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

[yak52driver]

I don't pretend to have the world view/experience that many of you on this site do. But I keep remembering the phrase, "Those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it." I hope England and our own government do not make short sighted decisions that hurt our countries going forward.

 

[eddie]

Economist muttered something about potential cross-training with the French to incubate / hibernate the Fleet Air Arm until the F-35 arrives...

 

[SkywardET]

I don't pretend to have the world view/experience that many of you on this site do. But I keep remembering the phrase, "Those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it." I hope England and our own government do not make short sighted decisions that hurt our countries going forward.

History repeats itself, sure, but which history? Defense is necessary to deter aggression, but the British are royally screwed financially, and there's some nasty history in that regard too. The Soviets have a bit of history with overextended military and a collapsing economy from the weight of public spending. The Brits have their own history of economic sea changes. In a previous era the British Pound Sterling was the premier reserve currency of the world, but with continued British fiscal endeavors the MP's will ensure that such a title never again befalls their currency.

Check the second chart in this link:
http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php/10874-Catching-a-gold-basher-Eric-Janszen?p=109998

This has some similarities to our own fiscal insolvency mess, but that's a discussion for another thread. I still would not at all be surprised if we lose a quarter or more of our operational ships and squadrons within a decade.

 

[Flash]

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

It's not like the Argentines could do a repeat either, they are in much worse shape than the Brits.

 

[SkywardET]

It's not like the Argentines could do a repeat either, they are in much worse shape than the Brits.

History doesn't technically repeat itself, but it does rhyme. A "repeat" of the Falklands need not involve the Falklands nor Argentina.

Some paraphrased Mahan: if you lose your naval assets, you lose a bit of your sea lines of communication.

 

[Flash]

History doesn't technically repeat itself, but it does rhyme. A "repeat" of the Falklands need not involve the Falklands nor Argentina.

Some paraphrased Mahan: if you lose your naval assets, you lose a bit of your sea lines of communication.

The UK is a country of only 60 million or so souls and has long punched above it's weight in international affairs even with the disappearance of it's empire. They cannot afford to keep up their spending the way they have and their armed forces are taking some cuts. They are no longer the guarantor of keeping the seas free and have not been for a long time, even if they doubled their defence budget they would still only have a fraction of the forces the US has. It's the real world, not a yellow brick road or gold-paved street. Fortunately for the Brits their current leadership seems to have a good grasp of that reality.

 

[helolumpy]

if you lose your naval assets, you lose a bit of your sea lines of communication.

But if your allies (the USN) are willing to keep the SLOCS open for you, then save some $$$

 

[LazersGoPEWPEW]

The UK is a country of only 60 million or so souls and has long punched above it's weight in international affairs even with the disappearance of it's empire. They cannot afford to keep up their spending the way they have and their armed forces are taking some cuts. They are no longer the guarantor of keeping the seas free and have not been for a long time, even if they doubled their defence budget they would still only have a fraction of the forces the US has. It's the real world, not a yellow brick road or gold-paved street. Fortunately for the Brits their current leadership seems to have a good grasp of that reality.

Flash to come bring everyone back to the real world. Personally I'm not going to shed a tear for their defense woes.

 

[PhrogLoop]

If there are any tears to be shed, it should be for what we will experience ourselves in a few short years, budgetwise. And don't think that the coming (and welcome) Red November tidal wave will save us from that fate!!!

 

[phrogdriver]

I'm just hoping for early retirement packages!

 

[SkywardET]

The UK is a country of only 60 million or so souls and has long punched above it's weight in international affairs even with the disappearance of it's empire. They cannot afford to keep up their spending the way they have and their armed forces are taking some cuts. They are no longer the guarantor of keeping the seas free and have not been for a long time, even if they doubled their defence budget they would still only have a fraction of the forces the US has. It's the real world, not a yellow brick road or gold-paved street. Fortunately for the Brits their current leadership seems to have a good grasp of that reality.

That's not what I'm talking about and I'm not at all doubting that they need to make cuts. Previous posts of mine expressed my surprise at the limited nature of the cuts the Brits were making. The British will lose influence without those naval assets, regardless of the perspective you look at it from. I am curious, however, as to what differences you perceive in our own situation vice the British one--can we afford to keep up the spending the way we have been?

helolumpy, will we always be willing or able to keep all the SLOCS open? Personally, I do not see any possibility of a strong and vibrant USN in the year 2025 or so without some drastic, even radical, change in leadership (civilian/Congressional). I will shed a tear for our own defense woes in the mid-future.

 

[helolumpy]

helolumpy, will we always be willing or able to keep all the SLOCS open? Personally, I do not see any possibility of a strong and vibrant USN in the year 2025 or so without some drastic, even radical, change in leadership (civilian/Congressional). I will shed a tear for our own defense woes in the mid-future.

To answer you question, I ask you to consider the capture of the Maersk Alabama. Did that issue really require the amount of attention that it received? Why did an Adminstration that was not exactly chomping at the bit to take on more "overseas contingency operations' stand up a JTF for counterpiracy ops? We never stood up a counterpiracy force in the Strait of Malaca and piracy has been going on far longer and that Strait (SOM) is a far more important waterway economically speaking.

I offer that it was because a US flag vessel got captured and that played well on the news. Once it becomes apparent tothe media that our economy is being impacted by a lack of sea contol and our SLOCs are being interdicted by pirates, terrorists or a foreign state, you can expect that same type of response that the Maersk Alabama got, to happen again.

In 20 years our Navy may look somewhat different from what our CNO envisions. However the force structure debate ends up, I honestly believe that the United States will maintain a strong blue-water navy at the expense of the other services. It will be tough for the American economy to continue without free and unfettered trade, and we'll require a stong maritime force to maintain that unfettered trade in the future.

 

[Tex_Hill]

Britain's answer to not having a carrier of its own, SHARE WITH THE FRENCH

 

[m26]

That is so backwards. Just wrong...

 

[A4sForever]

Predictions:

1. The Brits 'sharing decks' w/ the Frogs will never, never work. For a host of reasons ... not in 100 lifetimes ...

2. If the Brits walk away from fixed-wing carrier operations ... they'll never come back ... not in 1000 lifetimes ...

What a sad state of affairs for a country that was once THE innovator in carrier aviation and the country that once had the greatest Navy in the world.