Si vis pacem, para bellum

[caddyman]

At  11.00am GMT the Royal Navy ceases to be a credible force with the decommissioning of HMS Ark Royal, robbing the service of its capability to launch fixed wing aircraft for the remainder of the decade at least.

This leaves the senior service with a few destroyers and frigates and precious little else other than the Trident force, which frankly, we will never need.

Cameron's coalition government has cut further, deeper and more definitively than any previous administration, seriously compromising the Navy's ability to fulfill its function.


Royal Navy c.900AD - 2011AD

Comments

[caddyman.livejournal.com]

It has nothing to do with empire, since we don't have one and everything to do with defence.

Whatever the pros and cons of projecting Bristish power abroad, we ought to be able to defend our own trade lines and that requires a functional navy. A functional modern navy requires air defences and they are best provided by aircraft and hence at least 2 carriers.

Having that capability does not automatically mean that we will bomb the Libyans or anyone else back to the stone age (though I accept Dave is tempted to try aircraft on not).

A functional navy also allows us to send humanitarian aid and protect that aid from pirates/bandits. Or we could just turn our back on the world and let them get on with their massacres. Maybe a little leafleting to mo up the blood.

As to the world not hating us (or the west in general) well it's a bit late for that. The middle east still hasn't forgiven us fo the crusades, much less anything within living memory.

[littleonionz.livejournal.com]

I think protecting internation sea lanes has to be a multinational effort these days.

As to capability; I think, if we have the capability then we are going to use it. Or be pressured into using it by our friends across the water and the military themselves. If the cake isn't in the cupboard we can't eat it.

Again protection of aid needs to be multilateral, I think the UN and NATO would be much directing energies at this than trying to 'fix' renegade states.


Not turn our back on the world so much as not be arrogant enough to say we know best, ask Irish Catholics about massacres, I don't think they see us brits as saviours.

We have to act under the mandate of the current League of Nations yes it's corrupt, relatively toothless and bloated but it is all we've got and given our species rottweiller nature a bloody miracle!:)

We don't know best, we have no right to go into any other country uninvited and save the people from themselves. Without a proper consensus. Also; it never works.

Oppressed people have to do what we did, what the russians did and the french. They have to get crapped on enough to go, 'I've had enough of this' and sort out their own mess in order to grow.

Attempting to fight other people's battles, without their consent or a consensus approval of the rest of the civilized world is crippling to the countries that we 'help'

At for forgiveness; the pope has forgiven the jews for slotting JC, so you know, anything is possible:)

You have to start somewhere and I think not shooting people is a cracking way to start. Don't get me wrong I have a nerdish love of all things bright and dangerous, really it's quite sad and a little disturbing. But I'd be quite happy if they were all turned into ploughs.

[delvy.livejournal.com]

Errr.... the protection of Aid and Sea-lanes are exactly multi-national efforts currently, but we've just cut our navy substantially below that that is required to meet the commitments expected of a G8 country. Add to that that the most expensive part of our naval force is the bit you *cannot* use in such activities namely trident submarines.

[littleonionz.livejournal.com]

I read this really interesting bio of Nelson, he complains about lack of frigates when he's chasing the french, nothing changes:)

We're just going to have to let other people carry the three lions' share for a little bit. I hardly think the scrapping of the Ark Royal is going to turn loads of land lubbers into budding Jack Sparrows. Neither am I being glib or naive, I just think we need to be realistic about our place in the modern world.

[delvy.livejournal.com]

Okay, put it this way. We have had conflicts which we have been involved in during which we have used an aircraft carrier in each of the last 3 decades. I think it immensely foolhardy to remove the capabilities that mobile air platform provides from the current defence strategy, especially if one examines the relative costs of this conventional defence system to nuclear defence systems.

[littleonionz.livejournal.com]

We have had conflicts which we have been involved in during which we have used an aircraft carrier in each of the last 3 decades.
True, but we probably shouldn't have been involved in a few of them.
I'm in favour of a conventional defence system over nuclear, sure, but one more fitting to our needs and perhaps not the needs of the whole world. I might not have decommed the AR as suddenly as it has been, same with the wingy things, but then I haven't done the maths. One has to hope someone has. I really think (hope) it's a smarter strategy than it appears.