The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[WillS]

finally some who doesn't think the RN is going to hell in a hand cart

Don't get me wrong, I think the RN is seriously underfunded. But let's be realistic here, there's no UK political party that is going to correct that state of affairs.

Discussions about the RN's future, given that sad fact, should concentrate on what is achievable and what the force balance should be given the existing budget and in line with the UK's needs, not dictated by a series of silly tabloid-style willy-waving contests with the French.

Personally I don't care how many escorts the Navy has to sacrifce to get those carriers. Given that they'll never be allowed out of harbour without a serious escort, they are the best chance the RN has of ensuring decent minimum escort numbers in the future.

Of course, if they are cancelled. I'm emigrating

Will.

 

[overlander]

what is the minimum r.n. strenght required

many people in this forum write that the number os escorts is not important, These heavy cuts will finish some day ?? or they will not stop until the r.n. be a coastal force, if in only 4 years the number of escorts is being cutted from 32 to 19, what happen if later they decided to cut to 11 and later to 7, somebody in the british ministry of defence (alias ministry of cuts) knows the minimum required ?? maybe for them and for some people in this forum is enough with 1 type 45 destroyer, ??? because with so heavy and fast cuts this is the total number of escorts i see not far in the horizon. They promised in 2004 that the cut in 6 escorts, 6 minehunters etc it was to save money for 2 other type 45 and the cvf, now they say they need further savings, they practically cancel these 2 extra type 45 and still we don,t know if they will approve the carriers, maybe in 2 years they invented other excuse to save money and this way the never ending story until as some naval journalist and experts SAY the r.n. be a coastal force, experts as richard beedall predicted in 2002 that the r.n strength would be only 18 escorts in 2008, they say about him that time he was a catastrophic predictor and nearly a stupid but now his predictions are nearly to be exact, these reduction in the escort force will end some day ?? by now i can say NO.

 

[contedicavour]

Let's face the facts :
> the UK economy, though still strong, is less dynamic than before and inflation is increasing so fast that interest rates will have to be increased further reducing the economy's growth
> budget deficits are increasing really fast as Labour has seriously increased most budgets in health, education and other worthy causes (shame it hasn't improved their performance )
> defence-wise, overseas missions are at a record since WW2 or the Korean War, and unfortunately for the Navy take place in areas often hundreds of miles away from shore.
> military procurement programmes have a bad tendency to end up costing a lot more than budgeted

=> what would you expect other than a reduction in numbers ....

cheers (nonetheless )

 

[overlander]

Let's face the facts :
> the UK economy, though still strong, is less dynamic than before and inflation is increasing so fast that interest rates will have to be increased further reducing the economy's growth
> budget deficits are increasing really fast as Labour has seriously increased most budgets in health, education and other worthy causes (shame it hasn't improved their performance )
> defence-wise, overseas missions are at a record since WW2 or the Korean War, and unfortunately for the Navy take place in areas often hundreds of miles away from shore.
> military procurement programmes have a bad tendency to end up costing a lot more than budgeted

=> what would you expect other than a reduction in numbers ....

cheers (nonetheless )

this what you say is true but if you look for example France has a little less powerful economy that Britain (G.D.P. is less than the british) however they dedicate 35% more money to defence and this is because they have not all the constant problems and shortages in the defence budget that Britain has, maybe because the reasons you mentioned, the problem is that i am sure if some day conservatives return to government they will make the same, british politicians have not defence between their priorities.

 

[Waylander]

Have there been any big changes in the last two years?
In 2005 France had a budget of 2.6% and the UK of 2.4%.
Looking at a slightly bigger economy in the UK I don't see France spending 35% percent more than the UK.

And stop whining we only spend ca. 1.3% of our GDP.

 

[WillS]

this what you say is true but if you look for example France has a little less powerful economy that Britain (G.D.P. is less than the british) however they dedicate 35% more money to defence

This is not correct. The British and French defence budgets are almost identical. People get confused because the quoted French budgets often include funding for gendarmerie forces that are not part of the normal defence infrastructure.

The French navy has budget problems of its own, they have lots of units but also lots of equipment prolems. They are struggling with some outdated equipment and their warfighting stocks (especially missiles) are very low. Like the Royal Navy, the French are facing some hard decisions in the future like how many FREMMS can they afford and will they really order the next two Horizon ships?

WillS

 

[ren0312]

Have there been any big changes in the last two years?
In 2005 France had a budget of 2.6% and the UK of 2.4%.
Looking at a slightly bigger economy in the UK I don't see France spending 35% percent more than the UK.

And stop whining we only spend ca. 1.3% of our GDP.

I really don't see why Germany having a defense budget that is well below the NATO requirement of 2 per cent of GDP is a cause for joy for the UK, that is like saying that the UK is the best performer among a class of dunces so it should be happy.

 

[WillS]

I really don't see why Germany having a defense budget that is well below the NATO requirement of 2 per cent of GDP is a cause for joy for the UK, that is like saying that the UK is the best performer among a class of dunces so it should be happy.

Misery loves company.

 

[riksavage]

The following extract is taken from an article in Guardian written by Max Hastings, an experienced war reporter / defense analyst. Basically he’s bemoaning the performance of the MOD following the Iranian hostage cock-up.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2068342,00.html

“A soldier should always hold Stirrup's job ( current head of armed forces). Admirals and air marshals, today bureaucrats in uniform rather than warriors, lack the perspective, knowledge and experience credibly to preside over the armed forces. We shall not again have to fight either the Battle of the Atlantic or the Battle of Britain. Anti-submarine warfare platforms and high-level interceptors are almost redundant. They represent negligible priorities, alongside the army's need for infantrymen, helicopters and armoured vehicles to fight real wars in real places.

His comments are quite perceptive, the UK army is the one doing the lions share of the fighting in the asymmetric war in both Iraq and Afghanistan, this is likely to remain the case for some considerable time. Money will ultimately be directed towards the fighting arm under the most pressure, and the one constantly in the public eye, in today’s arena that’s the army in the UK.

Unless we see a sudden rise in potential blue water navies, the RN will, I’m afraid continue to suffer. Even with China’s continued expansion we are still some way off from seeing them become a serious challenge to the West when bechmarked against NATO.

 

[Rich]

We shall not again have to fight either the Battle of the Atlantic or the Battle of Britain. Anti-submarine warfare platforms and high-level interceptors are almost redundant. They represent negligible priorities, alongside the army's need for infantrymen, helicopters and armoured vehicles to fight real wars in real places.

I dont agree. You cant change defense priorities just because of the one mini-War you are currently fighting. I'm not saying the ground troops should be shorted but you only have to look around the world, and at the proliferation of high tech SSKs, And, fighter aircraft, to see that this would be a dangerous course to follow.

Britain is a maritime nation dependant on maritime trade. She has a big stake in the free and uninterrupted flow of maritime commerce. This is as true now as its ever been.

His comments are quite perceptive, the UK army is the one doing the lions share of the fighting in the asymmetric war in both Iraq and Afghanistan,

Again, you simply cant base your defense spending solely on today's realities on the ground in the GWOT.

Unless we see a sudden rise in potential blue water navies, the RN will, I’m afraid continue to suffer. Even with China’s continued expansion we are still some way off from seeing them become a serious challenge to the West when bechmarked against NATO.

You are seeing an explosion of navies and they dont necessarily have to be "blue water" to be a threat. Of particular concern is the explosion of modern submarines, I say this again, because I think its going to be a threat that is going to grow. If I had to fight one of the large western navies that's the way I would go. With modern SSKs, modern maritime strike aircraft, and modern AshMs.

I'm getting the sense that there is a very real chance these carriers wont get built. That would be a very big mistake.

 

[riksavage]

I strongly believe the carriers will be built, simply because it allows for a piece of Britian to be moved anywhere in the world to support ground operations without the need to rely on a host nation. No point having a comprehensive amphibious capability (3-Commado Brigade and associated lift), without the ability to provide air-support. I do believe however we will see a gap in capability as the Invincible class ships become obsolete before the new carriers come on-line.

As far as spending priorities go, we can’t ignore the here and now, and whether we like it or not that is concentrated on running high-density ground campaigns to neutralize terrorist threats in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Both locations represent a 'clear and present danger,' not 'what if' scenarios likely to appear on the radar screens in years to come.

 

[overlander]

do you think that ??

I strongly believe the carriers will be built, simply because it allows for a piece of Britian to be moved anywhere in the world to support ground operations without the need to rely on a host nation. No point having a comprehensive amphibious capability (3-Commado Brigade and associated lift), without the ability to provide air-support. I do believe however we will see a gap in capability as the Invincible class ships become obsolete before the new carriers come on-line.

As far as spending priorities go, we can’t ignore the here and now, and whether we like it or not that is concentrated on running high-density ground campaigns to neutralize terrorist threats in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Both locations represent a 'clear and present danger,' not 'what if' scenarios likely to appear on the radar screens in years to come.

i don,t think so, first because for british politicians defence is not important, is just a mandatory spending /(by now) do you think they worry if Britain will have 2 deployable platforms at sea all over the world ?? i think no, they try to save as much money as possible in defence, secondly for public opinion defence is not import too, with these 2 premises i am not sure at all like you that the 2 carriers will be built, they announce a defence review ( in reality more heavy cuts) for October - November so as many defence experts say we have to see what part of defence will be cutted this time, maybe they cancel the cvf project or just as usually they will cut numbers of soldiers, fighters, tanks and ships, we will see but what is clear is that in a few months Britain will suffer another heavy cuts in the strenght of defence capàbilities.

 

[swerve]

...but what is clear is that in a few months Britain will suffer another heavy cuts in the strenght of defence capàbilities.

No, that is not clear. It is your opinion. Or rather, your wish. What is clear is that you ardently desire British decline, & incessantly seek signs of it, often seeing what does not exist.

Why?

 

[RubiconNZ]

Maybe he's Scottish nfloorl:

 

[overlander]

No, that is not clear. It is your opinion. Or rather, your wish. What is clear is that you ardently desire British decline, & incessantly seek signs of it, often seeing what does not exist.

My dear friend, you are totally wrong. i am not happy with these reductions i would like that the british defence budget increase, that instead to buid 2 new carriers (we will see) they built 4, this is because i am not happy with these cuts, it,s not nice for me to see this decreasing in defence capabilities, especially in the navy because i always have admired the history of the R.N. and i don,t like to see how is declining. if you consider that they are not planning further cuts is that you are blind, you don,t read so many articles in the british press regarding mothballing and cuts in ships ??, about pressure on defence budget ?? you don,t hear about this defence review (cuts) in october, november ?? and i am not scottish, i am Spanish.
)

 

[swerve]

...
My dear friend, you are totally wrong. i am not happy with these reductions i would like that the british defence budget increase, that instead to buid 2 new carriers (we will see) they built 4, this is because i am not happy with these cuts, it,s not nice for me to see this decreasing in defence capabilities, especially in the navy because i always have admired the history of the R.N. and i don,t like to see how is declining. if you consider that they are not planning further cuts is that you are blind, you don,t read so many articles in the british press regarding mothballing and cuts in ships ??, about pressure on defence budget ?? you don,t hear about this defence review (cuts) in october, november ?? and i am not scottish, i am Spanish.
)

If you're truly unhappy with British naval cuts, then you could show it by not arguing with anyone who shows you how you've overestimated them, & not seeming pleased on the rare occasions when you're right. If you want a model for how to be gloomy about the Royal Navy while supporting it, I suggest Richard Beedall - http://navy-matters.beedall.com/
His criticisms are constructive. Yours read like attacks on the RN.

Errors in press reports (e.g. counting ships in refit or repair as "mothballed", or "cut") have been pointed out to you. It's also been pointed out to you that press speculation is not government policy, even when it originates with off the record briefings. Sometimes the government deliberately "leaks" plans which don't exist, to see what reaction they get. Believing that becuase there is press speculation (not "reports") something is necessarily going to happen is foolish. There have been press reports of the imminent signing of the CVF contract for months. You dismissed them. Why believe equally unfounded rumours to the contrary? There have been press reports of Rafales being sold to Algeria & Libya. Did you believe them?

 

[Dave H]

Overlander, The Royal Navy has lacked capabilities for many decades now, I dont know what golden era you hark back to?

Submarines are one area where we have been in the top class, we once operated 18 SSN's and around 15 SSK's in the 1970/1980 period. The SSN's are slowly ageing but at least the Astute has a 50% weapon load increase and we should eventually get 8 or 9 as the production and technology needs to be kept open as we have committed to Trident.

The decline in numbers is because the cold war is over. It would have been nice to keep the 4 Upholders but the choice was them or 2 SSN's. I dont know how much per year an upholder would have cost including wages, fuel, maintenance, refits? But in reality would they have seen much action in the last decade?.


Even with a small number of SSN's we still have an exceptionally strong sub fleet.

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.

None of these platforms possess the ability to really project power, in this era of warfare we need the ability to launch land attack missiles, all our current platforms date from the cold war sub hunting era. The RN has been number heavy in frigates but weak in the ability to apply a punch.

The RN of the Falklands with the exception of the harrier on the Invincible and Hermes, could do little more than soak up punishment from a primitive aerial opponent. Had the bombs that hit actually went off we could have lost over 10 ships and hundreds more lives. We struggled to win against an airforce that possessed only 5 exocets and relied on low level attcks with no ECM. The frigates that maneouvered and fought bravely in Falklands sound never had a chance to defend themselves at arms length due to the weapons fit and limitations of design and were there to soak up the bombs that would have wrecked the amphibious forces.

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.

Overlander, you are keen to quote Beedall, I suggest you read his pages on future projects, not just his editorials and section on the carriers, there is a lot of work going on and paid for within the UK defence sector.

 

[overlander]

i will be very happy if finally the new carriers are built, any improvement in british defence is good for western europe, so i hope that finally cuts or not cuts the final result will be less platforms but more capable, Really in my opinion these 2 carriers are very important not only for Britain but also for a credible european defence policy. greetings from Spain.

 

[Waylander]

I really don't see why Germany having a defense budget that is well below the NATO requirement of 2 per cent of GDP is a cause for joy for the UK, that is like saying that the UK is the best performer among a class of dunces so it should be happy.

I see you haven't seen the irony in my sentence about our budget. I thought the smily made it clear but if not I apologize for it.
Let's say it was some kind of weird joke.

Or do you really think I am happy about our budget or that I think that the UK should be happy about us not doing what we should do?

 

[contedicavour]

The British and French defence budgets are almost identical. People get confused because the quoted French budgets often include funding for gendarmerie forces that are not part of the normal defence infrastructure.

The French navy has budget problems of its own, they have lots of units but also lots of equipment prolems. They are struggling with some outdated equipment and their warfighting stocks (especially missiles) are very low. Like the Royal Navy, the French are facing some hard decisions in the future like how many FREMMS can they afford and will they really order the next two Horizon ships?

WillS

Fully agree. The French Navy has budgetary problems of its own. The difference with the UK though is that French politicians are unlikely to scupper high visibility programmes like aircraft carriers for nationalistic reasons. So I'm almost sure France will have 2 carriers (De Gaulle + 1 CVF or modified/conventional-powered De Gaulle if CVF doesn't materialize), but the ships will be defended by a limited escort force.
France is going down to 2 real DDGs and the FREMMs (9 ordered, 8 more planned) are urgently needed to replace '70s vintage ASW escorts (ranging from the big Leygues to the small Avisos). Any cost increase in the Barracuda SSNs or in the new carrier will mean cuts in numbers of FREMMs.
One last thing : a lot of budget gets caught in the nuclear armaments development. Contrary to the UK, France develops everything on its own and that absorbs huge resources.

=> Unless European navies cooperate more closely (for ex the French provide the carriers, the Dutch the escorts, etc) the French Navy will be heavily unbalanced. The RN risks a similar destiny if the CVFs, Astutes and 6-8 type 45s absorb all resources.

cheers