Express: "‘National Disgrace!’ Britons Furious As Royal Navy Declared Smaller Than Italy's - Poll"

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Is there any evidence of how much trade Britannia actually created? My guess would be that, for the vast majority of British industry it was bugger all. And, in the globally connected digital age it would be 4/5ths if bugger all.
For the vast majority, yes. It probably didn't do defence any harm, though, especially in sandy places.
 
Is anyone prepared to take a stab at answering the question posed earlier?

If there was no Royal Navy, and you decided to start one from scratch to fulfill the UK's realistic current, as opposed to historic, maritime needs and within a reasonable budget, what are first principles and what are the ships you would build?

Would your navy include Trident subs and aircraft carriers?
 
Merely an assumption on your part I assume.

They could merely use the 80% of tarif revenues which has either reverted to us from the EU or will next year. Using the revenue from our seabourne trade to fund the RN, which protects it, makes a lot of sense.

The figures for such might surprise you...
No, not an assumption, the great british public love to whinge about cuts in just about everything but are reluctant to stick their hand in their pocket to pay for it.
The UK is in debt and continues to increase in the debt, why should the Navy take priority? Because the Daily Express readership says so?
 

Yokel

LE
Things like diplomatic visits by warships, tours by the Red Arrows, and multinational exercises, have huge benefits in all sorts of ways. I am not sure it can be measured solely in £££.

Is anyone prepared to take a stab at answering the question posed earlier?

If there was no Royal Navy, and you decided to start one from scratch to fulfill the UK's realistic current, as opposed to historic, maritime needs and within a reasonable budget, what are first principles and what are the ships you would build?

Would your navy include Trident subs and aircraft carriers?
If the UK wanted to maintain a nuclear deterrent then it would include SSBNs. Our geographical location means we have to think about things like sea lines of communication across the Atlantic and coping with air and submarine threats, so that would be a 'yes' to carriers.

ASW is one of the roles of RN and USN carriers.
 
Things like diplomatic visits by warships, tours by the Red Arrows, and multinational exercises, have huge benefits in all sorts of ways. I am not sure it can be measured solely in £££.



If the UK wanted to maintain a nuclear deterrent then it would include SSBNs. Our geographical location means we have to think about things like sea lines of communication across the Atlantic and coping with air and submarine threats, so that would be a 'yes' to carriers.

ASW is one of the roles of RN and USN carriers.
You have complete authority over what the new navy looks like, would you maintain the nuclear deterrent?

If not what would you spend the savings on? More smaller ships or more carriers?
 
Thing is you can have a fleet of 100 floaty things, but if you can't get the people to join the Navy to crew the floaty things then all you have is floating empty boxes.

Recruitment seems a massive issue for both the Navy and Army but the RAF are doing better, there has to be a reason for this and until we can get manning levels to sustain the kit we have, building extra kit is totally pointless.
RAF doing well because they can now grow beards - they said so.
 

Yokel

LE
You have complete authority over what the new navy looks like, would you maintain the nuclear deterrent?

If not what would you spend the savings on? More smaller ships or more carriers?
Can the Navy refuse to carry out the deterrent role? Really? The detterent is a national (and NATO) capability.

How do you provide air defence beyond the range of shipborne missile systems, or provide sufficient ASW helicopters for 24/7 dipping, without a carrier?

I presume defence of crisis response shipping would still be a role?
 
Is anyone prepared to take a stab at answering the question posed earlier?

If there was no Royal Navy, and you decided to start one from scratch to fulfill the UK's realistic current, as opposed to historic, maritime needs and within a reasonable budget, what are first principles and what are the ships you would build?

Would your navy include Trident subs and aircraft carriers?
The question was essentially a trick. Because the answer depends on who you consider is the threat? so if we consider, that as an island we are dependent on secure atlantic sealanes, control of the north sea and need to deny the channel, you have a significant commitment, that the resources don't cover. In an ideal world:-

Atlantic - Standard UK ASW NATO Fleet circa 1989.
North Sea - We need missile FACs and a significant boost to air power.
Channel - FACs and Minelayers.

I don't think a carrier has any purpose, as we don't have an empire to protect. They're are vulnerable and absorb too much resource.. Equally FACs have a single purpose and mines seem to be terribly unfashionable despite the uses, if your facing a superior foe.

My humble view is minelayers and some cheap coastal submarines, would not be amiss as at least a fallback if the worst ever happened.
 
Is anyone prepared to take a stab at answering the question posed earlier?

If there was no Royal Navy, and you decided to start one from scratch to fulfill the UK's realistic current, as opposed to historic, maritime needs and within a reasonable budget, what are first principles and what are the ships you would build?

Would your navy include Trident subs and aircraft carriers?
First question is whether the nation wants a survivable nuclear deterrent with a very high probability (otherwise its not a deterrent) of delivering a bucket of sunshine to potential nation state adversaries. If the answer is yes, then SSBN it is, plus whatever is needed to assure exit from base port to patrol station unmolested. So some MCMV and ASW assets (air, surface and subsurface). If the answer is no, then no SSBN or supporting assets. It also means no made-up fantasies about cruise-missile-armed submarines or aircraft as deterrent, as neither are sufficiently high-probability of delivery against the nation states we would like to deter. There's a reason pretty much all the declared (and undeclared) nuclear powers have submarine-launched missiles with buckets of sunshine, irrespective of whatever other assets they have.

Next question then becomes whether your interests are local or global. If local only, then some MCMV and OPV to keep your ports clear and your EEZ free of trespassers are on the list. You could argue for some SSK to provide actual active defence against an aggressor at the bottom end of that scale.

If you want to protect your interests and assets more globally, then you're straight away into carriers, surface combatants and probably SSN. You may also wish to consider the ability to threaten your adversaries economy, home base etc, which might mean the ability to land troops or lob conventional missiles into his country. The capability and number of ships all depend on what level of protection you want to provide, how far from your operating bases you want to go, who your allies are and how reliant you want to be (and they are prepared to be). Aside from uppity wog-bashing against the vicious tribes of Umbhoto Gorge, you get into multi-spectrum threats pretty quickly.

This is where most navies either pretend to maintain a capability with a handful of warry-looking surface combatants and the odd tanker - or adopt the Homer Simpson defence strategy aka "why can't somebody else do it?" Both work well until they are either challenged by a peer threat (usually bluff called), or the somebody else decides that they don't want to pay your bills for you and decline to die bravely on your behalf. It's also worth noting that "protection" needs to be both sustainable (ie persistent) and able to be applied passively. Pro-actively brassing up your potential adversaries facilities because he looked at you in a funny way and/or called your pint a puff is often frowned on by the international community and attracts opprobrium, sanctions and other penalties, which politicians tend not to like.

The higher the potential threat capability, the more capable you have to be. The more capable your potential adversary, the fewer real allies you will find unless you bring significant capability yourself. Which takes you right back to carriers, surface combatants, SSN - and crucially, support shipping. Due to a combination of UNCLOS and Mr Archimedes, shipping tends to be the most persistent and passive protection (active measures become available very quickly!) option.
 
The question was essentially a trick. Because the answer depends on who you consider is the threat? so if we consider, that as an island we are dependent on secure atlantic sealanes, control of the north sea and need to deny the channel, you have a significant commitment, that the resources don't cover. In an ideal world:-

Atlantic - Standard UK ASW NATO Fleet circa 1989.
North Sea - We need missile FACs and a significant boost to air power.
Channel - FACs and Minelayers.

I don't think a carrier has any purpose, as we don't have an empire to protect. They're are vulnerable and absorb too much resource.. Equally FACs have a single purpose and mines seem to be terribly unfashionable despite the uses, if your facing a superior foe.

My humble view is minelayers and some cheap coastal submarines, would not be amiss as at least a fallback if the worst ever happened.
A Carrier Strike Group has much to offer in the ability to close the G-I-UK Gap, which should be considered in the totality of the sub-surface, surface and air domains (I believe the USN currently has four CSGs assigned to the Atlantic); lack of an empire doesn't come into it.
 

4(T)

LE
So the electorate will sign up for fewer hospitals, schools and road maintenance programmes in order to increase the Defence Budget: I think not.

We don't know, though.

One thing we do know is that "majority opinion" is suppressed and unreported if it does not coincide with the agenda of the progressive liberal elite, particularly their views on how to buy votes - more money for our angelic NHS, etc.

From anecdotal evidence (ie the same and only type that predicted the true Brexit opinion), UK having credible and powerful defence is actually quite important to people.

It would not surprise me at all if an overwhelming majority of the electorate turned out to support large increases in defence spending (and borders, policing, prisons, et al) at the expense of reforming and restricting an out of control welfare commitment.
 

4(T)

LE
First question is whether the nation wants a survivable nuclear deterrent with a very high probability (otherwise its not a deterrent) of delivering a bucket of sunshine to potential nation state adversaries.

Er, its supposed to deter the opposition by not being very survivable.
 
A Carrier Strike Group has much to offer in the ability to close the G-I-UK Gap, which should be considered in the totality of the sub-surface, surface and air domains (I believe the USN currently has four CSGs assigned to the Atlantic); lack of an empire doesn't come into it.
Not arguing its a nice to have, but if you were designing a fleet, you lose a lot of the last ditch and invest into a carrier with a smaller escort and everything else..... Just think its essentially top heavy.
 
Er, its supposed to deter the opposition by not being very survivable.
So your nuclear retaliation capability is destroyed by the enemy's first strike capability. Perhaps you want to rethink that one. Deterrence is from knowing the target is resilient enough to return a first strike (preferably with interest). Hence, CASD.
 
I think @4(T) meant capable of surviving a first strike.
Well, that's certainly not what was typed, and even emphasizes with italics - 'by not being very survivable'!
 
Not arguing its a nice to have, but if you were designing a fleet, you lose a lot of the last ditch and invest into a carrier with a smaller escort and everything else..... Just think its essentially top heavy.
I think that you are underestimating both the impact of losing control of the G-I-UK Gap and the impact that would have on the Atlantic SLOCs, and the amount of capability that a single CSG has.
 

Latest Threads

Top