So, what should be cut?

For everything else UK defence-related that doesn't fit into any of the sections above.
Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: So, what should be cut?

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote:There is the problem, the assumption that we need to focus elsewhere and to assume we do, means that we have to militarily.
Yes, it has to be militarily. It is more important to us (and our living standards) in what is going on the Gulf or in the South China Sea that what is going on in the Eastern Baltics or the Ukraine. If you are not willing to protect those interests, expect to lose them.

However, I am in no way pushing a 18-19th century model of forward fleets. I see no need to forward base GP Frigates for example. The future of U.K. global presence is through a combination of providing valuable specialist skills / kit on an more permanent basis, and with strong alliances with other like minded nations that are capable of integrating to become a larger more relevant force.

By the former, I mean providing MCM capability to the Gulf, or Survey capability in the Far East. It is something the UK excels at and buys influence.

The latter part, is working with nations like Canada and Australia, where when something happens a force can come together that has a significant military effect beyond the strengths of the individual nations, be it in the North Atlantic to counter Russia or in the South China Sea to counter China.

This requires a number of things:
- First class kit, training and logistics
- Regular training deployments
- Close security coordination, information sharing and decision making
- A closer alignment on equipment

It does not require “19” frigates to arbitrarily tick a box.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

downsizer
Member
Posts: 893
Joined: 02 May 2015, 08:03

Re: So, what should be cut?

Post by downsizer »

arfah wrote:50% of forum threads
It lives!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lolno:

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: So, what should be cut?

Post by R686 »

Repulse wrote:




However, I am in no way pushing a 18-19th century model of forward fleets. I see no need to forward base GP Frigates for example. The future of U.K. global presence is through a combination of providing valuable specialist skills / kit on an more permanent basis, and with strong alliances with other like minded nations that are capable of integrating to become a larger more relevant force.



The latter part, is working with nations like Canada and Australia, where when something happens a force can come together that has a significant military effect beyond the strengths of the individual nations, be it in the North Atlantic to counter Russia or in the South China Sea to counter China.

This requires a number of things:
- First class kit, training and logistics
- Regular training deployments
- Close security coordination, information sharing and decision making
- A closer alignment on equipment



.

You know I was thinking about this the other day and there has been suggestions of either mothballing a CV or worst case selling.

The coin has already been spent on CV it’s done and dusted, but what I was actully thinking was why not a modern day version of BPF? After all you still do have commitments under FPDA

It could be based out of Fleet Base West WA, permanently base one of the CV there under RAN control and maintenance with a rotating CO between RAN/RN, there has been speculation in the past about RAAF and F35. it’s air wing could in theory be joint venture between AU/UK/US.

It’s certainly no means a perfect solution but does give the UK respite from the costs of a CV

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: So, what should be cut?

Post by Repulse »

R686,Maybe we base a CVF in Australia and they base a LHD in the UK... Perhaps an extreme example of what could be done, but it’s a perfect illustration of the possibilities.

Obviously, Canada and Australia (with probably New Zealand) are independent nations, so the underlying assumption is that their strategic views and electorate would be compatible - but this is the kind of positive strategic shift we need.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: So, what should be cut?

Post by Tempest414 »

A little off topic and putting the carriers aside if the UK get the LRG's up and running and the RAN got the Canberra class cleared for F-35 then a Commonwealth naval task group made up of

1 x Canberra class with 8 to 12 UK F-35b and 8 Helicopters plus 400 troops
1 x RN LRG ( with 200 RM plus 200 Gurkha's )
1 x Wave class
1 x Hobart class
2 x Hunter class
1 x RCN type 26
1 x RNZN frigate

would be quite a force and if you wanted to ramp it up the Canberra class goes back to helicopter ops and the group becomes a battle group with a UK CSG added

I have always said that if the UK is going to be in the Far East it should be part of a Commonwealth task group as this has more punch . Also for me there should a standing Commonwealth maritime group in the Far East

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: So, what should be cut?

Post by R686 »

Repulse wrote:R686,Maybe we base a CVF in Australia and they base a LHD in the UK... Perhaps an extreme example of what could be done, but it’s a perfect illustration of the possibilities.

Obviously, Canada and Australia (with probably New Zealand) are independent nations, so the underlying assumption is that their strategic views and electorate would be compatible - but this is the kind of positive strategic shift we need.
That would work if the ADF didn’t need all three amphibious ships to make an ARG work, we could probably make do if the Canberra’s were a WASP class instead


But besides it’s global Britain not a global Terra Australis

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: So, what should be cut?

Post by SW1 »

If Australia would like an aircraft carrier we could always sell them one barely used, we are having a defence review after all.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: So, what should be cut?

Post by Tempest414 »

As to the question maybe I would go for something like

Army

Cut Watchkeeper
Cancel Worrier upgrade
Cut by 50% the Ajax program
add 100 Boxer with 105mm gun
add 100 M777 field guns

Air force

Cut Sentinel R1
Cut 1 Typoon Sqn and move to 2 wings of 40 jets
Gap AEW&C

Navy

Cut 2 type 23
sell or srap one LPD
sell one Wave class and forward deploy the other EoS
Add 2 x 150 meter Makassar class at a cost of no more than 200 million for the LRG role

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: So, what should be cut?

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote:sell or srap one LHD
I’d be happy to sell all the LHDs and keep all of the LPDs :D
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: So, what should be cut?

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:sell or srap one LHD
I’d be happy to sell all the LHDs and keep all of the LPDs :D
Many thanks . It could slite of hand to scrap something we don't have and make HMG think they got a deal

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: So, what should be cut?

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote:If Australia would like an aircraft carrier we could always sell them one barely used, we are having a defence review after all.
Why would we do that?

The whole point of having two is scale (in the event of a major conflict) and redundancy (in case of repair, maintenance or worse sinking).

The combination of our current LPD + a CVF is better than any LHD on the planet; and guess what we’ve already paid for them.

If we have to cut, then cut any “fake” middle level capability which is neither good enough by itself for a major conflict or not required in peace time; for example the T31. Also, cut capabilities that are obviously “fake” like the ability to deploy an Army Division globally or even the RM Brigade structure. Lastly, we can get scale out of alliances, so actually having 14 (or a few more) real FFs/DDs is not as big an issue some like to think it is.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: So, what should be cut?

Post by Lord Jim »

Repulse wrote: LPD + a CVF is better than any LHD on the planet
Except the Carriers are no longer to have an amphibious roles except for possibly transporting helicopters into theatre if that counts. Having a carrier in extended readiness still gives us the "scale" to cover loss or overhaul periods as well as extending the lives of the ships if done right. In the meantime it does save a few pennies by reducing operating costs.

One thing that must happen in my opinion, for what it is worth, is to greatly reduce our aspirations for operating EoS. Visits by RN and/or RFA vessels every few years and maintaining out minor bases EoS should be as far as we go until the services get additional assets so that they are able to station assets there without reducing their ability to carry out their core responsibilities with NATO top of the list.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: So, what should be cut?

Post by Repulse »

I really do not understand the need to retreat from EoS - the UK has global interests and have assets that can travel. With some global allies and focus on assets that matter, the UK can have a very effective force with global influence. It definitely does not have to try to be another European land power.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: So, what should be cut?

Post by Tempest414 »

Lord Jim wrote:One thing that must happen in my opinion, for what it is worth, is to greatly reduce our aspirations for operating EoS. Visits by RN and/or RFA vessels every few years and maintaining out minor bases EoS should be as far as we go until the services get additional assets so that they are able to station assets there without reducing their ability to carry out their core responsibilities with NATO top of the list.
I would agree that the Atlantic and High North should be our main thrust and that our tier 1 fleet should be focused here. However I still believe that a force of 3 type 31's a Wave class tanker a LRG and MCM EoS full time strikes the right balance as leaves the rest of the fleet including all tier 1 escorts in the Home fleet

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: So, what should be cut?

Post by Lord Jim »

Repulse wrote: It definitely does not have to try to be another European land power.
We do however have a commitment to NATO that includes providing troops and our Army , at least the part that has any combat power, is already small enough. Given this thread is about where we can see cuts being made, and therefore the likelihood of the RN growing anytime soon, with the exception of the T-31e, which will have very limited combat power, showing the flag we do not have enough assets to both meet our NATO naval commitments and send station viable force EoS. The fact that we may see the number of RN escorts shrink well before their replacements hit the water makes this even more apparent.

It is pointed out that we have allies out east that we need to show solidarity with, well if things do not improve and tensions in Europe spike we may be asking the RAN to send a few of its escorts west to assist the RN.

The need to prioritise NATO is made even more important with the USN's shift in focus to the Pacific, meaning out Carrier Group is going to be a key NATO asset, and our ability and commitment to reinforce the north also very important, especially with our close relationship with the Dutch forces allocated to this role and with the Norwegians themselves.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: So, what should be cut?

Post by Tempest414 »

I know this is thread is what to cut but we should also look at best practice too and for me having a force forward based EoS is a good thing and future fleet of

3 x Type 31
3 x Vaeari 100 meter MHC
1 x Wave class
1 x Littoral response group with 200 RM

would be a good place to end up. Right now we are not that far off this with 2 escorts , 4 MCM , 1 Bay and in the last year we have had a Wave class and a Echo class EoS. As said this would allow our tier 1 force to focus on the Atlantic , High North and Med

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: So, what should be cut?

Post by SW1 »

I do always find it interesting when the Far East is brought up the default positions that follow is which ships it will be. Seemly ignoring the fact that an army battalion has been fwd based there long after the navy disappeared from that part of the world.

I wonder if we’re looking for ships to justify a mission or a mission to justify the ships.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: So, what should be cut?

Post by Repulse »

Lord Jim wrote:We do however have a commitment to NATO that includes providing troops and our Army , at least the part that has any combat power, is already small enough. Given this thread is about where we can see cuts being made, and therefore the likelihood of the RN growing anytime soon
Our commitment to NATO should reflect the need (including probability/ risk of conflict), what we can offer, and the new political landscape. It should never be an arbitrary, each service should be involved at the same level, approach - neither do I have any qualms at cutting in one area to fund another if needed - that is what a review should be for.

The probability of significant conflict on the eastern borders in the Baltic’s is minimal IMO, and more likely to be a game of posturing. A “conflict” in and around the Artic with the changing environment due to global warming and access to valuable minerals and other resources is much more likely.

My view is the UK’s commitment should be focused on four areas;
- Denial of access to the North Atlantic (which combines with protection of UK waters)
- Denial of Russia’s ability to use Norway/Artic as a base to challenge the first
- Protection of the UK mainland to act as a “unsinkable aircraft carrier” and safe route of supplies and troops for the US and other non European allies.
- Nuclear deterrent (CASD or alternative)

I’d suggest that to protect Norway (given its geography) we need the ability to deploy troops to protect key natural costal regions and land transportation choke points. Specialist troops rather than numbers IMO.

As such, I see no need to invest in the Army beyond its ability to protect the UK, plus specialist expeditionary forces up to say a scale of a Brigade for NATO.

I do see a need to invest in the Navy and RAF.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: So, what should be cut?

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote:I do always find it interesting when the Far East is brought up the default positions that follow is which ships it will be. Seemly ignoring the fact that an army battalion has been fwd based there long after the navy disappeared from that part of the world.

I wonder if we’re looking for ships to justify a mission or a mission to justify the ships.
The Gurkhas in Brunei wouldn’t be there unless they were mostly paid for by the Sultan. In terms of their benefit to the broader region, it is currently very limited. Would I agree for a forward based “air deployable” response group (equivalent of the Naval LRG) made up of a few hundred Paras - answer would be yes.

As you know, whilst they have their restrictions, the beauty of a naval task group is that it can sail anywhere in international waters, relatively quickly as a self contained package. That is not dreaming up a requirement, that is fact. The Fact that the same group can be used to support NATO is also clear.

I dismiss fully the idea forward basing paper frigates or worse “fleets” of paper ships - it is a waste of scarce resources. Each has to have a purpose - showing a low level appropriate presence (interest) like a RFA or OPV can, or specialist skills like MCM/SFs/Survey.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: So, what should be cut?

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote:
SW1 wrote:I do always find it interesting when the Far East is brought up the default positions that follow is which ships it will be. Seemly ignoring the fact that an army battalion has been fwd based there long after the navy disappeared from that part of the world.

I wonder if we’re looking for ships to justify a mission or a mission to justify the ships.
The Gurkhas in Brunei wouldn’t be there unless they were mostly paid for by the Sultan. In terms of their benefit to the broader region, it is currently very limited. Would I agree for a forward based “air deployable” response group (equivalent of the Naval LRG) made up of a few hundred Paras - answer would be yes.

As you know, whilst they have their restrictions, the beauty of a naval task group is that it can sail anywhere in international waters, relatively quickly as a self contained package. That is not dreaming up a requirement, that is fact. The Fact that the same group can be used to support NATO is also clear.

I dismiss fully the idea forward basing paper frigates or worse “fleets” of paper ships - it is a waste of scarce resources. Each has to have a purpose - showing a low level appropriate presence (interest) like a RFA or OPV can, or specialist skills like MCM/SFs/Survey.
So it’s even better in that it costs us little to have the Gurkhas there and transport a/c positioned fairly quickly to offer mobility should it be needed.

I thought the idea of having forces out there was to support allies? Are you suggested they would ask for our help but wouldn’t want to operate from their country?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: So, what should be cut?

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: So it’s even better in that it costs us little to have the Gurkhas there and transport a/c positioned fairly quickly to offer mobility should it be needed.
Yes, and as I say I would support it further with an appropriately sized Airborne Response Group, made up of SFs and a couple hundred Paras / Ghurkas.

What I am definitely not saying is that we should scrap the capability for an idealistic and unnessary commitment to NATO of land forces.
SW1 wrote:I thought the idea of having forces out there was to support allies? Are you suggested they would ask for our help but wouldn’t want to operate from their country?
Good question. If we are talking about China invading other countries, then yes of course they would be happy with this. However, I still see that unlikely (with the exception of Taiwan - where I think the UK couldn’t commit ground troops). More likely is continued aggressive behaviour in the South China Sea, asserting claim to other countries EEZs and restricting their ability to operate militarily in those zones. Firstly, ground troops will do bugger all, and deploying them is likely to incur serious Chinese sanctions on those countries, so unlikely to be accepted.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

topman
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

Re: So, what should be cut?

Post by topman »

I think, before worrying about what to cut, you'd need have a think about what we want to do. Otherwise you're putting the cart before the horse.

What are we trying to achieve and why?

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: So, what should be cut?

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote:I do always find it interesting when the Far East is brought up the default positions that follow is which ships it will be. Seemly ignoring the fact that an army battalion has been fwd based there long after the navy disappeared from that part of the world.

I wonder if we’re looking for ships to justify a mission or a mission to justify the ships.
Firstly I have said in the past that 200 RM at form the LRG and the Gurkha's should train together and act as each others surge force I would go as far as adding a Engineering and Artillery unit with the Gurkha's which could also work with the LRG

As for the ships we know what we have and what we are getting and as for mission it has stood 30 years and is now growing every day as China starts push out with it armed forces

topman
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

Re: So, what should be cut?

Post by topman »

Since there's a CM for an ex 2*, how about a cut in CEA? Or scrapped completely? Cost per year is something like £180m.

CEA is the boarding school allowance.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: So, what should be cut?

Post by Lord Jim »

Bad idea!!!!

Post Reply