'HMS Ocean's presence at the Olympics sends mixed messages'

HAVE YOUR SAY

03 July 2012

Has the author of this article aspirational as it is,still not grasped the facts that we do not have the money to do everything we would like.
It's all very well talking of the French rolling out another Mistral class,whilst at the same time forgetting to mention they have put their PA2 carrier on indefinate hold,due to financial constraints.
We have a more than capable amphibious force at the moment,our priority is now to get the CVF and T26 escorts up and running.
When this is done,we can then look at upgrading the amphibs. We are not the US or China,we cannot afford multiple projects running concurrently,for all the gloom and doom mongers in reality we are not doing to bad considering the financial restraints we are under.
2 CVF's under construction,6 T45 entering service,7 Astute boats under construction/on order. T26 in its assesment phase.
We all have a wish list,and as the author says he is biased.
Please take a reality check.
michael - notts

03 July 2012

3 Bay, 2 Albion (1 operational), 1 Invincible (re-roled as a LHA) and 1 Ocean Class (which is a compromise in many respects) is only a substantial amphibious capability in comparison with T3-4 military powers.

A reality check would be that the maritime forces of the UK are inadequate for what the practicalities of their missions are.

This is not to say that cuts to the BA or RAF can be justified either, at the end of day Joe Public must accept much blame for one, voting in the idiots presiding over the cuts and two for not having a brain to also comprehend the necessity to have forces adequate for their own defence.
Shaun - Ex_RNZN

03 July 2012

Notwithstanding that the UK is under spending constraints due to financial mis-management, the root cause of current Defence issues is the clueless muppets in government; where the British public should not be blamed as the alternatives on offer are equally short sighted. I do not believe that modern politicians have any idea how to apply the role of the military in modern times.
Brendan (ex-RAF) - London

03 July 2012

It's not a matter of idiots, like me, voting for this government to carry out these cuts.

The idiots were thosw who voted Labour, for every Labour administration ends with a mess of the economy (look at our 20th century history).

The Conservatives (Coalition) has little choice but to make serious cuts and that had to include defence. That the government of this island trading nation has emasculated the Naval Service is plain daft but cuts had to be made.

My simple question is why the RAF is so big? Where is the air threat to our islands? Why does the RAF 'need' 170 fighter jets (about 85 Tornado and 85 Typhoon - the remainder of the order for 160 Typhoons still to come - each one copsting nearly 127m). No modern air war has needed more than 20 fighters at one time, so why such an expensive inventory?
Lester May (Lt Cdr RN) - London NW1

03 July 2012

Shaun- Ex RNZN,

you wrote,
3 Bay, 2 Albion (1 operational), 1 Invincible (re-roled as a LHA) and 1 Ocean Class (which is a compromise in many respects) is only a substantial amphibious capability in comparison with T3-4 military powers.

A reality check would be that the maritime forces of the UK are inadequate for what the practicalities of their missions are.

I would beg to differ,we carried out in the Falklands,the largest amphib op for the UK since D Day with, 2 assault ships,Fearless and Intrepid,and 6 round table class landing ships.That was the limit of our amphib units.
Are you actualy saying that 2 albion class,yes one is in extended readiness but can be made operational very quickly,3 bay class,far in advance of anything we had then,Invincible and Ocean,which in spite of what you say has proved its worth beyond what was expected of it. Also remember this was at the height of the cold war,where we were expected to carry out such landing against opposition from the USSR.
So I think all told we are not that bad off in the current circumstances.
michael - notts

03 July 2012

While i absolutely agree that selling Largs Bay and reducing 3rd Commando Brigade's capability was incredibly stupid, i must note that the LPD on extended readiness could be brought back into regular, full-time service at any time, if so was decided;

I also must note that saying that Ocean costs a fraction of an aircraft carrier is stating the obvious due to the additional challenges and costs implied by the need to work with fixed wing jets, and it looks to me like a regrettable case of "don't cut us, cut them", without any kind of joined-up thinking whatsoever.
We live in the age of the jet fighters, bombers, drones and cruise missiles. Sending a ship like Ocean against an enemy without the air cover granted by the presence of a carrier with its air wing is just a spectacular way to commit suicide.

Fortunately CVF will be a very capable replacement for Ocean, with much better accomodation, fixed-wing jet capability, and massively increased capacity for all kinds of helicopters. CVF is not configured to carry the 40 or so Land Rovers and trailers that Ocean carries and won't have the LCVP MK5s, at least as far as i'm aware, but this is frankly more than balanced by all the rest of what it brings to the table.

I also have all kinds of reserves and oppositions to the Army's restructuring, which seems to be taking a road that makes even less sense, but the old rhetoric of "the days of tank battles" are over is not going to produce anything, nor can it be judged realistic.

The last time the UK fought tank battles was in 2003. Which is also the year of the last amphibious assault.
And the Commandos know it well, since they had the Challenger IIs assigned to work closely with during the campaign, plus C Squadron Queen's Dragoon Guards regiment with its CVR(T) vehicles attached to the brigade.
I agree that amphibious capability must be prioritized.
But the cheap attacks on the cost of aircraft carriers and on the Army are not useful, nor justified in their form. They do nothing to shape up a coherent strategy for the UK.

Gabriele - Piacenza, Italy

03 July 2012

Lester May,

Passing over the party political broadcast.... The reason no modern air war - by which you mean no modern air war fought by the UK - has needed more than 20 fighters is that we tag along as an auxiliary to the US armed forces, relying on them to deliver the lion's share of the capability, and/or we elect to fight only minor league opponents. Even then, when we deployed a total of 28 Sea Harriers to the Falklands, you will recall that the less than world-leading Argentinian air arms, although operating under a considerable handicap, succeeded in sinking two modern RN destroyers and two frigates, as well as burning out a landing ship and damaging sundry other vessels.

Now, you may feel that confining our ambitions to waging war on the likes of the shambolic Libyan armed forces, Afghan irregulars or Somali pirates is the way to go. That's a perfectly reasonable stance. But, if we accept that to be the reality of our position, we certainly don't need SSBNs, or carriers, or SSNs, or Type 45s to take on that class of opposition.

If, on the other hand, we prefer to carry on believing that we really are still a world power - capable of standing up against genuine, professional armed forces fielded by relatively developed countries, without being a mere bag-carrier to Uncle Sam - then 20 fighters (not that the Tornado GR4 IS a fighter, or intended to defeat an air threat) aren't going to cut it.
Stan - York

03 July 2012

i am of the age which can remember when Hitler invaded the Low countries britain had no weapons beacuse it was thought that to send a note to Hitler but we pulled through with bitter memories broom sticks and Courage hence Dunkirk it was said never will this happen again 60 or more years have passed but has the thinking remaind the same let the chiefs of the fighting forces decide on what we have in defence as they was and are there you cannot decide sitting in a chamber on a padded chair to know what we need at the moment we are deciding to reduce forces in the battle zones and release forces back home but we still need the back up in the event of whatevercomes along Ships a must Airforce a must and and an Army a must do not let the world see we are weak show them we can get there if we want to at anytime defend ourselves our island Britain we Defend You ..
H ,C .Anderson - Essex England ..

04 July 2012

I find it very hard to read retorts to this and similiar posts on defence (leading with the 'lack of money' arguement) without wry amusement aimed at the critic.
Maybe such critics are sleeping with bankers to glean just the mearest slice of the billions collective governments are throwing at such hypocrites.
The author like many has cited that a perfectly workable tool that has been created, honed, proved to work (and work well!) only to be discarded like some cheap tooth pick.
A working colleague in the armoured corps may be similiarly justified in speaking of their working knowledge and frustrations at seeing their career efforts destroyed overnight by professional politicians ignorant of what they're entrusted to do by the electorate.
I doubt very much that any career officer who has served in the last 20 years and attained mid - senior ranking in Navy, Army or Air Force is permitted to be ignorant in aspects of planning, budgeting, human rights, legal and ethical issues. Yet such officers are often chastised by individuals who are only too willing to avoid such responsibility.
Malcolm Moody - Watford/Uk/Private

04 July 2012

Michael,

The Cold War role for the UK Amphibious forces lay with the notion - good or not - that Norway (or there abouts) would be used to reinforce what ever land forces were in the area. I have never been a believer in the theory that newer ships with better war fighting capabilities (e.g. 4 Bay to replace 6 Round Table Class) could be considered a good defence strategy. Yes, the RN and the UK have got good value out of the ships they have (or had); but a great strategy would have been 1-1 replacements for ships numbers; while also ensuring adequate numbers for the domestic and foreign requirements are available.

Loosing one of the Bay Class recently was a complete blunder by those making that decision. No point having land forces that are suppose to be configured for rapid or extended deployments (as the UK government has ranted about) when they depose of the very assets which support these forces. Madness.

I agree with Stan, the UK must stop dibby dabbling about where it wants to (and realistically) position it self in the world order.

Analysis of the force structure of all three military forces in the UK in the past 5, 10, 20, and 30 years indicates a complete lack of direction as to what the forces actually need to be configured for now and into the future.
Shaun - Ex_RNZN

07 July 2012

Firstly, apologies for inserting mostly instinctive thoughts from a layman into the learned debate. But it does seem to me that we are headed on a good course, given what we can afford.
If we were to get all 13 Type 26 frigates, use both cvf's, replace Ocean/Illustrious with a new LHA and replace the Sandown Class one for one with something like BMT Venator and a Lynx, my feeing is we would have a balanced fleet with enough sailors and ships to keep sea lanes free and look after our interests. Just a gut feel and if we can afford it.
Paul Padley - Swindon

11 July 2012

Stan of York,

It's always amusing to be lectured about the Falklands War for, although I have a South Atlantic Medal, I won't claim to know everything about that war!

I don't think you can place me in either of the camps you describe in your last two paragraphs. We are no longer a world power, but we are an important maritime nation, with legitimate interests in all the world's seas and oceans and we need a capability to match that (and we manifestly have too small a Navy in the number of ocean-going hulls).

Of course we need a balance of forces to defend our islands. But I do not understand why that rwquires an Army of even 82,000 and a £7bn a year RAF with 170 combat aircraft (especially when Typhoons cost £1bn for eight); it seems to me that the RAF collects planes like I collected Dinky toys as a boy - I just wanted more and more but for no obvious reason than they were nice to have.

Our working militarily with the US is plain common sense but we do not need to match them or join them in every operation.

But, given that half the world's population is by the sea or close to the coast and that is where our legitimate interests lie - the sea - we should have the balance of forces to intervene from the sea where it is sensible so to do.

While not a world power and I have no such aspirations for our country, we do still have a seat on the Security Council and I am pleased that we step up and use our excellent armed forces - hopefully, not just to our advantage, but to the advantage of our partners and of the wider world.

It seems pretty clear to me that were we better to invest in some more modest naval assets (including naval air assets), we would be better placed to safeguard our lifelines - 95% of our trade still comes and goes by sea and, increasingly, we are reliant on importing energy by sea. An interruption of not many days without such imports will soon make its mark on our population's lifestyle.

Thus, with no air threat now or foreseen, I'd rather we did not spend another £7bn on the final 56 Typhoons (that would still leave us with 103 of them once the order is completed) but spent that money elsewhere on our maritime capability.
Lester May (Lt Cdr RN) - London NW1

13 July 2012

Lester May (Lt Cdr RN) - London NW1

What a ridiculous claim! So you don't think we need an Army of 82,000 or an RAF.

It is a good job for your that CDS did not get he way when he stated that he did not see the need for large aircraft carriers and if he had his way (this is when he was CGS) that he would not purchase them.

I believe we should have good balance armed forces (all three of them).

I do agree with you on a couple of points, the Navies Destroyer / Frigate and Submarine fleet needs some serious investment and an increase in numbers, I am also on your side regarding the pointless attack on the current government.
Rob - Telford

15 July 2012

I just want to say that my son serves on Ocean, and how proud I am of him! My other son is in the Army air corps protecting Britain in Afghan! So when people complain they should try living with sons in the forces! God speed to all our service personnel
Vanessa Fields - Hull

16 July 2012

Vanessa Fields - Hull

I'm not complaining, I did 24 years in the Army including six Op tours, (I have been out just short of two years now), I know how my family felt when I was away. It was certainly worse for them than it was for me . . . .
Rob - Telford

17 July 2012

wow where do i start well for a start i am an x 45 cdo rm but i try not to be biased. While it is very true to say that we need a balence between all 3 forces we must have a clear stategic implementation of where our interests are & lie now and in the future with a realisation at the moment we do not have resources to do everything and that our politicians must in return reign in their ambitions. I still have global ambitions for our country which must be maintained, but what as a nation we are developing some serious questions as to what do we want to defend, what kind of kind of missions now or in the future does the uk want to do or have ambition(finances)to commit to on its own, and finally what, when operating in a coalition when/how/where does it want to contribute and more important politically how does it want to influence our partners.
andy - solihull