Defence Cuts and the Future Role of the Military

Kentucky Fried Panda · Post by **Kentucky Fried Panda** » 19 Oct 2010, 17:49

Carriers are pointless. Modern anti-ship missiles, ss-n-22 sunburn, fly at around mach 3, and 15 feet above sea level there are currently no effective counter measures.

Iran, China and Russia have them so far, Pakistan is sure to follow considering India's growing carrier fleet... Why spend billions on a carrier when your enemy can buy a counter measure for a few hundred thousand?

Totally_Baffled · Post by **Totally_Baffled** » 19 Oct 2010, 20:57

Robert Peston on the carriers! (lol - at the comments from the senior military below!)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters ... er_on.html

When I ask senior military, as I did last night and last week, to construct plausible scenarios in which Britain's giant new supercarriers would be essential for the defence of the realm, these admirals and generals looks slightly embarrassed.

When pushed, they mention the possibility of two great powers (not Iran) turning into serious enemies of the UK.

I won't mention the names of those countries (though you'll guess which they are), because those same military leaders hastily add: "of course we'd be insane to even think about going to war against them; we should be building permanent enduring alliances with them; and if we did find ourselves at war with them, the carriers would probably be sunk in five minutes".

Totally_Baffled · Post by **Totally_Baffled** » 19 Oct 2010, 21:03

Having the ability to take air power to the Falklands was crucial in getting them back last time. With only one carrier left, once the Falklands were in Argentinian hands, they would stay that way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_o ... nd_Islands

They would have to take it first

syberberg · Post by **syberberg** » 19 Oct 2010, 21:18

Haggis wrote:Carriers are pointless. Modern anti-ship missiles, ss-n-22 sunburn, fly at around mach 3, and 15 feet above sea level there are currently no effective counter measures.

Iran, China and Russia have them so far, Pakistan is sure to follow considering India's growing carrier fleet... Why spend billions on a carrier when your enemy can buy a counter measure for a few hundred thousand?

Precisely.

The main problem is with the bods in Whitehall and the back rooms of the MoD who still can't quite get their collective heads around changes in force projection and that you can do a much better, and more cost effective, job with Tomahawk missile cruisers.

Señor · Post by **Señor** » 20 Oct 2010, 09:21

Blue Peter wrote:
Lord Beria3 wrote:Contrary to what some people say here, the military are important and will be a very important institution in maintaining global energy and food supplies into the future and managing some of the consequences of state collapse in Third world countries.
Are you basing this statement on the shining successes in Iraq and Afghanistan? or will we be deploying a different military?

Peter.

They aren't comparable situations.

With NATO and the UN we have safety in numbers which is what he seems to be referring to.

I also think it's a bit naive to think that these cuts haven't been well thought out and we probably have measures that haven't been made public to keep us secure.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 21 Oct 2010, 00:59

syberberg wrote: a much better, and more cost effective, job with Tomahawk missile cruisers.

They are just as vulnerable as the aircraft carriers which is why we are going ahead with the Astute class submarines armed with Tomahawk missiles, among other things.

Lord Beria3 · Post by **Lord Beria3** » 21 Oct 2010, 17:52

Why would we ever go to war against China anyway? I can understand why the Yanks might, but we have no direct interests in the Pacific now that Hong Kong has gone back to the Chinese.

I can't see any major wars for at least a decade, maybe longer term the EU might collapse or extremist elements might take power in the continent, but surely we should avoid these fates for the medium term.

I suspect that the sudden shortages of energy/food is the most likely danger in the next decade, meaning that instead of the military doing far away wars they will be very much in the homeland keeping law and order.

jonny2mad · Post by **jonny2mad** » 21 Oct 2010, 18:06

what if china invaded australia or new zealand

contadino · Post by **contadino** » 21 Oct 2010, 18:59

jonny2mad wrote:what if china invaded australia or new zealand

Nobody would notice. Of course, the obvious retort is "Why would they do that?"

Lord Beria3 · Post by **Lord Beria3** » 21 Oct 2010, 20:21

Jonny2mad - why would China invade Australasia? I would have thought central asia would be a more logical space for Chinese expansionism, lots of land, few people and lots of gas and oil.

Plus, far away from US aircraft carieers.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 21 Oct 2010, 20:34

Blue Peter wrote:
Lord Beria3 wrote:Contrary to what some people say here, the military are important and will be a very important institution in maintaining global energy and food supplies into the future and managing some of the consequences of state collapse in Third world countries.
Are you basing this statement on the shining successes in Iraq and Afghanistan? or will we be deploying a different military?

Peter.

Those were political failures, not military ones.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 21 Oct 2010, 20:36

Blue Peter wrote:
kenneal wrote:What's the betting that the day after the Ark Royal is scrapped the Argie's invade the Falklands?
But, would it really matter?

Peter.

How much oil is around there....?

Kentucky Fried Panda · Post by **Kentucky Fried Panda** » 22 Oct 2010, 14:55

contadino wrote:
jonny2mad wrote:what if china invaded australia or new zealand
Nobody would notice. Of course, the obvious retort is "Why would they do that?"

They're already there, China's business and mining investments negate any need for invasion, apart from nationalisation of their interests that is.

Ludwig · Post by **Ludwig** » 25 Oct 2010, 14:12

TroubledTimes wrote:Perhaps this is a shift to a "non-oil" based military.

A "non-oil" military is a non-existent military.

It would be pointless developing a military for use in the next 20 years if oil is in decline. And what citizen would accept the use of depleting, expensive oil to "bring democracy to a far off nation", when their own freedoms and needs are restricted because of expensive oil?

There is no reason we're in Iraq and Afghanistan except to keep our hands on oil and natural gas. If we have to expend a lot of oil doing that, it doesn't matter as long as it's us who get the spoils.

Kentucky Fried Panda · Post by **Kentucky Fried Panda** » 25 Oct 2010, 18:58

The Roman army worked just fine without oil, the Viet Cong used very little.
Granted their Russki benefactors used oil in their ships to deliver munitions, but as we know that oil will always be with us, even if in small quantities.
It's a moot point.
All an army really needs is boots, bullets and bread.