The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
It would be in both countries interests to work together to find, protect and extract resources. Otherwise the chinese or the americans or the russians will start sinking wells and pumping oil/gas.

I think there are other british territories that may come under threat than the faulkies.
 

Vanguard

New Member
One thing to look at other than carriers is the more important amphibious assault capabilities. Argentina have two modified transport ships neither of which are modern-built or specialist vessels and thus could only put about a Battalion at most (less if they want reasonable amounts of vehicles which would be imperative if they are to capture all major points of interest quickly) and half a dozen helicopters into the area. After that they would be relying on Hercules transports assuming that they could somehow secure Mount Pleasant airbase or Stanley airport (although I am unsure what the condition of the extension is at the moment and as to whether or not it could take a Herc).

The British on the other hand could quite easily put together an amphibious fleet of five or six modern dedicated amphibious warfare ships; most likely one of the two helicopter carriers (probably the Ocean with Lusty outfitted for AsW), the Argus which would initially serve as a helicopter carrier on the way down there before reverting to medical/auxiliary ship, and then three of the LPD/LSDs with the others following up in a few weeks with additional troops/supplies. In addition to those you have the Fort Class vessels (Austin and Rosaline having recently been heavily upgraded) that can carry a reasonable amount of men and any taken up commercial vessels. That would therefore allow them to put onshore rapidly several thousand Royal Marines, probably augmented by either the Parachute Regiment (as happened last time) or other Commonwealth units, most likely Australian Commandos (these do Marines training but can’t be called Marines as it is offensive to Aboriginals) who are now a very capable amphibious force. These units would then be able to link up with what’s left of the Grenadier Guards, RAF Regiment and FIDF and coordinate some sort of counter attack. Not to mention the fact that this time the Royal Air Force is in a position to use paratroopers, having C-17s available, that it could not use in ’82 and the British Army is considerably more manoeuvrable than it was back then.

On a anti-ship/submarine field, assuming the British dedicate one of their carriers to carrying armed up Merlins and Lynxes, the Royal Navy should be easily able to counter the Argentine Navy which have only a few decent ships (aging MEKO frigate/destroyers) and at best maybe three submarines. Heck even without the carrier if there are enough free Trafalgars/Astutes they could probably sink the Argentine Navy within a week – or at least take out enough to make them run scared like last time.

On the comment regarding other British Overseas Territories there are only two that are at present in a state of conflict, Gibraltar which is extremely unlikely to face military action and the British Indian Ocean Territory which is defended by several hundred US Marines and most likely F-22s that would easily wipe out the small ocean nations that claim it. Other than that the Caribbean territories are fairly sound, the Pitcairns only border the French, St Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cuhna all have no outstanding problems and South Georgia (and the BAT) is caught up with the Falklands.

For states with treaties signed with Britain there is Belize yes but I doubt Guatemala would attempt anything, unless another military coup takes place, against Belize out of sheer fear at what Britain and Canada would do to them, besides we have troops there too. Those in the Pacific are probably most scared of Fiji doing something crazy but the Aussies would probably be on them in a second if they did try anything funny, I doubt Indonesia would have much cause to attack PNG unless it got caught in a war over West Papua. There is Zimbabwe in Africa which I would say is more likely to be a Libya scenario, we’ve already saved Malta recently and then there is Cyprus of course which is a very complex issue and would fit into its own category.
 

ComeonBritain

New Member
Future Suface fleet size.

This thread is about the future size of the Royal navies Destroyers and Frigate fleet. So far, 13 type 26s are planned and only 6 type 45s. The 13 frigates are also planned to replace several other minor vessels, further reducing the navies size. It seems today that the current government are acting as the architects of our own hell. But I was wondering if there was any plans for more type 45s, type 26s or any increase in numbers.
Cheers - Jack.:p:
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Commonwealth units, most likely Australian Commandos (these do Marines training but can’t be called Marines as it is offensive to Aboriginals) who are now a very capable amphibious force.
Not so sure about that. While Australia going to get a lot of amphibous training soon, and certainly has units capable of working with an amphibious force, I wouldn't call them marines as such. Like most in the ADF they tend to be more broadly trained to fit in with ADF limitations in terms of equipment (do everything type units), but they aren't marines (and its nothing to do with the aborigionals).

Other than that the Caribbean territories are fairly sound, the Pitcairns only border the French, St Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cuhna all have no outstanding problems and South Georgia (and the BAT) is caught up with the Falklands.
Its the southern hemisphere territories I think will slip away. the Uk might seed them to another nation for protection if a few enterprising nations want to contest them. How much would the chinese have to offer the 35 ish pitcairns residents to build a base or just take one of the larger uninhabited islands.

Those in the Pacific are probably most scared of Fiji doing something crazy but the Aussies would probably be on them in a second if they did try anything funny
Like have a coo and install a military regime and then kick out Australian diplomats and nationalise companies? Oops. Australia will do something about that as soon as we have an amphib that can go out past sydney heads under her own power..

I doubt Indonesia would have much cause to attack PNG unless it got caught in a war over West Papua.
Maybe Im being picky, but PNG was never British territory (AFAIK). It was passed from the germans to the Australians. PNG is unstable to say the least, Indonesia is fragile. While something may happen here, I don't think anyone is expecting the british to turn up to save the day but the UK did play an important role in East Timor. Malaysia and Singapore however were previous protectorates so still some obligations there.
 

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
From what I've heard they are.
I'm pretty sure the c3 will undergo some minehunting roles not to sure though.
C3 no longer exists, at least under that project code.

It has been replaced by the MHPC (Mine Countermeasures, Hydrographic and Patrol Capability) program.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
From what I've heard they are.
I'm pretty sure the c3 will undergo some minehunting roles not to sure though.
C3 died a while back - have a look in the existing Royal Navy thread, which is where this could probably have been posted.

The original C1, C2, C3 ships have been reshuffled, Type 26 will be the C1 category, C2 has been either dropped or rolled into other ships and is longer being pursued. C3 is now effectively the MHPC and again, there's discussion on that in the existing Royal Navy thread. Just ignore any posts from 1805 because he talks tosh.

In respect to your original question about increased hull numbers, I shall be relieved if we manage a 1:1 replacement of Type 23.

Ian
 
Last edited:

Vanguard

New Member
Not so sure about that. While Australia going to get a lot of amphibous training soon, and certainly has units capable of working with an amphibious force, I wouldn't call them marines as such. Like most in the ADF they tend to be more broadly trained to fit in with ADF limitations in terms of equipment (do everything type units), but they aren't marines (and its nothing to do with the aborigionals).
Their training is effectively the same as the Royal Marines/Dutch Marines and since the raising of 2 Commando they have done more amphibious exercises, assuming they can get the ships to launch them from, in anticipation of the arrival of the Canberras. I would agree they are probably more generalised than the Royal Marines who have the advantage of sharing the Commando workload with the Paras and as such they may not do as much of a focus on amphibious operations justifying them to be called Marines. As for the Marines I remember this coming up a few years ago in the SMH when the Labor Gov't first came to power and brought the Canberras that they were looking at forming a dedicated amphibious unit as a possibility some Aboriginals kicked of about the idea of calling them Marines due to their involvement in the First Fleet and early colonialism, the idea was then shelved and became 2 Commando.

Its the southern hemisphere territories I think will slip away. the Uk might seed them to another nation for protection if a few enterprising nations want to contest them. How much would the chinese have to offer the 35 ish pitcairns residents to build a base or just take one of the larger uninhabited islands.
New Zealand is a possibility, they use their currency and run a lot of supplies out through there, but I doubt anyone would really want to take it over there have been several ideas regarding building a base there but its generally accepted that its near on impossible - if you ever watch the videos of how you get on land there you'll see why.

Like have a coo and install a military regime and then kick out Australian diplomats and nationalise companies? Oops. Australia will do something about that as soon as we have an amphib that can go out past sydney heads under her own power..
I was thinking more broader, i.e. trying to use military force against neighbouring states, we all know that Australia is very accepting of military coups and that they will willingly send thousands of tourists to rebuild their economy the week after.

Maybe Im being picky, but PNG was never British territory (AFAIK). It was passed from the germans to the Australians. PNG is unstable to say the least, Indonesia is fragile. While something may happen here, I don't think anyone is expecting the british to turn up to save the day but the UK did play an important role in East Timor. Malaysia and Singapore however were previous protectorates so still some obligations there.
I would agree it would not be a requirement, if there was going to be a deployment I doubt it would be that large, but they may the less send over the Gurkhas in Brunei or anything else they have in the region (usually something, think at the moment its a Eurofighter Squadron). For Malaysia there would of course be the requirements set out in the Five Powers treaty which was part of the reason Taurus '09 went out that way to train in the event that Thailand becomes extremely unstable on the western portion of Malaysia.
 

Vanguard

New Member
The only real chance of an extension of orders is if someone like UKIP got elected in either 2015 or 2020. They are currently drafting their new defence policy, there old one predates SDSR, which should give us some ideas of what they could do. I personally do not think they will form government unless its with a euro-sceptic run Tory party in 2015 (very slim chance) but they should be able to get some seats in parliament to pressure for a stronng defence policy. Other than that unless there is a war that would justify more frigates and destroyers it is unlikely the other major parties will push for it and it will more likely be a struggle for them to get to the thirteen ships order.
 

imperialman

New Member
Since I'm very pro-interventions, the UKIP defence policy "UKIP believes that British forces should not be involved in the Libyan situation" is rather worrying. Could they be saying that to simply get some support from a few anti-war voters?
 

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
1 and 2 Commando Regiments are not are not an Australian version of the Royal Marines.

The 3 Commando Brigade and its constituent units are part of the regular military even though they have additional training as commandos.

1 & 2 Cmdo are part of special operations (SOCOMD), if they need to be compared to a UK unit they should be compared to 1 PARA.
 
Last edited:

mug

New Member
Picking back up on the topic of the Falklands, this from yesterday's Telegraph:

Argentina launches naval campaign to isolate Falkland Islands

Argentina has launched a naval campaign to isolate the Falkland Islands that has seen it detain Spanish fishing vessels on suspicion of breaking the country’s “blockade” of the seas around the British territories.

By Fergus MacErlean 8:28PM GMT 05 Dec 2011

Argentine patrol vessels have boarded 12 Spanish boats, operating under fishing licences issued by the Falkland Islands, for operating “illegally” in disputed
waters in recent weeks.

Argentine patrol commanders carrying out interceptions near the South American coast told Spanish captains they were in violation of Argentina’s “legal” blockade of sea channels to the Falklands.

The warning has been backed up in a letter to Aetinape, the Spanish fishing vessels association from the Argentine embassy in Madrid warning boats in the area that “Falklands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and adjoining maritime spaces are an integral part of the Argentine territory.”

The confrontation strategy targetting foreign boats marks an escalation of tensions in seas that Duke of Cambridge, a Flight Lieutenant with the RAF, is set to patrol during a tour of duty last year.

The Duke is to be deployed to the Falklands next February as part of a routine training duties. Commanders would face the dilemma of despatching the Royal to take part in an operations to monitor or contain the Argentine challenge.

President Cristina Kirchner has adopted a steadily more beligerent stance towards Britain’s South Atlantic possessions.

A newly formed gathering of South American nations meeting in Venezeula backed Argentina’s sovereignty demands at the weekend.

Argentina’s claim over the Falklands was backed by a newly formed block of South American and Caribbean countries, CELAC, on Saturday with unanimous approval. Mrs Kirchner used the last UN General Assembly meeting to put Argentina’s claims of sovereignty over the Falklands on a par with Palestinian claims to statehood.

But it is the Falklands economic lifeline that has been most affected by Argentinian maneuvering.

It announced permits were required by all ships using Argentine waters en route to the Falklands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, all of which are UK controlled.

Argentina declared vessels were “operating illegally” in the South Atlantic if they did not request permission to enter Argentine waters. The authorities declared their willingness “to put an end to all those illegal fishing activities”.

The vessels, from Galicia, were boarded as they were making their way across the huge Rio de la Plata estuary, which separates Argentina and Uruguay, before off-loading their catches in Montevideo, Uruguay.

Mrs Kirchner, 58, has also threatened to suspend a vital Falklands air link — the only one off the islands — which was established in a 1999 deal between the UK and Argentina unless Britain entered into talks leading to sovereignty negotiations.
A Foreign Office spokesman said Britain had lodged an official complaint about the Argentine action. “We are aware that Argentina has recently challenged vessels transiting between the Falklands and the port of Montevideo,” the spokesman said. “The UK has protested to Argentina. We consider that it is not compliant with international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Mike Summers, a member of the Falkland Islands legislative assembly, said Argentina was trying to cut the Islands off from the South American mainland. “The Falkland Islands Government has no doubt about its right to issue licenses to foreign companies to fish in its waters,” he said. “There have been other difficulties in recent months with Falklands flagged vessels seeking to use South American ports; Argentina seeks to prevail on its neighbours to implement its foreign policy for it, by denying access to their ports for vessels doing business in the Falklands.”
It appears that military activity is clearly not the only card up the Argentinian sleeve ...
 
Last edited:

spsun100001

New Member
I saw that article Mug and found it interesting.

A direct confrontation is unlikely for all of the good reasons mentioned in recent posts with respect to the fact that Argentinian capability has deteriorated even more than that of the British since the 1982 conflict.

However, a combination of political pressure and martime harassment seems much more practical. The political aspect would come from pressuring other sympathetic South American countries into refusing to allow shipping in transit to and from the islands and their fisheries to use their ports.

The maritime harassment could come from arresting trawlers, cutting their nets, confiscating catches etc. and then making off before the RN could intervene.

I think we would find it hard to respond to that kind of campaign. The harassment would not be sufficient to trigger a shooting war so we would have to respond by a visible presence to stop the Argentine's interfering with vessels going about their lawful business around the Falklands.

The Argentinians would not need to use warships to interfere with shipping - ocean going tugs and offshore support vessels etc. could easily be used as they were by Iceland during the Cod Wars. That would enable Argentina to have a lot of ships involved in disruptive operations.

Our stupid governements stupid decision to have no martime patrol aircraft could make co-ordinating a response difficult. Our single warship, patrol ship and RFA would not be sufficient assets to be everywhere they need to be (particularly given the lack of co-ordination that results from having no MPA). I imagine we would have to try to put loads of C130's with the Mk1 eyeball or some AWACS or Seaking AEW into Mount Pleasant to try to monitor hostile shipping movements but whilst I don't know the capabilities of those platforms in terms of martime monitoring I doubt they would be as good as a proper MPA.

We could probably send another River, maybe a couple of warships and another RFA on a surge basis but I doubt we'd have the ability to keep those sort of numbers of assets there for any length of time given that I imagine every ship there would need two others in transit/refit/work up to maintain that force level.

I think we would probably need to try to lease commercial shipping (most probably offshore support ships from North Sea operations) from civilian companies, put some RN personnel on them to supplement their crews and some Royal Marines with small arms for self protection and use those.

I could defnitely see Argentina being able to have a big economic impact on the Falklands ability to generate fishing income and disrupt oil exploration using these tactics.

Had our stupid government made sensible decisions we would have been able to use MR4's or MR2's to easily spot the Argentine surface units and intercept them using a mixed group of warships, patrol vessels and leased offshore support vessels. Now I imagine the lack of an MPA would mean more ships would be needed to secure the maritime area due to having to use platforms for the detection and co-ordination role that lack proper MPA capabilities.
 
Last edited:

Vanguard

New Member
Remember that the Protector and Scott are also regularly in that area and could offer help if and when required.

We could probably send another River, maybe a couple of warships and another RFA on a surge basis but I doubt we'd have the ability to keep those sort of numbers of assets there for any length of time given that I imagine every ship there would need two others in transit/refit/work up to maintain that force level.
The other River vessels are smaller than HMS Clyde, lacking things like the helipad, and are not designed for operations in the South Atlantic like it is. Besides the three they have at home are already so overworked I doubt they would get one free to do that. Maybe a minehunter though, they have 30mm cannons, and could double up as a emergency patrol boat if needed. We've done that in the Gulf before, as have other nations.
 

Sea Toby

New Member
The British should build their QE carriers as they are going to last up to fifty years. At a later date they can buy proper fighters for them which I am sure they will. Meanwhile have other nations operate Harriers and other naval aircraft off them when necessarily required.

I recall the first will be with a ski ramp, and the second will have EMALs catapults. Eventually the British would like to retrofit the EMALs to the first carrier. And it appears the British will be buying at least enough F-35C aircraft for one carrier, hopefully both carriers.

Building the carriers for Falklands operations is a poor excuse to buy and build them anyway.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
Had our stupid government made sensible decisions we would have been able to use MR4's or MR2's to easily spot the Argentine surface units and intercept them using a mixed group of warships, patrol vessels and leased offshore support vessels. Now I imagine the lack of an MPA would mean more ships would be needed to secure the maritime area due to having to use platforms for the detection and co-ordination role that lack proper MPA capabilities.
I don't think killing MR4 was entirely the wrong thing - by all accounts it was starting to look like a total crock, sad to say.

In terms of controlling the waters around the FI - I understand there's a dedicated surveillance aircraft down there plus a flight of Typhoon - if you wanted to ramp anything up, well, there's all sorts of UAV's being freed up as we depart Afghanistan that would do the job fine.

Besides, these are Spanish ships, out fishing under license granted by the FI company. Technically, I'd suggest the Spanish could always pop down and pitch in eh?

Ian
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
Building the carriers for Falklands operations is a poor excuse to buy and build them anyway.
I'm actually campaigning for the equivalent of Godwin's law to be applied to RN discussions - not sure if you're familiar with Godwin's law but it applied to the tendency of anyone in internet debate to end up calling someone a Nazi, and by implication, it's come to mean you're out of ideas and have lost the argument.

In terms of carriers, I'd suggest that the second you fall back on "what if we need to retake the Falklands Islands" as an argument in favour of carriers, you've lost the argument.

There's bags of healthy sensible reasons for a modern sea faring nation to want fixed wing carrier strike, but taking some Islands 7,000 miles away from a 2nd world power isn't it - if we lost the Islands this time around, we deserve to be sent home for an early bath and no supper before bedtime.

Ian
 
Top