The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

D

Dave H

New Member
perfectgeneral,

We need to face facts that spending on military strikes less of a chord with the average MOP than the NHS, Education, pensions or even immigration. If you or your family were diagnosed with a critical illness then decent hospitals might be more important than T45 7 and 8.

The best we could hope for is a commitment to a minimum 3%GDP but I dont see the Tories committing to it, add a pending housing blip as a real possibility, loss of consumer confidence etc then things dont look too promising. A certain regime in africa at the centre of the teddy bear controversy, got, according to the FO website around £350 M from us in aid in the last 5 years, next year they will get £115 M. Over 10 years that would buy the army 20 Chinooks, a couple of destroyers for the navy etc...but it aint going to happen...imagine the outcry from the left.

As System Addict points out, there needs to be a cross the board boost to manufacturing industry and skill, how that happens in modern markets?, I havent a clue but it probably involves boosting defence procurement coniderably so a cat in hells chance.

There should be 3% minumum and Trident should come out of a central budget. We just need to get out of Iraq and avoid foreign adventures for a decade or so just to rebalance the budgets.

There will need to be a big bad ogre on the world stage before things change.
 
J

Jon K

New Member
Future RN CVF task forces

Now, as the RN is shrinking, will it have capability to use the two CVF's independently against serious opposition? If the number of Type 45 destroyers will be eight, at most, and future surface combatants will be lower tier ships, doesn't this mean that with high, 75% availability, each CVF will have three AAW escorts at most? With NATO and other allied support I have no doubt CVF's can be used, but what will be the maximum independent RN ability to project power?

Mvh,
Jon K
 
B

battlensign

New Member
Hello. Good Questions.

First let me say that you are probably bang-on in respect of the likely numbers of AAW escorts in any Future RN Carrier Task Force (3). Typically the Americans use a CG and 2 DDGs as the core AAW escorts depending on the threat levels ( 2 CGs and 3 DDGs is not unheard of). However, whilst in of itself these numbers mean little to the RN, it must be noted that these American ships carry far more AAW weapons than the average Daring will (Fingers crossed for a quad-packable short range SAM) - 48 campared to between 90 and 120 odd. On the plus side, if the extra space that is reportedly available for around 16 more Mk 41 VLS cells is utilised, the Darings will have a potential for superb radar and 64 cells. That would help the situation quite a bit. Even if not so (48 Cells as currently planned) three AAW dedicated assets does not necessarily mean they're an ineffective Carrier force.

Second it is important to note the manner in which Carrier Task Forces are used. The Americans can be very aggressive in their use (Taiwan Straits [1997?]) of Carrier Forces. And rightfully so in many ways, given the benefits for international security resulting from such daring. However, that is one way to use Carriers, not the way. Even the Americans vary their tactics in various scenarios. I would highly recommend that you read the "How to sink a Carrier Battle Group" thread for some discussion of options relating to Carrier usage in high-threat environments. What is the threat to the carrier? A) Submarines? - AAW escorts are not the sole tool for this threat so only having three doesn't matter as much (3 ASW Frigates for the Task Force would be nice) B) Aircraft? Launch, or be prepared to launch, a pre-emptive strike against the bases before hand etc.

What is the Maximum Independent RN Capability for Power Projection?

It seems clear that it depends on the nature of the exercise of power/conflict. It is very difficult to calculate what the limits are, but there is a tendency to forget that the Carrier Task Force is one tool on the arsenal of the BAFs. Airstrikes etc are possibilites to lessen threats before the Carrier/s come into play. Overall, 8 Type 45s (6 useable) will have significant difficulties in being enough to protect two Carrier Task Forces and an Amphibious Task Force at once.

Certainly rotation of forces in long standing commitments will be an issue (2s rather than 3s). The proliferation of long-range cruise missiles will be a significant issue because of the threats they pose and may dictate strategy for Carrier Force usage. The real issues will arise when pretige requires that RN operate alone. Needless to say that if requested USN, RAN, NATO etc forces would assist, but when acting alone the RN will face some challenges in serious engagements.

It is clear that with smaller and smaller forces of Destroyers it will be the Frigates who make up the standing commitments of the RN.

Beyond that, it may be too early to comment definatively given the threat evenironment is the post 2015 period. Certainly the Carriers will enable the RN to do what it can do well, but lack of escorts will affect the tactics/capability of RN Task Forces.

Brett.
 
Systems Adict

Systems Adict

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Dave H said:
As System Addict points out, there needs to be a cross the board boost to manufacturing industry and skill, how that happens in modern markets?, I haven't a clue but it probably involves boosting defence procurement considerably so a cat in hells chance.
Click to expand...
To reiterate this point even further, we are in this endemic state down to the global shift from "national pride", to "self-worth".

As I've said more than once, society is more interested in the ME culture, than the good of the nation. This ideology is down to 2 things...

#1. Influence from Europe, & the reach that that has had into the Western society for the last 30 years, mixed with a 60's throw back, to the peace & free love society, where everyone across the globe should live in perfect harmony....

:puke



I'm not a racist, a misogynist, or a male chauvinist pig !


I am a REALIST, I live in a real world where real people die because some 55 - 65 yr old, who remembers going to Woodstock / isle of white festivals, smoked too much weed, lived in a Kibbutz for 18 months, went off got his business degree & is now a highly paid, high up official in govt / European Parliament member, passing out ludicrous rules about the width of pavements, the correct length & colour of banana's, & the exact weight of a package, so long as it's in Kilo grammes!!


It's these idiots who helped enforce the removal of corporal punishment in the education system, so that we have 2 generations of children who know they can literally get away with murder, as long as they can plead they had a bad home life / didn't get the latest trainers / games console that their class mate got !


These same idiots are also demanding funds to spend on junkets to travel to paper recycling facilities, or 3 weeks in the Maldives to study the Eco-culture of the beaches, & the effect of tourism on the social economy.



MONEY THAT COULD BE BETTER SPENT ON FUNDING THE DEFENCE OF THE NATION !!



#2. The ME Culture : Society nowadays wants to do as little as possible for as long as they can, while being paid as much as they can get.

Kids in schools are told that companies will be fighting over them, offering them the MD's job (& it's associated wage), if they have the right education & a degree. So your average 24yr old grad, who's never had to handle the joys of working for a living, walks into the corporate environment, & guess what, the companies offer them EXACTLY what they want. A management position, £30K a year +bonuses, flexi-time, 35 days Holiday & medical care.

Their response when they are expected to deliver the goods??

Thanks for the 2/3 yrs experience, I'm off to work for another Corporation, who are offering me £45K, & a VP position, see ya !!

Is it any wonder that the Engineering sector can't keep hold of their staff ?? & when you add to this the declining birth rate over the last 30 years in Western Europe, there just aren't enough bodies coming up to fill the slots of those who are retiring, never mind the ones that are leaving because they are fed up being treated by crap by management who have no real understanding of the task at hand, as they don't have the PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE !!




(Rant continues in Private, Blood Boiling...!)

:nutkick :ar15 :eek:fftopic :lam :ban




But really, The Western world is facing this time bomb, all of our own making. If our govt's don't attempt to stem this constant stream of mis-management & down right neglect to our Industrial base, China/Asia & the Muslim power base will eat us for breakfast....


Your thoughts



(While I go & lie in a darkened room, with only bread & water...!)

Systems Adict
 
S

spsun100001

New Member
We're all just making our best predictions based upon our perspective on events. No-one can be proved right or wrong. Just as I'd acknowledge some of the scare stories we've heard haven't come true (cancellation of the CVF) so I'm sure other posters with a more optimistic perspective will acknowledge that all of the things I cited in my previous posts started as rumours and did come true.

Only time will tell who is right. My pessimism comes not just from the governments track record but from some of the macro issues:

1) The government announced an increase in defence spending of 1% above RPI for the next 5 years. However, the Treasury Select Committee stated that defence RPI is around 8% whereas the general rate of RPI is about 3.5%. That means that over the five years of the settlement, defence procurement expenditure will fall by 20% in real terms against the rate of RPI in the defence equipment sector.

2) Projects continue to overspend. The MoD has pushed £1 billion of overspend from this year into next (Type 45's and Astute SSN's being two of the significant overspend projects highlighted by the National Audit Office).

3) We remain locked into the procurement of vast numbers of tactical fighters (Typhoon) which swallow up a disproportionate amount of the defence procurement budget. The RAF are now lobbying for modifications to the earlier aircraft so that at least they have some relevance to our defence priorities given we've spent £6 billion on them.

4) Nothing credible has been said by the government about how the replacement for the strategic nuclear deterrent will be paid for. I don't see them raiding the Health and Education budgets for it.

5) Commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan will continue for some time as will the wriggling by the Treasury to give as little of the strategic reserve to the MoD as it can get away with to fund the operations.

As I see it we have a government with a track record of cutting the Navy (well beyond the recommendations in it's own Strategic Defence Review), a reduction in real terms funding for procurement, lock in to the most expensive defence procurement project in the history of the country despite it's questionable position in our order of defence priorities, further cost pressures to come and ongoing pressure from operations that are well beyond our planning assumptions.

This is one of the few debates I hope to find myself in the wrong on. I'd like nothing more than to see you guys post 'I told you so' as we order Astutes 5-8, Type 45's 7 and 8, the E2D Hawkeye, enough F35's to equip our CV's and C3 vessels that have an embarked helicopter. Sadly I just don't see it.
 
R

riksavage

Banned Member
I suspect the UK’s future maritime doctrine will focus on sustaining only a single immediately deployable carrier / amphibious battle group in the role of strategic raiding / power projection at any one time. The UK is seriously considering basing part of the force (Carrier / escorts) out of Gibraltar, thus saving deployment time to likely hot-spots. This is quite feasible with the planned T45’s, carriers, submarines, current frigates / amphibious capability. I seriously doubt we would ever see two carriers deployed independently without the support of other NATO allies. Another Falklands scenario could be managed with a single carrier battle-group (QE class), keeping the second in reserve, along with selected amphibious assets (two Bay’s)

We do need to guarantee continued production of maritime assets to ensure UK skills are maintained, so a drip feed of DDG's etc., is needed. However the UK’s pioneering public / private sector initiatives (see below) guarantee long term contracts enabling companies to invest in people and skills over-time. This is no different from what we witnessed in WWII under Lord Beaverbrook, who mobilization private and public production initiatives with great success.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...racting-for-availability-approach-04333/#more

The one consolation is Labour is going to get hammered in the next election and bodies such as the newly formed UKNDA (http://www.uknda.org/) continue through cross-party support (look at the list of senior members) to pressurize Brown and his cronies on defense matters. There are a lot of angy people in the UK who will not let this issue drop.
 
S

Sea Toby

New Member
And I was under the impression that ESSM has a range of over 50+ kilometers. Its a better, improved version of sea sparrow with much longer range. So much more range the US Navy is dropping the SM-1 missile launcher of OH Perry class frigates
 
W

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
What does the removal of the Mk13 launcher has to do with ESSM?
Without the Mk13 the OHPs loose their ability to launch SM-1 and Harpoon.
The remaining armament consists purely of guns with the 57mm being the biggest one.
 
K

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Waylander said:
The remaining armament consists purely of guns with the 57mm being the biggest one.
Click to expand...
Mk-75 76mm gun. The other gun being the Phalanx, and that's it. Plus the helos of course, and the two triple torpedo tubes.

Sea Toby said:
And I was under the impression that ESSM has a range of over 50+ kilometers. Its a better, improved version of sea sparrow with much longer range. So much more range the US Navy is dropping the SM-1 missile launcher of OH Perry class frigates
Click to expand...
Umm, the US OHPs do not receive ESSM. The Mk13 are being removed because the SM-1MR is being retired as it's not effective enough any more.

Only Australia has fitted ESSM to its OHP variant, and upgraded the Mk13 to fire SM-2MR with that.
 
harryriedl

harryriedl

Active Member
Verified Defense Pro
Musashi_kenshin said:
http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=570090

It revealed the Ministry of Defence has agreed to BAE ordering “long lead items” like gear boxes and reactor components for three more submarines, making a total of seven in all.

I doubt the MoD would be ordering long-lead items if they weren't sure they were going to order the submarines.
Click to expand...
hmmm that good ive missed that. Now wheres the Long lead items to be ordered for the other 2 T45 :D
 
S

Super Nimrod

New Member
Seemingly we are coughing up for some things that are urgently needed. Although not Navy related, we did today order another much needed C-17.:cool:
 
I

Izzy1

Banned Member
Super Nimrod said:
Seemingly we are coughing up for some things that are urgently needed. Although not Navy related, we did today order another much needed C-17.:cool:
Click to expand...

I'd trade a C-17 for another 20 tactical transport helicopters.

Another "icon" buy from a Criminaly stupid UK MoD.
 
S

Super Nimrod

New Member
Systems Adict

Systems Adict

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Last edited:
W

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
kato said:
Mk-75 76mm gun. The other gun being the Phalanx, and that's it. Plus the helos of course, and the two triple torpedo tubes.
Click to expand...
Mod edit: Manure, I knew I should have stayed out of actively participating in naval topics... :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
R

rickusn

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
"because 20 surface combatants isn't enough to protect these HVU amphibious ships and carriers your nation is buying."

Well actually if you look at it from the following perspective maybe it is.:

The USN has been hovering around 100 escorts for sometime now.

With roughly 12 carriers and 12 LHD/LHA the USN had hoped to maintain 120 surface combatants but with a CVN always in SLEP the USN considered it could get by with 110. Now the USN has reduced to 11 carriers with one usually in SLEP.

Even this has not been maintained but the USN has climbed back to 104 after a low of 98.

Also keep in mind 30 of those are and have been greatly emasculated (ie removal of the MK 13 launcher and associated SM1/Harpoon missiles) OH Perry FFG -7 class frigates whos only major weapon attributes reside in the helo(s) assigned.

So given that the standard for both navies seems to be a ratio of 10 escort ships for every carrier then 20 escorts for the RN is not the end of the world.

Now when the RN had three carriers the requirement for nominally 32 escorts existed by the mid 1990's** although one carrier has been in extended refit and/or reserve maintained by a caretaker crew for quick emergency reactivation.

** Requirements dropped at the end of the Cold War in 1990 from 50 to 40, then to 35 and then then to 32(12 Type 42, 16 Type 22 Batch III and 16 Type 23 of which three were canceled)

However by the end of 1999 the escort inventory fell to 27(one in reserve in a reactivatable state) and subsequently to 25 with the retirements of three more Type 42s.

So while IMHO the Royal Navy should get as many units as it wants it could well get by with 20 escorts not that it would be an optimum number or w/o risks.

The main need for maintaining more escorts was always dreiven by the possible need for convoy duty rather than HVU escort.

With end of the cold war this mission evaporated.

Although to be sure with standing commitments of APT(N), APT(S), NATO SNMG-2 (MED) and up to three taskings in East of Suez ie Persian Gulf, IO and FE and a minimum 3:1 ratio 18 surface combatants are required for that alone.

So if another is required as the Rapid Reaction Unit and two escorts are always maintained for each of two carriers and one amphibious grouping then most certainly 25 would seem neccessary although to be sure ships in extended refit could strain this force structure in some scenarios.

And to be sure those ships mentioned above will need to support the new Royal Navy commitmnets to the Joint Rapid Reaction Force and NATO Response Force.

But again if the carriers or amphibious grouping deploys with the escorts earmarked for it to an area where normally only a surface combatant is on patrol this could mitigate the stress on surface comabtants to some extent. But would likely cause quandrys of its own.

So while I wouldnt want to see a drop to 20 it could be inevitable and seriously restructuring further how and where the RN deploys would likely become unavoidable.

In fact from time to time dropping the requirement for three ships East of Suez is often contemplated and even now the FE comittment isnt maintained continuously and the APT(N) has sometimes been gapped.

And the Royal Navy sometime ago dropped the NATO SNMG-1(Atlantic ) commitment.

Fortunately most of the Type 23s are or soon will be modernized, the Type 22s have been through major refits in recent years and the Type 45s are coming on line this should all help to ease some of the strain along wih future new construction eventually.

All is not optimum at the moment but its not all gloom and doom either IMHO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top