The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

ManteoRed said:
So with this whole kerfuffle with the Russians, and the likely fact that tensions will continue at a higher rate for the next few years, is MPA being talked about in smokey back rooms more often? The operation seed corn made it seem like it was just a matter of time anyway. Any realistic insight as to whether this is pushing it further up the priority list?
Click to expand...

I'm not going to bet the farm on it but it's looking broadly likely that we'd get an announcement post election this year about the direction to be taken.

A mix of UAV and manned seems likely.
 
Riga said:
OSD on said Harpoons is?
Click to expand...

Ranges.

2018 at the earliest with options to look out to 2020 or 2023 but it's all up in the air. Presumably it'll be mentioned in 2015 SDSR as it's a capability that might be lost in its timeframe.

I say keep it out until Type 26 starts coming into the fold and pick up LRASM.
 
StobieWan said:
Or space bats could invade.

The run-on from that would finish the US diplomatically - everyone would conclude quite sensibly that if they could stitch up one of their closest partners that way, why would you ever trust them? The US is actually reliant on UK involvement with their own program as it underwrites some US costs - it's a useful relationship and not one that's going to be easily dissolved.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. The UK needs the US, not the other way around. The idea that the US nuclear program is reliant on UK funding is total nonsense and reflects a lack of touch with reality and the facts.The funding provided by the UK is trivial. The US defense budget is ten times the size of the UK. Unfortunately, the reality of the UK's slide in importance in the world really hasn't hit home. It no longer has the influence or importance to the US.
The UK has become more and more irrelevant to the United States. When the US Army's Chief of Staff goes public and fires a warning shot across the bow, it's about time to face reality.
 
pkcasimir said:
Nonsense. The UK needs the US, not the other way around. The idea that the US nuclear program is reliant on UK funding is total nonsense and reflects a lack of touch with reality and the facts.The funding provided by the UK is trivial. The US defense budget is ten times the size of the UK. Unfortunately, the reality of the UK's slide in importance in the world really hasn't hit home. It no longer has the influence or importance to the US.
The UK has become more and more irrelevant to the United States. When the US Army's Chief of Staff goes public and fires a warning shot across the bow, it's about time to face reality.
Click to expand...



Hmmmm....

BBC News - UK defence spending 'concerns' US Army chief Raymond Odierno

I think it's safe to say that the story in the link BACKS UP, the US needing the UK as a close ally.

The US CAN NOT stand alone. They need 'assistance' from the UK & looking back over the last 50 odd years, we've been there, with both moral support & technological innovation.

YES, at times it's a two-way street (& we need them), but that's what being key allies is all about. Combining forces & facing a common enemy, each individual with their own strengths (& weaknesses), the whole being stronger than the individual parts.

SA
 
pkcasimir said:
Nonsense. The UK needs the US, not the other way around. The idea that the US nuclear program is reliant on UK funding is total nonsense and reflects a lack of touch with reality and the facts.The funding provided by the UK is trivial. The US defense budget is ten times the size of the UK. Unfortunately, the reality of the UK's slide in importance in the world really hasn't hit home. It no longer has the influence or importance to the US.
The UK has become more and more irrelevant to the United States. When the US Army's Chief of Staff goes public and fires a warning shot across the bow, it's about time to face reality.
Click to expand...

"it's a useful relationship and not one that's going to be easily dissolved."

Key phrase. We're working together as partners - the US has given very generous assistance to the UK in many technical areas, we've reciprocated whenever possible and both countries have committed forces in common causes. Hence my belief that the concept of the US arbitrarily pulling the plug on an existing agreement with the UK to support a lease of Trident missiles isn't particularly likely.

Your style of engagement in this irks me somewhat however. ..
 
Just realised something, the RN currently has 3 Type 45's deployed abroad* (Dragon, Dauntless & Duncan) and the latter pair both being deployed in the Gulf.

Dauntless left in January and Duncan (with her newly fitted Harpoon missiles) left earlier this month.

Kind of odd, still, hopefully they're working with the US/French carriers in the region. The latter especially is the CJEF is going to be an actuality. That'll seriously be one powerful naval task group when the availability of CdG allows.

*itself kind of surprising considering it's coming out how much of a maintenance hog the WR-21 is turning out to be, MT-30's anyone?
 
The US CAN NOT stand alone. They need 'assistance' from the UK & looking back over the last 50 odd years, we've been there, with both moral support & technological innovation.

Nonsense, again. George Bush told Tony Blair that if it was too costly politically for him, the US would go it alone in Iraq based on a US DOD assessment that British Forces were not needed to invade Iraq successfully. That proved to be prescient and the subsequent performance of British Forces in Iraq also was illustrative of the state of the British Armed Forces, especially its leadership.
The British Armed Forces are only a shell of what they were then and can bring so much less to bear in a modern conflict.
You totally misunderstand the thrust of the remarks of the US Army Chief of Staff. He was only saying what anyone with a modicum of knowledge about military matters knows. The Cameron cuts to the British Army will strip the British Army of the capability of operating as in independent force (integrated under Allied Command) much as the British did under SHAEF in WW2. (The same is true for the RAF and Royal Navy.) The US laments this development, not because the British Armed Forces are absolutely vital but because it weakens Allied Forces. Nowhere did he say that the US can't fight any war without British participation. And if you do believe that the US can't fight and win without the UK then you are grossly ill informed.
Britain must adjust to the fact that the UK, under Cameron, has cut its Armed Forces to the point where it is no longer a major player standing side by side with the US, but as a very minor player whose support is nice to have but not essential. That's a harsh reality, but it is reality.
Wars are not won with moral support and the days of British technological innovation like radar and the jet engine are decades in the past.
 
pkcasimir said:
Britain must adjust to the fact that the UK, under Cameron, has cut its Armed Forces to the point where it is no longer a major player standing side by side with the US, but as a very minor player whose support is nice to have but not essential.
Click to expand...

You are mistaken if you believe military spending cuts are solely the preserve of Cameron, it's been declining for decades. Cameron and Fox (then Hammond) had to deal with a department which was billions in the black with no plan to turn things around.
 
RobWilliams said:
*itself kind of surprising considering it's coming out how much of a maintenance hog the WR-21 is turning out to be, MT-30's anyone?
Click to expand...

I thought it was the diesels that were being a pig ? I thought the 21's were just expensive to buy? I wouldn't be amazed or surprised to find them swapped out for MT30's at some point in the life of the ships however, as it'd give some commonality across the fleet.
 
RobWilliams said:
You are mistaken if you believe military spending cuts are solely the preserve of Cameron, it's been declining for decades. Cameron and Fox (then Hammond) had to deal with a department which was billions in the black with no plan to turn things around.
Click to expand...

Or in the red even, I reckon they would have loved being in the black and having all those extra billions to spend.

;)
 
pkcasimir said:
The US CAN NOT stand alone. They need 'assistance' from the UK & looking back over the last 50 odd years, we've been there, with both moral support & technological innovation.

Nonsense, again. George Bush told Tony Blair that if it was too costly politically for him, the US would go it alone in Iraq based on a US DOD assessment that British Forces were not needed to invade Iraq successfully. That proved to be prescient and the subsequent performance of British Forces in Iraq also was illustrative of the state of the British Armed Forces, especially its leadership.
The British Armed Forces are only a shell of what they were then and can bring so much less to bear in a modern conflict.
You totally misunderstand the thrust of the remarks of the US Army Chief of Staff. He was only saying what anyone with a modicum of knowledge about military matters knows. The Cameron cuts to the British Army will strip the British Army of the capability of operating as in independent force (integrated under Allied Command) much as the British did under SHAEF in WW2. (The same is true for the RAF and Royal Navy.) The US laments this development, not because the British Armed Forces are absolutely vital but because it weakens Allied Forces. Nowhere did he say that the US can't fight any war without British participation. And if you do believe that the US can't fight and win without the UK then you are grossly ill informed.
Britain must adjust to the fact that the UK, under Cameron, has cut its Armed Forces to the point where it is no longer a major player standing side by side with the US, but as a very minor player whose support is nice to have but not essential. That's a harsh reality, but it is reality.
Wars are not won with moral support and the days of British technological innovation like radar and the jet engine are decades in the past.
Click to expand...

Can we please move back on topic and end this unproductive bickering here? This is a ROYAL NAVY thread, not a discussion on the pros and cons of strategic alliances.
 
StobieWan said:
I thought it was the diesels that were being a pig ? I thought the 21's were just expensive to buy? I wouldn't be amazed or surprised to find them swapped out for MT30's at some point in the life of the ships however, as it'd give some commonality across the fleet.
Click to expand...

When I first read about propulsion issues it was just that, 'propulsion issues'. I presumed it to be the WR-21 as I figured diesel sets compared to the first use of that GT in an IFEP setup would've been the more likely culprit.

Interesting comment in an article about Diamond coming out of refit, it's said that she has a new gas turbine (as well as Harpoon too).

HMS Diamond crew back on board after refit | Royal Navy

Volkodav said:
Or in the red even, I reckon they would have loved being in the black and having all those extra billions to spend.

;)
Click to expand...


Absolutely! ;)

As much as I hate the cuts, the department was out of control and something needed to be done. If cuts continue, then we're going to have to face reality about exactly how they're going to continue and I don't think salami slicing can go on.

That means uncomfortable discussions about our place in the world and exactly what we want to be able to do.
 
ASSAIL said:
It really sheets home the argument that commercial "style" ships should not be attempted in UK (or Australia for that matter) when the worlds best and fastest shipbuilder can squirt them out at that speed and cost.
Its a different argument, obviously, for fighting ships.
Click to expand...

Absolutely!! Hopefully Australia does what the UK did and not what Canada is doing (actually we haven't even started the "local Berlin build").
 
For the slight increase in price, additional capacity, not much more crew, not sure why Australia isn't looking at the tide class instead of the 18a 26,000t variant being offered.
 
I think the UK got a cracker of a deal with these ships.

AFAIK the plan is these 4 will replace Gold Rover, Black Rover & Orangeleaf leaving 4 Tides, 2 Waves, Fort Victoria, Fort Rosalie and Fort Austin.

The last 3 (or two, potentially) are planned to be replaced by MARS SSS whenever that comes around, not until the 2020's I think.

Then there's Argus and Diligence, both reaching 30 years old with no replacement in sight until the 2020's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top