Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Torres Strait
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Currently the RN has 2 Aircraft Carriers. 1 LPH, 2 or 3 Type 45 Destroyers, 5 Type 42 Destroyers, 13 Type 23 Frigates, 4 Type 22 Frigates, 2 LPD's, 8 SSN's, 4 SSBN's 16 MCM's ships, plus assorted patrol vessels, etc. Plus the RFA with about a further 16 ships including some Amphibious vessels.
The 5 Type 42 Destroyers will not last much longer, with or without the Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers. Same goes for the LPH, HMS Ocean. The 4 Type 22 Frigates are still good ships and should be kept, but probably will not be. And, of course, in due course, the QE's will replace the Invincible's. (just as the Type 45's are replacing the Type 42's, although it is a pity the RN is not getting at least eight rather than only six) So that is 8-12 ships that will go that any scribbler can attempt to make something of, when in fact they are, mostly, time expired ships.
With the Queen Elizabeth class Aircraft Carriers, new escorts will come, in time.
The only Frigate cuts I see as likely are the four remaining Type 22's. A pity as they are still very good ships, but they require relatively large crews, which is the main point against them. The Type 23's remain perhaps the worlds premier ASW ships.
It would be much easier to regenerate escort numbers than, once you have lost it completely, to regenerate Carrier Air.
For full war fighting a Carrier Task Group will need three - four Type 23 Frigates and one - Two Type 45 Destroyers plus an SSN or two. An Amphibious Task group will need something like the same surface escorts. Thus, providing the Government don't cut the Amphibs too much, the RN will, just, have the ships it needs to generate both a Carrier Task Group and an Amphibious Task Group in any kind of emergency.
A few years down the line we might well see half a dozen or so 'general purpose' type Frigates, suitable for many of the day to day Naval tasks, such ships need not be very expensive. Further down the track the Type 23's will have to be replaced.
If the RN comes out of this round of Defence cuts with a balanced force, including Carrier Air, that's a win for the RN, for the British Armed Forces generally and for UK."
The 5 Type 42 Destroyers will not last much longer, with or without the Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers. Same goes for the LPH, HMS Ocean. The 4 Type 22 Frigates are still good ships and should be kept, but probably will not be. And, of course, in due course, the QE's will replace the Invincible's. (just as the Type 45's are replacing the Type 42's, although it is a pity the RN is not getting at least eight rather than only six) So that is 8-12 ships that will go that any scribbler can attempt to make something of, when in fact they are, mostly, time expired ships.
With the Queen Elizabeth class Aircraft Carriers, new escorts will come, in time.
The only Frigate cuts I see as likely are the four remaining Type 22's. A pity as they are still very good ships, but they require relatively large crews, which is the main point against them. The Type 23's remain perhaps the worlds premier ASW ships.
It would be much easier to regenerate escort numbers than, once you have lost it completely, to regenerate Carrier Air.
For full war fighting a Carrier Task Group will need three - four Type 23 Frigates and one - Two Type 45 Destroyers plus an SSN or two. An Amphibious Task group will need something like the same surface escorts. Thus, providing the Government don't cut the Amphibs too much, the RN will, just, have the ships it needs to generate both a Carrier Task Group and an Amphibious Task Group in any kind of emergency.
A few years down the line we might well see half a dozen or so 'general purpose' type Frigates, suitable for many of the day to day Naval tasks, such ships need not be very expensive. Further down the track the Type 23's will have to be replaced.
If the RN comes out of this round of Defence cuts with a balanced force, including Carrier Air, that's a win for the RN, for the British Armed Forces generally and for UK."
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Torres Strait
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navy fury at 'underhand' Army tactics in defence review
Royal Navy chiefs have reacted with fury at the Army over alleged underhand tactics officers used during the defence review claiming it will “never be forgiven or forgotten”.
Navy fury at 'underhand' Army tactics in defence review - Telegraph
Royal Navy chiefs have reacted with fury at the Army over alleged underhand tactics officers used during the defence review claiming it will “never be forgiven or forgotten”.
Navy fury at 'underhand' Army tactics in defence review - Telegraph
From todays Telegraph..
My italics:
Sounds to me as though we've gone from punching above our weight to punching below it in one fell swoop..
sv
My italics:
Navy sources have said that the reduction would mean Britain would find it "extremely difficult" to protect sea lanes on which 90 per cent of the country's trade relies.
sv
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the RN comes out of this round of Defence cuts with a balanced force, including Carrier Air, that's a win for the RN, for the British Armed Forces generally and for UK
Except the caveat we would need to add is "provided the UK retains at least the minimum capability everywhere else". If you have been reading the papers, you will realise we can't afford that.
What areas would you cut back to pay for all that? Imagine a UK with a strong, balanced RN as you describe but an emasculated army and an ineffective air force. Carrriers wouldn't do much good then.
I'm afraid that "We need a balanced RN including carriers and that's the end of my argument" comes across as a myopic, single-service view. And if you know who Andrew Gordon is, but not Malcolm Davis, then that just reinforces to me that your area of interest and knowledge is purely maritime and not UK defence in general.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I hate to say I told you so, but if the leaks are accurate (and I've got no idea), the future RN fleet of
2 X QE Class
7 x Astute
6 x T45
6 x T23
4 x Vanguard
(And erm, that's about it.)
shows the impact of completing the QEs at the expense of, well, everything else. Are we sure that this is the optimal position for the RN post SDSR? I rather doubt it - and if this is it, presumably this means end of Pompey or Guz. And out of interest, how do the RM get ashore? It's not as if we're overborne with helicopters, and are we saying we want NO amphib capability?
Oh well, interesting times....
S41
2 X QE Class
7 x Astute
6 x T45
6 x T23
4 x Vanguard
(And erm, that's about it.)
shows the impact of completing the QEs at the expense of, well, everything else. Are we sure that this is the optimal position for the RN post SDSR? I rather doubt it - and if this is it, presumably this means end of Pompey or Guz. And out of interest, how do the RM get ashore? It's not as if we're overborne with helicopters, and are we saying we want NO amphib capability?
Oh well, interesting times....
S41
Navy to reduce to smallest size ever to save carriers - Telegraph
"......Navy sources have said that the reduction would mean Britain would find it "extremely difficult" to protect sea lanes on which 90 per cent of the country's trade relies....."
Exactly who are we protecting these sea lanes from? These "sea lanes" are not the exclusive property of UK plc, they are the same sea lanes carrying traffic to Rotterdam, Kiel, Antwerp, etc..... Who is to know the destination of a ship on the high seas (actually its easy now with AIS), or to know that 10% of its cargo is going to Hull, but 90% is going to Rotterdam. Most merchant shipping is also internationally owned these days, very little is British, so any attack is likely to create international protests.
The north atlantic has no pirates in it these days, nor are our "merchantmen" being plundered by the French or Spanish galleons - so once again I ask who these sea lanes are being protected from? Are we once again back to the WW3 scenario, defending reinforcement traffic from the USA against Russian subs? If so don't give me this "90% of country's trade" guff as an excuse.
I also thought that a large proportion of the UK's trade, well over 10%, was now with Europe. So a large proportion of these "sea lanes" are actually in the Channel and the North Sea, let alone being under the sea, in terms of HGVs on the Eurotunnel!
"......Navy sources have said that the reduction would mean Britain would find it "extremely difficult" to protect sea lanes on which 90 per cent of the country's trade relies....."
Exactly who are we protecting these sea lanes from? These "sea lanes" are not the exclusive property of UK plc, they are the same sea lanes carrying traffic to Rotterdam, Kiel, Antwerp, etc..... Who is to know the destination of a ship on the high seas (actually its easy now with AIS), or to know that 10% of its cargo is going to Hull, but 90% is going to Rotterdam. Most merchant shipping is also internationally owned these days, very little is British, so any attack is likely to create international protests.
The north atlantic has no pirates in it these days, nor are our "merchantmen" being plundered by the French or Spanish galleons - so once again I ask who these sea lanes are being protected from? Are we once again back to the WW3 scenario, defending reinforcement traffic from the USA against Russian subs? If so don't give me this "90% of country's trade" guff as an excuse.
I also thought that a large proportion of the UK's trade, well over 10%, was now with Europe. So a large proportion of these "sea lanes" are actually in the Channel and the North Sea, let alone being under the sea, in terms of HGVs on the Eurotunnel!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
You could argue that Arnhem was indeed only possible thanks to the Navy. How else, except thanks to the Navy, could we get the petroleum for both the tugs and transports and indeed the armoured thrust?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
You could argue that Arnhem was indeed only possible thanks to the Navy. How else, except thanks to the Navy, could we get the petroleum for both the tugs and transports and indeed the armoured thrust?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Midlands
Age: 55
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HMS Ocean is a relative baby as far as warships are concerned. As I understand it, building her to commercial standards has led to incresed wear and tear.
Just how shagged is she?
Just how shagged is she?
Yes, Him
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, according to the Telegraph piece, the Admirals are willing to accept a diminutive surface fleet in exchange for one carrier, possibly configured as an assault ship, and another in "extended readiness" which means mothballed effectively.
You need new Admirals methinks.
You need new Admirals methinks.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Biggus
Exactly who are we protecting these sea lanes from? These "sea lanes" are not the exclusive property of UK plc, they are the same sea lanes carrying traffic to Rotterdam, Kiel, Antwerp, etc
Archimedes.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All of this stuff about sea lanes is fine, but my concern is that if these rumours / leaks are correct, then we will have an escort "force" that is so small as to be practically invisible for the majority of the tasking that the RN is currently doing day-to-day.
And this seems the height of folly in exchange for something I don't think we need (Successor) and something else that we can't use by itself (QE Class). Wish financial things were different, but this makes the surface RN look like a self-licking lollipop - and that's always presuming that we have a reasonable airgroup to fly off QE/PoW, and I see no evidence of sufficent Dave-C, any MASC (let alone COD) being provided in the budget. If we can't fund it to do it properly, then we probably shouldn't be doing it at all.
S41
And this seems the height of folly in exchange for something I don't think we need (Successor) and something else that we can't use by itself (QE Class). Wish financial things were different, but this makes the surface RN look like a self-licking lollipop - and that's always presuming that we have a reasonable airgroup to fly off QE/PoW, and I see no evidence of sufficent Dave-C, any MASC (let alone COD) being provided in the budget. If we can't fund it to do it properly, then we probably shouldn't be doing it at all.
S41
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what are the requirements needed to deal with a nuclear Iran and North Korea with all of their associated scenarios...
Answer: Plenty of nukes of our own, plus robust missile defense systems.
Answer: Plenty of nukes of our own, plus robust missile defense systems.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Torres Strait
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Save the Royal Navy
10 reasons why the state of the Royal Navy should matter to YOU
Save the Royal Navy - Articles
Remember the fact that over 70% of the world’s surface is covered by sea, 80% of countries have a coastline and most of the world’s population lives within 300 miles of the coast.
10 reasons why the state of the Royal Navy should matter to YOU
Save the Royal Navy - Articles
Remember the fact that over 70% of the world’s surface is covered by sea, 80% of countries have a coastline and most of the world’s population lives within 300 miles of the coast.
Last edited by oldnotbold; 9th Oct 2010 at 01:37.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
And to repeat an old saw, remind me how much of the surface is covered by air and how many of the world's population live near an airport?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Torres Strait
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
David Cameron ‘rules out slash and burn defence cuts’
Robert Fox and Martin Bentham
08.10.10
David Cameron has intervened to prevent “slash and burn” cuts to the Armed Forces after holding a private meeting with defence chiefs.
"Plans to use vertical take-off aircraft on the carriers have been abandoned, however, and cheaper jets that take off and land by using a catapult and wire will be used instead. The second carrier might also be converted from its conventional use to operate as a “floating platform” for commandos."
The Navy is also expected to be allowed to buy new frigates for 2020, and the Royal Marines will be retained instead of being merged with the Army's Paratroop Regiment, as some reports had suggested...
...as will the aircraft carrier programme, though with a different variant of the Lockheed Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter."
David Cameron ‘rules out slash and burn defence cuts’ | News
Robert Fox and Martin Bentham
08.10.10
David Cameron has intervened to prevent “slash and burn” cuts to the Armed Forces after holding a private meeting with defence chiefs.
"Plans to use vertical take-off aircraft on the carriers have been abandoned, however, and cheaper jets that take off and land by using a catapult and wire will be used instead. The second carrier might also be converted from its conventional use to operate as a “floating platform” for commandos."
The Navy is also expected to be allowed to buy new frigates for 2020, and the Royal Marines will be retained instead of being merged with the Army's Paratroop Regiment, as some reports had suggested...
...as will the aircraft carrier programme, though with a different variant of the Lockheed Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter."
David Cameron ‘rules out slash and burn defence cuts’ | News
Last edited by oldnotbold; 9th Oct 2010 at 10:06.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 45
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And to repeat an old saw, remind me how much of the surface is covered by air and how many of the world's population live near an airport?