Read more.Oulines a stratosphere drone station, a semi-sub carrier, and various unmanned platforms.
Read more.Oulines a stratosphere drone station, a semi-sub carrier, and various unmanned platforms.
I'd love to think they are joking, but it's a bit late in the year for April fools joke, but no, by all means, let's spend a shed load on stuff that'll be late, not work, and come in over budget when there are more important things to spend money on...The government is making a "£24 billion increase" in defence spending across four years to help realise plans such as those outlined above.
Honestly, those presentation images give off the vibe of 'uni design students' who have basically been given a brief and asked to 'design your future Royal Navy'....
While I don't personally have a problem with the military getting more money (as long as they're not going to squander it) I am curious as to where the money is coming from.....
I wonder how many of these students have seen Age of Ultron...
It do look like you guys follow the Danish doctrine, which say if you buy something current make damn sure it is extremely expensive.
And if you buy anything else, make sure it is bad, over budget and will have to be scrapped before if finally get properly operational.
But to be honest i do think swarm based things are a thing to come, but the problem is without quantum encryption the Russians ASO will probably just hack it.
And knowing Denmark, the PW will probably be 1-2-3-4, just as we send deeply personal info on citizens on unencrypted DVD disks in regular mail,,,,,, that get delivered to the Chinese embassy.
I dont know about you guys, but i have absolutely 0 trust in anything digital the Danish government have their fingers in.
And very little trust in anything else.
Some of these designs looked like they were inspired by Command & Conquer.
Tabbykatze (13-09-2021),Zhaoman (13-09-2021)
I think a submersible carrier is a great idea.
It should carry the Houses of Parliament.
And submerge.
utopic (13-09-2021)
It has planes.
And yes, there are enough support ships. The issue is the other commitments of the RN and the number of people who want to work in the service. The biggest issue around the carriers was manpower.
The carriers were initially meant to be part of the EU Navy with Germany building the other one. They backed out and we left the EU. We were left with two carriers which were never meant to be escorted by solely UK assets, but were meant to be under EU operational control. Luckily, this is one of the reasons we have NATO so countries can combine capabilities. The carrier missions have been a mish mash of carriers, escort and supply ships from multiple countries. Frankly, CSG has been an awesome demonstration of interoperability. It's operating as part of NATO. Only one country in the world has the capability to run a totally soverign, reliable and enduring large carrier strike expeditionary force alongside everything else. That's America. Russia tried and gave up quite quickly in Syria and China's Navy is getting close but isn't there yet.
If there was a Falklands style war and we could abandon our other commitments (piracy, freedom of navigation, drugs, etc), yes we could absolutely provide two fully fledged carrier groups and with ships to spare.
If you're talking about there being USMC jets on there, well there's a few reasons for that. But it has quite a few jets with Union Flags on. Bear in mind France's carrier has US pilots on it and US carriers have had our pilots on them, as well as the US losing an F35 carrier recently, you might see why that's the case.
I was wrong on the German part. It was France.
The original source was a Letter of Intent in '96 between us and the Frogs on integrating EU Naval forces and future carrier development. The main source is the 1998 St Marlo Agreement, leading to the 1999 Helsinki Goals. It was part of the proposed EU Rapid Reaction Force which was to have three carriers. Two from us and one from France. The escort cover would be provided by other EU nations. This meant that we put a huge amount of resource into building and crewing the carriers but not the escort side. We had an awesome design in the Type 45 (aside from the SPAM intercooler debacle, but that'll be sorted soon) but not enough cash to build enough of them. Whilst awesome ships on paper, they don't have the reliability right now to be of much use. Our new frigates are on track and we're (thankfully) going down the route of less capable ships of greater number.
The "EU Navy" is really just a battlegroup at the moment doing anti-piracy. Whether this will expand now after Barnier running for French president on a platform of reclaiming soverignty (the irony!) and German calls for a referendum, it's hard to say. Right now, ~80% of the EU's NATO protection comes from outside the EU and their defence budget contributions are mostly below NATO requirements. We shall see, I suppose.
I think the designs of the EU are beyond the spirits of the people. Such change usually takes generations or a massive arse kicking in a war. They've tried to do it over a few decades and it just doesn't work like that.
Better to spend it on the militaryOriginally Posted by [GSV
We don't have enough F35Bs to man it alone, and if we create a carrier strike group from RN assets there aren't enough left to do the rest of the navy's job.
All this so we have a carrier, allegedly for defense purposes (if it was defensive you'd have a friendly airbase nearby, you only need a carrier for attacking purposes,) which can only fly 1 type of jet off of it. A type too expensive to be worth using against 90% of the targets its likely to face and obsolete vs the 10% of other advanced nations.
It took till Pearl Harbour for the west to learn that Battleships were obsolete, seems its going to take something just as obvious with carriers. With all these unmanned drones, sea skimming missiles and subs able to target such massive ships from miles away.
Spending money on defense is a good idea, but only if it actually helps defend you.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)