The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

harryriedl

Active Member
Verified Defense Pro
O


Go back to the Falklands era. County class of 1960's era with innefective Sea Slug missiles and electronics that couldnt defeat exocet eg HMS Glamorgan.

The Type 21 class, one sea cat launcher,a 4.5 gun and 4 exocets, a good GP frigate for a byegone era but alas totally inadequate to defend aginst sustained air attack using 20 year old aircraft and dumb bombs.

Leander class and type 12, similar weapons fit to the Type 21 only older, also heavily punished by air attacks.

Type 42 was a cut down platform resulting from budget cuts in the 1970's, lacked close in defence, its Sea Dart was designed to shot down medium to high flying aircraft and soviet anti ship missiles, we built 14, lost 2, still have 8. The fact that these ships are still here in 2007 upto 2010 tells you much about the long standing undefunding over the last 20 years. Again, even old technology fighters with dumb bombs scored multiple hits (even in the combo of HMS Coventry and HMS Broadsword).

The type 22, good ASW designs but built without a 4.5 gun (the first 9), oversized for its weapons fit, able to shoot down targets a point ranges of three miles. The last 4 are well equipped electronically.

The later Type 23 offers good GP capabilities but lacks offensive punch,has short range Sea Wolf etc.



I dont know how the leanders, Amazons, County's would have fared in the north atlantic facing soviet cruise missiles and subs, we would have sunk a few but I suspect we would have soaked up so much punishment that the fleet would cease to operate in less than a month.

There is little point in a limited budget extending the lives of old vessels with limited weapons fit, hence if the remaining Type 22's go then so be it. If we swap 6 Tpe 45's for 8 Type 42's then with the leap in capability and cost differences to build then so be it. Like it or not the RN and the UK could not afford to build over 50 modern surface escorts, particularly if the bulk will not fire a shot in anger over the next 2 decades. We are modernising our armed forces, in 20 years the UK will spend vast sums on UCAV's for a start.

The next government will keep to similar spending levels as the previous ones. The Tories might save a few old infantry regiments but all parties will be keen to keep the industrial base afloat hence there will always be new vessels for the navy.

[/QUOTE/]
although the destroyers and other ships are old now they were very completive compared to other ships of their era. yes the sea cat was crap even then ;) but asw was always good the 22 very able then but are unsuited to littorals . the type 23 are good except for the short range sea wolf [is it remotely plausible to refit the 23 with ASTER] the Rn always seems to being going from one extreme to another the the battleship navy of ww1 the escort navy of ww2 the ASW navy of the cold war. and now the traditionally warfare
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
Saw this today, and wasn't sure if it was good news or bad. Yes it will give some work to the Sub yard at Barrow but the pessimist in me nags that it might give the government a further opportunity to delay a little longer the orders for the final Astutes as Barrow will have more work for now .............

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6615139.stm
I think this announcement is good news but I can understand why you have that 'nagging' doubt. It is very easy to become cynical of the government's real commitment to defence! :rolleyes:

Quote=Dave H;100592

There is little point in a limited budget extending the lives of old vessels with limited weapons fit, hence if the remaining Type 22's go then so be it. If we swap 6 Tpe 45's for 8 Type 42's then with the leap in capability and cost differences to build then so be it. Like it or not the RN and the UK could not afford to build over 50 modern surface escorts, particularly if the bulk will not fire a shot in anger over the next 2 decades. We are modernising our armed forces, in 20 years the UK will spend vast sums on UCAV's for a start.

Interesting post Dave and I agree with your conclusions. I think it is really important that the RN concentrate on quality rather than quality with all its major classes of warship, i.e. the QEs, Type 45s and Astutes. It seems to me that it is doing just that.


Cheers
 
Last edited by a moderator:

swerve

Super Moderator
...
Interesting post Dave and I agree with your conclusions. I think it is really important that the RN concentrate on quality rather than quality with all its major classes of warship, i.e. the QEs, Type 45s and Astutes. It seems to me that it is doing just that.


Cheers
No quarrel with the RN concentrating on quality, but if you can't afford enough top-quality ships for them to be everywhere at once, & have tasks to perform which don't need all the abilities of your top-quality ships (both of which are true of the RN), it makes sense to have a mix of Grade A & lower-capability, cheaper, ships, which is why I think we could do with something like a large & capable OPV, or modestly armed "patrol frigate". With decent sensors & a flexible weapons fit, it could operate as a capable OPV most of the time, but be up-armed (& take on more crew) quickly if needed to function as a real warship. You don't need a Type 45 chasing drug smugglers & pirates on the West Indies station. You don't want to have to use Type 45s for such duties.
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
No quarrel with the RN concentrating on quality, but if you can't afford enough top-quality ships for them to be everywhere at once, & have tasks to perform which don't need all the abilities of your top-quality ships (both of which are true of the RN), it makes sense to have a mix of Grade A & lower-capability, cheaper, ships, which is why I think we could do with something like a large & capable OPV, or modestly armed "patrol frigate". With decent sensors & a flexible weapons fit, it could operate as a capable OPV most of the time, but be up-armed (& take on more crew) quickly if needed to function as a real warship. You don't need a Type 45 chasing drug smugglers & pirates on the West Indies station. You don't want to have to use Type 45s for such duties.
I agree with what you have said here.

The only danger is that there is always a temptation to upgrade the capability of the cheaper ships until they are no longer cheap and then we end up with a ship that governments may be tempted to send into high risk scenarios. Build the cheap ships for specific jobs and keep them simple. The WW2 corvette is a good example of building a ship for a specific task. It was determined that what was needed was a ship with good sea keeping, 16 knots speed and armed with depth charges and a 4" gun. Larger, faster submarines later forced a change to the larger, slightly faster frigate with better A/S armament (some were built for the AA role as well) but they were still kept to a relatively simple, low cost design that could be built quickly and in large numbers.

Cheers
 

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
Build the cheap ships for specific jobs and keep them simple.
Absolutely. That seems to be the reasoning behind the S2C2 programme. The "C3" (sort of heavily-armed OPVs) do all the anti-drug/anti-smuggling/anti-piracy work, freeing up the bigger ships for important operations. The Royal Navy is never going to have squadrons based around the world again, so it makes sense to spend a modest amount of money on vessels specifically designed for the sort of low-intensity operations that suck up too many hulls these days.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Absolutely. That seems to be the reasoning behind the S2C2 programme. The "C3" (sort of heavily-armed OPVs) do all the anti-drug/anti-smuggling/anti-piracy work, freeing up the bigger ships for important operations. The Royal Navy is never going to have squadrons based around the world again, so it makes sense to spend a modest amount of money on vessels specifically designed for the sort of low-intensity operations that suck up too many hulls these days.
And I think the S2C2 programme is a sign that the navy is having some of the right thoughts.

However we can no longer operate the numbers of ships needed to make WW2 corvette-style ships (by which I mean single role with nothing superfluous) practical. C3 should have some flexibility built in, though certainly not fitted as standard. Helicopter capable, up to maybe Future Lynx, & able to be up-armed with packaged bolt-on weapons (extra light guns, self-defence SAMs - but absolutely nothing bigger than a VL Seawolf or VL Mica canister, if that). Doesn't need to be very fast, doesn't need ASW weapons, top-end radar, command facilities, or much else. Does need to be able to operate over long distances for extended periods in foul weather, with a small crew, & be sure of outgunning any pirate or Somali warlords speedboats.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
How about half a dozen of these ...?

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/nakhoda/


Systems Adict :D
You could remove the surplus weaponry (Exocets & torpedo tubes in particular), but it looks too much the sleek, fast warship to my mind. I don't think it'd be happy on a long deployment to the South Atlantic. And iI'd like it to be able to operate a helicopter a few thousand miles from the nearest base, & protect it from the elements.
 

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
However we can no longer operate the numbers of ships needed to make WW2 corvette-style ships (by which I mean single role with nothing superfluous) practical. C3 should have some flexibility built in, though certainly not fitted as standard.
I think it's quite possible for us to operate a modest number and not need to have them take on escort duty or the like. Although flexible options would allow them to operate in more dangerous areas, certainly they should do no more than patrol work. If they're "too flexible", the government will be tempted to use them as escorts.
 

Dave H

New Member
The UK defence situation may have moved on somewhat in the last week following the local elections. With the SNP having 47 MSP's and claiming some 32.9% of the vote it seems to me that the question of Trident and the nuclear attack subs is going to cause a military headache for the MOD.

The political field come the next election and beyond may mean that basing Trident or SSNs in Scotland becomes untenable to a Nationalist Dominated Scottish Parliament who want independence.

The SNP defence spokesman Angus Robertson, in January was saying that it was time for an Independent Scottish foriegn policy that protects scottish jobs, stops scotland being dragged into illegal wars and ensures scottish shores are free from weapons of mass destruction.

The SNP position gets some criticism in todays Scottish Herald, The local MP for Dumbarton suggests the Scottish navy would be based at Faslane when the English (nuclear) navy vacates, hence the 11,000 scottish jobs would be protected.The Sky TV defence analyst Francis Tusa wrote an article for "defence analysis" suggesting that Scottish defence industry would suffer and bases would close, although the SNP have portrayed this as innacurate. Tusa claims a scottish navy would have 4.5 ships and half an aircraft carrier, again the pro rata carve up is denied by the SNP. But how would 11,000 jobs be supported by such a tiny Scottish navy?

A Trident replacement in due to commence around 2017, I would suspect that will be a serious test of the Union, Scottish MP's will not want scottish taxes to pay for it. Certainly any more foreign adventures might also force a political split. Could the rest of the UK pay for it alone?

The SNP claims that the Scottish GDP would be 120 billion so a 2% independent spend would equate to 2.5 ish billion per year. After assets had been hived northwards, what would 2.5 billion pay for?? Also what impact would the loss of GDP to England, Wales and N Ireland be and how much would the defence budget fall by? Would the current procurement plans, eg astutes, Type 45's F35 be possible to budget for??

As Tusa suggests, would The Royal Navy (minus the scots) order vessels from Scottish yards at Govan and the Clyde? Surely untenable to the English, welsh and N Irish taxpayers? The Labour Defence Minister Adam Ingram seems to agree as he stated this in the election campaign.

Although many foreign posters might not forsee a split in the UK, it was clear that Labour used the point in its unsuccessful campain. Independence for scotland is now fully on the political map in the UK.

In terms of the Royal Navy I hope it doesnt mean further downsizing, to lose 10% of a budget would be serious. I doubt the average English taxpayer would want to pay more tax.
 

Dave H

New Member
....But on a good note, HMS Astute is launched in four weeks.

There is a good video tour on the BBC website.
 

type45

New Member
In reality we would lose very little if Scotland split. The scots have a population of roughly 5 million. Of them only 420,000 actually add something to the British economy. The rest take. In many ways England, North Ire, and Wales actually pay for most Scottish services. Once the Scotish oil runs out, the economy of Scotland is going to be in a very tricky situation indeed if it doesnt learn to diversify. The defence budget without Scotland would actually grow due to more money overall being available. Scotland is a burden. Let them go and see how far they get.

Nice to see another Type 45 launches aswell. Wouldnt mind seeing a few more ordered though.
 

icelord

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
would the prospect of scotlands independance hamper any form of upgrades to scottish bases and lead to more funds being diverted to others. would they get any equipment and ships if they broke away, or simply cut off completely by the MOD. How would the scots regiments be dealt with, while most likely keeping the current equipment would they also not recieve upgrades? Does anyone really consider this possible, they have 3 years to get support, and britain had 3 years to find ways to force them to tough it out, best of luck to them!
 

type45

New Member
I would expect that the nuclear deterrent force would be moved to Devonport if Scotland did break away. We are assuming though that scotland would break away with defence. I think if Scotland did opt for independence we would still stay in Union as far as defence and foreign affairs where concerned. I mean if Scotland broke away from the union they would lose the UN Security council seat and lose a powerful and well equipt armed forces. So if independence did happen I think defence and foreign affairs would still be handled from London. Just a theory though.
 

WillS

Member
The UK defence situation may have moved on somewhat in the last week following the local elections. With the SNP having 47 MSP's and claiming some 32.9% of the vote it seems to me that the question of Trident and the nuclear attack subs is going to cause a military headache for the MOD.

The political field come the next election and beyond may mean that basing Trident or SSNs in Scotland becomes untenable to a Nationalist Dominated Scottish Parliament who want independence.
Sorry but you've got this wrong. The Scottish parliament is not 'dominated' by the Nationalists. The SNP are the largest party (by one seat) but not a majority. Polls show that support for independence runs much lower than the SNP's election support - in other words, not all SNP voters vote with independence in mind or even with independence as a desirable goal.

There's higher percentage support in England for Scottish independence than there is in Scotland (mostly because we're fed up with Scottish whining).

If anything this vote might swing things in favour of the RN as the Scottish Gordon Brown might be keen to show his countrymen how the union benefits them economically.

WillS
 

stuuu28

New Member
In reality we would lose very little if Scotland split. The scots have a population of roughly 5 million. Of them only 420,000 actually add something to the British economy. The rest take. In many ways England, North Ire, and Wales actually pay for most Scottish services. Once the Scotish oil runs out, the economy of Scotland is going to be in a very tricky situation indeed if it doesnt learn to diversify. The defense budget without Scotland would actually grow due to more money overall being available. Scotland is a burden. Let them go and see how far they get.

Nice to see another Type 45 launches as well. Wouldn't mind seeing a few more ordered though.
Where do you get these numbers from? you've bee reading to many right wing tabloid papers by the sound of it ;)

Consider how much tax each citizen pays towards running the civil service mainly based in the south east and the figures about Scotland being subsidised would look very different.

What about manning problems, generally Scotland makes up about 10% of armed forces, if that was removed would the rest of the UK be able to back fill it, or would there be a cut in commitments?

Finally who wants a Trident base on there doorstep ;)
 

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
The political field come the next election and beyond may mean that basing Trident or SSNs in Scotland becomes untenable to a Nationalist Dominated Scottish Parliament who want independence.
Dave, you're being hysterical. The SNP is in the worst possible situation possible. They're the largest party but cannot form a majority coalition. However they can't be rescued by a Labour-led government, as the Lib Dems have ruled out an alliance with them.

There will be no independence referendum, nor any moves to split up the UK. The SNP will thus have to justify itself at the next Scottish election after several years of failed government. Scottish Indepedence has been dealt a long-term blow in my opinion.

More importantly, there is no need for the UK to lose any bases, etc to Scotland. They could have independence but we still keep those shipyards, etc because Westminster is still the ultimate authority and reserves rights over sovereignty.
 
Top