Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I think the days of us having 3 carriers have gone with the Invincibles. It would have been nice to have been able to have retained one, but I daresay they were rather worn out.

I was more concerned with the capability gap of retiring the carriers with a capability cap of 15 years before the queen of elizabeth class was commisioned. Even now we don't have enough fighters to fit both carriers.

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Posted

I dont think we are ever going to deploy 2 at once. The manpower problem means thats unlikely to be possible anytime soon. Even the RFA's have problems with manning, simply because we arent paying people enough. Till we actually find some more readies to bump up a decent payrise, its likely going to keep happening.

 

Posted
2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I dont think we are ever going to deploy 2 at once. The manpower problem means thats unlikely to be possible anytime soon. Even the RFA's have problems with manning, simply because we arent paying people enough. Till we actually find some more readies to bump up a decent payrise, its likely going to keep happening.

 

The gulf between 'ideal' and 'real' can be vast indeed.

Posted

Apparently there have been strong rumours that the full F-35 purchase may be completed after all. Currently I believe that we have formally ordered 74, with many delivered.

I think I read it in Defence Analysis (Tusa's monthly rant about how incompetent at procurement we are. It's always amusing to see how tall a tower of cards he has to build to make anything out of the crumbs that the various departments give him.)

  • 3 weeks later...
Posted

Borrowed from TomasCTT's (aka Dorrick Kollum on Facebook)

Prince of Wales on exercise in N. Atlantic:

May be an image of 1 person and arctic

  • 4 months later...
  • 3 months later...
  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...
  • 2 months later...
  • 1 month later...
Posted

Now that is well-executed.

Still not as good as my 6AAC coffee mug, though, which is emblazoned with "Keep Calm and Re-Arm".

  • 3 weeks later...
Posted

Apparently there is a programme of programmes for the RN, which might bring some visibility to what often appears to be incoherence.

The linked article refers to the Type 83. https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navy-presents-bold-ambitions-for-the-future-air-dominance-system/

Amongst other things, they seem to be considering what is effectively an arsenal ship / missile barge called Type 91, and also dropping VLS units into support ships like the MRSS.

The rendered ship image at the top of the article may be complete nonsense, or it may show a desire for fixed planar AESA arrays on the Type 83.

Posted
2 hours ago, DB said:

Apparently there is a programme of programmes for the RN, which might bring some visibility to what often appears to be incoherence.

The linked article refers to the Type 83. https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navy-presents-bold-ambitions-for-the-future-air-dominance-system/

Amongst other things, they seem to be considering what is effectively an arsenal ship / missile barge called Type 91, and also dropping VLS units into support ships like the MRSS.

The rendered ship image at the top of the article may be complete nonsense, or it may show a desire for fixed planar AESA arrays on the Type 83.

 

But can we afford it all whilist the Dreadnought class soaks up all the naval defence budget? I would of thought that since we have a carrier with aircraft we don't need an arsenal ship.

Posted

An Arsenal ship is comparatively cheap. It needs a minimum of personnel, could even employ civilian vessels that are modified. Think of it as a stores ship that instead of handing out the weapons can fire them themselves. It does however need other ships to do all the radar and target designation work for them. Hence why they are (in theory, since nobody has built one yet) relatively cheap compared to say, a Type 26. The only major expense is the weapons they carry. 

That said, Id sort the RFA out first before they do anything else though, or they will just become a largely North Atlantic navy.

Posted
4 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

An Arsenal ship is comparatively cheap. It needs a minimum of personnel, could even employ civilian vessels that are modified. Think of it as a stores ship that instead of handing out the weapons can fire them themselves. It does however need other ships to do all the radar and target designation work for them. Hence why they are (in theory, since nobody has built one yet) relatively cheap compared to say, a Type 26. The only major expense is the weapons they carry. 

That said, Id sort the RFA out first before they do anything else though, or they will just become a largely North Atlantic navy.

 

When we sold HMS Ocean in 2017 to the Brazilians it was obvious that the RFA's were next in line. Supposedly the've been deteriorating in dock as we don't have the crews to maintain them. 

I'll say again we don't need a one way missile as we have naval aircraft that can do better than a one use missile. Plus, I assume you mean US built Tommahawks as we don't have our own missile. Their about $2.5 million a pop much too expensive and that's assuming the US lets us have them.

 

Posted

Well the problem with the F35s, as far as fleet defence they are fine. But their sole offensive ground weapon is the Paveway, and that isnt going to change to sometime in the 2030's. Until that time comes, we need to figure out a way to put as many land strike weapons at sea, at first to make up for that, latterly to compliment it. I suspect this is part of the reason why they were so keen to put a Mk41 launcher in the Type26 and 31.

We dont have our own missile, yet. Supposedly we are going to set up a system with German for a hypersonic weapon, and we have another IIRC with the French for a air launched and a ship/sublaunched one.

Well, the RFA's were aging anyway. I have to admit getting rid of hulls because we misguidedly didnt pay enough for the RFA personnel to hold onto them was a misguided policy, but there we are. Maybe it will turn around at the next defence review, we shall see.

Posted
1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Well the problem with the F35s, as far as fleet defence they are fine. But their sole offensive ground weapon is the Paveway, and that isnt going to change to sometime in the 2030's.

 

The F35 can fit all kinds of US ordance, there curently designing a version of the JASSMer that can fit into the F35's internal bays for example.

 

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

We dont have our own missile, yet. Supposedly we are going to set up a system with German for a hypersonic weapon, and we have another IIRC with the French for a air launched and a ship/sublaunched one.

The USA AF has just given up on hypersonics for the time being. The only countries with fielded hypersonics are Russia and India. 

 

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Well, the RFA's were aging anyway. I have to admit getting rid of hulls because we misguidedly didnt pay enough for the RFA personnel to hold onto them was a misguided policy, but there we are. Maybe it will turn around at the next defence review, we shall see.

I also think this was a shortsighted move. Given that the current CoS of the Navy is a royal marine you never know if this may trun around.

Posted
3 minutes ago, TrustMe said:

 

The F35 can fit all kinds of US ordance, there curently designing a version of the JASSMer that can fit into the F35's internal bays for example.

 

The USA AF has just given up on hypersonics for the time being. The only countries with fielded hypersonics are Russia and India. 

 

I also think this was a shortsighted move. Given that the current CoS of the Navy is a royal marine you never know if this may trun around.

Only externally, which isnt a lot of use if you have a stealth fighter. Besides, you buy a fully American weapon, they start telling you where you can and cant use it, as we found with Stormshadow, which had some American bits in it.

Our choice for standoff is Spear3, but that is dragging, seemingly a mixture of MOD incompetence and American tardiness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPEAR_3

Royal Marines always think in terms of logistics, less the neat toys (though of late they have gotten more than a few). I agree, there may be some different thinking on hand here, which is welcomed if it comes to pass.

Posted
3 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Only externally, which isnt a lot of use if you have a stealth fighter. Besides, you buy a fully American weapon, they start telling you where you can and cant use it, as we found with Stormshadow, which had some American bits in it.

Our choice for standoff is Spear3, but that is dragging, seemingly a mixture of MOD incompetence and American tardiness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPEAR_3

Royal Marines always think in terms of logistics, less the neat toys (though of late they have gotten more than a few). I agree, there may be some different thinking on hand here, which is welcomed if it comes to pass.

The Brimestone 2 was 8 years late. I'm sure that Spear 3 will take as long :) 

I can understand your very point on external weapons, I am too. But the only percision weapons the Eurofighter can carry is Brimestone 2, Paveway 4 and Stormshadow. Not an aweful lot. The US designed planes can field a lot more percision weapons than that.

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...