£35.4m going spare....

Yep. Army helos are all tactical or attack, The RAF, RN and
Coastguard/agency helos do all the rescue stuff

 

This is so true. Which is why we now want to have real ones again. An
old friend from teen-hood was serving on one of the ships that got hit
by an Exocet but survived, right at the end (cba to Google for the name)
and he said one thing they *all* wanted to see was the old Ark Royal
(decommissioned only a few years previously) come steaming over the
horizon

Too right, again. All we had were Harriers (which did an *amazing* job)
and a few choppers. No serious supersonic aircraft, no lovely
carrier-borne AWACs aircraft....

One can argue to arms-versus-home expenditure until the cows come home,
but the fact remains that this is an island country. We need a navy. End
of.

 

A *nice* one.

 

Indeed. A mate of mine was on Sheffield. He survived, I'm pleased to
say.

Supersonics wouldn't have helped that much, what was needed was
organic air power with real AEW, decent top cover and dedicated mud
moving capability. The SHARS and GR3s did amazingly well but it was
such a narrow run thing. The Ark would have been a great asset but
she was worn out when scrapped and ( I think) was well on the way to
becoming razor blades in 1982.

Thing is nothing's really been learned - at the time the Govt had
decided the RN needed to be a North Atlantic ASW force and so all the
amphib and force projection was to be got rid of - a policy quickly
changed as the timing of the Falklands invasion was just a little too
snappy. 25 years on, with the political desire to be a form of global
policman - still no proper carriers, the same lashed up helo AEW that
came on stream just after the Falklands were won back, the RN has
retired their SHARs with no replacement in place leaving the GR3
successor, the GR7/9 mud mover as the only carrier capable types in
the inventory so no top cover, no AEW. If anything a worse position
than 1982.

 

(The Older Gentleman) wrote in
message

When have we needed to use the Navy to defend something that was really
ours rather than something we've stolen from others?

Sure I can see an argument for some coastal vehicles for use by customs
etc. but aircraft carriers? Those are only needed if we think it's
important for us to keep what's left of the 'empire'.

 

In the case of the Falklands, perhaps it's because the islanders want to
remain British?

Quite an odd POV, IMHO, bearing in mind that just about every country
was stolen from someone else at some point in history.

We'll probably have to agree to disagree on this one - but I do think
that, if there were another attempt on UK as in WWII, we'd currently
have absolutely no chance of defending ourselves given the current
shortfall in 'hulls' in the RN.

 

Well, just to pluck a couple - the Battle of the Atlantic when we
needed to keep the supply lines open from America, the need to defend
against the U Boat blockades of WW1.

If your forces are going to do anything more than sit at home manning
the barricades, you need airpower and thus by definition carriers.

 

I think we did learn from it - we learned that the 'Through Deck
Cruiser' was totally under-specced for the task it was given. Even
Hermes wasn't really up to the job - although that, I believe, had been
stripped of it's capabilities rather than being unsuitable from the
start.

I can see the point with the Sea Harrier, though - given that the GR9
doesn't have the capabilities that made the Sea Harrier so successful in
the Falklands. I'd have thought it was worth updating the GR9 with the
Blue Fox radar, considering that the Lightning II isn't due until around
2015.

If the Argies had another go in the near future, I doubt very much we'd
get the islands back this time.

 

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 19:48:08 +0100, wrote:

snip>

Assuming I stay in the same job, that proposed new carrier will be my
source of overtime for a few years so it's a good idea.

 

When we 'took' the Falklands, they were effectively uninhabited. No-one
cared about them or wanted them.

 

None whatsoever. We are now completely US- dependent. If the
Falklands happened today they rely on having enough notice to get
airframes down there plus the garrison being able to fight invaders
off. If they got beyond a beach head there's probaly no way to
disllodge without the US.

 

Steve H wroe

If things were learned, it's hard to see where the lessons were put
into practice! Given that the though deck Cruiser remains in service
as the only platform 25 years on.

You can't just stick a radar on a machine not designed for it.

See my other post

 

They ask you which bank you want to deal with, and a personal account
manager from the bank of your choice magically appears.

 

WTF has happened to us?

Even in recent post-Falklands days, I recall Portsmouth habour being
stuffed full of ships - maybe my perception was coloured by my age at
the time, but we appear to be desperately short of even our depleted
levels back then.

Not only did we appear not to have replaced ships lost in the Falklands,
we've also sold off a huge number of Type-42 destroyers without
replacement.

We've even flogged 3 of the Type-23 frigates without even making use of
2 of them!

And why have we mothalled Invincible? - apparently it would take 18
months to put her back in service - hardly useful if faced with any kind
of emergency need.

 

I'm surprised you need to ask. The original purpose of the Navy was to
protect trade routes and British shipping.

Protecting British citizens also comes to mind.

 

I bet it could be done in a lot less, if the need was really there.

An interesting footnote. A few years before WW2, Churchill (and a few
others) suggested mothballing some of the great ocean liners that were
being broken up for scrap. These included the original Mauretania
(probably the greatest ocean liner ever built).

"We might need these...." was his opinion.

A few years later, who do you think desperately needed troop transports?

 

A carrier would serve no useful purpose when it came to defence of the
British Isles. Air power would be the most important thing, closely
followed by the fact that anyone fucking with us should be made very
aware that we have a nuclear deterrent and their cities would shortly
become dust.

 

Isn't that as a result of a considerable amount of political fighting
between ourselves and the Frogs? - The new carrier being conceived as a
joint effort before we split and went our own ways?

Just looked into it - didn't realise the GR7/9 were that different to
the Sea Harrier.

However, surely we should have invested in a Sea Harrier based on the
GR9? - I know the government is saying it's a short lifespan before the
Lightning II comes into service, but they'd both have value on the used
market (flog to them to whoever buys the Invincible class ships from
us....) or even a longer life on board the new carriers.

 

That's the nuclear deterrent where the keys are in the hands of the
Americans?

 

WW1... well that's close to 100 years ago.

I really cannot see another conventional war like that happening in
Europe.

Maybe we shouldn't send our forces elsewhere.