www.ditl.org

Oh, and lest we forget, the RN operates four ballistic missile submarines firing the most advanced SLBMs in the world. That's something that exceeds anybody but the US and USSR... and I'd wonder about the USSR, given the state of much of their navy.

I've been saying for some time that Bush should never have asked anyone else to fight our wars, especially not the UK (who should be our closest ally). You guys would have significantly more funds to work with if you hadn't been bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan for the better part of the last decade.

Pakistan should have the burden of assistance, since they're the ones harboring terrorists while taking billions in aid money from us (pretty hilarious, that).

GrahamKennedy wrote:Depends somewhat on how you define "powerful". One can have a navy with many ships and lots of weapons, but no ability to operate them at great distances. The Royal Navy can sail significant numbers of ships to any point in the ocean and conduct military operations there. That's something very few other navies can do.

The problem is that without Carriers you can't maintain that projection. Without a sizable army you cannot enforce that projection. Without a long term defense plan or budget you can't afford a drawn out conflict.

GrahamKennedy wrote:Oh, and lest we forget, the RN operates four ballistic missile submarines firing the most advanced SLBMs in the world. That's something that exceeds anybody but the US and USSR... and I'd wonder about the USSR, given the state of much of their navy.

Hey, the Russians have the subs. They just don't work and well sometimes... dey goo boom. Having four Boomers doesn't win much when the countries you have to worry about can and have put out that many a year.

This thread has really shown me how far the UK has fallen in a military sense. I always heard about our enemies but they never really covered our allies. Its kind of depressing.

Deepcrush wrote:

GrahamKennedy wrote:Depends somewhat on how you define "powerful". One can have a navy with many ships and lots of weapons, but no ability to operate them at great distances. The Royal Navy can sail significant numbers of ships to any point in the ocean and conduct military operations there. That's something very few other navies can do.

The problem is that without Carriers you can't maintain that projection. Without a sizable army you cannot enforce that projection. Without a long term defense plan or budget you can't afford a drawn out conflict.

Well to the first, we are building carriers that will outclass anything outside the USN.

GrahamKennedy wrote:Hey, the Russians have the subs. They just don't work and well sometimes... dey goo boom.

I did a bit of checking. The Russians have 9 SSBNs. 7 of them are Deltas, a 35 year old design with a horrid and inherently noisy hull. There's 1 Typhoon, and 1 of the new Borei class. Of course the Borei carries a missile that has so far failed at least half it's test firings. And Russian subs themselves, as you say, do have a tendency to sink on occasion.

Having four Boomers doesn't win much when the countries you have to worry about can and have put out that many a year.

Um, there's nobody in the world, US included, who could build four SSBNs in a year.

This thread has really shown me how far the UK has fallen in a military sense. I always heard about our enemies but they never really covered our allies. Its kind of depressing.

The depressing thing is not so much how far we've fallen - a fall was inevitable, end of Empire and all that. The depressing thing is that there seems to be no end to the fall. Every single successive government of the last 50 years leaves the forces smaller than before, and the trend just carries on rolling. Just recently it was announced that something like half of the current fleet is being mothballed to save 250 million running costs. 250 million out of a 50 billion defence budget, for god's sake! They want to mothball HALF the Navy in order to make a saving of one half of one percent.


Edited to add : whups, that actually happened a couple of years ago, rather than "recently". But still!

Deepcrush wrote:

Captain Seafort wrote:We still have. The fact that it's inadequate to fulfil its obligations doesn't change the fact that it's one of the most powerful in the world.

Some how I find it hard to believe that. The "One of the most powerful in the world" part. Is the UK even in the top ten?

USA, Russia, India, China, Israel... So umm, not top five at least. Who am I missing?

Your forgetting the relatively impressive French navy.


However the UK Navy is definitly more powerful than Israels.

And I'm not so sure I'd put the UK Navy below India or China (though those two look like they'll be much more in the future).

For now the comparison is a judgement call between how you value large numbers of small ships vs long range capital ships.

Why would the UK be cutting back on its fleet with maritime terrorism a very real threat?

More to that matter, why has the US Navy shrank from 500 ships in the 1990's to 287? How can that be enough to project our power and stop piracy and maritime terrorism?

Sunnyside, I was talking about their military might overall. Not just their Naval Forces.

GrahamKennedy wrote:Well to the first, we are building carriers that will outclass anything outside the USN.

But they don't have them now. Thats the problem. How could the RN expect to remain a major power without them?

GrahamKennedy wrote:Um, there's nobody in the world, US included, who could build four SSBNs in a year.

Not build, put out. As in put to sea. I didn't point that out well enough, sorry.

GrahamKennedy wrote:Moth ball snip

Just seems a lot like the UK is trying to get out of world affairs. Instead of getting more involved as they should be. IMO

Deepcrush wrote:

GrahamKennedy wrote:Well to the first, we are building carriers that will outclass anything outside the USN.

But they don't have them now. Thats the problem. How could the RN expect to remain a major power without them?

We weren't expecting to - we couldn't afford it at the time. The plan in the early 80s was to reduce the Royal Navy to a North Atlantic antisubmarine force, based off the Invincibles. The Falklands nixed that idea, and Sea Harrier gave us a half decent strike capability, but we simply didn't have the money to replace the old Ark.

Just seems a lot like the UK is trying to get out of world affairs. Instead of getting more involved as they should be. IMO

We've been getting out of world affairs since the late 40s, mainly due to lack of money and loss of our existing infrastructure. We've been slowly trying to re-establish the old expeditionary capability since the end of the Cold War, but it's a long process, not made any easier by the cuts of successive governments.

The problem is that without Carriers you can't maintain that projection. Without a sizable army you cannot enforce that projection. Without a long term defense plan or budget you can't afford a drawn out conflict.

Nonetheless, Britain is one of only four countries in the world capable of proper power-projection. It's very limited, but it's there. The Indians, Chinese, Israelis, Pakistanis, etc, have powerful ground and air forces, and the Indians, Italians, Spanish, Thais and Brazilians have pretty powerful navies (i.e. carriers of some description), but without amphibious capability they're only regional powers

You know that all of this leads to the US being totally fraked. If countries around the world catch on that the UK is next to nothing and as you said most everyone else is a regional power.

So, whats going on with your economy right now? Is it as bad as ours?

They're just about at the point where they are admitting that the debt is getting unsustainable. They're starting to make noises about reducing it... without yet having the guts to say that that's going to mean either spending cuts or tax hikes.

Personally I am wondering if Labour plan to effectively throw the next election so that it's the conservatives who have to clean up their mess and get the blame.

Government budget this year is £631 Billion. Total debt is £794 Billion. Defence budget is £42 Billion, or 6.6% of spending. Deplorably low.

GrahamKennedy wrote:...Personally I am wondering if Labour plan to effectively throw the next election so that it's the conservatives who have to clean up their mess and get the blame.

Funny; I've been thinking the same thing about the Republicans over here. They're seriously thinking about making Sarah Palin their candidate...

GrahamKennedy wrote:They're just about at the point where they are admitting that the debt is getting unsustainable. They're starting to make noises about reducing it... without yet having the guts to say that that's going to mean either spending cuts or tax hikes.

Is your debt in the currency you mint? If so there is the third stealth option of inflation. By "stealth option" I mean that there is no need to pass unpopular bills that raise taxes or cause schoolteachers to go on strike (as with SG), you can just sort of sit back and watch it happen.

As far as I can tell, that's the route the US has chosen.

Uh, my question guys?

SuperSaiyaMan12 wrote:Uh, my question guys?

Well, the US has generally shrunk their Navy since the fall of the Soviet Union.

Though part of that is that our ships are getting bigger and more elaborate. Modern Destroyers are bigger than Cruisers used to be. And following the trend the America class amphibious assault ships we're making are bigger than some other nations's Carriers (and actually somewhat similar in capability).

Also we don't even bother counting or in many cases making the smaller classes of vessells like corvettes and fast missile boats as our Navy is focused on bringing the hurt elsewhere as opposed to defending our shores. This makes comparisons based on number of ships dubious at best.

As for Maritime piracy. Well, I don't think we're even really considering that a serious concern as far as building ships go. It's just something the big boys can do while board with other stuff.

If we ever wanted to stop the Somalians the Army could handle it just by putting a squad on cargo ships as they go along and than ambushing the pirates as they approach.

Also, secretly we may not want to really clamp down on that as we'd like it if more of our allies got off their butts and built some good stuff. Having to fork over millions to get their ships back may be a motivator.

SuperSaiyaMan12 wrote:Uh, my question guys?

That and look at the ships we're keeping. Carriers, Subs, Destroyers, Frigates and even a few Cruisers. Thats just the USN. The USCG has over a hundred ships in it. Not counting the little patrol boats of course.

While the USN has been downsized in ship numbers. Our abilities are in fact stronger then they have been in a long time.

EDIT!

As to the pirate problem. The public line is that we are resource stretched. The truth is, the gov't doesn't give a shit if its not in US waters.