Notify of

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Bit of a correction to this, the defence spending question was already in play in Ireland with the Commissions report coming out anyway.

Armchair Admiral

Irish fishermen: a force to reckoned with! (And just as well considering the current state of the Irish armed forces). Anti surface warfare..all those targets…an RN capability gap. Ho hum. AA


The NS would most likely have been out there anyway, the Fishermen was just a stunt, given that they changed their tune fairly quickly after it was pointed out they would have no insurance cover.


I was wondering who was going to stump up for the cost of their bunkers.

Last edited 2 years ago by X

Have those irish fishermen seen the videos of car drivers in Moscow
Russian navy would have poor safety standards and gunfire exercise can and do go wrong


With some of our fishermen, that leaves me conflicted tbh…


The Irish fishermen were all revved up to take on the RN when Brexit meant they were excluded from fishing British waters
The usual entitlement when they see something that is not theirs taken away from them


They were fever up keeping access to historical waters dating back to the Act of Union, just as the NI fishermen are edged up to keep access to waters that predate the partition of the island. They are fishermen same all over.


I dunno, I’m a fisherman.


Just a quick question , hypothetically if the Russians accidentally sank one of their own ships , where would the lifeboats land and what country would have to send out their coast guards ?


We’re not a war with Russia so in my opinion in that hypothetical situation the normal laws of the seas would apply. Every ship in the area would be expected to do what the relevant SAR centre asked them to do to save life at sea.


Tbh I’d expect any NATO vessel would provide life saving assistance even without being asked. Think HMG would be very keen too as it’s probably good from both moral and political aspects. Question is, would the Russians want the help or even let anyone know anything had happened!?!

captain p wash

When the Kursk went down, help was offered despite Russian accusations of RN involvement…… It’s not the people of the Nations that cause all the issues in life, It’s just the so called leaders. If Putin wound his neck in, the World would be a better place for the rest of us.


 If Putin wound his neck in, the World would be a better place for the rest of us.

Exactly what has he done?

David Steeper

Invade Georgia and set up puppet govts in Abkhazia and S.Ossetia. Invade Ukraine and annex Crimea and set up puppet govts in the east of that country. Murder Alexander Litvinenko with radioactivepolonium on the streets of London. Murder Dawn Sturgess and attempt to murder Sergei and Yulia Skripal with a weapons grade nerve agent on the streets of Salisbury. Murder 283 people on Malaysia Airlines flight 17 over Ukraine. Apart fromthat not much.


Russian Siber air flight 1812 from Tel Aviv shot down down over Black Sea during Ukraine military exercises

US troops currently in Nato occupation of Kosovo a Serbian province


What is your point. That particular loss of the airliners has never been fully agreed as both Russia and Ukraine denied it was shot down. It was the US that put forward the proposal that it was a missile from a joint Russian Ukraine exercise that may have caused the accident after it went off course and failed to self detonate. So whatever happened it was a tragic accident, not a accidental or purposeful targeting of an airliner.

Are you actually trying to paint a small peace keeping force, that is maintaining peace and security for a greatfull population which over a hundred year period suffered some of the worst genocidal activities in modern history, with an occupation. Occupation forces not welcomes by the population, if the population want them their it cannot be defined as an occupation. Finally Kosovo is not a Serbian province it its an independent nation with a mixed population of ethic Albanians and Serbians. It’s has a very long history of fighting for and defending its independence against large empires that have conquered it over that last 1000 years. But NATO is considered an import part of insuring that neither the Serbian or Albanian populations suffer a sudden unexpected cases of all dying due to a nasty case of GENOCIDE.

So all in all I’m not agreeing at all with your posts, and I’m normally a very reasonable see the middle ground sort of guy.




Not to miss the puppet government in Transnistria (Moldova east of the Dneister). And to those who think these breakaway governments have a right to self-determination, remember Abkhazia has about the same population as Barnsley, and S Ossettia that of Bishop’s Stortford.

In terms of population, Russia carving off Abkhasia and South Ossettia from Georgia is like if Wales voted for independence and a few years later England sent weapons and troops to support separatist claims in Swansea, then invaded Llandudno and Colwyn Bay. It’s not about self-determination, it’s Putin’s way to destabilize a smaller neighbour.

Donbas is a very different kettle of fish, of a similar size and population to the whole of Scotland, possibly a lot more if Russia goes all the way to the Dneiper as has been called for. Donetz, Luhansk, Kharkiv and Dnipropetrovsk are four of the six most populous areas of the Ukraine, and even if only half of Dnipropetrovsk was taken (it spans the Dneiper) that would annex a quarter of Ukraine’s population, on top of Crimea. That would be more like the EU, having annexed Northern Ireland, threatening to invade Scotland down to the Mersey.

Of course what’s sauce for the goose does not hold for Mr Putin when it’s the other way around. Russian troops suppress dissent in other countries, Kazhakstan and Belorus, while denying the right of Ukraine to do the same in their own country.

Not that he’s content with only screwing with his immediate neighbours.

There’s the “mysterous” multiple cuttings of undersea cables off Norway, an implicit threat to the Internet connectivity of Europe in general.

The reduction of gas supplies to keep Germany in check. Again, it’s the threat as much as the actuality.

The constant disinformation campaign, the paid Russian trolls, the interference in free elections and referendums in the West, including Brexit.

And don’t blame the German government for collusion or cowardice too loudly. The Parliamentary report that Boris (our Boris, the New York Boris) tried to supress, couldn’t show how much Russia interfered in Brexit. Instead it explains that the UK government successfully supressed all attempts to find out how much Russia interfered. The UK electorate can’t be allowed to know these things.

We had a chance, a real chance, about 25 years ago for that new world order people were talking about. One of peace, cooperation and agreement. No-one has done more to mess that up than Vladimir Putin. Not Xi, not bin Laden, not Trump, not Khamenei. No-one.

Last edited 2 years ago by Jon
captain p wash

Yup, pretty much all true. Have an Upvote.


I’ll second that.


Population ? have you seen the population of Luxembourg.
I dont think you have a single clue about South Ossetia- hint ist people are related to North Ossetia. The Caucusus is like that and its even worse in Armenia- Azerbaijan
What about Catalonia or Scotland or Kurdistan ?

Self determination is always for me, never for thee


Population of Scotland is about 5.5 million.
Population of Catalonia is 7.5 million.
Population of Luxembourg 650,000, that’s still more than ten times that of South Ossetia. People have fled from there to Russia in droves.

Yes, I brushed over the details. Yes, South and North Ossetia are historically both Alans, and yes, there’s considerable blame on the Georgian side for the ’91 war, Gamsakhurdia being a jerk of the first water. But your examples don’t make your case.

Small population doesn’t rule it out as a country if it sits in a benevolent region, like Monaco or San Marino do, or even as a self-governing dependent territory. However it’s surrounded by Georgia on three sides and mountains on the other, with a reconstructed Russian tunnel as the land link to the outside world. Total dependence on Russia, and a sore in Georgia’s side. Yes, I am accusing Putin of leaving it like that on purpose.

Carving up disaffected bits of Georgia and leaving them hanging has been Russian policy under Medvedev and Putin, because Putin wants the instability, and there’s always the possibility of invading Georgia through S Ossetia and Abkhazia again. That was how the Soviet Union succesfully did it in 1921. That was how Putin tried to do it again in 2008.


Hey hey, let’s not involve Scotland.


Very sad but all very true, although I would say our own leaders did a pretty good job of f**ing up that new world order as well, by not really listening to Russia and treating them a bit like a vanquished enemy all those years ago…Putin was the symptom of that, as Hitler was a symptom of the treatment of Germany after the First World War.


The fact he is leading a regime that sanctioned the use of a nuclear agent and a persistent chemical weapon within the United Kingdom is all you need to know, the fact the chemical agent shattered the lives of citizens of this country and brought terror to a town is a pretty hideous act of state on state terrorism.

I am surprised that the international reaction to this was as weak as it was to be honest. I’m pretty sure if Russia had deployed a deadly chemical agent on US soil that had killed its citizens and closed down a town in terror the reaction may have shall we say been a bit more kinetic.

The fact NATO member states are still buying this nations oil and Gas, the profits from which go to building weapons that threaten nato is a bit shall we say counter intuitive and missing somewhat in the good sense and strategic thinking department.

But no one would ever give the liberal democracies any prizes for strategic thinking or any form of cogent Geopolitical planning since the fall of the the Soviet Union.

captain p wash

” Exactly what has he done ?”………… Seriously ?


I am always interested in how others see the world.

captain p wash

lol…… I guess it all depends on which Planet you are viewing it from !!!! sorry, couldn’t resist….. thing is though, I tend to search for both viewpoints before making such comments but in the case of Dictator Putin, (richest man on this planet ???? ) All i see is trouble and death.


I read IR at uni specialising in small and light weapon proliferation. I am what you could call an expert on this sh*t. All I see in posts here is MSM scare mongering.

captain p wash

And you don’t see anything else in regards to Mr Putin then ? looks like a miss spent time at Uni to me. What are your thoughts on Hitler ?


Thoughts on Hitler ?
History is so much fun, what about when Russian troops marched into Paris at the defeat of Napoleon.
We can talk about countless times the British army was the aggressor in the Empire time. Right up to 1956 and some include Iraq in more recent times.
Do you only remember history when it makes the point you want and ignore the rest.


Have you considered how similar similar Putin’s arguments for reclaiming Ukraine are to Hitlers claims on the Sudetenland and Poland? They are almost identical.
Do you know Hitler started his invasion of Poland using a false flag incident. If you have an ex KGB Officer and a Corporal in charge, I guess you may get the same answer.

We showed restraint in WW2 in not doing a Putin on Ireland, believe me.

We gave up wars of aggression in 20th century. Suez you can argue was the unlawful seizure of a commercial asset by Nasser where I think sanctions were a far better options than military force.

I dont think Putin has a leg to stand on. I hope we appropriately increase our spend on strengthening our forces.


Poland and Hungary ( both dictatorships and German allies)were party to the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia ( a democracy).
the Germans too a man didnt feel they lost the war, reparations were an indignity and it wasnt just Hitler that wanted territory reclaimed

As for not taking back some Irish bases ,another opportunity arose and Iceland was occupied instead.
And what about EU member Cyprus which has 1/3 of its territory occupied by nato member Turkey.
Serbia may want its ‘lost province back too’ or maybe not.

Steven Alfred Rake

The definition of an expert
Ex is a has-been
Spurt is a drip under pressure

These public forums seem to be a-wash with Putin’s mouth pieces who seem to fill the airways with his perverted view of the world.


And your view of the world taken from the pages of the Daily Telegraph ?
Still doesnt explain why nato had military forces in Afghanistan ( until recently) or Britain invaded Iraq alongside US?
Asking for a friend whos interested in ‘Rules based World Order’

Steven Alfred Rake

Don’t read the papers mate, but we went in to Tora-Bora and took out the Taliban but missed the main man who snuck out over the border to Pakistan the other 19 years was a wasted opportunity. And Tony Blair’s idea of the world is not the rest of the UKs idea of the world.


I think you will have plenty of time to work that out when you are detained.


Bless. Yes. We are not far off being detained for thought crime.


Yes and No.


When we were in higher tensions when Russians were trapped in their Submarine Kursk? Can’t remember there’s so many Russian disasters. Who offered there expertise straight away?? Us the British. Oh and Norweigians and French. But Ruskies had to save face and leave it untill all were 100% dead. We could have tried.


Whilst understandable at the time in the context of the end of the Cold War, the decision by the Major government to get rid of the RN’s diesel submarines hasn’t stood the test of time.

Countering Russia’s increased surface and subsurface activities in the North Atlantic and intelligence gathering are meat and drink for those boats.

With only a couple of SSN’s deployable (one of which will be with the CSG and the other wasted sitting East of Suez as a cruise missile carrier), next to no air or ship launched anti-ship missiles only 8 fully capable ASW platforms the Navy is stretched far to thin in countering Ivan in our back yard.

For the price of half what’s being spent on Ajax we could have bought 4 off the shelf AIP submarines which would be far more relevant our defence priorities.


In a peer-on-peer conflict, one would have to assume that the SSNs (remember there are only six!) top priority is protecting the SSBNs. There can be no erosion of that at-sea nuclear deterrent force. One would also have to assume that this would also be the top priority of Russian SSNs. This is what makes such a conflict so dangerous. As soon as the two sides SSNs potentially start to threaten or compromise the SSBN force of the other side, nuclear escalation becomes more likely. Similarly, as soon as the bases of the other sides SSBNs come under attack, escalation looms.This is why such a conflict carries such enormous risks and dangers.

Meirion X

Maybe the MoD will sue GD for Ajax after all. And buy a off the shelf reconnaissance vehicle.


Wasnt Ajax an ‘off the shelf’ buy.

criss whicker

why so much Red, on the deck.

Captain P Wash

It’s rust.


It certainly is not. It’s a non-slip coating, most ships have them but then paint over it.

captain p wash

It was humour……………. rolls eyes, sighs deeply.


most ships have rust and they paint over it too.


or this

Captain P Wash

USAF F15’s and other aircraft were in the area yesterday.


The RN’s lack of investment in ASuW capabilities is a lethality gap gamble that is going to be of acute concern to ships’ companies, when facing off against adversaries that come tooled up. I hope Radakin or Jones or Quinn are on board to feel that concern. MOD should never send AF personnel into harms way without the best kit and capabilities. It’s not as though we don’t have the budget!


Would or could Russias cruisers 16 Anti ship missiles be taken out from type 45s?

Steven Alfred Rake

An very good artical which brings home to roost the lack of investment in our armed forces over the last 20-30 years. We also need to give our herbivore fleet some teeth to turn them into carnivores. I just hope we can muddle through the next few years and get out armed forces back into a position were we can at least stand our ground.
The military head sheds need to put pressure on the 1922 committee as they have a lot of power in the Conservative party as well as pressure on the treasury and the MoD we should be spending 2.5% to 3% of GDP on front line defence with all other issues having there own budget as at the moment we are about the same as the Germans about 1.5% on front line defence.
We were sold yet anouther lie in the “Peace Dividend” and as a result the world is now more unstable than it has been since the end of WW2.
The old adage of “if you want peace prepare for war” has never been so true as it is now.
We are slowly putting back some teeth into the RN over the next 10 years but look at it from Mr Putin and Mr Xi point of view its now or never as we (as well as our Nato brothers) have never been so week.

David Steeper

What source did you get the 1.5% figure from.


Isnt it less ? 1.27%

David Steeper

So no source then.


Easy to find . I just did a quick look. Its not like its 2% or 1%

David Steeper

Ok i’ll try not to use long words because I understand english may not be your first language. According to the MoD and NATO UK defence spending in 2021 was 2.3% of GNP. You say it was1.27% and your source for that is ?


Source? Look at what we have for the money.


Sorry I thought the dispute was around german defence spending as % GDP
As for Britain, do you know what their 19/20 yr 3rd biggest expense item is
Depreciation and impairments ( writeoffs)
£7.2 bill behind 12.8 bill on personnel and 16.8 bill on equipment support , infrastructure , inventories a pensions etc

Last edited 2 years ago by Duker

I think the 1.27% figure is about Germany

Nick at home

If they lose enough of those F35s, the two carriers are going to be worthless without catapults. You can’t magic up replacement F35s as quickly as you could aircraft that use a cat.


Catapult capable aircraft are also quite rare. The F-35B is still in production


Is that really an argument? CTOL carrier aircraft are few. But STOVL carrier aircraft are fewer still. So no problem?

The USN are still taking delivery of FA18. We are cut off all from all their CTOL drone development. What about E2x? Wow Crowsnest is a win isn’t it.

Thank God if those war canoes go to war they will behind a USN screen.


Clearly if the F-35B wasnt in development at the time a catapult carrier would have been chosen. In the big scheme of things a middle ranked power like UK is not irrational choice and theres been plenty of those.


Worthless as strike carriers without traps, perhaps, but cats not so much.

Several planes can fly STOBAR: including Rafale M, Gipen M (in theory), Mig 29K, FA-18E and the F-35C (if you weren’t excluding that). Fulcrums, Super Hornets, and Rafales have all flown from ramps, and the Gripen M has a design variant for it. India currently fly the Migs and will be flying Rafales initially without catapults. In fact I think they got three more Rafales yesterday.

However, far more F-35s are produced every year than Rafales and FA-18s; around 130-160 compared to the Rafale’s 12. Even the F-35B variant is produced faster by itself, at about 30 a year. They are going nowhere. The same can’t be said with certainty about the FA-18E/F. The USN have asked that production of new jets be halted so Boeing can concentrate on modernising old ones.


STOBAR is inefficient. It works for the Russians and Indians because they want basic air defence. STOVL is a much better option. But not as good as CTOL.


Yes. STOVL will better in the long run when we have the planes.

However, inefficiency only really matters when you are somewhere near capacity.
It’s not the case that the Migs can only do CAP. They can launch with a full combat payload (5,500 kg) and full fuel from the 200m runway. The long runway blocks the angled deck, hence less efficient sortie scheduling. If you are only at half fighter capacity, the scheduling is easier to manage and STOBAR inefficiencies matter less.

It would be interesting to know which could take off from HMS QE with a higher mass of weapons load, F-35B STOVL, or F-35C STOBAR. I’ll bet both can handle a far bigger mass than the UK’s F-35B full load right now, maybe 1750 kg, a fraction of the rated 6,800 kg. (Six Paveway IV, two AIM-132 and two AIM-120D.)

If the F-35C could work STOBAR with more weapons than that, and I believe it could as it has more space, with a half-loaded carrier those sortie rate efficiencies would take a back seat to the extra distance and payload the F-35C would manage. STOVL was the right decision, but STOBAR is far from useless.

Last edited 2 years ago by Jon

There isnt going to be a carrier capable Gripen. No matter what computer graphics say. You really must have some more basic understanding and critical thinking


The hypothetical was, what if there isn’t an F-35. Of course there’s no market for the Gripen M right now. Everyone is buying F-35s.

Brazil is still a longshot. They do like their Gripens.


They need a carrier first though…


HMS Ocean is NAM Atlantico


Ocean isn’t a Carrier.


? of coarse it is, it carries aircraft.


So much politics about aircraft carriers that so many countries need to define away their existence.

The Royal Navy Invincible class originally weren’t aircraft carriers, because the government were against carriers, so they were through-deck cruisers.

The Japanese, who are too pacifist for a carrier have redesignated Izumo and Kaga from being helicopter destroyers to being multi-purpose destroyers, where everyone else would have said changing them from helicopter carriers to aircraft carriers.

The Soviets stuck a load of missile launchers on theirs and called them missile cruisers. I think that might have something to do with the Montreux Convention excluding carriers as capital ships, so to get easy and free access through Istanbul, they can’t be called carriers.

The US Navy are petrified that if anyone was allowed to show how good STOVL planes could be, Congress would make them give up their supercarriers and they’d turn into a gator navy overnight. So 45,000 ton USS America, capable of carrying 20 F-35Bs, and the third biggest Lightning Carrier in the world is not a carrier at all. No Sir. She’s an amphibious attack craft that just happens to be optimised for fixed wing planes and tiltrotors.

Trieste no, Cavour & Garibaldi certo. Come mai? Non lo so.

So the former HMS Ocean wasn’t designated or used as a fixed wing carrier in the UK. What the Brazilians do with and call the Atlantico is really up to them.

Anyone fancy doing why Pohjanmaa is/isn’t a corvette/frigate next?


It carries helicopters, but hasn’t even a ramp fitted if they went with F35s. Ocean was a LPH, as in landing platform helicopter.

Nigel Collins

You might find this link interesting albeit dated! Maybe a consideration for Tempest?

According to Paul Hopkins, Vice President Business Development (Air) at BAE Systems, simulation tests of a ‘navalized Typhoon’ show the aircraft can takeoff and land with full mission payload, including two ‘Storm Shadow’ cruise missiles, four BVR missiles, two short range missiles, a centerline fuel tank and two conformal fuel tanks – something no other navalized aircraft can perform.

A navalized Typhoon will be new built aircraft, fitted with strengthened airframe and landing gear.

The British decision to switch from STOVL F-35B to F-35C conventional take off Lightning could pave the road for reconsideration of use Navalized Typhoons by the Royal Navy, on QE-2 aircraft carriers.

The Gripen can also potentially be modified for service on aircraft carriers equipped with Ski Jumps.

Last edited 2 years ago by Nigel Collins

I could see Vixen being trialled that way. The stats I’ve seen on Mosquito, if correct, give a fully laden thrust to weight ratio of about 1.4.

If we wanted to spend a bit of time redeveloping EMCAT, we’d have no shortage of potential partners: France, India, possibly even Brazil or Japan. In the meantime trialling Vixen STOBAR could make sense. The runway needed probably wouldn’t be that much longer than currently used by the F-35Bs.

Nigel Collins

Interesting times, UKDJ ran an article on the subject a while back with a timeframe request of around 3-5 years so by 2025/6 a solution might just be found?

Commonwealth Loyalist

Good article as usual.

I have noticed a lot of reporting about the Russian Navy and other forces being decaying and decrepit, and estimate their defense expenditures as being less than UK, while making fun of their smoke-belching aircraft carrier. But it is clear that is partly an illusion due to the exchange value of the ruble. The Russians have the Pacific Fleet, Baltic Fleet, Black Sea Fleet, and others I have missed, how many fleets does Britain or France have?? Russians use conscripts as well, making their expenses lower. They spend about 4% of GDP on defense, a totally sustainable level that NATO countries should be matching. They also have a huge advantage in missile technology over the UK and Nato. generally. How many hypersonic missiles are available to the UK or US?

It also seems to me that if we are determined to lower defense spending and rely on diplomacy, the diplomats are failing us as well, in not coming to some agreement with the Russians about the future of Ukraine, which like it or not was the foundation of what is called Kievan Russia in the history books. Such an agreement could let Ukraine eventually become (subject to the usual requirements) a member of NATO and let the Russian people in the extreme east of it join Russia if they want to (ie have a referendum there like we do periodically in the Falklands and even Scotland). If we really want a war, it seems to me we better be much more armed and prepared than we are right now.

Hope someone can prove me wrong,




Yes . Their fleet is more than some think. I think this is Empress Elizabeth class, but I cant be sure how many little green men are on board.


The me the awful truth is our ships are woefully underarmed and way too few by a factor of 2 at least. The Russians are sea control ships that can sink ours at long range. We can’t get close to sink theirs as we will probably find out if the balloon goes up.
There will be questions how this has been allowed to happen and why our side especially the UK has been asleep at the wheel. Remind me who was responsible to the 2015 defence review?
What some of us have been saying has continually fallen on deaf ears.
The Russians and Chinese have been working on this for over 10 years and we haven’t responded adequately.

captain p wash

Yup, That’s another big upvote from me….. It kind of begs the question just where all the Tax Payers money has actually gone these past 3 decades cus it sure don’t look like we spent it keeping up with the Jones’s……… I’d love to know what Missile defences the UK has ? not to mention what ASW the RN has….. oh and, how can 100 RAF Fighters replace 500 or so we had not so long ago ? oh and, how can we now be in so many other places with so little assets ? oh and RiverBatch 2’s ain’t no Warships/replacements……. Oh and the British Army, How many soldiers do we now have ? Tanks ? AAM’s ? ……. Where’s the emoji’s ?


Arithmetic .
UK spend on Defence as %GDP was about 4% around time of Falklands. NHS was say 6% at that time.

Now UK defence is 2% ( under by most when excluding non cash accounting shuffles) and the NHS is 11% of GDP spending.
Blame Thatcherism if you want as the ministries have annual efficiency dividends on basic spending of 1-2% every year.


£3.4bn on MR4 for no aircraft.
£5.5bn planned on Ajax
£1bn in 1980’s prices for Nimrod AEW for no aircraft
£630m on 5 Offshore Patrol Vessels that are really Inshore Patrol Vessels as they don’t have an embarked helicopter.

The list goes on…

Meirion X

The 5 River Class OPV are preforming a fantastic service around the globe without a need for an embark helo.


Yes they are very useful ships, they are what they are, long range constabulary vessels, which is and always has been an RN day job ( most people forget that Navy’s very much a a piece time function beyond preparing for war, although that’s their function as well).

Im not a fan of trying to make constabulary vessels into pretend warships, so I think the navy has it right with the Rivers. If you over equip your constabulary vessels, you waste money on crew, training, logistic pipelines and risk politicians sending them in harms way.

The rivers are needed but I think we do need a greater number of warships hulls with some increased lethality for our escort fleet and Increased anti surface warfare weapons for the RAF. the RAF should have a primary naval strike role as we are an island that sits across a strategically importance seaway ( every fast jet in the RAF should have an effective naval strike capability)


No. The Russian navy is built around ‘sea denial’ not ‘sea control’.

You are right about everything else.

Roger the former 6 incher

Sorry but can you clarify your statement please ? I’m having a bit of trouble with it.


Sea control is offensive in nature and involves you controlling the seas for your own use vs sea denial which is generally defensive in nature and involves stopping use of the sea but not using them yourself.


falklands war:

The Argentinian actions of mining waters around the falklands as well as using its airforce to attack the RN was sea denial.

The British total exclusion zone and sending the fleet was sea control. But at the beginning before the fleet arrived is was purely a sea denial activity ( to prevent reenforcement).


The German us of U boats and surface raiders in the Atlantic and northern waters against merchant shipping was sea denial

The allied convoy system and hunting of surface raiders and U boats was sea control.

Although sea denial is generally Strategically defensive in nature, it’s actions can be tactically very offensive, such as the U boat campaign and the strategically offensive sea control can have tactical elements that are very defensive such as Convoys. All in all the actions fro both sea control and sea denial are not mutually exclusive ( submarine actively in the falklands war was both in support of sea control and sea denial).

Generally the need for sea control vs sea denial depends of your strategic needs around a bit of ocean, but historically nations that have aimed for sea denial are generally the weaker and the nation aiming for sea control the stronger in the naval domain and strategically the nations that win sea control usually come out on top ( there are a good list of European superpowers that have ended up to loosing out to the U.K. due to an inability to gain sea control over the Atlantic and Atlantic access points.)

Supportive Bloke

“ but Russian missile technology to arm its old and new platforms has overtaken NATO.”

Based on what exactly!?

Putin’s joke level CGI’s and a lot of talk.

There is zero evidence of the Russian having sustained missile flight at these speeds or the ability to hit anything with it. Or of bi directional comms being possible.

What we are all wondering is the Irish exercise a demonstrator or not?

“ it will be 2026 before there are enough F-35s for Full Operating Capability (FOC). ”

Why perpetuate this?

The current tensions have US + Uk aligned.

USMC has plenty more F35B. So if we need either of both carriers they will be used in an alliance with USMC and USN forces.

This was always the point of QEC as it had US eyes only areas and comms designed into it.


There is actually little evidence beyond Russian self publication on what the state of their missile technology is and as missiles require a whole host of technology that the west is well ahead of Russia on I’m not sure the Russian hype can be believed.

Its like the old super cavitation torpedo…do they have them yes, but their only use is as a nuclear tipped suicide weapon due to no accuracy and no range.

we do tend to forget that even their modern programmes are actual all dusted off Soviet programmes, their new nuclear boats actually started life as late 1970s early 1980s programmes.

Last edited 2 years ago by Jonathan

In a real war between peer forces aircraft losses will be horrific. The USMC will need their own aircraft. Evidently no one from the UK mentioned to the US taxpayer that they also needed to provide the UK with an airforce


Yes but don’t worry too much, they love the lend lease way of doing things.