Shipbucket

The announcement has just been made that the contracts for the two carriers; Queen Elizabeth, and Prince Of Wales (both mis-named btw) has just been placed. But.....the head of the army Gen Sir Richard Dannett is being interviewed as I tap, that in his humble opinion only one will ever get built; or, if a second one is it will be a floating platform for helicopters. Considering that the defence budget is to be cut by 20%, and we are still supposed to be getting the Trident replacement, it does look a bit flakey for any big projects. And of course, we have a long history of cancelling military projects after already throwing millions into them.

On the other hand, given the ridiculous amount of infighting taking place between the branches of the British armed forces, he's pretty much bound to say that.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

Why does Trident need replacing?

Isn't it more than adequate to blanket the world with nuclear weapons?

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)

I was actually suprised he'd backed even one being built; and of course, the army wants more of the pie, just as the RAF does. Apparently, the JSF is by far a bigger defence black hole than the carriers.

And re the Trident; well, just that the system is eventually due for replacement, but there is no current provision for it in the defence budget. But if they upgrade it that would not answer the critics; and now that Russia is re-heating the cold war (ah...mixed metaphors!), the Brits want to retain the independent nuclear deterrent.

I think he means the Trident submarines need replacing. the hull are getting a bit 'long in the tooth' as it were. Currently there is no system that replaces Trident IIRC.

_________________
Thank you Kim for the crest

"Never fear to try on something new. Remember that the Titanic was built by professionals, and the Ark by an amateur"

Wasn't it said that we were looking to 'downgrade' Trident somewhere?

Personally for a country such as ourselves I really do not see the point in still maintaining a nuclear arsenal. There's nobody we'd ever launch them at that the Americans or Russians won't nuke first and all the money saved on renewing and maintaining Trident could be put into various other conventional projects.

_________________
AU Projects: | Federal Monarchy of Tír Glas| Other Ivernic Nations | Artemis Group |
Blood and Fire

A very imotive subject in the UK.Personally I would build more Astute class and arm them with more TLAMs as a replacement for Trident and at least that way you get two uses out of the same boats.As for the carriers ever getting built thats all down to hope.No hope and Bob Hope.

Don't count on it. For a start Russia is, and will continue to be, the biggest threat to the U.K.; based on the tried and tested policy of our always confronting the Continental power seeking hegemony; and increasingly that will be Putin's Russia. So the idea that we'd look to Russia for protection is a bit suspect. And that leaves the USA. No offence to our 'cousins' but for the forseeable future the USA will be caught up the classic 'end of empire' fixation on a foe that does not warrant the effort currently being expended; and by default (of Blair's years of apalling leadership), has also dragged the U.K. into the same mess.

Britains decision to have an independent nuclear detterent came (in part) out of its experience in WWII of being bombed. As a small island vulnerable to attack by a foreign power from the air, it made sense to have a deterrent that made such an attack extremely risky to the perpetrator. As the world becomes increasingly destabilised, it would still make sense for the U.K. to maintain a deterrent. Personally, I would like to see the end of the need for nuclear weapons, but I beleive (for my country) that would be a foolish move at present.

the better question is how does Britain view its self in the world, if it still thinks of its self as a world power, even a strong regional one, then it must be prepared to maintain a military that can conduct operations abroad, If it doesn't and is willing to give up its power (which includes its ability to support humanitarian work), its "special relationship" with the US, and its eventual seat on the Security council (because realistically Brazil and India have more a drive economically, politically, and militarily to be major powers.) then they dont need to maintain a military.

Another thing they need to consider is that they are still an island nation and like all great maritime powers having a strong fleet is a must, this is now augmented by a strong air force, and for army they like all ancient and traditional maritime powers need to maintain a small but highly trained army with a citizenry that can and be willing to be mustered in the event of a crisis. (see Ancient Greece)

They also might need to get past this large carrier or nothing thing. 4 or 5 smaller ships HMS Ocean sized and configured, designed for higher speed and more combat orientated might of been a better allocation of resources. This again goes for surface combatants, I think that instead of just trying to build as many capital ships as possible, cap it at 12 Type 45 sized ships, 6 for ASW and Strike warfare and 6 for Fleet AAW. Money saved then can be spent on buying more OPV's and OPV(H)'s as well as upgraded and militarized commercially designed yacht movers to function as mother ship. They also might of wanted to look at making the TYPE 45 ASW a UXV combatant, or build a dedicated UXV ship in the mid 20's

just my two cents

_________________
Supreme Commander of the Astrofleets

Makes sense to me Philbob.