Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ACG Scenario - Should the Royal Navy scrap Trident II and their SSBNS?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post



    Wanna know what would help retention and recruitment? A good recession. A good recession always renders the military an attractive career path. Perhaps it would be in the UK's strategic interests to undergo a good recession.
    We're not that long out of a bad one thank you

    Apart from Hitler's Germany the military tends to shrink in a recession anyway.
    Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
    Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by MarkV View Post

      We're not that long out of a bad one thank you

      Apart from Hitler's Germany the military tends to shrink in a recession anyway.
      Consequently retention and recruitment of the best personnel becomes far easier. Mass unemployment facilitates G-1's task of weeding out the non-hackers.
      I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by johns624 View Post
        I don't know why a previous poster brought the US into it. This post was about what would give the UK a stronger military, given her reduced budget. I would think that a few more conventional warships would reduce the operational tempo enough to help with trained personnel retention.
        If the operational tempo is so high that trained personnel are quitting that's bad management.

        I don't see why the UK has to spend big to ensure the freedom of the seas, whilst other, richer, nations sit at home and do fck all.

        Comment


        • #34
          Back in the 70s I was despatched to resolve some technical issues at HMS Centurion the RN's computer centre in Gosport that handled payroll and personnel systems. At the time they were also having a retention problem because they didn't have enough ships at sea. Most men had signed on to go to sea and not to man a desk in a concrete frigate. In an attempt to resolve this some bright spark devised a system that monitored sea time and switched postings around so everyone got a period at sea. The result was that when a crewman was just becoming a useful and coordinated team member he would be rotated back to a shore job and a new guy with no sea time would replace him. The effect on crew cohesion and efficiency can be imagined.
          Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
          Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Gooner View Post

            If the operational tempo is so high that trained personnel are quitting that's bad management.

            I don't see why the UK has to spend big to ensure the freedom of the seas, whilst other, richer, nations sit at home and do fck all.
            No, the tempo is so high because there aren't enough ships to go around for all the commitments.
            Other countries are doing their part. France and Japan both have a bigger navy than the UK. Same with China and India and Australia are very close. Canada even has a good number of surface combatants.
            PS That's kind of sorry that you're replying to an American about how much money the UK spends on defense. I've read several sources that say that the only reason the UK makes the 2% GDP level is because they include military pension payments in the amount.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by johns624 View Post

              No, the tempo is so high because there aren't enough ships to go around for all the commitments.
              You say tomato, I say potato.
              One good thing about having to form a Carrier group is that the RN will have to cut other commitments.

              Other countries are doing their part. France and Japan both have a bigger navy than the UK. Same with China and India and Australia are very close. Canada even has a good number of surface combatants.
              PS That's kind of sorry that you're replying to an American about how much money the UK spends on defense. I've read several sources that say that the only reason the UK makes the 2% GDP level is because they include military pension payments in the amount.
              Why wouldn't China and Japan have bigger navies than the UK? They have larger populations and are wealthier.
              The Marine Nationale is about the same size as the RN (but older), RAN and RCN both considerably smaller.

              Comment


              • #37
                Since we're playing the "population game", both the RCN and RAN are considerably larger, per capita, than the RN.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by johns624 View Post
                  Since we're playing the "population game", both the RCN and RAN are considerably larger, per capita, than the RN.
                  By what criteria?

                  Permanent Personnel:

                  RAN: 14,215
                  RCN: 13,600
                  RN : 33,280

                  Certainly best not to make a commissioned Tonnage comparison

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Gooner View Post

                    By what criteria?

                    Permanent Personnel:

                    RAN: 14,215
                    RCN: 13,600
                    RN : 33,280

                    Certainly best not to make a commissioned Tonnage comparison
                    If you don't know the difference between "population" and "personnel" then it's not worth debating you. Also, the RN is down to 30,000, of which 7000 are Royal Marines. Commissioned tonnage means nothing if it's tied up to the dock with caretaker crews.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by johns624 View Post

                      If you don't know the difference between "population" and "personnel" then it's not worth debating you. Also, the RN is down to 30,000, of which 7000 are Royal Marines.
                      I figured most people would know the rough population figures

                      c 27m, 37m, 65m respectively.

                      Commissioned tonnage means nothing if it's tied up to the dock with caretaker crews.
                      Last month was pretty busy for the RN, exercises in the Gulf, North Sea and the South China Sea ..

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        [QUOTE=Gooner;n5074341]

                        The UK has already received 15 of the first tranche of F35Bs and training on the QE is already underway



                        With what 14 commissioned Frigates and Destroyers forming a battle group should not be a problem, but we are also touching up Allies to contribute there.

                        "
                        The Netherlands became the first UK ally to announce it would send a warship to join the Royal Navy aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth on her first operational deployment in 2021.
                        The announcement was made on October 24 during the visit of the King and Queen of the Netherlands to Downing Street.
                        The exact type of ship to join was not specified but the Royal Navy said the Dutch Navy ship would be part of the carrier strike group"

                        https://navaltoday.com/2018/10/25/du...al-deployment/




                        Agreed.[/QUOTE

                        Make that agreed number two.


                        The Inter-Service Group for the Study of All-Out Warfare – which produced a series of (often contentious) papers wrote........

                        ‘We believe that in an era of mutual deterrence there is a possibility that the United States would not be prepared to use her strategic nuclear weapons against the USSR except in the event of a Soviet attack on her homeland ... If such a change in USA policy were to take place the UK would not be able to shelter under the umbrella of American strategic nuclear weapons, and must have a capability to offer retaliation even in circumstances in which she alone were threatened by the USSR.’

                        The above is cold war, but that scenario could hold true even today.

                        I agree that in the near future the UK should have worthwhile battle group, once everything come's together, especially with the interoperability of other European navies.





                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Maybe the SSBNs should ditch the Trident IIs, and convert over to SSGNs... with provisions for special forces, UAV and UUVs.
                          "In modern war... you will die like a dog for no good reason."
                          Ernest Hemingway.
                          “The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Achtung Baby View Post
                            Maybe the SSBNs should ditch the Trident IIs, and convert over to SSGNs... with provisions for special forces, UAV and UUVs.
                            And lose the political capital that strategic deterrent represents?
                            I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by MarkV View Post

                              Which given the current administration's volatility and willingness not to honour treaties is made of rice paper.

                              BTW given the thread title one has to ask have they got barnacles on them?
                              I think the current administration is saying what many have believed for years. Is there really a need for NATO at this time? I would argue no, and have no problem with an E.U. defense force. Certainly it would allow us to do things like convert to 6.8mm or whatever without having to worry about NATO inter-compatibility. Russia is a nuisance, but no threat to Western Europe. I do think, and Trump seems to have been moving that way, that we have a moral obligation to support Eastern European nations as they are the only ones who really live under much of a threat from Russia. The Western European nations certainly want NATO to continue as it is the U.S. who provides most of the expense. Germany's army, e.g., is the same size as U.S. forces in Europe (ca. 60,000), and that is way too little for a power of her magnitude.

                              As for the U.K. nukes, it depends upon what role the Brits really want to play in the world, and if they even have the ability to play any roll out of sight of the U.K. shores. I'm not really knowledgeable about the state of the UK economy, or its "ultramar" desires (if any).

                              Tuebor

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X