The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[mark22w]

i hope before 2025 they don,t decide to scrap the navy totally.

Not going to happen despite the wishes of some...

Two carriers or no carriers - I suggest still two. Twenty plus escorts quite possibly a high/low mix, with eight SSN's... As to SSBN numbers the minimum number that still provides a credible deterrent is all that matters. 3 would be great news - if 1 is available 24/7...

Amphibs and smaller vessels much the same as today.

I suggest 'should' the carriers be deleted the mix of the fleet would change again. Not cheap and I question the real savings of doing so.

 

[Neutral Zone]

There was an article in the Daily Mail yesterday about the fate of the 36 RN major warships that made up the Falklands task force, (sorry I couldn't find a link). Of those ships, only 2, the destroyer Exeter and the patrol ship Dumbarton Castle are still in RN service, and both of those are likely to be gone within the next few years. The main point of the article was that most of these ships were not replaced like for like but were pensioned off early as a result of defence cuts, most were sold to other countries such as the T21 frigates that went to Pakistan and are still in service with their new owners. For all there faults those ships could have been refitted with new systems and could still be in RN service today. If in 1982, you had told people that Hermes would still be in active service after Invincible had been retired, you would have been written off as a crank!

It brings home to you how much the RN has contracted recently when you consider that the Falklands task force isn't that much smaller than todays RN. And I'm nervous aboout what will happen when Brown takes over from Blair in the summer. In his time at the Treasury he hasn't shown much sympathy to the armed forces.

 

[contedicavour]

There was an article in the Daily Mail yesterday about the fate of the 36 RN major warships that made up the Falklands task force, (sorry I couldn't find a link). Of those ships, only 2, the destroyer Exeter and the patrol ship Dumbarton Castle are still in RN service, and both of those are likely to be gone within the next few years. The main point of the article was that most of these ships were not replaced like for like but were pensioned off early as a result of defence cuts, most were sold to other countries such as the T21 frigates that went to Pakistan and are still in service with their new owners. For all there faults those ships could have been refitted with new systems and could still be in RN service today. If in 1982, you had told people that Hermes would still be in active service after Invincible had been retired, you would have been written off as a crank!

It brings home to you how much the RN has contracted recently when you consider that the Falklands task force isn't that much smaller than todays RN. And I'm nervous aboout what will happen when Brown takes over from Blair in the summer. In his time at the Treasury he hasn't shown much sympathy to the armed forces.

Although I'm supportive of any argument that can help boost defence spending, the items listed above aren't entirely fair : the T21s and T22Batch1 of the Falklands may now be in Pakistani and Brazilian hands, but there are 13 Type23s in RN service replacing them (though not on a 1:1 basis).
Hermes may be Indian and Invincible in reserve but there are 2 other recent carriers in service, so it's not worse than in 1982. The Amphib squadron is in much better shape today than it was in 1982.

cheers

 

[Dave H]

Neutral Zone,

I think most navies have contracted in size since the levels of the 1980's and in truth many of the Falklands era ships were old and obselete particularly the Leanders (non seawolf equipped). They took a hammering from the argentinian airforce but did their job and allowed the landings to proceed.

The Type 21 was a stop gap private venture, quite small and not really suitable for upgrade. There was a plan to put VL seawolf on them but I recall this meant losing the gun and exocet mounts. As for Hermes, perhaps she coul have been kept but I suppose such deals were tied to the sale of Harriers and other equipment. Selling off waships to friends is a good political tool, the RN is generally well respected in its training methods and professionalism and ships plus training packages were common.

I dont think Brown will be a danger for long, if the RN can avoid cuts for two years then the dour scot will lose the election and we will have to see if the Tories will spend more.

A realistic prospect by the time the carriers are due in 2015 is that Scotland is then an independent country. Certainly a lot of us English want scots out of our politics and if they in Scotland want to go their own way then they should. Would that mean a tenth of the RAF, Army and RN being given to the scots? or would the forces stay together under duel control? I certainly cant see a scottish Nationalist dominated Scottish parliament keeping trident so the boats would come south,possibly to Portsmouth or Devenport. I cant see them joining in Iraq type ventures either which would cause problems if there was one military structure for the union countries and the scots.

An English, Welsh and Ulster funded force might therefore be smaller still and English yards would expect the workshare of building and maintaining warships paid for by English and Welsh taxpayers.

In those circumstances the English dominated navy might need to cooperate more with france, especially in carrierbourne assets.

 

[contedicavour]

Ouch the thread is entering in dangerous territories...
Even if the SNP wins elections I don't see Scotland going beyond an even stronger autonomy. Defence and foreing affairs matters will most likely remain under joint management.

cheers

 

[mark22w]

I think it positive this type of story makes the popular press - anything to raise the profile and plight of the RN...

Having said this I'd be interested to note how far the USN has been cut since 1982... Hmm, most the T22's and all the T23's came in post Falklands plus the stretched T42's - I reckon c30 destroyer/frigates commissioned since '82.

A high number of the Falklands escorts were at best 'second rate' IMO back in '82 - the County's; Leanders (notable exception being the sea wolf mini 22's); Type 81 & 12's... Sea Slug and Sea Cat with large crews for each. The T21's were an attractive stopgap but proved unable to ship sea wolf - being fitted with the much older Sea Cat. Outclassed today by the Indian fleet, totally.

The Leander conversions to Sea Wolf were not cheap; and I trust the benefit of building platforms that can be upgraded (T45) has been well and truly learnt..

Of course go back a further 25 years (1957) and the RN had 4 active fleet (Ark; Eagle; Albion and Bulwark) , 2 training, & 4 reserve carriers with 4 more under construction (inc Hermes) and 1 (Victorious) in refit. Add a number of Cruisers and even a 50,000 ton 15" gun battleship (Vanguard), the RN was still no 2 in the world... Happy days.

As I say, bring on the articles, and let's raise the profile of the RN! Compared with '57 two carriers and eight T45's looks quite a bargain!

 

[Dave H]

I dont think you apreciate the new found Englishness. The relationship would not be one of animosity or hatred but us English now feel more confident in demanding our own parliament. Even Brown was making a play for the stengths of the union the other day. Scotland is dominated by Labour, who are struggling against the Nationalists. The tories have no seats. If Scottish seats were not counted in the general elections then the Labour party would find it difficult to ever get control of England again. Hence they fear separation, just as to the tories it would make no difference.

The nuclear detterent would not be supported by the Scottish Nationalist party, they would want the boats and facilities to leave scottish territory and probably a bigger control of oil revenues from Scottish waters. The Scottish labour party and the Nats would not support military operations in Iraq and probably not afghanistan.

Therefore there would be very real difficulties in keeping military unity under two parliaments who would want autonomy. A politically independent scotland would not necessary agree to scottish regiments taking part in ops with the US.

As I say , English taxpayers would not accept Rosyth getting contracts for warships paid for by English taxpayers.

Unless you are a Brit, it is hard to understand the relationship between the English and Scots, it can range from subtle banter to out right hatred for the english by some scots, we would never go to war but each wants to run its own affairs, own taxes and own policies.

 

[contedicavour]

I dont think you apreciate the new found Englishness. The relationship would not be one of animosity or hatred but us English now feel more confident in demanding our own parliament. Even Brown was making a play for the stengths of the union the other day. Scotland is dominated by Labour, who are struggling against the Nationalists. The tories have no seats. If Scottish seats were not counted in the general elections then the Labour party would find it difficult to ever get control of England again. Hence they fear separation, just as to the tories it would make no difference.

The nuclear detterent would not be supported by the Scottish Nationalist party, they would want the boats and facilities to leave scottish territory and probably a bigger control of oil revenues from Scottish waters. The Scottish labour party and the Nats would not support military operations in Iraq and probably not afghanistan.

Therefore there would be very real difficulties in keeping military unity under two parliaments who would want autonomy. A politically independent scotland would not necessary agree to scottish regiments taking part in ops with the US.

As I say , English taxpayers would not accept Rosyth getting contracts for warships paid for by English taxpayers.

Unless you are a Brit, it is hard to understand the relationship between the English and Scots, it can range from subtle banter to out right hatred for the english by some scots, we would never go to war but each wants to run its own affairs, own taxes and own policies.

I guess it might be interesting to open a thread "consequences on defence policies of a potential separation of Scotland and England".
Tory majority in England would boost spending on defence in England proper, but the loss of Scotland's GDP (even if Scotland is poorer than England, despite oil) would limit the spending power of an English MOD. Who knows if the 2 carriers, 6-8 DDGs, 8 SSNs, etc etc would still be feasible...

cheers

 

[mark22w]

I dont think you apreciate the new found Englishness. The relationship would not be one of animosity or hatred but us English now feel more confident in demanding our own parliament. Even Brown was making a play for the stengths of the union the other day. Scotland is dominated by Labour, who are struggling against the Nationalists. The tories have no seats. If Scottish seats were not counted in the general elections then the Labour party would find it difficult to ever get control of England again. Hence they fear separation, just as to the tories it would make no difference.

The nuclear detterent would not be supported by the Scottish Nationalist party, they would want the boats and facilities to leave scottish territory and probably a bigger control of oil revenues from Scottish waters. The Scottish labour party and the Nats would not support military operations in Iraq and probably not afghanistan.

Therefore there would be very real difficulties in keeping military unity under two parliaments who would want autonomy. A politically independent scotland would not necessary agree to scottish regiments taking part in ops with the US.

As I say , English taxpayers would not accept Rosyth getting contracts for warships paid for by English taxpayers.

Unless you are a Brit, it is hard to understand the relationship between the English and Scots, it can range from subtle banter to out right hatred for the english by some scots, we would never go to war but each wants to run its own affairs, own taxes and own policies.

Well I am a Brit. Not sure I draw the same conclusion but for the record (and not the Daily Record) as born and bred London, English to boot... and still paying UK taxes (as well as Oz)

Back on topic I don't think the RN is on the ropes just yet, but it does need the carrier orders placed in 2007...

 

[Dave H]

I think it would weaken defence, you would hope that the Royal Marines could stay together with its large scottish contingent. Also as the process would take time then the current 45's and carriers would hopefully be built.

Labour in scotland is old labour to the core, very anti defence spending, very pro social spending. The SNP are even worse. They are also anti nuclear in terms of power plants and warships such as SSN's.

I think labour has damaged the Royal Navy in some ways but credit has to be given to the amphibious buildup and hopefully planning the carriers. That I think is despite the core beliefs of many labour members becuase in truth Blair has not been a particularly labour politician.

I expect the forces to bounce back with some more balanced purchases, hopefully we will leave Iraq ASAP and slowly pay off those debts so that within 5 years the MOD might be able to see the Navy as more of a priority.

 

[contedicavour]

I would also suggest to better repackage the navy's procurement needs in the light of Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Navy is useful as a launcher of cruise missiles, as a source of air power, as a blockading force, and most of all as a force multiplier via its amphibious forces.
Hence I'd repackage SSNs (even SSBNs to a limited extent) as primarily TLAM launchers, I'd make sure TLAM or Scalp Naval are at the core of any future FFG, I'd position the carriers as key aerial support for the Marines aboard the amphib ships, etc
As a logical consequence, I'd play down ASW, may be accept to have only 6 Type 45 if that can speed up funding and construction of new FFGs, etc

cheers

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Hence I'd repackage SSNs (even SSBNs to a limited extent) as primarily TLAM launchers, I'd make sure TLAM or Scalp Naval are at the core of any future FFG, I'd position the carriers as key aerial support for the Marines aboard the amphib ships, etc

Although having cruise missiles on new frigates would be nice, the primary air-support should come from the carriers.

As a logical consequence, I'd play down ASW, may be accept to have only 6 Type 45 if that can speed up funding and construction of new FFGs, etc

ASW is still very important. I would also disagree with the SSNs, especially SSBNs, being turned into mobile launchers. The Astutes will have launch capability - that's enough. They have other important jobs to do.

 

[Dave H]

I have just found an interesting piece from the Independent newspaper dated 17th Jan which is pertinent to the above points relating to Scotland.

Brief summary...In recent polls 52% of scots back moves to dissolve the Union. A guardian article last November said that only 20 percent of scots refer to themselves as British.

Oil and gas above the 55th parallel is under scottish jurisdiction and only half has been extracted making scotland relatively wealthy (thats 75-90% of the oil and gas). The Scots have 25% of EU tidal and wind resources.So energy wise they would manage.

Economic pessimists claim up to £11 billion deficit after independence resulting in ax rises and driving businesses to england. (What would the effect be on scottish defence planning?). Optimists amongst the separatists claim that scotland actually subsides england to £3 billion pounds a year (so England poorer in terms of GDP and expertise/manpower but the Guardian stats show that England subsides scotland to the tune of £25 billion per year allowing the scots to spend 30% more per capita on public spending).

The SNP, the report says stated in its manifesto that it would scrap trident and would prevent scottish troops taking part in "illegal" wars. But they claim that scotland would continue to have a conventional military defence that would work alongside English forces in the mutual defence of the UK.

The article recognises that England would need to fund trident and its existing commitments from a smaller budget and without scottish troops and revenue. Also it warns that this move might hasten Wales and northern Ireland seeken self determination.

So to the point of the impact on the Royal Navy... Should england decide to dispatch forces on an independent mission, getting scottish asssitance wold depend on scottish parliament giving consent. In terms of major assets such as carriers this would either mean water tight agreements or that England would have to have completely independent forces.

How would you split the navy?

Say independence is given in 2018. The UK has two new aircraft carriers, 60 JSF to fly from them.

6 type 45's( or hopefully 8), 13 Type 23's, Maybe a Type 42 struggling along. 9 SSN's of trafalgar and astute class and 4 Trident boats with 12 years of life left in them. Ocean, Ark Royal or Invincible as helicopter carriers and the amphibious ships. A nation of 5 million couldnt afford a aircraft carrier, a socialist leadership wouldnt want the subs. Would one type 45, three type 23's and one of the landing ship be a realistic trade off for a newly independent scotland? Add the Royal Regiment of Scotland and a couple of squadrons of Typhoon and Scotland would have a reasonable self defence force....but the Royal Navy would be severley depleted unless it was given the full support of the independent scottish forces and parliament.

The question would then be if the economy of England, Wales and N Ireland could afford the remainder and still be able to carry out operations. The army would lose 15% of its infantry making extended operations difficult and the 3rd Commando brigade would only have the two english based commandos, reinforced (if agreed) by the scottish one.

Labour opened the devolution box so in that sense they may achieve a weakening of the UK armed forces and the navy, so much thats its ability to assist the US at its current level would be weakened. I dont think scottish independence might happen, I am certain it will.

 

[contedicavour]

Although having cruise missiles on new frigates would be nice, the primary air-support should come from the carriers.



ASW is still very important. I would also disagree with the SSNs, especially SSBNs, being turned into mobile launchers. The Astutes will have launch capability - that's enough. They have other important jobs to do.

Yes, you know it and I know it. But does the average Labour MP (or even Tory btw) know that ? They'll just look at recent wars and say that after all it's the army that needs reinforcement, and that the navy is no use in modern scenarios.
If you point out to them (think of SNP or Scottish Labour MPs) that SSBNs aren't only there to nuke Russia but may be very useful to send 2 dozen TLAMs into Iranian military nuclear installations, then those politicians might be more supportive.
My argument is in terms of PR, and for that matter we are experts of that in Italy because the left of centre majority includes 3 different communist parties that are for example against F35 because it could rolleyes: ) launch nuclear weapons (which btw we don't have ...). Our vice-minister of defence is being able to repackage LHDs as hospital ships (which isn't a lie technically but you see my point).

cheers

 

[Dave H]

Couldnt TLAM's or Scalp missiles be fired from a relatively inexpensive vessell that sails close the carriers within the protection of the escorts? I would have thought that a fast cargo vessel could be adapted or designed with duel role of fleet supply with some VL modules built in for land attack. This would free the frigates and destroyers to concentrate on air defence and ASW work especially as european ships tend to have fewer tubes than US counterparts. Just a thought?

 

[swerve]

Couldnt TLAM's or Scalp missiles be fired from a relatively inexpensive vessell that sails close the carriers within the protection of the escorts? I would have thought that a fast cargo vessel could be adapted or designed with duel role of fleet supply with some VL modules built in for land attack. This would free the frigates and destroyers to concentrate on air defence and ASW work especially as european ships tend to have fewer tubes than US counterparts. Just a thought?

The Arsenal Ship - http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/arsenal_ship.htm
A relatively (the USN can't do anything without platinum plating) cheap ship with lots of VLS tubes & little else, relying on other ships for sensor input. The USN toyed with the idea, but dropped it. One problem with it is that cruise missiles are rarer than launchers. The USN has more launch tubes than it has TLAMs to put in them. So why build ships that can't do anything except launch missiles you already don't have enough of to fill the launchers you already have?

Nobody else is better off for cruise missile stocks, or likely to be in the foreseeable future.

It might make sense, in combination with much larger stocks of missiles.

 

[Tasman]

Couldnt TLAM's or Scalp missiles be fired from a relatively inexpensive vessell that sails close the carriers within the protection of the escorts? I would have thought that a fast cargo vessel could be adapted or designed with duel role of fleet supply with some VL modules built in for land attack. This would free the frigates and destroyers to concentrate on air defence and ASW work especially as european ships tend to have fewer tubes than US counterparts. Just a thought?

A vessel of this kind would bear similarities to the tank landing and medium landing ships that were converted as rocket ships in WW2 for use in naval bombardment. These were comparatively cheap and expendable compared with the battleships and cruisers employed in bombardment and they supplemented the big gun ships. Fitting rocket launchers to battleships or cruisers would have taken up room urgently needed for AA weapons and would have been fire risks in the event of being hit (AA rockets fitted to some RN capital ships in 1940 were soon removed for these reasons). The availability of landing ships with vast clear spaces for the rocket launchers made them ideal for this purpose. In the same way today, it would have to be accepted that adding TLAMs to a ship would be at the expense of air defence or perhaps anti ship missiles, or at the expense of torpedoes or anti ship missiles in the case of an SSM.

Cheers

 

[riksavage]

T45 Latest

I note with interest a couple of statements in this weeks JDW (31 Jan 07) relating to the T45 programme.

Firstly: “The overall cost of the programme has to date overrun by GBP635 mil, bringing overall costs up to GB6.1 billion. However Dauntless has worked out 11% cheaper than Daring, and the aim is to cut 30% of the cost from the first to the sixth ship.”

Let’s hope comments relating to increased savings, as more hulls are built, encourage the bean-counters to sanction not just six, but a final eight T45’s.

Secondly: “UK Procurement Minister Lord Drayson told Janes at the launch that a decision on 7 & 8 will be made this year”

Only hope continued pressure from the press, armed services and general public forces a positive decision from the incumbent short-sighted Labour Government.

 

[Dave H]

Tasman,

Looking at the current fleet, something like the RFA Fort Victoria would have some capabilities to bolt on some land attack capacity. The ship has helos to support the fleet and is armed with phalanx (I beleve) so is already designed for the slightly more risky missions.

If we build the new carriers, I assume the navy will need some RFA vessels to support them, carrying fuel for the ships, aviation fuel for the aircraft, spare parts for the F35's and weapos for them. I would be interested to know what the cost would be of adding 50 plus VLS cells for TLAM or Scalp to such large ships.The ship would be within the protective missile coverage of the Type 45's and the carrier if they get SAMs. The advantage would also be that a large salvo could be fired in coordination with F35 missions, whereas the current situation requires our scarce submarines to fire of the handfull that they carry.

The RN purchased 65 TLAM's, we fired some in Kosovo and possibly
Afghanistan (?) so with our tight fisted procurement we wouldnt have increased the number. France is paying a reasonable sum for 250 Scalp navals so its not unaffordable.

I dont think our small build of T45's will ever get the full upgrade treatment ie additional VLS cells or the traditional British stretching of hulls., unlike the Americans who put close to 100 tubes, ours will only have 48 and reducing SAM numbers to accomodate TLAMs might in some cases be a risky business. We are building so few T45's that a carrier might sail with two if licky. Yes give every new vessel the capacity for land attack missiles but we could also do with a heavy weight puncher, we cant afford an the all -singing cruisers of the US but we might want to swamp an opponent with cruise missiles.

 

[mark22w]

The RFA has an important role to play supporting the fleet and though some defensive weapons are highly desirable lets not make them land attack fleet units... Westminster would add Aster-30s and have an excuse to cut the T45's back to four...

The SSN TLAM combo has proved most effective and in the absence of suitable carriers and aircraft the UK's principle land attack option of late. No question it would make sense to add a similar option to the T45 and T22/23 replacements, even if small numbers for each.