The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

harryriedl

harryriedl

Active Member
Verified Defense Pro
swerve said:
Even A400M has had 25% of the money spent, & if we cancelled it, we'd have to spend the money on other transport aircraft, which (unlike the A400M) would be entirely imported. At least the A400M has a large proportion of it made here.
Click to expand...
Oh I didn't think so much had been spent. The cheapest one think to save is to just reduce money in the Trident replacement until we see what America is doing with its trident replacements.

Anyone see the very big rebuttal from the defense industry to those comments basically repeating Systems addicts opinion

Fully agree with you Systems addict and we all know how accurate the times is at defense reporting
 
O

overlander

Member
I wonder why from many years ago the british defence budget is under pressure all the time, for example in my country Spain in 1996 after the arrival of the conservative partido popular they improved the stretched defence budget from previous socialist party, they ordered the new LHD Juan Carlos, new frigates, new fighters and MBT,s however in Britain when a new government arrives always means a defence review wich may be good, the bad thing is that always part of the defence review consists in defence cuts, if the possible new conservative government cancel even 1 of the 2 carriers they will make a very bad service both to British and European defence policies
 
R

riksavage

Banned Member
overlander said:
I wonder why from many years ago the british defence budget is under pressure all the time, for example in my country Spain in 1996 after the arrival of the conservative partido popular they improved the stretched defence budget from previous socialist party, they ordered the new LHD Juan Carlos, new frigates, new fighters and MBT,s however in Britain when a new government arrives always means a defence review wich may be good, the bad thing is that always part of the defence review consists in defence cuts, if the possible new conservative government cancel even 1 of the 2 carriers they will make a very bad service both to British and European defence policies
Click to expand...
Unfortunately the average UK civi just looks at Britain spending more on defence than any of its European partners (bar France) and then asks themselves why when we are in the financial sh*t? Defence is not perceived as something which brings immediate benefits to the average Joe in the street. Plus most people can't equate the war terror with expensive carriers and fast jets. Sadly and wrongly the perception in the UK is that the army is paying the ultimate price on the asymmetrical battlefield, however the big ticket items under review are either RN (Carrier strike) or RAF (Typhoon, A400). One will definitely have to go, my bet is A400, simply because the least amount has been invested and the RAF would prefer a mix of more C17's and newer C130's. Carrier is too political unless they decide to build just one and then roll over to building C1, 2 & 3. Typhoon can be reduced (at a cost) and supplemented by the arrival of F35's.

I predict that over the next five - ten years, the army will take priority over the other two services, with the exception of RM / amphibious forces. Boots on the ground is the name of the came and I know the army behind the scenes would like to see an extra 10,000 personnel on its books.

If I was defence minister and had the clout I would disband the RAF, place all fast jet assets under the Navy and turn it into a US Marine Corp type org, supported by RN service and sub-service assets. I would then place strategic and tactical lift under army control (C130, C17 etc.) I would keep the joint helo force concept, but ensure that all future airframes were marinised. Strategic intelligence assets such as Sentinel, UAV, UCAV, AWAC's would be assembled under a joint force structure shared between Army & RN. By ditching the RAF you would save money and reduce the administrative and command & control burden. RN would oversee all fast jet training, Army Air Corp all helo training. Specialised mission specific helo stuff such as AsW would be done by the RN as part of advanced phase training.

Old quote: The Army is a projectile to be fired by the Navy.
 
S

swerve

Super Moderator
overlander said:
I wonder why from many years ago the british defence budget is under pressure all the time, for example in my country Spain in 1996 after the arrival of the conservative partido popular they improved the stretched defence budget from previous socialist party, they ordered the new LHD Juan Carlos, new frigates, new fighters and MBT,s however in Britain when a new government arrives always means a defence review wich may be good, the bad thing is that always part of the defence review consists in defence cuts, if the possible new conservative government cancel even 1 of the 2 carriers they will make a very bad service both to British and European defence policies
Click to expand...
If Spain spent the same proportion of GDP on the military as the UK, this might be a valid criticism, but in reality, Spain spends far less than the UK, & the fall in Spanish spending since the end of the Cold War has been similar to that in the UK - but starting & finishing at lower levels.

http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2009/p09-009.pdf
2008:
Spain 1.2% of GDP
UK 2.2% of GDP

Let us try to imagine the political reaction to a near doubling of Spanish defence spending.
 
O

overlander

Member
swerve said:
If Spain spent the same proportion of GDP on the military as the UK, this might be a valid criticism, but in reality, Spain spends far less than the UK, & the fall in Spanish spending since the end of the Cold War has been similar to that in the UK - but starting & finishing at lower levels.

http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2009/p09-009.pdf
2008:
Spain 1.2% of GDP
UK 2.2% of GDP

Let us try to imagine the political reaction to a near doubling of Spanish defence spending.
Click to expand...
It,s very simply if Britain can,t afford such a expense they have to reduce the budget but for definitive time, they can spend the same amount as Spain because so high presure for the budget all time is not good for the moral of the servicemen.
The problem for Britain is that they want to follow being a global power without the adequate funds for it, so better to decide what they want to be but definitevely not every 4 or 5 years cutting the armed forces, RIchard Bedall says some time ago that if things follow this way the R.N. could be a coastal force in some decades, may be catastrophist but with the British politicians making every short time cuts the british armed forces will be more and more stretched.
Concerning only to the Navy Spain before the cold war had less than 20 old escorts and 1 modest carrier, today the Spanish Navy has this small carrier plus a new LHD plus very capable and modern frigates and 2 good amphibious vesels if you look from the late 80,s to the present the superiority of the Royal navy force versus the spanish navy force is now not so big as 20 years ago, excluding the submarine service in wich the superiority of the british navy is not a discussion, not to mention if the new british conservative government decides to cut the carriers only to 1, If you look at the main european navies no other navy has been reduced so much at least in number of escorts and suffered more cuts that the R.N. from the cold war to the present, look for example the withdrawal of the sea harrier leaving the fleet without adequate air cover in the event of a war without allies support, it,s true that new british ships are more capable than the old ones and that amphibious shipping has been improved but unfortunately concerning to the escort force 1 ship can be only in 1 place at 1 time
 
Last edited:
R

riksavage

Banned Member
overlander said:
It,s very simply if Britain can,t afford such a expense they have to reduce the budget but for definitive time, they can spend the same amount as Spain because so high presure for the budget all time is not good for the moral of the servicemen.
The problem for Britain is that they want to follow being a global power without the adequate funds for it, so better to decide what they want to be but definitevely not every 4 or 5 years cutting the armed forces, RIchard Bedall says some time ago that if things follow this way the R.N. could be a coastal force in some decades, may be catastrophist but with the British politicians making every short time cuts the british armed forces will be more and more stretched.
Concerning only to the Navy Spain before the cold war had less than 20 old escorts and 1 modest carrier, today the Spanish Navy has this small carrier plus a new LHD plus very capable and modern frigates and 2 good amphibious vesels if you look from the late 80,s to the present the superiority of the Royal navy force versus the spanish navy force is now not so big as 20 years ago, excluding the submarine service in wich the superiority of the british navy is not a discussion, not to mention if the new british conservative government decides to cut the carriers only to 1, If you look at the main european navies no other navy has been reduced so much at least in number of escorts and suffered more cuts that the R.N. from the cold war to the present, look for example the withdrawal of the sea harrier leaving the fleet without adequate air cover in the event of a war without allies support, it,s true that new british ships are more capable than the old ones and that amphibious shipping has been improved but unfortunately concerning to the escort force 1 ship can be only in 1 place at 1 time
Click to expand...
Whilst Spain's fleet has improved it still doesn't have force multipliers comparable to the RN, namely SSN's and SSBN's, which you have already mentioned. The Astute platform is a step change over its predecessors and brings to the table a level of threat (stealth, endurance and weapons load) against a potential foe most Western Navies could only dream of. Such expensive investments will ultimately have an impact on the amount of money available for surface ships, however a single modern SSN sub can confine an entire surface fleet to port, so they bring a huge amount of clout to the table.

We have got to stop counting hulls and look at how our assets can impact the overall outcome of a battle. If we continue to face asymmetrical threats then we really need to maintain the ability to strike against our enemy on land and sea. Talking about withdrawing Sea Harrier in the current environment is irrelevant, GR9's bring to the table what we need in the form of a very capable CAS platform, the old Sea Harrier would contribute zero to the current battlefield other than look good sitting on the deck of an Invincible class.

With the arrival of the six T45's we have pretty damn good coverage to deal with rogue states attempting to fire the odd silkworm at the amphib fleet in the littoral environment, which is a far more likely scenario than witnesseing another 1982 surge down South to take back our static aircraft carrier, which now have the following anyway:

http://www.fast-air.co.uk/RAF-Coningsby-Falklands-Typhoon-Flight-1435.htm

There are no states out there currently looking to kick-off a full-on convential war aginst the UK, so quite rightly the UK will continue to focus on the here and now, which last time I looked was winning the assymetrical war in Afghanistan supported by CAS not CAP.

The following link provides an update on the RN's current priorities.

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/upload/pdf/RNGF09_sep09_72dpi.pdf
 
Last edited:
kev 99

kev 99

Member
riksavage said:
Whilst Spain's fleet has improved it still doesn't have force multipliers comparable to the RN, namely SSN's and SSBN's, which you have already mentioned. The Astute platform is a step change over its predecessors and brings to the table a level of threat (stealth, endurance and weapons load) against a potential foe most Western Navies could only dream of. Such expensive investments will ultimately have an impact on the amount of money available for surface ships, however a single modern SSN sub can confine an entire surface fleet to port, so they bring a huge amount of clout to the table.

We have got to stop counting hulls and look at how our assets can impact the overall outcome of a battle. If we continue to face asymmetrical threats then we really need to maintain the ability to strike against our enemy on land and sea. Talking about withdrawing Sea Harrier in the current environment is irrelevant, GR9's bring to the table what we need in the form of a very capable CAS platform, the old Sea Harrier would contribute zero to the current battlefield other than look good sitting on the deck of an Invincible class.

With the arrival of the six T45's we have pretty damn good coverage to deal with rogue states attempting to fire the odd silkworm at the amphib fleet in the littoral environment, which is a far more likely scenario than witnesseing another 1982 surge down South to take back our static aircraft carrier, which now have the following anyway:

Typhoons Depart for the Falklands

There are no states out there currently looking to kick-off a full-on convential war aginst the UK, so quite rightly the UK will continue to focus on the here and now, which last time I looked was winning the assymetrical war in Afghanistan supported by CAS not CAP.

The following link provides an update on the RN's current priorities.

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/upload/pdf/RNGF09_sep09_72dpi.pdf
Click to expand...
What you're saying is all well and good but building the armed forces is about planning for a potential future as much as for the current environment. Its Interesting that you pick up on the T45s because I don't think I've read anywhere that 6 is enough, especially considering the requirement that 5 are available at all times, it only takes an accident like that which HMS Nottingham suffered and that requirement gets screwed straight away.

Overlander already beat you to the excellent PDF, hopefully someone in the Shadow Cabinet reads it and takes note.
 
R

riksavage

Banned Member
Agreed, but we need to resource the battles we are fighting NOW, and who can say what the future risk to the United Kingdom is likely to be.

We have to look at RISK, which basically equates to THREAT + HARM. The prevailing threat is something we can often do very little about, therefore we must design our military to mitigate potential harm. We need to be very careful about constantly planning to fight the last war, whilst ignoring the threat staring us right in the face, regardless of how low-tech that threat may be.

Most European nations continue to resource a cold war military driven by their domestic defence industry, many are still woefully under-resourced to fight asymmetrical battles in environments such as Afghanistan.

Spain my have shiny new surface ships and LHD's, which look great on Navy days, but could they maintain a self-sufficient Brigade in Afghanistan over an extended period, I seriously doubt it? More importantly when was the last time the Spanish Navy fought in a war, or was engaged in a Naval scuffle?

The UK since their commitment to A-STAN has rotated through over 70,000 troops, the majority of which have been committed to full-on warfighting, this is where the Government needs to spend the big bucks, not resourcing 'what if' scenarios, which may never be realised.

You talk of the RN only having 6 x T45's, but I can't see a potential foe on the horizon looking at attacking the RN with sophisticated air-assets capable of penetrating the ships theatre defence system - Argentina, China, Russia? Islamic fundamentalists certainly aren't, Even Iran would struggle with it's totally antiquated airforce and surface to surface missile force.
 
Last edited:
kev 99

kev 99

Member
While I agree with most of what you're saying Rik I would say that the world is a pretty unpredictable place and decisions taken now can have effects for decades to come, who could have foreseen that in 66 the decision to bin the RN fleet carriers because of a foreign policy decision to withdraw from East of Suez would have direct consequences for a conflict in the South Atlantic 16 years later?

In the coming decades the world will be dealing with climate change, possible conflicts over energy resources and food shortages, problems caused by an unsustainable world population, economic turmoil, we certainly shouldn't be taking our eye off the ability to fight a conventional war just because there doesn't seem to be much risk of one right now. I'm not one those that constantly brings up the numbers game and decries what has been lost nor do am I one that thinks we need to go back to SDR force levels because I think that's unrealistic, I do think we should look at being somewhere between SDR and where we are now though.

On the subject of the other European countries having Cold War structures, I agree to a certain extent although its clearly a reduced Cold War structure as all have suffered serious reductions. I would say this is because all the European countries have probably made the same mistake of cutting numbers and budgets at the same time, trying to change the armed forces when you're budgets are cut mean you are just left with what you've got and change has to happen slowly as a result. Italy and Spain have made recent changes to their amphibious/carrier fleets that will help, Germany is making noises to adapting to more asymmetrical threats with the F125 and planned expansions to their auxillaries, then of course most of Europe is waiting on the A400M to improve its airlift capability and everyone is investing in UAV technology, so change is happening, slowly.
 
W

windscorpion

New Member
Of course it will save cash (though not a great deal in the scheme of things) but it also helps Brown pretend to be a "world statemen" and a "hero of peace"! These weapons are all about the politics, which of course is why they will be the last thing the RN will keep even if they have to lose everything else!
 
R

riksavage

Banned Member
windscorpion said:
Of course it will save cash (though not a great deal in the scheme of things) but it also helps Brown pretend to be a "world statemen" and a "hero of peace"! These weapons are all about the politics, which of course is why they will be the last thing the RN will keep even if they have to lose everything else!
Click to expand...
Even with three boats the UK still maintains the ability to wipe-out a potential aggressor many times over. The critical factor is the number of missiles and warheads carried inside the boat assigned to deterrent patrol, not the number of hulls. The Vanguards currently carry 48 warheads, that's 48 cities wiped off the map - the current batch of potential rogue states (Iran / North Korea) don't have 48 major cities between them worth hitting!

Improved technology means that three new subs will still be capable of providing an uninterrupted deterrent at sea 365 days of the year. The real issue however is could the money for such a huge project be better spent elsewhere, the RAF and Army think so. Would we not be better off with say twelve Astute's capable of firing nuclear tipped cruise missiles. After all the Astutes can remain at sea for as long as the current Vanguards. By making them all capable of firing a nuclear device you can maintain more than one nuclear armed boat at sea spreading the burden allowing them to remain in range of any potential foe. One problem associated with dedicated 'boomers' is you need to assign a SSN for escort duties. By focusing on increased numbers of more versitile Astutes you remove this requirement. As long as the enemy thinks you have the means and ability to sow the whirlwind the deterrent factor is maintained unless they are a bunch of nutters and accept total destruction as an acceptable price to pay.

The Trident boats where designed to penetrate sophisticated air-defence systems and hit Russia's major urban areas, is this still a priority? The current batch of potenial rouge states don't have access to such fully integrated systems, the only countries which do (Russia and China) don't appear inclined to kick off MAD, they are far too preoccupied with economic and fossel fuel domination.

The UK has committed 3bn to Aldermaston, which builds the UK's warheads fitted to the Trident missiles. They are more than capable of developing warheads suitable for other delivery platforms.

Both Labour and the Conservatives would never unilaterally disarm, the last time Labour put that policy in its manifesto it was condemned to the opposition wilderness.
 
Last edited:
O

overlander

Member
riksavage said:
Even with three boats the UK still maintains the ability to wipe-out a potential aggressor many times over. The critical factor is the number of missiles and warheads carried inside the boat assigned to deterrent patrol, not the number of hulls. The Vanguards currently carry 48 warheads, that's 48 cities wiped off the map - the current batch of potential rogue states (Iran / North Korea) don't have 48 major cities between them worth hitting!

Improved technology means that three new subs will still be capable of providing an uninterrupted deterrent at sea 365 days of the year. The real issue however is could the money for such a huge project be better spent elsewhere, the RAF and Army think so. Would we not be better off with say twelve Astute's capable of firing nuclear tipped cruise missiles. After all the Astutes can remain at sea for as long as the current Vanguards. By making them all capable of firing a nulear device you can maintain more than one nuclear armed boat at sea spreading the burden allowing them to remain in range of any potential foe.

The Trident boats where designed to penetrate sophisticated air-defence systems and hit Russia's major urban areas, is this still a priority? The current batch of potenial rouge states don't have access to such fully integrated systems, the only countries which do (Russia and China) don't appear inclined to kick off MAD, they are far too preoccupied with economic and fossel fuel domination.

The UK has committed 3bn to Aldermaston, which builds the UK's warheads fitted to the Trident missiles. They are more than capable of developing warheads suitable for other delivery platforms.

Both Labour and the Conservatives would never unilaterally disarm, the last time Labour put that policy in its manifesto it was condemned to the opposition wilderness.
Click to expand...
Ok. maybe this is not an important cut but I hope this will be not the start of the defence review (further cuts) proposed by the possible new conservative government
 
W

windscorpion

New Member
Its an interesting debate, personally i would prefer SLCMs though there would be areas of the world you couldn't reach and the missiles would be more vulnerable than ballistic missiles. But in the medium term what realistic targets would be inaccessible? Its a trade-off.

3 boats will also be enough to maintain deterrance, i am happy with that. Though i hope they work out with the French some sort of arrangement to avoid any more collisions. ;)
 
kev 99

kev 99

Member
Personally I don't think Cruise Missiles as a deterrent are very good, they can be shot down and an Astute could only launch 6 at a time without reloading, that number does not represent a guarantee that one would get through at all.
 
W

windscorpion

New Member
No weapon is invulnerable, maybe in 30 years time Trident missiles can be shot down easily. I personally think nuclear weapons are a purely political tool to the government of the day, it means they can act big, "punch above their weight" et cetera and maintain that seat at the top table. Its all about what the country can afford to maintain that pretense.

Ideally we'd have 5 SSBNs plus nuclear cruise missiles and air launched nukes too but obviously that would cost a lot more money and the overall political impact would be the same anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top