great post I have always said we should by Rafale
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
The last cababillity to loose for the UK should be it's ability to penetrate any defense and perform a mass slaughter on 100s of millions civilians. You know, that's the thing that makes Britain into a 1st rank millitary power.
This is the ultimate inssurence. Not having such a cabability in a forseeable future is the same as saying that britain is not a 1 rank power in a forseeable future, and as a pro-european I find that perspective unacceptable.
At the same time, the armed forces of Britain should be able to fight a modern war, if not for anything else then for the sake of being relevant next to the nuclear deterence. To my limited understanding, that requires cababilities to project power globally. And you need carriers and other navial assets as well as air force, soldiers and different forms of transportation for that.
So we need those carriers (in plural) as well.
Now I sound like a spoiled kid that wants it all, which is true. BUT the UK does spend a lot of money on millitary hardware and I am convinced that if these massive amounts of money were put to better use, than they are today, the UK could have it all.
There are obvious options on the table: industrial coorporation and millitary cooperation. And let's try to keep this in a euro-context since our economies are closely integrated and we have a very large set of common interests as well as political structures in place that can facilitate the coorporation.
That the MoD doesn't make costly mistakes like the Type 45 (surely a great ship, but not worth the cost - by a far shoot) or this ridicoulus "super lynx" project that for sure is also going to be a money sink.
Loosly speaking That the MoD buys/develops equipment that's 80-90% of need, and not 110% of need, in other words stop this drive to to make projects as complicated and high tech as possible, but instead build something that's cheaper, but still functionel.
That the best contractors get the work, within the above industrial coorporation,
That the MoD realises that defense - and not industrial subsidies - it it's purpose and if it has to be, that industrial subsidies are made with an eye to the future - not keeping dying industries afloat.
This is the ultimate inssurence. Not having such a cabability in a forseeable future is the same as saying that britain is not a 1 rank power in a forseeable future, and as a pro-european I find that perspective unacceptable.
At the same time, the armed forces of Britain should be able to fight a modern war, if not for anything else then for the sake of being relevant next to the nuclear deterence. To my limited understanding, that requires cababilities to project power globally. And you need carriers and other navial assets as well as air force, soldiers and different forms of transportation for that.
So we need those carriers (in plural) as well.
Now I sound like a spoiled kid that wants it all, which is true. BUT the UK does spend a lot of money on millitary hardware and I am convinced that if these massive amounts of money were put to better use, than they are today, the UK could have it all.
There are obvious options on the table: industrial coorporation and millitary cooperation. And let's try to keep this in a euro-context since our economies are closely integrated and we have a very large set of common interests as well as political structures in place that can facilitate the coorporation.
That the MoD doesn't make costly mistakes like the Type 45 (surely a great ship, but not worth the cost - by a far shoot) or this ridicoulus "super lynx" project that for sure is also going to be a money sink.
Loosly speaking That the MoD buys/develops equipment that's 80-90% of need, and not 110% of need, in other words stop this drive to to make projects as complicated and high tech as possible, but instead build something that's cheaper, but still functionel.
That the best contractors get the work, within the above industrial coorporation,
That the MoD realises that defense - and not industrial subsidies - it it's purpose and if it has to be, that industrial subsidies are made with an eye to the future - not keeping dying industries afloat.
I also like the Rafale idea. But, sadly, it's not going to happen as things are.
I would have loved if Britain and France had sit down 20 years ago. And said to themselves: "well the old enemy USSR is disintegrating, maybe we should think about changing from the defense to the offensive - maybe we would need a navy-airplane?"
Then the considerable technical skill and innovation of the french and british could have been deployed to build a really nice airplane and they would share costs - development as well as maintenance, which is a pretty important thing.
And IF you make some good elaborate agreements to begin with, you can avoid that different politicians reck the deal to everybody's damage.
But apparently it's more important not to get stuff, than to get it with your neighbour....
I would have loved if Britain and France had sit down 20 years ago. And said to themselves: "well the old enemy USSR is disintegrating, maybe we should think about changing from the defense to the offensive - maybe we would need a navy-airplane?"
Then the considerable technical skill and innovation of the french and british could have been deployed to build a really nice airplane and they would share costs - development as well as maintenance, which is a pretty important thing.
And IF you make some good elaborate agreements to begin with, you can avoid that different politicians reck the deal to everybody's damage.
But apparently it's more important not to get stuff, than to get it with your neighbour....
citizen578
New Member
Do you not feel that goes against the entire reasoning for not extending/replacing the Vanguards? If we're now proposing that we have two bombers on patrol (versus the current cycle of 1 V-boat on nuke patrol, 1 in refit, 1 in training, and 1 preparing for/winding down from deployment) then I can see the economics falling apart. It's inevitable, if the nuclear deterrant it to be maintained, that the replacement will be a-boat derivatives with a hull plug for VL silos, but why then limit their capability with cruise missiles... which will presumably have to be designed from scratch (at great expense) and will inevitably be far less capable and more vulnerable than trident II/III.
If that were to become the scenario, i can see the bill running close to the replacement costs for trident system.
I'm not saying you're wrong, just that inevitably the MoD's love for a cheap-option invariably ends up being an expensive and ineffective option.
Personally I think we should just take the hit, rather than p$ss around with a phenomenally important system.
_______________________________________
Also, as I couldn't see a dedicated or relevant RAF thread, and the Army one is closed may I just say
Rest in Peace
to the Tornado F3 crew who lost their lives in a crash in the Scottish Highlands this morning
and to the 2 soldiers from the Welsh Guards and Royal Tank Regiment killed in Afghanistan
my only problem with replacing trident with nuclear tipped cruise missiles(the tomahawks the royal navy use are capable of modification i would imagine) is that i would have absolutely no faith in any british govt spending the savings on what i suggested.its far more likely that it would be further wasted on vote friendly bottomless pits like the nhs........
the govt needs to be strong minded and realise that we will always need a strong armed forces in this country and that will never ever change.:nutkick
Yep trident D-5 are very good at what they do and they are very very difficult to stop unlike cruise missiles which have been shot down. (I think Serbia stopped a couple). the big range advantage of SLBM is a huge advantage over cruise missile as is MRIV's with multiple warheads and countermeasures mounted to insure that a the strike is successful as their is nothing more dangerous than an unsuccessful strike you deterrent fails. (even the threat of failer means that doesn't work)
Lets see where the Americans are going post Ohio that way we can work out where the trident replacement will go
kev 99
Member
People have suggested using an Astute with nuclear tipped Tomahawks, problem with that is that they can only launch six at a time before reloading, if the sub launched cruise missile is a goer then I suspect that you'd need a larger sub with a vls that can launch 12 or more to provide a proper deterrent.
Jaffo you are of course right savings wouldn't go to the MOD they would be recouped from the MOD budget and spent elsewhere.
I think you'll find that it became stillborn because it was at the same time that Germany and Australia both agreed to abandon their nuclear systems programs and join the NPT based on a US agreement to provide nuclear protection (as a trade off)
If you look at the history of the ef2000 and Rafale, you'll see why Rafale became unacceptable to "old europe"
which they currently do with the USN so as to maintain currency due to issues such as below:
Last edited:
The world is changing fast and Europe will be a reduced priority for the US as the threat of an all out war between Russia and NATO diminishes. At the end of the day Russia is not exporting Communism anymore and through it's Oil & Gas export market relies on Western Europe as a critical partner in stabilising the country's GDP. Why bite the hand that feeds you by turning your main source of foreign revenue into a waste land? Anyone here who has been to Moscow will realise the old Communist ideology is long dead - no more Lada's, bring out the RR Phantoms, Merc's and BMW's.
Over the next ten to twenty years Nuclear arsenals will be greatly reduced, leaving enough to guarantee a MAD response without excessive overkill. The real worry is controlling rogue states and making sure weapons of mass destruction don't end up in unstable hands. Even with North Korea and Iran's nuclear programme they are still far from developing a true ballistic missile system with a global reach.
Maintaining four Trident Boats (or equivalent), each carrying 16 missiles capable of wiping out all major cities in any given country is simply not necessary anymore. What ever the option, a like for like replacement would be sheer madness based on the current threats to Britain. It's like building battleships even though the arrival of the aircraft carrier has rendered them obsolete?
In my opinion the UK should build a balanced force centered around an expeditionary warfare capability with a very heavy emphasis on SF. This means we need at least one Strike and at least one Commando Carrier supported by the full remit of supporting vessels, most of which the RN already has. An SSN fleet is vital because it provides global reach, and the ability to strike conventionally on land and sea. The ASTUTE class are the best vessels outside of the US and bring to the table huge capabilities, which we cannot afford to lose.
Over the next ten to twenty years Nuclear arsenals will be greatly reduced, leaving enough to guarantee a MAD response without excessive overkill. The real worry is controlling rogue states and making sure weapons of mass destruction don't end up in unstable hands. Even with North Korea and Iran's nuclear programme they are still far from developing a true ballistic missile system with a global reach.
Maintaining four Trident Boats (or equivalent), each carrying 16 missiles capable of wiping out all major cities in any given country is simply not necessary anymore. What ever the option, a like for like replacement would be sheer madness based on the current threats to Britain. It's like building battleships even though the arrival of the aircraft carrier has rendered them obsolete?
In my opinion the UK should build a balanced force centered around an expeditionary warfare capability with a very heavy emphasis on SF. This means we need at least one Strike and at least one Commando Carrier supported by the full remit of supporting vessels, most of which the RN already has. An SSN fleet is vital because it provides global reach, and the ability to strike conventionally on land and sea. The ASTUTE class are the best vessels outside of the US and bring to the table huge capabilities, which we cannot afford to lose.
Riksavage
I much agree with you. Though what do we do with the nuclear deterent? Move it to land based systems?
I think we need the ballistic missiles, cruise missiles aren't comparable to a BM.
A budget of £20Bn for new subs from now to, say, 2025 doesn't strike me as that huge amount of money... For comparison my country's budget for new fighters is around £1000 per capita, as I work it out £20bn for british subs are around £333 per capita. Both of these posts are distributed across some years.
But as I see it, the french and british life cycle looks like it's pretty in synch - maybe a cooperation on replacements of the subs could save some money?
I much agree with you. Though what do we do with the nuclear deterent? Move it to land based systems?
I think we need the ballistic missiles, cruise missiles aren't comparable to a BM.
A budget of £20Bn for new subs from now to, say, 2025 doesn't strike me as that huge amount of money... For comparison my country's budget for new fighters is around £1000 per capita, as I work it out £20bn for british subs are around £333 per capita. Both of these posts are distributed across some years.
But as I see it, the french and british life cycle looks like it's pretty in synch - maybe a cooperation on replacements of the subs could save some money?
Following report in the Scot's Herald newspaper July 03 2009:
Boost for Clyde shipyards as deal on fleet of frigates ‘weeks away’
Clyde shipyard bosses revealed they are within weeks of signing an agreement that could see a new generation of frigates being built at Govan and Scotstoun.
They are expected to win a share of work on up to 18 new ships to replace the Type 22 and Type 23 ships currently in service with the Royal Navy.
Alan Johnston, chief executive of the yards' owners BVT Surface Fleet, revealed the signing of the terms of business agreement between the company and the Ministry of Defence would seal a 15-year commitment guaranteeing defence work for the Clyde.
advertisementIt's a boost for the yards after a week in which a leaked company document outlined plans to reduced warship building in the UK to one location - either the Clyde or Portsmouth - raising fears of thousands of redundancies and a £1bn rise in the cost of two new aircraft carriers being built for the Royal Navy.
However, the scale of the new work is unknown and there is no guarantee that all 3500 workers at the Clyde yards would keep their jobs.
Mr Johnston said he expected steel cutting for the frigates could start in 2013, a critical point for the yards because work on the giant aircraft carriers that currently fill the order books will be far advanced.
Steel cutting starts at Govan on Tuesday and the first of them, HMS Queen Elizabeth, is due to be in service in 2016 with HMS Prince of Wales following in 2018.
Very surprised by this based on the current economic down turn, can't help but think it's Labour posturing to bring a bit of good news to the shrinking work force.
windscorpion
New Member
I'm a bit bemused by this, start the FSC in 4 years time. Start building what exactly, have they decided on a finalised design yet? I can't help thinking this is electioneering and after the election it'll be quietly "postponed".
kev 99
Member
Well most of the stuff in the public domain has stated the first will be ready by the end of the next decade, so that makes around five years to build.
I'm not convinced though.
Apparently C1 is due for main gate approval next year (or was it later this year........?)
Maybe SA could shed some light.................
I'm not convinced though.
Apparently C1 is due for main gate approval next year (or was it later this year........?)
Maybe SA could shed some light.................
A4kscooter
Member
Don't believe any figures about procurement numbers.
12 type 45 destroyers wanted- ordered 6
Nimrod MR4 between 21 and 25 a/c wanted - ordered 18, reduced to 12 and now rumours of only 9
F35 150 a/c wanted now talk of only 66 to serve on 2 carriers and 2 RAF squadrons.
Typhoon - 232 a/c wanted but with 3rd party sales maybe 150 a/c
18 replacements for Type 22 and 23 frigates - dream on
2 carriers?
4 SSBNs?
The list goes on and on.
I don't want to sound sceptical but these reductions were done when the economy was apparently doing well so with a government that has created a financial disaster and having no interest in funding defence these figures are pure fiction.
If we are lucky we will be left with a fleet of 4 corvettes,2 of which will be more than likely mothballed due a lack of spares etc.
12 type 45 destroyers wanted- ordered 6
Nimrod MR4 between 21 and 25 a/c wanted - ordered 18, reduced to 12 and now rumours of only 9
F35 150 a/c wanted now talk of only 66 to serve on 2 carriers and 2 RAF squadrons.
Typhoon - 232 a/c wanted but with 3rd party sales maybe 150 a/c
18 replacements for Type 22 and 23 frigates - dream on
2 carriers?
4 SSBNs?
The list goes on and on.
I don't want to sound sceptical but these reductions were done when the economy was apparently doing well so with a government that has created a financial disaster and having no interest in funding defence these figures are pure fiction.
If we are lucky we will be left with a fleet of 4 corvettes,2 of which will be more than likely mothballed due a lack of spares etc.
windscorpion
New Member
So it seems the key to the MOD is to aim high.
"Yes Minister we need 120 frigates."
"Yes Minister we need 120 frigates."
intersting thing of late we seem to get the numbers of big ships but not the small ones we get 4 bays 2 alibions and two CVF but not 12 Type 45
battlensign
New Member
Yes, but didn't the RFA need 6 Bays and wouldn't 3 Albions make more sense .....?
And strictly speaking, with only 2 CVF it would seem that 2 LPHs would be a good idea too, so that CVFs only have to be used when really necessary......? (as a side bonus the RN could almost guarantee the availability of 1 Carrier, 1 LPH, 1 LPD and 2 Bays which is then your UKAMPHIBGROUP plus CSG always ready to roll).
But yes, generally your right that the RN is doing better for larger assets than escorts.
Brett.
P.S has anyone else noticed that in all of these 'We must cut Defence spending!' and 'Troops dying in 'ghan while MOD plots massive Cold War buildup!' type articles that the MOD force-structure proposals are all born of what was supposed to be the 'comprehensive' Strategic Defence Review of '98 which was allegedly intended and specifically designed to identify operational requirements in a post-cold war environment.
During the Cold War the RN was an Atlantic ASW force which just happened to also operate a CASD.......so now that it is actually being configured for global expeditionary operations this is somehow 'inappropriate'............? I love it! - makes no sense at all!
kev 99
Member
Most of the media commentators are idiots and have no real interest in telling the truth because they can't make a decent headline out of it.