SIR– It is essential that we support Ukraine as best we can, but we are not in a position to keep pouring money into that war effort while our own Armed Forces suffer funding cuts (report, November 21). We are living in very uncertain times and should be prepared for the worst.
John C Ives
Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk
SIR – The Government is making cuts to the Armed Forces at a time when a dictator is invading a European country. If only there was some historical precedent to show how dangerous this is.
Ian Watson
Uckfield, East Sussex
SIR – On patrol in the North Atlantic is a Royal Navy submarine carrying the UK’s nuclear deterrent. It is there to let those who would do us harm using nuclear blackmail know that such an attack would be suicidal (“Putin raises nuclear stakes after Ukraine launches US missiles”, report, November 20). At the end of the Cold War, the UK relaxed its nuclear posture, reducing the numbers of warheads and missiles carried in the submarine on patrol. Even allowing for that, it can still destroy 48 targets, which one would hope is not acceptable damage – even to a thug like Vladimir Putin. He thinks he is being clever by making wild claims about the use of nuclear weapons, but doesn’t seem to realise the jeopardy engendered by his actions.
Admiral Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
London SW1
SIR – I note with alarm that the Defence Secretary has announced cuts to the Armed Forces before the publication of the ongoing defence review.
The Navy’s Landing Platform Docks (LPDs), HMS Bulwark and HMS Albion, which are to be scrapped, had an expected out-of-service date of 2034 (I was a member of the design team), while their replacements, the Multi-Role Support Ships, are expected to be in service “from the early 2030s”. In theory this would have given us a sensible capability overlap. The Tories did defence no favours by, in effect, mothballing both LPDs, thus creating a capability gap – one that the current Government has now confirmed will continue for at least a decade.
Did the chiefs of staff really sign up to this dangerous removal of the country’s amphibious ships?
Ewen Southby-Tailyour
Ermington, Devon
SIR – Given that the Government is planning to scrap the Navy’s Landing Platform Docks, two RFA tankers and a number of Chinook and Puma helicopters, I’d suggest that more savings could be achieved by doing away with the Royal Marines completely. After all, there seems to be no point in maintaining an amphibious force if we are unable to deploy it.
Peter Tunks
Weybridge, Surrey
SIR– It is essential that we support Ukraine as best we can, but we are not in a position to keep pouring money into that war effort while our own Armed Forces suffer funding cuts (report, November 21). We are living in very uncertain times and should be prepared for the worst.
John C Ives
Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk
SIR – The Government is making cuts to the Armed Forces at a time when a dictator is invading a European country. If only there was some historical precedent to show how dangerous this is.
Ian Watson
Uckfield, East Sussex
SIR – On patrol in the North Atlantic is a Royal Navy submarine carrying the UK’s nuclear deterrent. It is there to let those who would do us harm using nuclear blackmail know that such an attack would be suicidal (“Putin raises nuclear stakes after Ukraine launches US missiles”, report, November 20). At the end of the Cold War, the UK relaxed its nuclear posture, reducing the numbers of warheads and missiles carried in the submarine on patrol. Even allowing for that, it can still destroy 48 targets, which one would hope is not acceptable damage – even to a thug like Vladimir Putin. He thinks he is being clever by making wild claims about the use of nuclear weapons, but doesn’t seem to realise the jeopardy engendered by his actions.
Admiral Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
London SW1
SIR – I note with alarm that the Defence Secretary has announced cuts to the Armed Forces before the publication of the ongoing defence review.
The Navy’s Landing Platform Docks (LPDs), HMS Bulwark and HMS Albion, which are to be scrapped, had an expected out-of-service date of 2034 (I was a member of the design team), while their replacements, the Multi-Role Support Ships, are expected to be in service “from the early 2030s”. In theory this would have given us a sensible capability overlap. The Tories did defence no favours by, in effect, mothballing both LPDs, thus creating a capability gap – one that the current Government has now confirmed will continue for at least a decade.
Did the chiefs of staff really sign up to this dangerous removal of the country’s amphibious ships?
Ewen Southby-Tailyour
Ermington, Devon
SIR – Given that the Government is planning to scrap the Navy’s Landing Platform Docks, two RFA tankers and a number of Chinook and Puma helicopters, I’d suggest that more savings could be achieved by doing away with the Royal Marines completely. After all, there seems to be no point in maintaining an amphibious force if we are unable to deploy it.
Peter Tunks
Weybridge, Surrey