Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

Nellis_F-22A_0608-1.jpg

Nellis_EA-6B_0052-1.jpg

Nellis_F-15C_0070-1.jpg

Nellis_F-15C_Aggressor_0018-1.jpg
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

This is a discussion on The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by Neutral Zone The cost of keeping Tornados or Typhoons roled for nuclear strike must surely be less ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 28 votes, 3.68 average.
Old December 31st, 2006   #76
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 6,507
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neutral Zone View Post
The cost of keeping Tornados or Typhoons roled for nuclear strike must surely be less than keeping an SSBN at sea?
But they need bases relatively close to the intended target, can't be deployed surreptitiously, are far more vulnerable to a pre-emptive strike, are less reliable (they can be shot down more easily than a sub can be sunk), etc. etc. Price isn't everything. A Mini is cheaper than a 40-ton artic - but would you buy a mini for long-distance goods transport because of that?
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 1st, 2007   #77
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 98
Threads:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...524444,00.html

6 frigates/destroyers plus two other ships to go...

Nearly half of Royal Navy will be in mothballs. What a sad state. The Royal Navy is the Incredible Disappearing Navy. Unfortunately it seems inevitable that the two carriers will now be scrapped/sold.
Seaforth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 1st, 2007   #78
Ship Watcher
Brigadier General
Tasman's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 1,973
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaforth View Post
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...524444,00.html

6 frigates/destroyers plus two other ships to go...

Nearly half of Royal Navy will be in mothballs. What a sad state. The Royal Navy is the Incredible Disappearing Navy. Unfortunately it seems inevitable that the two carriers will now be scrapped/sold.
From what others have written it seems unlikely that the carriers will be cancelled (though I still have nightmares about CVA01). Both carriers must be built. Certainly the cancellation of one should be avoided at all costs. I think a one carrier navy would be the worst possible outcome, for reasons already stated in this thread.

Yes the RN is in a sad state. I have studied British naval history for almost 50 years and the steady decline in numbers breaks my heart.

However, we have to recognise realities:

1. Britain no longer has an empire.
2. It no longer has extensive commitments East of Suez.
3. The country can only build a fleet that it can afford (including the cost of maintaining such a fleet).
4. The UK is not alone in seeing a once mighty fleet decline. Japan, France and Italy at the end of WW2, Germany after WW1, the Spanish and Dutch fleets of earlier times and of course the former Soviet Union, have all seen huge declines in their naval power.

Therefore it is imperative that the RN leadership ensures that the government of the day gets the best advice possible to ensure that the future fleet provides value for money and meets Britain's actual needs and commitments.

I think the suggested fleet put forward by Dr Phobus would be along the right lines.

Tasman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 1st, 2007   #79
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 165
Threads:
I quite like Dr P's baseline fleet, it looks pretty sensible. The only addition I would add is a couple of cruisers for fire support to this new amphibious capability. If you look at the history of amphibious operations two things are clear;

You can never depend on air support
You can never have enough fire support from local ships

So a couple of stretched type 45's with 195mm guns and Tomahawks would be nice. If you could squeeze a couple of AH64's into the hanger all the better
Super Nimrod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 2nd, 2007   #80
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 241
Threads:
in 10-15 years the rn will be a second division navy

by now no approval of the new 2 cvf, only news of more cuts and cuts in the british armed forces, France with the same if not less g.d.p. than britain is strongly commited to a strong and powerful armed forces, only 2 years after so heavy cuts they will have another heavy ones, i doubt about averything with this british m.o.d. (alias ministry of cuts) for me would not be strange that finally they cancelled the cvf project, for example the Spanish navy is planning a replacement for the carrier principe de asturias, it will be little larger than the italian cavour (39000 TONNES) with an air wing of 30 fighters and they will build another 2 lpd,s plus the building of the new LHD, plus the immediate aproval of 3 new ffg alvaro de bazan class with aegis missile sistem, maybe in 10-15 years the spanish navy could be equal or even more powerful than the R.N. in the medium longer term the british armed forces will be thing of the past with these stupid british politicians both labour or conservative, defence it nothing important for them the strategic defence review of blair,s government it,s only a strategic defence heavy cut.
overlander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 2nd, 2007   #81
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by overlander View Post
maybe in 10-15 years the spanish navy could be equal or even more powerful than the R.N. .
How embaressing, I think it might be time to either A) sign my war canoe into active service B) Become a Gozillionaire and buy and equip my self a Navy or C) Send some emails to a few politicans, and hope they act in some way (hopefully not on Stage).

On a slightly more serious note, I would imagine that the Royal Navy will be getting the 2 new aircraft carriers, although i'dd imagine they will announce the ordered post scottish elections, as a reward for voting labour.

FrogGB
froggb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 2nd, 2007   #82
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 156
Threads:
Returning to the threat intention.

AFAIK, the cuts over the Royal Navy budget are derived mostly by the huge cost of the currently actives overseas operations (Irak, Afghanistan, etc...) that suffocate the budgets. While those continue, the cuts will continue. The question is that the Royal Navy has been presented with the need to renew at the same time the majority of their naval chapter, that is, has been forced in the enormous investments dedicated to the CVF Program, her part in the JSF Program, the renovation need of its nuclear submarines, the replacement of the entire fleet of her surface ships dedicated to the air defense of zone (Type 42 with Sea Dart), plus the operational costs, etc... and clearly all in a moment where the budgets for defense are reduced, and have a brutal leak of money due to the operations of the war against the terror.

Without entering the political aspects of the British intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan, the matter is not so much if the Labor Government want to reduce the RN to the minimal expression, but if that is a forced measure taken because simply there is not money enough in the budget for all.

Sadly is a theme without a fast or easy solution. Many countries were presented with this problem in the past and they opted for different solutions. The problem gentlemen is that if the budgets are not expanded, and the level of expense in the overseas interventions is maintained, the situation will continue getting worse, with more and more cuts.

Last edited by Gladius; January 2nd, 2007 at 04:20 PM.
Gladius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2007   #83
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
Musashi_kenshin's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 689
Threads:
No offence, guys, but if you want to talk about the Spanish Navy can you do it somewhere else please? I'd like to keep the conversation on the RN - cheers.

Off topic posts have been moved to the Spanish Navy thread.

Stick to the RN topic.

Thanks

Last edited by Grand Danois; January 3rd, 2007 at 03:28 PM.
Musashi_kenshin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2007   #84
Banned Member
Major General
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,045
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by froggb View Post
How embaressing, I think it might be time to either A) sign my war canoe into active service B) Become a Gozillionaire and buy and equip my self a Navy or C) Send some emails to a few politicans, and hope they act in some way (hopefully not on Stage).

On a slightly more serious note, I would imagine that the Royal Navy will be getting the 2 new aircraft carriers, although i'dd imagine they will announce the ordered post scottish elections, as a reward for voting labour.

FrogGB
I have a 40ft cabin cruiser we can mount a Browning .50 MG on. Although it might be better to reinstate HMS Victory to active service.

The RNs aircraft carriers and SSBNs are killing the surface fleet. Maybe the CVF project is a little too ambitious. It might be time to scale it down to cost.
Big-E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2007   #85
Ship Watcher
Brigadier General
Tasman's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 1,973
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big-E View Post
The RNs aircraft carriers and SSBNs are killing the surface fleet. Maybe the CVF project is a little too ambitious. It might be time to scale it down to cost.
What would be the implications of a design change at this stage of the project and how much could the CVF be scaled down and still provide a credible airgroup to do the job asked of it?

I presume there would be significant delays. I would certainly prefer to see two smaller units than a reduction to one of the present design. As stated earlier I think one carrier would be the very worst outcome. I suppose that at the very least a new design ought to at least match the 'Invincibles' in capability.

I think the RN needs two 'QEs' built to the existing plan but if budget problems make it impossible to maintain the surface fleet and SSN force at acceptable levels then regrettably a scaled down design might be needed.

Cheers

Tasman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2007   #86
Banned Member
Major General
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,045
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tasman View Post
What would be the implications of a design change at this stage of the project and how much could the CVF be scaled down and still provide a credible airgroup to do the job asked of it?

I presume there would be significant delays. I would certainly prefer to see two smaller units than a reduction to one of the present design. As stated earlier I think one carrier would be the very worst outcome. I suppose that at the very least a new design ought to at least match the 'Invincibles' in capability.

I think the RN needs two 'QEs' built to the existing plan but if budget problems make it impossible to maintain the surface fleet and SSN force at acceptable levels then regrettably a scaled down design might be needed.

Cheers

I think the CVF is apperently too much for the budget to take. You can't strip capabilities from your surface fleet just so you can have some nice big ticket items. Unless parliament is going to give the RN more funds they need to come up with a more balanced approach. I'm thinking a Cavour type vessle converted to strictly air tasking would serve rather well. If you give it an angled flight deck and catapults she can run any naval aircraft you want on it. The air wing could hold 24 F-35, 6 helicopters and 2-3 E-2D Hawkeyes running CATOBAR ops. It might be possible to purchase 3 such vessles. Construction can be completed in-house.
Big-E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2007   #87
Entertainer
General
Grand Danois's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: CPH
Posts: 3,297
Threads:
Sticking my neck out: Tony B and Gordo will approve two 65,000 ton CVF in the first half of this year.

The funding is largely allocated. It is peripherals that is being haggled over right now.

If two Type 45's can be sold to Saudi Arabia it could provide some room in the budget until the operations in Iraq begin to wind down - the Treasury hasn't exactly reimbursed that op...
________________
"Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?"

Last edited by Grand Danois; January 4th, 2007 at 12:16 AM.
Grand Danois is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4th, 2007   #88
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 27
Threads:
SSBN's

I know its a daft idea but i think the Nuclear Deterance should be paid for outwith the MOD budget as its purely a political weapons system?

Does anyone know what the RN thinks about being the holder of the Nuclear Deterence, does it consider it as a prestige thing or a white elephant, can't help thinking that the RN must be looking at the RAF with green eyes (232 Eurofighters!!!)

Also would the RAF take back the Deterence role if offered or would they be out with the barge pole
stuuu28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4th, 2007   #89
Ship Watcher
Brigadier General
Tasman's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 1,973
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuuu28 View Post
I know its a daft idea but i think the Nuclear Deterance should be paid for outwith the MOD budget as its purely a political weapons system?

Does anyone know what the RN thinks about being the holder of the Nuclear Deterence, does it consider it as a prestige thing or a white elephant, can't help thinking that the RN must be looking at the RAF with green eyes (232 Eurofighters!!!)

Also would the RAF take back the Deterence role if offered or would they be out with the barge pole
I don't think its a daft idea at all.

My bet would be that the RAF would run a mile if they were asked to take back the nuclear deterent role. The air combat force would likely go the way of the RN's surface combat fleet to pay for it!

Taking the cost of the deterent away from the service charged with delivering it would be brilliant IMHO.

Cheers

Tasman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4th, 2007   #90
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: mumbai
Posts: 28
Threads:
I dont know why the heck all european navies specially RN are decresing thier size of navies. Wherein at present India and china are increasing their size of naval power. Though having such huge budget than india and china why RN and govt. are scrapping ships for cost cutting.
Even small counties with meger budgets are adding new ships in their navy. In any sort of eventuality or war i fear that european navies wont be able to stand alone....they will have to run to USA for help.
aprasadi is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:34 AM.