There will ALWAYS be an England ... ???

[mmx1]

Cameron held healthcare and development assistance off limits, but everything else got schwacked for 25%, as opposed to 8% on defense. They seem to be mortgaging high-intensity capabilities like tanks, arty, ships, and allowing a fighter gap until the F-35 to keep their commitment in Afghanistan, their nuclear deterrent, and increase spending on cyberwarfare and special forces. They're making some hard choices.

It will be costly to build back up RN aviation, but as costly as keeping it for 10 years? Possibly at the cost of their F-35 fleet?

Can't we go back to the days when instead of throwing money at problem nations, we (western civilization) just sent the biggest, baddest, meanest sons of bitches we could find in to punch the problem children in the nose, take what we wanted, and leave?

Things worked about as well then as they do now, and we got to keep our toys.

Some of them wised up and got nukes. How hard do you want to punch Pakistan?

 

[scoolbubba]

hard enough to make their momma's cry?

 

[PhrogLoop]

What is the rational for the STOVL version of F-35? What scenario requires fast air support that doesn't also require a carrier air group? I'm not talking real world scenario, just hypothetical.

Purely hypothetical: Picture a scenario where we have to immediately evacuate an American Embassy 200 miles inland surrounded by rough terrain and the nearest airport is bombed out. A fully stocked LHD is closer to said embassy than the nearest CVN, which is balls deep in OEF strikes. Thanks to the Marine Corps' firm belief in maneuver warfare theory and self-contained combined arms, the Marines onboard the LHD (even without its associated LPD or LSD) has everything onboard it needs to fight its way in (Harriers/JSFs and Cobras), insert the assault force (Phrogs/Ospreys and Shitters), command and control (Hueys), and set up a FARP (Shitters) so the Harriers/JSFs and Cobras can refuel and maintain continous cover for the rest of the package. That FARP can be anywhere you can land 2 aircraft vertically.

Not a Harrier guy, but I was a Gator SAR guy X2 and the MINIBOSS on an LHD. And I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night (aka the Navy Gateway Inn @ NAF El Centro).

 

[coolhandlukesd]

When USS Enterprise is retired could she be sold to the UK or France?
The reason I ask is would it be cheaper for them to get our decommissioned aircraft carriers then build new ones?
I myself would love to see her refitted for another 50 year service in the USN!

 

[busdriver]

fair enough.

 

[phrogdriver]

As much as I am sad that the once mighty Royal Navy, which long ago ruled the waves and defeated the Spanish Armada, is now going to be a coastal patrol force, I will say that their politicians are showing some f'g sack.

Cameron is being true to his word and cutting pensions, healthcare, etc, along with defense. They are getting their house in order. I'll sacrifice some defense here, too, if our politicians would man up and face fiscal reality like the g.d. limeys are.

Both Dems and Reps are talking a big game about cutting deficits, but neither has made a realistic plan to do thing one about it.

The deficit, or more precisely, the sword of Damocles of upcoming deficits, is a far more dangerous threat to our national security than Al Qaeda. God bless David Cameron. Wish we had someone like him here.

 

[yodaears]

As much as I am sad that the once mighty Royal Navy, which long ago ruled the waves and defeated the Spanish Armada, is now going to be a coastal patrol force, I will say that their politicians are showing some f'g sack.

Cameron is being true to his word and cutting pensions, healthcare, etc, along with defense. They are getting their house in order. I'll sacrifice some defense here, too, if our politicians would man up and face fiscal reality like the g.d. limeys are.

Both Dems and Reps are talking a big game about cutting deficits, but neither has made a realistic plan to do thing one about it.

The deficit, or more precisely, the sword of Damocles of upcoming deficits, is a far more dangerous threat to our national security than Al Qaeda. God bless David Cameron. Wish we had someone like him here.

I would support some cuts too, especially if they concentrated on Strategic Air Command and wouldn't effect Navy/Marine Corps TACAIR.

In all seriousness though I agree with your overall assessment.

 

[A4sForever]

....Cameron is being true to his word and cutting pensions, healthcare, etc, along with defense. They are getting their house in order.... God bless David Cameron. Wish we had someone like him here.

Nooooooooo ... noooooooooo .... noooooooooo .... the Defense 'cuts' are the work of 'Deputy' PM Clegg and his leftie' fellow travelers in the LibDems ... NOT the Torys. The Tory's LOVE the MOD ... the lefties' HATE the MOD.

The rest of the cuts ???

Comme ci, comme ça ...

And it's 'God Save the King/Queen' (whichever one is operative) ... decidedly not 'God Bless the PM' ...

 

[Clux4]

Second, Marines are extremely protective of their organic capabilities. The Air Force or Navy might not meet their needs all the time. And once something is gone, it likely won't come back.

I think this same issue was discussed in the F-35 thread. In light of recent development with the Brits and soaring cost, this might be an issue to reconsider.

 

[phrogdriver]

Nooooooooo ... noooooooooo .... noooooooooo .... the Defense 'cuts' are the work of 'Deputy' PM Clegg and his leftie' fellow travelers in the LibDems ... NOT the Torys. The Tory's LOVE the MOD ... the lefties' HATE the MOD.

The rest of the cuts ???

Comme ci, comme ça ...

And it's 'God Save the King/Queen' (whichever one is operative) ... decidedly not 'God Bless the PM' ...

I don't care what part of the governing coalition is responsible. I won't argue whether it's wise for them to cut a particular part of their defense (or defence) budget. However, they are cutting across the board. That's the right thing to do.

I don't have a problem with cutting defense, as long as the whole government is sharing the pain, and as long as we re-evaluate our foreign commitments to avoid overextending ourselves. I believe in a strong defense, but I believe in paying one's bills even more.

To reiterate, the Brits are doing in their country what our politicians lack the sack to do in ours. God bless 'em, save 'em, whatever, and let them f'g emigrate to the US and get elected here, so they can unf**k the cowards in both of our parties.

 

[A4sForever]

...I don't have a problem with cutting defense, as long as the whole government is sharing the pain, and as long as we re-evaluate our foreign commitments to avoid overextending ourselves. I believe in a strong defense, but ...

Nooooooooo ... noooooooooo .... noooooooooo ....

Hey, I'm ALL FOR CUTTING the useless bloat (wherever it may be found in government -- including the military) ... but a wholesale cut of the MOD's front line hardware & personnel doesn't seem to make much sense when you're fighting in several hot spots around the globe. It does make for splashy headlines, however.

You say cut our commitments ... now which should we cut ... ??? I'd cut Bosnia, but that's just me. Were I an Englishman, I'd rather start the fiscal chain-saw/meat cleaver in the socialist, nanny-welfare-state that IS modern day not-so-great-anymore Great Britain. But not the military when it's being leaned on so heavily. Military weakness always leads to conflict and wars -- not military strength. The British used to know that ... they learned that lesson painfully. We learned it too, actually ...

And ... as a Limey politician or anyone else ... it's always 'easier' to cut 'defense' and carriers and aircraft and 'stuff' (actually, they are cutting 'offense') when you've got UNCLE sitting just across the Atlantic coverin' your back. You know -- those Colonial guys who will ALWAYS be there to pick your sorry ass out of the fire next time 'it' hits the fan .. or, lacking that option (like US) ... you could choose to become irrelevant in a dangerous world that hates you & wants to kill you.

I choose to provide for my own defense ... as big & bad as I can make it. No one picks a fight with 'tough guys'.

 

[phrogpilot73]

I'll sacrifice some defense here, too, if our politicians would man up and face fiscal reality like the g.d. limeys are.

Both Dems and Reps are talking a big game about cutting deficits, but neither has made a realistic plan to do thing one about it.

Would that include cutting the Osprey? Not being the typical Phrog guy here, just saying that the Osprey is f'in expensive. The Marine Corps (as far as I've seen so far) is not trying to change their doctrine to match the paradigm-shift that is the tilt-rotor. Everything I've seen so far (and I'm not talking at the tactical level, more the strategic level) is pretending the Osprey is a one-for-one swap for the Phrog. It's not. In some cases, it's more capable - and in others it's not. It's not a friggin helo, it's a tilt rotor and can possibly change the face of aviation. I had dinner with some friends (the XO of a VMM standing up on the left coast, and a dude that has transitioned and is working at MAG-26) and apparently, in order to protect the Osprey - they both told me that the transition is accelerating to protect it before it gets cut.

Instead of just telling us how great it is, why not actually adjust our doctrine? Otherwise it just seems like a f'in expensive addition to our force that isn't going to be fully utilized. If the higher ups won't adjust the doctrine, it seems that a cheap, off the shelf medium lift asset w/ a mix of Ospreys would make more sense.

 

[phrogdriver]

As far as overall commitments go, we need to decide what we want our military to do. Low-intensity warfare, surgical strikes, and rapid deployment, like what the GWOT emphasizes? Or, a big-war carrier Navy, a heavy-bomber USAF, and large armored Army to lay in wait for the ChiComs? Can't do both. It'd be nice, but we can't. In the meantime, we can ditch a lot of our overseas commitments and tell the Euros to take care of their own backyard for awhile.

As far as the Osprey goes, PP73's concept might've been a good idea 10 years ago. As it stands, I don't think having 2 medium-lift communities instead of one is going to save any money. 2 training pipelines for Os and Es, 2 logistics trains, more basing issues, etc. Shoot, if we'd really had our dope together, we should've bought interim helos in 1985, knowing that by 2015, some truly revolutionary stuff would be maturing, and we'd be even better off.

If we're talking aircraft to cut, cut the Y/Z and replace them both with a multi-role attack/utility platform, like the Battlehawk, perhaps with a planned upgrade to a compound platform like the X-49 Speedhawk mod later on. If you did that, you'd address Osprey's limited shortfalls in small helo missions while retaining the ability to put a company in long range.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

I thought the point of the UH-1Y was to pick up some of the missions 46's did that the Osprey is overkill for or ill suited to?

 

[helolumpy]

Back in 1982 John Knott the SECSTATE for Defense made some huge cutbacks in the Royal Navy budget, assets to be striken included HMS Invincible, and two LPDs.
The cuts were due to take effect in mid-summer 1982.

The Argenine Junta was in a tough situation just having lost a Papal Bull settlement regarding sovereignty over some islands to Chile, the Argentine gov't looks east to the Falklands. The original plan called for a OCT invastion to coincide with southern hemisphere summer, but still smarting from the Papal Bull, they invade in April.

The Royal Navy successfully reestablish control over the Falklands after about 100 days of combat.

Ironically, if the Argentine military waited unitl October, the Royal Navy would have decomm'd and sold off an aircraft carrier and two LPDs; Great Britian would not have the naval force required to take the islands back.

I only offer this to show that sometimes history's a real bitch when it keeps repeating itself...