Save The RN!

[Obi Wan Russell]

As suggested by Bd Popeye, I'm opening a thread here to debate the future of the RN in the face of the next round of defence cuts. Please post your thoughts here, and or sign the petition at this site:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/savethenavy/

[bd popeye]

The UK is the best ally the US has. For the UK parliment to cut back the RN has much that is proposed is indeed treasonist!...Once the most powerful navy the the world the RN stands on the verge of ruin.

The RN should be rebuilt. Not scrapped. Build the CVF's. Build the type 45's. Replace the Trident. I implore UK citizens to inform their government that they are not satsified with the direction of the RN. And the RN should be maintained and rebuilt.

[Scratch]

I think to maintain a credible nuclear detarrence, you should have subs with long endurance and SLBM capabilities. Nuke tiped SLCMs are limited in range and in take days or weeks to move to proper launch points. With the BMs you have the ability to strike everywhere within minutes or hours. That may seem overpowering now, but everything different would be a downstep for the UK / RN.

Those defence spending cuts really effect the RN negatively. To me it nearly seems it looses the ability to put together an autonomous strike group and go to a distand ocean to fight.

[SampanViking]

"Well Gosh you know, you can trust me I'm just a reguar guy, but hey, do you realise that the UK spends nearly as much on the Royal Navy as it does on important things like Legal Aid on the Fees of Human Rights solicitors? yeah like my wife Cherie and our best friends.

It really is deplorable that millions of people in this country and abroad are being deprivied of essential legal services from the UK tax payer because of an outmoded and no longer relevant adherence to old fashioned doctrines which dictate.........."

[bd popeye]

I think to maintain a credible nuclear detarrence, you should have subs with long endurance and SLBM capabilities. Nuke tiped SLCMs are limited in range and in take days or weeks to move to proper launch points. With the BMs you have the ability to strike everywhere within minutes or hours. That may seem overpowering now, but everything different would be a downstep for the UK / RN.

Those defence spending cuts really effect the RN negatively. To me it nearly seems it looses the ability to put together an autonomous strike group and go to a distand ocean to fight.

Exactly! As Obi Wan pointed out what would happen if the Argintine mounted an attack on the Falklands again? How long would it take the UK to respond? what sort of force could they muster up in a short order? The Falklands may fall to the Argintine. I hope it never ahppens.

[Neutral Zone]

If it was up to me, I'd be using a "1982 scenario" as a minimum requirement for the RN and RAF, basically I'd have them so that they had sufficient forces to carry out an operation like the recapture of the Falklands. So I'd order the CTOL variant of the CVF and buy Hawkeyes to give a stronger power projection capability. I'd supplement this by putting TLAM on the Type 45's. To give better protection for the Falklands, particularly while waiting for the CVF's to come online, I'd upgrade the Mount Pleasant detachment to a full squadron of Typhoons.

Like I said on the aircraft carrier thread, I think an SSBN system is more than Britain needs, it almost seems that polticians regard it as a virility symbol and are going to keep it for the image it projects. So I'd move to a cruise missile based system both sub and air launched. As Scratch says, this would mean having to keep units deployed in areas where they can react quickly to any nuclear attack. Britain still has Akrotiri in Cyprus which would allow the RAF to strike at most targets in the Middle East, should the need ever arise. Realistically, Britain is not going to face a nuclear threat from DPRK or China so I don't think it needs to invest in a system that is potentially capable of hitting targets in the Pacific. Iran is a potential threat, Russia possibly but very unlikely. Assuming that you can get a suitable nuclear capable ALCM to fit on the F-35, I'd give the CVF's the sort of nuclear strike tasking that Charles de Gaulle has with the Super Etendards and ASMP. This means you have a nuclear deterrent force composed of carrier, sub and air launched LACM's that also come in conventional forms and are more useful militarily than the single role SSBN system.

To pay for all this I'd cut 200 MP's and implement some draconian welfare reform, but that's another story! :D

[Scratch]

Does the RN have constantly forward deployed vessels/groups anywhere?
I mean are there navel bases with ships on the falklands for example.

And I don't think a full scale nuclear power like the UK shouldn't rely only on any kind of CMs for deterrance some SLBMs should be kept, perhaps some with conventional warheads.
I can't really exspect the UK to give up that capaility. Obi Wan do you otherwise think that should/will be done ?

[Obi Wan Russell]

My prefered option would be to fit the Astute class SSNs with four Trident tubes each behind the sail, dispersing the deterrent capability across say eight SSN(B) which could also carry SLCMs to befired from their torpedo tubes, rather than building three specialist SSBNs which could not be used for any other duty. Four Tridents with say four MIRVs each means the capacity to destroy sixteen cities or other targets, which for any country other than the USA, Russia or China means almost total annihilation. Assuming of the eight boats three are at sea at any one time that means 48 targets can be attacked at any time, not counting the cruise missiles both air and sea launched. A much better option than a single SSBN which, if numbers are reduced to three cannot be guaranteed to be at sea at all times.

[FuManChu]

The UK is the best ally the US has. For the UK parliment to cut back the RN has much that is proposed is indeed treasonist!...Once the most powerful navy the the world the RN stands on the verge of ruin.

This seems a common misconception amongst some American posters I've seen on various forums. Unlike Congress which does sometimes engage in cuts (or budget increases), Parliament generally follows the spending plans of the government. The problem we have is that Tony Blair is making the MoD fight two wars, but Gordon Brown and the treasury is refusing to fund them fully enough. They're also letting defence spending slip as a proportion of GDP.

However, you are completely right that more money is needed for the RN. It simply won't do to have it decline slowly, as that will just hemorage jobs. Unless Labour seriously wants the RN to turn into a glorified coastguard, we need the first 6 Darings completed (if another two aren't ordered soon they will need to be replaced with something else), 2 CVF, 7/8 Astutes and a real project to replace the F-22s & F-23s.

The one saving grace is that at the moment the rumours of cuts are just that - rumours. Also there is no consensus that they will go ahead on the UK armed forces forums I've visited, even amongst those in the service. This may be a case of the Telegraph stirring up a little trouble, as a pro-Tory newspaper. I can only hope.

Exactly! As Obi Wan pointed out what would happen if the Argintine mounted an attack on the Falklands again? How long would it take the UK to respond? what sort of force could they muster up in a short order? The Falklands may fall to the Argintine. I hope it never ahppens.

Popeye, given the UK's backing in recent American operations (and global diplomacy), can we ever expect to rely on the US for direct military help - you mentioned the Falklands, for example. Or do you think future US Presidents would just shrug their shoulders and complain there's "nothing" they can do if our interests were attacked but the US' weren't?

"Well Gosh you know, you can trust me I'm just a reguar guy, but hey, do you realise that the UK spends nearly as much on the Royal Navy as it does on important things like Legal Aid on the Fees of Human Rights solicitors? yeah like my wife Cherie and our best friends.

It really is deplorable that millions of people in this country and abroad are being deprivied of essential legal services from the UK tax payer because of an outmoded and no longer relevant adherence to old fashioned doctrines which dictate.........."

Hey, I never voted for the git. But sadly too many people were taken in by his smarm. And unfortunately John Major was the wrong man at the wrong time in the wrong position.

Zergling: Merged posts for you. C'mon Fu, you've been here for a while.

[bd popeye]

Popeye, given the UK's backing in recent American operations (and global diplomacy), can we ever expect to rely on the US for direct military help - you mentioned the Falklands, for example. Or do you think future US Presidents would just shrug their shoulders and complain there's "nothing" they can do if our interests were attacked but the US' weren't?

I would hope so. We Americans "owe" the UK a lot. I mean a whole lot...

You brought up a good point about future presidents and what they would do. Future presidents may not be as willing to suppourt the UK in any future military endeavors. Americans politicans change their minds with the wind.

[FuManChu]

I would hope so. We Americans "owe" the UK a lot. I mean a whole lot...

Shame you're not the Pres then. :)

You brought up a good point about future presidents and what they would do. Future presidents may not be as willing to suppourt the UK in any future military endeavors. Americans politicans change their minds with the wind.

In which case the US may find itself unable to rely on us again. Personally I would feel that if there was another Falklands situation and the US tried to have its cake and eat it (back us only verbally), we shouldn't back you up next time you need it if we didn't have to. I'm sure a lot of other people feel that way too. Sounds nasty, but I think too many Americans take us for granted. I mean, Jesus, we had to fight over the F-35.

Of course it might be that we wouldn't ask for help, but with the way things could go it may be the case we really would need direct aid.

[Neutral Zone]

The problem we have is that Tony Blair is making the MoD fight two wars, but Gordon Brown and the treasury is refusing to fund them fully enough. They're also letting defence spending slip as a proportion of GDP.

Doesn't give much hope about what will happen to the RN after Brown takes over in the summer does it? :(

[FuManChu]

Doesn't give much hope about what will happen to the RN after Brown takes over in the summer does it?

It's difficult to say. Gordon as PM may well be different from Gordon as Chancellor. You can't benefit from the military when you're in the latter position, but you can't do any "international statesman" stuff without it when you're in the former position.

[Obi Wan Russell]

I think Mr Brown needs to be reminded that defence cuts will mostly mean SCOTTISH job losses as the Scottish Labour government we have had for the last ten years has moved most of the defence industry north of the border...

[Jeff Head]

I'm sure a lot of other people feel that way too. Sounds nasty, but I think too many Americans take us for granted. I mean, Jesus, we had to fight over the F-35.

Of course it might be that we wouldn't ask for help, but with the way things could go it may be the case we really would need direct aid.The US supported the UK in the first Falklands conflict...I see no reason to believe we wouldn't do so in a future one at least to the logistical and recon/surveillance extent we did then.

My guess is, that had things gone badly, back then we (the US) would have become even more involved.

Of course that was under Reagan and Thatcher and there is a whole different breed of politicians now. Given the likely political landscape of the next few years...heck, I am not sure even the UK will fight for the Falklands.

I hope I am wrong on that count for the sake of the UK citizens down there, and for the sake, prestige, reputation and image of the UK and particularly the RN.

For my two cents, I believe as Popeye does. We need to stand together and the US and UK owe one another a lot over the last 80-100 years. Our interests coincide on so many issues, both strategiaclly and ideologically. We are foolish to strain at knats and argue over small things in todays geo-political landscape...but that drifts too far toward politics.

So, I will just leave it, as I say, for the sake of the UK citizens down there and for the sake of the future of the RN, I hope both the UK and the US remain firm on the Falklands and other similar issues.

[FuManChu]

I think Mr Brown needs to be reminded that defence cuts will mostly mean SCOTTISH job losses as the Scottish Labour government we have had for the last ten years has moved most of the defence industry north of the border...

I think he knows, which is why we may see a carrier announcement delayed until before the Scottish elections. Hopefully he'll be more generous towards the MoD considering the latest press - especially the bit about Labour "hating" the military because it's "Tory" and they leak reports. If he's mean to them in the next budget/spending review, people will say it's because he's being vindictive. I doubt he'll want that reputation for when he's taking over as PM.

There is some good news that the Telegraph said nearly 3,000 troops will be pulled out of Iraq in late Spring. Should reduce the over-stretch.

[FuManChu]

Have your say about the issue on the BBC website.

How important is the UK's global influence? (http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=5252&&edition=1&ttl=20070112123103)

Comments about spending more on the RN are what you might want to post. ;)

[Obi Wan Russell]

Tony Blair gave a speech in Plymouth earlier today stating that closing Portsmouth or Plymouth was "inconcievable" and that the two CVFs were still very much on the Governments shopping list. So far no one has said they believe him, and as he'll be gone in six months the decisions are in the hands of his successor anyway.

[FuManChu]

We will need to wait until the budget (March) and comprehensive spending review (Summer) to find out whether Gordon agrees with Tony that more money is required. Until then we can only enjoy the launch of HMS Dauntless and the cutting of first steel on Astute #4.

Still at least Blair has kept the debate going, putting some extra pressure on Gordon.

[Neutral Zone]

Have your say about the issue on the BBC website.

How important is the UK's global influence? (http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=5252&&edition=1&ttl=20070112123103)

Comments about spending more on the RN are what you might want to post. ;)

I made a few posts to that forum, strange how none of them were posted! :) I'm no fan of Blair, but on that forum, people can't wait to criticise him over his military interventions during his premiership namely, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraq, and most of the criticism is related to Iraq.

In Kosovo, Britain was part of a NATO intervention in response to the attrocities committed by the Milosevic regime against the Kosovars. I remember the scenes as the NATO troops pushed into Kosovo and how the Kosovans welcomed them as liberators. Was that war mongering?

Regarding Sierra Leone, some people seem to have forgotten how Foday Sankoh and his RUF thugs systematically hacked off the hands of anyone who they came across. A relatively small British intervention stabilised the situation and today Sierra Leone is making progress.

Afghanistan was of course a response to 9/11. IMHO, America made a big mistake in switching it's attention to Iraq when the situation in Afghanistan had not been stabilised. The British and Canadian troops in Afghanistan have performed superbly and have managed to prevent the situation from deteriorating. Are the people who want Britain to withdraw from Afghanistan happy to let a Taleban regime which treats women like cattle be re-established in that country? Iraq has of course been argued about at length and that is the one intervention where I would say Blair was wrong. The others were IMHO entirely justified. The people queing up on BBC's Have Your Say section to demand that Britain's armed forces are devoted entirely to territorial defence are of course the same people who, whenever a major humanitarian crisis occurs, are demanding that "something must be done." And of course in order to do something, you need well equipped, expeditionary armed forces and they cost money!

[Scratch]

On 12 January Tony Blair spoke (http://www.britischebotschaft.de/en/news/items/070112.htm) at a Royal United Service Institute lecture on board HMS Albion in Plymouth.

...There has been a lot of publicity about reported cuts to the Royal Navy.
We did, of course, need to modernise the Navy. The era dominated by anti-submarine patrols requiring large numbers of frigates was over. Today’s Navy needs to be versatile. It does different things. It supports expeditionary forces, in Sierra Leone, Iraq and elsewhere. It helps in disaster relief, in counter terrorism, in evacuating UK citizens from the Lebanon.
So we have made a huge effort to equip the Navy for this task. We have made a massive boost to Britain’s amphibious capabilities, such as this extraordinary ship on which we are standing now. We have a generation of new ships, all far more capable than their predecessors: the helicopter carrier HMS Ocean, the four Bay Class landing ships, the strategic sealift ships, new equipment for the Royal Marines, including the Viking vehicle like the one behind me.
And there is a further, massive ship-building programme ahead, a programme that is likely to be worth some £14 billion over the next 10-15 years. The Type 45 destroyers – a generation ahead of the Type 42; new aircraft carriers – twice as big as our existing vessels; new attack submarines now being built. ...

[FuManChu]

On 12 January Tony Blair spoke (http://www.britischebotschaft.de/en/news/items/070112.htm) at a Royal United Service Institute lecture on board HMS Albion in Plymouth.

It's a shame Blair didn't say this a year ago, then he could have actually done something about the lack of investment. As he is going it is difficult to know how much impact this will have. Hopefully Gordon Brown is on board with this vision, and we will have some good news later this year come the Budget and/or Comprehensive Spending Review.