Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kevinp58]

Aircraft carriers tend to be a very vulnerable target,so will she be protected by a strong fleet as the Americans do with theirs? Also a big well done to all those shipyard workers who built her.Despite the best efforts of the powers that be[past and present]Britain still has some of the best ship builders in the world.

 I second that and I would suspect it will be very well protected by the new type 45 destroyers. 

What all 6 of them, from the 12 originally planned. Currently the navy has 19 destroyers and Frigates, 10 submarines or which 4 are our nuclear deterrent, which leaves 6 for protecting all our vital trading sea lanes for all the 50% of food and all the energy and goods we require. All in all 78 commissions ships. Of the 78 ships you will typically have 1 in 3 operational any any one time, with the second having a minor refit and the third a major refit as a class ages. So realistically to protect the carrier, one type 45, a type 23 and a hunter-killer submarine would be the absolute minimum for a task force and really you would want two type 45's and two type 23's. The latest attack philosophy by the Chinese is to launch hundreds of armed drones to overwhelm a carrier task force where they claim this has a 9 to 1 cost effectiveness advantage over using conventional attack means. On that basis they won't last long in any major conflict.

The latest round of defence cuts means our armed forces are now a total joke, especially in the light of a recent court ruling where armed forces personal can sue the government if a proper health and safety plan and full equipment has not been supplied to stop it being dangerous for them, not to mention the 20,000 full time soldiers to be replaced by part time amateurs that they can't recruit. I won't mention that the MOD has now issued a multi-billion procurement specification to replace the Nimrods that were about to enter operational service that CaMoron personally ordered scrapped and vindictively cut up. The money was much better spent of keep rich dictators in Africa at the standard of living they are used to, Indian space programs and subsidising affluent middle-class French holiday makers to keep them warm / cool in Morocco and Tunisia when on holiday with green energy efficiency schemes through Centre Parcs all paid for by boosting the foreign aid budget at the expense of defence spending. The plan if CaMaron gets back in in 2015 is for a further boost to foreign aid and more very significant defence cuts including selling / scrapping one or both of the new carriers. So they may enter service in 2020, but the chances that, that will be with the RN is slim.

But the Royal Navy will be in a task force of other nations so there should always be cover, since the Falklands the RN has been part of a global force

[Rods2]

Lizzie it is all about will and priorities, we can afford more on defence but as all of our recent governments have been full of left-wing liberals, there is not the will.

The problems come when events happen is days and procurement / training take years. The last time we ran our defences down as much as now was in the 1930s.

Why do you always quote extremes as the norm with 30% etc, when nobody is looking to spend this including the biggest spenders in terms of GDP with the US, Russia and China?

Scrapping the overseas aid budget and adding it to defence would transform our defences with no overall increase in government spending. Likewise, if you wanted to increase it more with no increase in spending, get rid of the useless green windmill subsidies etc. It is not a case there is not the money, it is the will to spend it on defence, where the security of your country, citizens and trade routes must always be a government's high priority.

With 50% of our food coming from all over the globe and much of our energy supplies from the Middle East, how does a local naval defence force keep these sea lanes open? Maybe you are relying on the US again, where their focus is moving to the Pacific and the US Government saying, Europe must spend more on defending themselves.

If you want to see how an aggressor takes advantage when you have weak defences, study what has recently happened in Ukraine, where their armed forces (but fortunately not quantities of equipment) have been neglected for over 20 years and Russia taking an opportunistic advantage, due to their political stooge Yanukovych being deposed. Fortunately, they have now got their act together at the 11th hour with masses of training and getting the equipment out of storage and serviceable again, along with the US supplying non-lethal supplies of clothing, body armour, night sights, first aid kits etc. Many of these have also been procured through Ukrainian and international public generosity, from free labour to service, upgrade and repair damaged military vehicles to private import and private individuals distributing (mainly by Ukrainian ex-servicemen) this vital everyday items to the front lines. The cost of having these weak defences has been lives (innocent civilian, military and the terrorists) and extensive damage of property and infrastructure, which as one of the poorer countries in Europe, the citizens are going to have to make good through their own collective efforts.

Strong defences deter.

[TheBoy]

Scrapping the overseas aid budget

Not that the figures would ever be released without manipulation, but I wonder how much return the UK get from that, be it from trade, or more likely, a friendly voice in the area

[Lizzie_Zoom]

Lizzie it is all about will and priorities, we can afford more on defence but as all of our recent governments have been full of left-wing liberals, there is not the will.

The problems come when events happen is days and procurement / training take years. The last time we ran our defences down as much as now was in the 1930s.

Why do you always quote extremes as the norm with 30% etc, when nobody is looking to spend this including the biggest spenders in terms of GDP with the US, Russia and China?

Scrapping the overseas aid budget and adding it to defence would transform our defences with no overall increase in government spending. Likewise, if you wanted to increase it more with no increase in spending, get rid of the useless green windmill subsidies etc. It is not a case there is not the money, it is the will to spend it on defence, where the security of your country, citizens and trade routes must always be a government's high priority.

With 50% of our food coming from all over the globe and much of our energy supplies from the Middle East, how does a local naval defence force keep these sea lanes open? Maybe you are relying on the US again, where their focus is moving to the Pacific and the US Government saying, Europe must spend more on defending themselves.

If you want to see how an aggressor takes advantage when you have weak defences, study what has recently happened in Ukraine, where their armed forces (but fortunately not quantities of equipment) have been neglected for over 20 years and Russia taking an opportunistic advantage, due to their political stooge Yanukovych being deposed. Fortunately, they have now got their act together at the 11th hour with masses of training and getting the equipment out of storage and serviceable again, along with the US supplying non-lethal supplies of clothing, body armour, night sights, first aid kits etc. Many of these have also been procured through Ukrainian and international public generosity, from free labour to service, upgrade and repair damaged military vehicles to private import and private individuals distributing (mainly by Ukrainian ex-servicemen) this vital everyday items to the front lines. The cost of having these weak defences has been lives (innocent civilian, military and the terrorists) and extensive damage of property and infrastructure, which as one of the poorer countries in Europe, the citizens are going to have to make good through their own collective efforts.

Strong defences deter.

Because you and others bang on about the Royal Navy being small and, in your words being "a joke".  So what do you want the politicians to do? You haven't answered that one, instead just writing screeds of words about how our Navy should be bigger. How big? What do you want the politicians to sacrifice? The NHS, Welfare, Education, Police, etc?  So far you have not said, and that is the problem; everyone wants, but no one wants to pay! Perhaps another 10p in the £ on income tax?  Oh, you can imagine the public's reaction!! So what constructively do you think can be done?

[Lizzie_Zoom]

...............oh, sorry Rods2, come across a bit strong there.  When I say "you" bang on, that shows my frustration over this subject and is not aimed at you personally but our country at large!

I want a large strong navy and would be willing to pay extra for it in my taxes, instead of cutting all the services I mention. But I know that would be highly unpopular.  So I am saying What do the British public, yes including you Rods, want?   

[Varche]

Lizzie - Rods2 said "Scrapping the overseas aid budget and adding it to defence would transform our defences with no overall increase in government spending. Likewise, if you wanted to increase it more with no increase in spending, get rid of the useless green windmill subsidies etc."

I am of the view that the hefty overseas spending Britain makes is being done to head off, at grass roots level, militism'ism. By better education and opportunities other than getting three square meals a day and free clothes by being a soldier. I might be wrong and it may be that the policy doesn't work very well.

I think politicians and procurement chiefs have a duty to agree a plan and not waste money changing decisions about planes, subs, aircraft carrier design and so on. The waste is absolutely breathtaking.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

Lizzie - Rods2 said "Scrapping the overseas aid budget and adding it to defence would transform our defences with no overall increase in government spending. Likewise, if you wanted to increase it more with no increase in spending, get rid of the useless green windmill subsidies etc.[/i]"

I am of the view that the hefty overseas spending Britain makes is being done to head off, at grass roots level, militism'ism. By better education and opportunities other than getting three square meals a day and free clothes by being a soldier. I might be wrong and it may be that the policy doesn't work very well.

I think politicians and procurement chiefs have a duty to agree a plan and not waste money changing decisions about planes, subs, aircraft carrier design and so on. The waste is absolutely breathtaking.

Yes I know Varche, but this is no answer to the overall situation, and as I stated before overseas aid is £10 billion, just 1.4% of the National Budget but gives us certain advantages, some of which are hidden but are there.

I am asking what the public want; cuts in all public services; increase in income tax and all taxes, or a smaller armed forces? We cannot have it all, although many, who probably never have had a full P&L responsibility, think we can.

Between 1915-16 FIVE super-dreadnoughts were commissioned at a cost the of about £14 million (£392 million in 2014) in an age of 'simple' design compared to today's hi-tech monsters. These were of the Queen Elizabeth Class; Queen Elizabeth I, not Queen Elizabeth II as in the carriers of today. This was after building, by the Battle of Jutland in May 1916, another 23 dreadnought battleships, giving a combined fleet of 160 ships for just the Grand Fleet under the command of Admiral Jellicoe. This was in response to the Germans entering a naval arms race at the turn of the century which created by the time of 1914 a High Seas "Risk Fleet" that was designed, in a relative gamble, to take out the Royal Navy's great superiority in numbers, and perhaps be able to take on such a reduced fleet in a more balanced battle. The Germans never succeeded, although they made a little dent in part of the Grand Fleet at Jutland.

So what I am saying is if we want a navy to be able to take on any threat, maybe two hostile navvies at once as was the intention whilst building up the power of the Royal Navy after 1897, then it has to be paid for as at the turn of the last century. But as I also previously stated, there was no NHS, Welfare, or other social services then so a large proportion of the National Budget (as I quoted over 30% of it) was spent on "Defence", and in particular the Royal Navy.

So, I am asking what do the public want?  On this forum the "limited" size of the fleet has been mentioned, but no doubt there will be many voices who will be moaning at the £6 billion+++ that these carriers will cost, plus then moaning about the multi-billion pound Trident replacement to come. But what do we want? Do we want a powerful, independent navy, or one that is just part of a Grand European Fleet?  Do we want to rely on the USA for defence (no Rods2, I actually do not) or do we want our own big deterrent? But who pays for it all?  Again, that is my final question?

[Sir Tigger KC]

These aircraft carriers are a good investment not only in terms of the nations security, but in providing jobs, keeping the shipyards open  and essentially ensuring that we retain the skillsets and capability to build ships like this and also the new Hunter Killer subs at Barrow in Furness!    Compared to £50 billion for a short stretch of railway track, it's a snip! 

It's a bit simplistic to say we should scrap overseas aid, because as Lizzie points out it Britain projects a lot of 'soft power' and generates a lot of international goodwill, which knocks on in terms of trade and investment.    However, there is no doubt that it needs reform.  I'd like to see Britain follow the Chinese model where we actually go out and build infrastructure for poorer countries, rather than just dish out cash to corrupt regimes. 

So for example, Nairobi would benefit hugely from an M25 style ringroad, so Britain could fund it on condition that a British company designs and oversees it and a Kenyan construction company builds it. Everyone's a winner, jobs provided in Britain and Kenya and the only losers would be corrupt officials. 

[Lizzie_Zoom]

These aircraft carriers are a good investment not only in terms of the nations security, but in providing jobs, keeping the shipyards open  and essentially ensuring that we retain the skillsets and capability to build ships like this and also the new Hunter Killer subs at Barrow in Furness!    Compared to £50 billion for a short stretch of railway track, it's a snip! 

It's a bit simplistic to say we should scrap overseas aid, because as Lizzie points out it Britain projects a lot of 'soft power' and generates a lot of international goodwill, which knocks on in terms of trade and investment.    However, there is no doubt that it needs reform.  I'd like to see Britain follow the Chinese model where we actually go out and build infrastructure for poorer countries, rather than just dish out cash to corrupt regimes. 

So for example, Nairobi would benefit hugely from an M25 style ringroad, so Britain could fund it on condition that a British company designs and oversees it and a Kenyan construction company builds it. Everyone's a winner, jobs provided in Britain and Kenya and the only losers would be corrupt officials. 

Indeed Sir Tigger, and that is one of the pluses that so often are forgotten when so many discuss the "huge cost" of these projects.  How many apprenticeships are created when such projects are undertaken?  The question must be, would cutting benefit payments to create additional heavy engineering projects thus extra jobs be an answer?  Not saying it would be,but................................makes you think!

[05omegav6]

Don't forget, the Us doesn't exactly have a welfare system, so proportionally get to spend far more on defence...

Health insurance should be compulsory,  then the NHS could be binned, that should create a whole defence budget by itself...

Leaving the EU would save even more... And if we nuked the middle east for once and for all we wouldn't actually need defences

[kevinp58]

OH Dear I seam to have opened a proverbial can of worms.  and going slightly off course here with the original post. 

[05omegav6]

OH Dear I seam to have opened a proverbial can of worms.  and going slightly off course here with the original post. 

Thing is, it's easy enough to blame the current management, but the reality of it is that they are still midway through their first term since 1993. Only two people are responsible for the current state of affairs... Geoff Winker Bush and Kapiten Anthony...

Hopefully the Tories will win the next election fair and square, and Hilary Clinton will become the next US president... Then the new world order can be
implemented with a reunited and EU free NATO

[chrisgixer]

Ay up. Tory boy is off again.

Like butter wouldn't melt.

[05omegav6]

Sorry Dad...

I suppose, if I really didn't like it I could be proactive and emigrate... Does anyone know a nice stable place, no political unsteadiness or general unrest and discontentment?

Scotland is looking a likely candidate Although Rhodesia is nice this time of year...

[kevinp58]

OH Dear I seam to have opened a proverbial can of worms.  and going slightly off course here with the original post. 

Thing is, it's easy enough to blame the current management, but the reality of it is that they are still midway through their first term since 1993. Only two people are responsible for the current state of affairs... Geoff Winker Bush and Kapiten Anthony...

Hopefully the Tories will win the next election fair and square, and Hilary Clinton will become the next US president... Then the new world order can be
implemented with a reunited and EU free NATO

     



 she is democrat so liberal in this country so will ferk everything up even more than Obama