Brits Dump F-35B STOVL for Naval F-35C

[Matt308]

Short answer - because there is little chance of quid pro quo. While the destroyers and frigates would be of use to the USN (interoperability and command/control issues aside), I don't see any chance of the USN providing one of its huge carriers to support the UK or France national agendas.

Really? You must mean like territorial issues like Malvinas. But national security? I would be embarrassed as an American if we did not respond with absolute power in support of the UK.

 

[vikingBerserker]

A-Fricken-Men

 

[buffnut453]

Really? You must mean like territorial issues like Malvinas. But national security? I would be embarrassed as an American if we did not respond with absolute power in support of the UK.

It all depends how national security is defined and caveated. For the Falklands, British citizens were attacked by a foreign country. That is an issue of national security but it would be very ticklish for the US to become involved in a similar situation. And how would command and control work? There's no way on this earth the USN would cede command of a US vessel (of any size) to a foreign power, which brings us back to my original point - the US would not be supporting a UK national issue, it would still be calling the shots and would have veto over missions/activities. In short, it's impractical.

 

[Matt308]

Yeah but we gave you latest Sidewinders during that conflict, so don't dismiss us so cavalierly. Nukes are different, I understand but then again if you "untrustful bastards" were so suspicious, we would not have "given" you these weapons platforms to begin with. And please read my sarcasm into my last statement literally... we trust you with OUR lives. Otherwise why would we ever give you nukes guarded by a few single individual on a boat of hundreds!!!!!

 

[buffnut453]

Matt,

I fully appreciate the breadth and extent of the Special Relationship, nor am I being dismissive of the assistance given during the Falklands War, but there's a world of difference between selling the latest AAMs to be fitted to existing UK aircraft and providing a US capital ship to support UK national interests. It's a simple matter of political control. On the assumption that the UK needs a power projection capability (a statement with which many will argue), then the UK must have its own carriers because there simply isn't a practical alternative.

For my part, I'd ditch the nuclear deterrent and invest in the carriers...but that's just me.

 

[Matt308]

Fair enough. But I suspect that your govt has more capability than either your nor I imagine.

 

[BombTaxi]

Without going political, I don't know if the future of the British armed forces necessarily lies in being an adjunct to American forces. As some members have already said, there will be times (like the Falklands) where we cannot count on direct support from the US. And as controversial as it is, there seems to be a case for closer co-operation with the EU. As a nation we need to keep our options open. Our relationship with the US is nearly seven decades old, and while we have benefited much from it, that is a long time in geopolitics and the world now is very different to the world in 1945. We must remember that and be ready for what may come, whether that means new alliances or simply maintaining the old ones. I forget who said, but there is a quote that sums this up brilliantly for both sides;

"Nations have no friends, only interests"

 

[Matt308]

Nations also have interests wherein they can establish social commonality such as language, cuisine, and values. I doubt that the modern EU would have lent the UK a single iota with respect to the Falklands.

 

[BombTaxi]

I would agree, and perhaps the Falklands is not an issue to get hung up on - it seems we would have to deal with it alone, whatever alliance we were part of. My broader point is that the assumption that British interests will be best served by a military relationship with the US is no longer one that can be taken for granted.

I would also agree that linguistic and social community is a valuable tool in building global relationships. But I think the UK is on a fence. Linguistically and culturally, we are closer to the US than to Europe. But in terms of our position as a welfare state with big government, we are (for the time being) much closer to Europe than the US. I think we need to balance our ties with both Europe and the US, and acknowledge that we can and should have both, rather than approaching the issue in an 'either/or' fashion, which seems to have been our approach since the birth of the EC/EU.

And now I'll pipe down before we really get political...

 

[Matt308]

And now I'll pipe down before we really get political...

 

[buffnut453]

BombTaxi,

You neatly outline the vital strategic conundrum that successive British Governments, and the hierarchy within the MOD, have failed to resolve - do we pursue the higher-tech, linguistic and historical ties with the US (ie spend more on defence) or do we side more with the European NATO nations and accept that we'll be little more than a Belgium with a navy.

I think recent developments in Afghanistan are closing the technological gap between US-only and NATO operations which, combined with reducing defence budgets, pretty much forces the UK towards interoperability with European nations. That said, I don't see the UK pulling back from its traditional role of providing a veneer of coalition acceptability for US foreign policy actions, and we're certainly a long way from the position of France. However, it's going to be an interesting decade for those who track the evolution of UK defence strategy.