Read the forum code of contact
By: - 20th July 2010 at 12:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I would stop building Type 45 air defence destroyers, reduce combat ships and scrap most attack subs, and reduce numbers of fighters.
After that it gets difficult, but hopefully the cuts made would suffice.
By: - 20th July 2010 at 12:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Most such news 'reports' are grossly exaggerated, and the UK armed forces have a little more political clout than in a lot of other countries so I doubt cuts will be that severe. That said, if it were to happen the best solution overall is for the UK Armed forces to give up on the whole 'Superpower global power projection' idea and reorganize themselves into a defensive force.
-Halve the army and bring back all troops operating on foreign soil.
-Cut the navy down to a defensive force. Only one CVF or none, a dozen frigates and destroyers and 4-5 subs. No more patrols halfway across the world.
-Given there's no much British airspace to protect, the Air Force can well manage with maybe 40 F-35s and 80 or so Eurofighters.
There, you have your solution.:dev2:
By: - 20th July 2010 at 13:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Mostly agree with Witcha, but I would suggest that with a smaller armed force we need to make more of our nuclear deterrent and expand the size of the sub-force both Asutes and the replacement for Vanguard (so the Astutes can guard the Vanguard replacements).
I would also suggest that a strengthened RAF regiment including both replacement for Rapier and longer ranged SAMs on par to S-400 series just to make doubly clear that UK air space is sacrosanct, and purchase a replacement for Sea Eagle to operate off our reduced fleet of F-35's for those times when a Nimrod is not available.
Finally I would buy some small corvette’s like Visby class corvette.
:-)
By: - 20th July 2010 at 13:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I would stop building Type 45 air defence destroyers,
Too late. Only one has not yet been launched, & that one's almost ready, & all the equipment has been bought for it. They're cheaper to run than current ships, so it may be cheaper to finish it, & the two fitting out, than scrap them & run on old ships.
By: - 20th July 2010 at 13:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'd decide what is truly in the British interest and then i'd go back to the doctrine that the British Army is a projectile to be fired by the Royal Navy.
That essentially involves home defence and that of our territories. Forget COIN-ops altogether & reduce the Army to a lighter agile force.
I'd make the tactical decision that any islamic threat is not likely to be a threat to us alone so let the US deal with the drawn out land wars.
SSN, CVF, F35 survive. Army gets culled, heavy armour mothballed. RAF loses tranche 3b.
Any other threat could surely be fought with soft power.
Sorted!
By: - 20th July 2010 at 14:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In times of bloated bureaucracies in every western government, most could experience a 40% reduction in staffing without reducing services to the public.
By: - 20th July 2010 at 15:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Bring the boys home from Afghanistan, Germany, and Sierra Leone. Cut the army and RAF in order to concentrate on the RN's Type 45's and pair of CVF's. Sell off the oldest 50 Typhoons in a fire-sale. Merge the Army and Royal Marines into a unified force; they live on an island and all of the land lubbers should be trained to operate as Royal Marines. Merge the RAF into the RN; the force should be concentrated on expanding the influence of the RN.
As much as people hate to hear it, the British army and Royal AF are given too much priority when the RN is your traditional defender of the crown. I'm not saying that the RAF needs to be eliminated. I'm saying that the RAF is defending an island nation and needs to supplement the defense of the island by the RN, not be separate in its function. Instead of buying so many Typhoons the force should concentrate on flexibility and mobility. The RAF really pretty much made itself irrelevant when it canned its last long range bomber.
The British army has been consuming large fractions of the budget mainly operating overseas in a role to support the U.S. Sending land forces abroad is expensive business and consumes the airframe hours of transports unnecessarily. The army's equipment is returning in horrid condition, if at all. You pretty much can write off half the equipment you've deployed for anything but spares. The government would have been far better off helping foot the bill rather than sending its own.
By: - 20th July 2010 at 16:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Too late. Only one has not yet been launched, & that one's almost ready, & all the equipment has been bought for it. They're cheaper to run than current ships, so it may be cheaper to finish it, & the two fitting out, than scrap them & run on old ships.
Yes, i meant to use those already built, i didnt know only 3 was ordered.
By: - 20th July 2010 at 17:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Recently the UK Treasury apparently asked departments to invisage massive cuts of the order of 40%+. So without debating the reality of such a statement or whether it will come to pass, what would you keep and what would you bin if you were the MOD and had been told that come next April you have a 50% budget cut. Which "half" of the UK armed forces would you keep.LETS NOT debate whether this would be a good idea (it obviously isn't) and lets not debate if it will actually happen (almost certainly not) but cuts are coming and perhaps a discussion about a "50%" armed forces might focus some of the discussions we are having on what really matters.
A final point to add a dose of reality is the recent reports about the future of the German armed forces where "50%" has been talked about openly (reality or not).
so.....which half are you keeping?
I think Germany is doing away with conscription, so a good chunk of the 50% cut will be accounted for by this.
By: - 20th July 2010 at 19:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Too late. Only one has not yet been launched, & that one's almost ready, & all the equipment has been bought for it. They're cheaper to run than current ships, so it may be cheaper to finish it, & the two fitting out, than scrap them & run on old ships.
Or you could do it the Russian way and scrap them on the yard AND keep the old ships rusting in port with the occasional sea voyage.;)
By: - 20th July 2010 at 20:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, i meant to use those already built, i didnt know only 3 was ordered.
No, six Type 45s were ordered.
Of those, the Royal Navy has three -
Two have been commissioned.
One is undergoing sea trials.
The remaining three have not been delivered yet -
Two have been launched, & are fitting out.
One is building, to be launched in a couple of months.
By: - 20th July 2010 at 20:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think Germany is doing away with conscription, so a good chunk of the 50% cut will be accounted for by this.
No this is much further, big cuts in ship and aircraft numbers that could amount to a 50% cut.
By: - 20th July 2010 at 20:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No, six Type 45s were ordered.
Of those, the Royal Navy has three -
Two have been commissioned.
One is undergoing sea trials.The remaining three have not been delivered yet -
Two have been launched, & are fitting out.
One is building, to be launched in a couple of months.
My first thought on this is to cancel Type 26 and order the other 6 Type 45s, the twelve hulls would constitute my 'escort force'. Harpoons, phalanx etc taken from 42s, 23s and 22s as they decomission.
By: - 20th July 2010 at 21:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Alternatively they could scrap the Type 26 and instead build a sizable fleet of corvettes and PT boats for coastal defence. The Type 45s could be modified with harpoons to serve as escorts for the CVF along with missile defence.
By: - 20th July 2010 at 21:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Alternatively they could scrap the Type 26 and instead build a sizable fleet of corvettes and PT boats for coastal defence. The Type 45s could be modified with harpoons to serve as escorts for the CVF along with missile defence.
Who are the sloops (corvette) and MGBs (PT) to be used against? surely an extravagance in these austere times...:D
By: - 20th July 2010 at 22:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well then lets just hope no one ever tries to sink the CVF's with a submarine since you both just suggested replacing our future ASW escorts with AAW ships.
@Witcha: These is no need for those coastal ships either.
By: - 20th July 2010 at 22:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Alternatively they could scrap the Type 26 and instead build a sizable fleet of corvettes and PT boats for coastal defence.
Coastal defence? Who are we supposed to be defending our coasts from? What potential enemy can get close enough to our coasts to meet this fleet?
BTW, the RN demonstrated in 1991 what happens to PT boats within reach of a helicopter-carrying frigate. They don't last long.
By: - 20th July 2010 at 23:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Recently the UK Treasury apparently asked departments to invisage massive cuts of the order of 40%+. So without debating the reality of such a statement or whether it will come to pass, what would you keep and what would you bin if you were the MOD and had been told that come next April you have a 50% budget cut. Which "half" of the UK armed forces would you keep.LETS NOT debate whether this would be a good idea (it obviously isn't) and lets not debate if it will actually happen (almost certainly not) but cuts are coming and perhaps a discussion about a "50%" armed forces might focus some of the discussions we are having on what really matters.
A final point to add a dose of reality is the recent reports about the future of the German armed forces where "50%" has been talked about openly (reality or not).
so.....which half are you keeping?
The entire expeditionary capability is slashed, the RAF fast jet fleet is scraped to a mere 4 active + 1 OCU Typhoon sqn´s, JCA is scraped, A400 is scraped, FSTA is scraped, Nimrod is scraped, the RN goes to 14 escorts (6 T45+ 8 T23), four Hunter killer subs, the nuclear option amounts to five tube launched TAC Toms with a "spiced" tip, CVF is canned, the Royal Marines go to the battallion level, the Army is downsized to a 2 active + 2 "reserve" brigades with one single Challye II regiment in the entire structure.
Civilian MOD employees goes up by 25%. The new defence secretary is knighted...
I´ll get me coat.
Cheers
By: - 20th July 2010 at 23:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I can help asking my self this stupid question: Where the heck did all the monney go? Back in the days most Western European countries (and WP of cource) could afford to build up massive defence forces.. Hell, Sweden built up an (fully equipped) war fighting organization that would number up to 700 000 men when fully mobilized. Including one of the worlds biggest air forces. And same with the UK. And nowadays we cant even afford to keep more than a few brigades. And our tanks and jets are sold second hand for peanuts or scrapped...
Well, times changes obviousely. And probbably its not an entirely bad thing than most countries have "found" other priorities for their tax dollars...
Plus the ever increasing complexity of modern equipement etc has sent cost sky rocketing of course. But still? :confused:
By: - 21st July 2010 at 01:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well of course, we still could afford it but we choose to spend it on other things.
UK defence spending as a % of GDP has shrunk 2/3rds since 1980, yet for much of the last 30 years the UK economy was in a lot healthier shape than it was then. No cold war as well of course. Where are those Reds when you need them, eh?
Posts: 887
By: pjhydro - 20th July 2010 at 11:52
Recently the UK Treasury apparently asked departments to invisage massive cuts of the order of 40%+. So without debating the reality of such a statement or whether it will come to pass, what would you keep and what would you bin if you were the MOD and had been told that come next April you have a 50% budget cut. Which "half" of the UK armed forces would you keep.
LETS NOT debate whether this would be a good idea (it obviously isn't) and lets not debate if it will actually happen (almost certainly not) but cuts are coming and perhaps a discussion about a "50%" armed forces might focus some of the discussions we are having on what really matters.
A final point to add a dose of reality is the recent reports about the future of the German armed forces where "50%" has been talked about openly (reality or not).
so.....which half are you keeping?