.
 

1805

New Member
Absolutely, we 've made our position clear and as the UK government says 'we're not going to be commenting on every little thing that Argentina says'
They have a very poor claim anyway, "we owned it for a bit/its near us" on that basis we could reclaim Calais! The post WW2 concensus is a world of self determination no ifs or buts
 

luccloud

New Member
Any action by the UK against China would not be without substantial US assistance. TBH, the most likely scenario is for the status quo to remain i.e. one nation in legal terms, but two nations in reality.
I think you got it backward. UK MIGHT assist US if they decide to attack China. I highly doubt UK will lead/start a war with China. Also, after the Iraq/Afghan invasion, I think any country will think twice before following US into another war.
 

1805

New Member
I think you got it backward. UK MIGHT assist US if they decide to attack China. I highly doubt UK will lead/start a war with China. Also, after the Iraq/Afghan invasion, I think any country will think twice before following US into another war.
I actually think the US will think twice too, which is the real disaster of Iraq. We attacked a country we had under control and now we are powerless to deal with a country that seems to be at the centre of our problems.

On China absolutely right they are to linked into the west now and there is no issues.
 

luccloud

New Member
This is a political exercies, Argentina has moved away from an agressive military approach. She is spending a very low percentage of GDP on defence (Wiki estimate 0.9% in 2009) and has introduced laws to restrict the military's role to just defensive. Very little equipment seems to be replaced and the airforce is down to 41 frontline jets, I am sure the current Typhoon force could deal with it.
Wiki's figure for Argentina 2.1% GDP of 2007.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the RN got no operating carrier now and none of the current Typhoon are capable of STOL. How will RN deploy them to the other side of the world?

Wouldn't now be the best/last chance for Argentina to capture Falkland now before the RN got its carriers?
 

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
Wiki's figure for Argentina 2.1% GDP of 2007.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the RN got no operating carrier now and none of the current Typhoon are capable of STOL. How will RN deploy them to the other side of the world?

Wouldn't now be the best/last chance for Argentina to capture Falkland now before the RN got its carriers?
Ark Royal is Active with RN and RAF Harrier GR.9's. Illustrious is currently in refit, but it only just started, so it probably wouldn't take that long to put her back together.

The Typhoons can travel UK --> Ascension --> MPA without all that much refueling support (1-2 for each leg if in a ferry configuration).

No, Even if Argentina managed to take the islands, they don't have the Air and Naval forces required to hold them against the UK.
 

Hambo

New Member
Typical BBC lineup on tonights Question time, A stop the war coallition member and the editor of the Guardian. More importantly the ex heads of services cant seem to face down Paxman and fight their corner, no wonder defence gets run down, with unanswered bias and lefty theorising.

Did the RAF shoot an enemy aircraft down in the Falklands? The ex head of the RAF didnt sound sure wHen asked when was the last time the RAF shot a plane down in A2A (? I think it was all RN, though RAF pilots may have crewed the SHAR?), The best he could come up with was that saddam buried his airforce when faced with the coalition in GW1.

The RN Chief came across as a blundering fool and when onto a good point about Japan outspending us caved into Paxmans overtalking, Paxman stated that we couldnt "do the falklands anymore", He didnt even challenge it. Dannatt was reasonable form an ex army standpoint acknowledging the need for RN and RAF but said a slight rebalancing was needed.

Public opinion is against afghanistan and thinks its unwinnable and yet we seem to be sacrificing our forces to pay for it. By the look of it, even the forces heads have lost the ability to sell their trade

As a non military person, that didnt instill me with much confidence.
 

Troothsayer

New Member
Wiki's figure for Argentina 2.1% GDP of 2007.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the RN got no operating carrier now and none of the current Typhoon are capable of STOL. How will RN deploy them to the other side of the world?

Wouldn't now be the best/last chance for Argentina to capture Falkland now before the RN got its carriers?
3 Carriers, 1 active & 1 just gone in for refit which could be worked up at short notice. 1 in reserve which would take up to 18 months to refit. The Typhoon is not a naval plane. The UK fly the Harrier until F35 comes along.

I don't agree by the way with those who say we couldn't send another task force. We also have 7 amphibious ships - 1 LPH, 2 LPD and 4 LSD's and can call on 5 ro-ro point class vessels if absolute needs be. There would be no need for the RN to requisition cruise ships.

This is a class above what was sent in 82, and similarly all our escorts are fully equipped - much of what we sent down in 82 was obsolete and poorly armed.

Argentina don't have the military capability currently to take the Falklands anyway.
 

Troothsayer

New Member
Typical BBC lineup on tonights Question time, A stop the war coallition member and the editor of the Guardian.
Simon Jenkins plan to fight any war is to hug the opposition to death. No need for an airforce anymore apparently, thing of the past!! Looked like he enjoyed being a bit of a smug twat as he said it too.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
========================================

If the British were to build their forces in the Falklands, it will cost them a good penny to deploy and keep them armed and ready. It may be more expensive to keep them their then the price of whatever oil is found. Does anyone know how much it cost to have the forces they do now at the Falklands? I read a few years ago that it was like around a Billion US$ a year.
About half that, IIRC. Some of that is recouped from the Falkland Islands government, I think. It's also arguable that much of it would be spent anyway, as it's the full cost, not the difference in cost of keeping them there rather than here. The forces think it's a good training ground, too.
 

MrQuintus

New Member
Wiki's figure for Argentina 2.1% GDP of 2007.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the RN got no operating carrier now and none of the current Typhoon are capable of STOL. How will RN deploy them to the other side of the world?

Wouldn't now be the best/last chance for Argentina to capture Falkland now before the RN got its carriers?
The RN still has Ark royal and Illustrious (Lusty just entering refit, Ark just left) along with HMS Ocean to lug around some Apaches, A few sea harriers are still available to regenerate and the GR9 is pretty much the most advanced ground attack aircraft we have. If it came down to combat Invincible would probably be put back to seaworthy condition as well.
 

luccloud

New Member
Ark Royal is Active with RN and RAF Harrier GR.9's. Illustrious is currently in refit, but it only just started, so it probably wouldn't take that long to put her back together.

The Typhoons can travel UK --> Ascension --> MPA without all that much refueling support (1-2 for each leg if in a ferry configuration).

No, Even if Argentina managed to take the islands, they don't have the Air and Naval forces required to hold them against the UK.
Opps, I feel so stupid of thinking UK don't have an carrier in operation now.
 

riksavage

Banned Member
We keep going round and round in circles here, the Argentines don't have the WILL or CAPABILITIES to take back the Falklands. All this talk about what the UK has now with regard to maritime assets to retake the islands is meaningless. The element of surprise has gone and the UK has dispatched an SSN - game over for Argentina. Having an SSN in theatre negates the need for additional surface assets, plus the 4 x Typhoons can see off any air threats by a simple show of force around the area of the drilling platform.

Chavez (in support of the Argentine cause) can jump up and down on his soap box until the cows come home it will make absolutely no difference, also Argentina's plea to the toothless UN will go nowhere, and they know it. The UK will continue to drill for oil (best case scenario equal to North Sea, worst one quarter of that). If large reserves are found the revenue will pay for a UK garrison and fund additional self-defence units.

The real issue here is strategic, because this whole affair could start a scramble for Antarctic / Arctic oil reserves. Plus Argentina could have made promises behind closed doors to its allies that if they get oil access they will share it with South America under preferential terms in return for back-up on the Falkland's lands right issue.

In summary Argentina is totally broke, they need the oil as much as the UK does, the difference being they don't have boots on the ground subsequently they have thrown their teddy in the corner.
 
Last edited:

1805

New Member
Wiki's figure for Argentina 2.1% GDP of 2007.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the RN got no operating carrier now and none of the current Typhoon are capable of STOL. How will RN deploy them to the other side of the world?

Wouldn't now be the best/last chance for Argentina to capture Falkland now before the RN got its carriers?
If you look at the Wiki comparision on defence spend/GDP gobally there is an estimate of 0.9% for 2009.

There is no need for carriers in defence of the Falklands as we built a airbase and have Typhoon down there. I can't see they would cost much more down there than being in the UK.
 
Last edited:

windscorpion

New Member
In summary Argentina is totally broke, they need the oil as much as the UK does, the difference being they don't have boots on the ground subsequently they have thrown their teddy in the corner.
And in giving into short term sabre rattling to appease the Argentine equivalent of the Daily Mail/Sun crowd they've probably spoiled any chances of medium term benefits from oil exploration. Still its not just in the UK governments only look to the next election.

Some different news, the RN has a new UUV :)

Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Equipment and Logistics | Navy's new mine hunter enters service
 

1805

New Member
We keep going round and round in circles here, the Argentines don't have the WILL or CAPABILITIES to take back the Falklands. All this talk about what the UK has now with regard to maritime assets to retake the islands is meaningless. The element of surprise has gone and the UK has dispatched an SSN - game over for Argentina. Having an SSN in theatre negates the need for additional surface assets, plus the 4 x Typhoons can see off any air threats by a simple show of force around the area of the drilling platform.

Chavez (in support of the Argentine cause) can jump up and down on his soap box until the cows come home it will make absolutely no difference, also Argentina's plea to the toothless UN will go nowhere, and they know it. The UK will continue to drill for oil (best case scenario equal to North Sea, worst one quarter of that). If large reserves are found the revenue will pay for a UK garrison and fund additional self-defence units.

The real issue here is strategic, because this whole affair could start a scramble for Antarctic / Arctic oil reserves. Plus Argentina could have made promises behind closed doors to its allies that if they get oil access they will share it with South America under preferential terms in return for back-up on the Falkland's lands right issue.

In summary Argentina is totally broke, they need the oil as much as the UK does, the difference being they don't have boots on the ground subsequently they have thrown their teddy in the corner.
I do think it would be unwise to send any RN ships or make any annoucement, no other South American country is going to seriously support them with anything other than words, but if we are seen to escalate it could cause a backlash, and we have good friends like Chile that we don't want to force onto the wrong side
 

Hambo

New Member
AdM Stanhope made a speech tonight, the content is being reported on some of the other naval boards, and apparently He mentioned that the FSC will be known as the Type 26.

Things appear to be moving at least and at least a proper name makes it seem more concrete and likely to happen.
 

harryriedl

Active Member
Verified Defense Pro
AdM Stanhope made a speech tonight, the content is being reported on some of the other naval boards, and apparently He mentioned that the FSC will be known as the Type 26.

Things appear to be moving at least and at least a proper name makes it seem more concrete and likely to happen.
Its got a designation at last :D Just thinking dose Type-26 cover both the C1 and C2 vessels with different fits like the Leander or will their be another designation.

I could have sworn they used it that designation before
 

Troothsayer

New Member
I heard the mention of Type 26 too when I was watching the IISS speech online. It was in the question and answer session after his main speech.

It was in response to a question about dwindling escort numbers and Stanhope said something like 'We're advancing the FSC and I can reveal that it will be designated as Type 26'

Very strange that none of the press is reporting this as the room was full of journos
 
Top