Labour Party Conference

Is that the game where you deliberately lose your own pieces?

I am a bit surprised Nobby, I expected you to come after me for my comments.
I actually agree with you, but I do wonder given this new reality why we have thrown billions on aircraft carriers.

You shouldn't just concentrate on the Carriers,. They are just part of a much larger Battle Group, involving Destroyer's, Frigates and Submarines. You personally always go on about learning from history, well, history has shown that a strong Royal Navy has always been vital in defending our islands. I'm sure that you would agree that it would be folly to ignore the lessons that our history has provided?

For your info, the German's have 'thrown billions' on their new F125 Frigates. These are the ones that have been declared unsafe and unseaworthy with the very first one being returned to the manufacturer. The first one should have been operational in 2014. It might be operational in 2019, but not as intended. I have been told that the ships are too heavy, which affects their performance. Also, the first one has a 20 degree list when first put to sea. Not that good really.

We'll first of all, get well soon.

In the spirit of understanding I'll try and explain as best I can.

Historically we are very dependant on seaborne trade, something like 85% travels by sea including LNG into Wales.

Twice in the last century we have been nearly starved into submission, famously in the Second World War but we were actually weeks away from defeat in 1917.

Why? Mainly submarines which is growing in numbers once again.

The best way of combating submarines is a combination of maritime patrol aircraft, specialist frigates, your own submarines, and a multiple of locally based helicopters. The latter would be needed in numbers to provide 24/7 cover and enough to prosecute the contact (sink or chase away). As helicopters are short ranged, they need a ship to get them on station.

Those ships need to be large for the ability to carry said helicopters but would also have to have self defence to counter long range bomber threats so need their own fighter cover. This was why the Sea Harrier came about. The F35 B version is the only one we could use without the cost of conversion and training. The plane is more expensive but the ship and training is cheaper.

Submarines close shipping lanes, aircraft carriers keep them open.

So, we would have to build the ships anyway to deal with that threat and we would be buying the planes too. What we have is the ability to maximise that investment.

Size? Well the cost isn't linear so if it was smaller it wouldn't be proportionately cheaper and the size allows for concurrent use by the aircraft on board rather than inefficient movements.

Don't confuse these with the US carriers, ours are much more jacks of all trades and can be used for all manner of uses including civilian support such as disaster assiatance with helicopters embarked. Yes it can do what you think it does, but it is so much more.

Don't forget, it is planned to be in service for 50 years. It's last ship's company won't even be born for another 30 years.

Ok.
I get that explanation. In terms of tactical response.
When I look at a map of the world, I do wonder where the threat is going to come from. Russia stands out, but with a GDP smaller than Italy's and faced with the NATO alliance, the economies of Europe, including the UK, I wonder out loud if we not facing old battles. China? Pragmatic China. Can't see it.

Nobby is of course right about learning from history. That learning is surely, be prepared. I would argue that the threat of disruption to our way of life is not from 19th/20th century style warfare, but mass disruption to our infrastructure, the undermining of democratic processes, internally, a political failure to address the income distribution issue.
The carriers are bought, ready to go.
Let it roll. But I would like to see sustained increases in defence spending to cover the areas mentioned.

I don't expect Vlad to start sinking shipping, that would be too unrealistic at the moment, it is what I would call a graduated response to conventional deterrence. A bit of a paradox but having the ability to do it prevents the need to use it.

Your original point was that the 2% NATO target was part of the US industrial military complex (which it isn't) that the F35 was part of that (Which it isn't) and get the carriers are a waste of defence money (subjective and not in my opinion).

I agree with much of what you have just said though, how we do that is open to debate. I would describe the current situation as a transition period and whilst much of the world still thinks in 20th Centuary terms we still to as well whilst also looking at 21st Centuary areas of conflict.

Stuart
So it seems you might agree that the carrier fleet is a defence against a hypothetical foe, that the mostly likely foe is highly unlikely to do that. Emm. I do get the 50 year timeline though.
On American spending and demands on its allies.
I am pretty sure the American manufacturers of the F35 factored in the value of exports to allies. The 15% local supply is welcome but with 85% going to the Americans tells the story. Equally Trident and it's replacement, at circa £20 billion over the life of the project. My understanding is that this weaponry is American in design and manufacture. Like the Carrier fleet I do wonder who we are deterring with this cost. Hence my comment about the American military/Industrial complex.
For reference, I think it was Halliburton who gained hugely from the Iraq debacle. Btw, they were all over Iran when I was there, as were we (UK) where carved up the defence spending, Americans had the Air force, we had the navy and missile defence systems. Gouged a huge amount out of the country when they couldn't feed themselves.
I wonder out loud when our (UK) health system is crumbling, our social care system is in disarray, who is driving whom over this tens of billions. All based on a 19th/20th century war games threat.
Equally, we can't be sure that areas which do need money to defend real time threats are getting the money they need.

Ok.
New topics coming up over the next few days I think.

Ok.
Some interesting comments here. I had no idea the CSU had aped AfD policies.

flip.it/mI97jo