They may not have that choice!

That the UK force on teh rhine prevented Russian invasion and stabilised europe? Post 1960??

Well obviously if the UK had pulled out there would still have been some other military there – though it would have been a little hairy. The Russians invading if there was no military presence there? Well I wouldn’t like to have taken the chance – August 1968 is after all post 1960.

blah blah blah 3 pages of political/military/economic muterings on STW that have no doubt moved on to the legality of war and if pilots should wear crash helmets and other bizare issues etc (what tyres for an aircraft carrier landing)

So Excuse me if like the majority I ignore all that
and simply point out

British Engineering
Developed with no backing from HM Treasury in a time of financial cutbacks & powered by Rolls Royce Engines.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uViBVqVT43s&feature=related

or

44 years on this is the best the Americans can do
A friggin’ transformer with a limp dick for an engine!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GjrPvSBGXE&feature=related

from a purely non military view I know which one I prefer

RIP ‘The Harrier’ 1966-2010

They may not have that choice!

They are equipped to deal with this threat and not wanting to get into the doctrine of the US navy it would take a significant number(a swamping attack which is difficult to achieve) of these weapons to destroy one battle group. The US navy can have up to five battle groups at sea all at once.

Now the threat from Submarines is something else…

“a significant number(a swamping attack which is difficult to achieve) of these weapons to destroy one battle group”

It depends: you see if you disable the AC by attacking with say, 5 sunburn missiles, then the air defence and anti-ship capabilities are down leaving the rest of the BG very vulnerable to follow-up attack. The Chinese are thought to have about 100 of these missiles. And while the US has 5 BGs, they can’t all be committed to one theatre of war.

Another disturbing prospect is China selling these missiles on to really dodgy outfits, possibly to “friends” in Africa. But maybe the Russians made them promise not to.

Good point, iain1775. It would be worth lamenting the passing of a pioneer in much the same way as lamenting the passing of Concorde, except:

RIP ‘The Harrier’ 1966-2010

Not quite. Even ignoring the fact it will stay in service with the RAF until next year, the US, Italy and Spain will still be flying them after that 🙄

And while the US has 5 BGs, they can’t all be committed to one theatre of war.

They have 11.

TandemJeremy – Member
The reason they are not making sensible decision sis about lack of bottle. No Tory government could dare to redefine the UK armed forces role into a smaller less influential one. Thats what needs to be done to save significant money. Stop pretending we can play on the same scale as the US, Russia and China. We can’t and we should not.

However this lot are clearly unable to make that sort of strategic decisions. There has been no attempt to do this – define the role of the UK forces ans what they will and will not do in future thus what manpower and equipment is needed.

TJ – I would just like to point out the complete lack of context to your post here. Please have a quick look into the history of defence reviews – since the 60s would be a good start. Have a look at the decisions made, who made them and how they changed things.
You may notice a gaping chasm that the last government left – that of not reviewing the forces during their tenure. That of avoiding the decisions you say have been badly made this week. The last government abdicated that responsibility. You think the multi billion pound deficit in the defence budget appeared a few months ago? That particular government department was allowed to do that over the last 10 years by those in charge at the time.
Sometimes you have a point – history proves this one rather invalid.

And while the US has 5 BGs, they can’t all be committed to one theatre of war.

If a US carrier battle group is attacked, I think you’ll find the other battle groups coming over the horizon very quickly regardless of commitments elsewhere.

It depends: you see if you disable the AC by attacking with say, 5 sunburn missiles, then the air defence and anti-ship capabilities are down leaving the rest of the BG very vulnerable to follow-up attack.

That’s theorethical. And unlikely.

They have 11.

They have 10, because one of the carriers is usually in RCOH, but five are at sea and the other five are in harbour.

Tootall – the cowardice over (lack of )decision making in the MOD has gone on for decades.

As for this current lot tho – making the cuts without defining the strategic role is just stupid. I particularly like the fact we have 10 years when we don’t need carrier borne aircraft. We Either we need them or we don’t – its simple nonsense to suggest we don’t need them for the next ten years

You think the multi billion pound deficit in the defence budget

Purely political construct. teh bills got paid.

A bit of googling turns up the Russian/Chinese SS-N-22 anti-ship missile:

speed: Mach 2.5-4
flight time: 25-35 seconds
cruise altitude: 15 feet above sea
evasion: violent end manoeuvres
payload: 320 kg

They make ACs and other large warships a bit redundant. The Chinese are reckoned to have about 100 of these. If it kicks off over Taiwan, the yanks can kiss goodbye to their entire battle group IMO.

This and the subsequent arguments demonstrates the needs for a balanced military – or a very much smaller military.

The SS-N-22 is only as good as it’s own launch platforms, which are as vulnerable as any other. The range of the SS-N-22 is quoted as 220-240km, which is gives a pretty good stand-off, but in a naval chess game to commit and loose these assets would consierably weaken the attacking force.

Why do you think its called a battle group? The carrier might be deploying the strike capability (or rescue, or humanitarian, or defence, etc) available through its aircraft, but the frigates, destroyers and submarines are vital for mutual defence of that group…

Ordering 2 new carriers also preserves the need for much of the rest of the Navy.

And why 2? Well sooner or later one will need to pop in to the garage for a service – and that’s not a 2 day turnaround

Purely political construct. teh bills got paid.

You really have no idea about this subject. Please, please just accept that it has been a monumental mess and those in government allowed it to happen. It was not political construct – it was negligence at the highest level.