The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[riksavage]

Alright, lets stop this idiotic comparison of the near future RN to the near future RAN right now.

A bit of sanity at last.

Whilst we can critise the Admirals, they will always fight for the gold plated solution, you can't blame them for that. They fought for a capability designed to take on a major tier one power, instead of going for a more sensible 2 x Wasp sized Commando carriers capable of carrying limited numbers of fast air. And to be honest why wouldn't you if the politicians gave you the wink. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, unfortunately the world has changed (major block on block conflict to largely asymmetrical) coupled with the fact we are currently experiencing the worst financial crisis since the 1930's.

Whilst the UK will end up with capability gaps in the short term to deal with a highly unlikely Falklands take-back scenario, capabilities to sustain and equip the here and know, namely Afghanistan, will be maintained and in some areas (SF) greatly enhanced.

The ConLibs have confirmed the plan to activate at least one very capable strike carrier. The second is still a question mark (mothballing or selling based on the current financial situation), this however could change driven either by a dramatic threat change or financial recovery. Switching to F35C reduces the risk and is less likely to suffer huge cost creep. The one overriding lesson of SDR is ridiculous cost blowouts will no longer be tolerated (politicians, public and media alike).

With the loss of JFH, the RAF flyers can be retired or diverted to one of the two T models. The FAA can be sent to the States to continue carrier pilot training. 50% are already doing this according to some reports. The single remaining helo carrier will have to keep elements of the supporting ground crews trained in all but fast jet handling. Again not ideal, but better than salami slicing bits here and bits there, something big had to give.

Whilst the loss of Nimrod and a number of surface ships is lamentable, the fact that 3 Commando Brigade remains intact (not reduced or transferred to army command) is far more strategically important based on current and future likely commitments. The RM / Army will evolve in to multiple brigades of around 6000++. This will ensure the UK will remain the only NATO partner of the US (bar Turkey) capable of sustaining an overseas brigade sized presence indefinitely. As a former Para, I'm over the moon the regiment will retain its parachuting capability across all three battalions and will continue to form the core of 16 Air Assault brigade, these assets along with the high readiness 3 Commando Brigade are absolutely indispensable. SRR & the SFSG will also be enhanced with more technology and associated kit. If we have to rob Peter to pay Paul there will always be winners and losers, we have stop looking at each service in isolation.

Hopefully once this god awful mess is sorted out we will end up with a two tier fleet:

Tier One - Carrier Strike (shared with the French) plus ARG and credible protective assets (minimum 6 x T45, 6 x T26, 7 x SSN available) plus supporting RFA POL support, and

Tier Two - Multiple numbers of cheap C3's complimented by a few extra T26's or similar when required*

*Noted intention to reduce Destroyer / Frigate force to 19 (T45/T23-26) , but that all 14 MCM will be retained and replaced by a future multi-task OPV. Doubt we will see a like for like replacement, but lets hope at least 6-8 hulls are bought.

As the UK no longer has endless overseas dependencies, is a member of NATO and is surrounded (East & West) by Allies, this should be enough when balanced against the needs of the other services Army, RAF, domestic and foreign intelligence services (the latters budgets have increased 10 fold since 9/11).

Regards Sentinel R1, it was designed to scan the cold war battlefield and feed-in critical real-time information covering the movement of enemy divisions and supporting logistical activity along the MSR's, thus allowing for surgical strikes at critcal choke points. It can be used, and is used to monitor MSR's in A-San to look for insurgent activity. A very expensive nutcracker considering the target. Rivet Joint and more armed UCAV's would be more useful if failed states remain a priority.

Another critical factor is the UK's desire to maintian (not cut-back) the current high tempo of live fire realistic training outside the confines of Europe. This includes regular battalion / brigade depolyments to Kenya, Canada, India (RAF) and the US (combined arms). The UK spends more on training than any other country in Europe. This is vital in ensuring the military retains its combat edge in A-Stan. You could of stopped all but basic training and retained more shiny bits of kit, this however would have been a grave mistake and cost lives.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Parliament hansard on the SDSR debate.

House of Commons Hansard Debates for 19 Oct 2010 (pt 0001)

Watched it live and I noted one question by Mark Hendricks which drew an interesting response. Tot I wait until I could confirm I heard the number correctly before I reverted. Also did not want to start another RAF thread so have put it in here.

House of Commons Hansard Debates for 19 Oct 2010 (pt 0002)

Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op): In his statement, the Prime Minister made quite clear his support for Eurofighter Typhoon and the joint strike fighter. Can he tell the House how many fighters of the tranche 3B type he will be ordering, and whether he will be ordering the joint strike fighter for the new aircraft carriers?

The Prime Minister: We aim to have 110 Typhoons by 2020 -the figures are all set out in the document-but clearly the balance between the two is something that we have to make decisions about. I think that one can see the general thrust, which is that we will be based around two fast jet types, the Typhoon and the joint strike fighter. I am sure that that is the right strategy.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The number looks a bit off.

 

[riksavage]

Parliament hansard on the SDSR debate.

House of Commons Hansard Debates for 19 Oct 2010 (pt 0001)

Watched it live and I noted one question by Mark Hendricks which drew an interesting response. Tot I wait until I could confirm I heard the number correctly before I reverted. Also did not want to start another RAF thread so have put it in here.

House of Commons Hansard Debates for 19 Oct 2010 (pt 0002)

Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op): In his statement, the Prime Minister made quite clear his support for Eurofighter Typhoon and the joint strike fighter. Can he tell the House how many fighters of the tranche 3B type he will be ordering, and whether he will be ordering the joint strike fighter for the new aircraft carriers?

The Prime Minister: We aim to have 110 Typhoons by 2020 -the figures are all set out in the document-but clearly the balance between the two is something that we have to make decisions about. I think that one can see the general thrust, which is that we will be based around two fast jet types, the Typhoon and the joint strike fighter. I am sure that that is the right strategy.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The number looks a bit off.

He's poorly briefed, I understood the final commitment was for 160 Typhoon. The 110 might refer to active, with a few held in reserve.

The PM also banged on about Typhoon in A-Stan in one interview, when the UK only has Tornado deployed - he needs to go on a recognition course!

His lack of understanding was outdone by some lemon on Sky who claimed Ocean was significantly smaller than the two invisibles, ironic considering Ocean's tonnage is greater than both Ark and Lusty.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Switching to F35C reduces the risk and is less likely to suffer huge cost creep.

Not quite so. It injects an enormous amount of risk due to the far higher complexity of cyclic CTOL carrier operations compared to STOVL. This is clearly a political juggle act to justify the scrapping of Harrier and subsequent significant reduction in outlays on fast jet operations and the decade long carrier holiday.

Regards Sentinel R1, it was designed to scan the cold war battlefield and feed-in critical real-time information covering the movement of enemy divisions and supporting logistical activity along the MSR's, thus allowing for surgical strikes at critcal choke points. It can be used, and is used to monitor MSR's in A-San to look for insurgent activity. A very expensive nutcracker considering the target.

Not quite so mk 2. Sentinel is actually a much cheaper ground surveillance radar than MALE UAVs. Because the aircraft flys much higher and the radar is much more powerful it can scan far more area. To match it multiple UAVs would have to be acquired and deployed. This is an extremely important tool in counter insurgency operations. As indicated by the commitment to keep it as long as the UK is in Afghanistan.

If we have to rob Peter to pay Paul there will always be winners and losers, we have stop looking at each service in isolation.

Keeping the Army/Marines field strength makes the whole exercise worthwhile. But one can’t help but wonder that the wrong Peter is being robbed. The conventional carrier fleet is a very flexible and useful tool. What good does the Trident do for the UK? It justifies a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. It doesn’t ensure a seat, just provides some emotional justification for it.

 

[riksavage]

Sentinel like you say is a useful asset, but my comment refers to UCAV's, specifically the ability to survail and strike. The heavy hitters on the ground (SF) would prefer more Predator/Reaper with ISTAR/Strike at their disposal over almost anything else. Even after the planned withdrawal in 2015, bet your bottom dollar DSSF will be deploying his forces to the next failed state.

One thing the UK needs to do is reduce the amount of different airframes on its books, we simply don't have the force size to justify the supply chain and technical support requirements. Keep watchkeeper, expand the UCAV fleet in unison with the US. Look at developing Mantis with the French as a future maritime surveillance / long range strike platform later on. Same goes for lift, reduce that to Apache, Merlin, Wildcat, Chinook, C17 & A400.

The conventional carrier fleet is a very flexible and a useful tool, but 3 Commando and 16 Air Assault offer so much more in the current environment. Keeping Ark/Harrier would have forced the Navy to transfer RM to the army and possibly lose a Commando. Until Afghanistan is over you simply can't afford to do that and maintain a brigade level of troops and guarantee appropriate downtime.

Navy was on a losing wicket with 2 x Super Carriers, the Army, RAF and RM were not convinced. Cost to fully equip both with F35B/C would have made the UK top heavy in one area and critically weak in others. Having just read a very interesting book on the Korean war (This Kind of War - T.R. Ferhrenbach), which showed how the US starved its army in the late 40's to fund carrier strike and strategic nuclear forces, which resulted in humiliation in the early days (taskforce Smith), it's absolutely vital you get the balance right and cut your cloth according to budget to achieve a balanced force structure.

Harrier is a terrible loss, but the RAF played a good game, Tornado in GR4 format fitted with the lightening pod is an excellent recon asset and keeps manning levels up, two crew instead of one. BAE behind the scenes would also have been lobbying hard they have a huge long term servicing contract.

I only hope the UK is wise enough to establish a full-time presence in the US keeping the FAA current on SH. Should the sh*t hit the fan down the road (Iran/Korea) a UK sqn could end up flying off US strike carriers until PW is fully active.

 

[1805]

A bit of sanity at last.

Whilst we can critise the Admirals, they will always fight for the gold plated solution, you can't blame them for that. They fought for a capability designed to take on a major tier one power, instead of going for a more sensible 2 x Wasp sized Commando carriers capable of carrying limited numbers of fast air. And to be honest why wouldn't you if the politicians gave you the wink. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, unfortunately the world has changed (major block on block conflict to largely asymmetrical) coupled with the fact we are currently experiencing the worst financial crisis since the 1930's.

.

I don't think this is hindsight, I can’t see how they could ever have justified 2 x 65,000 carriers as a replacement for 3 (really 2) x 20,000t ships and 39 FA2. Lets face it these orders where not placed very long ago (1 year?). We have known for ages that they were never getting 138 F35.

Then or now and the consequences on the defence budget were well known and should have been considered.

You talk about one carrier with F35c as if it’s a done deal. This is maybe 2-3 elections away (potentially hung parliaments). The current interest in defence is fuelled by the constant stream of dead and wound, when the troops are home the public will not be keen on defence spending. The RAF still seems to own the F35? They will offer them up as soon as the next cost challenge comes.

Richard Beedall was right to say “The reluctance of the Royal Navy to buy 'second class' warships seems to set to continue to point where it is that or nothing” Well it looks like it is nothing now.

The current naval leadership are unable: to prioritize requirements, maintain a meaningful industrial strategy/infrastructure or manage their budgets. Quite apart from inability to deal with the menace of the RAF. They need to go and now, if those carriers stand any chance of operating fixed wing jets.

Why is this so radical we wouldn’t have dreamt of keeping in place the CEOs of: Northern Rock, B & B and RBS, so why key these incompetents?

I am not saying politicians are not to blame they need to be more knowledgeable on the subject and when they catch a defence chief lying they need to sack them. At the moment it seems to be easier sacking a teacher

 

[1805]

Sentinel like you say is a useful asset, but my comment refers to UCAV's, specifically the ability to survail and strike. The heavy hitters on the ground (SF) would prefer more Predator/Reaper with ISTAR/Strike at their disposal over almost anything else. Even after the planned withdrawal in 2015, bet your bottom dollar DSSF will be deploying his forces to the next failed state.

One thing the UK needs to do is reduce the amount of different airframes on its books, we simply don't have the force size to justify the supply chain and technical support requirements. Keep watchkeeper, expand the UCAV fleet in unison with the US. Look at developing Mantis with the French as a future maritime surveillance / long range strike platform later on. Same goes for lift, reduce that to Apache, Merlin, Wildcat, Chinook, C17 & A400.

The conventional carrier fleet is a very flexible and a useful tool, but 3 Commando and 16 Air Assault offer so much more in the current environment. Keeping Ark/Harrier would have forced the Navy to transfer RM to the army and possibly lose a Commando. Until Afghanistan is over you simply can't afford to do that and maintain a brigade level of troops and guarantee appropriate downtime.

Navy was on a losing wicket with 2 x Super Carriers, the Army, RAF and RM were not convinced. Cost to fully equip both with F35B/C would have made the UK top heavy in one area and critically weak in others. Having just read a very interesting book on the Korean war (This Kind of War - T.R. Ferhrenbach), which showed how the US starved its army in the late 40's to fund carrier strike and strategic nuclear forces, which resulted in humiliation in the early days (taskforce Smith), it's absolutely vital you get the balance right and cut your cloth according to budget to achieve a balanced force structure.

Harrier is a terrible loss, but the RAF played a good game, Tornado in GR4 format fitted with the lightening pod is an excellent recon asset and keeps manning levels up, two crew instead of one. BAE behind the scenes would also have been lobbying hard they have a huge long term servicing contract.

I only hope the UK is wise enough to establish a full-time presence in the US keeping the FAA current on SH. Should the sh*t hit the fan down the road (Iran/Korea) a UK sqn could end up flying off US strike carriers until PW is fully active.

Why would the USN need RN pilots to fly from its carriers, do they not have enough of their own? If the RN does not get F35c until 2020+ there is little point in training pilots now, will they not be off fast jets in 10 years time?

You forget the RAF/BAe will want to operate Tornados for as long as possible so they can purse a future strike plane once the work on the Typhoon dries up. BAe hand in this should not be ignored you only have to look at the huge BAe billboard at the entrance to Westmister tube station.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Why would the USN need RN pilots to fly from its carriers, do they not have enough of their own?

Some of them are already training with the USN, so I assume that this could continue.

If the RN does not get F35c until 2020+ there is little point in training pilots now, will they not be off fast jets in 10 years time?

Are you suggesting that we won't need manned aircraft in a decade? I hope not, because I can just imagine an enemy country hacking into UAVs and turning them against us (or causing them to crash).

If you're suggesting that we could just train pilots when the carriers and planes are delivered, do you have any idea how long that will take and how much it will cost? If at all possible it might be cheaper to keep training them now so we don't lose all the skills, though we'll still lose the carrier crews' experience in operating jets.

 

[SASWanabe]

Are you suggesting that we won't need manned aircraft in a decade? I hope not, because I can just imagine an enemy country hacking into UAVs and turning them against us (or causing them to crash).

Dont you guys have the Eurofighter Typhoon?

 

[swerve]

Regards Sentinel R1, it was designed to scan the cold war battlefield and feed-in critical real-time information covering the movement of enemy divisions and supporting logistical activity along the MSR's, thus allowing for surgical strikes at critcal choke points. It can be used, and is used to monitor MSR's in A-San to look for insurgent activity. A very expensive nutcracker considering the target. Rivet Joint and more armed UCAV's would be more useful if failed states remain a priority..

It didn't start development until long after the Cold War was over. As for expensive - it's paid for, & in inventory. Operating cost only.

Rivet Joint, on the other hand, has to be bought & paid for, & will then have a pretty high operating cost. Nor does it do the same job. There are alternative SIGINT/ELINT solutions, which would cost less, either using airframes already owned, or buying the OTS US/German Eurohawk, cheaper both to buy & operate. Note that your arguments for UAVs over Sentinel apply to Eurohawk.

BTW, the plan is to carry on using Sentinel in Afghanistan as long as we're there. Apparently, it's very useful for such work.

 

[1805]

Some of them are already training with the USN, so I assume that this could continue.



Are you suggesting that we won't need manned aircraft in a decade? I hope not, because I can just imagine an enemy country hacking into UAVs and turning them against us (or causing them to crash).

If you're suggesting that we could just train pilots when the carriers and planes are delivered, do you have any idea how long that will take and how much it will cost? If at all possible it might be cheaper to keep training them now so we don't lose all the skills, though we'll still lose the carrier crews' experience in operating jets.

I can't see the point in training them now to fly off carriers, don't pilots only have a limited time in fast jets, before they move on to other types (or BA). We appear to be 10 years away from a might happen carrier? I would have thought the pilots would all be experienced Typhoon/Tornado pilots, so it would only be for carrier experience.

No certainly not UAV, greatly overrated, they only work against the defenceless, they will be just target practice to real armies. The modern equivalent of clay pigeon shooting

 

[riksavage]

I can't see the point in training them now to fly off carriers, don't pilots only have a limited time in fast jets, before they move on to other types (or BA). We appear to be 10 years away from a might happen carrier? I would have thought the pilots would all be experienced Typhoon/Tornado pilots, so it would only be for carrier experience.

No certainly not UAV, greatly overrated, they only work against the defenceless, they will be just target practice to real armies. The modern equivalent of clay pigeon shooting

The reason why the UK is sending FAA pilots to the US has more to do with operational doctrine than simple flying skills. After all with the purchase of F35C you might as well assign them to Typhoon. In eight years time some of these pilots will be sqn commanders and will be overseeing the first conversion unit, they will not want to reinvent the wheel and thus bring to the fore many years of hard earned experience gleaned with the yanks.

UAV & UCAV’s have a role to play in all theatres regardless of the opponent’s capabilities. They represent bang-for-buck real time ISTAR & Strike assets, which do not require extensive SAR planning and pre-positioning of assets. You can send a UAV/UCAV on a v-high risk mission and still sleep at night if it’s shot down, no Garry Powers propaganda moments, complete mission denial.

 

[1805]

The reason why the UK is sending FAA pilots to the US has more to do with operational doctrine than simple flying skills. After all with the purchase of F35C you might as well assign them to Typhoon. In eight years time some of these pilots will be sqn commanders and will be overseeing the first conversion unit, they will not want to reinvent the wheel and thus bring to the fore many years of hard earned experience gleaned with the yanks.

UAV & UCAV’s have a role to play in all theatres regardless of the opponent’s capabilities. They represent bang-for-buck real time ISTAR & Strike assets, which do not require extensive SAR planning and pre-positioning of assets. You can send a UAV/UCAV on a v-high risk mission and still sleep at night if it’s shot down, no Garry Powers propaganda moments, complete mission denial.

I didn't say they were without value, just overrated. There are people who think they can do everything. It reminds me of the year 2000 scare, a heretic if you didn't agree. Lets not forget the wonderful DASH.

 

[AegisFC]

I didn't say they were without value, just overrated. There are people who think they can do everything. It reminds me of the year 2000 scare, a heretic if you didn't agree. Lets not forget the wonderful DASH.

Funny thing about DASH, the Japanese used it as well (until the late 70's and only gave it up because of lack of parts) and didn't have anywhere near the same problems the US had. Another variant was used in Vietnam with some success as well. The main problem with DASH was that it was expected to carry nuclear depth charges or torpedoes (everything back then was expected to carry nuclear weapons) and that required special crypto that never worked right, the Japanese version and ones used in Vietnam didn't have that crypto so they actually worked.

 

[swerve]

It reminds me of the year 2000 scare, a heretic if you didn't agree.

Yeah. I got a bollocking at work for complaining that we didn't need to make everyone in IT be either at work, or available, for about 5 days.

When all the bored people playing cards or watching TV in the office were told after two days they could go home, because nothing (well, almost nothing - no more than could have been dealt with by the usual few people at the end of a phone with a laptop that could connect in, & they'd have had a pretty quiet time) had gone wrong, I thought it impolitic to say "I told you so".

 

[1805]

Yeah. I got a bollocking at work for complaining that we didn't need to make everyone in IT be either at work, or available, for about 5 days.

When all the bored people playing cards or watching TV in the office were told after two days they could go home, because nothing (well, almost nothing - no more than could have been dealt with by the usual few people at the end of a phone with a laptop that could connect in, & they'd have had a pretty quiet time) had gone wrong, I thought it impolitic to say "I told you so".

So true....but remember the pay rate for coming in over that time.

 

[1805]

Funny thing about DASH, the Japanese used it as well (until the late 70's and only gave it up because of lack of parts) and didn't have anywhere near the same problems the US had. Another variant was used in Vietnam with some success as well. The main problem with DASH was that it was expected to carry nuclear depth charges or torpedoes (everything back then was expected to carry nuclear weapons) and that required special crypto that never worked right, the Japanese version and ones used in Vietnam didn't have that crypto so they actually worked.

I tend to think DASH was solving a problem that didn't need solving. Very clever but something much more basic like MATCH was much more robust and flexible. I did hear the Japanese had more success, BTW what was it used for in Vietnam observation?

 

[spoz]

Trafalgar Day now in Oz. The RN should drink deep to the Immortal Memory tonight, it might be all that's left. The last time I attended an RN Trafalgar Night dinner there were, what, 3 carriers and about 75 escorts (early 70s)? We thought Wilson and Healey were bad for the RN and maybe they started the slide but then maybe it was Sandys so there is a Conservative tradition. One can hope that it's a passing phase and the decline will be halted but somehow with the other reduction measure announced over night our it doesn't seem likely. What a morbid thought.

 

[1805]

Trafalgar Day now in Oz. The RN should drink deep to the Immortal Memory tonight, it might be all that's left. The last time I attended an RN Trafalgar Night dinner there were, what, 3 carriers and about 75 escorts (early 70s)? We thought Wilson and Healey were bad for the RN and maybe they started the slide but then maybe it was Sandys so there is a Conservative tradition. One can hope that it's a passing phase and the decline will be halted but somehow with the other reduction measure announced over night our it doesn't seem likely. What a morbid thought.

These are dark days for the RN, but out of them may come a better navy. For some time the RN has actually been punching well below its weight (while telling itself the opposite). When it becomes apparent that we are operating a fleet no more powerful and in some cases less that countries spending far less, there is a chance action will be taken.

 

[AegisFC]

I tend to think DASH was solving a problem that didn't need solving. Very clever but something much more basic like MATCH was much more robust and flexible. I did hear the Japanese had more success, BTW what was it used for in Vietnam observation?

DASH was intended to solve the problem of not having a stand-off ASW weapon on FRAM destroyers that were too small for a regular helo flight deck so it very much had a role to fill.

In Vietnam it was used mostly for observation and shell spotting.