Very soon, RN elements will be participating in a major amphibious exercise off of the American coast. See
Here .
Does anyone know what aircraft
Invincible will be carrying?
Doesn't it seem odd that we put all of this time, money and effort into upgrading our amphibious capabilities than decide to save a relatively small sum by scrapping the means to protect amphibious forces from air threats?
Now for the
really controversial points. Some of them might be considered to be tangents.
Rumours in the media are that there is to be a reduction in frigate and destroyer numbers. Inevitably this will exacerbate the problem caused by the loss of organic air defence. The loss of the Sea Harrier means that the fleet's first layer of defence against aircraft (not including third party assets) is the Type 42 Destroyer with Sea Dart.
The Type 23 Frigate is not primarily an anti air ship, but can provide extended point defence for herself and nearby vessels with vertical lauch Sea Wolf. Apart from being more suitable for anti missile use, the vertical launch version of Sea Wolf has 32 missiles ready to go as opposed to Sea Dart's two.
Because of the need to keep Type 42s due to the loss of Sea Harrier, Type 23s may be cut. This makes little sense, and is probably a consequence of the loss of organic air defence.
My guess is that losing Sea Dart would be less of a loss (considering all our frigates now have Sea Wolf, we have more sophisticated decoys and CIWS aboard high value units and some other vessels) than the SHAR/Blue Vixen/AMRAAM combination. Doesn't Sea Dart contain lots of 60s/70s technology? And even if it is upgraded the basic limitations of range and only having two missiles on the launcher.
When I was at University one of my lecturers was a ex RN Instructor Officer who had done other things in the mob. According to him the T42 design was criticised as a ship that would have trouble defending herself, let alone anyone else. The events of 1982 may have vindicated that view....
1. AAW. Sea Dart limited, old, and obsolecent.
2. Anti Surface. Same as above, additionally was Sea Dart ever serious in the anti ship role?
3. ASW. Noisy, difficult to use own sonar 2016, vulnerable to homing torpedoes or acoustic mines due to noise, no STWS, can't operate Merlin, aviation facilities limited.
4. MIOPS - due to problems with operating boats T42s are not the preferred platform for boarding duties.
I have been told the only task which has to be a T42 is the Five Powers' deployment in the Far East. Also escorting CVS/LPH/LPD(?), although I would have thought they'd be better of with a T23 providing extended point defence with vertical Sea Wolf and the Sea Harrier providing air defence.......
As I see it, we should have kept the batch two T22s we've scrapped as targets/flogged (interesting that the Romanians want 76mm guns fitted) and considered losing more of the T42s instead of the Sea Jet. However, the need to have a certain number of frigates/destroyers may make this unrealistic. Although these numbers are under threat at the moment. Perhaps the RN should acquire less sophisticated vessels for MIOPS and the like. Unfortunately the Treasury etc would no doubt use this to justify more cutbacks.
However, the need for the fleet to have an ability to deal with enemy aircraft/missiles at a range of more than a few miles means that we may end of losing more useful, better armed, Type 22 or Type 23 Frigates.
Meanwhile, it seems as if Sub Harpoon is about to be withdrawn from service. This will make any loss of Harpoon carrying ships more serious. To add to the problem our ever decreasing number of submarines are likely to be used for firing Tomahawk, ISTAR missions or SF operations. This must surely comprimise their anti submarine and anti surface roles, thus making our frigates more important. But if we have cut them back even more....
By the way, if future operations ae going to be in shallow littoral waters then how come our new SSNs will be even larger? I still curse the Tories for getting rid of our diesel electric boats which would have been well suites to littoral things.
On the subject of Tomahawk, can the UK use it independently? Is it anything other than a political thing? Would the money spent on Tomahawk, modifying our boats, building the necessary infrastructure, and buying the missiles have been better spent on something else, the Fleet Air Arm perhaps?