The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

windscorpion

New Member
David Axe is wrong on the T22/23 withdrawals, the clock has been put back on them. The T22s will be withdrawn (under current plans) from 2019-2022 and the T23s 2023-36. So there is plenty of time to avert financial armadaggon and finally build FSC. The mad Commie will be out of power next year anyway so we'll see what the Tories can do with the RN.
 

McZosch

New Member
A Tories view

The mad Commie will be out of power next year anyway so we'll see what the Tories can do with the RN.
Yesterday i read this article at rusi.org.

Basically he sets the number of FSC to procured up to 24, they "have to be cheap as chips". He opts strongly against "top-of-the-range specifications", stating that british admirals are singing a new song "quantity is quality".

If he views C3 as being included in his number of 24 is not entirely clear. If it where, it would be 2 escorts short of the numbers stated at Richard Beedall's page.

I think, his thinking is right: build numbers, later you can improve equipment. Especially, he envisage doing so with providing UK's defence industry with a valuable export asset.
 

citizen578

New Member
with the current Global Financial crisis hitting the UK more that any other country in Europe due to our reliance on the Financial sector, two wars and a bleak global outlook can we really afford to have two carrier groups or even one? With the F35s first orders being so expensive can we even afford to fund the airwing? Will the carriers really be any use to us due to the costs of maintaining a task force of that size operationally?
Firstly, welcome.

I would agree with Tony's comment above that the financial effects on the forces cannot be viewed in isolation from the political sphere.
The big question is... can we afford not to have a strong carrier force? The obvious answer is no. We very nearly lost the Falklands War because of a massive oversight by the government of James Callaghan (and Maggy Thatcher's early government), who wanted to turn the RN into an anti-sub force. The big lesson was that the RN needs to be prepared for every eventuality, not specialise in one or two areas. It took a thoudand years to build the Royal Navy, it's taken just a quarter of a century to turn it into a relative ghost.
Not to have the ability to independantly embark on operations where friendly bases may be few or non-existant is not an option if the UK wants to remain a serious force in the world.

In terms of the finances, it's important to remember that the current (appalling) state of defence spending is not a reflection of the economy as a whole, it is a reflection of political indiference. Defence spending today is at it's lowest proportion (%GDP) since the 1930s. Most of the world's leading powers spend significantly more of their national piggy-bank on defence than we do. It a political absurdity that this is the case in the UK at the moment. To improve the state of the forces does not require an economic miracle or even an economic revival, all it requires is the politicans of the day to face the reality that the forces are an important part of 'UK plc', and need an investment to reflect that. It's unlikely to come from this current government, and only marginal from the political 'heirs apparent' (i.e. the tories).
:mad:
 

vbombv

New Member
Thanks for the replies. I agree we need the carriers and cringe with regards to the lack of funds being spent. There are a lot of other countries developing carrier and advanced frigate programs at the moment and we should not get left behind.
It makes me worry about our capabilities as we cannot always rely on our allies. I agree with the comments that Gordon seems to be creating part of an EU Navy that is not fully capable in any area. Although pro-european myself and being a Brit living abroad I think that the UK needs to be able to fight alone as our politics are not always shared.

The future Royal Navy seems to be getting slammed in the defense blog world. Another reference http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004714.html seems to indicate that we are not pulling our weight as allies... (although it could be argued that in supporting our allies we find ourselves in this financial mess)
 
Thanks for the replies. I agree we need the carriers and cringe with regards to the lack of funds being spent. There are a lot of other countries developing carrier and advanced frigate programs at the moment and we should not get left behind.
It makes me worry about our capabilities as we cannot always rely on our allies. I agree with the comments that Gordon seems to be creating part of an EU Navy that is not fully capable in any area. Although pro-european myself and being a Brit living abroad I think that the UK needs to be able to fight alone as our politics are not always shared.

The future Royal Navy seems to be getting slammed in the defense blog world. Another reference http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004714.html seems to indicate that we are not pulling our weight as allies... (although it could be argued that in supporting our allies we find ourselves in this financial mess)
TAotally agree , the problem is that unfortunately the next tory governemt will follow reducing the navy in capabilities. The Royal Navy will be a giant with crashed legs.
 

Tony Williams

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
It makes me worry about our capabilities as we cannot always rely on our allies. I agree with the comments that Gordon seems to be creating part of an EU Navy that is not fully capable in any area. Although pro-european myself and being a Brit living abroad I think that the UK needs to be able to fight alone as our politics are not always shared.
Bear in mind that with the retirement of the Sea Harriers a couple of years ago, and until the T-45s come on line in a few years, RN fleet air defence is now in the hands of the ancient Type 42's Sea Darts.

Rather than relying on the EU, I think it would be more accurate to say that we currently cannot engage in any expeditionary activities against a sophisticated enemy without being alongside the USN, relying on their carrier air power for defence.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website
 

harryriedl

Active Member
Verified Defense Pro
Bear in mind that with the retirement of the Sea Harriers a couple of years ago, and until the T-45s come on line in a few years, RN fleet air defence is now in the hands of the ancient Type 42's Sea Darts.

Rather than relying on the EU, I think it would be more accurate to say that we currently cannot engage in any expeditionary activities against a sophisticated enemy without being alongside the USN, relying on their carrier air power for defence.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website
their is the caveat that the FA/2 are in storage and could be reactivated. Though the the Harrier has changed significantly from harrier to harrier 2 it could still be reactivated the T-45 sea trials could be sped up for national emergency. (considering Lusty was commissioned at sea I don't see this as impossible). It mighty tricky to time replacements to arrive without a gap capability as the Indians have found with Vicraat as have many other nations .
 

vbombv

New Member
their is the caveat that the FA/2 are in storage and could be reactivated. Though the the Harrier has changed significantly from harrier to harrier 2 it could still be reactivated the T-45 sea trials could be sped up for national emergency. (considering Lusty was commissioned at sea I don't see this as impossible). It mighty tricky to time replacements to arrive without a gap capability as the Indians have found with Vicraat as have many other nations .
I read recently that the Indians will yet again extend the service life of the Viraat (Indians can keep anything running, I have a Royal Enfield...) although forcebly in order to maintain their capability. They are also well advanced in their own carrier program after being financially burned by the Russians over constantly increasing costs and delays over the conversion of the replacement. Therefore the way I see it is that they are not loose the capability whereas we (by mothballing) do not have the on hand capability or show of force.

http://www.deccanherald.com/Content/Mar12009/scroll20090301121399.asp?section=frontpagenews

As for the FA/2s being brought out of mothballing, they are very capable aircraft but I am inclined to think that against an enemy with a semi-modern capable airforce (hosting Su-27s etc) that they are outclassed. There even is a large debate (Australia) with regards to the capability of the F35 against the most modern areal soviet aircraft threat.
 
Last edited:

Padfoot

New Member
Thanks for the replies. I agree we need the carriers and cringe with regards to the lack of funds being spent. There are a lot of other countries developing carrier and advanced frigate programs at the moment and we should not get left behind.
It makes me worry about our capabilities as we cannot always rely on our allies. I agree with the comments that Gordon seems to be creating part of an EU Navy that is not fully capable in any area. Although pro-european myself and being a Brit living abroad I think that the UK needs to be able to fight alone as our politics are not always shared.

The future Royal Navy seems to be getting slammed in the defense blog world. Another reference http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004714.html seems to indicate that we are not pulling our weight as allies... (although it could be argued that in supporting our allies we find ourselves in this financial mess)
I don't get that John Noonan article.

How many AAW destroyers escort a US carrier group? Two, three?


A French carrier group consists of:

# one SSN
# one or two anti-air destroyers
# two anti-submarine destroyers
# one frigate in forward patrol
# one supply ship


You read about the many escorts that went to the Falklands, yet they were virtually useless.

Hmm. Strange article.
 

vbombv

New Member
I don't get that John Noonan article.

How many AAW destroyers escort a US carrier group? Two, three?


A French carrier group consists of:

# one SSN
# one or two anti-air destroyers
# two anti-submarine destroyers
# one frigate in forward patrol
# one supply ship


You read about the many escorts that went to the Falklands, yet they were virtually useless.

Hmm. Strange article.
He has provoked discussion though and thats why I originally posted here, to see if all this doom and gloom had basis or not. Our hosts also have an article running today quoting the UKNDA paper which continues the trend of Britain bashing:

http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/defence/Britain_Risks_Losing_Its_Global_Influence_If_We_Don_t_Invest_In_Defence30017262.php

What do you see our CV task forces consisting of?
 

citizen578

New Member
I'd agree that the article is just another load of sensationalist drivel. Sometimes I wonder who it is that's behind the times, the RN with it's ageing cold-war warriors, or these press-hounds who seem to believe that the RN should have a 19th century configuration.

You read about the many escorts that went to the Falklands, yet they were virtually useless.
The escorts in the Falklands were far from useless. They performed fantastically, and never allowed penetration into the inner 'ring' - a monumental feat considering the imbalance of air-power and the constant niggling threat of the San Luis.

In terms of unit-value, you could never compare a T45 to a County Class of the Falklands era, or even to a T42. They are of entirely different magnitudes of potency.

Having said that, you have to wonder how the RN is going to provide a sufficient screen to it's CVs when it can't even spare a FF/DD for the Falklands at the current operational tempo. If the QE Class was fitted with more extensive self-protection (perhaps an sylver-aster laucher) then it would provide more flexibility, but as ever... you solve one problem, you create 3 dozen more.
:unknown
 

Grim901

New Member
I'd agree that the article is just another load of sensationalist drivel. Sometimes I wonder who it is that's behind the times, the RN with it's ageing cold-war warriors, or these press-hounds who seem to believe that the RN should have a 19th century configuration.



The escorts in the Falklands were far from useless. They performed fantastically, and never allowed penetration into the inner 'ring' - a monumental feat considering the imbalance of air-power and the constant niggling threat of the San Luis.

In terms of unit-value, you could never compare a T45 to a County Class of the Falklands era, or even to a T42. They are of entirely different magnitudes of potency.

Having said that, you have to wonder how the RN is going to provide a sufficient screen to it's CVs when it can't even spare a FF/DD for the Falklands at the current operational tempo. If the QE Class was fitted with more extensive self-protection (perhaps an sylver-aster laucher) then it would provide more flexibility, but as ever... you solve one problem, you create 3 dozen more.
:unknown
@Bold bit: You could argue that was more down to the Harrier force, that performed so well against everything that got thrown at them.

I'm not sure how much of that defence was actually provided by the escorts, but it just doesn't get mentioned as much.

@Citizen578: I agree that the T45's can't be compared to their predecessors, they are definitely one of, if not the best AAW destroyers on the planet, but still, 2 less capable ships can sometimes be more useful than one more capable ship.
 
Another article about British defence capabilities problems.

Britain will cease to be a major player in world affairs and we will lose our influence with the United States unless there is a significant increase in funding for our armed forces. This decision cannot wait until after the next General Election but must be made now.

In a hard-hitting policy paper, “A decision the next Prime Minister must make”, published by the United Kingdom National Defence Association (UKNDA) and endorsed by former Chief of the Defence Staff General Lord Guthrie and former Foreign Secretary Lord Owen, the UKNDA’s Tony Edwards says that Britain has a clear choice: to continue with proactive foreign & defence policies – and fund them – or compromise towards purely reactive policies.

The UKNDA paper, which is also endorsed by Marshal of the RAF Sir Peter Harding, Air Marshal Ian Macfadyen and Admiral Sir John Treacher, argues that Britain’s armed forces are already so severely under-funded and over-stretched that within five years we will have plummeted from the ‘first division’ (in terms of military capability) to the middle of the second division, below France, Russia, China, India, Germany and Japan.

Edwards, an independent industrialist and former Head of Defence Export Services in the Ministry of Defence, with extensive experience in the defence and aerospace industries, asserts that while Government Ministers claim the UK “punches above its weight” in world affairs, the reality is that our armed forces are required to “punch above their budget” – and they cannot do so any longer.

Consistent under-investment in defence since the last Strategic Defence Review in 1998 has left Britain with a cumulative defence deficit of up to £20Bn. In addition to this, there is a capital equipment spending gap of at least £15Bn.

“With the possible exception of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office,” writes Edwards, “the Ministry of Defence has been the lowest funding priority of any Government department since 1997. This is inconsistent with the ambitious foreign and defence policies pursued by the Government in the same period.”

Edwards argues that to close the gap and repair the damage done to our military capability by years of under-investment, there must be an increase in the defence budget of £5Bn in the first year followed by £10Bn in the second and then £15Bn extra every year until the appropriate balance has been restored.

If these increases are not forthcoming, the UK must learn to accept a diminishing role in the world and must rely instead on other countries to play what has historically been Britain’s role as “a force for good in the world”.

In his foreword to the paper, UKNDA President Winston S. Churchill, whose grandfather waged a virtually single-handed campaign for British rearmament throughout the 1930s, writes that if we wish to continue to be a significant player on the world stage “the next Prime Minister… will have no choice but to offer decisive leadership to the nation and personally demonstrate the courage to make good the shortfall in defence funding of the past 10 ‘locust years’, during which the armed forces have been stretched to breaking point by a combination of over-commitment and under-resourcing.”

The paper concludes: “At stake is Britain’s future: our ability to defend our country and our world-wide interests, our global influence through the UN and international alliances, and, not least, our special relationship with the United States.”

Click here for the full report

UK National Defence Association
 

citizen578

New Member
Regards the UKNDA article posted by Overlander, you have to understand that they are a political pressure-group calling for a massive defence budget increase. I personally am a subscriber and support their aims, but keep what they say in context.

@Bold bit: You could argue that was more down to the Harrier force, that performed so well against everything that got thrown at them.

I'm not sure how much of that defence was actually provided by the escorts, but it just doesn't get mentioned as much.

@Citizen578: I agree that the T45's can't be compared to their predecessors, they are definitely one of, if not the best AAW destroyers on the planet, but still, 2 less capable ships can sometimes be more useful than one more capable ship.
This is rapidly turning into a seperate debate. Unfortunately this site's thread about the Falklands War was closed after some anti-British prat demanded that Mount Pleasant was under imminent threat of attack by Argentina's non-existant Su-35 force and a non-existant alliance with the Klingons. Anyway...

Most of the Shars never used their radars, they were directed on by fighter controllers in the picket ships (an often overlooked function of escorts). Also, there are obvious examples where very thin harrier screen was penetrated and the incoming A-4s, Mirages and Exocets had to be dealt with by the destroyers and frigates. Hermes would almost certainly have been hit if Exeter hadn't repeatedly nailed the incoming A-4s and even high level recce a/c (something the Shars never achieved), if Atlantic Conveyor hadn't been strategically placed to absorb the incoming, and so on. There are countless other examples, but the ultimate point is that they served their roles as escorts fantastically - they prevented the carriers and amphib units from being hit, which the Shars alone could never have achieved.

What I was saying about unit-value is amply illustrated by the Falklands war. Exeter and Cardiff performed magnificently, whereas the ealier batch 1 T42's often struggled with their sensors and processors.

Regards the 45's, I completely agree. I'd love to have had 12 of them on beat, but even with a change of government I think the most that is realistic would be 8. I would be perfectly happy with a few less capable FSCs (maybe based on the T45) plugging the gap, but that's another area where the gov't need to pull their fingers out of their arses.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
This is rapidly turning into a separate debate. Unfortunately this site's thread about the Falklands War was closed after some anti-British prat demanded that Mount Pleasant was under imminent threat of attack by Argentina's non-existent Su-35 force and a non-existent alliance with the Klingons. Anyway...
This is not a valid interpretation of the posts in the Falklands Island thread. There was robust discussion on the validity of British assumptions. You may not agree with the posts but it is definitely not anti-British. :D

BTW, I love the Type 45.
 

riksavage

Banned Member
Whilst on the subject of the Falklands let's take time-out to remind ourselves what those 'useless escorts' and associated amphib's accounted for:

9th May Two A-4C Skyhawks of FAA Grupo 4 lost. Possibly damaged by Sea Darts from HMS Coventry or crashed in bad weather, with one aircraft found on South Jason Island. Lt Casco and Lt Farias killed. Puma SA.330L of CAB 601 shot down over Choiseul Sound by Sea Dart fired by HMS Coventry Crew of three lost.

12th May Two A-4B Skyhawks of FAA Grupo 5 shot down off Stanley by Sea Wolf fired by HMS Brilliant and third aircraft hit sea trying to evade missile All three pilots, Lt Bustos, Lt Ibarlucea and Lt Nivoli killed.

21st May Dagger A of FAA Grupo 6 shot down near Fanning Head by Sea Cat fired by HMS Argonaut or Plymouth, or more likely Sea Wolf from HMS Broadsword

21st May A-4Q Skyhawk of CANA 3 Esc damaged over Falkland Sound by small arms fire from HMS Ardent

23rd May A-4B Skyhawk of FAA Grupo 5 shot down over San Carlos Water by unknown SAM. Claims that day include "Broadsword" Sea Wolf, "Antelope" Sea Cat, and land-based Rapiers and Blowpipe. Lt Guadagnini killed.

24th May A-4C Skyhawk of FAA Grupo 4 damaged over San Carlos Water by ship and ground-based air defences and crashed into King George Bay, West Falkland on flight home.Claims that day include "Argonaut" and "Fearless" Sea Cat, and Rapier and Blowpipe SAM's

25th May A-4B Skyhawk of FAA Grupo 5 shot down north of Pebble Island by Sea Dart fired by HMS Coventry. Lt Palaver killed.

25th May A-4C Skyhawk of FAA Grupo 4 destroyed over San Carlos Water by a variety of weapons, claims including small arms fire, "Yarmouth" Sea Cat, and Rapier and Blowpipe SAM's Lt Lucero ejected.

25th May A-4C Skyhawk of FAA Grupo 4 damaged over San Carlos Water in same attack, and then brought down north east of Pebble Island by Sea Dart fired by HMS Coventry

30th May A-4B Skyhawk of FAA Grupo 5 damaged over San Carlos Water by 40mm Bofors from HMS Fearless or Intrepid, and crashed near Port Howard. Lt Velasco ejected.

30th May Two A-4C Skyhawks of FAA Grupo 4 shot down east of Falklands by Sea Darts fired by HMS Exeter, although 4.5 inch gunfire from HMS Avenger may have hit one. Lt Vazquez and Lt Castillo killed.

7th June Learjet 35A of FAA Photo-Reconnaissance Grupo 1 shot down over Pebble Island by Sea Dart fired by HMS Exeter. Wing Cmdr de la Colina and crew of four killed.

13th June Canberra B.62 of FAA Grupo 2 shot down west of Stanley by Sea Dart fired by HMS Exeter. Pilot, Capt Pastran ejected safely but Capt Casado is killed.

What this clearly shows is the benefit of a theatre defence system like Sea Dart. Two T45 Sea Viper equipped vessels tasked to escort the operational ARG in the near future bring to the table capabilities, which all of the above ships Captains and Weapons Officer's could only dream of in 82. Lets also not forget that during GWI that a Sea Dart fired from one of the RN escorts shot down a silkworm en-route to one of the US Carriers.
 
Last edited:

Padfoot

New Member
Whilst on the subject of the Falklands let's take time-out to remind ourselves what those 'useless escorts' and associated amphib's accounted for:
I guess I was thinking of all the hits that the RN took, Rik. 'Useless' was definitely an inappropriate term. Sandy Woodward has made it clear that if all the bombs that hit RN ships had exploded, he would have had no choice but to call off the whole show. My logic being, though badly worded, is that the Type 45, despite fewer numbers, is far more capable than what Admiral Woodward had at his disposal in 1982.
 

riksavage

Banned Member
I guess I was thinking of all the hits that the RN took, Rik. 'Useless' was definitely an inappropriate term. Sandy Woodward has made it clear that if all the bombs that hit RN ships had exploded, he would have had no choice but to call off the whole show. My logic being, though badly worded, is that the Type 45, despite fewer numbers, is far more capable than what Admiral Woodward had at his disposal in 1982.
Alas Padfoot whether we like it or not in war escorts always take hits. They are sacrificial lambs on picket designed to protect capital ships, unfortunately people assume today that modern technology should make them impervious to attacks. The Falklands is the only conflict post WWII, which witnessed a relatively modern airforce attack a concentrated enemy fleet in large numbers. If you go back to WWII, Destroyers, Frigates and Corvettes took a hammering when assigned to protect larger carrier / battleship concentrations. If we were to witness a conflict between two major, equally matched powers then we can expect to see the same again, particularly if we throw submarines into the mix.

The RN escorts in the Falklands combined with their well trained crews proved extremely resilient, not one crippled ship went down in less than 12-hours, compare that to the Belgrano (heavily armoured WWII cruiser), it slipped beneath the waves in pretty damn quick time.
 

citizen578

New Member
Lets also not forget that during GWI that a Sea Dart fired from one of the RN escorts shot down a silkworm en-route to one of the US Carriers.
HMS Gloucester and the USS Missouri. Gloucester's ships crest still sits proudly in the battleship's wardroom.

Goes to show that a well drilled crew with a single versatile main weapons system is always better than a leviathon smothered with weapons (the crew of Missouri made a cock-up, and the phalanx failed to work).
It certainly wouldn't have been a nice end for a ship woth a history a proud as that battleship's.
 
Top