UK Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

The UK needs to prioritize. I feel that to maintain it's world power status, it needs to have an army with world-class skill, the carriers, and a nuclear deterrent. Unfortunately, all of these things are getting too expensive. So you have to ask, which one can best sustain cuts without endangering the security of the nation and without knocking out any of the 3 legs of the UK's hard power?

Certainly not the Army and Royal Marines. They're currently involved in A-stan which is more important to the UK's security than anything else the services are doing, and are already stretched. Cutting the carriers now would mean bye-bye to any carriers for several decades, so that's out. Leaving the nukes. The nukes are the least likely to be used of all the assets we have on the table. Furthermore, I don't feel like there would be much difference, in terms of how other nations perceive the UK's hard power, between a small SSBN force and a slightly smaller SSBN force, or nuclear tipped cruise missiles. Basically, if you have nukes and a credible delivery system, it doesn't matter if you have 5 SSBNs or 3. It creates the same level of fear. Also, the UK can count on American retaliation against a country that nukes the UK, so the UK's nuke capabilities, while necessary for maintaining first-rate power status and as the ultimate guarantee of national security, are in effect redundant and thus can sustain a cut.

Also maybe phase out the last Tornado ADVs immediately?

Obi Wan Russell said:

Land based ICBMs are a complete non starter. Where would you put them in the UK? Where could you put them that wouldn't raise serious opposition from the local community? It would be impossible to hide tham from satellite observation, so they would be targetted by enemy ICBMs before they were even completed. That's why we never built any in the UK in the first place and switched from air launched Nuclear weapons to SSBNs. ICBMs are currently as close to invulnerable as any weapon can be, whereas planes and cruise missiles can be shot down with existing weapon systems.

The only 'cheaper' way to preserve the Nuclear deterrent would be if a smaller SLBM could be developed that could be launched horizontally from existing torpedo tubes, that way existing and building SSNs could take on the role and then we'd just have to add a few more hulls to the Astute class to cover the committments. Redesigning the Astutes to accomodate either an SSBN style missile launch compartment (with between 4 and 12 tubes) or a smaller VLS for cruise missiles will be hideously expensive IMHO. Finding solutions with existing systems and designs will be the most likely and workable way to go simply because there is no money for anything else.

Click to expand...

I guess a sensible place for them would be on the site of an old soon to be deactivated/or already deactivated nuclear power plant

Like i said it would be a less capable system than we have now, you are right it would be quickly identified and could be taken out in a first strike, afterwards there is a chance that our cruise missile retaliation would be shot down. But how likely is it that this situation will occur? The only countries who could manage this are Russia, and perhaps China/india/pakistan now or at some point in the future. like Liam Fox says we cant defend against all threats

Also there doesnt seem to be much of an alternative, current cruise missles ranges are max 1k miles, designing a new missle to fit in a 533mm torpedo tube and have a range of 8k miles seems unlikely

UK/France discuss carrier sharing scheme



Britain and France are expected to reveal plans to share the use of their aircraft carriers.


This would allow Britain to scrap or downgrade one of the two replacement carriers announced in 2007 at a cost of £5.2bn, but would risk thousands of shipyard jobs.

David Cameron and President Nicolas Sarkozy are expected to announce the proposal in November.

The arrangement would ensure that one of three ships – one French, two British – remained permanently on patrol. Currently Britain's two aging vessels – HMS Ark Royal and HMS Illustrious – are occasionally both in dock at the same time.

A decision on the future of the two planned replacement carriers will be announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review in October. A shared patrolling scheme with the French military would allow one to be built to a lesser specification, sold to another country or scrapped.

The carriers would remain under the command of their respective armed forces. Discussions are under way as to what might happen should an exclusively British interest, such as the Falklands, come under attack during a period in which the French carrier was on patrol.

According to The Times, sources close to the National Security Council, the new cabinet group which decides the direction of British foreign policy, said that Defence Secretary Liam Fox was minded to give the go-ahead to both carriers, but the second may have its capability downgraded. A down-graded carrier could be used as a base for a troop landing, and take helicopters rather than jets.

However, the fast jets planned for the new British carriers would not be able to fly off the French version and French aircraft would be unable to use the British model.

Critics have already questioned the viability of such a partnership. Gwyn Prins, a research professor at the London School of Economics, told The Times: "At first glance it may seem sensible to pool aircraft carriers with the French. But a moment's reflection in the light of past history and of modern geopolitics shows why that is unwise."

Are things really this bad with the Royal Navy that we need to resort to desperate measures like this? This is a crazy idea and could further complicate international incidents - as if we need that.It just has to be all hot air and can't possibly go ahead.It is unworkable,different if we are under the banner of a European or Nato navy but to think that something could kick off somewhere that requires British reaction and the French carrier is right on location, ours in port, and politics (or whatever else) prevents France from getting involved.It is asking for trouble !
I'm keen to hear you opinions whether you agree or disagree.Here is the MOD ...er denial sort of >

It's totally unworkable and should be rejected out of hand. Does Britain really want to have it's most powerful military asset only available for use at the behest of France?

Finn McCool said:

It's totally unworkable and should be rejected out of hand. Does Britain really want to have it's most powerful military asset only available for use at the behest of France?

Click to expand...

True, which is why I honestly don't think this will happen. Much more likely that one of the carriers would be temporarily mothballed to save money if things get that bad. You can't share something like an aircraft carrier.

I think this story as with many others recently is a prime example of what happens when reporters have too much time on their hands and no actual news to report. Utter bunkum!:nono:

The person that wrote the above article needs to be beat down about the head and shoulders with a blunt instrument:nono: for writing such utter nonsense..

Let's wait until November and watch nothing happen!

bd popeye said:

Let's wait until November and watch nothing happen!

Click to expand...

Why wait until November?

If youve got a spare carrier, why not see if the Aussies want it?

Meanwhile whats the talk with the RAF being disbanded, with its duties being taken up by the navy and army?

and I guess that "Taranis" project will be put on the back burner ?

bladerunner said:

If youve got a spare carrier, why not see if the Aussies want it?

Meanwhile whats the talk with the RAF being disbanded, with its duties being taken up by the navy and army?

and I guess that "Taranis" project will be put on the back burner ?

Click to expand...

I doubt the Aussies would be interested in one of the QE's, for a start they're way bigger than anything they've ever operated before and they probably wouldn't have the budget to operate one. Also they're only looking at using the Canberra class as LHD's although they could theoretically operate F-35B's off them and if they needed an organic air power capability that would suit their needs perfectly.



As for the RAF, I'm hoping against hope that some of these stories are just part of an "expectations management" strategy and the full cuts won't be anything like as savage. Call me naive but I find it difficult to believe that in the 70th anniversary year of the Battle of Britain, a British Government would announce the effective death of the RAF. I do expect CASD to go and I would support that, as part of the 1998 SDR the Vanguard Class had their readiness to fire changed from minutes to days in light of the fact that a Cold War style massed nuclear attack is not a realistic possibility. Therefore it does seem a bit unnecessary to keep the subs at sea, ending CASD saves on operating costs and reduces wear on the subs allowing their service lives to be extended and the replacement decision put off until after the next election.