The Future of The British Armed Forces?

Originally posted by darksided
Questions for the Brit experts.

Will the CVF be built?
Will enough Type 45s be built?

Yes. Construction is literally only months away now. 2007 I believe. They are to called HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales.

There will be enough Type 45's. 6 being built (1 already), with the option to buy more. I think, once they have bedded in the new ships to the Fleet and they realise they can get rid of more older vessels to save money, they may well fork out for more Type 45's. They are more capable than anything else in the fleet and are multi-role, coming back to the economics again.

As for the Zibi-clone above, the CVF is only marginally smaller than the Nimitz class. Yes, it carries less aircraft, but it's mission is not solely to launch fixed wing air assets. It will have multiple roles, as is the "economic" nature of our military spending...

Originally posted by darksided

I don't know whats going on across the pond, but upon learning the MOD is only spending 2% of their GDP on defense, for a country involved in 2 wars it just looks like you guys are about to take a pounding on your armed forces unless something changes.

I don't see how either of the two projects listed above will be built without increasing defense spending, something that doesn't seem very likely.

2% is enough. You have to remember that the UK has a huge Social programme. NHS, Education, Social Security, The Free Homes for Eastern Europeans Programme etc etc.

It may look shaky now, but the Uk Armed Forces are undergoing a huge change, so right now, it looks disjointed and proplematic. Come back in 6 years and you'll see the world of difference.

Originally posted by stumason
As for the Zibi-clone above, the CVF is only marginally smaller than the Nimitz class.

Talk about the understatement of the day, "marginally"? Ok, the worlds tallest man (in recorded history) was only "marginally" taller than me, sounds good.


[edit on 30-9-2006 by WestPoint23]

en.wikipedia.org...

this defines everything our great country will once again be,

. "ability to influence events" (tick) - blair leader of the EU, britain is already leader in most global issues.
. "project power on a worldwide scale" (tick) - 10 years the royal navy will become a true water navy again, giving us the ability to deploy a substantial force ANYWHERE around the globe, thereas giving britain superpower' status on a military scale again.
. worlds 4th largest economy (with a booming economy)
. nuclear power

list goes on, britain also has options being part of the EU and that is something the united states cannot compete with in all departments.


[edit on 30-9-2006 by Sepiroth]

Just wanted to reply to that last post.

. "ability to influence events" (tick) - blair leader of the EU, britain is already leader in most global issues.

Your correct we can influence events but not significantly, we can whisper in Americas ear and hope she listens but not much else. And the notion of TB being the leader of europe does make me laugh. Thats why the French and Germans followed us to war in Iraq (sarcasm).

. "project power on a worldwide scale" (tick) - 10 years the royal navy will become a true water navy again, giving us the ability to deploy a substantial force ANYWHERE around the globe, thereas giving britain superpower' status on a military scale again.

We will be able to project power yes but a true superpower has to have the ability to fight two or three major wars simultainiously, we will not have that. Britain will never be a superpower again, the glory days are over. Times change, America is the only superpower, China , Russia and India have the chance to join them soon but not us.

The future is about keeping a mobile advanced force that can protect Britains interests home and abroad whilst keeping a nuclear detterent.

Originally posted by walter kurtz
Your correct we can influence events but not significantly, we can whisper in Americas ear and hope she listens but not much else. And the notion of TB being the leader of europe does make me laugh. Thats why the French and Germans followed us to war in Iraq (sarcasm).
[/quote[
We can do more than whipser...we are the sword and the shield of britain and believe me we do have influence.

i think britain already is a 'superpower' on a global scale, but i think what britain needs to decide is whether to remain joined at the hip with the US (like at present) or turn our attentions more to the EU and have our closer ties with EU nations.

at the moment britain is SMACK BANG in the middle (and thats wise on our part), but i think in the coming years either america or the EU will put forward "your either with them or your with us" britain needs to make that decision!

i also don't think the US fear an upcoming china or india, the EU is tipped already to dominate the 21st century, the EU isn't even a nation (yet ) but we are already seeing the massive effects the european union is having on the world, whether its (business/polictical/climate/currency) anything you can name.

therefore do britain stick to its roots and be with europe? or do we pull out of the EU form a closer alliance with our american cousins? (trade/business etc).

either way the future looks bright for britain IMO

[edit on 30-9-2006 by st3ve_o]

I wonder if the government is looking for a "scalpel" rather than a "sword" for our armed forces, I mean we've cut back on the number of troops and seem to be more interested in having smaller "coalition" based forces. Does this mean we'll become more like a force in the shadow of a larger ally?

Ok, marginally was the wrong word. It's not that much smaller (attempting to cling to some sort of pride here ).... It's bigger than the French Charles de Gaulle though

But your right, the Nimitz does have a huge weight advantage over the CVF. The Nimitz does displace about 60% more weight when fully loaded mind you.Length difference is 100m, but more or less the same height, by a few metres.

Don't be so picky Westy

I just thought i'd try and clarify a point made early on in the post, some people say that technology can't possibly outweigh our actual troops, i think this is where a very delicate balance is trying to be achieved by the armed forces.

for example, if you were to put 55 million troops into a battlefield, armed with nothing but spears. and have an opposing army of say, about 1 million (unrealistic i know, but work with me ) armed to the teeth with the fruit of today's advanced military prowess.
we can safely assume that the fewer numbers would gain a victory. for the simple reason, military technology doesn't just cover offensive weapons. things like armor and defensive stuff is implemented too. a handful of cruisers carrying bombers could see to a sizeable portion of that 60m.

Anyway, with that out of the way, conflict in this day in age doesn't rely on how much stuff you can blow up in 24 hours, it is extremely tactical, using quality over quantity. if something needs doing, it's done surgically. by this i mean a small amount of resources is used to achieve an objective.

rather like cutting someones' heart out instead of shooting them to death XD. basically what i'm trying to say, is we need troops to use the technology, but once they have it, the forces get some of the best training in the world, so they know exactly how to use it.

that's how i see it anyway, if you don't agree just say, always good to hear another side of an argument.