Cuts to Amphibious Capability? Have your say

#1
I know that there is an existing thread about the potential loss of the Amphibious Capability but we've had an approach from the staff of the Defence Committee in the House of Commons to let us know that there is an opportunity to have your say on their website - The Royal Marines and UK amphibious capability web forum

Note that the Defence Committee is not part of the MoD nor is it part of the government but exists to scrutinise the MoD/government so has MPs from across the political divide. Johnny Mercer is a particularly high profile member of the committee who just happens to represent a Plymouth constituency which is, of course, where these ships and marines are based!

Deadline for submission is 21 Dec 17
 
#2
Can you cross post this in the Royal Navy forum? Thanks.
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
#4
If we don't have credible amphib then we're not going anywhere, so we don't need an army either. The Govt will by default be deciding that expeditionary warfare is dead. And once gone, the kit and skills will take twenty years to bring back to life. And an emergency can spring up in twenty hours.twenty hours.
 
#7
As an island nation, no matter where we deploy, there's the small matter of crossing the 'oggin.
 
#8
If we don't have credible amphib then we're not going anywhere, so we don't need an army either. The Govt will by default be deciding that expeditionary warfare is dead. And once gone, the kit and skills will take twenty years to bring back to life. And an emergency can spring up in twenty hours.twenty hours.
45 minutes according to a previous Labour warmonger.
 
#9
Lets hope that the Isle of Wight is invaded otherwise we have no hope.
 
#10
If we don't have credible amphib then we're not going anywhere, so we don't need an army either. The Govt will by default be deciding that expeditionary warfare is dead. And once gone, the kit and skills will take twenty years to bring back to life. And an emergency can spring up in twenty hours.twenty hours.
Absolutely
 
#11
Good ol' Tories eh, the country would be humped under Labour.
There are little or no votes in defence. Partly as a result of the constant mantra from one party demanding ever more money be thrown at an ever-expanding demand - skoolz n ospiculs, innit?. As opposed to having a rational debate as to what is affordable.

Anyone who thinks that the lovely, lovely Labour party would do anything but remove money from defence has seriously damaged their brain cell.
 
#12
Despite years of "austerity" our government continues to spend more than its income.

Welfare, health and education are the three largest areas of government expenditure. Cut any of those three and large numbers of people will be out protesting on the streets while the Guardian runs stories about starving babies.

Defence is the fourth largest area of government spending. Cut that and there will be a few strongly worded letters to The Times, written using fountain pens and with immaculate grammar and punctuation, rather than blokes in wheel chairs pouring red paint over their heads and chaining themselves to the railings at Downing Street.

I think that successive governments of both colours have decided that Britain will no longer punch above its weight in terms of defence. Consider the Royal Navy. 900 ships at the end of WWII. 600 ships when I was born. 150 ships sent to the Falklands in 1982. Now we have 19 major warships and many of them can't go to sea due to a lack of sailors.

Our armed forces are becoming a "defence force" like the armed forces of Canada or Germany. Defence is no longer seen as a priority in a post Soviet world where we will not be making large scale commitments like Afghanistan or Iraq. 3 Chinooks to Mali to help the French army and a patrol boat to the Med to hoover up immigrants is the way ahead and you don't need dock landing ships for that.
 
#13
As an island nation, no matter where we deploy, there's the small matter of crossing the 'oggin.
It's almost like the plan is to become a non deployable defence 'service' (can't be a force as that's a form of bullying)
 
#15
Our armed forces are becoming a "defence force" like the armed forces of Canada or Germany. Defence is no longer seen as a priority in a post Soviet world where we will not be making large scale commitments like Afghanistan or Iraq. 3 Chinooks to Mali to help the French army and a patrol boat to the Med to hoover up immigrants is the way ahead and you don't need dock landing ships for that.
Personally I'm quite comfortable with that
If we aren't going to indulge in regime change and meddling in the affair of third world shitholes I'm quite happy.

But if that's the way it's going to be then we need to have the balls to say so and re-orientate ourselves accordingly.
Its probably what is planned anyway, no investment in heavy armour and and ever decreasing army combined with a growing ability to smite people from afar (QE's being of particular relevance)

If we are to remain on our own shores and only defend our own interests around the planet then we need a strong navy and air force.
We may not actually need a particularly powerful army, until the next PM decides the UK is back in the regime change game that is.
 
#16
Personally I'm quite comfortable with that
If we aren't going to indulge in regime change and meddling in the affair of third world shitholes I'm quite happy.

But if that's the way it's going to be then we need to have the balls to say so and re-orientate ourselves accordingly.
Its probably what is planned anyway, no investment in heavy armour and and ever decreasing army combined with a growing ability to smite people from afar (QE's being of particular relevance)

If we are to remain on our own shores and only defend our own interests around the planet then we need a strong navy and air force.
We may not actually need a particularly powerful army, until the next PM decides the UK is back in the regime change game that is.
Or until British interests overseas are threatened
 
#18
Good ol' Tories eh, the country would be humped under Labour.
Friends of the forces indeed :(
You are under the illusion that the current Conservative Government are in any way actually conservatives.
Personally speaking; I believe that they are a centre-left party. And that they are just 'red tories.'
Conservative? My arrse.
 
#19
Personally I'm quite comfortable with that
If we aren't going to indulge in regime change and meddling in the affair of third world shitholes I'm quite happy.

But if that's the way it's going to be then we need to have the balls to say so and re-orientate ourselves accordingly.
Its probably what is planned anyway, no investment in heavy armour and and ever decreasing army combined with a growing ability to smite people from afar (QE's being of particular relevance)

If we are to remain on our own shores and only defend our own interests around the planet then we need a strong navy and air force.
We may not actually need a particularly powerful army, until the next PM decides the UK is back in the regime change game that is.
The principle that the country's armed forces should be designed for the defence of own territory & merely adapted for other purposes is a perfectly valid one (especially in times of financial stringency). It should be noted that that territory includes a few far-flung bits & pieces. The ability to send a carrier group or an amphibious force of a credible size to, hmmm, I don't know, let's say the Falklands, pretty sharpish is inseparable from that principle.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#20
Good ol' Tories eh, the country was humped under Labour.
foc
Indeed, however when you pish billions into an NHS and welfare for gimmigrants then you cant have a creditable defence force that does much more than defend.
 

Latest Threads

Top