How many years is the US Navy behind the Royal Navy? Perhaps my Baby Boomer Shipmates who were on active duty through the Carter years can help out - buy my Salamander senses put it just a few years lagging behind the economic problems. So - I think 7-12 years.
Then again - when you do your wargames and then look at what we actually have in the magazines at sea and ashore ... maybe a bit closer in some warfare areas.
In any event - the Brits are walking a rather thin line methinks ....
Royal Navy officers said HMS Westminster was “dangerously under-defended” when it was called on to patrol close to the Libyan port city of Benghazi in March.
The warship can carry 32 Seawolf and eight Harpoon missiles but it is understood that military cutbacks left the Westminster and its crew of 190 with only a fraction of that capability.
As Seawolf missiles — which are used to intercept incoming missiles — are fired in pairs, sources said the Westminster had just two rounds to defend against missile attacks from Col Muammar Gaddafi’s forces.A hollow Navy defined. Nice E-Ticket part of the 1,000-ship Navy we have there.
I was there during the JC years. Parts, flying time, everything in short supply. Alot of angst amongst the juniors, looking for better. Many good people bailed, perhaps some of the best. Navy peaked in, '87?
ReplyDeleteThe funny thing is and what most dont remember is that carter (aka' douchebag express) is hated by just about every veteran i have known who served at that time or new the men who did. Even though he boosted pay and other things.
ReplyDeleteThe typical liberal "look i boosted pay i can't NOT support the troops!" Yea except they have no money to train and are going to die when they didnt need to.
James - one nit...I'd have to look it up, but JC did not boost pay. Raises did not keep pace with rampant inflation. Reagan's increase in '81 was substantial, not that pay is everything. Just indicative of the overall neglect to include things that fly, hurt people, and influence policy & world events.
ReplyDeleteI think most fear we are headed there again. I get so tired of hearing people talk about defense like it is some kind on entitlement program. It seems everyone asumes that because we have no one beating down our dore right now that there isn't someone out there ready to. hat we got away with letting ourselves fall so far in the past doesn't mean we will again in the future. There comes a time when someone will call your bluff.
ReplyDeleteDifferent doctrine, different design principles. 32-48 VL cells is actually about the standard for a Euro-fig (I believe the Norwegian mini-AEGIS currently has just 1x mk41 8-cell unit fitted, with only space reserved for the other 3). Most of these frigates whilst new/new'ish due to delays and aborted programmes can trace their requirements sets back to good auld Cold War ASW and small convoy escort. It was thought that you would only need a few missiles to either take down a Bear on a recce, or provide point-defence against submarine launched cruise missiles. Even the RN deploying small ASW carriers hunting groups, didn't expect to get the same attention that would be heaped upon their US CVN brothers by massed waves of Badgers, Blinders, Bears and Backfires!
ReplyDeleteThat said post-Falklands lessons, the small capacity of the Type 45 is a complete disgrace. This is partly due to the decision to use the French SYLVER VL system, which can only take single ASTER missiles. The Spanish F100's have the same number of cells (48) but by using mk41 can double the missile load with a combination of SM-2s and ESSMs.
Anyway, remember single mk13 at FFG-7 had not much more ammo, or even less. Was it 40 missiles? My mental harpoon database is getting rusty... And it was firing one missile at a time. Don't compare cruisers (because that what in reality DDG-51s are) with frigate-to-destroyer class.
ReplyDeleteStill, going to potentially hostile area with 10% of ammo is completely asking for trouble...
BTW, re: Bears and Badgers, and Backfires, oh my - how does the PLAN stand with its long range bomber force? And how J-20 could fit in as a long range strike fighter?
And one of the premises of the 80s "Charge of the CVBG" strategy was drawing away enemy from the vital supply convoys destined for Europe.
Are those de Ruyter's sails?
ReplyDeleteHmm. Guess your water compensation system didn't work either. Kidds and Spru-cans usually were better in heavy seas at low fuel state, more water inthe tanks (heavier). That said, I had some fun off Somalia in the same timeframe on Deyo, 30% fuel in hurricane force wind and seas, trying to unrep since the fuel we were offered in Mogadishu was contaminaed....and then the fire in #3 GTG....good times. And, only about 1/2 ammo onboard.
ReplyDeleteGee URR, now THAT is an interesting poem I was completely unaware of.
ReplyDeleteAlas, as for the Dutchmen themselves these days...
Pulled out of AF last year, were promptly hailed by the Taliban for their 'wise decision'.
OM,
ReplyDeleteLet's just say that the Dutchmen have a distinctly Chinese appearance these days. :)
Yeah, but logistics and intel support isn't the same kind of cover as having fighting ships on station. Which is apparently what they're banking on now.
ReplyDeleteMark Steyn's book After America: Get ready for Armageddon, he mentions in great detail the fall of Brittannia and how since 1957 - 1998 she went from 25% to 7% of her budget spent on defense... what does England have to show for it?
ReplyDelete- Massive immigration
- loss of individual liberties substituted by the nefarious "Secretary of State for children"
- A State Government that accounts for 73 percent of the economy
- 1 in 5 children raised in homes where NO adult works.
- highest drug use in Europe
- Highest numbers of single mothers in Europe
- Highest abortion rate in Europe
- 40 percent of Britains receive a state subsidy
So no wonder they cannot afford a Navy or Military.
Watch for the same to happen to the United States..
England will be gone in 20 years... They may outlast us..
Dutchmen have captured a good few pirate boats off the Somalia methinks... oh and they used old landing craft as patrol craft in a "hulls in water" strategy. LCS "classic" anyone?
ReplyDeleteYes, ewok, but the Dutch aren't going to war with England any time soon. Euro currency and EB collapse, and the concomitant dissolution of the EU notwithstanding.
ReplyDeleteJames, I can't remember anything that Carter did to boost the military's morale. What I do remember is the word coming down around Thanksgiving that commanders were not authorized to grant 96 hour liberty and that you were required to take leave if you wanted a four day weekend. Fortunately, it didn't affect me much since I was deployed in '78 and at PG School in '79 and '80 where they ignored that kind of stuff anyway.
ReplyDeleteSo still jimmy carter douchbag express got ya.
ReplyDelete... and soviets were at the apex of their military power back then...
ReplyDeleteComment i got from overzealous Brit on another forum when I mentioned the Harrier's service end and possible consequences:
ReplyDeletequote:"4 Typhoons vs the Argentine Airforce. About an equal match.
When asked about range he blabbered about aerial refuelling.
I asked him to read on operation Black Buck and stopped responding to the thread...
I think that 81 pay raise was 14%, if my addled mind still is correct.....which made a world of difference. There are times when I read these notes and recall I was but an O-1/2 in those years, reasonably ignorant of the bigger picture. Was being the CICO/EMO and later COMMO, and even with a great boss (Frank Mueller) who taught me the secret codes of the FORSTAT system (did he not want to do it, or did he trust an Ensign? Hmmmm), but ehe Clinton years are pretty memorable...and the "peace dividend" that went into the social programs, instead of toward the health of the Treasury....I fear the upper level of leadership is invested in making sure we have little more than a parade ground military for ceremony, and don't forget, they aren't even interesting in protecting the borders, by any means available, and therefore, don't think a garrisoned in the US Military can perform that role...it will be ignored/declined/specifically prohibited in practice, in my estimation....
ReplyDeleteI believe that big raise was '82, under Reagan, as we climbed out from under the disaster that was Carter,
ReplyDeleteas i remember the uniforms got a pretty good raise but those were supposed to make up for a "skipped" cost of living raise for uniforms and GS folks that never made it out of congress for the penut farmer to wave at, and so they didn't make much ground after all and might have had a very small loss.
ReplyDeletethe wage grade types did not miss a raise as theirs was locked in place by the original enableing law.
C
you had a friend that was a chaplain, ooooooooooohh.
ReplyDeletegoody two shoes.
C
@NORSK: what was the contamination pray tell?
ReplyDeleteC
PK, you're normally a pretty good guy..you want to explain the remark about C-Dores friend the chaplain?
ReplyDelete@pk, Have had several friends who were chaplains. First time anyone's called me a "goody two shoes".
ReplyDeleteCdore:
ReplyDeleteAs do I, and to date, no one has. Why I could not say. Lessin it's the cussin', uh, and one or two other little things...
Just a comment that probably fits here. I notice the glaring headlines now as of this morning are "France and Germany prepare for Drastic measures", "Britain warns of Riots and Civil Unrest" "Italy required to take austerity seriously" "End of the Euro?"
ReplyDeleteso with this canary in the mine shaft, who can possibly see a long term survival of NATO? Who can see the coming danger?
Byron, after several days of reflection:
ReplyDeletethe remark was made totally in jest. and i apologize to anyone who was offended.
i fully expected a return in the vien of " yes i led a sheltered life as a lad, i didn't even learn to shoot until i was 8 yrs old."
C
C-dore 14:
ReplyDeletethe remark was supposed to be a light comment. i apologize if you were offended.
C