What branch's of the UK's military will have to combine ?

Tarzan007

I see that the UKwill have to rely more on France and other international allies as the spirling costs of the British military has called into question the possibility of two of the Armed Services combining. So which will they have to effectively drop ? I'd say the navy, though they have started work on two new super aircraft carriers. The reason been, Britian doesn't have to fear a Germany style invasion for the foreseable future. They'll be stuck in Afghanisatn and other places e.g.g possibly Yemen etc like it for the next 20/30 years.
Now I know psychologically it will be a massive blow to British prestige, but really, what do they want a large navy for ( apart from some escapade like the Falklands). I cannot you see Al Queda or whoever approaching the English channell in aircraft carriers and battle ships.

What's your thoughts ?

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Armed-Services-Face-Tough-Choices-In-The-Years-Ahead-Bob-Ainsworth-Defence-Secretary-Says/Article/201002115541414?lpos=UK_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15541414_Armed_Services_Face_Tough_Choices_In_The_Years_Ahead_Bob_Ainsworth%2C_Defence_Secretary_Says

OS119

there's not talk of scrapping an 'arm' of combat capability, rather a re-organisation.

the 'obvious' choice is the scrapping of the RAF - dividing it into 'strategic' and 'Army Support'. the idea being that the RN gets Maritime, Strategic Air Transport, Fast Jets, AWACS and AAR, while the Army gets Support Helicopters and some of the ISTAR assets - thought the RQ-9's would 'Fly Navy' as they are strategic assets.

iceage

http://www.blogs.mod.uk/defence_news/2010/02/defence-in-the-media-3-february-2009.html

First paragraph.

OS119

errr... actually that means it is plausable - if one option is 'plausible' then so is the opposite. plausable is a similar strength word to 'possible'.

it means 'this is a viable option', not 'this is a certainty'.

somebody - well, a lot of people actually - at the MoD needs to go back to school.

piby

OS119 wrote: »

there's not talk of scrapping an 'arm' of combat capability, rather a re-organisation.

the 'obvious' choice is the scrapping of the RAF - dividing it into 'strategic' and 'Army Support'. the idea being that the RN gets Maritime, Strategic Air Transport, Fast Jets, AWACS and AAR, while the Army gets Support Helicopters and some of the ISTAR assets - thought the RQ-9's would 'Fly Navy' as they are strategic assets.

Agreed. The helicopters get moved under the power of the AAC and the jets go to the navy which, with its two carriers (which aren't going to be scrapped), can still deploy said jets nearly anywhere in the world. Alternatively you might have even a fast jet detachment in the army but I don't know how realistic that is. It could be a bold move to merge, particularly from a historical military superpower but if done right it might free up resources that could be used elsewhere. Even forgetting monetary concerns it could lead the way in which we think and fight wars int he 21st century.

As an aside, I don't even think the Brits should be in this situation. Wars cost money and lengthy counterinsurgency campaigns like Afghanistan cost stronomical sums. Their politicians need to wake up to the fact that if they want to protect their shores/pursue 'liberal interventionism' then its going to cost money and they have to foot the bill!! But then again that's a whole other arguement!

Also who voted the army be trimmed?!! You could make a vaild case for either of the others but the army?

iceage

OS119 wrote: »

errr... actually that means it is plausable - if one option is 'plausible' then so is the opposite. plausable is a similar strength word to 'possible'.

it means 'this is a viable option', not 'this is a certainty'.

somebody - well, a lot of people actually - at the MoD needs to go back to school.

You know, when you put it like that it actually makes sense. Its the use of the word plausible that speaks volumes though as it buddies up so easily with the word deniability.

Seems the poll suggests it one-all to all three!

OS119

piby wrote: »

Also who voted the army be trimmed?!! You could make a vaild case for either of the others but the army?

wasn't me, but can see a doctrine where that would an option.

if one had a doctrine that the UK wasn't interested in overseas land campaigns, but wanted both a strong territorial defence and the ability to go places and break things, then effectively scrapping the Army would be an idea - a very strong RN (3 CVF/F-35C, 4 SSBN, 12 TLAM SSN's, and perhaps 40 high-end escorts), and a strong RAF (a Typhoon/F-35 force with significant AWACS, EW, AAR and MP/ASW assets) would effectively preclude any territorial incursion, as well as giving the ability to sail around the world and 'discuss issues of mutual importance' with pretty much anyone bar the US.

as long as one was ok with the down side of not being able to physically occupy ground - you'd be restricted to bombing it with F-35 or whacking it with TLAM - then its an idea...

BullyBeef

Progress & the ever-changing world both politically & economically often shows that yesterdays ideas or solutions need changing for tomorrow , its something that will effect the forthcoming British general election & possibly depending on that outcome will be the way ahead.

Today is the start of a serious discussion about the future of Britain’s defence. We look forward to a vigorous debate, and to building on our strong record of protecting Britain, its people, and its way of life.
Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth said:
"There is no more important function for Government than defence. This Green Paper will stimulate debate about the future of Britain’s defence ahead of a Strategic Defence Review in the next Parliament. Afghanistan is the top priority today but we must also ensure that our Armed Forces are ready to confront the challenges of tomorrow. The current and emerging threats we face are characterised by uncertainty and will require a more flexible response from an adaptable Armed Forces."

Fratton Fred

I can see a massive cut back on the RAF (there was a good article about this in the times yesterday) but a cut back on the number of aircraft, not a merging into the AAC.

I guess there is also the possibility of cutbacks in the RN, but again, Britain would never ditch the navy, defence of former colonies is still an issue, as is territorial protection of British waters. People still have the Falklands in their memory as well, where an understrength navy put British overseas territory at risk.

I can see some reductions though, particularly in the Nuclear deterrant. I think there are currently 4 subs, this could be cut to 2 when they refresh the capability.

The army has had enough cuts already, they can't take any more.

twinytwo

Tarzan007 wrote: »

I see that the UKwill have to rely more on France and other international allies as the spirling costs of the British military has called into question the possibility of two of the Armed Services combining. So which will they have to effectively drop ? I'd say the navy, though they have started work on two new super aircraft carriers. The reason been, Britian doesn't have to fear a Germany style invasion for the foreseable future. They'll be stuck in Afghanisatn and other places e.g.g possibly Yemen etc like it for the next 20/30 years.
Now I know psychologically it will be a massive blow to British prestige, but really, what do they want a large navy for ( apart from some escapade like the Falklands). I cannot you see Al Queda or whoever approaching the English channell in aircraft carriers and battle ships.

What's your thoughts ?

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Armed-Services-Face-Tough-Choices-In-The-Years-Ahead-Bob-Ainsworth-Defence-Secretary-Says/Article/201002115541414?lpos=UK_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15541414_Armed_Services_Face_Tough_Choices_In_The_Years_Ahead_Bob_Ainsworth%2C_Defence_Secretary_Says

didnt they spend like a billion quid on a battleship lately?... Waste if you ask me considering battleships etc have become things of the past with maybe the exception of provideing protection for aircraft carriers

OS119

twinytwo wrote: »

didnt they spend like a billion quid on a battleship lately?... Waste if you ask me considering battleships etc have become things of the past with maybe the exception of provideing protection for aircraft carriers

but thats exactly what the Daring class does...

a CVF+F-35+E-2C/D carrier with 2 Darings, and an ASW frigate/SSN screen could sit off the coast of any country bar the US for as long as it likes and they'd be very little that country could do about it - equally it could sit in the Mid-Atlantic and keep Sea Lines of Communications open for as long as it was there.

now T45 could do with some tweaks and in-service upgrades to make it both more capable in its 'pure' Fleet Air Defence role, and to make it more multi-role and a non 'carrier centric', but even as it is it provides an astonishing capability...

UltimateMale

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I can see a massive cut back on the RAF (there was a good article about this in the times yesterday) but a cut back on the number of aircraft, not a merging into the AAC.

I guess there is also the possibility of cutbacks in the RN, but again, Britain would never ditch the navy, defence of former colonies is still an issue, as is territorial protection of British waters. People still have the Falklands in their memory as well, where an understrength navy put British overseas territory at risk.

I can see some reductions though, particularly in the Nuclear deterrant. I think there are currently 4 subs, this could be cut to 2 when they refresh the capability.

The army has had enough cuts already, they can't take any more.

" defence of former colonies is still an issue, " What former colonies would need defending from the motherland ? Hong Kong, India..... America maybe .

I suppose their's still the odd bit of rock like the Falklands, South Georgia etc. Though their hardly going to be priority's for Bin Laden or a future Saddam Hussien now are they ?

BullyBeef

Strange that the Falklands should get a mention , only last month Argentina was still asserting some claims in regard to the ocean & seabed ,obviously oil is the big part of the equation , so things between the British & Argentine government are still heated & that’s before anyone discovers & harvests the golden egg.

Argentina Renews Claim to Falklands
April 7, 2008 | From theTrumpet.com
The Falkland Islands are a colony of the United Kingdom. The Falklanders do not consider the islands to be a part of Argentina (which claims them) and are of British decent.
http://www.thetrumpet.com/print.php?q=5007.3288.0.0

http://www1.american.edu/TED/falkoil.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/apr/02/comment.falklands

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1546912/Argentina-scraps-Falkland-oil-agreement.html

Wednesday, February 3rd 2010 - 8:46 pm UTC
Britain rejected on Wednesday a protest from Argentina over recent decisions from several companies licensed by the Falkland Islands government, to begin drilling in waters surrounding the South Atlantic islands
http://en.mercopress.com/falkland-islands

Ten Chilean and Argentine lawmakers gathered Thursday in the Antarctic to stake territorial rights after the U.K. laid claim to a wide swath of ocean bottom off the frozen continent,
http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=73714

Argentina's government protested oil and gas exploration activities in waters to the north of the UK-controlled Falkland Islands, over which the two countries fought a war in 1982.
News wires Tuesday, 02 February, 2010, 20:55 GMT
http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article205159.ece
U.K. Says ‘No Doubt’ on Falklands After Argentina Row
By Bill Faries and Rodrigo Orihuela
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=aGAuMXwPlHAU

iceage

Bah..bad losers.:p

OS119

UltimateMale wrote: »

I suppose their's still the odd bit of rock like the Falklands, South Georgia etc. Though their hardly going to be priority's for Bin Laden or a future Saddam Hussien now are they ?

the subject of the Falklands regularly comes up in Argentine politics - usually when there's an economic crisis and when there's an economic boom: its an issue in every election and is likely to remain so.

the Argentine Navy has upgraded since 1982, as has the Argentine Army to an even greater degree, though the AAF hasn't - that however doesn't stop them regularly sailing into Falklands waters and conducting 'training' missions where A-4AR's or IAI 'Fingers' (a Mirage 5 derivitive) with KC-130H tanker support fly around the Falklands both at high altitude - presumably in a photographic/EW reece role and at high speed/low level, presumably in a strike role.

their actions have a distinctly unfriendly tone and they bitch like hell whenever the defences of the islands get upgraded - which is odd given their frequent protestations (to a purely international audience) of their disavowel of force as means to resolve what they see as a dispute. the logical conclustion of them having no military interest in the islands would be that they wouldn't give the slightest **** what the RAF/Army/RN deployed to the islands (much like the RoI's lack of interest in what the RAF flies out of Stornoway, Benbecular or RAF Valley). that they choose to take the opposite course of action is perhaps an indication of their real views...

UltimateMale

OS119 wrote: »

the subject of the Falklands regularly comes up in Argentine politics - usually when there's an economic crisis and when there's an economic boom: its an issue in every election and is likely to remain so.

the Argentine Navy has upgraded since 1982, as has the Argentine Army to an even greater degree, though the AAF hasn't - that however doesn't stop them regularly sailing into Falklands waters and conducting 'training' missions where A-4AR's or IAI 'Fingers' (a Mirage 5 derivitive) with KC-130H tanker support fly around the Falklands both at high altitude - presumably in a photographic/EW reece role and at high speed/low level, presumably in a strike role.

their actions have a distinctly unfriendly tone and they bitch like hell whenever the defences of the islands get upgraded - which is odd given their frequent protestations (to a purely international audience) of their disavowel of force as means to resolve what they see as a dispute. the logical conclustion of them having no military interest in the islands would be that they wouldn't give the slightest **** what the RAF/Army/RN deployed to the islands (much like the RoI's lack of interest in what the RAF flies out of Stornoway, Benbecular or RAF Valley). that they choose to take the opposite course of action is perhaps an indication of their real views...

So it's worth spending billions on the British navy to safeguard these little bits of rock :rolleyes: ( and that goes for Argentina also ). So there might oil and gas in the vicinity. Yeah and their might be oil and more gas off the coast of Mayo, will we spend billions on a navy to protect it or something ? :rolleyes:

If they want to save money, just pay the islanders a few million each, the equivalent of a lotto win, and tell them to move back to England and save a vast fortune FFS

OS119

UltimateMale wrote: »

So it's worth spending billions on the British navy to safeguard these little bits of rock :rolleyes: ( and that goes for Argentina also ). So there might oil and gas in the vicinity. Yeah and their might be oil and more gas off the coast of Mayo, will we spend billions on a navy to protect it or something ? :rolleyes:

If they want to save money, just pay the islanders a few million each, the equivalent of a lotto win, and tell them to move back to England and save a vast fortune FFS

Argies tried that, the Islanders told them to fcuk off.

we don't need the threat of a massive task force to keep the Argies out, we have a Typhoon flight and tooled-up land component for that. should they look like they are getting frisky there is significant pre-positioned infrastructure for more Typhoon and a good handful of Tornado GR4 - all of which could be full of fuel, bombed up and sat at the end of MPA's runway in less than 36hrs.

if you choose not to guard your national resources you can hardly complain when people take them away from you...

Fratton Fred

UltimateMale wrote: »

" defence of former colonies is still an issue, " What former colonies would need defending from the motherland ?

Ireland?

Fratton Fred

OS119 wrote: »

but thats exactly what the Daring class does...

a CVF+F-35+E-2C/D carrier with 2 Darings, and an ASW frigate/SSN screen could sit off the coast of any country bar the US for as long as it likes and they'd be very little that country could do about it - equally it could sit in the Mid-Atlantic and keep Sea Lines of Communications open for as long as it was there.

now T45 could do with some tweaks and in-service upgrades to make it both more capable in its 'pure' Fleet Air Defence role, and to make it more multi-role and a non 'carrier centric', but even as it is it provides an astonishing capability...

the Daring Class has already seen cutbacks, from 12 to 8 to 6.

vulcan57

Just to chuck my tuppence in. Why not hang onto the RAF and merge the army and navy into a force similar to the USMC? After all, the royal marines are already navy and the majority of the ground forces in the Falklands conflict were marines.

iceage

vulcan57 wrote: »

and the majority of the ground forces in the Falklands conflict were marines.

Ahh..I think you'll find some Welsh Guards and a bunch of 2 and 3 Para and a whole bunch of others might have a wee problem with that one.

Fratton Fred

Merge the Royal Marines and the Paras....Jesus, forget about killing the enemy, they'd be killing each other!

Poccington

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Merge the Royal Marines and the Paras....Jesus, forget about killing the enemy, they'd be killing each other!

It would be poetry in motion.

OS119

the definition of serendipity: 3 PARA Mortars meets an RM bbq...

we need to think more inventivly - maybe the RAF Regiment should merge with the Brighton School of Hairdressing and Ice Dancing.

SlabMurphy

OS119 wrote: »

Argies tried that, the Islanders told them to fcuk off.

Really :eek:, the Argentinian's offered the Brit sheep farmers on the Falklands millions to go back to England so they could take over the little bits of rock in the South Atlantic :eek: Never heard that before - and the sheep shaggers told them to fcuk off they would stay to keep them British !! Could you post the details please, I cann't find them in Google

OS119 wrote: »

if you choose not to guard your national resources you can hardly complain when people take them away from you...

Well maybe Britian should rearm itself to pre 90's levels as you never know those sneaky Ruskie's might have staged the falling of communism and the Berlin Wall etc as a deceptive trick while they plan to take over the whole world. And who knows, maybe the Germans will start goose stepping all over Europe again and the French may have another revoulotion and a Napoleon figure emerage but the suprehero's from that global mega superpower Britain will put some manners on Johnny Foreigner wouldn't they ?

SlabMurphy

Poccington wrote: »

It would be poetry in motion.

I'll tell you what poetry in motion is, Warrenpoint 27 August 1979 and Deal Royal Marine barracks, Kent September 22, 1989. If you maim and murder Irish nationalists - expect Irish nationalists to maim and kill them back.

[Provocative thread diversion deleted by Mod]

Manic Moran

SlabMurphy wrote: »

I'll tell you what poetry in motion is, Warrenpoint 27 August 1979 and Deal Royal Marine barracks, Kent September 22, 1989. If you maim and murder Irish nationalists - expect Irish nationalists to maim and kill them back.

You seem to be new here, so I'll cut you some slack.

Simple rules. Don't go off-tangent like that again. You won't be around to make the mistake a third time. Tracking?

Nobody is to respond to the above post, please.

NTM

troubleshooter

Tarzan007 wrote: »

I see that the UKwill have to rely more on France and other international allies as the spirling costs of the British military has called into question the possibility of two of the Armed Services combining. So which will they have to effectively drop ? I'd say the navy, though they have started work on two new super aircraft carriers. The reason been, Britian doesn't have to fear a Germany style invasion for the foreseable future. They'll be stuck in Afghanisatn and other places e.g.g possibly Yemen etc like it for the next 20/30 years.
Now I know psychologically it will be a massive blow to British prestige, but really, what do they want a large navy for ( apart from some escapade like the Falklands). I cannot you see Al Queda or whoever approaching the English channell in aircraft carriers and battle ships.

What's your thoughts ?

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Armed-Services-Face-Tough-Choices-In-The-Years-Ahead-Bob-Ainsworth-Defence-Secretary-Says/Article/201002115541414?lpos=UK_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15541414_Armed_Services_Face_Tough_Choices_In_The_Years_Ahead_Bob_Ainsworth%2C_Defence_Secretary_Says

Most likely the RAF will be absorbed in the future, into the Army and Royal Navy, makes sense, there is no need to have an army air corps, fleet air arm and RAF. The army will have a 30,000 rapid reaction force to fight the wars of the 21st century. Armour and fighter planes will be cut back, the cold war is long over, keeping hundreds of idel fighters and tanks is past thinking. The new doctine is about fighting the wars of the moment.

Much better to model the army on the US Marines Model with its own air support.

The Royal Marines and RAF reg will also be absorbed eventually.

Its already happening with the Rifles now getting a commando Battalion, capable of doing the stuff RoyaL marines do.

It seems sensible for the UK to share the cost of airbourne early warning nuclear stuff ie planes which track potential incoming attacks from Russia with France as well as other stuff.

BullyBeef

BBC Radio had more talk about the ongoing problem around the Falklands.

Argentina's demands about Falklands anger British
British officials angry over Argentine demand for control of Falklands shipping
Gregory Katz and Raphael G. Satter, Associated Press Writers, On Wednesday February 17, 2010, 2:45 pm EST
LONDON (AP) -- Argentina's demand for direct control of shipping from the South American mainland to the Falkland Islands has raised fears about conflict over energy resources in the south Atlantic.
Britain triumphed when the old antagonists fought in 1982 for control of the sparsely populated islands. National pride was at stake, along with bruised feelings from the colonial era and the disputed loyalty of the Falklanders themselves.
Full article http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Argentinas-demands-about-apf-996567676.html?x=0&.v=4



Argentina steps up row over Falklands oil exploration
Britain says drilling for hydrocarbons will go ahead despite
Rory Carroll guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 17 February 2010 20.01 GMT
Critics in Buenos Aires accuse the Argentinian government of asserting sovereignty over the Falklands in an attempt to mask domestic woes
Britain and the Falkland Islands today brushed off Argentinian moves to impede oil and gas exploration in British-controlled waters in the south Atlantic, saying there was no threat to shipping.
The Foreign Office and Falkland authorities said drilling for hydrocarbon deposits would go ahead without disruption despite an Argentinian effort to control traffic between its ports and the islands
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/17/argentina-steps-up-falkands-oil-row

'You can't really trust Argentina': the view from the Falklands
An Argentinian move to block shipping between the islands
Lisa Watson guardian.co.
News of an Argentinian decree intended to block shipping movements between the islands and South America has caused consternation. The oil rig Ocean Guardian will soon begin drilling in our waters, and our economy relies on the sale of fishing licences and visits from cruise-ship vessels. Hosts of happy tourists are regularly offloaded on to the streets of Stanley, where they will take tours to farms and penguin
rookeries and spend their ­dollars in our gift shops.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/17/argentina-falklands-shipping

Argentina's demands about Falklands anger British Breitbart 2010-02-17
LONDON (AP) - Argentina's demand for direct control of shipping from the South American mainland to the Falkland Islands has raised fears about conflict over energy resources in the south Atlantic.
http://article.wn.com/view/2010/02/17/Argentinas_demands_about_Falklands_anger_British_x/

BullyBeef

Telegraph . Co.uk
The threat to the Falklands is a test of the Government's commitment to defence
The British Government needs to spend more money on defence to be taken seriously
Published: 12:02AM GMT 20 Feb 2010
SIR – Are the potentially oil-rich Falklands and the islanders – all of them British citizens – at risk again (report, February 19)? If the Argentines gamble on an invasion, could we stop them now, as we did in 1982? If our politicians continue to cut our Armed Forces – and especially the Royal Navy – the answer could be a disastrous no.
The UK National Defence Association, with its campaign "Support Our Armed Forces" is the only body urging politicians to put real meaning into the well-worn mantra that "Defence is the first priority of any government" – not only by ring-fencing funding for our Armed Forces, but also by reversing the trend of cuts and increasing defence funding.
Such a course would be a real investment in the security of this country, its people and their vital interests – which, in these perilous days, certainly include our Falkland Islands and its people.
Commander John Muxworthy
Chilbolton, Hampshire
SIR – With trouble brewing in the South Atlantic, the flexibility in having a good mix of naval capability is yet again demonstrated as, almost in the manner of Palmerston, a ship of the line is instructed to proceed with all dispatch.
God speed the destroyer York.

twinytwo

troubleshooter wrote: »

Most likely the RAF will be absorbed in the future, into the Army and Royal Navy, makes sense, there is no need to have an army air corps, fleet air arm and RAF. The army will have a 30,000 rapid reaction force to fight the wars of the 21st century. Armour and fighter planes will be cut back, the cold war is long over, keeping hundreds of idel fighters and tanks is past thinking. The new doctine is about fighting the wars of the moment.

Much better to model the army on the US Marines Model with its own air support.

The Royal Marines and RAF reg will also be absorbed eventually.

Its already happening with the Rifles now getting a commando Battalion, capable of doing the stuff RoyaL marines do.

It seems sensible for the UK to share the cost of airbourne early warning nuclear stuff ie planes which track potential incoming attacks from Russia with France as well as other stuff.

I cant see them getting rid of the RM's for numerous reasons... fleet protection etc.
Also are the 1 Rifles not a infantry battalion "within" 3 commando brigade?