BBC Blog Network

User Profile

MrRvLouis

Listed below are comments made by MrRvLouis between Thursday, 9th July 2009 and Friday, 14th August 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Thursday 13 August 2009 11:29am on 14 Aug 2009 (re-submitted, as after the below posting was removed- after being on the NN web page for over 6 hours- I checked the BBC posting guidelines, and found that it complies)

"Why have the French and German economies come out of recession and the economy of the UK has not?"

ANSWER: THE UK LABOUR GOVERNMENT- UNLIKE GERMANY'S & FRANCE'S- DOESN'T PROVIDE FOCUSED, LONG-TERM 'PLANNED' SUPPORT FOR THE COUNTRY'S MANUFACTURING SECTOR!!

PART 2:

France, Spain and Germany are selling 'like hotcakes' their:

1) (diesel) submarines; Destroyers (Horizon and FREMM classes, designed with considerable amounts of previous UK technical participation and money)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/type45.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/horizon.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/fremm.htm

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/fremm/ ;

2) Frigates (FREMM) and smaller vessels/support vessels; as well as

3) related types of Naval equipment and military infrastructure

… to countries such as Brazil, India, Greece, Malaysia, S Korea, Singapore, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Australia, Turkey (and many other countries)...

FRANCE SELLING RUSSIA AIRCRAFT CARRIERS?? UK-DEVELOPED TECHNOLOGIES??

Russia has been reliably reported as looking for an international partner to build nuclear powered aircraft carriers with, and France's DCNS has been tipped as a preferred company of choice:

"Russian Navy facing 'irreversible collapse'”:
(13 July 2009)

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/naval/jdw/jdw090713_1_n.shtml

"... According to Russian industry sources, navy officials held talks with both DCNS, which was exhibiting at the Russian naval expo for the first time, and ... Thales....

"Russia's Naval leadership is attempting to negotiate a set of cooperative arrangements that would see the navy engaged in:

- "the joint production of the Mistral and Tonnerre BPC (Batiment de Projection et de Commandement) ships equipped with a heavy helicopter flight deck and potentially a hovercraft dock for rapid amphibious assault operations;

- "a Franco-Russian project to design and build a series of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers for both countries' navies.

"... The Russian Navy is also reportedly looking to procure some types of submarine from Germany..." (likely diesel, AIP type- rvl)
----------------

This is highly relevant to potential UK sales of copies of 'UK versions' of the UK/France Aircraft Carrier Project's carriers* :

* http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/france-steaming-ahead-on-pa2cvf-carrier-project-01621/ :

Note the text: "... The (French aircraft carrier) project... is... proceeding in cooperation with the UK... The latest developments once again cast doubt on the (project's) future... (not) likely to be decided until 2011... France is re-considering nuclear propulsion in light of contemporary fuel prices...."

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/ :

Note the text: "... In December 2005, following discussions between the UK and French governments on the possibility of cooperation with the design of the next French carrier, the PA2, it was agreed that France would pay one-third of the costs of the demonstration phase of a common baseline design of CVF (the UK's aircraft carriers). A memorandum of understanding to that effect was signed by the two nations in March 2006. The French plans for the PA2 have since been put on hold and a decision is not now planned until 2011..."

France has 'put on hold' the building of 'its version(s'), while the UK- (apparently as a result of Labour's crass vote buying attempts) has decided to go ahead, albeit in a less than half-baked manner with the UK carriers...

Considering that France is under no legal requirement to not work with- or at least could not be stopped from cooperating with Russia in the building of Aircraft Carriers, and considering the enormous amount of UK intellectual and other property plus money that has gone into the design work of the UK/France Aircraft Carrier project...

- 'What if France decides to work with Russia in the building of Aircraft Carriers (or other warships like the Horizon or FREMM Destroyers/Frigates- all designed with massive UK input and participation- until France engineered a UK pull out!!)??'

Russia's miniaturization of nuclear reactors capabilities is thought to be more advanced than France's...

France doesn't want to repeat the mistakes of its present nuclear powered Aircraft Carrier- which has experienced many reactor flaws and problems...

Thales has been a very large seller of military type equipment to Russia for over a decade- (aircraft targeting pods and the like)

Surely it would be responsible for whatever party is in govt to re-assess the UK/France aircraft carrier project with the objective of considering if it ought to be put on hold while possible partnerships with the U.S. in such a project were explored??

If the UK carrier build programme was put on hold temporarily- this would free up govt and industry officials to work energetically at generating export orders for copies of the on-hold aircraft carriers to reliable countries- such as India, South Korea, Australia, Greece, Saudi Arabia and, possibly, Brazil...

Successful aircraft carrier and F-35 B aircraft sales, and the related spin off administrative, training, design work and manufacturing jobs for UK citizens both in the UK and abroad- would invariably result in ameliorating any potential downsides to the UK, for possibly, switching its orders for the F-35B STOVL to the F-35C CTOL version of this aircraft...

Similarly, UK exports of customized-for-export versions of its Astute submarines and Type-45 Destroyers would generate administrative, training, design work and manufacturing jobs for UK citizens both in the UK and abroad for many decades...

Thinking outwards, expandingly in an export mind-set, rather than thinking inwards, in a 'negatively reactive' way is needed by UK govt, industry and MoD officials...

_______________
Roderick V. Louis,
[Personal details removed by Moderator]
Thursday 13 August 2009 9:27pm on 13 Aug 2009 "Why have the French and German economies come out of recession and the economy of the UK has not?"

ANSWER: THE UK LABOUR GOVERNMENT- UNLIKE GERMANY'S & FRANCE'S- DOESN'T PROVIDE FOCUSED, LONG-TERM 'PLANNED' SUPPORT FOR THE COUNTRY'S MANUFACTURING SECTOR!!

THE AUTOMOBILE, SHIP-BUILDING & DEFENCE-INDUSTRIES MAKE GOOD CASES IN POINT: Germany and France both provide masses of annualized funding, loan guarentees and research and development assistance to these industries that are based indigenously....

For many decades, the France govt has remained a major part-owner/shareholder/ in many of that country's comparitively huge automobile, transportation, defence and ship-building industries... which all remain in rude health- exporting their products in large amounts- despite the current world-wide 'recessionary' situation...

So what should the UK govt do??

MODIFY THE COUNTRY'S ECONOMIC STRATEGIES, AND BEAT THE FRENCH & GERMANS AT THEIR OWN GAMES!!

WINNING EXPORT ORDERS (TO RELIABLE COUNTRIES) FOR COPIES- OR CUSTOMIZED VERSIONS- OF THE UK's POTENTIALLY 'WORLD-BEATING' (NEW-MODEL) ASTUTE SUBMARINES, TYPE-45 DESTROYERS AND (UNDERGOING DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION) NEW AIRCRAFT CARRIERS WOULD GO A LONG WAY TO RECTIFYING THE PRESENT ERODED UK ECONOMIC & JOB-AVAILABILITY SITUATION...

This strategy would also contribute substantially to

1) maintaining- and enhancing- the UK's defence/high-technology industrial base over the long-term; and,

2) maintaining and increasing the country's capabilities to produce capable, world-beating surface combatants and submarines for both indigenous and export purposes….

3) burnishing & strengthening the UK's reputation world-wide as a country with extensive, competent, high-technology R & D and related manufacturing industry capabilities- and a good place to invest money in...

-----------------
Defense News Media Group
"Australia Begins Search for Submarine Designers"
August 07-2009:
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4225370&c=SEA&s=TOP
-----------------

Towards this end, concerned politicians, bureaucrats, MoD and industry officials and interest groups ought to be urgently deliberating how an end run can be carried out around safely predictable Labour govt inaction and incompetence on this issue...

Prominent, ambitious developed and developing-world countries such as South Korea, India, Greece, Saudi Arabia, Australia and Brazil are all looking to substantially upgrade their navies' capabilities...All are reported as wanting to add pocket-sized and/or 'big-deck' aircraft carriers to their respective fleets.

Several, such as Saudi Arabia, India and Greece are shopping for up-to-date Destroyers/Frigates, while Australia is beginning a multi-year programme to acquire 1 dozen modern technology attack submarines to patrol its vast coast lines and sea lanes....

INDIA:

India has been trying for over 14 years to obtain a functioning aircraft carrier from Russia but has been unable to due to Russia's inability to refurbish one of its cold-war era models for India...

So, why couldn't the UK step into the breach, and sell India aircraft carrier(s)- before a country like France does??

If, say, BAE/VT were successful- with UK govt export-funding loans- in obtaining export order(s) for duplicates/customized versions of the aircraft carrier model presently planned for the RN, to a country like India... this could obviate any problems caused by the RN obtaining Conventional Take-Off and Landing (CTOL) F-35C fighters for its new carriers instead of the currently planned Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) F-35B version.

How?

F-35-B's could still be purchased/manufactured in the UK, but these, or the bulk of them could be sold or leased on to India for its new, UK-built carrier(s).

India already has a comparatively large number of STOVL Harriers, so switching over to the STOVL F-35B would not present any difficulties-and likely would be welcomed by India's politicians- as well as U.S. officials:

The United States has, over the last several years, been bending over backwards to get between India and Russia and the previously (for over 1.5 decades) rather extensive sales by Russia of its military and nuclear technology to India... This would imply that sales by the UK of aircraft carrier(s) to India would face very little or no technology transfer hurdles raised by the US...

SOUTH KOREA:

A very, very close US ally in Asia that has long sought 'blue water' capabilities for its navy- if only to 'stay one ahead of highly resented Japan's navy capabilities' (due to still very raw WW II sensitivities)...

Over the last decade, S. Korean officials have been reported repeatedly as saying the country wants at least one proper aircraft carrier to go with its under construction/recently commissioned new surface combatant Destroyers (which are based on the U.S.'s Burke class Destroyer), LHD's, and submarines:

http://www.deagel.com/news/Republic-of-Korea-Navy-to-Receive-Six-More-U214-Class-Submarines_n000005540.aspx

If the UK was successful in generating a South korean export order for copies (or customized versions) of the aircraft carriers planned for the RN, then the currently planned F-35-B's could still be- purchased/manufactured in the UK, but these, or the bulk of them could be sold on to S Korea for deploying on its new, UK-built carrier(s).

For nearly 6 decades, the U.S. has made a routine practice of licensing much of its most secret and high technology weapons, hardware and aircraft to S Korea ... so technology transfer issues that could be factors in a UK sale of aircraft carrier(s) & F-35B’s to S Korea ought to be negligible or at least not insurmountable...

AUSTRALIA:

Possibly America's closest ally in Asia, Australia also has extensive and deep positive ties to the U.K.. Australia is about 1/3 of the way through a 15-year plan to redevelop and significantly upgrade its navy's capabilities…

Throughout the preceding 5-years, there has been an acrimonious debate within the country's defence community and its political parties regarding Australia possibly purchasing the F-35 versus other fighter aircraft...If the UK was successful at marketing highly capable UK-made aircraft carriers to Australia, and if the sale included CTOL F-35 C's and/or STOVL F-35 B's, this could constructively end Australia's F-35 controversy...

If Australia was convinced of the enormous tactical and functional advantages for by it acquiring nuclear powered submarines as opposed to conventionally powered ones- the UK's Astute attack submarine model has unique positive advantages over other countries' potential offerings:

Astutes are the world's only recently designed & under production model of this category of submarine, and are acknowledged internationally as the best submarine of their type...

France is just commencing a 10-year process to design a replacement for its presently in-service, several decade-old technology attack submarines, and the UK’s only other possible competitor, the U.S., does not export its nuclear powered submarines...

Technology transfer issues (and US objections) would be minimal or non-existent due to Australia's decades-long reliance on and liberal use of the U.S.'s most advanced military technology and hardware...

BRAZIL:

Not as likely to be an export market for UK-built aircraft carriers or Destroyers- without US technology transfer objections- as South Korea or India, but as France is presently angling for contracts for the 'complete rebuild of Brazil's navy and its infrastructure'- what would be a more appropriate and 'world responsible' nation to do this- the UK or France??

And which country, the UK or France, would make a better custodian of sensitive US/NATO technology that might be compromised if not handled properly- when being incorporated into Brazilian military/naval uses??

If the UK was successful in generating a Brazilian buy of customized-for-export versions of the Type-45 Destroyer and/or aircraft carriers, then the UK’s currently planned F-35-B's could still be purchased/manufactured in the UK, but these, or the bulk of them might be able to be sold on to Brazil- if U.S. technology transfer issues could be overcome- for use on its new, UK-built carrier(s)...

Alternatively, the UK could assist and work with Brazil in choosing different fighter aircraft compatible with its new, UK-built aircraft carrier(s) and equipping these aircraft with electronics, radars, ordinance, etc....

GREECE:

A staunch NATO ally and trusted U.S. defence technology export market country, Greece is looking to acquire 6 up-to-date, technologically proficient Destroyers or Frigates over the next 7-10 years...

Why let France fill this void with its FREMM Frigates- which were designed in large part with substantial UK technology, know how and finances, as a result of the failed ‘UK, France and Italy Horizon Destroyer programme' of the late 1990's ???

The UK's new, under construction and undergoing sea-trials Type-45 Destroyers- if built and fitted as per their designers' specifications- are a far superior-in-capabilities' vessel to France's FREMM's ...

SAUDI ARABIA:

Similar to Greece, Saudi Arabia is looking to acquire 4- 6 up-to-date Destroyers or Frigates in the immediate future:

"Saudi Crown Prince Sultan and the Navy frigate programme"
Tue, August-11 2009

http://tacticalreport.com/view_news/Saudi_Crown_Prince_Sultan_and_the_Navy_frigate_programme/756 :

"... Saudi Crown Prince Sultan is said to prefer taking more time studying the choices with regard to the Saudi Navy frigate programme... the Saudis are focusing their choices on the (U.S.'s under development) Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) and on (France's) FREMM-class frigate... "

The UK's new, under construction/undergoing sea-trials Type-45 Destroyers- if built and fitted as per their designers' specifications- are a far superior-in-capabilities' vessel to France's FREMM's... and if purchased by Saudi Arabia, would make it the middle east's pre-eminent navy power by a huge margin....

(CONTINUED)

_______________
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada,
Thursday 16 July 2009 03:44am on 17 Jul 2009 - LABOUR CAN'T PLAY THREE DIMENSIONAL CHESS-

QUALIFICATION/ADDITION:

Where I say above- "... Running out of primary anti-airborne threat defensive missiles, unfortunately, is something very likely to occur often in the case of Type-45's involved in conflicts, considering their very puny ability to stock this type of missile- only 48- compared to over 360 for the US Navy's Burke batch IIA class Destroyers and over 360 for South Korea's newest model of Destroyer..." to be most of use this statement probably ought to be backed up with some facts:

Warships' primary anti-airborne threat defensive missiles can't be stored and fired from open, 'bare deck' locations... they have to stocked and launched from specialized hardware, hardware that runs deep into the respective warship's superstructure...

In the case of modern Aircraft Carriers, Frigates and Destroyers such as the Type-45, or the S Korean Navy's newest Destroyer model or US Navy Burkes'- their primary anti-airborne threat defensive missiles have to be stored and launched from 'canisters', each one containing up to (usually) 8 separate missile-storage slots... (each slot 20 to 24 feet or more in depth)

Both Type-45's and Burkes' use different manufacturers' primary anti-airborne threat defensive missiles... and both Type-45's and Burkes' missiles come in two variants: medium and long-range...

The medium and long range variants of the US Navy's Burkes' primary anti-air-borne threat missiles and their corresponding Type-45's primary anti-air threat missiles are very similar in range, speed, weight and warhead capabilities...

An important difference between Type-45's and Burkes' is that they use different manufacturers' missile storage canisters/launchers: Type-45's a France-produced type- that has some very handicapping limitations...

Burkes' not surprisingly are all built with a widely recognized as excellent missile canister/launcher from an American company- a model that is exceedingly versatile in terms of the 'types' of missiles it will accommodate-

IE: US Navy Burkes' missile canisters/launchers have the capability to store and launch not only anti air-borne threat primary defensive missiles, but also can store and launch sub-surface target, land-target and anti-ship missiles- armed with tactical conventional and/or nuclear warheads....

Type-45's missile canisters/launchers can not store and/or launch sub-surface target, land-target and anti-ship missiles...

Burkes' missile canisters/launchers ALSO are capable of storing & launching up to 4 primary anti-air threat defensive missiles (medium range variant) per canister 'missile slot'.

The France-produced canisters' missile slots that Type-45's are being built with are limited to only one medium-range missile per slot...

Each of the France produced and the US-company produced missile canister's missile slots can store and launch both the medium and long range variants of the respective warship's primary anti-airborne threat missiles...

But, the US-company produced canister missile slots can be 'quad packed' IE: each slot will each store and launch (4) medium range or one long range missile...

Unfortunately, Type-45's canisters' missile slots have no such 'quad packing' capability: each Type-45 canister missile slot will accommodate either (1) long range or only (1) medium range anti air-borne threat missile... a severe disadvantage if faced with adversaries possessing a modicum of common sense and access to widely internationally marketed up-to-date anti-ship missiles...

Considering the vast differences of capabilities and uses between the types of missile storage canisters Burkes' and Type-45's are being built/equipped with, it should come as no surprise that during the design and initial construction phases of the Type-45 programme, many in the MoD were lobbying, albeit unsuccessfully, for Type-45's to be built with the same primary missile canisters as used by US Navy Burkes (and by S Korea's newest Destroyer model)...

Functionality ought to be the main determining factor for decision makers in weapons' programmes- whether UK-built or acquired from foreign sources- not cost effectiveness...

Persons involved with the Strategic Defence Review ought to be considering this position during the writing of the SDR's preliminary and final reports... and their contained recommendations...

Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada
Thursday 16 July 2009 11:25pm on 16 Jul 2009 - LABOUR CAN'T PLAY THREE DIMENSIONAL CHESS-

For over a decade, too many in the Labour govt & party have demonstrated that they view govt-spending on national defence's main, if not only, purpose is to function as a means to generate votes for Labour from 'make work projects'...

Typically, during this period major UK defence-projects and equipment acquisition programmes have been so incompetently administered- and so irresponsibly economized- by the Labour govt, it's as though the future defence needs of the nation, its international stature & potential roles on the world stage; and the competent functionality of the defence projects & acquisitions themselves- were considered non-existent priorities- by Labour- in terms of the respective project's/acquisition programmes' objectives...

Take the Type-45 Destroyer project for example:

These newly-built warships 'for a 21st century Royal Navy' are almost entirely bereft of the weapons, sensors, communication suites and defences that their designers intended... rendering them practically useless in a modern one-off or on-going conflict...

Type-45's were intended to be 'multi-role' Destroyers, capable of detecting, assessing, defending-attacks-from and prosecuting actions against threats/targets in ALL 3 spheres of naval warfare: sub-surface; surface and airborne...

None of the (6) Type-45's that are currently being built and finishing sea-trials can remotely meet these capability-standards...

Second-hand equipment and obsolescent weapons systems from the RN's present 25-year old, Type-42 Destroyers (and Type-22 and 23 Frigates) are being installed on 'new' Type-45's, so as to save money- in willful disregard to the egregious risks to sailors and those serving on board Type-45's that this presents...

(... should Type-45's be faced with adversaries possessing moderately up-to-date weaponry...)

What weapons systems from Type-42's/22's/23's are being installed on Type-45's?

- The Type-45's Deck Gun, is to be a 4-decade old, obsolescent design type, instead of the 'Extended Range Guided Munition' (ERGM) type (pioneered by BAE) that designers intended for all Type-45's produced- at construction-completion and commissioning.

ERGM rounds have usable ranges in excess of 100 miles- with pinpoint accuracy.

This compares with barely 20 miles- and comparatively not that accurate or reliable- for the 40-year old design deck guns that are installed or being installed on the 6 Type-45's that are currently being constructed/undergoing sea trials;

- The Type-45's Close In Weapons System (CIWS)- against designers' specifications, none installed on these warships' at build-completion and at commissioning.

CIWS's are to be installed to Type-45's- possibly, if money allows- as Type-42's/22's and 23's are retired/decommissioned, and their CIWS's become available for cannibalizing...

CIWS's are a basic piece of modern warship equipment that defends the ship- Destroyer, Frigate, Aircraft Carrier and the like- against incoming airborne threats such as missiles and aircraft that the respective warship's primary defensive system (missiles) miss or when the respective warship runs out of primary defensive missiles.

Running out of primary defensive missiles, unfortunately, is something very likely to occur often in the case of Type-45's involved in conflicts, considering their very puny ability to stock primary defensive missiles- only 48- compared to over 360 for the US Navy's Burke batch IIA class Destroyers and over 360 for South Korea's newest model of Destroyer.

US Navy Burke's and S Korea's newest Destroyer model are similar in type and class warships to Type-45's, and are (when Type-45's are at full load) similar in displacement to Type-45's...;

- Unlike other navies' warships of this type, Type-45's warship-to-warship and warship to airborne-asset/land-based-asset communications and sensor equipment does not have 'Co-operative Engagement Capability' (CEC)...

CEC is a sensor data distribution and plot fusion system that provides a huge enhancement to the situational awareness of naval forces/squadrons and their ability to protect themselves against the 'widely acknowledged within the MoD' significant threats posed by up-to-date enemy aircraft and missiles.

By bringing together all theatre information from all the networked radar in the battle-group- especially from 'over the horizon' areas that the respective Type-45 can not assess due to its superstructure's physical height limitations- the fog-of-war is reduced and the Air Defence Commander is presented with a highly accurate picture of all air target movements that will enable him to engage enemy forces quickly and efficiently.

Without CEC, the UK's new Type-45 Destroyer's (and the proposed new aircraft carriers) will be severely handicapped when faced with any sort of conflict (one off or ongoing) situation involving adversaries with even moderately up-to-date weaponry...

- On construction completion Type-45's do not have and on commissioning will not have 'towed array sonar' (TAS)- and will be limited to, comparatively very inferior hull mounted sonar only...

TAS is recognized by all developed-world military naval designers and theorists as vital for surface ships to defend themselves- and their accompanying ships- against (and to prosecute actions against) sub-surface threats....

It's accepted knowledge world-wide that hull mounted sonar alone doesn't remotely enable the capabilities of towed array sonar- either by itself or working with hull mounted sonar...

- Against their designers' stipulations, Type-45's can not even launch torpedoes...

- Why Type-45's are being built of a size & with on-board facilities capable of embarking/supporting just 1, inferior quality/capability helicopter each, instead of 2 highly capable ones- 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 conflict, 1 copter is lost while the suspected location of a known threat is out of delivery-range of the warship's on-board weapons and sensors- things that Type-45's currently being produced/undergoing sea trials have precious little- and/or none of:

2 helicopters are also extremely useful to have so that one can be assigned anti-submarine duties while the other is assigned 'Airborne Early Warning and Control' (AWACS) duties*, high above the Type-45 and its accompanying ships scanning the immediate and distant areas- especially OVER THE HORIZON- for threats and theatre data, and relaying this information to the Type-45 and other warships in the group: functions that would not be possible- even if Type-45's were being built capable of embarking and deploying 2 helicopters- due to Type-45's being constructed without 'Co-operative Engagement Capabilities' (CEC)...

* Aircraft Carrier fixed-wing aircraft-based AWACS are always preferable to helicopter-based AWACS, due to fixed-wing aircraft-based AWACS' vast superiority in capabilities...

- Type-45's deck space/hanger areas, handling facilities and accommodations for embarked helicopter(s) have been degraded to such an extent*- compared to what Type-45's designers' intended- that Type-45's can not presently embark and deploy the advanced helicopter(s) that Type-45's were designed for... and instead are to be assigned helicopter models that are not 21st century naval warfare capable...

* landing coordinates' electronics; handling; night-duty equipment and the like....

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...

This deplorable situation could be fixed- and ought to be, post haste- otherwise the country appears as a laughing stalk around the world and one which potential trading partners will side-step in favour of France, Germany and Spain- all of which have burgeoning naval military equipment order books to countries like China, India, Pakistan, Greece, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia (and many middle eastern states), Singapore, Taiwan and many, many others...

Similarly, steps need to taken immediately to head off the 'pending' Labour Aircraft Carrier project and the Astute and Vanguard-submarine/Trident ICBM replacement projects from ending up international jokes- like the Type-45!!!

-----------------
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada,
Monday 13 July 2009 6:48pm on 13 Jul 2009 (RE-SUBMITTED, without e-mail address)

"...the government ... claims the UK's Afghanistan mission is key to preventing terror attacks at home..."

No, not quite...

The many hundreds of thousands of radicalized Muslims living in countries like Pakistan, Sudan & Iran must be laughing in their tea when hear such preposterous bunk!!

The 'true key to preventing terror attacks at home'- whether the UK, US or other developed world nations- is a heavily funded, long-term multi-national strategy whose objectives are to enable moderate Muslims a reasonable ability to obtain majority control of power structures within (their) countries that have substantial populations of active or latent radicalized Muslims...

Turkey's population is- at least compared to Pakistan, Sudan, etc- greatly secularized and enabled to live their lives without the oppression and human-rights abuses endemic in most other middle east 'Muslim majority countries'...

Rather than pouring its scarce resources into Afghanistan,the UK ought to have retained its military and civil infrastructure development presence in southern Iraq- and worked to enable this needy area to- without affronting the reasonable tenets of Islam- become somewhat EU-like or at least Turkey-like, in terms of governance, economy and rule-of-law, etc...

_____________________
Roderick V. Louis
Vancouver, BC, Canada,
Monday 13 July 2009 6:46pm on 13 Jul 2009 "...the government ... claims the UK's Afghanistan mission is key to preventing terror attacks at home..."

No, not quite...

The many hundreds of thousands of radicalized Muslims living in countries like Pakistan, Sudan & Iran must be laughing in their tea when hear such preposterous bunk!!

The 'true key to preventing terror attacks at home'- whether the UK, US or other developed world nations- is a heavily funded, long-term multi-national strategy whose objectives are to enable moderate Muslims a reasonable ability to obtain majority control of power structures within (their) countries that have substantial populations of active or latent Muslims...

Turkey's population is- at least compared to Pakistan, Sudan, etc- greatly secularized and enabled to live their lives without the oppression and human-rights abuses endemic in most other middle east 'Muslim majority countries'...

Rather than pouring its scarce resources into Afghanistan,the UK ought to have retained its military and civil infrastructure development presence in southern Iraq- and worked to enable this needy area to- without affronting the reasonable tenets of Islam- become somewhat EU-like or at least Turkey-like, in terms of governance, economy and rule-of-law, etc...

_____________________
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada,
[Personal details removed by Moderator]
Thursday 9 July 2009 05:26am on 10 Jul 2009 LABOUR ARE TAKING ACTIONS- SURREPTITIOUSLY- TO HUGELY REDUCE THE UK's NUCLEAR DETERRENT 'BEFORE THE US' AND BEFORE THE UK's RECENTLY ANNOUNCED DEFENCE REVIEW EVEN BEGINS:

PART #3- correction:

The above paragraph in 'PART 2' that reads:

"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)...."

was in error...

It ought to read:

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

Not a big error, but an important one as the US Navy has- during the last 10-years- converted more than half a dozen of their Trident nuclear missile submarines into tactical Tomahawk cruise missile/special forces insertion type submarines...

The UK has not done this, and, due to the design of Vanguard's, their comparatively small size and since the UK only has 4 Vanguards- and no other methods of delivering nuclear warheads to adversaries- does not have this as an easily facilitateable option...

Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada
Mark Urban is away 02:15am on 10 Jul 2009 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,
Thursday 9 July 2009 01:33am on 10 Jul 2009 LABOUR ARE TAKING ACTIONS- SURREPTITIOUSLY- TO HUGELY REDUCE THE UK's NUCLEAR DETERRENT 'BEFORE THE US' AND BEFORE THE UK's 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 to 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,
Thursday 9 July 2009 10:18pm on 09 Jul 2009 (RE-SUBMITTED, THIS TIME WITHOUT HTML)

LABOUR ARE TAKING ACTIONS- SURREPTITIOUSLY- TO HUGELY REDUCE THE UK's NUCLEAR DETERRENT 'BEFORE THE US' AND BEFORE THE UK's RECENTLY ANNOUNCED DEFENCE REVIEW EVEN BEGINS:

The present Royal Navy Vanguard submarine based UK nuclear deterrent 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- IN THEORY*- the UK's total nuclear deterrent today in 2009 is 64 submarine launched nuclear missiles...

* IN THEORY because: of the RN's four Vanguard class Trident-nuclear missile submarines- on any given day as (for over 1/2 a decade) regularly as few as only one of these 4 integral-to-the-country's defence and 'world-profile' vessels is operational:

"The Royal Navy is cannibalizing 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....":

http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=7413

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'....

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

http://www.janes.com/news/security/capabilities/jni/jni070531_1_n.shtml

http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=9925 :

"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..."

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-

"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"

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/naval/jmr/jmr090420_1_n.shtml

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...

News of the US and Russia agreeing to- in the future- look at reducing their nuclear weapons stockpiles will surely be welcomed by Prime Minister Gordon Brown who has reportedly expressed his own willingness to reduce Britain's nuclear stockpile....

This big and far-reaching a decision should not be in the arbitrary hands of only one politician!!!

And certainly should not be made without Parliament facilitating an extensive public consultation... AND NOT UNTILL AFTER A GENERAL ELECTION OCCURS!!!

The UK govt using the always controversial nuclear disarmament topic to distract UK voters from Labour's egregious policy errors- & to simultaneously arbitrarily reduce the UK's relatively tiny nuclear deterent- rather than enabling an informed public discussion regarding the size and shape of the country's future nuclear forces is gross hypocrisy...

It also ignores contemporary facts:

1) "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... :

http://www.janes.com/news/security/capabilities/jir/jir090521_1_n.shtml

2) 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...

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

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/articles/20090703.aspx

4) Russia Might Complete Bulava Flight Tests in 2009:

http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20090618_6389.php

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

http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20090626_8028.php

6) Russia to build eight nuclear submarines:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3124166/Russia-to-build-eight-nuclear-submarines.html

7) President Medvedev visited Sevmash, inspected Yury Dolgoruky:

http://www.barentsobserver.com/president-medvedev-visited-sevmash-inspected-yury-dolgoruky.4612254-58932.html

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

http://www.barentsobserver.com/index.php?id=4608935

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

http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20090625/155349485.html

"...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."

10) Russia may export up to 40 diesel submarines by 2015 :
http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20090624/155340341.html

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...

A UK general election is needed now, in part so that hugely long-reaching decisions- that would be very difficult to reverse- regarding the UK's future defence capabilities are not made by a govt- and a small subgroup of govt- whose priorities are its/their survival rather than the country's long-term interests...

Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

MrRvLouis