The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

AndrewMI

New Member
Suprised no-one has picked up on this....

For me this is a good reason for having a surface warship capable of firing Tomahawk. Reason being that is it a visible presence (as opposed to an SSN) that can theoretically strike at any base in Argentina. Therefore making any first move by argentina less likely.


BBC News - Gordon Brown says UK is prepared in Falkland Islands

The UK has made "all the preparations that are necessary" to protect the Falkland Islands, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said.

Argentina has brought in controls on ships passing through its waters to the islands over UK plans to drill for oil.

Shadow foreign secretary William Hague told the BBC the Royal Navy's presence in the region should be increased.

The Ministry of Defence has denied reports that a naval taskforce is on its way to the Falklands.

The Sun newspaper reported that up to three ships were to join the islands' regular patrol vessel.

BBC defence correspondent Caroline Wyatt understands the destroyer HMS York and the oil supply tanker RFA Wave Ruler are in the area, as well as HMS Clyde, which is permanently based there.

However, the MoD said Britain already had a permanent naval presence in the South Atlantic as well as more than 1,000 military personnel on the islands.

'Very clear'

Speaking on Real Radio in the North East, Mr Brown said he did not expect to send a taskforce to the area.

He said he hoped "sensible discussions" with Argentina would prevail, adding: "We have made all the preparations that are necessary to make sure the Falkland Islanders are properly protected."

After Argentina's invasion of the Falklands in 1982, a UK taskforce seized back control in a short war that claimed the lives of 649 Argentine and 255 British soldiers.

Our correspondent Caroline Wyatt said the UK appeared keen not to escalate the current row over oil and gas exploration in the South Atlantic despite Argentina's tightening of controls on all shipping using its ports that wished to travel to or from the Falkland Islands.

One of the things that went wrong in the 1980s is that the Argentines thought we weren't really committed to the Falkland Islands

Shadow foreign secretary William Hague



The BBC's Andrew Harding in Buenos Aires said it was difficult to find anyone in Argentina who believed the Falklands were in danger of triggering a military conflict.

But Argentine deputy foreign minister Victorio Taccetti said his country would take "adequate measures" to stop oil exploration.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Hague called for "some sort of increased naval presence - it may just be one more ship visiting more regularly" in the region.

He added: "That kind of thing would show very clearly to Argentina - with whom, again, we want friendly relations - that we will be very firm about this. It would send a signal not to misunderstand British intentions.

"One of the things that went wrong in the 1980s is that the Argentines thought we weren't really committed to the Falkland Islands. So, we mustn't make that mistake again. Our commitment should be very clear."

Buenos Aires claims sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, which it calls Islas Malvinas.

It has previously threatened that any company exploring for oil and gas in the waters around the territory will not be allowed to operate in Argentina.

On Tuesday, Argentine President Cristina Fernandez signed a decree requiring all vessels travelling between Argentina and the islands, or those wanting to cross Argentine territorial waters en route to the Falklands, to seek prior permission.

But a drilling rig from the Scottish highlands, the Ocean Guardian, is nearing the islands and is due to start drilling next week, the UK-based company Desire Petroleum has said.

Last week, a ship carrying drilling equipment was detained by Argentine officials.

Geologists say the ocean bed surrounding the Falklands could contain rich energy reserves.

Last year, Argentina submitted a claim to the United Nations for a vast expanse of ocean, based on research into the extent of the continental shelf, stretching to the Antarctic and including the island chains governed by Britain.

It is due to raise the issue at the UN next week.

On Thursday, an MoD spokesman said the government was "fully committed" to the Falklands, adding: "A deterrence force is maintained on the islands."

The Foreign Office said the UK and Argentina were "important partners" on issues such as the global economy and climate change.

"And we want, and have offered, to co-operate on South Atlantic issues," a spokesman added. "We will work to develop this relationship further."

Parliamentary Falkland Islands Group secretary Andrew Rosindell said "Argentina needs to behave like a modern democratic nation" and recognise "there is no way that any British government will concede sovereignty over the islands or the water around the islands".

The waters surrounding the disputed islands are considered by the UK to be part of the British Overseas Territories.

But Buenos Aires believes the UK is illegally occupying the Falklands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.
 
Last edited:

jaffo4011

New Member
Suprised no-one has picked up on this....

For me this is a good reason for having a surface warship capable of firing Tomahawk. Reason being that is it a visible presence (as opposed to an SSN) that can theoretically strike at any base in Argentina. Therefore making any first move by argentina less likely.


BBC News - Gordon Brown says UK is prepared in Falkland Islands

The UK has made "all the preparations that are necessary" to protect the Falkland Islands, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said.

Argentina has brought in controls on ships passing through its waters to the islands over UK plans to drill for oil.

Shadow foreign secretary William Hague told the BBC the Royal Navy's presence in the region should be increased.

The Ministry of Defence has denied reports that a naval taskforce is on its way to the Falklands.

The Sun newspaper reported that up to three ships were to join the islands' regular patrol vessel.

BBC defence correspondent Caroline Wyatt understands the destroyer HMS York and the oil supply tanker RFA Wave Ruler are in the area, as well as HMS Clyde, which is permanently based there.

However, the MoD said Britain already had a permanent naval presence in the South Atlantic as well as more than 1,000 military personnel on the islands.

'Very clear'

Speaking on Real Radio in the North East, Mr Brown said he did not expect to send a taskforce to the area.

He said he hoped "sensible discussions" with Argentina would prevail, adding: "We have made all the preparations that are necessary to make sure the Falkland Islanders are properly protected."

After Argentina's invasion of the Falklands in 1982, a UK taskforce seized back control in a short war that claimed the lives of 649 Argentine and 255 British soldiers.

Our correspondent Caroline Wyatt said the UK appeared keen not to escalate the current row over oil and gas exploration in the South Atlantic despite Argentina's tightening of controls on all shipping using its ports that wished to travel to or from the Falkland Islands.

One of the things that went wrong in the 1980s is that the Argentines thought we weren't really committed to the Falkland Islands

Shadow foreign secretary William Hague



The BBC's Andrew Harding in Buenos Aires said it was difficult to find anyone in Argentina who believed the Falklands were in danger of triggering a military conflict.

But Argentine deputy foreign minister Victorio Taccetti said his country would take "adequate measures" to stop oil exploration.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Hague called for "some sort of increased naval presence - it may just be one more ship visiting more regularly" in the region.

He added: "That kind of thing would show very clearly to Argentina - with whom, again, we want friendly relations - that we will be very firm about this. It would send a signal not to misunderstand British intentions.

"One of the things that went wrong in the 1980s is that the Argentines thought we weren't really committed to the Falkland Islands. So, we mustn't make that mistake again. Our commitment should be very clear."

Buenos Aires claims sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, which it calls Islas Malvinas.

It has previously threatened that any company exploring for oil and gas in the waters around the territory will not be allowed to operate in Argentina.

On Tuesday, Argentine President Cristina Fernandez signed a decree requiring all vessels travelling between Argentina and the islands, or those wanting to cross Argentine territorial waters en route to the Falklands, to seek prior permission.

But a drilling rig from the Scottish highlands, the Ocean Guardian, is nearing the islands and is due to start drilling next week, the UK-based company Desire Petroleum has said.

Last week, a ship carrying drilling equipment was detained by Argentine officials.

Geologists say the ocean bed surrounding the Falklands could contain rich energy reserves.

Last year, Argentina submitted a claim to the United Nations for a vast expanse of ocean, based on research into the extent of the continental shelf, stretching to the Antarctic and including the island chains governed by Britain.

It is due to raise the issue at the UN next week.

On Thursday, an MoD spokesman said the government was "fully committed" to the Falklands, adding: "A deterrence force is maintained on the islands."

The Foreign Office said the UK and Argentina were "important partners" on issues such as the global economy and climate change.

"And we want, and have offered, to co-operate on South Atlantic issues," a spokesman added. "We will work to develop this relationship further."

Parliamentary Falkland Islands Group secretary Andrew Rosindell said "Argentina needs to behave like a modern democratic nation" and recognise "there is no way that any British government will concede sovereignty over the islands or the water around the islands".

The waters surrounding the disputed islands are considered by the UK to be part of the British Overseas Territories.

But Buenos Aires believes the UK is illegally occupying the Falklands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.
see the seperate thread on this matter.....
 

Troothsayer

New Member
Without any AD missiles.
I think Riksavage was being what is called Sarcastic.

Neither Daring,Dauntless or Astute are in active service yet anyway.

Suprised no-one has picked up on this....

For me this is a good reason for having a surface warship capable of firing Tomahawk. Reason being that is it a visible presence (as opposed to an SSN) that can theoretically strike at any base in Argentina. Therefore making any first move by argentina less likely.
Any enemy will know where a surface warship is, the Argentines simply don't know where an SSN is and will be well aware of the threat.
 

AndrewMI

New Member
Any enemy will know where a surface warship is, the Argentines simply don't know where an SSN is and will be well aware of the threat.
True. However a visible threat does of course carry more credibility when considering the politics of sable rattling. Of course we could dispatch an SSN to the region, but out of sight and out of sound could be portrayed as bluff and leaves the door ajar to call the bluff. That is the nature of SSN (and SSBN) work - uncertainty and secrecy.

Of course the Argentines have good and specific reasons to be wary of British SSN's so they will almost certainly play it safe.

However there will invariably be occasions where the threat of a long range power projection is handy and it is either unsuitable, impractical or foolish to send in an aircraft carrier (which is the ultimate for this type of role). In these circumstances, a cruise missile equipped ship can serve a useful purpose, leaving an potential aggressor in no doubt as to the potential consequences of its actions.
 

MrQuintus

New Member
Argentina isn't that far away, Tiffys could be in the air, throw a load of Stormshadows and back on the ground to reload before the tea even got cold
 

kev 99

Member
Argentina isn't that far away, Tiffys could be in the air, throw a load of Stormshadows and back on the ground to reload before the tea even got cold
Storm Shadow isn't integrated yet and won't be for a while.

Nothing stopping a GR4 deployment there though, there's certainly room enough at Mount Pleasant.
 

Hambo

New Member
Storm Shadow isn't integrated yet and won't be for a while.

Nothing stopping a GR4 deployment there though, there's certainly room enough at Mount Pleasant.
Is the facility at Mount Pleasant able to support a permanent Nimrod attachment , or do we have the spare airframes anymore? I would assume that would be more able tomonitor and patrol a huge area of ocean.

Argentina is just making a nuisance of itself, militarily it cant intervene but we are on the verge over the next few decades of a new era of land and energy grabbing. At least in that sense our Government isnt shy in coming forward, staking claims for areas of sea bed in the South Atlantic. Unless sustainable energy works, or we build more nuclear plants, this potential 60billion barrell equivalent in hydrocarbons will be one big asset for the UK (and will make the Islanders very rich). In a world of shrinking supplies, this will make one juicy asset and a juicy target.

If viable oil and gas fields are set up, it makes the UK handover of the Falklands a poliical impossibility, it vitually is now. I suspect the next future tactic of Argentina will be to whip up some enviromental scare stories to hold back exploration, there isnt much else they can do.

If the Argentines restrict use of their ports, then maybe a terminal in Chile is a possibility, in exchange for more warship sales. Either way without a pipeline to the UK, there will be a vast expansion of shipping too and from the S .Atlantic. Will that lead to a necessary UK Naval expansion? Or will the treasury see the RAF as a cheaper option. Maybe a small buy of Off the shelf MPA or a few more Typhoons,maybe using Ascension Island as an air Bridge, so the RN may not necessarily be the winner.

I think future wars will be fought over fuel supplies, at least QE and POW will give us a big stick Sooner or later Antartica will be pillaged for resources, those small groups of Islands under the UK flag can only increase in importance, it may not be just Argentinian eyes that look on enviously but some of their better armed neighbours.
 

kev 99

Member
Is the facility at Mount Pleasant able to support a permanent Nimrod attachment , or do we have the spare airframes anymore? I would assume that would be more able tomonitor and patrol a huge area of ocean.

Argentina is just making a nuisance of itself, militarily it cant intervene but we are on the verge over the next few decades of a new era of land and energy grabbing. At least in that sense our Government isnt shy in coming forward, staking claims for areas of sea bed in the South Atlantic. Unless sustainable energy works, or we build more nuclear plants, this potential 60billion barrell equivalent in hydrocarbons will be one big asset for the UK (and will make the Islanders very rich). In a world of shrinking supplies, this will make one juicy asset and a juicy target.

If viable oil and gas fields are set up, it makes the UK handover of the Falklands a poliical impossibility, it vitually is now. I suspect the next future tactic of Argentina will be to whip up some enviromental scare stories to hold back exploration, there isnt much else they can do.

If the Argentines restrict use of their ports, then maybe a terminal in Chile is a possibility, in exchange for more warship sales. Either way without a pipeline to the UK, there will be a vast expansion of shipping too and from the S .Atlantic. Will that lead to a necessary UK Naval expansion? Or will the treasury see the RAF as a cheaper option. Maybe a small buy of Off the shelf MPA or a few more Typhoons,maybe using Ascension Island as an air Bridge, so the RN may not necessarily be the winner.

I think future wars will be fought over fuel supplies, at least QE and POW will give us a big stick Sooner or later Antartica will be pillaged for resources, those small groups of Islands under the UK flag can only increase in importance, it may not be just Argentinian eyes that look on enviously but some of their better armed neighbours.
I would be pretty surprised if they couldn't base a Nimrod or two there, Mount Pleasant already has two runways, one for fast jets and another for larger aircraft, I was just mentioning GR4 for with a specific function in mind in relation to MrQuintus re: Tiffy and Storm Shadow.

Regarding Argentina making a nuisance of itself, I feel its a case of trying to draw attention away from their terrible economic situation, in which case the situation is not that dissimilar to 82, with a bit of oil greed thrown in for good measure.
 

1805

New Member
I think this is probably a bit of electioneering in both Argentina and Browns reaction ....very Palmerston...."French Invasion scare"
 

1805

New Member
Indian options? Are you suggesting the RAN purchase submarines from India? Not quite sure I understand the paragraph.
Sorry it was late when I typed this, I meant is their potential to sell Astutes or at least the design to India. Also they are building 3 SSBNs could we not help them or even do a joint venture with them? I was reading the BAe articale above about their interest in growing share of the Indian market with 155mm guns etc this would be a huge opportunity.

From the comments in the RAN room their seems to much political opposition to SSN which is a pity as they will almost end up spending that much on their future programme. Both India & RAN would be such a lift to nuclear construction and surely bring the unit price down so we could afford 8+ The employment argument alone must be reason to subsidy?
 

ASFC

New Member
Sorry it was late when I typed this, I meant is their potential to sell Astutes or at least the design to India. Also they are building 3 SSBNs could we not help them or even do a joint venture with them? I was reading the BAe articale above about their interest in growing share of the Indian market with 155mm guns etc this would be a huge opportunity.
I doubt it.

I don't think the Yanks would take to kindly to us sharing ours (and consquently some of theirs) SSBN secrets with India.
 

LancasterBomber

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I doubt it.

I don't think the Yanks would take to kindly to us sharing ours (and consquently some of theirs) SSBN secrets with India.
Yep. And we (Australia) wouldn't buy Astutes either if we had word you were shopping them to India.

Forget about it.

Australia - Great Britain - United States on sub technology. Either you're in or you are out. :p2:smilie

No half way house when it comes to sub tech (unless its redundant tech)....
 

1805

New Member
I doubt it.

I don't think the Yanks would take to kindly to us sharing ours (and consquently some of theirs) SSBN secrets with India.
The Indian's have their own missiles and we don't have that technology to sell. I was talking about the subs and how to keep the UK in the nuclear sub business. The RN has already indicated the next SSBN will be an Astute with a missile compartment, why not work closely with India, she is reaching out for partners to work with. Imagine if France got in there, the logic would work even more for them.

This would put the UK/BAe at the heart of Indian defence procurement and would forge a partnership with one of the most important powers of this 21st Century? Much more important than Brahmos?

Russia focused on exports to keep their defence technology going why shouldn't we.

Anyway the US is building very close relationships with India, we should get in before they offer.
 

1805

New Member
Yep. And we (Australia) wouldn't buy Astutes either if we had word you were shopping them to India.

Forget about it.

Australia - Great Britain - United States on sub technology. Either you're in or you are out. :p2:smilie

No half way house when it comes to sub tech (unless its redundant tech)....
I don't see the issue India is hardly a rogue state, and why would it worry the RAN if India operated the same subs as they did? India already fields a much more capable sub force than RAN in both trained manpower and boats and is growing capability.

The RAN should learn from the procurement of the Collins' and not try an repeat it.
 
I doubt it.

I don't think the Yanks would take to kindly to us sharing ours (and consquently some of theirs) SSBN secrets with India.
Fail to concur: the Septics have already bent the NPT to sell nuclear technology to our Indian cousins. With the Frenchies selling technology to all-and-sundry I can imagine the US being benignly co-operative with the Commonwealth.

On C1/C2, I have read some questioing the case for the latter. Many of our Dukes are not kitted-out with towed-arrays. That is the difference between roles.

C1 should focus on ASW and should not be fitted with TacTom. C2 is an away-day back-up; the C1s will sail with the fleet (with at least one C2 in-tow) whilst the C2 will guard the choke-points outside the field-of-combat.

So the SSNs attached with the fleet and the carriers can carry the offensive-strike weapons whilst the C1s hunt for below-water hazards. At the choke-points the C2 carry TacTom as a warning to others that we still carry a big-stick.

Of course C1/C2 will most likely be based in the same hull-form, but the navy needs to convince the Treasury about numbers. If we end up we a multi-role platform (like FREMM, now that [IIRC] FREDA is dead) then the bean-counters will cut numbers and capability.

[And no, unfortunately it won't be based upon the [8,250 tonne] Type 45.] :eek:hwell
 

Bonza

Super Moderator
Staff member
The Indian's have their own missiles and we don't have that technology to sell. I was talking about the subs and how to keep the UK in the nuclear sub business. The RN has already indicated the next SSBN will be an Astute with a missile compartment, why not work closely with India, she is reaching out for partners to work with. Imagine if France got in there, the logic would work even more for them.

This would put the UK/BAe at the heart of Indian defence procurement and would forge a partnership with one of the most important powers of this 21st Century? Much more important than Brahmos?

Russia focused on exports to keep their defence technology going why shouldn't we.

Anyway the US is building very close relationships with India, we should get in before they offer.
I think the hesitation would be due to the fact that, as far as I know, the Astute has key features that were fixed by the Americans, presumably due to American sub solutions in use on their own vessels?

Thinking the issue is limited to missile technology is short sighted, the Collins for example uses the same fire control system (I think, please correct if wrong) as on the Virginias so obviously the US would be very cautious about any possible sale of Collins. I think the example is relevant but welcome corrections if I'm mistaken.
 

1805

New Member
I think the hesitation would be due to the fact that, as far as I know, the Astute has key features that were fixed by the Americans, presumably due to American sub solutions in use on their own vessels?

Thinking the issue is limited to missile technology is short sighted, the Collins for example uses the same fire control system (I think, please correct if wrong) as on the Virginias so obviously the US would be very cautious about any possible sale of Collins. I think the example is relevant but welcome corrections if I'm mistaken.
I wasn't suggesting the Indians would buy Collins, I doubt they could get them to work if the RAN can't. The whole suggestion on RAN looking at Astutes was based on cutting its losses with then Collins. India already operates 16 boats has 3 SSBNs under construction an I think to SSNs on order from the Russians. My suggestion was to work with the Indian's in either a JV or export Astutes.

I am not to sure about the US support for the Astutes but thought it was about a design contract rather than systems. They may own the IP, however BAe might own that. either way I am not sure the US is keen on unsetting the Indians.

in 1998 the West tried the naughty school boy sactions on India and it backfired, they just moved to buying elsewhere Israel/Russian. The UK/RN needs to forge very close links with India in 50 years this is probably going to be 2-3rd Navy? For the RN this could be a way to kill 2-3 birds with one stone.
 

riksavage

Banned Member
I wasn't suggesting the Indians would buy Collins, I doubt they could get them to work if the RAN can't. The whole suggestion on RAN looking at Astutes was based on cutting its losses with then Collins. India already operates 16 boats has 3 SSBNs under construction an I think to SSNs on order from the Russians. My suggestion was to work with the Indian's in either a JV or export Astutes.

I am not to sure about the US support for the Astutes but thought it was about a design contract rather than systems. They may own the IP, however BAe might own that. either way I am not sure the US is keen on unsetting the Indians.

in 1998 the West tried the naughty school boy sactions on India and it backfired, they just moved to buying elsewhere Israel/Russian. The UK/RN needs to forge very close links with India in 50 years this is probably going to be 2-3rd Navy? For the RN this could be a way to kill 2-3 birds with one stone.
The US assistance with the ASTUTE had nothing to do with the over all design, but related to CadCam failures (new system overwhelmed by the complexity of the ASTUTE design), loss of technical expertise (construction processes) and the change in manufacturing techniques (vertical sub-sections completed first, rotated and welded into a final cigar shape). The weapons systems, sonar array et al are proprietary to the UK, not American buy-ins (with the exception of actual weapons themselves - Tomahawk and Sub-Harpoon). The critical relationship if anything is between BAE Submarine Solutions and Thales for the 2076 stage 4/5 sonar system.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I am not to sure about the US support for the Astutes but thought it was about a design contract rather than systems.

No, it was about fundamental design flaws. A classified report was done by the USN and provided to SecNavy as a lessons learnt response. That document was subsequently released to RN and RAN as a lessons learnt doc as well.


They may own the IP, however BAe might own that. either way I am not sure the US is keen on unsetting the Indians.
The US already does not provide tech to India. Just because countries loudly try to push their agenda in the public domain doesn't mean that they can pull the bluff.

I worked for a company that had sig management tech that was desired by the Indians about 5 years ago. They wanted complete tech transfer as part of the deal. It was rejected outright. Not everything is for sale.

Collins was not made available to two countries I can think of because it included tech that was not transferrable and would have made some of our allies very very twitchy.

The mere notion that countries will roll over and sell off technology crown jewels is just a myth when people argue the power of soft politics.

They get rejected and rebuffed everyday. They can make demands in the press to try and force a commercial advantage and political leverage - but it ends up the same way.

negotiate via the public domain and you fall on your arse quick smart
 
Top