Ö÷²¥´óÐã

does Mark know something that we don't? Budget restraints within the Ö÷²¥´óÐã? Can we please retain these talented people and get shut of the Ö÷²¥´óÐã fatcats with their ridiculous pension arrangements that are bleeding the corporation dry, talent yes, upper crust bloated people...NO

Awesome.

It's only taken several days to notice (despite some hints) the lead post wasn't working and correct it.

Those darn budget cuts.

£3.5B really doesn't run to much these days, does it?

LABOUR PM REDUCING UK's NUCLEAR DETERRENT BY 50%- WITHOUT A PARLIAMENTARY VOTE OR EVEN ADVISING MP's, LET ALONE A PUBLIC CONSULTATION/ADVISEMENT!!

CAN YOU SAY HYPOCRITE???

The present Royal Navy Vanguard submarine based UK nuclear deterent consists of 4 Vanguard submarines, with each submarine having 16 missile tubes- each missile tube capable of launching 1 Trident nuclear missile...

In other words the UK's total nuclear deterent today in 2009 is 64 submarine launched nuclear missiles...

The UK MoD has been openly saying for many months that they are 'OK with the RN's present 4 Vanguard nuclear missile carrying submarines being 'replaced' with 3 of the under-development SMALLER ones and their new Trident missiles'....

Prime minister Brown recently 'decreed' that the UK's new Trident system submarines, when built, will each have only 12 missile tubes- instead of the Vanguard's 16- or the US Navy's Ohio class submarines' 24...

3 new Vanguard-successor submarines X 12 missile tubes each= 36 missile tubes...

64 missile tubes with the present 4 Vanguard submarines-based Trident system

vs

only 36 missile tubes with the apparent Labour & MoD toadies' preferred system: 3 Vanguard-successor submarines/& their new Trident missiles->>

= almost a 50% reduction in the UK's nuclear deterent, and all without a parliamentary or public debate or public consultation/advisement...

1) "UK MoD remains open to three-boat nuclear deterrent option":




2) "Some commanders may feel uneasy about (reducing Trident carrying subs from 4 to 3) given the fact that recently two of the (present Vanguard)submarines were out of service due to major repairs. In the future a similar scenario could leave Britain with one or zero active nuclear deterrent submarines...":




3) "The UK's next-generation ballistic-missile submarines will have 12 missile tubes rather than the 16 aboard the existing Vanguard-class Trident-armed submarines":




4) "The Royal Navy is cannibalising parts from various ships and (Trident nuclear missile/Vanguard) submarines to keep other vessels afloat and operational it has emerged..."

"... The revelation that the (present Trident/Vanguard submarine) nuclear deterrent is being gutted for parts is particularly worrisome. If there was a national or international emergency some of the Vanguard class submarines would most likely have to be left in the docks since they would most likely be missing parts crucial to the subs operations....":




5) RAF continues to eat their own planes:
The cannibalisation of spare parts from aircraft remains consistent in the RAF-




6) Typhoons already being raided for parts:
Britain's Typhoon jet fleet has already been cannibalised for parts 1,325 times since 2005-




7) Helicopter shortfalls worsen for forces:
Only three types of helicopters have 50 per cent of their forward fleet fit for purpose the MoD said-




8) Eating their own: Helicopter cannibalisation:
The government has revealed the extent of the cannibalisation of helicopters for spare parts-




9) "MoD won't commit to Astute (submarine programme) schedule"

The Astute class submarine programme's timetable is under review according to the MoD and an announcement is expected soon:




10) "Red alert - China modernises its nuclear missile force"

Beijing is now deploying or developing up to five intercontinental nuclear-armed ballistic missiles in what amounts to China's most ambitious increase in intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capability since the late 1980s... :


----------------

"... The era of open sea warfare is over" according to the recent IPPR report...

This ignores the facts that Russia is rearming itself and selling masses of hardware/warships to countries like India, Brazil & China...

Not to mention comparitively huge sales of advanced submarines, Frigates and similar vessels by France and Germany to many non-NATO nations... such as India, Singapore, Vietnam and many Persian Gulf countries...

1) Russia is reactivating two of its retired Typhoon SSBNs:



2) Russia Might Complete Bulava Flight Tests in 2009:



3) Russia Set to Build New Nuclear-Armed Submarine:



4) Russia to build eight nuclear submarines:



5) President Medvedev visited Sevmash, inspected Yury Dolgoruky:



6) State-of-the-art nuclear submarines to the Russian Navy:



7) Russia to lay down 2nd Graney class nuclear sub in July:



"...Under the Russian State Arms Procurement Program for 2007-2015, the Navy will receive several dozen surface ships and submarines, including five Project 955 Borey nuclear-powered strategic ballistic missile submarines equipped with new Bulava ballistic missiles, two Project 885 Yasen nuclear-powered multipurpose submarines, six Project 677 Lada diesel-electric submarines, three Project 22350 frigates and five Project 20380 corvettes."

8) Russia may export up to 40 diesel submarines by 2015 :


The ethnic cleansing and genocidal actions occuring in the Balkans during the 1990's- that required US and UK led intervention to stop- and which EU member countries refused to do anything about, untill the US/UK played hardball- don't support the willfully naive position that: 'the UK ought to be putting its faith and future resources into a more interwoven EU member-nation defense force, and abandoning its historic allignment across the Atlantic'...

The UK's armed forces and its defense-related research and development industries need reasonable increases in long-term funding, not intellectually dishonest cop-outs...

Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada,

1 TRILLION POUNDS CAN BE FOUND TO RESCUE THE UK's INSOLVENT BANKS BUT THE UK ALLEGEDLY 'CAN'T AFFORD TO DEFEND ITSELF'- BUNK!!!"

In deliberating future UK budgets & the possible future size/equipping of the UK's Armed Forces, & in pondering how the UK ought to be approaching potential adversaries in coming decades- UK politicians & bureaucrats would do well looking back in history- particularly to the pre-WW II period...

It was only, barely, 6 years between 1933 when Hitler and his Nazi party gained control of then Germany's governmental structures and 1939 when the world was plunged headlong into WW II...

Because there is a comparative calm upon the world today in terms of dangerously oppositional relationships between the world's present great powers is not reliable-logic or trustable-evidence that today's situation could not change overnight...

Designing and building new warships PROPERLY- like Aircraft Carriers- and similar military hardware takes many, many years even in urgent situations...

An unexpected hostile-nation acting against the UK in a month, or a year from now would have to be responded to with the UK's military-of-the-day: if all the UK has to respond to future aggressors with is an incompetently equipped force- such as today's, there will be no time to upgrade/re-equip->>> with potentially dire results!!

A United Kingdom with an up-to-date, properly equipped Navy- including COMPETENTLY DESIGNED AIRCRAFT CARRIERS, TYPE-45 DESTROYERS and a new generation Trident missile & nuclear submarine delivery system- even if never used in war- is still a better off country than one which, in effect, decides to disrobe itself on-the-world-stage and invite the savage beasts of the international foreign-policy jungle to afternoon tea...

While it's a truism that all countries' armed forces need to be efficient, once the consequences of meeting efficiency-objectives result in the effective neutering of a country's armed forces- or branches thereof- then whoever is pushing for- and/or facilitating- these 'armed forces branches' 'rationalizations' becomes party to a form of traitorous negligence...

The UK's armed forces have been severely 'over-rationalizing'- IE making too many cuts in men, heavy-fixed-assets such as warships, materiel & even basic-training for most of the last 10-years...

The egregious results have been entirely predictable- for example- the Royal Navy today isn't fit to fight anything close to a real conflict- whether a one-off skirmish or an ongoing war- against even a modestly-modern-weapons-equipped foe(s)...

The RN's elderly, defective &/or obsolescent Submarines, Destroyers, Frigates & Aircraft Carriers have not been replaced in a responsible (IE with up-to-date technologies) or timely manner & certainly not in mission-sufficient numbers....

Over the last 10-years, when RN warships have been (or planned to be) replaced, the rule under Labour has been to tamper with & chop-off vital components of designers'/contractors' specifications & designs for new warships- to the point that the ships produced are dangerously under-equipped in terms of weapons systems, ship-board defenses and levels of technology...

- The new Type-45-model Destroyer programme- with several under construction for the Royal Navy today- is a case in point:



AND



What few Type-45's that are being built- less than 1/3 of needed- are functionally incapable of any war-fighting/military tasks other than launching primary defensive missiles at incoming air-borne threats...

Contrary to designers specifications, Type-45's are not even being fitted to be armed with ship-launched torpedoes...

These front-line warships have no 'secondary defensive systems', (also known as 'Close In Weapons Systems' (CIWS)) installed, for use in known-to-be-unavoidable combat situations when the Type-45's 'primary' defensive system (missiles) miss their target- or when the Type-45 expends its puny supply of 48 defensive missiles...

The directives that Type-45's be constructed with a virtual void of weaponry, ammunition-capacities & defensive systems have resulted in brand new Royal Navy warships that easily could have been the most potent and effective (for their displacement) of their type in the world- being third-rate 'make-work-projects' at best...

Why Type-45's are being built of a size & with on-board facilities capable of embarking/supporting just 1 helicopter each, instead of 2- like other top-tier countries' navy's Destroyers- has never been justified by Labour...

2 copters are particularly useful to have, if, in the middle of a battle, 1 copter is lost while the suspected location of a known threat is out of delivery-range of the ship's on-board weapons and sensors...

Similarly, the Labour-handicapped-design of the planned new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy is- if proceeded with- going to result in ships that would barely be suitable to fight a WW II type conflict, and certainly not 21st century ones...

Why?

Labour's present* half-baked directives for the Royal Navy's new aircraft carriers mean these central-to-the-RN's-functions warships won't be built with catapults.

(* they change almost daily...)

Catapults are necessary for Aircraft Carriers to be able to embark, launch & recover a variety of the most versatile & capable types of fixed-wing aircraft, such as Airborne Early Warning & Control (AWACS) types...

The RN's new carriers will be restricted to Harrier type (short/vertical take off & land ) fixed-wing aircraft & helicopters- that can not duplicate even remotely the function of modern, fixed-wing AWACS...

Without AWACS planes flying high above the respective carrier & its battle group- scanning OVER THE HORIZON for potential threats & theatre data- carriers & their support/escort ships are enormously vulnerable to low-flying (sea-skimming) incoming airborne threats such as supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles & aircraft...

Labour's vote-motivated directives for the Royal Navy's new aircraft carriers mean these ships won't be nuclear powered resulting in these ships, if built- being unable to generate sufficient power for fitting them with coming on stream/under-development 21st century armaments such as Directed Energy Weapons (DEWS) & will be significantly range/endurance-limited due to their fossil-fuel engines- & their aircraft- requiring constant refills of fuel from supply ships- particularly problematic if, during a conflict, the carrier's supply ships get sunk....

Labour's forced sale by British Nuclear Fuels of the world's preeminent
warship nuclear reactor company- Westinghouse- to Toshiba must have had a bigger purpose than just generating a quick profit??? No, it doesn't appear that way...

As well, due to their 'on-the-cheap' design, the RN's planned new aircraft carriers won't be able to stock & use tactical nuclear weapons-

Thereby eliminating these ships' usefulness in a legitimate hot-war- a situation that only the very most willfully ignorant/tunnel visioned would say can be ruled out during the projected 30- 50 year operational life of these "central to the RN's function" ships...

In a similar theme to the plainly Labour-interfered-with planning processes for the proposed new Aircraft Carriers & Type-45 Destroyers- if anything, planning proposals for the next generation of UK Trident are too modest: the proposed new nuclear missile carrying submarines are significantly undersized and would carry far too few Trident missiles:

:

NOTE THE COMMENTS: "...The UK's next-generation ballistic-missile submarines will have (12) missile tubes rather than the (16) aboard the existing Vanguard-class Trident-armed submarines, (and much less than the (24) aboard the US Navy's current Ohio-class Trident submarines and their planned replacements- rvl) ... British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said... "

The UK ought to be developing both its missile system and new-model ICBM carrying nuclear submarines jointly with the United States, which also is in planning stages to replace its present Trident missile/nuclear submarine system...

This at least would ensure that this needed project gets completed in a responsible fashion- and with the end products properly functional instead of dysfunctional 'make-work-project' jokes like the Type-45 Destroyer & planned Aircraft Carrier projects ...

Similar to the country's emaciated & cannibalized indigenous research & development base, the UK's armed forces need substantial long-term investment- not another politically-driven review.... guaranteed to cause money-wasting inter-service rivalries....

This in addition to the armed forces needing political & military leaders who are prepared to speak against the intellectually-dishonest falsities that Labour- & some in the MoD- have been disseminating for over 10-years...

Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada,

LABOUR PM REDUCING UK's NUCLEAR DETERRENT BY 50%- WITHOUT A PARLIAMENTARY VOTE OR EVEN ADVISING MP's, LET ALONE A PUBLIC CONSULTATION/ADVISEMENT & BEFORE THE RECENTLY ANNOUNCED DEFENCE REVIEW EVEN BEGINS:

PART #2:

The missile compartments used in Royal Navy Vanguard Trident-missile submarines and in the US Navy's Ohio class Trident-missile carrying submarines are, in effect, modular, coming in '6-pack' (6-Trident-missile-tube modules).

These '6-pack Trident-missile-type modules' are easily swappable with tactical-weapons/versatile modules that, rather than dedicated to only launching ICBM (Trident) nuclear missiles can instead be used to launch conventional, tactical weapons- such as Tomahawk cruise missiles...

These tactical-weapons/versatile modules can also be used for launching unmanned underwater vehicles (UUV's), unmanned air vehicles (UAV's), special forces units such as Special Boat Service; US Navy Seals, etc...

The US Navy's Ohio class successor submarines- when built- are intended to use similar tactical-weapons/versatile modules...

Why is this relevant to Gordon Brown's recent apparent unilateral decision to substantially under-size the design of the Royal Navy's Vanguard submarine replacements?

Because if these new vessels are constructed- as the PM has recently decreed- at only 1/2 the size of the US Navy's current Trident carrying Ohio class submarines- they will be needlessly and counterproductively greatly limited in the types of future roles/missions they can be assigned...

In other words, rather than having the UK's Vanguard successor submarines limited to only being assignable to carrying nuclear missiles- because with their 12 missile tubes each- and consequently very limited on-board space for hardware, armaments, etc- they are only able to be assigned to carrying Trident missiles.... wouldn't it make more sense to have these vessels built large enough so each vessel had space for 24 missile tubes each- and, if circumstances allowed or demanded- use 1/2 (12) for Trident missiles, and the other 1/2 (12) for conventional weapons such as Tomahawk cruise missiles, UUV's, UAV's, delivery of special forces to missions overseas, etc??

The UK public deserve considered, open & properly-informed debate among their MP's and representatives regarding the form, capabilities and levels of the country's future nuclear deterrent and its related hardware/subsystems, etc...

A general election is needed now- before Labour arbitrarily sacrifice the country's future to their apparent self-interest motivated re-election objectives...

Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada,

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Verity: Thanks for giving us the information regarding the absent of Mark Urban...

Thanks for your dilligent duty!

~Dennis Junior~