Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Albatross wrote:It's landlocked where I live - my lawn is a pretty big distance from a body of water deep enough to berth an aircraft carrier in.

TACTICAL VICTORYYYY!!!

We'll just keep the aircraft on the launch lines and have them drag the carriers in. It'll be like james and the giant peach, except with jets and a fleet of 110 tonne aircraft carriers.

sebster wrote:That's just shifting numbers around. The cost is the same whether you put the budget line under MoD or elsewhere.

But those numbers matter when you're overall budget is being cut. It has the net effect of cutting your available budget by over 50% in one year. That is going to hurt badly.

The aircraft carriers were actually part of the post Cold War budget review, the Royal Navy realised it's specialised role in the US/UK alliance as an anti-submarine/minesweeping operation was no redundant, and now they wanted to gain greater force projection capabilities. That means aircraft carriers. It's all good and well to have troops on the ground, but it's having planes over their heads that really matters.

But we don't need two, one is sufficient for our needs

Problem with military budgets is that the nature of the next war is an unpredictable thing, and so there is always a danger of over-specialising to fight the last war, and leaving yourself incapable of fighting the next.

But, of course, the defence force can't have everything it might hypothetically ever need (well the US almost can but the rest of us have sane defence budgets) and so we need to be aware that every resource we commit to a possible future event is a dollar we cannot spend on a real problem today. Specialising to fight the known conflicts of today, and maintaining flexibility to fight the unknown conflicts of tomorrow is not an easy thing.

Agreed, but at the moment we can't fight anything.

Cheers

Andrew

ShumaGorath wrote:

Albatross wrote:It's landlocked where I live - my lawn is a pretty big distance from a body of water deep enough to berth an aircraft carrier in.

TACTICAL VICTORYYYY!!!

We'll just keep the aircraft on the launch lines and have them drag the carriers in. It'll be like james and the giant peach, except with jets and a fleet of 110 tonne aircraft carriers.

I'm thinking Special Boat Service armed with a big pair of scissors. Like, a REALLY big pair.

AndrewC wrote:But those numbers matter when you're overall budget is being cut. It has the net effect of cutting your available budget by over 50% in one year. That is going to hurt badly.

No, really, it is just numbers moving around. They cost what they cost no matter what part of government they're formally funded through.

But we don't need two, one is sufficient for our needs

I'm not sure anyone who isn't a military grognard could actually make that assessment.

sebster wrote:No, really, it is just numbers moving around. They cost what they cost no matter what part of government they're formally funded through.

Not for the people who rely on that money for other things. Yes the Gov't pay for it out of a single pot of money, but the MoD are allocated cash for a specific purpose. If they are then told that they have to pay for something else not normally associated with those funds, it become problematic.

You pay tax on your income for local services. So it's a bit like then being told that on top of your taxes you have to by a new fire engine for the fire brigade. The Military doesn't need trident, the politicians need trident.

I'm not sure anyone who isn't a military grognard could actually make that assessment.

Pass. When do we ever need to project airpower to the extent of two aircraft carriers?

Andrew

/Pass. When do we ever need to project airpower to the extent of two aircraft carriers?

The looming korean conflict?

AndrewC wrote:

Pass. When do we ever need to project airpower to the extent of two aircraft carriers?

Andrew

One Aircraft carrier is of little use other than a national vanity project. As I said in a earlier post Ships are not available for deployment 24/7 year in year out. They need to undergo regular maintenance and intermittently lengthy refits in dry dock. When you really need it it may not be available.

The French for example have had a turgid time with there lone carrier in recent years with it rarely going to sea. Having two means you can keep them in constant rotation so you always have one available when the other isn't.

But thats just it, the aircraft carriers are just a national vanity project.

We can't afford the planes to put on one of them let alone two. Lets face it, the UK is not a 'superpower' in National Politics, we are a second level power who has had a superlative past. I can't help but think of the Centauri from B5 as an apt example.

The only thing that keeps us on the National Security Council is the fact that we can/do/did build nukes.

Cheers

Andrew

cpt_fishcakes wrote:
One Aircraft carrier is of little use other than a national vanity project.

I don't know about that. The de Gaulle has played a significant role in several conflicts. The French would be better off with two carriers, but one is hardly useless.

cpt_fishcakes wrote:
The French for example have had a turgid time with there lone carrier in recent years with it rarely going to sea. Having two means you can keep them in constant rotation so you always have one available when the other isn't.

They're , theoretically, building a second.

Korea, Lebanon/Israel/Iran, China/Taiwan, Russia/former Soviet satellite state they are pissed at today

I see lots of reasons to keep a military ready to smack the miscreants of the world around.

Stormrider wrote:Korea, Lebanon/Israel/Iran, China/Taiwan, Russia/former Soviet satellite state they are pissed at today

I see lots of reasons to keep a military ready to smack the miscreants of the world around.

I can't see why any Western state would be obliged to act in any of those instances; save Korea (where US troops are already stationed), and any former satellite that is a NATO member.

AndrewC wrote:Not for the people who rely on that money for other things. Yes the Gov't pay for it out of a single pot of money, but the MoD are allocated cash for a specific purpose. If they are then told that they have to pay for something else not normally associated with those funds, it become problematic.

Thing is, you're making the assumption that the MoD is just given a flat amount of cash, and then told what they have to do with that money. So that if nukes were taken away from them and put into another department, the MoD would get the same amount of money and be able to buy more tanks and stuff. Government budgeting doesn't work that way, department budgets are built with funding allocations towards specific requirements. If the nukes were shifted out of the MoD, the attached funding would be shifted as well.

Believe me on this, I've spent most of my working life dealing with government budgeting.

Pass. When do we ever need to project airpower to the extent of two aircraft carriers?

Whenever you want to make an amphibious landing in another country, or provide air support to any ground operations where you don't have ground based runways nearby. The odds of that happening without being an joint US operation (so you could then rely on their carriers, as they have more than enough for everybody) is the big question. I honestly have no idea.

AndrewC wrote:But thats just it, the aircraft carriers are just a national vanity project.

We can't afford the planes to put on one of them let alone two. Lets face it, the UK is not a 'superpower' in National Politics, we are a second level power who has had a superlative past. I can't help but think of the Centauri from B5 as an apt example.

The only thing that keeps us on the National Security Council is the fact that we can/do/did build nukes.

You have the sixth biggest economy in the world, and the third biggest defence budget. I really don't understand why so many people are so keen to diminish the place of their country in the world.

You have the sixth biggest economy in the world, and the third biggest defence budget. I really don't understand why so many people are so keen to diminish the place of their country in the world.

Has there ever been such a stratification of global defense spending and projectable power before? By comparison to the U.S. every other military on the planet looks ramshackle. It's fairly easy to short the stature of other countries, especially ones allied to such a wildly disproportionate military power. This isn't meant to really be a sleight, it's just the general reality of the situation when we have a larger fleet and airforce then the rest of the world combined and generally take Nato and western issues in general in hand personally. I believe it's had the effect of making other states look less favorably on their own military capability and defense spending. It's a lossy department of any government after all with no real tangible benefits (besides defense itself, which is easy when you can hop on our carriers).

And amphibious assault ships, which are the size of most other nations' carriers.

AndrewC wrote:But thats just it, the aircraft carriers are just a national vanity project.

We can't afford the planes to put on one of them let alone two. Lets face it, the UK is not a 'superpower' in National Politics, we are a second level power who has had a superlative past. I can't help but think of the Centauri from B5 as an apt example.

The only thing that keeps us on the National Security Council is the fact that we can/do/did build nukes.

Cheers

Andrew

What about the Eldar, do you think the UK is like the Eldar in relation to your second level power comment? =)

ShumaGorath wrote:Has there ever been such a stratification of global defense spending and projectable power before?

I don't know. I'd guess not, but maybe one of the great empires might have... good question.

By comparison to the U.S. every other military on the planet looks ramshackle. It's fairly easy to short the stature of other countries, especially ones allied to such a wildly disproportionate military power. This isn't meant to really be a sleight, it's just the general reality of the situation when we have a larger fleet and airforce then the rest of the world combined and generally take Nato and western issues in general in hand personally. I believe it's had the effect of making other states look less favorably on their own military capability and defense spending. It's a lossy department of any government after all with no real tangible benefits (besides defense itself, which is easy when you can hop on our carriers).

Yeah, I think comparison to the US certainly leads to other countries diminishing their own capabilties. Which to an extent is sensible, what the UK could handle with complete deployment could be handled by a fraction of US operating forces. Then there's issues of dependance on the US for actually putting troops into the field.

I think it goes too far though.

sebster wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Has there ever been such a stratification of global defense spending and projectable power before?

I don't know. I'd guess not, but maybe one of the great empires might have... good question.

By comparison to the U.S. every other military on the planet looks ramshackle. It's fairly easy to short the stature of other countries, especially ones allied to such a wildly disproportionate military power. This isn't meant to really be a sleight, it's just the general reality of the situation when we have a larger fleet and airforce then the rest of the world combined and generally take Nato and western issues in general in hand personally. I believe it's had the effect of making other states look less favorably on their own military capability and defense spending. It's a lossy department of any government after all with no real tangible benefits (besides defense itself, which is easy when you can hop on our carriers).

Yeah, I think comparison to the US certainly leads to other countries diminishing their own capabilties. Which to an extent is sensible, what the UK could handle with complete deployment could be handled by a fraction of US operating forces. Then there's issues of dependance on the US for actually putting troops into the field.

I think it goes too far though.

The U.S. isn't particularly happy about the situation either. Getting other NATO member states to commit, or even pull their weight is seemingly very difficult. Europe's for the most part gotten complacent militarily.

sebster wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Has there ever been such a stratification of global defense spending and projectable power before?

I don't know. I'd guess not, but maybe one of the great empires might have... good question.

At it's height, the British Empire's naval power made it the most powerful military force in the world by a significant margin - it's navy was three times the size of it's nearest competitor, IIRC. The British and American empires are comparable in terms of their relative position in the world - though for a time The British Empire was unparalleled. That's never been the case in terms of the USA, as there's always been a rival with comparable levels of military and financial muscle.

By comparison to the U.S. every other military on the planet looks ramshackle. It's fairly easy to short the stature of other countries, especially ones allied to such a wildly disproportionate military power. This isn't meant to really be a sleight, it's just the general reality of the situation when we have a larger fleet and airforce then the rest of the world combined and generally take Nato and western issues in general in hand personally. I believe it's had the effect of making other states look less favorably on their own military capability and defense spending. It's a lossy department of any government after all with no real tangible benefits (besides defense itself, which is easy when you can hop on our carriers).

Yeah, I think comparison to the US certainly leads to other countries diminishing their own capabilties. Which to an extent is sensible, what the UK could handle with complete deployment could be handled by a fraction of US operating forces. Then there's issues of dependance on the US for actually putting troops into the field.

I think it goes too far though.

Well, to be fair the last couple of conflicts have been American-led. The British intervention in Sierra Leone was done without American assistance, IIRC.

I went to sierra Leone when it all kicked off, it was awesome. But yes, no yanks there, cept maybe for some cia who wanted to see how we got on with the locals.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Just read up about the campaign. It was not easy.

Yes it was, the island was lost quickly and it was difficult to successfully muster forces but considering the MoD was attacking a defended island immediately beside argentina while fully within range of the entire argentine airforce it still managed a nearly a 3-1 kill to casualty rate. I would consider that "easy" personally.

Despite the fact you clearly know very little... At least we didnt get beaten by blokes wearing black pyjamas.

Indulge yourself and read up on the Malayan campaign to see how you should have done it in Vietnam.

As for other conventional wars of the British Army post WW2... Korea, Suez, Falklands, Iraq (Round 1) and Iraq (Round 2) spring to mind. Of course we lost more men in GW1 to the Yanks than the Iraqis... Someone really should point out whose side we are on to Warthog pilots, though they also manage to hit their own troops with pin-point accuracy too.

As for cuts... Its the way of the beast.

Personally I would prefer to see some of the money ploughed into rotary assets, more MRAPs to get the WMIKs off the field and countless other things that may make life in 'Stan a bit more bearable.

Big P wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Just read up about the campaign. It was not easy.

Yes it was, the island was lost quickly and it was difficult to successfully muster forces but considering the MoD was attacking a defended island immediately beside argentina while fully within range of the entire argentine airforce it still managed a nearly a 3-1 kill to casualty rate. I would consider that "easy" personally.

Despite the fact you clearly know very little... At least we didnt get beaten by blokes wearing black pyjamas.

"I was kind of involved in the conflict because I lived near the place where people talked about it happening. It was really hard man, you don't understand. All your numbers and statistics! Margaret thatcher was there, it was rough. You just don't get it."

At it's height, the British Empire's naval power made it the most powerful military force in the world by a significant margin - it's navy was three times the size of it's nearest competitor, IIRC. The British and American empires are comparable in terms of their relative position in the world - though for a time The British Empire was unparalleled. That's never been the case in terms of the USA, as there's always been a rival with comparable levels of military and financial muscle.

Who is comparable to us right now?

Did someone say British MOD cuts?


GG

@ ShumaGorath China

Cadet_Commissar_Ludd wrote:@ ShumaGorath China

In army size, but historically the same could be said for virtually any major empire as compared to nations such as china or russia. In actual ability to project force we are unequaled. We have as many aircraft carriers as the rest of the world combined, and most of them are 2-3 times the size of the competition anyway. A nimitz class carries enough airpower to match or easily defeat the airforces of most other nations on the planet. Chinas military is rapidly modernizing, but it's still a far cry from being particularly modern, it's poorly run, poorly led, poorly equipped (still) and primarily designed for defense. That is changing, but it hasn't changed enough to be of particular importance at this point. In a war the U.S. military could easily declaw the chinese. We couldn't hope to mount a particularly successful invasion of the mainland (aside from taking some coastal territory) but we could certainly make them unable to fight back effectively. We are certainly a more powerful military force as opposed to our direct competition then the english empire was as opposed to its. Your navy was three times the size of your closest rival, ours is ten.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Cadet_Commissar_Ludd wrote:@ ShumaGorath China

In army size, but historically the same could be said for virtually any major empire as compared to nations such as china or russia. In actual ability to project force we are unequaled. We have as many aircraft carriers as the rest of the world combined, and most of them are 2-3 times the size of the competition anyway. A nimitz class carries enough airpower to match or easily defeat the airforces of most other nations on the planet. Chinas military is rapidly modernizing, but it's still a far cry from being particularly modern, it's poorly run, poorly led, poorly equipped (still) and primarily designed for defense. That is changing, but it hasn't changed enough to be of particular importance at this point. In a war the U.S. military could easily declaw the chinese. We couldn't hope to mount a particularly successful invasion of the mainland (aside from taking some coastal territory) but we could certainly make them unable to fight back effectively. We are certainly a more powerful military force as opposed to our direct competition then the english empire was as opposed to its. Your navy was three times the size of your closest rival, ours is ten.

Yet the US struggles to succesfully prosecute policing actions and bring them to anything even approaching a peaceful conclusion. At it's peak, The British Empire formally controlled a quarter of the worlds surface and ruled a comparable amount of people. That's not to mention de facto vassal states such as Brazil, Argentina and China. America simply doesn't have that sort of power, shiny toys or not.

Yet the US struggles to succesfully prosecute policing actions and bring them to anything even approaching a peaceful conclusion.

Yeah, hows the empire doing right now? Still keeping india under your thumb? Still pushing china around?

At it's peak, The British Empire formally controlled a quarter of the worlds surface and ruled a comparable amount of people.

Yeah, you certainly did better with all your military might. It must have been easy before people could just put together a cellphone and few sticks of TNT and kill hundreds.

That's not to mention de facto vassal states such as Brazil, Argentina and China.

You're our only vassal state .

America simply doesn't have that sort of power, shiny toys or not.

It's a different world. We have the capability of killing every single human being on the planet within five seconds of eachother. The best you could manage was some smallpox blankets. America has power the "Empire" couldn't even dream of, but it's a different world, and that power means different things now. One of our ships is heavier than a significant portion of your vaunted fleet. It's not like you had better luck against third world rebellions either.

Yet the US struggles to succesfully prosecute policing actions and bring them to anything even approaching a peaceful conclusion. At it's peak, The British Empire formally controlled a quarter of the worlds surface and ruled a comparable amount of people. That's not to mention de facto vassal states such as Brazil, Argentina and China. America simply doesn't have that sort of power, shiny toys or not.

Different times, different weapons, different laws, different tactics.

It's not power it's will actually. We don't have the will, ten years of quagmire will do that do you. We have the military, but we don't have the will to really use it properly. We've been in a war for ten years, in a giant country with a force smaller than that which we would use to police a state that the same size, while most of our army is in Europe preparing for WWIII.

Honestly Albetross, why do you need to prove anything here. It's quite obvious americans get a kick out of being a world superpower, flaunting their countries achievements as their own etc. You don't need to drag us down to that level. The British empire was created to give us someone to play at cricket, not to give us bragging rights.

Andrew1975 wrote:while most of our army is in Europe preparing for WWIII.

Really? Sir, you need to learn your military bases

ShumaGorath wrote:

Yet the US struggles to succesfully prosecute policing actions and bring them to anything even approaching a peaceful conclusion.

Yeah, hows the empire doing right now? Still keeping india under your thumb? Still pushing china around?

Sorry, you'll have to excuse me - I was just imagining how the USA would have dealt with Northern Ireland.
In case you haven't noticed, the British no longer control the Indian subcontinent - but The Empire managed to keep on top of it (as well as Persia, most of Africa...) for 100+ years. How long did it take for the US to give up on Vietnam? Iraq? Your smugness is misplaced, as usual.

At it's peak, The British Empire formally controlled a quarter of the worlds surface and ruled a comparable amount of people.

Yeah, you certainly did better with all your military might. It must have been easy before people could just put together a cellphone and few sticks of TNT and kill hundreds.

Yeah, it's waaaaay easier to rule 100s of millions of people than it is to eliminate a handful of insurgents with a knack for DIY explosives. Poor you.

That's not to mention de facto vassal states such as Brazil, Argentina and China.

You're our only vassal state .

Erm, not really. If that were the case Al Meghrahi would never have been released.

America simply doesn't have that sort of power, shiny toys or not.

It's a different world. We have the capability of killing every single human being on the planet within five seconds of eachother. The best you could manage was some smallpox blankets. America has power the "Empire" couldn't even dream of, but it's a different world, and that power means different things now. One of our ships is heavier than a significant portion of your vaunted fleet. It's not like you had better luck against third world rebellions either.