The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[overlander]

Overlander, Further to the above, if you look at the Falklands era navy, many of the ships that fought were lacking as seen by the panic that exocet caused and by the amount of ships that were damaged. Brave crews fought in ships that struggled to fend off aircraft using simple technology and dumb bombs. The RN in 1982 was considered and was proved to be a powerful force but the stats showed that it was vulnerable. 10 ships damaged, Coventry,Ardent and Antelope sunk by being swamped by attacking aircraft,Sheffield by being unlucky in the face of Exocet and perhaps indivividual errors. Glamorgan badly damaged as it strayed into exocet range but lacking any effective modern armament.

Figures of escorts from that era dont necessarily tell the story, in the face of a more advanced enemy than the argentinians, eg the Russians, the RN would have suffered huge losses. 15 well equipped escorts might be better and more survivable than 30 older and less well equipped escorts.

The RN and RAF might cut the F35 but because projects such as Taranis may provide a viable supplement because CVF will carry UCAV'S as well as F35'S.

Dave H. Sincerely i hope that alarmist predictions are not true the problem as I,ve wrote before is that i don,t see a clear direction on where to go in the british defence policy, of course the way ahead of the cvf,s are good news but later it,s necessary to exploit the maximum potential of the ships and it means that at least in peace time they have to able to embark at least 25 f 35 each and in my opinion it,s necessary to maintain a fixed wing component in f.a.a. separated from r.a.f. as demonstrated the disaster of put together the 2 services before the 2 world war, there were no enough pilots able to take off from carriers and thanks god a lot of american volunteers replaced the shortage of the pilots in the r.n. that time but now is not that situation, greetings from Hungary where i am now living.

 

[Padfoot]

with this we can see that the decline of the r.n. never stops and even more important that there is not a clear naval policy and a commitment to build a balanced force, so when the cuts will finish?? when the navy be a coastal force ?? only the time will say it, a sad history for once the most powerful and strong navy in the world.

Where you see decline, overlander, I see a naval policy to modernise, re-equip the Royal Navy, with a view to bringing its needs into the twenty-first century. The Royal Navy seems to be in transition from an essentially North Atlantic, anti-Soviet, anti-submarine force, into a blue water navy, able to project power to all corners of the globe. You speak of 90 escorts in 1982, yet that navy was nearly defeated by a small tin pot dictatorship, the RN of 2017 will have no such worries. Numbers aren't everything you know.

Also, the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are being paid for by the treasury reserve, not the defence budget.

 

[spsun100001]

It’s not all doom and gloom.

With the arrival of the first T45’s to Navy in 2009 combined with the new amphibious lift capability (Bay’s Albion’s Ocean etc.) and introduction of the Astutes we are in better shape today than we were in 82. Back then the RN was configured to fight ASW warfare against the Soviets in the North Sea / Atlantic. Today we can lift and support the whole of 3-Commando Brigade (42, 45, 40, 29 etc.) plus supporting arms (Challenger, AS90, Starstreak etc.) in dedicated ships. We may have a smaller Navy, but pound for pound it is far better equipped and capable for a broader range of missions.

Whether we like it or not Britain will have at least a divisional strength of ground troops committed to campaigns over the next 5 years. The current draw-down in Iraq will be immediately offset by increases in Afghanistan. This coming March will see the entire Parachute Regiment deployed (1,2,3 & elements of 4), plus a battalion of the Royal Regiment of Scotland. This has to be paid for, equipped and maintained. We all bemoan the shrinking of the RN, however the current threat is asymmetrical warfare fought on the plains of Afghanistan, and it is that that needs to be faced down and won.

Buying loads of shiny new boats is not going to defeat an enemy hidden in Sangin.

Buying hundreds of tactical fighters (many of which will be immediately mothballed) is not going to defeat an enemy hidden in Sangin either but they are being placed ahead of Army and RN equipment programmes far more relevant to our defence needs.

 

[riksavage]

In March 08 when the entire Parachute Regiment deploys they will also be bringing with them Typhoons fitted with Lighting III, which will be deployed in the close air-support role.

 

[spsun100001]

In March 08 when the entire Parachute Regiment deploys they will also be bringing with them Typhoons fitted with Lighting III, which will be deployed in the close air-support role.

They will yeah. Of course this vastly expensive fighter is less capable in this role than the Harrier as it can't carry the Maverick or Brimstone air to ground missiles.

I think it's being deployed due to the the embarassment at hundreds of these aircraft being procured (many of which are going straight into mothballs) when the Army and Navy are crying out for basic equipment.

I'll bet the paras would far rather stick with the GR9 and have the money spent on Typhoon invested in more battlefield helicopters, IED protected armoured vehicles, dedicated healthcare facilities in the UK for injured personnel and decent quality accomodation to come home to.

 

[Grand Danois]

AFAIK the Typhoons are being deployed to Afghanistan to save airframe hours on the Harriers.

Brimstone is an anti-armour missile.

It is prudent and standard procedure to mothball replacement and attrition aircraft. Much cheaper to build them now as part of the original production run, than to restart the line ten years from now. Quite normal.

 

[Super Nimrod]

The was an artical on this in todays Guardian claiming that what is coming is "a military operation unprecedented since the second world war"

They are also taking the new Merlins with them as well. Reading the piece; was it a Typo error when they say "new missiles" for ground attack for the Typhoon ? See attached

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,2184905,00.html

 

[harryriedl]

The was an artical on this in todays Guardian claiming that what is coming is "a military operation unprecedented since the second world war"

They are also taking the new Merlins with them as well. Reading the piece was it a Typo when they say "new missiles" for ground attack for the Typhoon ? See attached

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,2184905,00.html

the missiles could be brimstones on their frist combat outing or starstreak [for the para's]

 

[Systems Adict]

Ah, the joys of the freedom of the press....!

If this had been WW II, these comments would never have appeared until after any action had taken place, therefore not alerting "The enemy" to what the British Forces might be planning.

But then again, the Guardian (et al Media in the digital age), is just publishing the story...?


Makes you proud to be British ....? :nutkick



Systems Adict

 

[spsun100001]

AFAIK the Typhoons are being deployed to Afghanistan to save airframe hours on the Harriers.

Brimstone is an anti-armour missile.

It is prudent and standard procedure to mothball replacement and attrition aircraft. Much cheaper to build them now as part of the original production run, than to restart the line ten years from now. Quite normal.

We could have bought more Harriers or undertaken more conversions to GR9 for a considerably cheaper price airframe for airframe that Typhoon though I'd guess.

I stand to be corrected on Brimstone but I understand it can be used against buildings (in much the same way as Apache's use Hellfire) and of course moving vehicles - a frequent target for CAS missions.

I take your point about attrition but we seem to be placing around a third of these fighters into mothballs, a far higher proportion than for other combat jet types which suggests to me we are buying more than we need.

I'm not saying we need no Typhoons, just that there are far more pressing priorities that the money could be better spent on than say the third batch of these planes.

I'd rather see more battlefield helicopters, UAV's, vehicles armoured against IED's and heaven forbid even the 'planned' extra 2 Type 45 destroyers so that the Navy has a viable air defence capability.

It's all a matter of judgement of course but I'd judge those things as more important than tactical fighters in the numbers we are buying when we have a more effective airframe for the main role we require from the RAF which is CAS.

 

[swerve]

We could have bought more Harriers or undertaken more conversions to GR9 for a considerably cheaper price airframe for airframe that Typhoon though I'd guess.

I stand to be corrected on Brimstone but I understand it can be used against buildings (in much the same way as Apache's use Hellfire) and of course moving vehicles - a frequent target for CAS missions.....

1) Decision would have had to be taken a long time ago to buy more Harriers, & unfortunately it wasn't. More GR9 conversions would need more airframes fit to convert.

2) Wrong warhead for most such uses, IIRC. Hellfire has (nowadays, not originally) a wider choice. But it shouldn't be a major task to integrate other warheads onto Brimstone.

 

[Grand Danois]

I stand to be corrected on Brimstone but I understand it can be used against buildings (in much the same way as Apache's use Hellfire) and of course moving vehicles - a frequent target for CAS missions.

I take your point about attrition but we seem to be placing around a third of these fighters into mothballs, a far higher proportion than for other combat jet types which suggests to me we are buying more than we need.

I'm not saying we need no Typhoons, just that there are far more pressing priorities that the money could be better spent on than say the third batch of these planes.

I'd rather see more battlefield helicopters, UAV's, vehicles armoured against IED's and heaven forbid even the 'planned' extra 2 Type 45 destroyers so that the Navy has a viable air defence capability.

It's all a matter of judgement of course but I'd judge those things as more important than tactical fighters in the numbers we are buying when we have a more effective airframe for the main role we require from the RAF which is CAS.

Re the Brimstone. It was the attack mode that made me think it was unsuitable. Apache/Hellfire uses laser guidance which is a suitable targeting method for those kind of targets. The Brimstone uses millimetric wave radar and is cued to the area where the seeker takes over. Indirect attack mode.

However, it seems that the Brimstone actually has a direct attack mode, which would make it suitable for use in Afgh.

http://www.defense-update.com/products/b/brimstone.htm

My bad.

There are, of course, anti personnel variants of the Hellfire warhead.

Anyhow, a sidenote, the Typhoon will be able to deliver very accurate gunfire.

Time will tell on the numbers of fighters - just like it has on the Harrier. I think that the numbers ordered are appropiate, because security is ultimately tied into high end capability, and not battlefield helos in Afgh. That Treasury isn't reimbursing the Afgh and Iraq ops on a one to one basis is not the fault the Typhoon. (I do agree on the need for more helos, armoured vehicles etc.)

 

[Super Nimrod]

Please correct me if I am wrong but is it true that the UK Harriers still don't have a gun pod ? If that is the case then there will be an immediate improvement with the Typhoon, or have they still not integrated the gun in the UK Typhoons yet either ?

 

[neil]

Please correct me if I am wrong but is it true that the UK Harriers still don't have a gun pod ? If that is the case then there will be an immediate improvement with the Typhoon, or have they still not integrated the gun in the UK Typhoons yet either ?

as far as I know the RAF opted not to equip their Harriers with a gun pod as the US marines did.. (25 mm)

this was rather short sited in my opinion.. the reason given was primarily to save money... however i believe firing CRV7 rockets at the rate that they are in Afghanistan would be much more expensive than gun ammo.. I know the RAF uses 27mm guns and integrating 25mm on the harrier only would mean extra support costs.. but still.. would it have been so expensive to integrate a 27mm gun pod?

the RAF is apparenty integrating the 27mm cannon on the typhoon now.. using ammonition from the Tornado fleet since no money was budgeted for the Typhoon gun originally..

anyway back to the topic.. many people say that the fleet is more capable pound for pound.. true.. however one ship can still be in only one place at a time.. no one can argue with that..

If the UK government is willing to accept that the Royal Navy will not be able to handle more than one contingency at a time.. (and only on a small to medium scale at that..) fine.. but they should tell the voters that as well..

 

[spsun100001]

as far as I know the RAF opted not to equip their Harriers with a gun pod as the US marines did.. (25 mm)

this was rather short sited in my opinion.. the reason given was primarily to save money... however i believe firing CRV7 rockets at the rate that they are in Afghanistan would be much more expensive than gun ammo.. I know the RAF uses 27mm guns and integrating 25mm on the harrier only would mean extra support costs.. but still.. would it have been so expensive to integrate a 27mm gun pod?

the RAF is apparenty integrating the 27mm cannon on the typhoon now.. using ammonition from the Tornado fleet since no money was budgeted for the Typhoon gun originally..

anyway back to the topic.. many people say that the fleet is more capable pound for pound.. true.. however one ship can still be in only one place at a time.. no one can argue with that..

If the UK government is willing to accept that the Royal Navy will not be able to handle more than one contingency at a time.. (and only on a small to medium scale at that..) fine.. but they should tell the voters that as well..

Sadly I don't think voters give a damn as long as they can buy cheap stuff in Tesco.

 

[Preceptor]

Members, please keep discussions confined to the Royal Navy and related subjects. Discussion of how RAF aircraft are armed, or how they should be armed, belongs in the a RAF thread in the Military Aviation/Air Force category.
-Preceptor

 

[overlander]

do you think that the r.n. is able to mount now an operation similar to the falklands war ?? i mean if the predicted cuts are reality in the short term, in my opinion NO,

 

[swerve]

do you think that the r.n. is able to mount now an operation similar to the falklands war ?? i mean if the predicted cuts are reality in the short term, in my opinion NO,

The RN has much greater amphibious capabilities than in 1982, carrier-borne AEW, which it lacked then, & CIWS on ships. But since the withdrawal of the Sea Harriers has inferior fighters (though much better ground-attack aircraft) to provide cover, & fewer frigates & destroyers.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

& fewer frigates & destroyers.

Though those escorts are better equipped than the ones that were deployed in 1982.

At the moment the Royal Navy is in a transitionary stage. Older ships are being retired, with newer ones coming into service. When Daring is commissioned it will give a huge boost to the fleet's AAW capabilities.

As for the Falklands, I don't see Argentina as a threat anymore. They like to make a fuss, but they've essentially lost their teeth.

 

[Super Nimrod]

Tomahawk, the E-3's and the Apache's are all factors that Argentina would also have to take into account, as well as Stormshadows on the MRA4's in the near future also Astor and Aster. Its a different force now to what it was then. Its often also forgotten that there is now improved satelite recon as well (Britain had major trouble getting any recon info back then)

The only area of actual weakness is an attrition reserve for Frigates & destroyers as has been mentioned here before. Oh, and actually having any spare troops available to do a job and any helicopters to move them. We did get by with only one heavylift helicopter last time so no doubt the bean counters have assumed the same could be done again and with the same Chinook 25 years later nfloorl: