PeterCrisp
Member
Are the Lightnings made in the US and if so shouldn't the current weakness of the dollar be helping us by making things more affordable? Just a thought.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
that helps as well as the UK help funding development which means were unlike to withdraw as we already paid 1 billion.
Also storm shadow and ASRAMM and METEOR are being integrated to the F35
contedicavour
New Member
Wow Storm Shadow integration is a very powerful force multiplier... since we (I mean Italy) have a few (bought for the Tornado IDS originally) then we'll be able to piggyback on the UK's integration. What an improvement vs today's AV8B+ with the Mavericks !
cheers
the F-35 will be far superior to the F-18... and much younger too! The only issues seem to surround airframe numbers, but i am sure in the end the MOD will get the right number to cover the life of the aircraft.
MASC and COD are important finctions that don't seem to have been solved with any great sucess yet. I think a modified V-22 would be the best option if economic and safety issues can be resolved.
In the next 2/3 years the most significant challenges facing the RN are to get units 7-8 of the T-45, get MARS approved, FSC up and running and units 5-8 of Astute... nearly an entire fleet replacement. For now, i think CVF can take a bit of a back seat.
MASC and COD are important finctions that don't seem to have been solved with any great sucess yet. I think a modified V-22 would be the best option if economic and safety issues can be resolved.
In the next 2/3 years the most significant challenges facing the RN are to get units 7-8 of the T-45, get MARS approved, FSC up and running and units 5-8 of Astute... nearly an entire fleet replacement. For now, i think CVF can take a bit of a back seat.
Forgive me if I'm wrong but the F35 can't take off from a containership or a forrest clearing, can it?
windscorpion
New Member
Its a bit early to say what it can do, also the Harrier ended up doing things never envisaged when it was at development stage.
I don't know about forest clearings (I imagine you'd need some kind of ground protection, or it'd ingest an awful lot of soil), but the Harrier has never done that in service. It makes more sense to use a strip of road, or part of a runway, for a short take off, as you can't carry a useful load and take off vertically.
What Harriers have done operationally is be transported to a theatre of war on a container ship with a quickly bodged-up landing platform on deck, take off vertically from there, with no weapons & little fuel, & fly over to a nearby carrier for arming, fuelling, and a loaded, rolling, take-off. I think an F-35B could probably do the same, i.e. not operate off a container ship, but use one as an aircraft transport and, if needed, as a floating hangar.
overlander
Member
If the rumours of cancellation of the PA2 due to restricted budget in the French armed forces are a reality the Royal Navy will be again the first navy in Western Europe after decades of cuts in the budget now the French navy is in the same situation and it will put again the british navy in the 1st position in Europe as it has been in centuries.
Look at it like this:
RN has more 'High end' escorts, Submarines and can field more carriers, Has more minsweepers. (And the FAA might be bigger although i need figures for that).
EDIT: Sorry we have more Landing/Amphib Ships!
BUT
The MN has more 'low end' escorts, more patrol boats and a CVN.
So, as per what I said in the MN discussions thread, trying to compare the two navies is difficult to say the least.
Last edited:
MN more landing ships? Only if you count the Batral LSTs, which have a combined tonnage less than half that of a single Bay-class. The RN (including RFA) has one LPH (Ocean), two LPDs (Albion & Bulwark), & 4 Bay-class LSDs, with a combined tonnage of over 120000 tons. The MN has two LHDs the same size as Ocean, two LPDs smaller than any current British amphib, & 5 small (ca 1300 tons) LSTs, of which 4 are permanently based in the overseas territories. Combined tonnage ca 95000 tons. The RN also has the use of 6 militarised ro-ros capable of being used in an auxiliary amphibious role (follow-up, landing reinforcements & supplies), with a combined tonnage equivalent to its entire amphibious fleet, & which France has no equivalent of.
[Edit] Correction: I accidentally overstated the MNs amphibious tonnage. It is actually ca 75000, not 95000.
Both the RN & MN have other vessels (e.g. training ships) which would, if needed, be used as auxiliary amphibs. I've not counted them. They don't change the overall balance significantly, more or less cancelling each other out.
Last edited:
Sorry, I forgot to edit it earlier, as somebody already pointed out my mistake on the other thread. :dunce
The MN is - due to their responsibilities - better-equipped towards forward/overseas permanent deployment, with high-endurance patrol boats and ships, as well as pre-packaged intervention groups with appropriately sized landing ships in their respective regions.
The RN only has one area for which such a layout would be suitable (the Carribbean) - however, packaging such a layout only for that simply isn't cost-effective. The MN does draw a lot of use from unitary classes for all their overseas responsibilities, backed up by a limited set of special-purpose ships (e.g. ice-capable patrol, long-range ocean patrol, harbour-independant logistics support).
The RN, as opposed to that, uses a single small class of overseas patrol ships (Island class), supplanted by regular fleet units - including amphibs in different roles lately btw.
On a direct comparison, all such ships and boats would have to be disregarded. Same for any schooling ships, since the systems there are plainly different. A number of other capabilities are equal between both forces - take the strategic forces for example, and the escorts assigned to those.
What's turns out different in the end is that France has a offensive strike power projection capability (through CdG)*, while the RN's own carriers are geared more towards a supporting role, be it ground support with Harriers or helo transport. The RN "compensates" that through having a far larger amphibious force; on a closer look though the RN is geared towards a large "heavy" landing and support capability in amphibious operations, while the MN - especially with the Mistrals - emphasizes an "light"/"fast" intervention/airborne role with other units geared around supporting/supplanting these and providing a limited "heavy" capacity.
Expanding a bit on the later issue:
- The standardized RN ATG consists of 4 ships and employs 18-20 medium helicopters and 1450 troops (warload: 2400, surge: 2900) plus 12 LCVP and 6 LCM; less if an Invincible is in the auxiliary LPH role.
- The standardized MN ATG consists of 2 ships and employs 25-30 helicopters and 950 troops (warload: 1400, surge: 1900) with 2 LCAC and 10 LCM (or alternatively 14 LCM).
- The RN (+RFA) has a maximum capacity of up to 32 medium helicopters aboard its 8 large amphibious ships (hangar space for 12, all aboard Ocean only).
- The MN has a maximum capacity of 40 medium helicopters aboard its 4 large amphibious ships (hangar space for 40; with light helicopters over 75).
- The RN has a prepared "backup", "second/third wave" capability, both with the LSLs in the ATGs, and the Point class.
- The MN does not have such a capability at all, nor the forces prepared for it. French marine forces are meant to be shipped in within a minimal number of LPD trips.
Draw your own conclusions from the above.
---
* - note that while the MN also has solid plans to extend such offensive strike capability with the FREMM AVT and Scalp Naval, the RN only has some diffuse plans yet (C2) which might not include a strike capability after all; the CVF will be a return to such capability for the RN though.
The RN only has one area for which such a layout would be suitable (the Carribbean) - however, packaging such a layout only for that simply isn't cost-effective. The MN does draw a lot of use from unitary classes for all their overseas responsibilities, backed up by a limited set of special-purpose ships (e.g. ice-capable patrol, long-range ocean patrol, harbour-independant logistics support).
The RN, as opposed to that, uses a single small class of overseas patrol ships (Island class), supplanted by regular fleet units - including amphibs in different roles lately btw.
On a direct comparison, all such ships and boats would have to be disregarded. Same for any schooling ships, since the systems there are plainly different. A number of other capabilities are equal between both forces - take the strategic forces for example, and the escorts assigned to those.
What's turns out different in the end is that France has a offensive strike power projection capability (through CdG)*, while the RN's own carriers are geared more towards a supporting role, be it ground support with Harriers or helo transport. The RN "compensates" that through having a far larger amphibious force; on a closer look though the RN is geared towards a large "heavy" landing and support capability in amphibious operations, while the MN - especially with the Mistrals - emphasizes an "light"/"fast" intervention/airborne role with other units geared around supporting/supplanting these and providing a limited "heavy" capacity.
Expanding a bit on the later issue:
- The standardized RN ATG consists of 4 ships and employs 18-20 medium helicopters and 1450 troops (warload: 2400, surge: 2900) plus 12 LCVP and 6 LCM; less if an Invincible is in the auxiliary LPH role.
- The standardized MN ATG consists of 2 ships and employs 25-30 helicopters and 950 troops (warload: 1400, surge: 1900) with 2 LCAC and 10 LCM (or alternatively 14 LCM).
- The RN (+RFA) has a maximum capacity of up to 32 medium helicopters aboard its 8 large amphibious ships (hangar space for 12, all aboard Ocean only).
- The MN has a maximum capacity of 40 medium helicopters aboard its 4 large amphibious ships (hangar space for 40; with light helicopters over 75).
- The RN has a prepared "backup", "second/third wave" capability, both with the LSLs in the ATGs, and the Point class.
- The MN does not have such a capability at all, nor the forces prepared for it. French marine forces are meant to be shipped in within a minimal number of LPD trips.
Draw your own conclusions from the above.
---
* - note that while the MN also has solid plans to extend such offensive strike capability with the FREMM AVT and Scalp Naval, the RN only has some diffuse plans yet (C2) which might not include a strike capability after all; the CVF will be a return to such capability for the RN though.
Last edited:
Technically, no.
The Sandowns are single-role minehunters, not minesweepers - hence the RN only has eight minesweepers, the multi-role Hunt class. Additionally, the sweeping gear of the Hunts has been removed since 2005 (but can be reinstalled).
The MN has its twelve Eridan/Tripartite multi-role MCMV with retained sweeping gear, which also have twice the operational range of the Hunts btw.
The RN has an offensive strike capability with the Tomahawks on the SSNs, which the MN currently lacks a direct equivalent of. The MN will, however, add such a capability with Scalp Naval on its SSNs & FREMMs. The MN & RN are set to become more similar in this area.
...Saw this on the 5:30 AM news in the UK & thought it was worth a look.
Goto the link, then click on the footer of the picture of the ship (in the top left hand corner of the page), to play the 1 min 48 sec. video clip, showing HMS Daring on sea trials last week....
http://www.itv.com/News/Articles/Most-advanced-warship-tested-at-sea-658563374.html
Systems Adict
Goto the link, then click on the footer of the picture of the ship (in the top left hand corner of the page), to play the 1 min 48 sec. video clip, showing HMS Daring on sea trials last week....
http://www.itv.com/News/Articles/Most-advanced-warship-tested-at-sea-658563374.html
Systems Adict
The below link covers the MOD's perspective on the recent trials. Very good photo of a Typhoon about to cross the stern of the ship.
The article also expands upon the fuel efficiency of the vessel, it uses a quarter of the fuel consumption of a Type 42 & 23 despite being 50 per cent larger than both classes of ship. The all-electric propulsion and gas turbines produce 47MW of electricity, enough to power 70,000 homes – or the City of Dundee. With the price of oil such statistics must please the penny-pinches.
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...tics/DaringTracksTyphoonInSecondSeaTrials.htm
Out of interest how may other Navy's now have ships at sea with all-electric propulsion systems?
I also noted from recent aerial photos that the Phalanx / RAM designated mounting point on both port and starboard is marked by a steel plate, which can be easily removed once the selected system becomes available (Phalanx moved from the T42's as they are decommissioned or new RAM units).
I know most navy buffs consider the RAM system a far better solution than the older Phalanx or Goalkeeper, but which of the two (missile or gun) is better suited to dealing with an asymmetrical attack in littoral waters using fast cigarette boats in a suicide attack or stand-off attack at say 150-100 metres using RPG's? I would have thought a fully automated gun system is a better and cheaper solution to say a RAM missile system. PAAMS should provide adequate area and close cover from the threat posed by fast jets and sea-skimmers, so why not stick with a high-rate of fire fully automated gun system for point defence. I can always remember a quote from one of the RN Captain's during the Falklands war bemoaning the RN's decision to rely on an all missile defence system rather than retaining a mix of both missile and guns.
The article also expands upon the fuel efficiency of the vessel, it uses a quarter of the fuel consumption of a Type 42 & 23 despite being 50 per cent larger than both classes of ship. The all-electric propulsion and gas turbines produce 47MW of electricity, enough to power 70,000 homes – or the City of Dundee. With the price of oil such statistics must please the penny-pinches.
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...tics/DaringTracksTyphoonInSecondSeaTrials.htm
Out of interest how may other Navy's now have ships at sea with all-electric propulsion systems?
I also noted from recent aerial photos that the Phalanx / RAM designated mounting point on both port and starboard is marked by a steel plate, which can be easily removed once the selected system becomes available (Phalanx moved from the T42's as they are decommissioned or new RAM units).
I know most navy buffs consider the RAM system a far better solution than the older Phalanx or Goalkeeper, but which of the two (missile or gun) is better suited to dealing with an asymmetrical attack in littoral waters using fast cigarette boats in a suicide attack or stand-off attack at say 150-100 metres using RPG's? I would have thought a fully automated gun system is a better and cheaper solution to say a RAM missile system. PAAMS should provide adequate area and close cover from the threat posed by fast jets and sea-skimmers, so why not stick with a high-rate of fire fully automated gun system for point defence. I can always remember a quote from one of the RN Captain's during the Falklands war bemoaning the RN's decision to rely on an all missile defence system rather than retaining a mix of both missile and guns.
Last edited:
Good points riksavage. I believe that a fully automatic gun system is needed for dealing with suicide boats, swarm attacks, etc. If this can be in addition to RAM or similar (e.g. Typhoon or Mini Typhoon), then well and good If this is not possible then the latest version of the Phalanx, as a back up to PAAMS or ESSM, can fill both this and the last ditch anti missile role.
Tas