U.K defence cuts

Alan

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
62,474
Reaction score
2,588
Dr Fox said it was important to have "maximum flexibility" and said American or French aircraft would offer "a new capability".

Under the Strategic Defence and Security Review, the Navy will bear the brunt of the cuts: it will lose five warships and 4,000 personnel; Harrier jump-jets will be scrapped; and its flagship aircraft carrier, HMS Ark Royal, will immediately be retired.


The first of two new carriers will enter service in 2016, but will only be configured to carry helicopters - not jets - before being mothballed indefinitely, or sold once the second carrier enters service.

However, even when the second carrier arrives, the only aircraft likely to be able to use it will be American or French, with a new Joint Strike Fighter plane not due in service until 2020.

This means the Navy will not have British jets flying from its aircraft carriers for around 10 years and foreign pilots flying foreign aircraft will be vital to protecting Britain. But even they will probably not be able to fly off a British aircraft carrier until 2016 at the earliest.

Dr Fox said there would be increasing cooperation with the French after its president, Nicolas Sarkozy, recently decided to "engage more with Nato".

He insisted it was not unprecedented for Britain to have aircraft carriers without jets, pointing to a period during the 1970s and saying that there had been a "very limited" ability to fly fast jets from carriers in Afghanistan between 2004 and 2009.

"The concept of carrier strike is only one of the ways in which we have air power projection. We have Tornado, we have Typhoon and the military view at the moment is that because we don't have at the present time any problems with basing or overflights, then Britain is able to project air power in that way," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"The question is, could we guarantee that for 20 to 30 years, and of course we can't, which is why we are going to invest in the new carriers."

The Daily Telegraph reported today that ministers are to announce that one of the Navy’s new £3 billion aircraft carriers will never carry aircraft and will sail for only three years before being mothballed and possibly sold.

The Prime Minister will outline a timetable later today under which HMS Ark Royal is retired. The Navy’s other carrier, HMS Illustrious, will continue to function only as a helicopter platform stripped of jets before retiring in 2014.

The first of the new carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth, will enter service in 2016, configured to carry helicopters, not jets. The second new carrier, HMS Prince of Wales, will arrive in 2019. At that point, HMS Queen Elizabeth will be put into “extended readiness”, effectively mothballed indefinitely.

On Trident and the expected delay on a decision about its replacement, Dr Fox added: "I do not believe that any of the measures that we take will in any way affect the effectiveness of our nuclear deterrent, nor our ability to have a continuous at-sea deterrent."

Professor Malcolm Chalmers, of the Royal United Services Institute, said there would be problems with morale on the new aircraft carriers because the Government has signalled it would have scrapped them if it could have done.

"The full message that's coming from the Government on the aircraft carriers is they wish they weren't in this situation, and if they could have cancelled them and saved a significant amount of money, they would have done," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"But I think there are going to be real difficulties with the morale of people operating that capability knowing that the Government doesn't really think they are that important."

What a farce this has turned out to be. Carriers and no jets :erm:

Typical labour politburo profligate logic. Hey we're fighting two wars in the desert, troops are underequipped and lacking helicopters so lets build 3 new multi billion pound aircraft carriers.....
 
LOL - and even the critique before the official speech this afternoon :-)

This sounds just the same as the brand new (now rusting) Submarines/Corvettes in the docks
 
And that David Cameron had to call his boss, President Obama, first....just to get permission on the budget cuts :D
 
What a farce this has turned out to be. Carriers and no jets :erm:

Not necessarily. Assume massive financial problems – cutbacks are required and defence eats a lot of money. Consider:

What are potential enemies against which conventional forces are deployed? Afghanistan and other 3rd world opponents. Helicopters are all that’s needed. The only potential 1st world opponents would be Russia or China and NATO, the rest of Europe and the USA would get involved in this type of confrontation. If you needed to cutback, defence would be it. It would make the UK more dependant and less able to pursue their own objectives by the threat (or actual use) of military force, but it would not compromise national safety. Their nuclear MAD capability is untouched.
 
Not necessarily. Assume massive financial problems – cutbacks are required and defence eats a lot of money. Consider:

What are potential enemies against which conventional forces are deployed? Afghanistan and other 3rd world opponents. Helicopters are all that’s needed. The only potential 1st world opponents would be Russia or China and NATO, the rest of Europe and the USA would get involved in this type of confrontation. If you needed to cutback, defence would be it. It would make the UK more dependant and less able to pursue their own objectives by the threat (or actual use) of military force, but it would not compromise national safety. Their nuclear MAD capability is untouched.

Uh Iraq? Against any conventional army(even 3rd world) with decent air defences you need jets because helicopters on their own are just too vulnerable. Helicopters are for close air support while jets attack well defended command and control centers deep into enemy territory. A job helicopters just can't do. I recall in one Iraqi operation 31 Apaches getting shot up and having to flee the fight .
 
Last edited:
I think the UK is trusting in its buddies and neighbors a bit too much...
 
Have only the Labour Party to thank for £38bn debt and two nice new floating white elephants. Maybe they can hire the decks out to host the 2018 SWC.
 
pursuing a global colonial agenda is an expensive exercise, this really does not surprise me at all.
 

Iraq was an American conflict. The UK did not initiate ‘shock & awe’ tactics. They were bullied into it afterward (as were the rest of the world).

Against any conventional army(even 3rd world) with decent air defenses...

By definition, a 3rd world army doesn’t have ‘decent’ air defenses.
 
Iraq was an American conflict. The UK did not initiate ‘shock & awe’ tactics. They were bullied into it afterward (as were the rest of the world).

meh it's war they got involved in by their own free will and they might find themselve facing a similar force in the future. Iran for example.

By definition, a 3rd world army doesn’t have ‘decent’ air defenses.

Really. North Korea seems to have decent air defences :erm:
 
meh it's war they got involved in by their own free will...

No they didn’t. If you recall, the US started it without international sanction and then flung themselves about demanding international participation, hoping other country’s citizens would be killed fighting US proxy wars. A few countries joined the **alliance** (dragging their feet) because they were honouring treaty and NATO agreements. Other countries gave the US the finger.

Really. North Korea seems to have decent air defences

How do you figure that? At those military parades where they are fond of demonstrating their military prowess I have never seen any fighter jets screaming by overhead. You would think that would be an important component of their military capability. Their ‘air defense’ capability is probably ground-based **against** attacking aircraft.
 
A full scale war will not happen anytime soon, so no real need for all this hardware.
If there is a possibility of war, WE as a WORLD need to find ANOTHER WAY of resolving the issues... I mean, come on, seriously! Do we need all this firepower?
Rather spend the money on other things.
 
A full scale war will not happen anytime soon, so no real need for all this hardware.
If there is a possibility of war, WE as a WORLD need to find ANOTHER WAY of resolving the issues... I mean, come on, seriously! Do we need all this firepower?
Rather spend the money on other things.

Yes I enjoy the doccies on Discovery/Military/History channel

Britain needs a strong defence force. Do you have any idea how close France is? ffs, I can see the French coast from where I live. We will make it through winter, as the French are averse to the weather, fortunatly, but next spring is going to be nerve racking.....
 
Britain needs a strong defence force. Do you have any idea how close France is? ffs, I can see the French coast from where I live. We will make it through winter, as the French are averse to the weather, fortunatly, but next spring is going to be nerve racking.....

From the gist of your post, you regard the French as potential opponents. This stance is traditional (proximity) but it’s not true any longer. I would hazard that the UK can draw valuable lessons from French military strategy. Military matters are usually shrouded in secrecy, but I believe I have fathomed the French strategy.

They made a bald statement in 2007 about disbanding much of their standing army. No elaboration (secrecy), but they couldn’t conceal such a huge effort (they had to say something). This seems counter-intuitive - what if there was an external threat? But on consideration, it is rather brilliant.

Consider – a small force on which superior training and oodles of money can be lavished (instead of expensively maintaining, indifferently trained standing armies). Their size is sufficient to handle any security needs short of all-out war. In the event of war, this cadre can lead and be disbursed amongst a hastily assembled, conscript force with rushed training much more valuably (they know stuff).

A good model for cash-strapped UK?
 
France is aware that from their history they do not need a big army as they will lose anyway. Google "French Military Victories" and click the first result.

The second result will give more information.
 
France is aware that from their history they do not need a big army as they will lose anyway.

I don’t buy this. During the cold war America forced a loyalty quid pro quo on Europe. France was the perennial fly-in-the-ointment and didn’t walk in lockstep with America. They were nuclear mavericks with their force de frappe and refused to be part of cosy nuclear agreements between Britain, America and Russia because they refused to be party to ‘arrangements’. They acted solely in their own interest.

I have personal experience of the French Foreign Legion. I had a French girlfriend whose father was a recently retired policeman, detested me and tried to get me deported or thrown into prison. I did a foolish thing. The in-law branch of the family had strong Mafia links. I had a lower-than-sharks**t SA passport (this was during apartheid). I began negotiations for a French one. Luckily, I came to my senses. It was unwise to be beholden to the French Mafia and the Gallic hypocrite (her father) would have a iron-clad reason for slinging me into a French prison thus forcing me into the French Foreign Legion. The Legion was his preferred option as it would enable him to mend his fences with his daughter who wasn’t impressed with his vendetta against me. “But ma cherie, you know that the happiness of my pu puce [little flea] is paramount. I know he wants a French passport so I smoothed the way for him to join the Legion”. The sad thing is she would have sucked it up. So, I would have my ass kicked around in the legion for 5 years (if I wasn't killed) and emerge sufficiently frenchified to be a suitable consort for his daughter.

Note: If you serve 'la belle France' for 5 years in the Legion, your (French) criminal record is expunged and you get French citizenship. I researched the FFL. They aren’t wussies.

P.S. I fled France.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X