Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
FSC was cancelled, but then again the S2C2 project has taken its place - work is still progressing on frigate replacements, it's just that they'll be in service later than FSC was envisaged.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
"numbers had been reduced, as needs/scenarios changed, along with global demands & campaigns."
As far as I can see Royal Navy "needs", "scenarios", "demands", & "campaigns" have at best remained the same if not increased.
To cover for some of the strain the have just had the Exeter and Edinburgh swap crews for the APT-S patrol and the LPH Ocean at the moment is the APT-N patrol unit.
Instead of two escorts operating East of Suez there are three.
It is true that the UK withdrew from the NATO SNMG-1 commitment but as of now they have increased the UK (FRRU formerly FRE) protection patrol from one to two ships. And there is a possibility that an RN ship will again operate with SNMG-1 this summer.
The RN is still involved in the NATO SNMG-2(MED).
In addition to the Edinburgh in the Falklands for APT-S patrol the Southhampton deploys on an APT-S patrol monday.
And as good as the T-45s are they cant be in two places at once. So #s do at some point count.
Maybe the UK can/should? drawdown farther but Im not so sure.
Its amazing that in 2004 the RN said it would have to cut out two more commitments beside the SNMG-1 when it decreased to 25 escorts but that hasnt happened in fact commitments have increased.
So I suppose the thinking is if that the RN could manage that then why not another six or seven ship cut.
Boy oh Boy it sure scares me.
I also have a recent article that indicates the UK is again at the moment showing increased concern about the Falklands.
I can post it if anyone would like.
As far as I can see Royal Navy "needs", "scenarios", "demands", & "campaigns" have at best remained the same if not increased.
To cover for some of the strain the have just had the Exeter and Edinburgh swap crews for the APT-S patrol and the LPH Ocean at the moment is the APT-N patrol unit.
Instead of two escorts operating East of Suez there are three.
It is true that the UK withdrew from the NATO SNMG-1 commitment but as of now they have increased the UK (FRRU formerly FRE) protection patrol from one to two ships. And there is a possibility that an RN ship will again operate with SNMG-1 this summer.
The RN is still involved in the NATO SNMG-2(MED).
In addition to the Edinburgh in the Falklands for APT-S patrol the Southhampton deploys on an APT-S patrol monday.
And as good as the T-45s are they cant be in two places at once. So #s do at some point count.
Maybe the UK can/should? drawdown farther but Im not so sure.
Its amazing that in 2004 the RN said it would have to cut out two more commitments beside the SNMG-1 when it decreased to 25 escorts but that hasnt happened in fact commitments have increased.
So I suppose the thinking is if that the RN could manage that then why not another six or seven ship cut.
Boy oh Boy it sure scares me.
I also have a recent article that indicates the UK is again at the moment showing increased concern about the Falklands.
I can post it if anyone would like.
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
Tornados Show Military Commitment to Today's Falklands
London April 20, 2007 - Report by Graham Bound.
In 1982 Britain's commitment to defend its own was under-estimated.
Today, the RAF Tornados patrolling the skies above the Falklands, along with a whole host of modern military equipment at sea and on land ensure there is no misunderstanding again.
(Photo of Tornados did not paste.)
During the grueling 17-hour flight between RAF Brize Norton and RAF Mount Pleasant aboard a MOD-charted Boeing 747, the boredom is relieved only by warmed-up meals and even more tepid films fuzzily projected onto screens with 1970s technology.
However, some excellent in-flight entertainment is saved until the final half hour of the flight. Just before descent, a voice from the cockpit invites passengers to look out their windows. There they see a pair of Tornado fighters "formating" on the wingtips.
In these post-9/11 days, the arrival of two fighters packing sidewinder missiles could have passengers frantically texting their final "I-love-you" messages. But the waving pilots are friendly. And anyway, there are those reassuring roundels.
It is not completely clear why the jet jockeys of 1435 Flight (part of 905 Expeditionary Air Wing) go through this ritual every time an airliner approaches the main base at Mount Pleasant.
Some say that they are checking to make sure that no maverick pilots with ill-intent are coasting into the base, hiding in another plane's radar "shadow". Or perhaps the pilots like a change from the daily practice scrambles and mock attacks.
Whatever it is, it is not for fun. On the ground at the sprawling tri-service base 40 miles (64 km) from the capital, Port Stanley, Officer Commanding 1435 Flight, Squadron Leader Pete Brombley, and his colleagues clearly take things very seriously:
"Our job is to deter any incursions in a zone of 150 miles radius," he says very soberly. "We're here to deter. And it's working."
His team works closely with the Rapier anti-aircraft batteries of 16 Regiment RA, which ring Mount Pleasant. Tornado and Rapier crews engage in mock combat daily.
"We are on constant alert here," says a surprisingly blunt speaking Captain Rob Wood of 30 Battery. "Aircraft taking off from the mainland could be here in 40 minutes."
The reason for such blunt speaking is that in nearby Argentina the "Malvinas" cause is still very much alive.
The Argentines have backed out of an agreement to cooperate over oil exploration in the area, and will not allow increased commercial flights between the islands and Chile.
No one is suggesting that these moves could escalate to conflict. Argentina has made clear it intends to pursue the claim by peaceful means.
But there is always a chance that a rogue element could see the media attention given to the 25th anniversary of the Falklands conflict as a chance for a publicity stunt.
The commander of British Forces South Atlantic Islands, Brigadier Nick Davies, is happy to talk candidly about the situation:
"I would not wish to change what we do here. I'm here to make sure that we have an efficient force and to make sure that the 1982 conflict does not happen again. And I'm pretty confident I've got the tools."
Those tools are impressive. As well as Tornadoes and Rapier, there are troop-moving helicopters; a flight of Hercules and VC10 transports and tankers; a destroyer (currently HMS Edinburgh); a Castle class patrol ship; 105mm artillery, and at least a company of infantry with support units.
(Photo of Edinburgh did not paste)
The Brigadier came to Mount Pleasant from a posting in Afghanistan, and many of his colleagues have also been hardened by the conflicts there and in Iraq.
If such experiences teach anything, it is the need for clear and unambiguous statement of intent and purpose. That principle was arguably overlooked once in the Falklands. That seems unlikely to happen again.
London April 20, 2007 - Report by Graham Bound.
In 1982 Britain's commitment to defend its own was under-estimated.
Today, the RAF Tornados patrolling the skies above the Falklands, along with a whole host of modern military equipment at sea and on land ensure there is no misunderstanding again.
(Photo of Tornados did not paste.)
During the grueling 17-hour flight between RAF Brize Norton and RAF Mount Pleasant aboard a MOD-charted Boeing 747, the boredom is relieved only by warmed-up meals and even more tepid films fuzzily projected onto screens with 1970s technology.
However, some excellent in-flight entertainment is saved until the final half hour of the flight. Just before descent, a voice from the cockpit invites passengers to look out their windows. There they see a pair of Tornado fighters "formating" on the wingtips.
In these post-9/11 days, the arrival of two fighters packing sidewinder missiles could have passengers frantically texting their final "I-love-you" messages. But the waving pilots are friendly. And anyway, there are those reassuring roundels.
It is not completely clear why the jet jockeys of 1435 Flight (part of 905 Expeditionary Air Wing) go through this ritual every time an airliner approaches the main base at Mount Pleasant.
Some say that they are checking to make sure that no maverick pilots with ill-intent are coasting into the base, hiding in another plane's radar "shadow". Or perhaps the pilots like a change from the daily practice scrambles and mock attacks.
Whatever it is, it is not for fun. On the ground at the sprawling tri-service base 40 miles (64 km) from the capital, Port Stanley, Officer Commanding 1435 Flight, Squadron Leader Pete Brombley, and his colleagues clearly take things very seriously:
"Our job is to deter any incursions in a zone of 150 miles radius," he says very soberly. "We're here to deter. And it's working."
His team works closely with the Rapier anti-aircraft batteries of 16 Regiment RA, which ring Mount Pleasant. Tornado and Rapier crews engage in mock combat daily.
"We are on constant alert here," says a surprisingly blunt speaking Captain Rob Wood of 30 Battery. "Aircraft taking off from the mainland could be here in 40 minutes."
The reason for such blunt speaking is that in nearby Argentina the "Malvinas" cause is still very much alive.
The Argentines have backed out of an agreement to cooperate over oil exploration in the area, and will not allow increased commercial flights between the islands and Chile.
No one is suggesting that these moves could escalate to conflict. Argentina has made clear it intends to pursue the claim by peaceful means.
But there is always a chance that a rogue element could see the media attention given to the 25th anniversary of the Falklands conflict as a chance for a publicity stunt.
The commander of British Forces South Atlantic Islands, Brigadier Nick Davies, is happy to talk candidly about the situation:
"I would not wish to change what we do here. I'm here to make sure that we have an efficient force and to make sure that the 1982 conflict does not happen again. And I'm pretty confident I've got the tools."
Those tools are impressive. As well as Tornadoes and Rapier, there are troop-moving helicopters; a flight of Hercules and VC10 transports and tankers; a destroyer (currently HMS Edinburgh); a Castle class patrol ship; 105mm artillery, and at least a company of infantry with support units.
(Photo of Edinburgh did not paste)
The Brigadier came to Mount Pleasant from a posting in Afghanistan, and many of his colleagues have also been hardened by the conflicts there and in Iraq.
If such experiences teach anything, it is the need for clear and unambiguous statement of intent and purpose. That principle was arguably overlooked once in the Falklands. That seems unlikely to happen again.
Last edited by a moderator:
according to the Sun newspaper the CVFs have been approved http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007180541,00.html it may not be the most accurate of pieces
overlander
Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #467
this newspaper is just a sensationalist tabloid
so i don,t believe until an official source from the british M.O.D. confirm the news. Any other newspaper or british source of information
confirmed these news, i have checked in internet and find nothing about it so we will see.
so i don,t believe until an official source from the british M.O.D. confirm the news. Any other newspaper or british source of information
confirmed these news, i have checked in internet and find nothing about it so we will see.
Last edited:
I feel the same as overlander. I can't believe that the Sun would be the only newspaper in the world to have access to such an important decision or that there would be no announcement from Government, Defence or the RN.
BTW has there been any confirmation of their February story about Albion paying off into extended readiness?
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007090388,00.html
Cheers
There is this recent article in the Herald. Probably why the Sun printed their even more specious report.
But it has couple of errors such as the commitment East of Suez has if anything has increased and the Type 45s wouldnt likely increase the escort force as the remainingType 42s are planned to decommission as the T-45s enter service.
£3.8bn carriers contract on hold until after polls
IAN BRUCE, Defence Correspondent April 17 2007
The Ministry of Defence will confirm the £3.8bn contract for two new aircraft carriers after the Scottish elections, according to Whitehall sources.
An announcement has been delayed by hard bargaining between the UK yards sharing the work and Lord Drayson, Procurement Minister, and the need to avoid accusations of using the promise of jobs to influence voters ahead of the May 3 polls.
But the Royal Navy will then face the mothballing of two Type 42 destroyers and four Type 22 frigates to help save a £250m overrun in fuel, maintenance and other costs.
The cutback, which includes HMS Cornwall, the warship whose crew members were taken hostage by Iran's Revolutionary Guard forces, could also mean scrapping one or even two major global naval commitments.
Insiders say the tasks under threat are the Falklands guard ship, whose removal would leave the islands vulnerable for the first time since the 1982 war with Argentina, and possibly the Indian Ocean anti-drugs patrol.
Axing or reducing the South Atlantic cover would be particularly embarrassing at a time when the UK is preparing to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the recapture of the islands and Argentina has lodged new claims over their sovereignty.
The reductions would leave the Navy with just 19 destroyers and frigates until the six Type 45 air defence destroyers on order from BAe's Clyde yards enter service between 2009 and 2013.
The current 25-strong surface escort fleet has already reduced patrols in the Caribbean and North Atlantic because of shortage of numbers and cut its two-ship presence in the Indian Ocean by half.
The First Sea Lord, Admiral Jonathon Band, warned in February that he needed a further £1bn a year simply to keep the existing warships operational and to improve pay and living conditions for sailors under his command.
A senior naval source said yesterday: "The RN had 98 ships in service in 1997. A decade on,we have 75. Only 25 of those are escort vessels and many of the others are supply and support ships, inshore and offshore patrol craft and survey vessels.
"The carrier Invincible is effectively out of the picture at low readiness', although she remains on strength. It would take a minimum 18 months to make her seaworthy. Five other ships are at extended readiness'. It would take more than 180 days to make them operational."
A review is also under way to slash costs at the UK's three naval bases. It cost £183m to operate the Clyde submarine base at Faslane last year, £185m for Devonport and £151m for Portsmouth, which is seen as the most vulnerable.
But it has couple of errors such as the commitment East of Suez has if anything has increased and the Type 45s wouldnt likely increase the escort force as the remainingType 42s are planned to decommission as the T-45s enter service.
£3.8bn carriers contract on hold until after polls
IAN BRUCE, Defence Correspondent April 17 2007
The Ministry of Defence will confirm the £3.8bn contract for two new aircraft carriers after the Scottish elections, according to Whitehall sources.
An announcement has been delayed by hard bargaining between the UK yards sharing the work and Lord Drayson, Procurement Minister, and the need to avoid accusations of using the promise of jobs to influence voters ahead of the May 3 polls.
But the Royal Navy will then face the mothballing of two Type 42 destroyers and four Type 22 frigates to help save a £250m overrun in fuel, maintenance and other costs.
The cutback, which includes HMS Cornwall, the warship whose crew members were taken hostage by Iran's Revolutionary Guard forces, could also mean scrapping one or even two major global naval commitments.
Insiders say the tasks under threat are the Falklands guard ship, whose removal would leave the islands vulnerable for the first time since the 1982 war with Argentina, and possibly the Indian Ocean anti-drugs patrol.
Axing or reducing the South Atlantic cover would be particularly embarrassing at a time when the UK is preparing to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the recapture of the islands and Argentina has lodged new claims over their sovereignty.
The reductions would leave the Navy with just 19 destroyers and frigates until the six Type 45 air defence destroyers on order from BAe's Clyde yards enter service between 2009 and 2013.
The current 25-strong surface escort fleet has already reduced patrols in the Caribbean and North Atlantic because of shortage of numbers and cut its two-ship presence in the Indian Ocean by half.
The First Sea Lord, Admiral Jonathon Band, warned in February that he needed a further £1bn a year simply to keep the existing warships operational and to improve pay and living conditions for sailors under his command.
A senior naval source said yesterday: "The RN had 98 ships in service in 1997. A decade on,we have 75. Only 25 of those are escort vessels and many of the others are supply and support ships, inshore and offshore patrol craft and survey vessels.
"The carrier Invincible is effectively out of the picture at low readiness', although she remains on strength. It would take a minimum 18 months to make her seaworthy. Five other ships are at extended readiness'. It would take more than 180 days to make them operational."
A review is also under way to slash costs at the UK's three naval bases. It cost £183m to operate the Clyde submarine base at Faslane last year, £185m for Devonport and £151m for Portsmouth, which is seen as the most vulnerable.
Last edited:
overlander
Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #470
more cuts in the horizon
so if finally the new carriers (we will see) are ordered by the british m.o.d. (alias ministry of cuts) will be with the cost of other heavy cut in the navy, it,s clear that the new type 45 are more capable than the present type 42b(it,s very clear that finally they will built only 6 units from the originalñ 12) but one ship can,t be in 2 places at the sime time and if they reduce the escort force to 19 the R.N. will not be able to perform global deployments and commitments, carriers are important but you need a minimum number of escorts too and this minimum it was 25, going down in this number it,s too dangerous, the labour will have a record, when they enter in government there were 35 escorts and they will go with 19 nearly a 50 % cut, the problem is that i doubt very much that conservatives change this policy, for british politicians defence is in the botton of priorities. for example France with similar even less G.D.P. than Britain they never will be under 25-30 escorts number as the French minitry of defence declared recently. this is the difference, in France politicians conservatives or socialist they know the minimum strenght of the armed forces but in Britain this strenght is cutted and cutted, maybe the predictions of some retired officers of the royal navy and some naval experts as richard beedall that declared that this way the navy in 20 years will be a coastal force will be true, if in only 3-4 years they cutted 12 escorts in 20 years what will happen !!!!!
so if finally the new carriers (we will see) are ordered by the british m.o.d. (alias ministry of cuts) will be with the cost of other heavy cut in the navy, it,s clear that the new type 45 are more capable than the present type 42b(it,s very clear that finally they will built only 6 units from the originalñ 12) but one ship can,t be in 2 places at the sime time and if they reduce the escort force to 19 the R.N. will not be able to perform global deployments and commitments, carriers are important but you need a minimum number of escorts too and this minimum it was 25, going down in this number it,s too dangerous, the labour will have a record, when they enter in government there were 35 escorts and they will go with 19 nearly a 50 % cut, the problem is that i doubt very much that conservatives change this policy, for british politicians defence is in the botton of priorities. for example France with similar even less G.D.P. than Britain they never will be under 25-30 escorts number as the French minitry of defence declared recently. this is the difference, in France politicians conservatives or socialist they know the minimum strenght of the armed forces but in Britain this strenght is cutted and cutted, maybe the predictions of some retired officers of the royal navy and some naval experts as richard beedall that declared that this way the navy in 20 years will be a coastal force will be true, if in only 3-4 years they cutted 12 escorts in 20 years what will happen !!!!!
Overlander – A couple of comments:
1.Labour will most likely lose the next election, and I seriously believe the Conservatives will improve the Navy’s lot.
2.Whether we like it or not the service in need of support at the moment is the Army, they are the ones carrying the burden in Iraq and Afghanistan, followed closely by the RAF. Subsequently they will be receiving the lion’s share of financial support in the coming years as the primary tool in the battle against the growing asymmetric threat.
3.Frances commitment to Iraq is zero and their commitment to Afghanistan is very limited when compared to the UK, US, Canada, Aus and Nederland’s. They can afford to spend on the Navy at the momment.
4.The current French escort fleet does not match the UK’s in quality (particulary when the T45’s come on line 4, 6 or 8) The 13 remaing Duke class frigates, taking in to consideration ongoing upgrade programmes, still offers a very good platform for general duties.
5. Plus our submarines have a land-attack capability, which the French don't have (unless they go nuclear)
1.Labour will most likely lose the next election, and I seriously believe the Conservatives will improve the Navy’s lot.
2.Whether we like it or not the service in need of support at the moment is the Army, they are the ones carrying the burden in Iraq and Afghanistan, followed closely by the RAF. Subsequently they will be receiving the lion’s share of financial support in the coming years as the primary tool in the battle against the growing asymmetric threat.
3.Frances commitment to Iraq is zero and their commitment to Afghanistan is very limited when compared to the UK, US, Canada, Aus and Nederland’s. They can afford to spend on the Navy at the momment.
4.The current French escort fleet does not match the UK’s in quality (particulary when the T45’s come on line 4, 6 or 8) The 13 remaing Duke class frigates, taking in to consideration ongoing upgrade programmes, still offers a very good platform for general duties.
5. Plus our submarines have a land-attack capability, which the French don't have (unless they go nuclear)
4. Agreed (& all the preceding points), but Type 45 is not yet in service.
5. True at the moment, but not when Scalp Naval enters service.
overlander
Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #474
i know that after the cold war the need of escorts is not so important but as i have said before 1 ship can,t be in many parts of the world at the same time, to compare the number of escorts in France and Britain, in 1997 France had 36 escorts and Britain 35, in 2007 and after the planned cuts after the summer France will have 35 escorts and Britain only 19, what i want to say is to demonstrate the terrible cuts that r.n. is suffering furthermore with constanT tensions in the budget, i know that France is not in iraq but this a problem of the british government if they want to spend the money in that campaign it,s their problem, France prefers to invest in more equipment and they have not tensions about budget they know that the armed forces have to be credible but in Britain it,s not the same as every 2 years other heavy cuts are announced, plus news about the mothballing and of ships plus presssure on defence budget and with this the message to potential enemies of Britain is that defence is not a priority as in France is and this is very dangerous, deterrent is important as demonstrated in the falklands, the argentines look and see the heavy cuts the the then minister Nott planned including the withdrawn of hms endurance from the south pole and they start the war simply because the british government in their view send the message that they will not fight for the falklands, in my opinion with so many cuts and news of mothballing ships and pressures in the defence budget the message is that maybe Britain is not interested in defence.
Yes, france currently has more platforms, but how capable are those platforms compared to the fewer british platforms?
It is very similar to the situation with the Dutch navy, which on the one hand got or is getting larger, modern and highly capable new vessels (LCF, LPDs) and at the same time shedding older ships (prematurely?) i.e. Standard and Multi Purpose frigates. Net result: fewer but more capable ships, possibly assisted in future by more numerous but cheap ships at the low-end of the capability spectrum.
Overlander,
I dont care how many ships the French Navy has, its not an issue.
What is important is to consider what the RN has utilised over the last few decades and what it will get when the carriers are built (which they will be...lets just wait few months and re-discuss)
The RN has 3 small carriers. The Harrier is good but the F35 is a vast improvement in capability. One CVF will have the strike potential of all three Invincibles.
I would take 19 escorts with the carriers without a second thought You keep mentioning cuts, you keep mentioning Bedall.com. Take a peek at the MOD procurement plans, take a peek at BAE systems and see what projects are in development.
2020. Two carriers = 70 F35, ASW MERLIN, ASaC Sea King plus networked UAV. Add 3 Type 45's, 6 Type 23 and 4 Astutes and you have a massively more powerful task force than the 1982 era Falklands task force. Add the amphibious ships, the apache, MR4A, Storm Shadow, tomahawk etc and we are still in the premier league.
Most of our escorts are old, the Type 22 can shoot an aircraft down that strays within 3 miles, does a good policing task, chases subs ( not many out there), NGS but what else does a 20 yr old ship do with 220plus crew? If we have to lose the T22, Some T45s, a naval base, to get the CVF, 15 Tanker/Replenishment ships, MASC and other brand new equipment then so be it.
It would be an interesting question to ask Adm Sandy Woodward. Fight the Falklands again in 1982. Swap the County and Leander class escorts for four Hawkeyes and a squadron of Phantoms? In the 1982 navy with no AEW we needed numerous radar pickets, and most of those were dated and couldnt defend themsleves( look a thr punishment they took). The Future RN will possess the second best fighter in the world, AEW and long range missiles. I know which I would prefer.
Each service goes through peaks and troughs. You chose to compare the french navy with the RN, citing numbers of escorts as the all important factor.
Perhaps a similar comparison could be made with the respective airforces? In 2020 the French airforce will fly the Rafaele and Mirage 2000. (maybe someone could advise on the number of rafaele, I have read 125-294??)
The RAF on the other hand will be flying 232 Typhoon and 150-ish F35. I would suggest that the RAF will be the more potent force in comparison to the French AF??(unless the french have an ace up their sleeves??).
Perhaps you should start posting about the French Airforce cuts and the French Government not being willing to pay for its airforce????
On a final point I would say that the UK armed forces have gained massive experience in real war fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan. We in the UK tend to be willing to use our armed forces. I would point out that Spain pulled out of Iraq, so you may have an impressive array of Aegis destroyers, amphibious ships etc etc...but if you arent going to use them then there isnt a lot of point to them. You mention our labour government, I didnt or wont vote for them but at least Blair stuck to his guns, no matter how unpopular it made him.
I dont care how many ships the French Navy has, its not an issue.
What is important is to consider what the RN has utilised over the last few decades and what it will get when the carriers are built (which they will be...lets just wait few months and re-discuss)
The RN has 3 small carriers. The Harrier is good but the F35 is a vast improvement in capability. One CVF will have the strike potential of all three Invincibles.
I would take 19 escorts with the carriers without a second thought You keep mentioning cuts, you keep mentioning Bedall.com. Take a peek at the MOD procurement plans, take a peek at BAE systems and see what projects are in development.
2020. Two carriers = 70 F35, ASW MERLIN, ASaC Sea King plus networked UAV. Add 3 Type 45's, 6 Type 23 and 4 Astutes and you have a massively more powerful task force than the 1982 era Falklands task force. Add the amphibious ships, the apache, MR4A, Storm Shadow, tomahawk etc and we are still in the premier league.
Most of our escorts are old, the Type 22 can shoot an aircraft down that strays within 3 miles, does a good policing task, chases subs ( not many out there), NGS but what else does a 20 yr old ship do with 220plus crew? If we have to lose the T22, Some T45s, a naval base, to get the CVF, 15 Tanker/Replenishment ships, MASC and other brand new equipment then so be it.
It would be an interesting question to ask Adm Sandy Woodward. Fight the Falklands again in 1982. Swap the County and Leander class escorts for four Hawkeyes and a squadron of Phantoms? In the 1982 navy with no AEW we needed numerous radar pickets, and most of those were dated and couldnt defend themsleves( look a thr punishment they took). The Future RN will possess the second best fighter in the world, AEW and long range missiles. I know which I would prefer.
Each service goes through peaks and troughs. You chose to compare the french navy with the RN, citing numbers of escorts as the all important factor.
Perhaps a similar comparison could be made with the respective airforces? In 2020 the French airforce will fly the Rafaele and Mirage 2000. (maybe someone could advise on the number of rafaele, I have read 125-294??)
The RAF on the other hand will be flying 232 Typhoon and 150-ish F35. I would suggest that the RAF will be the more potent force in comparison to the French AF??(unless the french have an ace up their sleeves??).
Perhaps you should start posting about the French Airforce cuts and the French Government not being willing to pay for its airforce????
On a final point I would say that the UK armed forces have gained massive experience in real war fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan. We in the UK tend to be willing to use our armed forces. I would point out that Spain pulled out of Iraq, so you may have an impressive array of Aegis destroyers, amphibious ships etc etc...but if you arent going to use them then there isnt a lot of point to them. You mention our labour government, I didnt or wont vote for them but at least Blair stuck to his guns, no matter how unpopular it made him.
Super Nimrod
New Member
Dave H said "2020. Two carriers = 70 F35, ASW MERLIN, ASaC Sea King plus networked UAV. Add 3 Type 45's, 6 Type 23 and 4 Astutes and you have a massively more powerful task force than the 1982 era Falklands task force"
To a point I agree. But factor in 1982 surface vessel attrition rates and you have a completely different picture. That is where the number of available platforms will always be an important issue. As many more qualified people than me have said on this and other websites, the Navy needs more ships to maintain critical mass. The RAF with say 400 super high tech airframes can lose 20 and not be materially effected. A Navy with say 20 major surface combatants could not afford to loose 5 of them any more. The future bad guy no matter who he is, has moved on with new weapons the same way that we have and there is no reason to assume that previous attrition rates will not be attained again.
I am prepared to concede that the arrival Carriers will enable the RN to request more support ships to assist them though, but that is a debate for 20 years time.
To a point I agree. But factor in 1982 surface vessel attrition rates and you have a completely different picture. That is where the number of available platforms will always be an important issue. As many more qualified people than me have said on this and other websites, the Navy needs more ships to maintain critical mass. The RAF with say 400 super high tech airframes can lose 20 and not be materially effected. A Navy with say 20 major surface combatants could not afford to loose 5 of them any more. The future bad guy no matter who he is, has moved on with new weapons the same way that we have and there is no reason to assume that previous attrition rates will not be attained again.
I am prepared to concede that the arrival Carriers will enable the RN to request more support ships to assist them though, but that is a debate for 20 years time.
Agreed.Dave H said "2020. Two carriers = 70 F35, ASW MERLIN, ASaC Sea King plus networked UAV. Add 3 Type 45's, 6 Type 23 and 4 Astutes and you have a massively more powerful task force than the 1982 era Falklands task force"
To a point I agree. But factor in 1982 surface vessel attrition rates and you have a completely different picture. That is where the number of available platforms will always be an important issue. As many more qualified people than me have said on this and other websites, the Navy needs more ships to maintain critical mass. The RAF with say 400 super high tech airframes can lose 20 and not be materially effected. A Navy with say 20 major surface combatants could not afford to loose 5 of them any more. The future bad guy no matter who he is, has moved on with new weapons the same way that we have and there is no reason to assume that previous attrition rates will not be attained again.
...
Type 45 - excellent. Buy as many as we can afford. But we also need something cheaper, which can be bought in larger numbers. Hence my enthusiasm for the idea of a low-end frigate/large OPV, with a flexible weapons fit a la Stanflex, & which could be operated in a peacetime patrolling or full war rig, with crew size to suit. There are plenty of weapons suitable for Stanflex (or a British equivalent) packaging, e.g. VL Seawolf, VL Mica.
Thank God, at last a voice of reason. Why this constant comparison of bare hull numbers with the French? They have different requirements than the RN, all those overseas territories still to patrol and the consequent need for large patrol corvettes (which the media insists on calling frigates and counting as 'major surface combatents' even though they are nothing of the sort).
France's territorial obligations, their force protection doctrine with regards to large warships and their large Med coastline make their requirements different from the RNs (take a look at their SSNs).
Not better, not worse. Just different and for justifiable reasons.
If anyone is obsessed by the French navy, can I suggest they read the French media, where discussions on large navy cuts are nearly as frequent as those in the UK, expect changes once the current presidential campaign is over.
WillS
finally some who doesn't think the RN is going to hell in a hand cart [on a slightly unrelated note an officer on illustrious said that when the carriers and the JSFs appear there are going to be more RN squadrons and a slight reduction of RAF squadron's] disclamer: it was off record and i can't remember his role on ship.