The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Super Nimrod]

We might get a flavour today of what the future brings with Blairs big speech about Britains role in the world. I suspect though all he will be calling for is a debate, so the way forward may not be clear for some time.....

 

[Padfoot]

We might get a flavour today of what the future brings with Blairs big speech about Britains role in the world. I suspect though all he will be calling for is a debate, so the way forward may not be clear for some time.....

What do you guys make of the PM's speech on HMS Albion? I've excerpted the comments appertaining to the Royal Navy.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...nyBlairSpeaksToDefenceInhousePublications.htm

"There will be changes in the degree to which ships are ready for operations at all points in time, but that is something for the Navy to sort out. In respect of the carriers, they are a very important aspect of our future capability.

"The trouble with a lot of this [speculation] is that it is based on leaks or comments, which when looked into don’t turn out to be factually correct. We’ve got the largest warship building programme for decades under way. But the ships will change. There will be different types of ships, but that’s really for the experts to decide based on the capability that we need."

There has been a lot of publicity about reported cuts to the Royal Navy.

We did, of course, need to modernise the Navy. The era dominated by anti-submarine patrols requiring large numbers of frigates was over. Today's Navy needs to be versatile. It does different things. It supports expeditionary forces, in Sierra Leone, Iraq and elsewhere. It helps in disaster relief, in counter terrorism, in evacuating UK citizens from the Lebanon.

So we have made a huge effort to equip the Navy for this task. We have made a massive boost to Britain's amphibious capabilities, such as this extraordinary ship on which we are standing now. We have a generation of new ships, all far more capable than their predecessors: the helicopter carrier HMS Ocean, the four Bay Class landing ships, the strategic sealift ships, new equipment for the Royal Marines, including the Viking vehicle like the one behind me.

And there is a further, massive ship-building programme ahead, a programme that is likely to be worth some £14 billion over the next 10-15 years. The Type 45 destroyers - a generation ahead of the Type 42; new aircraft carriers - twice as big as our existing vessels; new attack submarines now being built.

It does seem that the future of the new carriers is a Fait accompli, and I'm sure the bit about them being 40,000 tons was just a slip of the tongue.


P.S The Telegraph's reporting of the speech was, as usual, first class. lol

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...FWAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/01/13/nblair13.xml

 

[Tasman]

What do you guys make of the PM's speech on HMS Albion? I've excerpted the comments appertaining to the Royal Navy.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...nyBlairSpeaksToDefenceInhousePublications.htm





It does seem that the future of the new carriers is a Fait accompli, and I'm sure the bit about them being 40,000 tons was just a slip of the tongue.


P.S The Telegraph's reporting of the speech was, as usual, first class. lol

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...FWAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/01/13/nblair13.xml

At first glance the speech doesn't tell us much that hasn't been apparent for a while. The comments seem to confirm reports that some ships will be kept at reduced readiness but on the positive side the importance of the amphibious force has been clearly stated. No mention is made re the number of Type 45 destroyers to be acquied. Hopefully the comment about them being "a generation ahead of the Type 42" is not an excuse for a drastic reduction in numbers. As with the amphibious force the comment about the new carriers will, IMO, make it politically difficult for the PM's successor to cancel or curtail this project.

Cheers

 

[Super Nimrod]

Agreed, saying that and then cancelling would be politically very difficult, not just with the UK but also France asuming they want to proceed as well

 

[Seaforth]

Elections for the Scottish Parliament take place on the 3rd May.

Gordon Brown has taken a position to secure the Union (his career and prospects of being PM depend on the continuation of the union between Scotland and England). Refer http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6258089.stm and elsewhere.

The new carriers are planned to be assembled at Rosyth, in Fife, Scotland. Fife also happens to be the region where Gordon Brown's own electorate is located (Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath).

Further, there has been "tittle tattle" that Rosyth could be re-opened as a Royal Navy base to permanently host the operational carriers and allow the closure of Portsmouth.

Looks like the carriers could be valuable political capital for Gordon Brown. Perhaps there might be an announcement on ordering and basing in April?

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Perhaps there might be an announcement on ordering and basing in April?

That doesn't mean the order will go through. Lots of statements get made about the carriers without moving the project towards completion. Hopefully we will see the order going through in a few months, but we could easily have to wait even longer.

 

[mark22w]

That doesn't mean the order will go through. Lots of statements get made about the carriers without moving the project towards completion. Hopefully we will see the order going through in a few months, but we could easily have to wait even longer.

Agreed.

I note the Defence Editor of the Times has reinforced the need for new carriers in addition to the amphibs - but at the expense of ASW fleet units... before your blood boils the article goes on to propose ballistic missile defence based on ship based systems rather than fixed sites - by far the best option IMO. Flexible and mobile.

I think the no 'naval battles' line is overly simplistic but support from the press for defence is a good thing - public awareness in the run up to the next election is critical (it won't happen overnight).

Apaches & Lighting II's rather than Typhoons wins my vote every day! Just need some platforms to operate them from...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1-2544436,00.html

 

[contedicavour]

Agreed.

I note the Defence Editor of the Times has reinforced the need for new carriers in addition to the amphibs - but at the expense of ASW fleet units... before your blood boils the article goes on to propose ballistic missile defence based on ship based systems rather than fixed sites - by far the best option IMO. Flexible and mobile.

I think the no 'naval battles' line is overly simplistic but support from the press for defence is a good thing - public awareness in the run up to the next election is critical (it won't happen overnight).

Apaches & Lighting II's rather than Typhoons wins my vote every day! Just need some platforms to operate them from...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1-2544436,00.html

Just a quick question : if the UK bought full number of Typhoons (232) and F35 (150) then it would reach 382 combat fighters. How does this compare with the situation before the Jaguars were deleted ? How many Tornado IDS, ADV, Jaguar and Harrier did the RAF have ?
Because if everybody agrees the army needs strenghtening, it is highly debatable why the RN should be so severely cut back while the RAF would preserve such a massive strength.

cheers

 

[contedicavour]

another thought

If the RN focuses around the 2 QE carriers and the amphib squadron, why not organize (on a voluntary basis) joint squadrons with complementary navies such as the Netherlands (with their wonderful 4 De Zeven Provincen DDGs) and Norway (with their Nansen FFGs) ?
Other navies can provide the necessary complement in escort ships to a RN which would be short on escorts since funds would have been skewed towards carriers & SSBNs.
There is already a degree of institutionalized collaboration in Europe, for example between Spain and Italy on amphibious operations.
This would also help focus national shipbuilding and defence industries on areas of excellence instead of trying to compete on everything (and inevitably being much more expensive).

cheers

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

If the RN focuses around the 2 QE carriers and the amphib squadron, why not organize (on a voluntary basis) joint squadrons with complementary navies such as the Netherlands (with their wonderful 4 De Zeven Provincen DDGs) and Norway (with their Nansen FFGs) ?

Probably because there's little or no chance those countries would sign up to our foreign policy. Plus their navies are fairly small, so they wouldn't have that many ships to spare.

 

[Grand Danois]

Norway:
Will in due time have 5 very capable AEGIS equipped ASW frigates. It's not that they will be heavily tasked and some probably be assigned to 'international duties'.

Holland:
4 AAW destroyers & 2 M-Class. They are naturals for protecting the Anglo-Dutch amphib group. Can't se that they should not be allowed in protecting a group that includes their own vessels, sailors and marines.

Denmark:
Will be tossing 3 AAW frigates in the sea over the coming years. One will probably be doing 'international duties' on a permanent basis.

Foreign policy - well, Iraq should be the only controversial example recently. And naval cooperation don't tend to be the most sensitive.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Seriously, how reliable do you think those countries would be if we needed their help? Maybe they would say yes in the end, but chances are their respective Parliaments would want to debate the deployment first (especially given the commander would be British), which could take ages. Can you see them helping us to liberate the Falklands? Besides it's not as if we're not getting our own AAW platforms.

In an ideal world we could rely upon our European neighbours for naval support, but at the moment I think it would be daft to rely upon them.

 

[Grand Danois]

There are currently 500 Danish soldiers under UK command in Iraq and 300 under UK command in Afghanistan. In int'l ops Danish forces usually come under UK command, just like the Baltic nations assign their units to Danish command. This is well established.

Denmark has had command of French and US forces in the Balkans.

NRF maritime groups don't pose a problem. French carriers often have a UK escort and vice versa...

So? ()

 

[Tasman]

If the RN focuses around the 2 QE carriers and the amphib squadron, why not organize (on a voluntary basis) joint squadrons with complementary navies such as the Netherlands (with their wonderful 4 De Zeven Provincen DDGs) and Norway (with their Nansen FFGs) ?
Other navies can provide the necessary complement in escort ships to a RN which would be short on escorts since funds would have been skewed towards carriers & SSBNs.
There is already a degree of institutionalized collaboration in Europe, for example between Spain and Italy on amphibious operations.
This would also help focus national shipbuilding and defence industries on areas of excellence instead of trying to compete on everything (and inevitably being much more expensive).

cheers

I think this is an excellent idea.

Along similar lines the USN relies on allied countries to provide assets such as mine warfare vessels and SSKs, together with surface combatants to supplement the carrier groups. Although these are not organised into 'standing' squadrons they exercise together. For operational deployments in the Gulf the USN has proven it can work successfully with allied surface combatants. In the 'good old days' the RN and Commonwealth navies worked closely together. In the 1930s for example RAN cruisers were sometimes attached to RN squadrons in the Med and on the China Station.

There seems no good reason to me why the European Economic Union can't also be a naval union, particularly in the case of countries like Britain and the Netherlands who were once great naval powers.

Cheers

 

[Grand Danois]

The '1000 ship navy'.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

So?

So I'm not sure what you're saying. That we should just flog the Darings to Saudi Arabia and just build carriers? There's no reason not to co-operate with the Europeans, but as is the case with us and the French we don't base our navies on the assumption any holes will be filled by someone else.

 

[Grand Danois]

So I'm not sure what you're saying. That we should just flog the Darings to Saudi Arabia and just build carriers? There's no reason not to co-operate with the Europeans, but as is the case with us and the French we don't base our navies on the assumption any holes will be filled by someone else.

In my prev posts in this thread I have expressed my hope that the RN maintains its number of escorts. There are various ways to do this. However, if every escort is to be the the be-all-end-all of capability in its niche, then escort numbers will go down. Funding and manning.

This leave the options

• The RN settles being able to perform less demanding operations, all on its own, or
  
• use an international security context, US, Europe or both, and tailor its navy accordingly.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

However, if every escort is to be the the be-all-end-all of capability in its niche, then escort numbers will go down. Funding and manning.

I don't think frigate replacements are going to be so expensive that the RN won't be able to do any big operations. A lot of support has been moving behind having a small number of low-end ships to take on those mundane tasks, freeing up the bigger girls for important stuff. At the same time, Blair has recently talked about doing less if the money doesn't go up.

So either we'll cut out the W-Indies patrols, etc, or there will be smaller ships to do that sort of work. Although the defence budget is pretty stretched now, it's not always going to be that way - the politicians would cut & run from Iraq after 2008 if we weren't able to leave, because the Americans sure as hell would.

Though I personally would like to see Europe organise its defence policy better. Problem is that would require certain countries getting off their backsides and spending more money for a start - I don't agree with letting countries participate in big operations if they want to spend less than 2% of GDP on defence.

 

[Grand Danois]

I don't think frigate replacements are going to be so expensive that the RN won't be able to do any big operations. A lot of support has been moving behind having a small number of low-end ships to take on those mundane tasks, freeing up the bigger girls for important stuff. At the same time, Blair has recently talked about doing less if the money doesn't go up.

I'm one of those that would support that.

So either we'll cut out the W-Indies patrols, etc, or there will be smaller ships to do that sort of work. Although the defence budget is pretty stretched now, it's not always going to be that way - the politicians would cut & run from Iraq after 2008 if we weren't able to leave, because the Americans sure as hell would.

Bingo! Things should be looking up. Though, there is in an awful amount of cynicism in the UK media and commentary on defence (and politics in general, btw).

Though I personally would like to see Europe organise its defence policy better. Problem is that would require certain countries getting off their backsides and spending more money for a start - I don't agree with letting countries participate in big operations if they want to spend less than 2% of GDP on defence.

I think only France, UK and Greece spend above 2%. But that is going by my memory.

Anyhow, if Europe was to organise its assets better, it would require the big boys to focus on capabilities that require critical mass - like carriers, amphibs, SSN and SSBN.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Bingo!

This sounds callous, but I'd prefer to stop those operations (even if that means we can't help those that rely upon them), than see the Royal Navy decline into some heavily-armed coastguard that escorts "Christmas-presents-to-Africa".

I think only France, UK and Greece spend above 2%. But that is going by my memory.

I think you're right - which is why the others need to spend more. One reason I don't want to bank on the other Europeans is that I don't think they take defence seriously enough. The Dutch have been a pleasant surprise in Afghanistan, but that's not enough.

Anyhow, if Europe was to organise its assets better, it would require the big boys to focus on capabilities that require critical mass - like carriers, amphibs, SSN and SSBN.

It would basically require a joint naval policy, which would be near impossible without a joint foreign policy (which won't happen in the foreseeable future). The smaller countries would also have to agree to the "European Navy" pretty much being run by us and the French - don't think they'd accept that.