The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Aussie Digger]

yes 2017 and in the meantime the r.n. will have 1 invincible carrier ready to fight without air cover (sea harriers withdrawal) hms illustrious, with ark royal as an lph and invincible mothballed and scrapped by 2010 very good perspective for potential enemies of britain, they know that is no longer possible in 10 years to mount an operation simi lar to the falklands campaign but this what british politicians made with so many cuts in the armed forces.

Well the British will have GR-7/9/A Harriers which will be armed with ASRAAM and Link 16 (JHMCS as well perhaps?), supported by your Seaking AWACS aircraft, plus the Type 45 Destroyers which will give the RN a MUCH greater air defence capability greater than they had in 1982. RN didn't operate a BVR missile in 1982 remember, let alone a deployable AWACS capability...

Plus, you've got F-3's on Mt Pleasant and soon you'll have Typhoon fighters, AAR and a capable GCI capability which are already based in the Falklands, can be reinforced quickly that Britain DIDN'T have in 1982.

Saying that Britain couldn't do what it did in 1982in the Falklands is simply un-true.

Plus it's strike capability is immeasurably enhanced over what is was in 1982.

Sub-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles are only one aspect of this...

 

[Super Nimrod]

In adddition there is also the main E-3 AWACS capacity which could be used in many parts of the world.

A bigger risk is apparently the lack of Harrier airframes reaching out as far as 2017 and beyond as they are currently flying a lot of hours on deployments and training for deployments. We do after all only have about 40 of them now. Allowing for accidents, retirements without worrying about possible future combat losses etc there might be as few as 25 left by the time the carriers come into service and all the F-35's are not going to be delivered at once so they could still be around for some years after that.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Just as a general note - can everyone please remember this.​

Second, could you please stop to announce "we are the best, we are 2nd, we have best training, etc." everytime in every thread?

Discuss facts and back them up by sources or personal experience.
How often have you trained with french sailors? How often have you seen the results of Franco-British naval exercises? How often have you seen french paras during hot missions? How often...?

 

[harryriedl]

A couple of remarks :


> discussions on the French CDG carrier... yes it has faced several issues in its first years. Nowadays it is nonetheless the most powerful ship in Western European inventory (the CVFs won't materialize until 2015...), so let's stop underrating it... with 2 dozen multi-role Rafale F2s (coming into service now) it is quite impressive.

cheers

the CDG remieds me of the old RN fleet carriers [eagle the old ark royal] because it they both carry small mixed fleets of planes [CDG rafales F2 SUE and used carry F8 and EC2 Haweyes plus the usual choppers] ark royal used to carry [F4 phantoms, buccaners and ganets, wessexs and seakings for the chopper wings] also ther very simlar size

 

[contedicavour]

Well the British will have GR-7/9/A Harriers which will be armed with ASRAAM and Link 16 (JHMCS as well perhaps?), supported by your Seaking AWACS aircraft, plus the Type 45 Destroyers which will give the RN a MUCH greater air defence capability greater than they had in 1982. RN didn't operate a BVR missile in 1982 remember, let alone a deployable AWACS capability...

Plus, you've got F-3's on Mt Pleasant and soon you'll have Typhoon fighters, AAR and a capable GCI capability which are already based in the Falklands, can be reinforced quickly that Britain DIDN'T have in 1982.

Saying that Britain couldn't do what it did in 1982in the Falklands is simply un-true.

Plus it's strike capability is immeasurably enhanced over what is was in 1982.

Sub-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles are only one aspect of this...

I agree that the RN will still be in a position to win whatever Falklands-type engagement will come along even before the CVFs arrive in 2016-19. However I do feel some sympathy with the argument that the RN is overexposed until 2016 since it decided to get rid of the Sea Harriers way too early. That's the real mistake. ASRAAMs on GR7/9 are a good thing but cannot match loss of Amraam-capable jets. Type 45s with Aster-30s provide excellent air cover, but only up to 100-120km range. Sea Harriers provided air cover much farther away than that

cheers

 

[contedicavour]

the CDG remieds me of the old RN fleet carriers [eagle the old ark royal] because it they both carry small mixed fleets of planes [CDG rafales F2 SUE and used carry F8 and EC2 Haweyes plus the usual choppers] ark royal used to carry [F4 phantoms, buccaners and ganets, wessexs and seakings for the chopper wings] also ther very simlar size

I agree about the similarity. Modern technology however adds a couple of impressive capabilities : ASMP nuclear-capable cruise missiles (from both Rafale F2 and Super-Etendard) and a full arsenal of laser-guided bombs and missiles. What I mean to say is that the CdG is an offensive carrier to an extent the old Ark Royal was never meant to be (more emphasis on ASW and fleet defence)

cheers

 

[harryriedl]

worlds changed cold wars over and the advance of computers as created much more bang with less asets.

also nearly all carriers were defenceive in the cold war

 

[contedicavour]

worlds changed cold wars over and the advance of computers as created much more bang with less asets.

also nearly all carriers were defenceive in the cold war

I vaguely remember that at one time the USN was considering specific Attack Carriers distinct from the escort ones... though somehow the "Attack" was dropped from the Midways and Forrestals of the time.
Especially from a political perspective (as it's the politicians who ultimately decide the fate of those programmes) it does make a difference whether the carrier is built to provide air cover to the fleet or whether it is conceived to neutralize enemy resistance inland... we all know the difference is nonsense as a AV8B Plus is a multi-role fighter and so will the F35B, but it does matter to those politicians...

cheers

 

[Tasman]

I vaguely remember that at one time the USN was considering specific Attack Carriers distinct from the escort ones... though somehow the "Attack" was dropped from the Midways and Forrestals of the time.

cheers

Because of the threat posed by Soviet submarines during the cold war and the fact that the older escort carriers were not able to operate the new ASW aircraft (like the S2 Tracker), many of the Essex class carriers in the USN were operated as ASW support carriers. In this role they usually carried 20 fixed wing ASW aircraft (S2 Trackers), 16 ASW helos and 4 early warning aircraft. Fighter aircraft were usually limited to a detachment of A4 Skyhawks.

During this time the then new Forrestal class, the Midways and some reconstructed Essex class were operated as pure attack carriers with no ASW aircraft or helos embarked. During the 1970s, as the number of large carriers increased with the arrival of the first of the Nimitz class, the USN began to incorporate its ASW squadrons into the attack carrier air wings (the word 'attack' was dropped as this happened) and the specialist ASW carriers were phased out of service. The addition of ASW aircraft and helos was at the expense of the number of fighter and attack aircraft that could be carried but the offensive power of these carriers was still immense as is the case today.

Unlike the USN the RN carriers, like Eagle and Ark Royal, operated mixed strike and ASW airgroups throughout their service. The air groups were flexible though and Eagle, for example, swapped her ASW Gannets for additional Sea Hawk strike fighters during the Suez campaign in 1956. With the decommissioning of the large carriers and the arrival of the Invincibles the emphasis in the RN switched heavily to ASW warfare and these ships initially only operated 5/6 Sea Harriers in their airgroups. The Falklands War again demonstrated the flexibility of the carrier to adapt its airgroup to meet new challenges and the number of fighters was increased. Today, of course, the RN airgroups are extremely flexible and the Invincibles can adapt quickly to strike, ASW or amphibious assault roles, although the ASW capability appears somewhat downgraded compared with that of the cold war era.


Cheers

 

[riksavage]

Finally some positive news, the first BAE Samson active-array MFR radar has been fitted to T45 Daring. Engineering difficulties reported earlier have been resolved and all four MFR’s will be delivered within the year in line with the agreed programme.

PAAMS / Samson weapons firing trials will begin off the south of France later in 2007 aboard the sea trails platform – Longbow. The tests will include single and salvo firings (Janes – 11th April).

 

[rickusn]

Tasman that was a most execellent concise summary and explanation of events and issues regarding USN and UK carriers.

Kudos

 

[Tasman]

Tasman that was a most execellent concise summary and explanation of events and issues regarding USN and UK carriers.

Kudos

Thanks for that.

Cheers

 

[overlander]

History Of Recent Cuts In The Royal Navy

only from the time labour are in government.
-from 35 destroyers and frigates to 25 (and rumours of further reductions are more and more growing).
-from 12 SSN to 8
-withdrawal of sea harriers.
- withdrawal of at least 8 mcmv vessels
- only 1 operational carrier ready for fight (hms illustrious) hms invincible mothballed and hms ark royal used in the first role as a LPH.
- cuts in the number of proposed type 45 destroyers from 12 to only 8 (and it seems to be that only 6 will be finally built)
- cancellation of the fsc project
- RFA fleet getting older and needs renewal (by now only the 4 new lsd and 2 oilers have been built)
- delays in the building of the astute class and especially delays and delays to finally order the 2 new cvf queen Elizabeth class ??? we will see if finally they are built.
This means that the fleet has been reduced in 1 third of its capabilities and i know that the type 45 are much more capable than the present type 42 but even this way the fact is that the fleet is overstretched and unable to mount a campaign similar to the falklands as the harriers gr-7-9 are not the best equipped for air defence but for ground attack.

in the positive side only that they have improved the amphibious capabilities with the construction of 2 new LPD and 4 new LSD.

and as i have mentioned before maybe these cuts follow with new reductions in the escorts force.

with these heavy cuts France overpassed Britain for the first time in centuries in number of ships and capabilities, the amphibious capability is similar to that of Britain but with the CDG carrier the marine nationale has a better air defence and ground attack capability than the R.N and they are able to mount a strong and credible expeditionary force all over the world. greetings.

 

[swerve]

only from the time labour are in government.
-from 35 destroyers and frigates to 25 (and rumours of further reductions are more and more growing).
-from 12 SSN to 8
-withdrawal of sea harriers.
- withdrawal of at least 8 mcmv vessels
- only 1 operational carrier ready for fight (hms illustrious) hms invincible mothballed and hms ark royal used in the first role as a LPH.
- cuts in the number of proposed type 45 destroyers from 12 to only 8 (and it seems to be that only 6 will be finally built)
- cancellation of the fsc project
- RFA fleet getting older and needs renewal (by now only the 4 new lsd and 2 oilers have been built)
- delays in the building of the astute class and especially delays and delays to finally order the 2 new cvf queen Elizabeth class ??? we will see if finally they are built.
This means that the fleet has been reduced in 1 third of its capabilities and i know that the type 45 are much more capable than the present type 42 but even this way the fact is that the fleet is overstretched and unable to mount a campaign similar to the falklands as the harriers gr-7-9 are not the best equipped for air defence but for ground attack.

in the positive side only that they have improved the amphibious capabilities with the construction of 2 new LPD and 4 new LSD.

and as i have mentioned before maybe these cuts follow with new reductions in the escorts force.

with these heavy cuts France overpassed Britain for the first time in centuries in number of ships and capabilities, the amphibious capability is similar to that of Britain but with the CDG carrier the marine nationale has a better air defence and ground attack capability than the R.N and they are able to mount a strong and credible expeditionary force all over the world. greetings.

The French amphibious capability is still greatly inferior to that of the UK. How do you count 2 LPH (on your reckoning, counting Ark Royal as one), 2 LPD & 4 LSD, totalling about 145K tons, plus 6 ro-ro transports designed specifically to military requirements (another 130K tons of sealift) as inferior to 2 LHD & 2 LPD, totalling 65K tons? The 2 1960s-built small LPDs are retiring: count them & you have to drop one of the LHDs, as Tonnerre is speifically earmarked to replace them when she's finished shaking down. The assorted French training ships & the like with auxiliary amphibious capabilities have equivalents in the RN & RFA.

BTW, the Ark is ready to operate Harriers. They've been flying off her the last few weeks. But even with her as a carrier, the amphibious capability still greatly exceeds Frances.

The GR Harriers are of limited value for air defence, but for a Falklands re-run they'd be enough, cued onto targets by AEW Sea Kings. And they're quite good for attack, so where's this great inferiority in attack capabilities?

Also, as far as I can see, you're mixing up future capabilities (e.g. Type 45)with current. What are you actually comparing? The current front-line strength? Or after mobilisation (in which case you have to count Invincible)? Or at some date in the future? And if so, when?

 

[Waylander]

And let's not forget that the UK defenitely no longer needs all these escorts. Or do you want to go on hunting a not existing sub threat in the atlantic.

Everybody who thinks that all the deditaced ASW ships which formed the majority of the old UK fleet could be replaced 1 by 1 with modern multirole FFGs/DDGs is dreaming an impossible dream.
And I still don't see the need for such a huge navy except pride on the wrong place. I just have to look at comments like "once we were such a great navy" or "Oh my god, the french also have a good navy" to see that most of the whining about a downgraded RN is not that objective as it should be.

Just look at who is taking the majority of the missions the UK armed forces have to perform.
It is definetely not the navy.

Other people here stated very good how the new platforms offer a similar if not even better capability than the bunch of old ships which entered service during the cold war.

 

[riksavage]

The UK now has the ability to lift the entire 3 Commando Brigade in dedicated RN/RFA ships, a capability we did not have in 82. Plus the addition of new armored vehicles (Vikings), dedicated attack helicopters (Apache) and roll-on-roll off specialized landing-craft capable of moving Challenger tanks means we have a much stronger integrated amphibious force with a much greater punch than we’ve had in 25 plus years. We can now lift and deliver heavy armor to the beach-head supported by brand new tracked beach clearing and engineering equipment.

When looking at the RN today we must look at the UK’s other services and the way they dovetail together to produce a potent all arms capability that can be delivered and sustained during an expeditionary campaign.

With the addition of a Rifles Battalion under the Commando Brigade orbat we now have four Battalion sized units with a fully integrated all-arms support infastructure (engineers, artillery, armored recce etc.). We have successfully used this capability in strategic raiding campaigns, Sierra Leone for example, independent of any outside support (US or European allies). Name another country in Europe which has this capability?

 

[Rich]

Because of the threat posed by Soviet submarines during the cold war and the fact that the older escort carriers were not able to operate the new ASW aircraft (like the S2 Tracker), many of the Essex class carriers in the USN were operated as ASW support carriers. In this role they usually carried 20 fixed wing ASW aircraft (S2 Trackers), 16 ASW helos and 4 early warning aircraft. Fighter aircraft were usually limited to a detachment of A4 Skyhawks.

During this time the then new Forrestal class, the Midways and some reconstructed Essex class were operated as pure attack carriers with no ASW aircraft or helos embarked. During the 1970s, as the number of large carriers increased with the arrival of the first of the Nimitz class, the USN began to incorporate its ASW squadrons into the attack carrier air wings (the word 'attack' was dropped as this happened) and the specialist ASW carriers were phased out of service. The addition of ASW aircraft and helos was at the expense of the number of fighter and attack aircraft that could be carried but the offensive power of these carriers was still immense as is the case today.

I'm not sure if I agree with any with any implication that either ASW capability or strike capability was lost with the new carriers, or their restructured air wings. IF , in fact, such implication was made? And I dont think you did after re-reading your post.

I would just like to point out that any supposed loss of ASW with the new multi-role carriers must be balanced out with the increased ASW capabilities of the cruisers and destroyers that came on line with the 1,000' CVns. Most of all the Spruance class DDs and other platforms now fully capable of operating ASW Helicopters. I would also add that the SSNs also became far better "sub-killers"/carrier ASW escorts in this time frame most of all with the into of the LA class.

Same/same with the strike power of the carrier strike group. All of a sudden the carriers aircraft were not the only long range strike options for the CSG commander, most of all with the addition of good AshMs and Tomahawk.

So, if anything, ASW was vastly improved and simply spread out more in the strike group. As was offensive missilery. Strike aircraft are simply not the only attack options for the ASG commander anymore so any perceived lack of strike tasked fighter bombers has to take into account these other options available.

 

[swerve]

... We have successfully used this capability in strategic raiding campaigns, Sierra Leone for example, independent of any outside support (US or European allies). Name another country in Europe which has this capability?

Sierra Leone, IIRC, was done by Ocean plus an escort. France, Spain, Italy & the Netherlands (using both the RNlNs LPDs) could have done that. But none match the total capability.

The ro-ros are proving invaluable, e.g. for shipping tanks to Iraq. Much better than STUFT. Not many civilian transports specifically designed to carry Chally 2s We're using them more than originally expected (like the C-17s), so finding work for the 4 reserve ships hasn't been a problem. They're also proving handy for various civil government uses, such as the St. Helena run.

 

[Tasman]

I'm not sure if I agree with any with any implication that either ASW capability or strike capability was lost with the new carriers, or their restructured air wings. IF , in fact, such implication was made? And I dont think you did after re-reading your post.

I would just like to point out that any supposed loss of ASW with the new multi-role carriers must be balanced out with the increased ASW capabilities of the cruisers and destroyers that came on line with the 1,000' CVns. Most of all the Spruance class DDs and other platforms now fully capable of operating ASW Helicopters. I would also add that the SSNs also became far better "sub-killers"/carrier ASW escorts in this time frame most of all with the into of the LA class.

Same/same with the strike power of the carrier strike group. All of a sudden the carriers aircraft were not the only long range strike options for the CSG commander, most of all with the addition of good AshMs and Tomahawk.

So, if anything, ASW was vastly improved and simply spread out more in the strike group. As was offensive missilery. Strike aircraft are simply not the only attack options for the ASG commander anymore so any perceived lack of strike tasked fighter bombers has to take into account these other options available.

I agree with your comments Rich.

It should be noted that the deployment of ASW helos from frigates and destroyers was also a feature in the RN from the 1960s on.


Cheers

 

[Systems Adict]

"...cuts in the number of proposed type 45 destroyers from 12 to only 8 (and it seems to be that only 6 will be finally built)
- cancellation of the fsc project"

While I can understand the concern about numbers being cut, it's fair to say that in some cases the replacement vessels are larger, multi-role & more than flexible, with the ability to have one new vessel replacing two older ones.

Additionally, (WRT type-45) Project Horizion was up & running since the mid 80's. By the late 90's when we pulled out of the European "dream", numbers had been reduced, as needs/scenarios changed, along with global demands & campaigns. When we eventually decided on Type-45 it was Initially 12 vessels, reduced to 8 & now to 6. This approach HAD to happen, so that the UK tax payer gets "Value for money".

As for FSC, it may have been "cancelled", but hasn't been forgotten. The RN & the Uk Gov't. KNOW that the Type-23 FFG's where mainly for ASW, the last batch of 3 where internally modified in some areas to make them more adaptable for future roles. But this class of 13 vessels (that the RN still has), won't last for ever.

Once the elections are over in Scotland, A new PM is sworn in for the UK & the DPA/DLO organisation gets merged & settled, this will allow planning of the Defence Initiatives Strategies that the UK has been harping on about to start coming to fruition.

When this happens, I can see a more secure future for the UK Shipbuilding industry, with a key part of that future being the Future Surface Combatant, whether it be in the form of a single hull form, with three distinct "Types", other forms mentioned elsewhere within the 31 pages of this thread, or something else that takes the RN's fancy...


Systems Adict