Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I continue to find it astonishing that, with significantly higher taxes than at any time in my memory, and with continued parroting about the wonderful state of our economy that we can't even afford to maintain the level of performance that we have had in the past. yes, the individual ships may be more capable, but it doesn't matter how good your one wunderwaffe is if it needs to be in two places at the same time.

 

Fire every government employee who has an employee number ending in 1, 3, 5, 7 or 9 and pay for the whole thing.

 

David

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
Ever hear of the Monroe Doctrine? Step aside, we'll administer these new oil finds, thank you. ;)

 

Yes, I've heard of it, & 1) it has the legal force of the fart I just emitted, & 2) it wouldn't give the USA any rights over the oil in any case. It is not, & never has been, a US claim to two continents. It's merely a declaration of intent to oppose any future extension of European colonialism in the Americas. And since within a decade the USA was assisting the extension of British colonialism in the territories under discussion here, one can't really consider it a consistently applied US policy, or to apply at all in this area. :P

Posted (edited)
Yes, I've heard of it, & 1) it has the legal force of the fart I just emitted, & 2) it wouldn't give the USA any rights over the oil in any case. It is not, & never has been, a US claim to two continents. It's merely a declaration of intent to oppose any future extension of European colonialism in the Americas. And since within a decade the USA was assisting the extension of British colonialism in the territories under discussion here, one can't really consider it a consistently applied US policy, or to apply at all in this area. :P

 

The USS Lexington shelled the Falklands and declared it res nullius because the Argie governor was seizing US fishing boats and we had just about enough of their shit (this is usually how it goes with Argies as I have come to believe). That was in 1831. Britain didn't invade and (re)assert their claim until 1833. So one could argue that you merely took advantage of a good opportunity after we did all the dirty work. :)

 

Although I agree with you the Monroe Doctrine is crap. Particularly since we would have been in a position to really enforce it at that point.

 

- John

Edited by Kensuke
Posted
Certainly HMG could afford a decent navy. Just gut the British Welfare State. Got a red ink pen? I'll fix your problem in about an hour. <_<

 

no thanks, id prefer it if i gave you a shot gun and a flamethrower witha 100% guilt/repercussion free ticket and set you loose on the mod.

Would have a much larger effect, giving the mod more money would just lead to even more ivory back scrathers and champagne being passed around.

Posted
no thanks, id prefer it if i gave you a shot gun and a flamethrower witha 100% guilt/repercussion free ticket and set you loose on the mod.

Would have a much larger effect, giving the mod more money would just lead to even more ivory back scrathers and champagne being passed around.

 

 

Sounds fun! When do I start? :D

Posted (edited)
Sounds fun! When do I start? :D

 

Well first i have to think of a way to get them all in one room at a time, possibly a 80% of ivory backscratchers and champagne sale at marks and spencers would do.

Edited by superfractal
Posted
All told, the RN surface fleet is really more of a high end green water navy with a very flawed blue water capability (as seen in the Falklands).

 

Shows how perspective changes things. From this here viewpoint up in the Stockholm Archipelago, the verdict on the Falklands was that it showed the weaknesses of a blue water navy trying to operate in a green water navy way, at least during near shore phase. I.e. air defence was suited more to open horizons and not the limited fire arcs and quick reaction times created by nearby land. But then, the Swedish navy during the 80's was so littoral it was almost hydrophobic. :)

 

Personally, id rather see our navy developed for coastal defence along the lines the Swedes have developed theirs. Its not like they have an insignificant naval history either.

Perhaps, but such a navy is in some ways very limited. The one and only purpose was to eliminate a Soviet landing fleet, which meant that other areas such as ASW was neglected. Another problem seen these days is that seaworthiness and endurance is quite limited with the existing small hulls (not that we have a lot of them anyway). But of course, there is nothing that says that you have to have quite so small hulls in a green water navy, after all we operated destroyers, cruisers and armoured ships as well for many years. If I may hazard a guess I'd say that the next class of ship will be one size up from our current solutions. The Visby-class might be a great little ship, but it's so small that there is trouble fitting everything in.

 

But for traditional British expeditionary warfare such a solution is perhaps not the best choice.

Posted
Fair comments Sven.

 

Ok, what exactly DO we want the navy to do these days? I can see the utility of HMS Ocean and indeed all of 3 Commando Brigade. But do we still need the ablility to go to the South Altantic and back with a surface fleet? Do we really need SSNs, or could we get by with forward deployed conventional boats, which at least would give us some ability to offset their development against exports. I dont think we have had a real doctrine for our sea power since ww2, so if you had to write one, what would it be?

 

Ignore the 'Because the French have navy'. Its a valid reason, but I think we mainly settled that problem in 1805. ;)

 

Surely, if Britain retains sovereignty over areas as far flung as the Falklands, it retains a responsibility to defend those claims and therefore requires the means to do so. As the Falklands indicated, the only other alternative is to say to all comers, "Oh, yes, we do fly our flag there but please, just wait a moment and we'll haul it down and replace it with your's, whenever you want us to!" The Argentinians were encouraged by their occupation of Thule Island in 1976 when the British Government didn't enforce their sovereignty over that island and it could be claimed that failure was one of reasons why they ended up invading the Falklands.

 

As the means best to do so is a surface fleet, then it behoves the UK Government to maintain one I think.

Posted
That's not true if you're too cheap-ass to build a decent destroyer. What type performed better in the Falklands?

 

Don't you mean that's true if you're too cheap-ass to build a decent destroyer?

 

What I'd like to see is a high-low mix of well equipped destroyers and something inexpensive based on commercial technology (pretty much as we did in WW-2).

 

Frigates, as we have them, are very expensive for a lot of the roles they actually perform - in some isntances that expense actually detracts from their capability. For example only carrying one helicopter when two could have been afforded had the platform been cheaper. Roles where you don't need the bells and whistles include the vast majority of the roles our frigates have actually been called upon to perform since 1945.

 

30kt speed is questionable when you're primary delivery system is a helicopter. Likewise putting a lot of effort into self-quietenting is dubious when subs are now too quiet to detect passively. Having used RN destroyers in simulated warfare, I've found them to have the following limitations.

 

Air to air sensors can't see beyond the horizon (also true of non-cheap ass destroyer), so it's easy for aircraft to get within AShM launch range with impunity. The frigate thus needs independent AEW and air cover. If you have those things available they're probably doing (or have already done) much of the job you wanted your frigate to do. Of course RN frigates haven't even had a long range air search radar since the 1970s, so even that point is moot.

 

Surface search radar - likewise. You see the enemy at essentially the same moment he sees you. Of course you could stay passive, in which case your expensive radars might as well not have been shipped. Far better to have them on an aircraft. Of course you have a helicopter (note the singular) but you have a choice between one with very capable sensors and no air to surface weapons (except a 7.62mm GPMG) or one with less good sensors and not particularly potent and tactically limited (SARH) missiles. If both sides have radar equipped helicopters the one with the longest ranged shipboard AShMs usually wins. Unfortunately this means usually the one with the Russian missiles.

 

The RN frigate has essentially no capability to influence events more than a few miles inland. It has one, rather mediocre medium calibre gun and that's it - unless you want to send your Lynx in to strafe with the fifty calibre. You could fix this to a certain extent by adding Block II Harpoon.

 

If we had built the Type 45 right, it would have had considerable ability to influence a conflict far inland (the counter argument is that we already have submarines that can manage our limited Tomahawk inventory). You would still be stuck with the horizon problem so would need air cover which renders the staggering amount of money put into their air defence capabilities rather moot (you still need them around to defend the CVs when sea states don't permit carrier air ops though).

 

If you're interdicting smugglers, narco or people trafficers, intercepting illegal immigrants, going after pirates, blockading, conducting famine or disaster relief etc. you tend to need a lot of platforms that are cheap to operate - as long as they're seaworthy and air capable, their actual construction, speed and sensor suite tends to be irrelevant. If you're fighting a real war you'd better have air superiority or you'll be creamed. Spending huge amounts on lots of unneccessarily expensive surface vessels will seriously detract from the amount of cash you have to achieve that superiority as the RN seems to have belatedly realised.

Posted
Ok, what exactly DO we want the navy to do these days?

 

Deter nuclear attack/respond to nuclear attack.

Provide a sub-strategic pre-emptive/retaliatory nuclear capability.

Deter foreign conventional aggression/provide a response to foreign aggession.

Provide a deep-strike capability with conventional weapons in support of national objectives

Allow a reinforced brigade sized non opposed landing anywhere in the world that has a suitable coastline and provide cover and support for such a landing and for reinforcement and resupply.

Move additional forces into theatre once a port has been secured.

EEZ protection

Anti smuggling

Anti people trafficking

Anti narcotics

Anti gun-running

Anti illegal immigration

Blockade/embargo enforcement

Maritime rescue

Showing the flag

Famine/disaster relief

Counter terrorism

EOD (this seems to happen every year here in Orkney)

Sell weapons we've bought to dodgy countries.

 

I'm sure you can think of a few more! :)

Posted (edited)
Don't you mean that's true if you're too cheap-ass to build a decent destroyer?

 

What I'd like to see is a high-low mix of well equipped destroyers and something inexpensive based on commercial technology (pretty much as we did in WW-2).

...

 

Yes yes yes!

 

1) Type 45.

 

2) Something diesel-powered, robust, modest-sized (cheap enough you can send two if you want to send two helicopters), with a selection of weapons you can bolt on & unbolt in hours (like the Danish Stanflex system), different sensor fits for different jobs. Land attack missiles? Doesn't have to be Tomahawk or Scalp Naval. NSM & the latest versions of Exocet & RBS.15 have land-attack capability, though shorter range, & are better-suited to a bolt-on system. Air defence? Area defence has to be left to Type 45s, but it hould be capable of carrying, & fitted with when appropriate, something short-range that can deal with anti-ship missiles. Shore bombardment? Make one of those modular weapons some kind of MRL.

Edited by swerve
Posted
Don't you mean that's true if you're too cheap-ass to build a decent destroyer?

 

What I'd like to see is a high-low mix of well equipped destroyers and something inexpensive based on commercial technology (pretty much as we did in WW-2).

 

Bonjour monsieur, could we zempt you with ze nouvelle Gowind corvettes zeries from DCN?

 

Gowind 120

Length: 80 m

Beam: 12 m

Displacement: 1250 tns

Maximum Speed: >30 kts

Distance Franchissable: 2 000 mn (at 15 kts)

Endurance: 10 days

Complement: 52 (+8)

Helicopter: flight deck, 5t helicopter

Propulsion: Option, CODAD

 

Gowind 170

Length: 95 m

Beam: 14 m

Displacement: 1700 t

Maximum Speed: > 30 kts

Distance Franchissable: 3.000 nm (at 15 kts)

Endurance: > 20 days

Complement: 65 (+15)

Helicopter: flight deck & hangar, 5 t helicopter

Propulsion: Option, CODAD

 

Gowind 200

Length: 103 m

Beam: 14,2 m

Displacement: 1950 t

Maximum Speed: > 30 kts

Distance Franchissable: 3.000 nm (at 15 kts)

Endurance: 20 days

Complement: 70 (+15)

Helicopter: flight deck & hangar, 10 t helicopter

Propulsion: Option : CODAD

 

All come with ze 76mm main gun, 16 Aster SAMs, 8 Exocet/Harpoon SSMs, petit caliber guns (20/30mm). Ze 170 and 200 also have ze very fashionable haute coutour UAV......

Posted

Regarding the antis,

 

HM Customs have their own cutters for home waters. The RN supplement these with the Fishery Protection Squadron and whatever units happen to be on hand in home waters. Overseas the only permanent station with an emphasis on counter-narcotics is the Caribbean where there is an escort (FF/DD) and an RFA. Their role includes defence diplomacy and disaster relief as well as catching lots of coke. A Home Office vessel wouldn't be appropriate to such a role, unless we had a US style Coast Guard. MAFF pays towards the fishery protection role. Note that in Scottish waters fisheries protection is carried out by the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency with their own flotilla of patrol vessels and aircraft.

 

The RN has the "coast guard" role for the UK and therefore has ships such as the River class to carry it out.

 

Are you sure those were Fisheries Protection Squadron ships and not P2000s with URNU crews?

Posted
Bonjour monsieur, could we zempt you with ze nouvelle Gowind corvettes zeries from DCN?

 

...

 

All come with ze 76mm main gun, 16 Aster SAMs, 8 Exocet/Harpoon SSMs, petit caliber guns (20/30mm). Ze 170 and 200 also have ze very fashionable haute coutour UAV......

 

Range too short, perhaps too fragile for long ocean patrols. Probably well suited for zooming around the Med, or Black Sea. I'd rather lose several knots of top speed in favour of range, endurance & seakeeping, & go for something slightly larger than the biggest of that lot.

Posted
... But they seemed such nice girls, it was hard to hold it against them. :)

...

 

Get back on topic! :D

Posted (edited)
Don't you mean that's true if you're too cheap-ass to build a decent destroyer?

 

Nope. I was responding to your complaint about frigates being too gold-plated and expensive to make anymore. My response is that if you're not going to put in the money for a decent DDG with all-around capability, you're frigates can be more valuable than you know and fill in the gaps that are apparent in your destroyers. As it stands, I'd take a Type 23 as my primary service combatant over a Type 42. The Type 42 were built way too cheaply and shoddy for a destroyer class, and it shows (cramped, limited capability weapons systems, ect). Some thought was actually put into the Type 23. Albeit, I must confess a lot of the problems with the Type 42s now have to do with the fact the Sea Dart is obsolete, very limited in capability, and no longer in manufacture.

 

Frigates, as we have them, are very expensive for a lot of the roles they actually perform - in some isntances that expense actually detracts from their capability. For example only carrying one helicopter when two could have been afforded had the platform been cheaper. Roles where you don't need the bells and whistles include the vast majority of the roles our frigates have actually been called upon to perform since 1945.

 

30kt speed is questionable when you're primary delivery system is a helicopter. Likewise putting a lot of effort into self-quietenting is dubious when subs are now too quiet to detect passively.

 

Solution: Revive the tradition of the corvette in the RN. Between 2000-2500 tons. One helicopter (Sea Lynx). One 76mm gun (or maybe the 114mm *if* the commonality offsets the cost and weight penalty). 25-27 knot max speed (x2 Marine Diesels). Rudimentary air defense (RAM and/or CIWS). Rudimentary ASM (four Harpoons in dual launcher facing port and starboard). Torpedo tubes and mine layers. No VLS weapons. The usual countermeasures. Increase endurance by reducing crew size (in such a design your main concern would be consumables other than fuel).

 

Such a vessel would primarily be good for ASW and patrol work. This would free up the Type 45s to operate with the CVs like they're supposed to and save a lot of money in the process. Build them to merchant standards.

 

For the times when you really got to make an impression, call in the Type 45s. But for God's sake, ditch the "fitted for but not with bullshit".

 

- John

Edited by Kensuke
Posted
For the times when you really got to make an impression, call in the Type 45s. But for God's sake, ditch the "fitted for but not with bullshit".

 

What is currently on the "fitted to receive" list for T45 anyway?

 

Torpedo launchers (I haven't seen tubes on a T42 or T22 for quite a while)

Harpoon

Merlin

More VLS cells

Bigger gun

Vague reference to a point defence missile system?

 

Apart from RFAs, are there any other RN ships with significant FTR lists?

Posted (edited)
What is currently on the "fitted to receive" list for T45 anyway?

 

Torpedo launchers (I haven't seen tubes on a T42 or T22 for quite a while)

Harpoon

Merlin

More VLS cells

Bigger gun

Vague reference to a point defence missile system?

 

Apart from RFAs, are there any other RN ships with significant FTR lists?

 

The FTR list for the Type 45 includes 8 Harpoons in two quad launchers and two Mk2 324mm triple launchers firing Stingray torpedos. Both of which limit the anti-sub and heavy anti-ship capability to whatever you can fit on the Lynx. There was also a feasibility study to fit some Mk41 cells to launch Tomahawks should the need arise. The A50 VLS will *NOT* take the SCALP/Sea Storm (they're too shallow). The Merlin was cut completely to keep costs down, but could theoretically be retrofitted. The landing deck is supposedly big enough to land a Chinook (:blink:).

 

It's a very capable destroyer somewhat crippled by the RN being niggardly. Perhaps it was designed by the Ministry of Silly Walks. :P

 

- John

Edited by Kensuke
Posted
two Mk2 324mm triple launchers firing Stingray torpedos.

 

Are you sure it isn't four Cray Marine launchers, as fitted to T23? See Navy Matters.

 

I wonder if the RN has quietly retired the triple tubes as they aren't listed in the armaments for T42s and T22s on the RN website.

Posted
...

The A50 VLS will *NOT* take the SCALP/Sea Storm (they're too shallow). ...

 

- John

 

Yup, you'd need Sylver A70. There's supposedly room for up to 24 of those, or Mk41. The A70 would have the advantage that it could launch Aster if not filled with Scalp Naval. Aster could, in theory, be integrated into Mk 41 but that would require someone to pay for it, which seems unlikely.

 

Your thinking on corvettes is very much along the same lines as mine, except that I'd make much of the weaponry optional, & keep some in reserve for when needed. No need for a ship used for oceanic patrol to be carrying the full rig, exposing the kit to the elements, vibration, etc, & needing crew along to look after it all. The Danes have shown that re-roling can be done in hours, if you design it in from the start.

 

Allow for VLS - but only bolt-on short-range. Ditto with anti-ship missiles & torpedo tubes. Buy equipment fits for MCM, ASW, etc. Maybe have low & high end version on the same hull. Agree about "fitted for but not with" for the T45s (arm 'em to the teeth!), but for Dogsbody & her sister ships, I think it appropriate.

Posted

But swerve, operational modularity, stanflex and all the rest of it, is just 'fitted for but not with' in its own way.

 

The flexiability is useless unless the additional modules/equipment is purchased and their support funded reliably, something that can't be assured on a budgetry level for the working life of the vessels. The idea is great for play at home, but not much good for away games when circumstances might change, unless you happen to have a global base system (where modules can be stored and exchanged), and last time I looked the RN hasn't got much of their old dockyard network left. And the flexiability is more strategic than tactical, swapping units might done in quite quickly but with crew workups etc it, it's hardly plug and play. Unless a conflict/emergency lasts a good year or more, I'd not see many ships being reconfigured.

 

I've got no issue with a few mission adaptable pallets one way or the other, but for a navy that intends to go over the far horizon and stay there for many months, the basic ship had better be a pretty well rounded generalist, as E5M is so fond of saying, if it isn't organic you can't count on it being there when needed.

 

shane

Posted

Shane,

 

The system has advantages even if you intend to keep most of the modules on ships, most of the time. They can be swapped out for maintenance. A ship needing work on engines can be stripped of its functional weapons modules, & they're then available for other ships.

 

BTW, Stanflex can be fitted in hours, without needing a well-equipped dockyard, & they can be flown out to where the ships are, as long as you have access to an airport. But that isn't likely to be needed much. A corvette going on a long deployment far from home would be fitted out for what it's expected to do.

 

There would be crew workup, certainly, but since a lightly-equipped ship wouldn't need all the crew of a fully-armed one, much of that would be a question of additional weapons crew members getting accustomed to working with the rest of the crew, which shouldn't take as long as getting crews who haven't seen the damn things for a year or two getting used to handling the weapons. I don't see it needing much more crew workup than at present.

 

You seem to be assuming every ship is bare-bones as standard, & is re-fitted at the point when it has to do something, like a tractor picking up a different trailer. I don't see it like that. I would expect a fairly low turnover of modules. But not no turnover.

 

I agree entirely with all that you say about buying & supporting the additional modules, BTW.

Posted
Range too short, perhaps too fragile for long ocean patrols. Probably well suited for zooming around the Med, or Black Sea. I'd rather lose several knots of top speed in favour of range, endurance & seakeeping, & go for something slightly larger than the biggest of that lot.

 

My understanding is that in modern naval shipbuilding the cheapest component is the steel for the hull. Therefore if you're prepared to accept perhaps fewer weapons, the cost of a large hull can be managed much more easily. The result would be better seakeeping and longer endurance but a ship which looks decidedly underarmed compared with one of a similar size which is built as a traditional warship of that size. A larger hull would however also improve survivability by allowing increased compartmentalisation although I note that you'd prefer civilian construction standards to cut down costs.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...