The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

riksavage

Banned Member
First you the "money"question you dismantle a health care system that clearly isn't working in Great Britain and start deregulating small bussiness so the economy can grow.The need for the RN to have 2 carriers is very sound given the current world environment.Also lets not forget Argentina has not backed off on their claims to the Falklands Islands and the forces there are on the end of a knife.
We have been through the Falklands scenario infinitum

The Falklands is a static aircraft carrier, why plan to lose it in the first place? The RAF/Army practice 24hr reforger exercises once a year and the necessary equipment is already stockpiled. A regular infantry company++ supported 100% by the local population is in residence. They are supported by 4 x Typhoon & 1 x VC10

It would be a damn sight more cost effective to send a T or A class sub and use C17 to deploy the UK's 24-7 stand-by reserve than plan and execute a retaking of the islands. Modern ISTAR will pick-up the Argentines prep.

A single infantry battalion deployed to the islands with supporting equipment will reduce the chances of a successful invasion to practically zero. The Argentines don't have the lift to move, defend and land a brigade in one fell swoop. A 3:1 ratio of attacker vs defender will be needed against a well trained and equipped foe with an intimate knowledge of their surroundings. This will be further compounded by the fact the defending units will have recent combat experience unlike the attackers.

Should the threat level increase against the islands I suspect it will still be cheaper to base a perminant battalion sized garrison at Stanley and increase the Typhoon flight to say 6 than keep just one Invinciple class fully manned and at sea with a full compliment of STOVL aircraft 24-7. Mount Pleasent has enough hard shelters to cater for over half the current Typhoon fleet.

When RN personnel use the Falklands argument against cuts, their Army/RAF counterparts roll their eyes in disbelief, that particular broken record has been played to death.
 

1805

New Member
I do believe longer term carriers do provide options for a truly independent foreign policy? I guess you could ask does the UK really need this.....maybe not but we have many nice to haves and surely this is one of them.

Agreed RN has not help itself with the scale/management of the whole transition from Sea Harrier/CVH to F35/CVF, but we are where we are and there is no other show in town for the RN.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
First you the "money"question you dismantle a health care system that clearly isn't working in Great Britain and start deregulating small bussiness so the economy can grow.The need for the RN to have 2 carriers is very sound given the current world environment.Also lets not forget Argentina has not backed off on their claims to the Falklands Islands and the forces there are on the end of a knife.
I take it you've never *been* to the UK then? Or Europe? I'm quite attached to our world class public health care system and we have some of the lowest business regulation in Europe. Try setting a business up in France if you're not convinced.

The Falklands is a complete canard of an argument - the Argentine forces are materially far worse off than they were back in 82. We have a heavily defended facility in Mount Pleasant, and the Argentinian amphib capacity consists of a T42 modified as a training ship and a crane to lift out a couple of ancient Amtracks. Short of teleporting five or six thousand trained troops into MPA, it's a non starter.

There's arguments for carriers but that's not one of them.

Ian
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
@Riksavage
The French employed SCALP over Lybia.
Maybe the Spanish Hornets also employed a couple of Taurus missiles?

Nevertheless I agree that recent events in Lybia didn't push the case for the harriers against the Tornados but vice versa.

It went exactly like the RAF said it would. They were able to get into the fight quickly either by using tankers or by using friendly bases and with much more punch than Harriers could bring to bear.

Hard to swallow for the RN but I think Lybia didn't help their position to maintain an independent carrier strike force.
I disagree - in the first 72 hours the RAF managed to get off something like a dozen Stormshadow. If we'd still had GR9 working from a carrier, the carrier would more than likely already have been in position since the Libyan thing was very much one in a series of situations tripped in a short space of time, riding on the back of Egypt.

We could have been flying tactical missions in support of Benghazi on minute one of the no fly zone, and have done a lot to support the rebel forces.

Yes, given a hard choice, Gr9 would always lose over Gr4 simply because to do otherwise would *gut* the RAF, but that decision has no bearing at all on the utility of carriers. The decision needed to eliminate one type to save cash and given it was something like 40 harriers and two or three times more GR4's then that's the way it had to fall. But...that decision is not in itself a judgement on the usefulness of carrier aviation.

Ian
 
By Richard Beedall.



SDSR: Act in Haste, Repent at Leisure
20 March 2011



The decommissioning ceremony of HMS Ark Royal, 10 March 2011

Before anything else, I wish the safe and speedy return home of all members of the United Kingdom's armed forces that are engaged in operations around the world.

This website is not intended to provide "news", however events are unfolding around the world which have a direct effect on the national interests of the United Kingdom, our armed forces, and the Royal Navy in particular. The Prime Minister, David Cameron, has unexpectedly made a decisive stand over Libya, on 14 March 2011 he told the Commons that Colonel Gaddafi was "brutalising his own people" and that:

"with time of the essence, there should be no let-up of pressure on this regime. .... Do we want a failed pariah state festering on Europe's border? Of course we do not want that. .. . Work has been done within the UK to look at options... [A no-fly zone is] perfectly deliverable... [if it is] as widely supported as possible. ... I think we will be letting down ourselves as well as the Libyan people if we do nothing and just say 'this is all too difficult'."

Over the next few days Mr Cameron played a leading and possibly decisive role in the passing of a UN resolution authorising military action, but the Prime Minister was perhaps embarrassed when he revealed to his allies at an emergency summit in Paris on 19 March just how limited would be Britain's military ability to contribution to the enforcement of the 'no fly zone'.

When operations began just hours later, the lion share of the work fell (and will continue to fall) on France and America. France immediately flew a dozen Rafale and Mirage aircraft on missions over Libya, and announced the deployment of an aircraft carrier - FNS Charles De Gaulle - to the area. The USA was - not unexpectedly also a major contributor - with cruisers and submarines launching missiles at targets in Libya, and the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise expected to arrive soon.

By comparison, an MoD statement issued early 20 March 2011 stated:

"We have launched Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles from a Trafalgar Class submarine and Stormshadow missiles from Tornado GR4s. The fast jets flew 3,000 miles from RAF Marham and back making this the longest range bombing mission conducted by the RAF since the Falklands conflict. This operation was supported by VC10 and Tristar air-to-air refuelling aircraft as well as E3D Sentry and Sentinel surveillance aircraft. HMS Westminster is off the coast of Libya and HMS Cumberland is in the region ready to support operations. Typhoon aircraft are also standing by to provide support."

Superficially fairly impressive, this was actually a very depressing press release. By means of a massive air-to-air refuelling operation (using all available VC10's and Tristar's) the RAF apparently managed to get up to six Tornado GR.4 strike aircraft - each aircraft carrying one missile - in to Libyan airspace for a few minutes. To do this required the aircraft and air crew to fly a very demanding 12 hour long mission - Group Captain, the station commander at RAF Marham, describing the effort needed as "Herculean". That is not an exercise that can be repeated even daily for very long. As regards the Typhoon fighters, they do not have the range to perform missions over Libya from their UK base at Royal Air Force Coningsby, and will need to be deployed to Italy to be of any practical use.

The mention of the Sentinel R.1 in the press release will be embarrassing to some in the government as this brand new aircraft was a high profile casualty in last years Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR), and is expected to leave service by 2015. And not mentioned at all in the press release is the actual use of Nimrod R.1 signals intelligence aircraft, under SDSR these are due to leave service in ... March 2011.

On the naval side, HMS Cumberland (with her three remaining sister ships) is another casualty of SDSR, and she is currently due to decommission without replacement on 1 April 2011 - although this appears to be delayed until she is no longer urgently needed for operations off Libya.


HMS Ark Royal pictured in early 2010 with Harrier's embarked. Her capabilities are being badly missed by the United Kingdom a year later.


The unnamed Trafalgar-class submarine probably fired only four Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles, and is unlikely to be carrying more than another four to six - the UK has a total stock of about 60 of these American made missiles based on published information.

Overall, the embarrassingly limited level of military effort by the UK doesn't augur well for its efforts to retain its position as a UN Security Council member. A key problem for the UK, is that SDSR (published 19 October 2010) was primarily a cost cut cutting exercise which aimed at reducing the defence budget by 8%. The last few days of the review culminated in hasty decisions such as the axing of the Royal Navy's aircraft carrier capability which could only be justified by making risk assessment and planning assumptions which have already been broken. The now evident reality is that interventions are not handily spaced to allow recovery "from the effort involved", and that "sufficient warning" is rarely available for major operations. A memorandum to SDSR says:

"The Government recognises it will have to manage greater risks in some areas due to reductions in capability. Mitigation of risk will take different forms in each case. In the case of Carrier Strike for example we will do so by: maintaining our strategic intelligence capability in order to identify new and emerging military risks..."

Statements such as this now have no credibility. It is almost uncanny how recent events have already invalidated SDSR, and carrier strike is a key example. SDSR decided to "immediately" take out of service the Royal Navy's only strike carrier, HMS Ark Royal, and all the GR.9 Harrier jets that could fly from her - thus 'saving' about £350 million a year in total (the saving is impossible to identify from official documents, I have assumed £100m for Ark Royal and £250m for Joint Force Harrier) . This decision was so controversial that it was ultimately taken personally by the Prime Minister after discussions with the head of the RAF, Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton - but specifically against the military advice of the First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope. With almost undue haste, HMS Ark Royal arrived back in Portsmouth to payoff on 3 December 2010, Joint Force Harrier ceased operations on 15 December 2010, and Ark Royal formally decommissioned for disposal on 10 March 2011.

If Ark Royal was still available, there is no doubt that she - like French and American aircraft carriers - would now be heading for the Libyan coast. Indeed the current crisis is a perfect match for the military capabilities that HMS Ark Royal provided the UK with until three month ago. Covered by American, Italian and French fighters, the carrier could have safely operated off the Libyan coast line just west of Benghazi, where her air group of probably a dozen ground attack Harrier GR.9 jets plus four Sea King surveillance and control helicopter would have totally dominated approach routes to the city. The Harrier's could easily have managed 20-30 sorties a day, hitting targets within 20 minutes or less of requests. The RAF's current best efforts are disappointing in comparison.

It may already be too late to reverse the decision (at least at a tolerable cost) to decommission HMS Ark Royal. Unless a foreign sale is expected, her gutting for spares will already have rendered her a hulk. Her sister ship HMS Illustrious could be refitted to again operate Harrier aircraft at a reasonable cost, however rebuilding an operational squadron of Harrier's will be a difficult task.

Reluctantly, the MOD perhaps has to focus on how soon it can regenerate a carrier strike capability based on the new Queen Elizabeth class. The current target date of 2020 surely leaves an unacceptable gap in the UK's carrier strike capability - a capability that nations as diverse as Russia, India, France, Spain, Brazil, Italy and Thailand already have, and China will soon have. [Incidentally, it is hard to see how the UK government can justify providing £300 million a year in foreign aid to India, when that country is spending far more than that every year on both existing and new aircraft carriers and carrier aircraft.]

In February 2011. UK newspapers were full of reports that MoD had to immediately find yet another £1 billion of cuts under Planning Round 2011 in order to stay with in its budget. This sum is more than the annual running cost of all the surface warships left in the Royal Navy, and yet further reductions to this badly depleted force are apparently being seriously contemplated in order to meet immediate funding pressures.

SDSR had become a salutary lesson on the phrase "Act in Haste, Repent at Leisure" where defence is concerned - it is easy to quickly cut military capabilities to achieve small immediate savings, but recovering these capabilities can be very expensive and take many years. It can only be hoped that the Prime Minister and government will now prioritise national security and national interests above meeting arbitrary spending targets, and that some of the worst aspects of SDSR will now be reconsidered.
 

Troothsayer

New Member
As part of a coalition, an RN CVS with Harriers would have been a 'nice to have' but not vital. Let's not forget here that the UK is now involved in 2 conflicts, with one being by far the largest European contingent in Afghanistan.

The UK does not have unlimited funds. Rightly or wrongly the government have made a call that Afghanistan is the defence priority until 2015 after which no doubt there will be a period of retrenchment when carrier strike is built up towards 2020. The UK will not be doing any more wars of choice until then.

I think outsiders tend to forget that as well as funding a decade long war in Afghanistan, the UK has just finished building 6 new destroyers and has to find funds for 2 CVF and the F35, A400M, 7 new SSN's and begin building 4 new SSBN's.

I am as pro-carrier as anyone yet can see what they are doing. Anyone who thinks in the current financial crisis that there will be anymore money available for the military when people at home are feeling it bad is sorely mistaken. It may be we even have to lose a few more assets before 2020 is here to be able to continue to fund those projects.

Little realised is that with defence cuts of 8% as against 33% of some departments defence spending has actually gone up in the governments priorities.

(And yes, regarding the NHS - 95% of people in the UK are fully behind it. Yes, we think it could be better and so moan about it. I don't think any country in Europe would however give up its health care model for the US one)
 

SteelTiger 177

New Member
The one thing about our health care system is that people can choose their doctors and now the people here are realizing Obama's "plan" stinks.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
We're wandering off topic a bit here with health care discussions, folks.

I will put in my two penn'orth, though, as I call a halt.

Those from the USA almost all fail to realise that European countries (including the UK) mostly spend less per head on state-funded health care than the USA does. Yes, that's right: government expenditure on health care in the USA, per head of population, is more than over here.

And in my experience, almost nobody in the USA has the faintest idea of what health care over here is like, or how it works. We choose our general practitioners, & can usually choose which hospital we want to be treated in, etc., within the state system. If we don't mind paying (yes, we also have private medical care - and the state sometimes pays for treatment in private hospitals), we have complete choice, of course.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
As part of a coalition, an RN CVS with Harriers would have been a 'nice to have' but not vital. Let's not forget here that the UK is now involved in 2 conflicts, with one being by far the largest European contingent in Afghanistan.
I understand that but as I've said, that's not an argument against carriers - in fact, the Gr4/Stormshadow has been "nice to have" but not essential - a half dozen missiles using up massive tanker resources to generate them was being used in the opening days of the war to justify the fact that we "didn't need carriers" which I find frustrating in the extreme.

We could have welded a few steel beams to a few of the VC10s and launched the Stormshadow from there and skipped the middle man - cheaper, easier and simpler. Or, simply fit the Type 45s with SCALP or TLAM - that "first day of war" strike could have been done several ways and in that sense, the Gr4 is every bit as much "nice to have but not essential" as Harrier.


Once you get past that first set of missile launches we were down to Gr4 and Tiffy launching Brimstone - and Harriers sitting twenty minutes off the coast would do that just as well or better than Tornadoes from two hours away.

Harrier not being available or necessary is not an indictment of carrier capability I submit,

Ian
 

Wall83

Member
Hasnt it ever been sugested to sell the Invincible carriers to another country?

Couldnt south American nations or maybe Austrailia be intrested?
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
We were, back in the early 1980's.

Australia is not interested in something that old, we are already building two larger ships. Shes pretty hammered by most acounts. Expensive engines, crewing, older tech, not really suitable for much, not even the south americans are interested.

Tell you what tho, that nice new carrier, how much for one of those? Maybe a bay class as well?
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
We were, back in the early 1980's.

Australia is not interested in something that old, we are already building two larger ships. Shes pretty hammered by most acounts. Expensive engines, crewing, older tech, not really suitable for much, not even the south americans are interested.

Tell you what tho, that nice new carrier, how much for one of those? Maybe a bay class as well?
Well, 60 million quid for a slightly used Bay, apparently.....:cool:
 

riksavage

Banned Member
I'm shocked to read the MOD have made a sensible decision for once, modifying an existing contract for StarStreak to buy 1000 LMM missiles for the RN's new Wildcat fleet from 2013.*

The missile uses StarStreak components and will provide a cheap laser beam riding air-to-air, air-to-ground munition which is extremely quick and designed to kill fast attack boats / light skinned vehicles. Ideal for UCAV use being much cheaper than a Brimstone or Hellfire currently favoured for dispatching theTaliban in A-Stan. Hopefully lots of export potential. Plus if light enough they might even consider arming WatchKeeper.

Thales Wins UK Missile Order by Giving Up Other Work - Defense News
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
That does look like one of the smarter moves in an otherwise uninterrupted lurch from one procurement catastrophe to another. We must have enough Starstreaks to fight a small war against a proper airforce on tap so a missile like this looks like much more of a goer, particularly from helicopter and UAV's.

Might have some export potential too...


Ian
 

kev 99

Member
I've said it before and I'll say it again, LMM sounds like a fantastic weapon, perfect for the sort of low intensity counter insurgency stuff that our forces are doing today, cheap, has lots of potential for exports and the fact that Thales seems to have a number of other variants in the pipeline can only be a good thing.
 

riksavage

Banned Member
I've said it before and I'll say it again, LMM sounds like a fantastic weapon, perfect for the sort of low intensity counter insurgency stuff that our forces are doing today, cheap, has lots of potential for exports and the fact that Thales seems to have a number of other variants in the pipeline can only be a good thing.
The Astute jinx has struck again, AB shoots officer and next duty guard with 9mm.
 
Top