MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
First Sea Lord warns the Royal Navy faces “the fight of our generation”
Britain must commit to operating both its new aircraft carriers and replacing its nuclear deterrent if it is to remain a first division military power, the head of the Royal Navy has warned. Admiral Sir George Zambellas, the First Sea Lord, said the service faced “the fight of our generation” if it was to remain a credible force in the years ahead. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesHe is right. Whatever anyone says, the Falklands are vulnerable. Any defence strategy that hinges entirely on defending and holding a single runway long enough for reinforcements to arrive from half the world away (if the weather permits) is risky no matter how good the on-site defences and personnel. The only true deterrent is having the ability to easily take the islands back again if required, something the British military only just achieved in 82 and could not do now without air cover. Both QE carriers are definitely required. Did the UK gov learn nothing in 82?
Feb 12th, 2014 - 02:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0@1 Justthefacts
Feb 12th, 2014 - 06:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Falklands aren't as vulnerable as you think they are. Argentina's military is no threat presently, and even IF the next Argentine government poured in money to rearm and reequip their military it would take them at least 20 years to get up to scratch.
By then the UK's new carriers would be in service.
I also believe the the UK has learned from 1982. In 1982, for political purposes, the UK refrained from bombing Argentina. Because we didn't achieve complete air superiority we lost ships and more importantly men.
Current military doctrine has learned from that mistake. Should Argentina be stupid enough to try and invade again, the UK would attack viable military target in Argentina, mainly their airbases, air defences and their ports, thus denying them air superiority. Without that they couldn't take or hold the Falklands at all.
However, I do agree with the 1st Sea Lord. The UK needs to modernise it's defences and keep them strong, and the Falklands aren't the reason behind it. The reason is that no one can predict the future. No one knows when the next Hitler type dictator will emerge throwing the world into another major war.
We don't want to make the same mistakes we did after the First World War, when everyone said that there wouldn't be another war, and Britain's defences stagnated leaving us vulnerable and scrambling to catch up when Hitler decided to invade Czechoslovakia, Poland and Western Europe.
We should never allow our selves to be in that situation again.
As for Trident, I definitely believe that we should replace this like for like. We need our nuclear deterrent because we can only truly count upon ourselves in the event of someone attacking us. I certainly wouldn't trust the rest of Europe to come to our assistance, despite the fact that we've come to their assistance twice now.
The US probably would help eventually, but as Churchill once said: 'Americans always do the right thing, after they've tried everything else.'
I hope you are right @2. I am well aware of the differences in capability of both sides but also think that a combination of surprise, greater numbers, willingness to take heavy losses, coordination with bad flying weather and a bit of dumb luck could put the islands in Argentina hands. They are reaching the point, as in 82, where things are desperate enough to try something as a means to prolong a failing government. And such is the fanaticism and therefore value they place on this that I doubt the threat of cruise missiles launched against Argentina is actually a deterrent. They would simply accept the losses and casualties as worth it to invade and occupy the islands. So my question remains, if the unthinkable happens, what is plan B? The UK simply does not have one without those carriers. I am happy to be proven wrong on all of the above but don't mind taking a bit of flak for my views. The first step to losing any battle is complacency. And btw, if the UK learnt from 82, then why does this 10 year or more carrier capability gap even exist?
Feb 12th, 2014 - 07:53 am - Link - Report abuse 03 Justthefacts
Feb 12th, 2014 - 08:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0Everyone in the MOD is saying, and anyone with any sense is saying that we are not spending enough on defense.
Just look at the number of fighting ships that we have in the navy at the moment, it is truly pitiful. As Nigel Farage has said:-
“Successive governments have turned the once proud navy dockyard of Portsmouth into a military museum”.
I fear that we will not get the kind of armed forces that we need, that the country deserves under any LIBLABCON government. They all seem to be committed to hacking away at our armed forces and hiding under the skirts of the US.
Further example, it any were needed, that Camer-moron and his little b*tch Nick Clegg just don't want to listen.
As for the Falkland Islands, it is widely known that if the Argentines invaded them tomorrow. NOT in 2020 or 2018 but Tomorrow. There would be no way of us getting them back. Not with the small navy that David Cameron and the conservatives ( The “Guardians of our armed forces” ) have left us with.
@3 Justthefacts & @4 toooldtodieyoung
Feb 12th, 2014 - 10:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0It isn't about the will of the Argentines wanting to invade the Falklands, it's about their ability to do it.
Their aircraft are falling apart and haven't got the distance, their ships are rusting, sink in port, and have old and obsolete weaponery, and most importantly they have NO money.
Invading another country (espeically across a wide expanse of water) isn't a matter of pointing your troops in that direction and saying 'GO!', it takes months of planning and logistics.
So mounting a force able to invade and hold the Falklands wouldn't go unnoticed by the British intelligence community. It didn't go unnoticed in 1982 either, but the UK tried to talk the Argentines out of it, and basically were caught flat-footed. The world was a lot smaller back in 1982. Information harder to move around and confirm.
In 2014 the UK can reinforce the garrison at Mount Pleasant within 24 hours of getting a whiff of any buildup of hostile forces. The rapid reaction force - which is constantly on 24 hours notice to move - is rotated between 16 Air Assault Bde and 3 Cdo Bde. A brigade can have up to 10,000 soldiers in it, although the spearpoint would either be the Paras or the Royal Marines, supported by other Arms and Corps of the Army.
Added to that would be the RAF upping their contingent and the RN sending ships to the area. And all of that would happen within 24 hours.
Besides, the Argentines wouldn't dare sent an invasion force to the Falklands, they're too afraid of all those nuclear subs that are (apparently) lurking off the coast of Argentina. ;D
I'm not saying that Argentina couldn't become a threat in the future, but right now, and for at least the next 20 years, Argentina's desire to take the Falklands forcibly is just a pipe dream.
By then our carriers will be up and running with the most modern air to air and ground attack aircraft in the world.
“In 2014 the UK can reinforce the garrison at Mount Pleasant within 24 hours of getting a whiff of any buildup of hostile forces. The rapid reaction force - which is constantly on 24 hours notice to move - is rotated between 16 Air Assault Bde and 3 Cdo Bde. A brigade can have up to 10,000 soldiers in it, although the spearpoint would either be the Paras or the Royal Marines, supported by other Arms and Corps of the Army.”
Feb 12th, 2014 - 11:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0All very impressive LEPRecon, and I desperately hope it works if ever needed; but it still all relies on a single runway at Mount Pleasant, air-bridged back to a single runway on Ascension Island, air-bridged back to the UK. All of which could be put out of action by either bad weather or taking out either runway. I am not suggesting that scenario is likely, or easy, but it would be brave indeed to say it's not possible.
Surely, there are things to be said on both sides of the question. And by both sides I mean those that say argieland can and those that say argieland can't.
Feb 12th, 2014 - 12:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I make the point that the Kirchner “government” has positioned itself firmly on the “peaceful, political, democratic” platform. Would it not be a huge step to abandon that in favour of war?
Now we need to look at capabilities. The first comparison must be between the 80 Royal Marines of 1982 and the 1200-person British Army garrison of today. The lack of aircraft in '82 and the current aircraft establishment. HMS Endurance in '82 and up to 4 naval vessels today. The capabilities of Royal Navy submarines in '82 and their capabilities today. And Mount Pleasant isn't a single-runway airfield. It has 2 runways. A C-17, for instance, would certainly be able to use the shorter runway. And the RAF has the capability to refuel such aircraft on their way south. In addition, although the cross-runway is currently a little short for an RAF Voyager tanker/transport, it would not take much to lay steel temporary runway matting. And there is the possibility of bringing in Apache attack helicopters. A bulk carrier, for example, might reach the Falklands virtually as quickly as an aircraft carrier.
Then we should look at the argie side. It's true that troops could be transported by cargo ships or cruise liners. Britain does that. But what about landing heavy equipment? What about air cover? The argies appear to have given up on the Spanish Mirages and are looking at the Israeli Kfir. Combat radius 415 nautical miles. And argieland only has 1 tanker aircraft. On and below the waves? What has argieland got that is operationally capable? Most of its warships can't put to sea, even if they float.
But I do agree that we should have both aircraft carriers as soon as possible. I just hope that the British government can get its head round the fact that a cat and trap carrier is twice as effective as a STOL carrier.
Mount Pleasant has 2 runways, one is 8,500' and the other is 5,ooo'.
Feb 12th, 2014 - 12:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Zambellas makes a good point with respect to the aircraft carriers. However, the idea of building new ballistic missile submarines is nuts. Before they could be deployed (about 2030), countries like Argentina, Iran, and North Korea will have effective missile defenses. New ballistic missile submarines would be the biggest waste of money in British history. The idea makes as much sense as spending 20 billion pounds on wooden sailing ships with brass cannons.
Feb 12th, 2014 - 12:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The first thing that needs to be done is to produce a coherent defence policy and provide our forces with the equipment to carry it out
Feb 12th, 2014 - 12:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It seems that our government has committed our forces on policy whims without the tools for the job.
This could be seen from the first Gulf war. I think our country is “war weary” and fed up sending our troops in to fight in un -winnable situations.
Billions have been wasted on procurements that have ended up failing to deliver.
If we want modern forces, then we have to pay for them with cuts elsewhere OR cut back in our commitments. We don't have an unlimited budget.
If the shorter runway can be used by a significant number of aircraft carrying a significant payload the required distance then I stand corrected on the detail (noting the RAF does not have a large number of C-17s and that both runways could in any case be disabled at the point where they intersect) but without conceding the main argument- being that a rapid reinforcement strategy relying on being able to land your planes at a single location has inherent risks, and that the only true deterrent is being able to counter invade effectively. Happy though that we do all seem to be agreed on the need for adequate forces including both QE carriers. Bedtime for me.
Feb 12th, 2014 - 12:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@6 Justthefacts
Feb 12th, 2014 - 12:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I understand your concerns, but trust me, the military are well prepared should Argentina kick off again.
It takes months of planning and organising to arrange a military force capable of traversing the 400 odd miles of water between the Falklands and Argentina. Argentina doesn't have the naval vessels to escort or the aircraft to provide protection to any troop carrying vessels they may have.
The UK would have more than 24 hours to get any troops there, we'd probably be looking at weeks. Plus the Royal Navy's ships (especially the Type 45) can be across the Atlantic in days if they run full speed, plus we always have at least 1 ship stationed permenantly at the Falklands, another that visits regularly and is always in the Atlantic, 4 Typhoon aircraft, antiaircraft defences AND 1,400 military personnel who ALL know how to fight even if that isn't their main job. In 1982, 80 RM Cdo's kept the Argentine forces at bay for hours, despite being outnumbered at nearly 100-1. Imagine what 1,400 armed members of Britains forces could do!
So no, we are not just relying on single airstrips and long flights.
Plus, as I said, the British Intelligence community would get wind of anything that Argentina was up to, and Britain could boslter their defences at leisure.
And we still do have an aircraft carrier, HMS Illustrious, which carries Apache airframes as well as a Commando force.
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/The-Fleet/Ships/Assault-Ships/HMS-Illustrious
The Apache could easily wipe out any Argentine force attempting to gain a beachhead.
@10 Clyde15
You make some very good points of which I agree. The main focus in recent years has been cyber warfare. Although important I believe that we shouldn't let our traditional forces suffer because you never know when the next Hitler wannabe is going to turn up.
Queen set to launch £3.1bn Royal Navy warship at Rosyth dockyard during summer visit to Scotland
Feb 12th, 2014 - 02:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Will take to the water at Rosyth dockyard in Fife in July.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/queen-set-launch-31bn-royal-3136289
HMS Queen Elizabeth. Cutaway
Look inside..
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/queen-set-launch-31bn-royal-3136289
At the end of the day,
either we will/can, or we cannot, its that simple,
but one thing is almost certain, if we lost it throw incompetence or stupidity,
we would have to live with that humiliation and shame for decades to come,
so , as Churchill did say, we will never surrender,
and next time, [if there is a next time] the British must ensure that Argentina
is truly defeated all the way right up to the CFK government,
to have peace, one must prepare for war,
unless stupidity dictates otherwise..
just an opinion.
@11 Think about it this way. The RAF, at present, has 8 C-17s and 6 Voyager tanker/transports. Might the RAF “borrow” C-17s from the USAF? (Argieland has ONE tanker). Where will the runway extension/repair mats come from? Already at Mare Harbour? Manufactured on-site? On the C-17s? Refuelled en-route C-17s arrive. A C-17 can carry an Abrams main battle tank. How many Saladins, Saracens, Scimitars, Scorpions could one carry? And with any damage repaired and runways extended, the Voyagers finish refueling the Typhoons and land. Discharging over 1,000 troops and their equipment. And the Typhoons interdict Falklands airspace. And C-17s can land and take off from unpaved, unimproved runways. Who knows where the C-17s could land?
Feb 12th, 2014 - 03:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@13 How wonderful to see HMS Queen Elizabeth about to be launched. No-one should ever forget that these will be amongst the most powerful warships afloat. Nor should they ignore that facilities such as landing aids, the steam catapult and the angled deck all came from the Royal Navy. How much the United States and the world has to thank Britain for!
Now all we need to do is to whip the slaves to work faster so that it can be operational next year!
I would not be optimistic about either carrier ever being commissioned, especially as they've already gone wobbly over the 2nd one. Its the same old story with expensive home-grown military hardware - since the war so many have been cancelled after billions have been spent. Blue Steel, TSR2, I remember well but there were many more. Its not just the cost of building (can be justified by giving jobs to jocks) but the operating costs and the cost of the aircraft (note, no jobs for jocks there).
Feb 12th, 2014 - 03:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The problem with “one man one vote” (as opposed to a qualified vote and/or a tiered vote) is the inexorable drift to the left caused by the demand for ever more social spending. And, as the 3rd world immigrant vote swells (I include 2nd and 3rd generation as immigrants), the demand will increase exponentially. They are already disproportionate consumers of social service - NHS, schools, dole, housing benefit, police, prisons, justice, “disabilities”, etc, etc - you name it they are demanding it and 90% of them are giving their vote to Labour which has always wanted to cut the defence budget. Unless Britain has a China-style economic boom I don't see any hope for the defence budget.
Thatcher was only able to reverse this trend courtesy of the Galtieri and the “Falklands factor”) . And Argentina under the Kirchner dynasty is a classic example of how leftist politicians buy votes.
A credible RN is essential for the peace of the world- and of the South Atlantic.
Feb 12th, 2014 - 04:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Elementary, my dear Watson,
Philippe
16 - I wholeheartedly agree.
Feb 12th, 2014 - 04:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@14: There are limits to where a C-17 can land. Most of the Falklands that is flat enough is bog. It might be possible to land a C-17 there, but it would never take off again. If Mount Pleasant Airport were to be unavailable, that would leave Stanley Airport. That would be a tricky landing even if unopposed.
Feb 12th, 2014 - 04:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The good news is that the Argie military is presently a complete basket case.
The latest estimate for the F-35 is £2.5 billion for 35 aircraft including serving and spares. There are still delays in the software, the helmet mounted display is not working to requirements, software integration with it's sensor suites and radar are not satisfactory. There is a problem with transonic roll off and buffet which need to be fixed. Delivery of the aircraft seems to have slipped a year.
Feb 12th, 2014 - 05:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So, it is still far from being an effective aircraft and no doubt costs will escalate further.
As to the carriers, we bought the wrong ship. Without a catapult, the F-35 is the only aircraft we can use. I believe 2010 is the current in service date for the carrier and aircraft. We will be looking for a buyer for the second ship !
@19 - so we're talking about $120 million per plane (apologies my computer doesn't have a GBP key). I recall being amazed when, back in the early 1960's, I read that a Lockheed Starfighter cost $250,000. Granted that these planes are much more sophisticated, but so are cars - but a 500x increase? By way of comparison cars are about 20x dearer now than then, although fancier cars like Jags have increased by more.
Feb 12th, 2014 - 05:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Still cheaper than a Typhoon. http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/communiques/FighterCostFinalJuly06.pdf
Feb 12th, 2014 - 05:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 019
Feb 12th, 2014 - 05:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ah ha!....were you watching Newsnight...?
They said...153 million per plane....
...and may have to mothball the second aircraft carrier or sell it, they haven't decided yet...
Also they would need 48 planes for the carrier....to be effective.....
#22
Feb 12th, 2014 - 06:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No
23
Feb 12th, 2014 - 06:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Mmm...it was on Newsnight last night...2.5 Billion for the first 14 F35 planes....
The Yank on there said these are not fighter planes...they are targets...
Even when delivered they would still not be capable yet of carrying the RN weaponry....
14 Conqueror
Feb 12th, 2014 - 07:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Any news on these planes being stopped, due to an incident over afghan the other day
Voyager Aircraft Grounded After Plane Plummets
http://web202.ssvc.com/news/articles/raf/2166
nothing since..
.
@ 21 - interesting article - and those prices are from 2006 when at least one plane was at that time worth more than its weight in gold..!
Feb 12th, 2014 - 07:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 025
Feb 12th, 2014 - 07:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Briton...how would he know...do they get regular news updates on “Call of Duty” and “Battlefield 4”...?
@6, Yeah , I spotted the date of the article about 2 seconds after I hit the submit button!
Feb 12th, 2014 - 07:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0now now,,,,
Feb 12th, 2014 - 08:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0some on here have better info than I do,..
@ 1 Justthefacts & 3 Justthefacts & 4 toooldtodieyoung
Feb 13th, 2014 - 08:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0The present condition of the Argentine navy:
1. ARA Santisima Trinidad http://binaryapi.ap.org/c1faeb10a434408088ba7b9952f6953f/460x.jpg
2. “Technical issues” delaying Argentine Navy vessel departure from South Africa - 65% of repairs completed
http://binaryapi.ap.org/c1faeb10a434408088ba7b9952f6953f/460x.jpg
Lack of a navy = swim 450 km in the cold waters to the British Falkland Islands.
In 1982 the British made the same mistake as with Germany in 1918, letting them get off without occupying the looser and destroying part of the country. After WWII nobody were in doubt, unconditional surrender and ruins for everyone to see everywhere.
Navy chief accused Argentina of 'unacceptable harassment'
Feb 13th, 2014 - 10:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0cruise liner he was travelling on after its crew were ordered to lower the British flag in Buenos Aires
the ship had basically been threatened with a very punitive fine - about 10,000 US dollars - and also told there would be 'trouble' in inverted commas
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/argentina/10634998/Former-Navy-chief-accused-Argentina-of-unacceptable-harassment.html
The British government will complain AGAIN for the millionth time.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Please CFK don’t insult us, we will tell your mummy,
Please, we beg you; we will give you one of our carriers if you leave us alone,
We no longer have the backbone to stand up to you,
Please we beg you, leave us along, wail , ,wail, ,,
Eye say, when are we going to put a stop to this humiliation,
knee jerk reaction..
A lot of rubbish gets written about the aircraft carrier project by the media. The price tag of $2.5 billion for 14 aircraft is not what it seems. The aircraft are being bought for about $59 million each. The rest of the cost is for setting up F35 support and maintenance facilities in the UK. These costs will be a one off and not repeated in future purchases.
Feb 13th, 2014 - 05:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2014/02/uk-spend-2-5-billion-f35/
No decision will be made till 2017 but its likely the fleet will rise to at least 48. I believe if the economy improves that number is likely to increase. 48 is far too small a fleet of aircraft to cover Tornado replacement plus provide air support to the fleet.
The good news is that the MOD is seemingly serious about the carrier program. A number of recent spending decisions suggests that someone at the MOD is keen to get our carrier capability back as soon as possible. The 14 aircraft bought in this first tranche will be used to prove carrier operating procedures on the new ships. They've also announced a decision to bring forward the Crowsnest AEW helicopter program. This program was unfunded in the defence review and money for it has had to come from savings made in the rest of the defence budget. For it to happen at all suggests that there is a change in priorities if not a change in strategy. As for selling the second carrier that too is doubtful. In the last year the Defence Secretary has expressed a preference to make it operational because he believes the running costs of having a second carrier are relatively light and can be born within the defence budget. The most likely scenario is that we'll start to recover carrier capability from about 2017 onwards. By the 2020's we should have 2 operational carriers capable of fielding both F35 and of operating brand new airborne early warning helicopters. These 2 ships will be be game changers. Their existence will negate any threat that Argentina might still be to the Falklands.
That's if Argentina still exists in 2017..lol
Feb 13th, 2014 - 07:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!