If we go down the road of of using a cruise missile based nuclear deterrent, I think it would be a good idea to build a "stretched" astute submarine, that could hold a larger cruise missile load, by increasing the size of the existing weapons compartment. It would be a lot cheaper than developing a new ballistic missile submarine.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
true,but initially we could get by with what we haveuntil the hunter killers need replacement to save money.....
spsun100001
New Member
I guess whether the carriers are safe depends on whether the costs of cancellation exceed the uncommitted costs of building them. I'm not certain they are safe though they most likely are as they safeguard jobs which is the primary objective of the UK defence budget.
What isn't safe is what will equip them. In the current circumstances the probable toytown AEW solution becomes almost a dead cert and there must now be a chance we will see the fighter air wing pared back to the bone in terms of both numbers and capabilities.
I made some predictions on here a few months back which have almost all come true and I think it's only a matter of time for the others.
I'll add to those predictions a couple more:
1) Further reduction in the surface fleet with either by withdrawal of the remaining Type 42's (reported to be what the RN has offered to deliver its share of cuts), withdrawal of the four Type 22 batch III's or withdrawal of a further two or three Type 23's.
2) Either no further orders for the Astute, a reduction in orders from a further three to two and/or a pushing out of the delivery date.
Brown and Cameron are only interested in Schools and Hospitals as they (rightly) think that's all the sheeple consider when they vote. The RN is doomed as a full spectrum fighting force. What an absolute disgrace.
What isn't safe is what will equip them. In the current circumstances the probable toytown AEW solution becomes almost a dead cert and there must now be a chance we will see the fighter air wing pared back to the bone in terms of both numbers and capabilities.
I made some predictions on here a few months back which have almost all come true and I think it's only a matter of time for the others.
I'll add to those predictions a couple more:
1) Further reduction in the surface fleet with either by withdrawal of the remaining Type 42's (reported to be what the RN has offered to deliver its share of cuts), withdrawal of the four Type 22 batch III's or withdrawal of a further two or three Type 23's.
2) Either no further orders for the Astute, a reduction in orders from a further three to two and/or a pushing out of the delivery date.
Brown and Cameron are only interested in Schools and Hospitals as they (rightly) think that's all the sheeple consider when they vote. The RN is doomed as a full spectrum fighting force. What an absolute disgrace.
To reiterate wot Musashi said & state the obvious...
NOT A CATS CHANCE IN HELL !
This project is here to stay, unwanted, unloved, unbuilt, or not !
Forget about penalty clauses in the contract (although they are a BIG factor). Suppliers have already got a lot of the parts being built, or in stores, waiting for delivery. Steel is being stockpiled, ready for manufacture into a hull & the Royal family representative (who, by the way, will officially 'cut the steel' is on standby to do this sometime in the next few weeks).
The issue here is the the carriers have been an active requirement for our navy since WW II. It would be sheer shortsightedness, if 'the govt' (whether it be Labour or Conservative), decided to cut this programme, based on squeued information from 'financial advisor's' & public opinion.
We are in a state of financial flux, with the media baying for a general election, & IF we opted to cancel the carriers, we would have learned nothing from our history...
Were we not in a similar state in the 1960's, when they held an election, the standing party lost, their opponents came in & destroyed 2 of Britain's defence objectives, the TSR 2 fighter & a 65,000 tonne aircraft carrier...
Since then, every successive govt has chopped at defence budgets, while declaring huge plans, greater projects, with the latest technology, only to drop it into the lap of 'the next govt'. (the carriers were actually a TORY / Thatcherite idea !).
As an individual whose livelyhood is dependant on shipbuilding, I'd gladly allow 1 penny in the pound to be added to my taxes, to ENSURE that we are able to provide our armed services with the equipment they need & to allow the country to defend itself & the trade routes on the high seas, that our country would not survive without.
SA
Sorry for the double post, but Spun, can you reprint your complete list in a new reply here (incl. the additions), possibly even listing the original post number.
Ta muchness, (in advance).
SA
windscorpion
New Member
What do people here think about the reports that 2 shipyards will close once CVF is completed, both of the Clyde yards some reports say though to be honest considering the number of Scottish Labour MPs compared to the ones in the South of England i would think it'll be a Clyde yard and Portsmouth.
BBC NEWS | UK | Scotland | Glasgow, Lanarkshire and West | Union anger at yard closure plan
I suppose its inevitable if you don't actually order any ships.
BBC NEWS | UK | Scotland | Glasgow, Lanarkshire and West | Union anger at yard closure plan
I suppose its inevitable if you don't actually order any ships.
the latest desider has had some interesting tidbits about the CVF apart from the construction which is at the moment on the small bits the major block cutting is weeks away according to them
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/47C9EB47-F4C7-47EC-BEE3-CC75FA8C379B/0/desider_14_june09.pdf
'With the first major steel cut imminent'
too true fully agree with you
the telegraph blogs has an interesting piece which seems to indicate that Liam Fox is very willing to fund the projects and has been talking with various defense chiefs.
Thanks windscorpion for finding their reply i couldn't find it
spsun100001
New Member
Systems Adict - these were my original quotes (post 1547). Not completely right but not a bad strike rate either (if I say so myself
)
???
How many 1st world countries build Nuke subs for other 1st world countries ??
NONE !
Subs are special, Nukes are elite & the quieter the equipment, the better the sub.
NO 1st world country is willing to give away technological secrets on tech like this.
I KNOW that France, Germany & Russia sell conventional subs (such as the Kilo's), but that's different....
SA
citizen578
New Member
I agree with your points about the CVF, it was always a little silly to build a 65 000+ tonne STOVL carrier.
However, i disagree about the SSN come SSBN. Firstly you have to consider the delivery system, TacTom and it's comparable missiles (or those under development) cannot compare with a purpose-built system such as Trident. I know the Yanks have operated them in the nuke strike role, but that's always been as a side-show to Tridents and Minuteman. Ditto with the French doctrine.
Secondly we can't go operating pseudo-SSBNs in the conventional hunter-killer role. It puts them at a severe risk of detection (hence going against the entire point of a sub-based system), and would limit the scope and 'command-independance' of the crews.
The current plan is to develop a stretched Astute. Possibly they will be able to reduce the number to 3 boats, but we'll have to see what the maintenence and performance of the A-boats are before that can be realistically predicted.
Palnatoke are you not bored of giving a defamatory and inane commentary of the fiscal efficiency of the MoD. I'm pretty sure the rest of us are sick of it.
Give it a rest.
Thanxs for the quik turn-round !Systems Adict - these were my original quotes (post 1547). Not completely right but not a bad strike rate either (if I say so myself
Agreed, your comments are pretty much on the money....
By the way.....
Do you work in Whitehall ??
nfloorl:SA
citizen578
New Member
Exactly. Not to mention that the Triomphants are of the same generation and design vintage as the Vanguards.
It's was just another of his pointless comments.
Last edited:
That doesn't sound right to me.
First of all let's assume that the french are technology leaders - I don't know if that's true or not but let's assume that.
Let me understand. The french has an interest in not selling their tech to the brits, because then the brits would copy it? learn from it? Use it against the french? sell it on?
Since I don't think the brits would pass it on or use it against the french, the remaing is copy-cat or/and accure knowledge.
With such buisness rules, a company which is a technology leader shouldn't sell it's best products...?
I would say that in a post "Bell" world you maintain technology leadership by continously research and improve your products. The products you sell are per definition "yesterday's tech" (while today's tech are in the lab, and tomorrows on the drawing board). Copy-cat does not give you tech leadership. If the french can sell yesterday's tech to the brits, the brits would be funding further french development and aid the french in maintaing the assumed tech leadership. (Just like what's happening with the JSF in the real world) .
There is a case were you are right. I have a technology so advanced that you can't develop it or get it by other means than from me, then I can choise wether or not I want you to have that tech. And it could be in my interest to not have you have it (that could be me being the US and you being some roque nation looking for a nuke). But since we know that britain can build the subs in question, that case is not applicable.
Brazil's nuclear submarine program has solid support from both France and Germany. If you get down to it, in some respect it's supposed to be an enlarged German submarine hull with a reactor derived from French support.
Germany bought US minireactor designs in the 60s, and implemented them in a single ship - and purely "coincidentally" was planning to build nuclear submarines at the time *cough* *cough*
And Russia has leased a nuclear sub to India.
The answer here is ofcourse that it's not about not wanting to share tech with allies that are on the same level as you, but instead the old song of: "I have to be able to build my own house", which is a substitute argument for the real reason: Industrial subsidies.
The sad thing is just that in most cases, particularely in France and UK's cases, that kind of industrial aid is not very rewarding economically, so we are left with the flip side of the coin of subsidies: Everybody get a little less than we could have gotten.
And this problem is at the heart of almost all european defense procurement.
The sad thing is just that in most cases, particularely in France and UK's cases, that kind of industrial aid is not very rewarding economically, so we are left with the flip side of the coin of subsidies: Everybody get a little less than we could have gotten.
And this problem is at the heart of almost all european defense procurement.
Last edited:
I tend to agree, build the planned six Astute's and order another four. With the removal of the Vanguards you don't need an escorting SSN. Astute's are very big boats, capable of global reach with a very high weapons load.
The general argument against a nuclear tipped cruise missile is range and the number of warheads a single missile can carry. This in my opinion is mitigated by the fact that we no longer have a situation where two superpowers are facing off with their finger's on the button. We need to deter rogue states, which merits a reduced deterrent. The extra four Astute's could be stretched and have 12 vertical silos added to fire conventional and nuclear cruise missiles. With all the Astute's being cruise missile capable a potential foe won't know which boats are carrying, with ten you can afford to have at least two at sea at any one time (Northern and Southern hemisphere) dedicated to the deterrent role.
Also with the ongoing advancements in UCAV long range stealth technology by the time the Vanguards need replacing I'm convinced we will have a UCAV platform capable of remaining aloft at high altitudes for extended periods capable of carrying cruise missiles to compliment any submarine based system.
I would much prefer to see a downgrading of the deterrent and an improvement in the conventional fleet - meaning carrier strike and associated support vessels. In a worse case scenario and we have to cut-back and reach a compromise (design work done, steel purchased) I would build a single 65K carrier, ditch F35B, go for the catapult launched Rafale. Being Euro sceptic this is a hard pill to swallow, but it would provide value for money. We could do a deal with the French to ensure we have at least one Carrier-Strike fleet on station at anyone time. This would also allow for a mix of Anglo-French Aster equipped destroyers to provide escort for the duty carrier. UK/French pilots could participate in long-look programmes allowing both to serve on each others respective carriers.
I noted in the press yesterday that the US & Russian have agreed in theory to cut their nuclear stockpiles by half.
Another cost saving exercise I would like to see happen is the planned generation of C3 vessels take on the MCM role. Basically large, fast (28 knot minimum) MCM vessels, fitted with CAAM, a 40mm gun (naval version of the one planned for Warrior / FRES recce) and rotary UCAV. We can then ditch the existing MCM fleet and use these vessels for both MCM and sea protection duties allowing for a reduction in the over all number of hulls.
Last edited:
Why are people adament about dropping the F-35?
The F-35C will be inservice by the time the carriers are finished. Why not use that.
Infact is the RN purchased a small number of F-35B's it might be able to operate them as well as the F-35C. The B's could then be sold off or leased off (Italy, Spain, Australia, India, Japan, maybe even the Dutch?). Or small amphibious ships could operate the F-35B later on when ships like Ocean gets replaced.
I don't think you need a massive SSBN anymore. You don't have to nuke entire continents. A smaller load of ICBM's and perhaps more tomahawks which can be dual use.
The F-35C will be inservice by the time the carriers are finished. Why not use that.
Infact is the RN purchased a small number of F-35B's it might be able to operate them as well as the F-35C. The B's could then be sold off or leased off (Italy, Spain, Australia, India, Japan, maybe even the Dutch?). Or small amphibious ships could operate the F-35B later on when ships like Ocean gets replaced.
I don't think you need a massive SSBN anymore. You don't have to nuke entire continents. A smaller load of ICBM's and perhaps more tomahawks which can be dual use.
Don't get me wrong I'm not anti-F35A, B or C, but if the UK is so strapped for cash and a compromise meant only one carrier can be built (possibly a second smaller Commando carrier later to replace Ocean), then Rafale would offer a common aircraft for both UK/French usage. Particularly important if we had French / UK pilots operating off each others vessels when one or the other is in maintenance, this would permit the cross-decking of airframes with common maintenance requirements.
The CdG may end up spending six months in dry-dock due to propulsion problems, If we had QE at sea today the French could have a sqd embedded alongside the fleet air arm.