Royal Navy is too small to manage UK interests

cozzy121

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2009
Messages
5,117
Makes it sound like you regard spending 2% of GDP on military hut-hut-hutting as an attractive proposition.

The US spends something mental I believe like 40% of GDP on military ass and trash. I bet it was 2% of their GDP at one time as well.
In the interests of accuracy this arcticle sates it's 3.2%
Crazy amount for a country who's infrastructure is falling apart..



 


Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
27,650
Twitter
No
Looking at the size of the US military industrial complex and its ability to spend the US national income with little to no trouble at all I'd have extreme doubts about that 3.2% of GDP figure.

Apart from the fact that WWII and the cold war bred a monster in that sector of industry in the US which has actually distorted the US economy. States are so desperate to win a boondoggle in the form of any kind of defence budget installation, base etc that I'm convinced there is effectively a form of government dole involved which is self-perpetuating in requiring a large defence industry to keep the boondoggles going.
 

likesfish

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2011
Messages
1,724
Royal navy could do with another 20 escorts it could certainly find work for them all
because that gives you 7 or 8 more on Duty warships that spend months at sea need a lot of work when they get back to port and you need the ones your about to send out to do training etc etc
 

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
4,086
Did I say that about the Falklands? With any luck Britain won’t have to defend them again. Anyway, it may be time to focus on regional threats which are significant enough.
Up the Malvinas! I joked to an Irish nationalist friend to shout that in the door of an English pub in the war.
 

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
4,086
That table is a little dated re the carrier strike capability. The Jets for QEII are coming on line now, and her trial phase is nearly over.

The PoW is due to start her sea trials this year. The intention is to to have one at sea and deployable at any one time, & the other one in readiness.

And it should be pointed out that they are far bigger and more capable than post war carriers the RN has ever had.
The admiral who managed the US nuclear submarine programme predicted decades ago that supercarriers would hastily return to base in a general war. Today carriers travelling at typically low speed would find it very difficult to evade hypersonic missiles and swarms of low cost drones.
Carriers' main function are to impress minor military powers and please admirals' desires for big military displays.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
27,650
Twitter
No
They are an expensive proposition on an ongoing basis, aircraft carriers. If they are deployed to a war zone they don't just haul anchor and set off. They need all sorts of attendant vessels and arrangements. Essentially an aircraft carrier is the military equivalent of Mike Tyson in his heyday. Expensive, brutal and requiring an entourage of other assets in the form of escort vessels as a screen against sea-to-sea missile attack, an air-screen overhead, which it supplies itself, obviously.

The last time aircraft carriers were pitched against each other I can think of was the Japanese versus the American navies in WWII.

Essentially ever since they've been used as a sort of washed up Mike Tyson as a door-bouncer.

A floating gun platform only with missiles in the main instead of shells. Not much change from the first dreadnought vessels used in the US civil war.

Probably useful primarily as a launch platform for air strikes onshore and for missile barrages from sea to land.

I wonder whether they really are something out of time, given the sort of wars we have in the modern era, multiple fronts, the enemy mixed in with civilians and of course an aircraft carrier is useless against terrorism.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top