Royal Navy Problems
 

The latest edition of "British Warships & Auxiliaries" is out and the introduction, as usual, has a long ish op-ed piece by a well known naval writer.

Much of it is already known but I was surprised by the list of concerns the latest one has - they include:-

1. The absence of plans to fit SAM defence to the carriers

2. The need for in flight refueling for the F-35's ( a well discussed issue re the USN but first time I've seen it mentioned with regard to the RN)

3. Exactly which vessel the Merlin HC4's wil operate from

4. The concentration of vessels in CSG21 - Carier, 2 x T45 (out of 6) , 2 ASW T23's (out of 8), 1 SSN (out of 6 currently in operation) and a supply vessel

5. T45 Daring has been in Portsmouth harbour since 2017 as a training ship and will go into refit in early 2021 for at least 12 months - when she comes out she will have been out of front line service for at least 5 years

6. T45's still have no cruise missile capability and Harpoon is almost obsolescent

7. T26 's are now £ 1.3 Bn each and taking 2 years to build - no new ASW frigates until 2027 at the earliest

8. The RN only holds a stock of 60 Tomahawks for reasons no-one seems to understand.

9. The latest (4th) Astute SSN has been delayed by over 18 months due to "emergent technical issues" - this delay will push back further SSN's and the SSBN programme. The RN currently has 3 Astutes and 3 Trafalgar's in commission.

Diddums,

The carriers didn’t get SAM because the RN insisted that was why they needed the T45s.

The RN got the carriers and the F-35s because they said they didn’t need AAR, which requires CTOL.

The RN got the RAF Merlins because they said they’d fit on their ships.

The concentration of almost all the rest of RN into one CTG was forecast when they asked for the carriers and it was pointed out that would be the inevitable result within their forecast budget. Which also accounts for points 5, 6 and 8......

Indeed, indeed - and on the RN Carrier thread many of us have pointed out some of the issues for a considerable time

but now chickens are coming home to roost - and at a very bad time for asking for more...............

PS The article refers to the MQ-25 as a possible answer to the refueling issue - but doesn't that need cats and traps at sea?

Yes it does. The RN could of course consider the V-22 fitted with VARS, but that's even more money.......

p.s. Looking at the burner, I wonder if he was watching the gauges to see if he was actually gaining.....

https://www.armscom.net/sites/defaul...uel_cobham.jpg

That's photo-shopped why would you have both aircraft in a STOVL mode to refuel? Photos at the link below of dry hook-ups with a Hornet.

https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/new...tanker-option/

UK RN Problems
 

I do hope that the OP appreciates that there is actually only one "Royal Navy", irrespective of its acknowledged problems and of course the existence of other navies using the prefix "Royal".:=

Jack


Fixed

SPlot

But of course!!

Actually I started out just using the "RN" in the title but then remembered tahat, on another thread, I was carpeted by the Mods (God Bless Them!) for forgetting that PPrune is a multi-national Forum with people all over the world . So to avoid another spell on the naughty step I thought I'd better add "UK".

has some good imagery - but at $ 70 mm ++ a pop I can imagine the Treasury would suggest using a local airport on land to refuel.

w

In which case I can't wait to see you referring to the UK RAF and see how far that gets you when you make one of your forays into the Military Aviation thread. I don't actually believe that any "blessed" Moderator, or indeed anyone who genuinely comes from within the community defined at the top of the page, would have objected to the omission of "UK", especially since the fifth word of your post is "British".

Jack

Jack

Whatever it's called in my post it doesn't change the problems flagged by someone (Chris Cope - who has won prizes for his military journalism) who has spent years studying the RN - that surely is the issue here? Addressing some of the problems will cost serious money - and where that will come from has got to be a concern.

They do, the same as the original RN Merlins do. Unless you can point to a ship they don't fit on I don't believe that's the issue, the question is where is the best place in the task group to put them?

No wonder the Hamlet quotation, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" comes to mind! Having spent more years in the Royal Navy, both above and below the waves, than I suspect Chris Cope has spent studying it, I'm only too well aware of the major issues concerned. What you now appear to be saying is that it doesn't matter if you, as a someone who has ducked questions about your own background at least twice to my knowledge, feels that it is perfectly acceptable to identify the Senior Service inaccurately, and I am saying perfectly politely that it does, particularly on this forum.

Jack

Flight international routinely refers to the 'UK Royal Air Force' which is a bit irritating.....

Maybe the best place to put them.. HMS Ocean.. :suspect:

Its off topic but Flight really needs a sub-editor who speaks English - things like "inked an agreement" drive me nuts...............

Bing - that' seems to be the issue - but perhaps you could shed some light on why it's even a question. Surely they should fly off the carrier? Or am I missing something?

I thought that had been sold to Brazil?

Your surprise is a surprise, given the number of times you seem to comment on naval matters.

One might just as easily amend to....

Audacious now commissioned, albeit not operational. C19 will have a more significant effect on follow-on boats. A bit like A400M, or god help us FRES/Boxer/whatever its called this week....

So no different to rest of HM armed forces then. You just chose to highlight the RN for some unfathomable reason.

Asturia, the point is that CHF have normally had dedicated 'phibs to fly off. Back in the day 'Commando Carriers' such as Albion/Bulwark and LPDs (Fearless/Intrepid) gave them a lot of deck spots. Until recently with Ocean and the 'new' Albion/Bulwark, the LitM capability looked pretty good for a country of our size, albeit the latter two have constrained flight decks. With Ocean gone (to Brazil) and no direct replacement, the onus falls to the two Albion class ships. Whilst large and capable vessels, neither has a flight deck the size of Ocean so require careful 'lily-padding' and planning to effect an assault and the Merlin simply doesn't deliver anything like the punch per deck spot of the Chinook, nor can carry several of the RM's kit in a combat configuration for any meaningful distance. Albion/Bulwark also sit under the near constant threat of the 'chop' - publicly announced as being due to the financial/manpower pressure of the Carriers, hence why much was said of PoW being finished and operated as an LPH. The bald fact is that the RN has mortgaged it's 'phibs and DD/FFs to fund their capital ships and now, probably, would struggle to deploy an adequately escorted CSG and ATG concurrently. Blue water Fish-heads don't really care about LitM, and would trade the capability to preserve Carrier Strike in a heartbeat.

That depends, if it's for CSG 21 I suspect as per Westlant 19 they'll only be taking a couple of Merlin Mk4 for intra-task group lift etc. At that point do you keep them on the carrier taking up room and getting in the way of the precious that is the F-35, or do you put them on another ship in the Task Group, e.g. Fort Victoria which can take several.
If you're deploying as an Amphibious Task Group then you just put them on the carrier.