The Shrunken Royal Navy

[Mike Storey]

10 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

So basically the RN totally lacks an effective weapon for dealing with surface ships at more than a few miles range as there is no long range air launched anti-ship missile in the F35's weapon fit.  While the new first Sea Lord is asking for additional high quality anti-submarine vessels (translates as 'we need more Type 26s') the fleet basically lacks any sort of long range weapon to deal with surface vessels apart from the Spearfish torpedo (until Harpoon is replaced).   And it will have an air arm which is also incapable of effectively fulfilling that role - which makes me wonder exactly what the air arm of the fleet is actually meant to do beyond offering air defence and a ground attack capability.

 

I think the QE Class carriers will be the first large RN aircraft carriers to not have a proper capacity to launch air strikes against surface vessels beyond the range of their carrier group's other warships.

 

Yes, I wonder why the RN has not specified the Raytheon JSM, which can be fitted externally to an F35B, and just about every other country with F35's has ordered.

 

Still, at least the QE has a railway. I wonder how they will load a Class 66 into that? Or will an 09 do? (has to be an 09, as the QE is based on the SR.)

 

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

 

Yes, I wonder why the RN has not specified the Raytheon JSM, which can be fitted externally to an F35B, and just about every other country with F35's has ordered.

 

Still, at least the QE has a railway. I wonder how they will load a Class 66 into that? Or will an 09 do? (has to be an 09, as the QE is based on the SR.)

 

According to one source the JSM can also be loaded internally on an F35.  Not sure however if that is version specific however mounted externally it is claimed to be compatible with all versions.  If one internet source is correct it would seem that the UK is about the only nation with major maritime interests which is ordering or considering JSM for its F35 fleet. 

 

Sort of leaves you wondering why the RN no longer considers it necessary to have the sort of long range anti-ship capability the Sea Harrier had?

[Legend]

17 hours ago, Ohmisterporter said:

I found this article on savetheroyalnavy.org to be interesting. Munitions handling on our aircraft carriers.

 

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/munitions-handling-on-the-royal-navys-aircraft-carriers/

 

Thanks for getting the thread back on track

 

2 things strike me . How battle hardened is this weapons delivery system. Looks awfully fragile to me .  And the second thing is , as Stationmaster has pointed out, the lack of surface strike capability , not just on QE but across the fleet . It seems all we have are a few antiquated Harpoons taken from decommissioned type 22s  and on board the 26s and 4.5 inch guns !  Dome one needs to get a grip here . We need offensive capabilities or at least a way to protect ourselves if a moderately armed warship threatens us!

Edited August 6, 2019 by Legend

[woodenhead]

So basically we are now a minnow in a big pond about to let go of the other minnows who we grouped with and will be at the mercy of a couple of sharks.

[Fenman]

55 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

So basically we are now a minnow in a big pond about to let go of the other minnows who we grouped with and will be at the mercy of a couple of sharks.

 

Realistically, yes, we are a minnow, containing just 1% of the world’s population.

 

But keep a sense of proportion: what proportion of the world’s minnows has, say, a fleet of nuclear-powered hunter-killer submarines?

 

Which is not to argue our capability does not seem lacking in some areas; as was sharply demonstrated a few days ago in the Gulf, where we could muster just one warship, with another on its way. Zhukov articulated his doctrine against vastly superior German tanks: “quantity has its own quality”.

 

Paul

[Baby Deltic]

Maybe we should be buying Excocets from the French. They were pretty effective against our ships.

[woodenhead]

8 minutes ago, Fenman said:

 

Realistically, yes, we are a minnow, containing just 1% of the world’s population.

 

But keep a sense of proportion: what proportion of the world’s minnows has, say, a fleet of nuclear-powered hunter-killer submarines?

 

Which is not to argue our capability does not seem lacking in some areas; as was sharply demonstrated a few days ago in the Gulf, where we could muster just one warship, with another on its way. Zhukov articulated his doctrine against vastly superior German tanks: “quantity has its own quality”.

 

Paul

Would I be correct the last time a hunter killer sub knowingly fullfilled it's purpose was in 1982?

 

My worry is that we have a set of Victorian British Empire imagineers now at the head of government now whilst our army, navy has little ability to project itself without help from one of the sharks.

 

Add in that we have zero capability when it comes to dictating business deals in our favour because we are dependent on two large superpowers terms, I don't hold out much chance of our resurgence as a 'big' nation.

[Baby Deltic]

11 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

Would I be correct the last time a hunter killer sub knowingly fullfilled it's purpose was in 1982?

 

My worry is that we have a set of Victorian British Empire imagineers now at the head of government now whilst our army, navy has little ability to project itself without help from one of the sharks.

 

Add in that we have zero capability when it comes to dictating business deals in our favour because we are dependent on two large superpowers terms, I don't hold out much chance of our resurgence as a 'big' nation.

 

I believe the sub as HMS Conquerer that fired a salvo of MK6 torpedoes into the General Belgrano in 1982.

Edited August 6, 2019 by Baby Deltic

[peach james]

9 hours ago, Porkscratching said:

So ultimately it's the usual modern thing...lack of simple common sense 

 

Up until the late 1970's, that was the USN plan too...read "The Intruders" for an example 

 

The best that the USN had was Paveway 1's, with the BN holding the designator on target by hand...

 

So, lacking an integration of Harpoon onto F35 is a problem, but it is a problem that likely could be solved by throwing some $$$ at the problem.  USN/USMC isn't that interested in solving it, as the USMC is far more concerned with F35B being able to drop SDB or Mk 82 Series than conduct a Sierra Strike.  I would assume (har, laugh at it) that the F35 has the cabling for the 1553 Databus on the pylons, and that it is a software rather than hardware limit that would fail to allow for Harpoon to be fired.  (and an integration of Harpoon, or some other ASM)

 

If it is strictly a software limit, then it is something that can be developed around.

 

I'm not an air bos'n though !  

 

James

[jjb1970]

1 hour ago, woodenhead said:

Would I be correct the last time a hunter killer sub knowingly fullfilled it's purpose was in 1982?

 

 

 

No. The cold War wasn't very cold for the submarine service and the SSNs have been undertaking intelligence missions, often pretty hazardous ones almost continuously. 

[Barry O]

Having heard an F35 today for the first time while at Ampleforth ..stealthy it is not! One of the loudest aircraft ai have heard (including Concord and a Lightning on full afterburner.

Baz

[Mike Storey]

17 hours ago, Legend said:

 

Thanks for getting the thread back on track

 

2 things strike me . How battle hardened is this weapons delivery system. Looks awfully fragile to me .  And the second thing is , as Stationmaster has pointed out, the lack of surface strike capability , not just on QE but across the fleet . It seems all we have are a few antiquated Harpoons taken from decommissioned type 22s  and on board the 26s and 4.5 inch guns !  Dome one needs to get a grip here . We need offensive capabilities or at least a way to protect ourselves if a moderately armed warship threatens us!

 

If the JSM is eventually purchased, then the offensive capability is there, but in the meantime, the Meteor would seem to be pretty handy at long distance, even though, according to some blurb, a full salvo would be needed to seriously damage a medium sized warship. It would seem that the primary role for the F35B is seen as anti-air threat and ground attack, for the moment. Meteor can handle small surface craft attacks.

[The Stationmaster]

4 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

 

If the JSM is eventually purchased, then the offensive capability is there, but in the meantime, the Meteor would seem to be pretty handy at long distance, even though, according to some blurb, a full salvo would be needed to seriously damage a medium sized warship. It would seem that the primary role for the F35B is seen as anti-air threat and ground attack, for the moment. Meteor can handle small surface craft attacks.

Agreed.  But it still leaves me wondering quite how the RN/politicos see the role of the QE Class vessels and their only fixed wing aircraft.    One thing which has been said I seem to recall is that 'the fleet' or rather 'operations' need aerial protection and I wouldn't necessarily argue with that.

 

But 'operations' clearly also need to be carried out where they are not going to be restricted or paralysed by various other threats and those threats boil down to fast attack craft  (or even something like the ribs used by the Iranians), land based defences such as mobile missile launchers or even long range conventional artillery, and opposing warships equipped with surface-to-surface missiles.  Meteor will seemingly offer additional (to gunpower) defence against small craft - provided it outranges any missiles they happen to carry (does Meteor?).   There's not much that can be done against land based systems except to attack them - which the F35 is equipped to do in a ground attack role.

 

The 'hole' appears to be in the lack of anything, except Spearfish, capable of dealing with an offensively armed warship posing a threat from longer ranges.  Most readily available s-to-s naval missile systems substantially outrange Meteor (from what we know about it) so defence is entirely reliant on point defence weapons and electronic countermeasures (which we really know very little about so might well be surprised by what is available).

 

It is almost 76 years since the first occasion on which an RN warship was sunk by a remote launched (albeit air launched) guided missile and only a few months short of 42 years since the first occasion on which a warship was sunk by an s-to-s missile launched by a patrol boat .  Really ought to have given 'somebody' time to have realised that the threat to surface warships has entered a different dimension. (I'll discount the missile hit on HMS Sheffield because there is a lot more to that story than has ever been made public.)

Edited August 7, 2019 by The Stationmaster
correct typos

[alastairq]

I have read{!} that the Chinese are looking to send a warship or two to Hormuz to 'protect' Chinese shipping interests? Especially as China is a large end-user for the oil that passes through?

 

It may be hearsay.

 

If it does occur, then what observations should we make regarding the possibility of conflict accidentally occurring with other nations' assets?

 

LAst time I personally was in the vicinity [1972?] Iran was posing a threat to shipping [actively] even then....

 

It appears that although convoy systems [for protection] are currently the only viable method of countering the Iranian threat...convoys themselves are thoroughly disliked by all the parties involved...ship owners, cargo owners, Navies [Royal or otherwise], and anyone else with a perceived vested interest. Mostly due to the costs incurred.[Especially as the trade concerned is incredibly time-sensitive]

 

To counter piracy [Somalian, mainly...although Yemenis now prove to be a threat]....I 'think' there was a two-fold outcome. [1] MAjor powers [US?] removed the need for piracy by supporting many of the  politically acceptable areas along that coastline ....and [2] by shippers themselves defending their own assets via the private security contractor industry.

 

I feel inevitably the latter is how the shippers will attempt to solve the Iranian threat. 

 

Regarding the forced taking of a UK-flagged vessel?  The reality may be...that the flag was the only bit of the UK that was of concern. The vessel was not UK-owned...was not crewed by UK nationals, and did not have a UK-owned cargo.   So exactly where did our 'interests' lie, with regards to 'protection?'

 

Maybe all we [as the UK] need for UK vessels is to embark a detachment of Royal Marines on each vessel....? Or, is that what is happening already?

[Ohmisterporter]

What effect does the closure of Harland and Wolff have on Britain's naval fleet?

 

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/what-does-the-closure-of-harland-and-wolff-shipyard-mean-for-the-royal-navy/

[Legend]

Add to that that Ferguson’s Marine  in Port Glasgow ( I think is listed as a part builder on one of the 31e options) has announced  its going into Administration  due to the debacle of building 2 new car ferries for Calmac , originally costed at £97m but now thought to be double that. 

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, Ohmisterporter said:

What effect does the closure of Harland and Wolff have on Britain's naval fleet?

 

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/what-does-the-closure-of-harland-and-wolff-shipyard-mean-for-the-royal-navy/

H&W hasn't built a warship for 50 years (HMS CHarybdis completed June 1969) and it last completed an RFA vessel (RFA Fort Victoria) in 1994.  Apart from being yet another UK shipyard to close  British yards with a far more recent record of warship construction have gone as well and they had far more warship experience than H&W.  I suspect that the only point really in favour of H&W as a potential yard for warship blocks or sub-contracted platework at this time is the fact that it still exists so can make up the numbers of yards actually capable of building at least part of a ship.

 

And if the politicos are looking to minimise the cost of the Type 31e I do wonder if towing bits of a vessel around the British coast from several different yards is the most cost effective way of constructing them?  On ething if a yard is building a whole series of the same blocks and can perhaps get economies of scale but quite another if it's a block here and a block there over several years.

[Porkscratching]

If they desperately want to save money I'm surprised they don't just buy some cheapo Chinese ships..seems par for the course for virtually everything else..

[Ohmisterporter]

A short history of the ski jump ramps fitted to carriers. from savetheroyalnavy.org Hope you find this of interest.

 

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/royal-navy-aircraft-carrier-ski-jumps-a-history/

[Ohmisterporter]

You may have missed this article in Task & Purpose. Marines wearing jetpacks?

 

https://taskandpurpose.com/royal-navy-tests-jetpack-with-inventor-richard-browning

[Ohmisterporter]

A long awaited RN replacement for Harpoon. Hope you find this article from Save the Royal Navy to be of interest.

 

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/more-details-emerge-about-plan-to-replace-royal-navy-harpoon-anti-ship-missile/

[Legend]

A bit of bite at last!

[Mike Storey]

6 hours ago, Ohmisterporter said:

A long awaited RN replacement for Harpoon. Hope you find this article from Save the Royal Navy to be of interest.

 

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/more-details-emerge-about-plan-to-replace-royal-navy-harpoon-anti-ship-missile/

 

Seems to be an interim replacement only, albeit very welcome.

[The Stationmaster]

12 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

 

Seems to be an interim replacement only, albeit very welcome.

And nothing (except money?) to stop  them looking at a  JSM fit for the F35s which might at least give the fleet some potentially more readily available long range anti-ship capability.

[Ohmisterporter]

RFA Tidespring refit is now reportedly months behind schedule.  Probably a lot more to this story than we are being given. Hope this is of interest. 

 

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/rfa-tidespring-another-refit-behind-schedule/