But won't still be an increse in overall SSN tonnage as Astute are much larger than the Swiftsure and Trafalgar classes
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
kev 99
Member
This is what I'd do, you would then have the option of integrating other longer missiles (Tomahawk or Harpoon, etc) with the A70 should the UK decide to stump up the cash.
Who gives a damn about tonnage, we need hulls not displacement figures
nfloorl:So long as we have the capability, and 5/6 boats are available at any one time i think we have enough for our purposes. These are/will be phenomenaly capable boats.
Swerve,
Adding A70 seems to be the most logical option and will giv some flexibility. Sea Skua Mk2 seems a useful weapon to have, however i suspect the T45 will be retrospectivly fitted with Harpoon as and when the systems become available.
the design of the C1 class of FSC will be interesting. Here is the latest "mission statement" as you will.
C1 - Task Group Enabled Surface Combatant
A Force ASW and Precision Strike optimised combatant
that will contribute to and enable the Joint Force’s
ability to deliver strategic effects of Insight, Coercion,
Deterrence, Stabilisation, Prevention, Disruption and
Destruction primarily in medium- and large-scale
warfighting operations, but with wider non-warfighting
utility. This is achieved through the ability to secure safe
theatre entry, force protection, sea control, freedom of
manoeuvre and precision fires for the deployment and
sustainment of the Joint Force within core regions and
transit between.
And "C2"....
C2 - Stabilisation Surface Combatant (General Purpose)
A consort protection optimised combatant that will
contribute to and enable the strategic effects of
Insight, Coercion, Deterrence, Stabilisation, Prevention,
Disruption and Destruction in:
• Concurrent small-scale warfighting operations through
precision strike [IPMD], surveillance, maritime
interdiction and the provision of secure safe theatre
entry, AAW, ASuW, ASW close consort protection and
sea control for the deployment and sustainment of the
force package.
• Medium- and large-scale operations through the
protection of national SLOCs and contributing to the
protection of coalition SLOCs for the core regions and
transit between.
It seems that for the time being the "C3" concept has been dropped from the FSC agenda.
Source: http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/RDS_Brunton_Feb09.pdf
It's 6 boats that are needed at all times and the short answer is, they won't always be available with only 7 boats. That's why it has been said consistently by the Navy and Govt that at least 8 are needed. But the govt. rarely listens to advice, so why listen to itself.
There's still a chance boat 8 will be ordered, but only 7 have been confirmed so far. As i've said before, it all depends on timing and budget.
kev 99
Member
Infrastructure also plays a part, reports suggest that BAE are still struggling to fill all the required positions at Barrow, if you can't build 8 before the need for the Vanguards replacement then you run up against a problem.
8 boats certainly seems to be the sensible option. Can deal with having fewer in number provided they are of high quality.
As for getting 8 boats built in time, the real problem is the length of time between Vanguard boat 4 and Astite boat one - about 10 years. Thet decade long gap is why we are experiencing the problems we are now. Hopefully this will not be repeated.
As for getting 8 boats built in time, the real problem is the length of time between Vanguard boat 4 and Astite boat one - about 10 years. Thet decade long gap is why we are experiencing the problems we are now. Hopefully this will not be repeated.
The RN-Army-RAF have been practicing joint operations in the Falklands this month, testing interservice operability. I understand the ranges provide fantastic live firing, CAS and ship-to-shore gunnery opportunities. Part of regular exercises to remind the Argentines the Brit's are still awake!
http://www.navynews.co.uk/view-story.aspx?articleID=402
http://content.yudu.com/A14dwh/Navy...-story.aspx?articleID=402&skipFlashCheck=true
http://www.navynews.co.uk/view-story.aspx?articleID=402
http://content.yudu.com/A14dwh/Navy...-story.aspx?articleID=402&skipFlashCheck=true
Still awake? Could have fooled me! The timing is interesting considering (presumably soon to be "ex") PM Brown's comments regarding sovreignty of the Falklands.
Should the Tories win the next election, would this improve the fortunes of the armed forces - the Navy in particular? They talk a good game, but most politicians do....
Should the Tories win the next election, would this improve the fortunes of the armed forces - the Navy in particular? They talk a good game, but most politicians do....
kev 99
Member
Difficult to say really, it's not like they'll have loads of money to make major transformations and they haven't exactly been making any promises on budgets. They've been making the usual disparaging remarks about the current Government eroding the armed forces but how much of that is just opposition for opposition sake?
I don't think we'll really know until a couple of years into the new Government, the 98 SDR was viewed pretty favourably until it became apparent that the Government hadn't actually costed it properly.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Look at the UK budget for the 2008 financial year, particularly the deficit and how much of that deficit is made up of interest on loans. Long story short, if anything the UK government needs to either *decrease* spending across the board by about 60 billion a year or increase taxes by an amount to increase the budget by about that much. They then need to resist the urge to spend the money on something else.
Unless all the 'toxic' assets the goverment has taken onto its balance sheet regains value in the not-too-distant future. That future could see the goverment selling these off to the tune of a very tidy profit indeed, not bad at all, turning dept into profit.
As to whether the armed forces will see any of it is a another matter.
As to whether the armed forces will see any of it is a another matter.
Therein lies the problem - government debt has doubled during New Labours tenure. They frequently take over when the country is in a rude health and leave in a mess.
I think a Strategic Defence Review is unavoidable after the next election. The world has moved on at pace from 1998. We need
1 - To be able to deploy (at most) 3 battle groups capable of high level warfare.
2 - The nuclear deterrant
3 - Be able to carry out various low level operations at limited cost (anti-piracy, drugs busts, falklands patrols etc.)
Quite what force is required - i do not know. Budget available - i do not know.
They've just confirmed that the remainder of the Frigates at Devonport will be moving to Portsmouth.
That just leaves most of the SSN's and the assault force there now. I really hope they don't reduce numbers there any further, it provides a pretty good alternative to Faslane if the Scottish keep acting up over The Vanguards being deployed there.
That just leaves most of the SSN's and the assault force there now. I really hope they don't reduce numbers there any further, it provides a pretty good alternative to Faslane if the Scottish keep acting up over The Vanguards being deployed there.
kev 99
Member
Not quite a denial, more a postponement. Personally I think it would make a lot of sense for the logistics chain, but it would make a huge amount of upheaval and what with the problems that already exist with manpower retention it would be a risky move in my opinion.
Could mean a shift of RFA assets if the T22 move to Portsmouth to keep the numbers the same