What will the SDSR (SDR) mean for the Royal Navy?

The warships of today's navies, current naval events, ships in the news, etc.
User avatar
19kilo
Member
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 1:46 am

Re: What will the SDSR (SDR) mean for the Royal Navy?

Post by 19kilo » Tue Oct 19, 2010 11:31 pm

What aircraft they have will be RAF planes. THAT worked out well in the past. :(

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7532
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: What will the SDSR (SDR) mean for the Royal Navy?

Post by RF » Wed Oct 20, 2010 7:44 am

It ''works well'' when the RAF aircraft are not required eleswhere. A carrier should always have its own aircraft, otherwise you only have half a ship and no teeth.
Using somebody else's teeth is no real substitute.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
Kyler
Senior Member
Posts: 382
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:49 am
Location: Evansville, IN U.S.A.
Contact:

Re: What will the SDSR (SDR) mean for the Royal Navy?

Post by Kyler » Wed Oct 20, 2010 10:18 pm

A Carrier with no planes = A Big Fat Easy Target!

I was very surprised by the astonishingly early retirement of the Sentenal R1's. The RAF had only recently only received all of its aircraft. It it wasn't for the current deployments overseas it would have been retired right away. In conjunction with the retirement of the NMR4, the MoD just flushed several billion dollars down the toliet.

My real question is what are they going to do with all these ships, aircraft, and equipment. Store them? Sell them? Give them to NATO?
"It was a perfect attack, Right Height, Right Range, Right cloud cover, Right speed,
Wrong f@%king ship!" Commander Stewart-Moore (HMS Ark Royal)

User avatar
19kilo
Member
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 1:46 am

Re: What will the SDSR (SDR) mean for the Royal Navy?

Post by 19kilo » Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:11 pm

Argentina would probably like the Nimrods. watch for the QE to be sold almost as fast as she is commisioned.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7532
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: What will the SDSR (SDR) mean for the Royal Navy?

Post by RF » Thu Oct 21, 2010 7:12 am

Kyler wrote: My real question is what are they going to do with all these ships, aircraft, and equipment. Store them? Sell them? Give them to NATO?
Mothball them or sell them. Britain is already in NATO anyway so hardly needs to transfer the equipment.

No the Lisbon Treaty will run its course and I can forsee this quisling coalition government giving up on Britain having its own armed forces in favour of the EU.

At the same time that Osborne was cutting the Royal Navy budget and outlining the rest of his spending review, the EU Commission increased the EU budget by 5.9%. It was passed by the European Parliament on the nod supported by the Conservative MEP's. As a result Britain's contribution to that budget must rise. No question of any cuts there and no publicity for the EU budget increase either.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
Kyler
Senior Member
Posts: 382
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:49 am
Location: Evansville, IN U.S.A.
Contact:

Re: What will the SDSR (SDR) mean for the Royal Navy?

Post by Kyler » Thu Oct 21, 2010 8:37 pm

Selling would be the best choice, since storing military equipment can be very expensive if you ever plan on using it again.

Hopefully the RAF will transfer what aircraft they don't sell to AMARG ("Boneyard") for long term storage. Cause if the government changes and there is an increase in defense spending they can be brought back into service. A good example is the B-1B bomber, 40 were retired and a few years later 20 were brought back into service.

I'll have to read up about the Lisbon Treaty and its affects on the UK's military. I do agree if the UK is having to cut spending and the EU is upping their budget is pretty ridiculous. Even more so with the PIIGS still in financial trouble.
"It was a perfect attack, Right Height, Right Range, Right cloud cover, Right speed,
Wrong f@%king ship!" Commander Stewart-Moore (HMS Ark Royal)

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7532
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: What will the SDSR (SDR) mean for the Royal Navy?

Post by RF » Fri Oct 22, 2010 8:29 am

Kyler wrote:Selling would be the best choice, since storing military equipment can be very expensive if you ever plan on using it again.
If you are landeed with a war then you will have to use the equipment again - you have no choice.

Maintaining a strong military is not a cheap option. It is far better than a weak military.

And only a politician could come up with a concept of an aircraft carrier without aircraft. Especially a politician with an ignorance of history. But politicians are only in it for themselves, they have little understanding of the real world....
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
19kilo
Member
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 1:46 am

Re: What will the SDSR (SDR) mean for the Royal Navy?

Post by 19kilo » Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:24 am

It would probably be best not to look at it as an aircraft carrier but as a disaster relief/hospital ship. I hate to say it, but the way things have been going for the past 20 years, what Britain is going to end up with in the next few years, say 15 to 20, is a coast guard, 3 to 4 sqdrns of Typhoons for air police duties, and a couple of helo sqdrns and battalions of personel for disaster relief missions.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7532
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: What will the SDSR (SDR) mean for the Royal Navy?

Post by RF » Fri Oct 22, 2010 1:16 pm

And all under direct EU control as well.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7532
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: What will the SDSR (SDR) mean for the Royal Navy?

Post by RF » Fri Oct 22, 2010 1:24 pm

The situation with all of this is that until Britain gets a government that believes in Britain being an independent self-governing country, that fully respects the British armed forces by properly assessing strategic requirements (not just financial ones) and then properly resourcing them, then the Royal Navy won't be a world wide respected force of a world power. And the RN won't be a force to be reckoned with unless it is run by seamen and people who understand sea power, and not by office boys and bean counters who don't understand the real world of work.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: What will the SDSR (SDR) mean for the Royal Navy?

Post by Bgile » Fri Oct 22, 2010 2:14 pm

I hope I'm wrong, but I'm afraid the financial situaton isn't going to get better for the forseeable future.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7532
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: What will the SDSR (SDR) mean for the Royal Navy?

Post by RF » Fri Oct 22, 2010 6:54 pm

Well, bgile, the financial situation is a debateable point.

Yes there has been a colossal cost in terms of government debt in propping up the commercial and investment banks. The decision to underwrite the losses of the banks by governments at taxpayer expense was the right decision - because letting leading banks go bust would vastly amplify a liquidity and confidence crisis not seen since the eighteenth century, resulting in a worldwide economic depression far worse than that of the 1930's.

Looking at Britain, I would make two points, and while this may seem to be a digression from the thread title, it does have a very direct bearing on it.

Firstly the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) our Chancellor (Finance Minister) announced on Wednesday this week rightly seeks to dramatically cut government expenditure. But the brunt of these cuts are loaded on to the so-called ''middle class'' and presented as a punishment we must take. What the CSR totally ignores is net annual cost to the UK of being a member of the European Union, currently about £16 billion. In the same week as the CSR the EU has increased its budget by 5.9%, with minimal publicity. Both of our coalition parties voted for this increase in the European Parliament, so clearly our government supports this EU budget increase. One immediate effect is that the increase will be funded in part by Britain....
By leaving the EU and cancelling this subsidy the British Exchequer will recover almost entirely this years cut in public expenditure. The implication of this is that the CSR cuts appear to be unnecesary. I think that cuts should be applied to the government bureaucracy and not so much to public services; at the same time instead of increasing the rate of VAT from 17.5% to 20% (effective 4 January 2011) I would instead cut VAT to 15%. I would also abolish employers national insurance contributions (which is a payroll tax) permanently for small businesses. This is to help stimulate the private sector.
And for the armed forces, I would increase their budget, not reduce it.

Secondly, when the Labour Government bailed out the banks it was done by converting the debt into equity in these banks, ie the government acquired the bulk of the shares in these banks, amounting to partial nationalisation.
The stated intention at that time was that eventually, when the banks were back into profitability and their share price had improved, the government would sell these shares through the London Stock Exchange and thus recover the cost to the taxpayer, indeed may even make a profit out of it!
Realistically this sell off of the government held shares would be feasible after 2013 or 2014. I suspect that this coalition government intends to hold a cheap cut price sell off of these shares a year or so before the next general election due in 2015. A cheap sell off will cheat the taxpayer and fail to recover the debt properly. That is why the CSR is intended to bite now - because the sell off of those bank shares will raise minimal revenue.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
19kilo
Member
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 1:46 am

Re: What will the SDSR (SDR) mean for the Royal Navy?

Post by 19kilo » Sat Oct 23, 2010 1:12 am

Where is Argentina when Britain really needs her?! :lol:

AngloSaxonVangaurd
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:37 pm

Re: What will the SDSR (SDR) mean for the Royal Navy?

Post by AngloSaxonVangaurd » Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:16 pm

Well its done now. Shame about the Cuts. However we all know what who was there influencing the cuts don't we! The god damn EU!!! Brussels knew the UK armed forces were too big, too powerful and too independent for the UK ever to agree to a common defense policy. Now with these cuts the UK has no other option but to co-operate closer with other EU forces.

Next time the UK needs to deploy a major carrier strike group (2020 and beyond) expect to see a French frigate and a few Rafael deployed with the British task force. Thats the way forward for UK defense, we will NEED support from our allies.

I'm actually OK with the defense cuts now they have happened.

I just hope it just sticks and we do get a surface fleet of;

1 x CATOBAR Queen Eli super-carrier with F-35cs and AEW aircraft (One in reserve)
6 x T-45 Destroyers
13 x T-23 Frigates (Replaced by 12 or so T-26 Frigates)
7 x Astute Class
4 x Trident SSBNs
2 x Amphibious assault ships (Hopefully 2 LHAs like the French Mistral class)

The planed fleet is very affordable so there wouldn't be much budgetary restraints to keep a Royal Navy like that afloat and ready for action.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7532
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: What will the SDSR (SDR) mean for the Royal Navy?

Post by RF » Mon Oct 25, 2010 7:34 am

AngloSaxonVangaurd wrote: Thats the way forward for UK defense, we will NEED support from our allies.

I'm actually OK with the defense cuts now they have happened.
And what if the French and Americans don't support Britain? Why should Britain carry any weight internationally with such puny forces incapable of being effective without other countries acting in concert?

Those are the stratiegic implications and why I am not OK with these cuts. But there again I didn't vote for either of these coalition parties.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

Post Reply