Royal Navy 'woefully low' on warships - BBC News

Britain's defences are at risk amid uncertainty over plans to replace the "woefully low" number of Royal Navy warships, MPs have warned.

The Royal Navy has 19 frigates and destroyers, but a Defence Select Committee report says that number could fall unless there is a clear timetable set out for replacing older vessels.
It says the UK could "lack the maritime strength" to meet potential threats. But the Ministry of Defence says it is investing billions in the Navy's fleet.

The committee's report examines the MoD's plans to modernise the Royal Navy's escort fleet - including the introduction of two new classes of frigate and the enforced refit of engines on certain destroyers. MPs said they had "serious concerns" about the funding and timetable of the new fleet, and the country's ability to handle threats from areas like Russia.

They also attacked the MoD for the "extraordinary mistakes" in the design of Type 45 destroyers after it emerged they had faulty engines unable to operate continuously in warm waters.
"The UK's enduring presence in the Gulf should have made it a key requirement for the engines. The fact that it was not was an inexcusable failing and one which must not be repeated," the MPs' report said.And it added: "Failure to guarantee this would put the personnel and ships of the Royal Navy in danger, with potentially dangerous consequences."
Defence committee chairman Julian Lewis said MPs were "putting the MoD on notice" to deliver the modernisation programme on time. He said: "For decades, the numbers of Royal Navy escort vessels have been severely in decline.

"The fleet is now way below the critical mass required for the many tasks which could confront it, if the international scene continues to deteriorate."

The MoD says it is investing billions of pounds in two new aircraft carriers as well as new warships and submarines with the goal of increasing the size of the Royal Navy.
"This major programme of investment will ensure that the Royal Navy remains one of the world's most modern and powerful navies with a genuine global reach," it said in a statement.

It added that the Type 45 destroyer was a "hugely capable" ship, but it was "committed to improving" the vessel's "power and propulsion system".

"investing billions of pounds" sounds like a good answer, but ONLY if the billions are in the right area. Billions on 2 carriers without the necessary escorts/aircraft, or a paucity of destroyers/frigates for other tasks, is not necessarily 'billions' in the right place.

As with F35, "hugely capable" T45 only works if you have enough of the asset to be in 2 or 3 places at once.

Do you think any of these things could be said for land based air power?
Do you think nuclear deterrence might work?
Do you think tactical ballistic missiles might be countered by oue own weapons?
Do you think there might be non nuclear adverseries?

Yes - nobody has thought about the current and future frigate/destroyer force, tankers (after all there is no such thing as MARS and there is no set up of the QEC refuelling rig at HMS Raleigh), and nobody has thought what types of aircraft they might operate....... Or maybe they have? I do think (= I know) than manpower is the RN's big issue - entirely down to politicians.

As for destroyer screen - how many escorts do you think a US Navy CVN routinely deploys with? How many do you think QE and PoW will routinely need?

Thanks for your response WEBF. Unfortunately, your one-liner style questions would require degree thesis answers and, I rather thought you would understand those issues before adopting your opinion?:rolleyes: However, a point about the possible tactical-use of nuclear weapons (note, I did not say anything about "tactical ballistic missiles"- your simplistic mis-quote old chap:rolleyes:) and this particular target is that, they could be targeted at sea where the possibility exists for their elimination without civilian casualties, with no collateral damage and with a high degree of ambiguity if done in certain ways.:ooh: Beyond that, they will always be huge soft targets in port for a satchel bag nuke in these days of asymmetric and suicide terrorist warfare. Hey, even drug cartels have mini-subs!:eek:
Overall, my opinion is that they are the wrong ships for the RN.

OAP

Thesis length answers? I'll give it a quick stab!
"Do you think any of these things could be said for land based air power?" Pretty much all of them. Land based Air Power tends to operate from non-mobile bases whose locations are well known and plotted decades in advance. Most lack any point defence missile capability, and have nothing even remotely duplicating the defences of a Carrier Battle Group in their vicinity.
"Do you think nuclear deterrence might work?" Any country that fires a nuclear weapon at the warships of a country which is nuclear armed like the UK is inviting their own destruction. That is how deterrence works. You fire just one, we take the gloves off. To do otherwise would mean a loss of face (by us) greater than if we hadn't responded to the Argentine Invasion of the Falklands. You either back up your promises/threats or you are done.
"Do you think tactical/ballistic missiles might be countered by our own weapons?" Theatre BMD is a developing capability within the RN at least, SAMPSON can do it, Sea Viper will do it and the T45s will have their engineering problems sorted before it truly becomes necessary.
"Do you think there might be non nuclear adversaries?" Most of the world falls into this category.
"Overall, my opinion is that they are the wrong ships for the RN." Tough. We are getting them. The time to whine about it is over and the time to make them the best ships we can is here.

Thanks OWR. Your simplistic rant has rather proved my point.:)

OAP

Onceapilot. Your inability to form a cogent rebuttal has proven mine. We can bandy personal put downs 'til the Bovines return to their Domiciles but I always thought this forum was better than that. Play the ball, not the man.

Well now here is something that might make the "they will not carry aircraft" lot pipe down.

Yes, the new carriers will have aircraft

According to a source we spoke to at the heart of planning for the carriers, the vessels will usually deploy with around 20 F-35Bs as a minimum and a number of various helicopters.

In addition to the joint force of Royal Air Force and Royal Navy F-35Bs and their pilots, the air wing is expected to be composed of a ‘Maritime Force Protection’ package of nine anti-submarine Merlin HM2 and four or five Merlin for airborne early warning; alternatively a ‘Littoral Manoeuvre’ package could include a mix of RAF Chinooks, Army Apaches, Merlin HC4 and Wildcat HM2. We understand that vessel would still carry at least one F-35 squadron aboard in such circumstances to offer air defence as well as support to the helicopter assault activities.

The Crowsnest AEW&C aircraft will come from a number of the embarked Merlins (any of which can be fitted with the sensor package), the number being determined by requirements.

Must be true, it's on a blog run by enthusiastic amateurs.

Yeah, right - the important and wise thing is to keep 2 squadrons of F-35 on one carrier, before moving them to the other carrier before another quick rinse & repeat. Meanwhile... back in reality....

Wonder if we bin F35B would the Donald let us mix and match a small batch of C's with super bugs and growlers with some trackers a couple of cods/tanker 22 thingies and cut us a deal on emals[?] if we say we'll play along and dismantle the BBC into a private tv company??

Could be a winner you know.

why not have the squadrons embarked in the carrier?

I grew up in Huntington Beach, California during the 70's, and my next-door neighbor was a welder at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard. He took me on a couple tours through the facility when I was a kid, and I remember it well. I also recall President Clinton ordering the LB Naval Shipyard closed in 1993, resulting in the loss of almost 18,000 jobs. And then how in 1996 President Clinton helped negotiate a sweetheart deal for the Chinese government-owned company COSCO to lease the property.

"Tough. We are getting them. The time to whine about it is over and the time to make them the best ships we can is here. "

No, they are not "here", they are not complete, there are no aircraft. Who knows what the shakedown trials will throw up...

In operational sense they are compromised by a number of factors:- ergo the choice of both aircraft launching and recovery systems, aircraft selected [both ship and aircraft from "same" manufacturing base!!!] lack of high altitude AEW cover, paltry self defence capability.
Do not consider operating another nations aircraft on-board as satisfactory, it's a disgrace.

We are an island nation, one that does not have the capability to monitor and defend it's coastline. The cost of this project, to the fleet, both surface and sub surface, in terms of numbers and capability is also a disgrace.

These ships are the product of both political and service hubris.

Total nonsense glad rag. Do you really think we would have more frigates/destroyers or submarines if there was no CVF? Really? How would that be justified to Ministers and the taxpayer? As for monitoring and defending the coastline that is a job for UK Border Force and the Police.

F-35B is in service with the USMC, and will be coming here soon. The CVF design has been designed to maximise sortie rate. Whilst I do agree to some degree about AEW, you seem to forget that there is a law of diminishing returns thing, so doubling the altitude of the platform does not double the radar range, and reduces resolution.

Self defence - what do you think they should carry?

WEBF - spot on. There's also the point that carrier qualification will be a doddle with the B compared with CTOL options, while the B's range compromise is mitigated to some degree by less need for go-around reserves. It's a good fit for UK requirements given the reality of where we are and offers a much better real-world chance that we'll be able to generate and sustain a good capability. And as it happens the timeframe for UK IOC and FOC fits pretty well with the timeframe for ironing out the main bugs. No aircraft? IIRC current post-SDSR plans are that we'll have 42 airframes by 2023. Of course there's a balance of pros and cons, I don't deny that for a minute, which has been debated endlessly, and there's a range of views on that. As to organic defence, it's always been planned that the carriers won't deploy without escorts and the T45s were always planned with carrier AAD as their primary mission. The carriers themselves rightly have have good last ditch provision, as well as providing the outer layer, and this keeps things simpler onboard. As you rightly say, any suggestion that without the carriers we'd have far more escorts (escorting what?) is a fallacy. It's also valid to question the value of only having lots of escorts with little to escort and whose main ability is to defend themselves. The carriers will be in a different league in terms of their ability to deliver military effect, as well as in terms of the peacetime diplomacy signals they can send. Having said all that the navy does need more escorts, but canning the carriers isn't the right way to achieve that.

To add further to both WEBF and Frost's good posts, it's worth reminding folk that F-35B is not there to protect the fleet or the Carrier. Sure, if nothing else can provide AD then it will conduct DCA as a priority; in most circumstances it will be conducting strike, AI, CAS & ISR at range, and probably as part of a package.

Yes, you have to protect to project, but the protect function will be more logically covered by other fleet assets.

Escorts? Since 1989 the escorts haven't escorted very much - they watch the Falklands, they chase drug fiends, rescue people, shadow the Red Peril through the channel, fire missiles at people who can't fire back at those ranges ....

The main use of the RN these days is a million miles from fighting another "hot" war with a Carrier Group

"will be coming here soon"

Yes, that is F35 all over.

Since 1989 the RN's 'escorts have only had, what three carriers, a commando carrier two LPDs and the rest of the ARG to 'escort. So, a million miles away from 'escorting' a CVBG then...
...of course prior to 1989 they were, doing much the same job of course.