Britain no longer a naval power, fleet strength depleted

[Armand2REP]

Yes they are but the induction is not in sight. Numbers could drop as well. Britain sure does need both it's carriers requisitioned to remain a potent naval force.

They are nothing but oversized jumpjet carriers. The range and payload of VTOL ACs are so low the ship is only a tactical asset at best. It can't even carry E-2Cs or Greyhounds. For as much money as they wasted building something that a much cheaper Cavour could do... the rest of the fleet is taking the brunt of the bungle.

 

[ashdoc]

dont worry , britain is going to become part of pakistan soon :thumb:

the pakis are crawling all over britain .

considering the fact that pakistan spends most of its budget on military , they will maintain a decent navy when they take over britain

 

[LalTopi]

They are nothing but oversized jumpjet carriers. The range and payload of VTOL ACs are so low the ship is only a tactical asset at best. It can't even carry E-2Cs or Greyhounds. For as much money as they wasted building something that a much cheaper Cavour could do... the rest of the fleet is taking the brunt of the bungle.

Interesting. So would you say that one AC with catapult carrying F35Bs is better than two STOVL with F35Cs?

The problem Britain has is that the contract for the two ships has already been signed (by the previous PrimeMinister Gordon Brown - rumour has it that because he was Scottish and he wanted to guarantee jobs to the Scottish Shipyards). But now costs have escalated and we can no longer afford two ACs with F35Bs. The choice is to have two STOVL ACs or one with a magnetic catapult with F35Bs - coverting the other one to a helicopter carrier (which to my mind is just a 60,000 ton sitting duck).

Personally I would have preferred my tax money to be spent on two conventional carriers with naval Raffalles - but I can predict the response I would get from my English mates on that one

 

[LalTopi]

Anyway, we're off to the Thames to see the Jubilee Pageant:

Event Information - Thames Diamond Jubilee Pageant

1000 boats, and not a single one with aircraft on them
Shame we never kept the Arc Royal with the Harriers for a little longer.

 

[Apollyon]

They are nothing but oversized jumpjet carriers. The range and payload of VTOL ACs are so low the ship is only a tactical asset at best. It can't even carry E-2Cs or Greyhounds. For as much money as they wasted building something that a much cheaper Cavour could do... the rest of the fleet is taking the brunt of the bungle.

It would have been better if those Britons would have gone for something like USAN Wasp Class or America-class with capability to carry F-35B's ...

Even USAN is not gonna use F-35B's on their Carriers ...
Those are for Marines .. for CAS ...

 

[Armand2REP]

Interesting. So would you say that one AC with catapult carrying F35Bs is better than two STOVL with F35Cs?

F-35C requires catapults while 35B is VTOL. One carrier with cats and traps is better than two without since it changes the game entirely. It is a much higher level of capability. Without them, you carry 1/3 fuel and bombs, can't launch AWACs or air tankers. That means you need 3 times the numbers and sorties just to keep up at shorter ranges on strike missions.

The problem Britain has is that the contract for the two ships has already been signed (by the previous PrimeMinister Gordon Brown - rumour has it that because he was Scottish and he wanted to guarantee jobs to the Scottish Shipyards). But now costs have escalated and we can no longer afford two ACs with F35Bs. The choice is to have two STOVL ACs or one with a magnetic catapult with F35Bs - coverting the other one to a helicopter carrier (which to my mind is just a 60,000 ton sitting duck).

It was F-35B, then SDSR changed it to F-35C, and now after wasting 500m quid it is back to F-35B. It was all about placating the Scottish vote. Yeah, it didn't make much sense to build two ships and only make one with cats and traps while the other was practically useless. But now the the F-35B is the most expensive version and the furthest behind in development. They already spent half a billion redesigning and refiting for catapults, but now they just wasted that. Flushing money down the toilet the same as building oversized carriers that much cheaper ones would do. The whole thing has been botched from day one... question is can they even afford the more expensive F-35B. The went with the C because they knew they could only afford enough for one carrier.

Personally I would have preferred my tax money to be spent on two conventional carriers with naval Raffalles - but I can predict the response I would get from my English mates on that one:laugh

At least with the cats and traps it would have had a real capability. Now it is going to be more of fleet protection and CAS. Not a real strike platform.

 

[satish007]

Unlike India china ,they do not need prove themselves and enjoy lives,they have less and less enemies either.

 

[rock127]

Unlike India china ,they do not need prove themselves and enjoy lives,they have less and less enemies either.

Yeah... the only visible enemy is Pakistani on it's land grooming their British white daughters for sex.

 

[Armand2REP]

Yeah... the only visible enemy is Pakistani on it's land grooming their British white daughters for sex.

I've seen quite a few Pakistani girls dating chavs, rarely see a white girl dating a Pakistani guy.

 

[satish007]

I've seen quite a few Pakistani girls dating chavs, rarely see a white girl dating a Pakistani guy.

That because nobody like UK girls they have too much heavy food in morning, on the other hand, Pakistani girls are pretty, better than Indian girls too.

 

[ashdoc]

I've seen quite a few Pakistani girls dating chavs, rarely see a white girl dating a Pakistani guy.

yeah really.....

then you better read this---

Nine men from Derby are jailed for grooming up to 100 for sex | Mail Online

and this---

http://www.indiatalkies.com/2011/01/pakistani-men-grooming-british-girls-sex.html

 

[Armand2REP]

Raping them is dating them... whatever.

 

[ashdoc]

Raping them is dating them... whatever.

the girls are ready to date the pakis . its the pakis who look upon them as loose white women and pimp them to their friends .

 

[LalTopi]

F-35C requires catapults while 35B is VTOL.

Oops. My mistake. Thanks for the correction.

They already spent half a billion redesigning and refiting for catapults, but now they just wasted that. Flushing money down the toilet the same as building oversized carriers that much cheaper ones would do. The whole thing has been botched from day one... question is can they even afford the more expensive F-35B. The went with the C because they knew they could only afford enough for one carrier.

This is getting worrying. Although STOVL may make sense from a threat perspective - it seems odd as you say to end up with two STOVL super carriers. Clearly too much politics involved. I think as Yusuf had said, we have not seen the end of this and we may yet revert. I recall at one stage it was suggested that one of the carriers could be sold to India - for its IAC2 - then things went quite and they started talking about making the carrier into a helicopter carrier for a 'short' while, and then sold to a 'third country'.

Maybe the British public will start to be prepared slowly to swallow two bitter pills - one to downsize to a single carrier with F35B (as refitting for cats is too expensive), and two to sell the second carrier on the cheap to her former colony, i.e. a high step back from Brittania 'ruling the waves'.

 

[Armand2REP]

Oops. My mistake. Thanks for the correction.



This is getting worrying. Although STOVL may make sense from a threat perspective - it seems odd as you say to end up with two STOVL super carriers. Clearly too much politics involved. I think as Yusuf had said, we have not seen the end of this and we may yet revert. I recall at one stage it was suggested that one of the carriers could be sold to India - for its IAC2 - then things went quite and they started talking about making the carrier into a helicopter carrier for a 'short' while, and then sold to a 'third country'.

Maybe the British public will start to be prepared slowly to swallow two bitter pills - one to downsize to a single carrier with F35B (as refitting for cats is too expensive), and two to sell the second carrier on the cheap to her former colony, i.e. a high step back from Brittania 'ruling the waves'.

Considering Britain is in a recession with no end in sight, I don't think the budget will ever increase for this project. They can't afford to operate, much less equip a second carrier with F-35s. Unless they leave it in mothballs, they really should sell it. Does India want an oversized jump jet carrier? I would think they want to move on to catapults.

 

[Energon]

There has been a lot of chatter in the British press about the state of Naval affairs and the loss of the aircraft carrier and the depletion of the naval air arm (I'm far too lazy to copy/paste the links but the guardian has some decent pieces). I haven't followed the matter too closely so my comments should be taken with a grain of salt. Clearly both sides of the argument have merit and here's my take on them.

Against:
1. What England really needs right now is to get their economy back on track. The Brits may not be tethered to the Eurozone disaster but they still need to do a lot in order to turn their economy around. So there's definitely a lot of merit to the lobby supporting the decision to reroute funds toward education and infrastructure. IMO education is going to be the most important thing.

2. The UK really doesn't need a seaborne expeditionary force. They would be better of pursuing two other strategies: i) using whatever diplomatic influence they have left to establish small bases in their areas of interest. And ii) increase level of integration with the US navy especially after they induct F-35s; I think the US and the UK have enough common interests to share resources and integrate some fleets; and considering the impending economic restraints upon the US armed forces resource sharing my not be a bad idea.


For:
1. The biggest risk of eliminating niche defense programs isn't the unavailability of hardware, but the loss of skills. Skill sets required to operate carriers and such are highly complex and require decades to build up; unfortunately in the absence of practice they are also very easy to lose. It is hence imperative for a navy to retain such programs to maintain the critical skills.

2. Manufacturing in the UK has plummeted over the years. However the only industry that has remained at the forefront is the defense industry. I'm sure defense projects create lots of job and fuels money into R&D. Funnily enough the Navy could serve as an excellent sales team by showcasing all the toys.


One thing that the Brits need to keep in mind is that even if they sacrifice the size of the fleet they cannot possibly compromise on technological advancement. The British empire even in their beleaguered state maintained the largest naval fleet up until the second world war, but they fell behind on technological advancement. The Germans knew the only way they could hold off the larger British navy was to surpass them technologically, which is exactly what they did.

 

[LalTopi]

OK. Let's have a bit of fun.

Think of an India versus Britain conflict situation in the Indian Ocean.

We all know that Britain defeated the Argentinians in the Falklands back in 1982, and are more than capable of holding the Falklands, even with the current depleted strength of the Royal Navy (RN) now. But, can the RN hold up against the newer naval powers?- specifically in this scenario against the Indian Navy in the Indian Ocean.

The scenario is over the US/UK military base in Diego Garcia in the Chagos islands, in say 2016/2017 - i.e. roughly 5 years time.

Diego Garcia

For political and humanitarian reasons, the US decides not to renew its lease over Diego Garcia in 2016, pulls out and stays completely neutral. The native islanders demand the return of their homeland, but Britain decides to retain its military base and reinforce and protect the islands themselves. The islanders/Mauritius enlist India's help, who sees the value in the island for her own strategic advantage, and tries to evict the British.

Looking at the RN expeditionary strength, they are (will be in 2016) especially strong in their Type 45 destroyers and SSNs (i.e. Astute class):

List of active Royal Navy ships - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So what are the relative strengths militarily? and how may the conflict progress?

For added fun, we shall say that France decides to also stay neutral (unless Amand decides otherwise), given that the British took the islands from the French back in the early 1800s.

 

[balai_c]

^^ Fun thread indeed, but are you sure USA can remain neutral when their "old country" is in trouble? That is kinda hard to contemplate!

 

[Yusuf]

Diego Garcia is under US control and good luck dealing with USN!

 

[Payeng]

I think Britain Naval requirement and that of India's requirement is as per the threat perception prevailing and plus even for the unforeseen future threat perception she have the backing of NATO.