The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 23, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Is the CVF necessary for the Uk?
usajoe1    6/15/2009 11:23:45 PM
I think the cost of this two carriers is two much for the UK, and is taking away other capabilities that the UK needs. Insted of paying 7+ billon for the carriers, the British should of bought the original 12 Type 45 destroyers, with land attack capabilities. They also should of bought all 8 Asute ssn's, although this may still happen. They also would of had the money to build another AAS as well. It would of have been nice to have every thing, but since there is the money problem, it is better to have cut one program fully, than cut away from other important programs just to build this carriers. I don't think the British really needed this ships. With 12 Type 45's, 8 Astute ssn's, 13/4 Type 23/22's, 4 AAS, 4 LPD's and 4 SSBN'S the UK would of been better off.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT
LB    Numbers Still Matter   6/25/2009 11:56:48 PM
According to Adm Sandy Woodward, the Falklands Task Force Commander, in his book he had 3 SSNs on station and they could not track the Argentine carrier group and in fact lost it.  Part of the reason he wanted Belgrano sunk was his fear the SSN tracking it would lose it again.  An RN with 6 SSNs is a pathetic joke.
 
Japan keeps 20 subs in commission and builds a new one every year.  Sure they are "only" 4,200 tons and the new ones have AIP instead of being nukes but Japanese political considerations aside these are good boats.  Hell Australia is talking about more subs just for regional considerations.  The RN gave up it's diesel boats and Labor gets the RN down to 6 SSN's.  It really is a pathetic joke.
 
The RN is too small to be a navy and in fact it's barely the size of a flotilla.  In 1990 the RN had 29 fleet subs (not SSBNs) and is now going to have 6.  In 1990 the RN had 49 destroyers and frigates and is going to have 6 DDGs and 13 Type 23s (the 4 remaining 22s are gone in 2015 to 2018).  When Labor took over in 1997 there were  35 and Labor promised to keep it at 25.  Today there are 22 and it's going to drop to 19 soon.
 
The RN at the end of 2008 had no ship availabe for naval station South Atlantic which includes the Falklands.  HMS Illustrious is the only "strike carrier" left and she deploys with no UK Harriers.  Labor not only got rid of the Sea Harrier with it's Blue Vixen and AMRAAMs but retired the Jaguar early and is running the GR9s into the ground so none available for Illustrious.
 
Once upon a time I had a love affair with the RN but she's gone now.  Only the memories will remain.  RIP.  May her many honored ghosts haunt those who gutted her.
 
If anyone needs anymore perspective the Future Lynx program was once at 60, then 35, and now it's 28 projected.  The JMSDF operates 131 SH-60 and 19 UH-60s.  Is the RN going to ever get it's 12 Nimrod MR4s?  Japan has 80 P-3Cs and another 9 for elint and recon.
I was talking about this version of the British Navy that   willkill4rice said would be better for the British!


2 SSBNs is enough to ruin anyones day, 4-6 SSNs is formidable, 2 at home, 1 with each carrier and 2 spare. 6 DDGs, 6 FFGs would be better.

 



 
Quote    Reply

prometheus       6/26/2009 5:51:43 AM

According to Adm Sandy Woodward, the Falklands Task Force Commander, in his book he had 3 SSNs on station and they could not track the Argentine carrier group and in fact lost it.  Part of the reason he wanted Belgrano sunk was his fear the SSN tracking it would lose it again.  An RN with 6 SSNs is a pathetic joke.

 

Japan keeps 20 subs in commission and builds a new one every year.  Sure they are "only" 4,200 tons and the new ones have AIP instead of being nukes but Japanese political considerations aside these are good boats.  Hell Australia is talking about more subs just for regional considerations.  The RN gave up it's diesel boats and Labor gets the RN down to 6 SSN's.  It really is a pathetic joke.


 

The RN is too small to be a navy and in fact it's barely the size of a flotilla.  In 1990 the RN had 29 fleet subs (not SSBNs) and is now going to have 6.  In 1990 the RN had 49 destroyers and frigates and is going to have 6 DDGs and 13 Type 23s (the 4 remaining 22s are gone in 2015 to 2018).  When Labor took over in 1997 there were  35 and Labor promised to keep it at 25.  Today there are 22 and it's going to drop to 19 soon.


 

The RN at the end of 2008 had no ship availabe for naval station South Atlantic which includes the Falklands.  HMS Illustrious is the only "strike carrier" left and she deploys with no UK Harriers.  Labor not only got rid of the Sea Harrier with it's Blue Vixen and AMRAAMs but retired the Jaguar early and is running the GR9s into the ground so none available for Illustrious.

 

Once upon a time I had a love affair with the RN but she's gone now.  Only the memories will remain.  RIP.  May her many honored ghosts haunt those who gutted her.


 

If anyone needs anymore perspective the Future Lynx program was once at 60, then 35, and now it's 28 projected.  The JMSDF operates 131 SH-60 and 19 UH-60s.  Is the RN going to ever get it's 12 Nimrod MR4s?  Japan has 80 P-3Cs and another 9 for elint and recon.


I was talking about this version of the British Navy that   willkill4rice said would be better for the British!






2 SSBNs is enough to ruin anyones day, 4-6 SSNs is formidable, 2 at home, 1 with each carrier and 2 spare. 6 DDGs, 6 FFGs would be better.



 










In actual fact , the SSN number will eventually hover around the 10 mark, the later trafagars having some time still to run, and no doubt the RN (who have become much better at fighting political battles) will probably maage to get them replaced by batch 2 astutes. Without any major strategic threat to the nation, then this is surely enough.
As for the FFG/DDG program. The T-45s are a massive qualitiative boost over the T-42s and really if the trade off is making sure the Navy gets the two CVFs then 6 for 12 is fine. The FSC concept is still to be worked out, the out of service dates means that they will need a design in place no later than 2012 to prepare for replacing the first of the t-22s. There is still time. If the navy plays it's cards right, it could probably sacrifice much of the C3 program to bolster number sof the high end asw C1 and general purpose C2 program, an optimistic forecast wouldf get us 25 C1/C2s that would be enough to support a carrier group plus an amphibious group.
 
I accept that there are gaps in RN capabilities right now, but they are temporary. The RN of 2018 should be a fairly potent force. As for the lynx program well, the probable eventuality is that the RN will eventually buy an off the shelf replacement for it. As for the nimrods, they are the RAF's problem and got hit badly by the fact that as good as Nimrod is, the airframes are bloody ancient and they would in all probability be better buying an off the shelf aircraft. The Harriers have been withdrawn forf the afghan so should be available for carrier operatiosn in the near future.
 
Comparisons with Japan are misleading since they never have to deploy anywhere, so they can afford not to buy all those exensive things that can't shoot things, like tankers, supply ships, amphibious warfare support etc. If all the RN had to do was defend the islands, we could scrap CVF, Ocean, the tenders, tankers, SSNs, Royal Marine corps and be content to fire about in SSKs and destroyers.Funnily enough at 400,000 tonnes (without the RFA) the RN is the biggest in europe.
 
The other thing about numbers is this, how many of Woodward's escorts were actually useful? How many would have lasted more than five minutes in a war in the norht atlantic? Some of those ships were truely just there to make up the numbers. THe RN are not pushin gthe escort desgins at the moment to be absolutely sure of maintaining the carriers and the corresponding fleet air arm. In my view this is the correct strategy, they will push for more escorts later, but at the moment with the army so deeply commited in afghanistan that they dare not.
 
Quote    Reply

StevoJH       6/26/2009 8:36:21 AM

According to Adm Sandy Woodward, the Falklands Task Force Commander, in his book he had 3 SSNs on station and they could not track the Argentine carrier group and in fact lost it.  Part of the reason he wanted Belgrano sunk was his fear the SSN tracking it would lose it again.  An RN with 6 SSNs is a pathetic joke.

A minimum of 7 Astutes are planned, there might be more depending on when construction on the vanguard replacements begins, some of the Trafalgar class are good until around 2020. 

Japan keeps 20 subs in commission and builds a new one every year.  Sure they are "only" 4,200 tons and the new ones have AIP instead of being nukes but Japanese political considerations aside these are good boats.  Hell Australia is talking about more subs just for regional considerations.  The RN gave up it's diesel boats and Labor gets the RN down to 6 SSN's.  It really is a pathetic joke.

The problem is that a nuclear sub costs a MINIMUM of twice as much as a conventional submarine simply because they have the reactor, without even considering that they tend to be much larger (twice the displacement on the trafalgars and astutes, and over twice the crew).
 
The RN is too small to be a navy and in fact it's barely the size of a flotilla.  In 1990 the RN had 29 fleet subs (not SSBNs) and is now going to have 6.  In 1990 the RN had 49 destroyers and frigates and is going to have 6 DDGs and 13 Type 23s (the 4 remaining 22s are gone in 2015 to 2018).  When Labor took over in 1997 there were  35 and Labor promised to keep it at 25.  Today there are 22 and it's going to drop to 19 soon.

The Type 22 B3's are now planned to leave service between 2019 and 2022 at the rate of one per year, with the T23's leaving service at the same rate afterwards with the last (St Albans) due to leave service in 2036 (aged 35).

The RN at the end of 2008 had no ship availabe for naval station South Atlantic which includes the Falklands.  HMS Illustrious is the only "strike carrier" left and she deploys with no UK Harriers.  Labor not only got rid of the Sea Harrier with it's Blue Vixen and AMRAAMs but retired the Jaguar early and is running the GR9s into the ground so none available for Illustrious.

Illustrious and Ark Royal have both had exercises with GR.9's aboard within the last several months, Ark Royal is currently being refitted back into its strike carrier role which will give the RN two strike carriers again. If the RN requires Harriers, there are more GR.9's available to the RAF and RN then they can fit onto their carriers, especially if they are embarking even a small portion of the RN's ASW helicopter force.

Once upon a time I had a love affair with the RN but she's gone now.  Only the memories will remain.  RIP.  May her many honored ghosts haunt those who gutted her.

Smaller yes, but still larger and more capable then just about every other then the USN. The French Navy and Russian navy can deploy a more potent group then the RN as long as only one of the Carriers is operational, but they don't have the logistics to deploy those groups far from home for long, unlike the RN.
 
If anyone needs anymore perspective the Future Lynx program was once at 60, then 35, and now it's 28 projected.  The JMSDF operates 131 SH-60 and 19 UH-60s.  Is the RN going to ever get it's 12 Nimrod MR4s?  Japan has 80 P-3Cs and another 9 for elint and recon.

The RN has 44 Merlin Helicopters and 64 Lynx Helos in service for ASW. The Lynx's are roughly comparable to the SH-60's, the Merlins are much more capable, eitherway that is 108 ASW helicopters compared to the JMSDF's 131, however they have more platforms to fly them off and they have less capable aircraft. The RN also has 42 Commando Sea Kings and a further 16 Sea Kings for SAR, 58 aircraft compared to the 19 UH-60's operated by the JMSDF, and the Sea Kings are larger and more capable then the Blackhawks. N
 
 
Quote    Reply

LB    RN SSNs   6/26/2009 4:06:27 PM
link In April 2003 a leak of the contents of the MOD's "Equipment Plan 2003" indicated that the SSN fleet was to be reduced to just 7 boats, compared to current 12 and the SDR mandated 10 SSN's. This report was confirmed by government sources, although emphasising that no final decision has been made. In July 2004 the government stated that the SSN force would be reduced to 8 boats by December 2007, and it is suspected that in the long term these will be solely Astute Class boats. However reports in early 2005 indicated that only 7 Astute's are planned, appearing to confirm EP03. EP07, approved March 2007 apparently included a total of 7 Astute's - this number was finally offically confirmed in in mid-2008, with the UK press already doubting that even seven would ever be ordered. Possible road map for RN SSN force levels based on data available mid 2008 Year Submarine Event New number in fleet 2004 Splendid Decommissioned 11 2006 Sovereign Decommissioned 10 2006 Spartan Decommissioned 9 2008 Superb Decommissioned 8 2009 Trafalgar Decommissioned 7 2009 Astute Delivered & Commissioned* 8 2010 Sceptre Decommissioned 7 2010 Ambush Delivered 8 2011 Turbulent Decommissioned 7 2011 Artful Delivered 8 2013 Tireless Decommissioned 7 2013 Audacious Delivered 8 2015 Torbay Decommissioned 7 2015 A-05 Delivered 8 2017 Trenchant Decommissioned 7 2017 A-06 Delivered 8 2019 Talent Decommissioned 7 2019 A-07 Delivered 8 2022 Triumph Decommissioned 7 * Not equivalent to operational
 
Quote    Reply

LB    RN Escorts   6/26/2009 4:11:03 PM
link The first FSC's are expected to enter service in the later years of the next decade - 2019 has been speculated by industry sources. The following pay-off dates for current vessels were officially published in March 2005:- Type 22 Batch 3 frigates: HMS Cornwall (2015), HMS Cumberland (2017), HMS Campbeltown (2017), and HMS Chatham (2018). Type 23 frigates: HMS Argyll (2019), HMS Lancaster (2019), HMS Iron Duke (2020), HMS Monmouth (2021), HMS Montrose (2021), HMS Westminster (2021), HMS Northumberland (2022), HMS Richmond (2022), HMS Somerset (2023), HMS Sutherland (2025), HMS Kent (2028), HMS Portland (2028), HMS St. Albans (2029). It was announced in June 2008 that only six Type 45 destroyers will be built. The first FSC would thus need to enter service in 2015 to replace HMS Cornwall if the Royal Navy's escort force was not to drop below 23 units (6 Type 45 destroyers, 13 Type 23 frigates, and the remaining Type 22 Batch3 frigates). This is very unlikely to happen given the current status (at August 2008) of the FSC project, indeed keeping the escort force strength above 19 units will now be very challenging for the Royal Navy.
 
Quote    Reply

StevoJH       6/26/2009 9:51:07 PM
Straight from the horses mouth, the out of service dates as of the 3rd of March this year.
 
h**p://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090303/text/90303w0014.htm
h**p://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090303/text/90303w0015.htm
 
replace the **'s with tt in h**m.
 
 
Quote    Reply

LB    So This is Factual   6/26/2009 11:23:11 PM
With all due respect I do not believe that statements by Defense Ministers are facts nor are projections facts.
 
This is the same government that seems able at the drop of a hat to suddenly decommission an RN ship to save a few pounds.  The same government assured the House that it would buy 8 DDGs and now it's 6.  This same government now says it will one day order a 7th Astute and enough new frigates and this is somehow a fact?
 
There is no active program for a new frigate.  Even the Minister points out it has not reached "main investment stage".  Another program no where near that stage is a replacement for Sea King AEW, ASaC 7, nor is the F-35.
 
Personally I do not trust this government to do anything but gut defense programs whenever possible.  
 
This government promised 25 Escorts.  There are now 22.  There is no evidence that the 4 remaining Type 22s will be replaced before they are retired.  Evidence would be an actual program with adequate funding.
 
Straight from the horses mouth, the out of service dates as of the 3rd of March this year.

 

h**p://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090303/text/90303w0014.htm

h**p://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090303/text/90303w0015.htm

 

replace the **'s with tt in h**m.



 


 
Quote    Reply

LB    SSN Projections   6/26/2009 11:44:24 PM
It's also worth noting that the citation I provided regarding RN SSNs has the exact same SSN retirement dates as listed in your House of Commons citation without any deviation whatsoever.  My citation shows the RN having 7 or 8 SSNs in commission from now through 2022 and that assumes a 7th Astute which has not been ordered.  Not ordering it means 6 SSN's.  In any case this is a bit less capability than was provided by the 29 RN SSNs and SSs in 1990.  Having 25% of the total submarine platforms one had a few years ago seems a tad extreme especially given their importance in a power projection role.
 
Frankly isnt' there a strategic white paper floating around the UK that states the requirment of the RN is a minimum of 10 which was reduced from the original 12?

Straight from the horses mouth, the out of service dates as of the 3rd of March this year.

 

h**p://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090303/text/90303w0014.htm

h**p://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090303/text/90303w0015.htm

 

replace the **'s with tt in h**m.



 


 
Quote    Reply

StevoJH       6/27/2009 2:35:43 AM
1) I was posting that to refer to how wrong your out of service dates for the frigates were, those are the old dates, the ones i provided the link to are the new values.
 
2) Regarding the submarines, the limiter on the numbers is how many can be built before the vanguard replacement needs to begin construction, not how many the RN would like. Because of the delays in the Astute program that number is less then it might originally have been but the minimum will be seven.
 
Quote    Reply

StevoJH       6/27/2009 2:58:30 AM
A summary of the 1998 White Paper and the 2004 update can be found on wikipedia under "Strategic Defense Review" and "Delivering Security in a Changing World".
 
The changes i would have made:
Maintained the T45 purchase at 12 hulls and maintain T42 numbers with ships decommissioning as  T45's commission.
Not decommission three T23's early and plan the frigate replacement to begin construction as soon as the T45's finish being built.
 
Either convert HMS Invincible into an LPH or build a second Ocean class LPH.
 
Place an order for the construction of HMS QE and PoW with Harland and Wolff before they went out of large scale shipbuilding.
 
Keep the Sea Harriers in service, order new build GR.9's with Blue Vixen as Sea Harrier FA.3 if the engine performance really is a major problem.
 
Regarding Astute, get US help with the CAD program earlier so that the program is not delayed as much and 10 or more can be constructed.

Basicly keep the ship orders going after 2000 and both H&W and Swan would still be in the shipbuilding business.
 
 
Quote    Reply

StevoJH       6/27/2009 3:07:51 AM

With all due respect I do not believe that statements by Defense Ministers are facts nor are projections facts.

Your imagination is not fact either. Defense ministers statements can be taken as "plans", nothing is a fact until it happens, but NOBODY lies to parliment on purpose, especially a politician. They might bend the truth, but they do not lie if they want to get elected next election.

This is the same government that seems able at the drop of a hat to suddenly decommission an RN ship to save a few pounds.  The same government assured the House that it would buy 8 DDGs and now it's 6.  This same government now says it will one day order a 7th Astute and enough new frigates and this is somehow a fact?

It also does not mean it will not happen.
 
There is no active program for a new frigate.  Even the Minister points out it has not reached "main investment stage".  Another program no where near that stage is a replacement for Sea King AEW, ASaC 7, nor is the F-35.

There is an active program for a new frigate, i believe it goes through initial gate this year or next year with the first ship to enter service in 2018 or 2019(don't remember which) to replace the first T22 to be decommissioned. There was a previous program "Future Surface Combatant" but it was cancelled because the designs they came up with were ambitious to say the least. Sea King, both the commando version and the AEW version (ASaC 7) will probably be replaced by Merlins purchased off the shelf. F35's will be ordered simply because it is embarressing to have aircraft carriers with no aircraft.
 
Personally I do not trust this government to do anything but gut defense programs whenever possible.  

So you've said 3 or 4 times in this one post.

This government promised 25 Escorts.  There are now 22.  There is no evidence that the 4 remaining Type 22s will be replaced before they are retired.  Evidence would be an actual program with adequate funding.
There are 24 Escorts available. 1 x Daring, 6 x T42, 4 x T22B3, 13 x T23. Daring has not been officially commissioned however she has been accepted by the Navy and would be available in an emergency.
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Nobody Lies to Parliament   6/27/2009 4:02:39 PM
We'll have to agree to disagree on nobody lying to Parliament.  The history of this Government indicates that it rarely sticks to stated plans.  Until there is a final fully funded design statement regarding in service dates are without foundation.  Furthermore, it's instructive to look at recent past RN programs and note the differences between stated in service dates one year and the actual in service dates.
 
There is no current program or funding to replace ASaC 7.  It's easy to assume a Merlin based replacement one day in the future but as of now there is no such program.
 
One might wish to inquire as to the status of all 6 T-42s before counting them as ready for anything- HMS Southampton is not exactly available for deployment having been decommissioned 4 months ago.  HMS Nottingham is not active being listed as extended readiness meaning in reserve.  HMS Daring is not commissioned.  The RN has 22 Escorts today including 5 active T-42s.
 
MOD has 3 test F-35s on order as of March this year.  When they are going to be delivered is not clear.  How long the test program is supposed to run is also unclear but one might assume it's at least two years.  So maybe in 2013 the government can start debating whether it will buy F-35, how many, when the orders will be placed and then when they might expect to start getting any.  IOC at this point is a long way away.  Of course this all assumes a near perfect test program with no delays.  
 
The next government might order another Astute and in fact should order at least 4 more.  As of today there are 6 on order.  It's really rather pathetic.  How many SSNs does even 7 allow for deployed operations?  It's 2 or 3 and only for areas not too distant.
 



With all due respect I do not believe that statements by Defense Ministers are facts nor are projections facts.



Your imagination is not fact either. Defense ministers statements can be taken as "plans", nothing is a fact until it happens, but NOBODY lies to parliment on purpose, especially a politician. They might bend the truth, but they do not lie if they want to get elected next election.




This is the same government that seems able at the drop of a hat to suddenly decommission an RN ship to save a few pounds.  The same government assured the House that it would buy 8 DDGs and now it's 6.  This same government now says it will one day order a 7th Astute and enough new frigates and this is somehow a fact?



It also does not mean it will not happen.


 

There is no active program for a new frigate.  Even the Minister points out it has not reached "main investment stage".  Another program no where near that stage is a replacement for Sea King AEW, ASaC 7, nor is the F-35.



There is an active program for a new frigate, i believe it goes through initial gate this year or next year with the first ship to enter service in 2018 or 2019(don't remember which) to replace the first T22 to be decommissioned. There was a previous program "Future Surface Combatant" but it was cancelled because the designs they came up with were ambitious to say the least. Sea King, both the commando version and the AEW version (ASaC 7) will probably be replaced by Merlins purchased off the shelf. F35's will be ordered simply because it is embarressing to have aircraft carriers with no aircraft.



 


Personally I do not trust this government to do anything but gut defense programs whenever possible.  



So you've said 3 or 4 times in this one post.




This government promised 25 Escorts.  There are now 22.  There is no evidence that the 4 remaining Type 22s will be replaced before they are retired.  Evidence would be an actual program with adequate funding.

There are 24 Escorts available. 1 x Daring, 6 x T42, 4 x T22B3, 13 x T23. Daring has not been officially commissioned however she has been accepted by the Navy and would be available in an emergency.



 
Quote    Reply

StevoJH       6/28/2009 5:09:32 AM

We'll have to agree to disagree on nobody lying to Parliament.  The history of this Government indicates that it rarely sticks to stated plans.  Until there is a final fully funded design statement regarding in service dates are without foundation.  Furthermore, it's instructive to look at recent past RN programs and note the differences between stated in service dates one year and the actual in service dates.

Control over the inservice dates is influenced by more then what the government wants, it is also influenced by technical aspects. For example the delays with Astute were due to problems with the CAD programs as the engineers at Barrows had never designed a submarine using CAD technology before, they also hadn't designed a submarine since the late 1980's when the Vanguard design was completed.
 
I'm not sure what the delays with the Darings were however the six hulls that were originally to have been only the first batch (we now know different) we all ordered in 2002, after that point it is the contractor, not the government that is responsible for all delays. In the case of both the Daring and Astute, the party at fault was BAe, though in the case of the Astute the government should have begun design work immediately after the vanguard design completed with construction to begin in the late 90's when the Vanguards were all done, that was a mistake by a conservative government.

There is no current program or funding to replace ASaC 7.  It's easy to assume a Merlin based replacement one day in the future but as of now there is no such program.

The Sea King AEW was developed very quickly, total time from the start of development until the conversion of the first two units was complete was 11 weeks. Since then the only work done to the 13 converted helicopters was the removal of the remaining ASW fittings in 1985 which led to them being redesignated AEW7, and another upgrade since then using an upgraded searchwater giving them the capability to detect 400 rather then 125 targets. How long do you think it would take a Merlin AEW to be developed if the same radar systems were to be used? Not long.
 
One might wish to inquire as to the status of all 6 T-42s before counting them as ready for anything- HMS Southampton is not exactly available for deployment having been decommissioned 4 months ago.  HMS Nottingham is not active being listed as extended readiness meaning in reserve.  HMS Daring is not commissioned.  The RN has 22 Escorts today including 5 active T-42s.

There are six T42's in commission, of those, yes Nottingham is in extended readiness, but this just means that is is available in weeks instead of days or hours. Hermes was in refit at the start of the falklands war, in a peace time senario it would take weeks or even months to get her ready for combat, instead she was ready to sail within 48 hours. In 1982, HMS Illustrious commissioned enroute to the Falklands, Daring has been accepted to the Navy, this means that the Navy is happy that all her systems work, she is due to commission in less then a month. If needed Daring is available to sail immediately with any task group. Dauntless is also in sea trials, these could be rushed, making her available within months. The RN has 7 destroyers "commissioned" if you include Daring.
 
MOD has 3 test F-35s on order as of March this year.  When they are going to be delivered is not clear.  How long the test program is supposed to run is also unclear but one might assume it's at least two years.  So maybe in 2013 the government can start debating whether it will buy F-35, how many, when the orders will be placed and then when they might expect to start getting any.  IOC at this point is a long way away.  Of course this all assumes a near perfect test program with no delays.  

The government will buy F35's because they are the only aircraft that can fly off the CVF until EMALS becomes available, there is no rush to order them because they might not be able to operate off the Invincible class, meaning there is not point in having them before you have the carriers. The harriers will be running out of Fatigue life by the time the CVF's are commissioned, so they will have to be replaced, no choice in the matter.

The next government might order another Astute and in fact should order at least 4 more.  As of today there are 6 on order.  It's really rather pathetic.  How many SSNs does even 7 allow for deployed operations?  It's 2 or 3 and only for areas not too distant.

As i've just said in my last post, the limiting factor on the construction of Astute class submarines is no longer how many the government want to buy, but how many Barrows can build before they have to start constructing the vanguard replacement. The latest numbers i've seen mentioned here and on other forums is 7 Astutes, of which 3 are currently under construction and a fourth (Astute) will commission by the end of the year. The longest that HMS Vanguard can remain in service is until 2022 if she gets a SLEP, which means that based on the build times of the Astutes, construction needs to begin in 2015 (might be 2018 if the planned construction rate for Astute 4 can be maintained).
 
 
Quote    Reply

LB    RN AEW   6/28/2009 2:23:14 PM
With all due respect but hanging a small searchwater radar off a Sea King in a blow up balloon does not an AEW aircraft make.  It's also a development process the current MOD would not find remotely acceptable.
 
In any case the current ASaC 7 was given an entirely new radar with Searchwater 2000 due to severe limitatitions with the old radar and additionally has link 16.  One thing it's missing is modern ESM.
 
The issue is not that developing a new AEW aircraft is really any problem, whether they use Merlin, Osprey, NH-90 or other platform, but rather that MOD has to be given the money to spend on integrating all the varied systems on the aircraft. At this point there is no money being spent and the program is frankly in total limbo.  An in service date of 2022 is talked about as the earliest possible now and that assumes the 40 year old Sea Kings can be kept airworthy that long which is a rather unknown question.
 
Quote    Reply

usajoe1    Trouble ahead!   7/1/2009 2:17:33 AM
BBC.COM June,30,2009


Britain cannot afford much of the defence equipment it plans to buy, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) report says.

Its authors include former defence secretary Lord Robertson and the ex-Lib Dem leader, Lord Ashdown.

The government said it remained committed to renewing Trident.

'New thinking'

Lord Ashdown said the UK would have to "reach out to establish a new concordat with other nations and other global powers in order to secure a secure world in changing and turbulent circumstances". "That does require new thinking," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"One conclusion we arrive at is we can no longer afford to maintain museum Cold War armaments," he said.

"We can no longer afford to maintain full-spectrum armed forces capable of operating anywhere in the globe like a mini-United States."

The IPPR's recommendations include:

·         Scaling back conventional capability by cutting £24bn of planned spending

·         Review to consider possible alternatives to Trident or extending life of system

·         UK active role in fostering European defence co-operation

·         Setting up of National Security Council to co-ordinate security policy

·         Greater specialisation in the UK armed forces

'Cold War relics'

The report comes after news of a £1bn cost overrun on two new aircraft carriers.

The original budget for the two carriers for the Royal Navy was £3.9bn but the BBC has seen a memorandum revealing the programme will come under "severe pressure" because of the cost escalation. The head of the Royal Navy, Admiral Sir Jonathon Band, has previously defended the new carriers from accusations they were outdated "Cold War relics".

His counterpart in the British Army, General Sir Richard Dannatt, had earlier suggested many of the Ministry of Defence's new equipment programmes were "irrelevant" to modern warfare.

Similarly, the IPPR report suggests there ought to be a radical rethink of the way the UK budgets for defence.

Spending on the aircraft carriers, along with the fighters which would fly from them and the destroyers protecting them, should be in the frame for cuts, its report says.

Nuclear arsenal

The report says Britain's aim should be to eradicate nuclear weapons, and calls for renewed debate about the Trident submarine-based missile system.

The government is committed to renewing Trident at an estimated cost of £20bn. The policy is backed by the Tories but opposed by the Liberal Democrats and many Labour backbenchers. Armed forces minister Bill Rammell said the UK was "working towards a world free of nuclear weapons".

"We are the most forward-leaning nuclear state in terms of disarmament - we have reduced the explosive capability of our nuclear arsenal by 75% over the last 10 years," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

But he added: "When we look at the risks moving forward over the coming decades, we don't believe at the moment it would be safe to fail to make decisions now which would effectively commit us to unilateral disarmament in the future, regardless of the circumstances."

Mr Rammell also said that he believed the UK could afford its defence plans.

Allies

The report's authors also claim that the mission in Afghanistan is on course for possible failure unless it is changed to include a joint civilian-military stabilisation and reconstruction taskforce.

It also draws lessons from the Mumbai attack in India, appealing for new preventative measures in case the UK has to face a terrorist attack at multiple locations in one of its major cities.

That would be a job for strengthened special forces, not the police, the report argues. There is also a broader appeal for Britain to do more to co-operate with Europe and stop relying on the US when it comes to security.

The report says Britain would be deluded to think the US would always help out.

Lord Ashdown said: "We are going to have to work more closely with our allies, and in particular our European allies.

"Integration at a European level both of our armed forces and the defence industries is a crucial part of it."

Liberal Democrat defence spokesman Nick Harvey agreed that more European co-operation was needed, and that the UK "cannot mortgage future security solely on the goodwill of the US".

"This report is a wake-up call for the nation. We must act now to make our country safer by using precious resources more effectively," he said.

"We need armed forces that are relevant for the security threats of today and tomorrow."

BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said the 180-page document, published after two years of research, would carry weight in Whitehall, given its highly-experienced authors.

 

 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy