Ministry of defence to fund £20bn Trident upgrade

[taxman]

The full cost of the £20bn Trident upgrade will have to be met from the MOD budget according to George Osborne.

 

This would amount to half of the total MOD budget which begs the question what savings will be made elsewhere.

 

Personally I think it is only fair that when all other departments are having to restrict their spending that the MOD should face the full cost of the upgrade instead of the Treasury finding the money.

 

£20bn eh? Not bad for a country that we keep on being told is completely skint.

[Tony]

It seems quite logical to me to have departments retain control on overall spending choices within the framework set down by policy. It should help to concentrate the mind.

 

Why does the UK need a large aggressor navy? Aside from domestic coastal protection, nuclear deterrent and mobile air support couldn't private shipping companies deal with the rest of their necessary activities?

[JFKvsNixon]

The full cost of the £20bn Trident upgrade will have to be met from the MOD budget according to George Osborne.

 

This would amount to half of the total MOD budget which begs the question what savings will be made elsewhere.

 

Personally I think it is only fair that when all other departments are having to restrict their spending that the MOD should face the full cost of the upgrade instead of the Treasury finding the money.

 

£20bn eh? Not bad for a country that we keep on being told is completely skint.

 

Did you note that it's an upgrade and not a replacement? So I guess that the MOD has taken the cheaper option. I'm also sure that the upgrade will be funded over a number of years. which would limit the hit to the MOD budget

 

It seems quite logical to me to have departments retain control on overall spending choices within the framework set down by policy. It should help to concentrate the mind.

 

Why does the UK need a large aggressor navy? Aside from domestic coastal protection, nuclear deterrent and mobile air support couldn't private shipping companies deal with the rest of their necessary activities?

 

To be honest de we really have a large aggressor navy? A surface combat fleet of 17 frigates and seven destroyers and 2 aircraft carriers with no fighter protection suggests that we don't.

 

This point is reinforced by the age of the fleet with the oldest destroyer being 28 years old, the oldest frigate 22 years old and the aircraft carriers being 28 years old.

 

The future plans for the surface combat fleet are for 2 new carriers, 6 new destroyers which will replace 5 type elderly destroyers, and no new frigates until 2020. It is important to remember that the numbers of ships the RN has does not reflect the number available due to ships having maintainence or being in refit.

[alchemist]

Remind me again, why do we need a nuclear deterrent?

[Tony]

To be honest de we really have a large aggressor navy? A surface combat fleet of 17 frigates and seven destroyers and 2 aircraft carriers with no fighter protection suggests that we don't.

 

This point is reinforced by the age of the fleet with the oldest destroyer being 28 years old, the oldest frigate 22 years old and the aircraft carriers being 28 years old.

 

The future plans for the surface combat fleet are for 2 new carriers, 6 new destroyers which will replace 5 type elderly destroyers, and no new frigates until 2020. It is important to remember that the numbers of ships the RN has does not reflect the number available due to ships having maintainence or being in refit.

 

I do appreciate the final point but again I'll ask the question,do we need anything beyond coastal defence and mobile air support for ground forces? I understand that carriers need protection but we maintain a navy capable of expeditionary warfare. For what purpose? If it is technological and economic I might give it to you, but I'd need a clear argument in favour of maintaining a large aggressor navy. From what I can see the days when it was relevant have gone.

[eastbank]

Remind me again, why do we need a nuclear deterrent?

 

 

so one day we can get to fire them at iran....

[JFKvsNixon]

I do appreciate the final point but again I'll ask the question,do we need anything beyond coastal defence and mobile air support for ground forces? I understand that carriers need protection but we maintain a navy capable of expeditionary warfare. For what purpose? If it is technological and economic I might give it to you, but I'd need a clear argument in favour of maintaining a large aggressor navy. From what I can see the days when it was relevant have gone.

 

Our navy is a long way from being an aggressor navy, and is built around protecting the carriers. The frigates are anti submarine vessels and the destroyers are air defence vessels. Our amphibious landing capably is 1 amphibious assault ship which can land around 800 Royal Marines and 2 landing platform docks capable of landing heavier equipment.

 

Compare this to the Americans. They have 11 aircraft carriers, 22 cruisers, 57 destroyers, 30 frigates, 10 amphibious assault ships and 9 landing platform docks.

[Tony]

Why do we need an amphibious landing force capability with all the attendant support? Are we invading France any time soon? If we did invade France couldn't the MOD requisition a Brittany Ferry?

 

Why do we need air defence vessels? How many of our 'enemies' have an air strike capability that requires navel vessels to defend against? Answer, none.

 

And, it's pointless comparing us to the USA, especially as they will also be scaling back before long.

 

Once you take a few steps back and take a dispassionate look you realise that much of the current Forces strength falls in to the 'nice to have' category rather than the 'need to have'.

[JFKvsNixon]

Why do we need an amphibious landing force capability with all the attendant support? Are we invading France any time soon? If we did invade France couldn't the MOD requisition a Brittany Ferry?

 

Why do we need air defence vessels? How many of our 'enemies' have an air strike capability that requires navel vessels to defend against? Answer, none.

 

And, it's pointless comparing us to the USA, especially as they will also be scaling back before long.

 

Once you take a few steps back and take a dispassionate look you realise that much of the current Forces strength falls in to the 'nice to have' category rather than the 'need to have'.

 

We used our Amphibious landing capability very well is Sierra Leone in 2000 which helped top end the civil war, and who knows what other similar operations may need to carried out in the future. Lets break no bones about it, the landing capability isn't an army invasion capability, it's more geared to landing a specialist force. Something that would be more geared to today's requirements.

 

Is it really a difficult question to ask why do we need ships that are capable of defending themselves from attack, which after all what the air defence vessels mission is. Most countries have one form of an airforce of another, surely our sailors need some form of protection, from a potential aggressor.

[Tony]

If the best example is Sierra Leone ten years ago it sounds like you are making the case for getting rid.

 

Second point, that wasn't what I said. Are there any enemy states (or likely ones) where Royal Navy picket ships would have any use? Air defence, missile defence and aground attack capability and joint nation naval forces seem to have all and more of the angles that a billion dollar destroyer would have covered. Any enemy air force can be eliminated on the ground before they got in the air or anywhere near the destroyers or their carriers.

 

As for carriers, they do feel like an expensive tub-thumping luxury anyway. Aeroplanes need runways, not ships.