The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[SASWanabe]

The truth of WW2 is the RN did just that. It was the RN that prevent invasion in 1940 (not the RAF) and kept the sea lanes open in the Atlantic, evacuated the Army from the beaches (Norway, Dunkirk, Greece, Crete, Dieppe...). And when it was not there for lack of carrier power disaster followed (Singapore). But these are not seen by the public and this does have an effect on funding.

i may be mistaken but was Hitler not quoted as saying

We cannot invade Britain until we have air superiority.

not to mention 50%+ of the convoy escorts to Britain in the early war were Canadian not RN.

All branches of the Armed Forces have their roles, i look at it like this for both Australia and the UK (Being Islands)

Air Force - defensive
Army - Offensive
Navy - Offensive/Defensive

 

[Waylander]

As I am no Brit I may be on a wrong track but maybe it has less to do with the Battle of Britain taking the place of Trafalgar but with much more recent events.

The last 20 years have seen 3 big military operations for the UK. 2x Iraq and Afghanistan which is still ongoing.
In all these RAF and Army units were much more prominent then RN ones. All this while memory of the Falkland conflict fades more and more.

It is easier for the RAF to talk about their importance as it's their assets which were (and are) primarily used in these conflicts.

 

[spoz]

not to mention 50%+ of the convoy escorts to Britain in the early war were Canadian not RN.

No they weren't. By late in the war there were large numbers of Canadian escorts available (initially at least of a variable quality) but early in the war the escorts were almost exclusively Brit with a few Free French and other escaped allied forces. At the beginning of WW2 the RCN was tiny (half a dozen destroyers if memory serves) and they undertook a very large programme of initially manning ships others had built (including some of the four stackers taken over from the USN) and of constructing Flower class corvettes and then River frigates. However, the first of those ships weren't really online until mid 1941 and a significant presence had to wait until 1942. And then they had to work up and get experience - a process which saw a couple of unfortunate incidents when there were an attempts to use newly commissioned Canuk ships in their own EGs, without a leavening of experienced practitioners.

This is not to devalue the Canadian effort which was huge for a country of their size and generally very successful - but there were always many more RN than RCN escorts in the Atlantic.

 

[JoeMcFriday]

SASWanabe
I think you're grossly understating the value of the RN in WW2.

Hitler required air supremacy so that the Luftwaffe could prevent the RN from decimating his invasion fleet.

Using that quote from Hitler in isolation is really misrepresenting the real danger to his plans, the fleet in being of the Royal Navy at Scapa Flow.

In the Eastern and Western Med, it was the RN, yes with important elements of the RAN, which dominated the scene. Without sea control no air or land operations of any note could have been mounted, or when they went south been retrieved.
Some examples 1805 has given, I would add Tobruk to that list.

Holding the Eastern Med. and the Suez, routes to and through the Indian Ocean, around the Cape etc could not have been done by airpower, in fact it was not accomplished by airpower. Only limited coastal patrol was.

Spoz has covered more accurately the situation in the Atlantic, no comment required.

Air cover is very important, Naval air cover on an ocean is even more important but your use of that quote highlighting airpower is misplaced.

Mac

 

[1805]

i may be mistaken but was Hitler not quoted as saying


not to mention 50%+ of the convoy escorts to Britain in the early war were Canadian not RN.

All branches of the Armed Forces have their roles, i look at it like this for both Australia and the UK (Being Islands)

Air Force - defensive
Army - Offensive
Navy - Offensive/Defensive

I certainly didn't mean to reduce the massive contributions of the RCN and for that matter the USN (before and after they formally declared war). I was focusing on the role of the RN.

However it is worth mentioning the different status the USN/USMC enjoys in the US compared to the RN in the UK. In no small part due to the USN/USMC highly visible and dominant contribution to the defeat of Japan.

Just on your views on the roles of the services, the RAF would claim they have an offensive role, then and now. The RAF and RN have a massive logistics role: delivering, maintaining and withdrawing the Army, this has tradtionally been almost exclusively the RN's.

 

[1805]

As I am no Brit I may be on a wrong track but maybe it has less to do with the Battle of Britain taking the place of Trafalgar but with much more recent events.

The last 20 years have seen 3 big military operations for the UK. 2x Iraq and Afghanistan which is still ongoing.
In all these RAF and Army units were much more prominent then RN ones. All this while memory of the Falkland conflict fades more and more.

It is easier for the RAF to talk about their importance as it's their assets which were (and are) primarily used in these conflicts.

Yes I agree recent events have a big impact. But the Battle of Britain 1940 successfully displaced the RN in the public’s view as the undisputed dominate service. Others conflicts are also relevant; the failure of the RN to annihilate the German fleet at Jutland (although a strategic victory a PR disaster).

Suez 1956 had a very adverse effect of the RN’s carriers branding them the tools of a dated Imperial power in the eyes of many Labour MPs.
I think the Falklands has lulled the RN into a false sense of security and it has been completely wrong footed by Iraq/Afghanistan, although I am not sure what it could have done differently

Worth noting the Korean War saved the USN form the dangerous rise of a nuclear focused USAF.

 

[stuuu28]

I think as far as Nimrod goes, we should do the same as we did the last time with the AEW disaster. Avoid any development however attractive/tempting and by something off the self that is already working/in service, bug ironed out, if there is nothing available let wait and see.

Fully agree on more joint assets, the RN needs to buddy up big time with the AAC/Army, they need to present a much better case for the assault fleet & CVF in particular.

Sorry let me get this straight we scrap the uk defense industry? So if you had your way things like Home Chain wouldn't have come about, we wouldn't have bother developing Goliath to crack German codes, i could go on and on.

 

[1805]

Sorry let me get this straight we scrap the uk defense industry? So if you had your way things like Home Chain wouldn't have come about, we wouldn't have bother developing Goliath to crack German codes, i could go on and on.

No in this specific example, we should buy off the shelf. I am a keen supporter of a UK defence industry and the RN being seen to contribute to the economy as part of the RN value proposition.

However I think we need to be more focused in what we chose to build and why. MR4 and for that matter AEW are almost case studies in what not to try and build nationally.

We should try to concentrate on systems that meet the following criteria (ideally all three or at least two):

- We actually have the capability already or can develop it relatively easily

- We have sufficient volumes or export potential to justify over the industrial cycle.

- Truly of strategic importance to have the capability to build/develop (either industrially of militarily)

I admit these are very broad but if we applied them or something like them we would be in a much better position. Any out side them we buy off the shelf and use out buying power to secure counter trade arrangement where we do want to focus. Almost like the Jack Welch approach at GE where they focused on being or getting to be "number on or two in any market" or they exited it.

 

[stuuu28]

No in this specific example, we should buy off the shelf. I am a keen supporter of a UK defence industry and the RN being seen to contribute to the economy as part of the RN value proposition.

However I think we need to be more focused in what we chose to build and why. MR4 and for that matter AEW are almost case studies in what not to try and build nationally.

We should try to concentrate on systems that meet the following criteria (ideally all three or at least two):

- We actually have the capability already or can develop it relatively easily

- We have sufficient volumes or export potential to justify over the industrial cycle.

- Truly of strategic importance to have the capability to build/develop (either industrially of militarily)

I admit these are very broad but if we applied them or something like them we would be in a much better position. Any out side them we buy off the shelf and use out buying power to secure counter trade arrangement where we do want to focus. Almost like the Jack Welch approach at GE where they focused on being or getting to be "number on or two in any market" or they exited it.

Ok then what areas should we develop our own systems then?

The Nimrod has been an excellent aircraft that has served us well why wouldn't we try to build on years of operation and technical knowledge to design and build what we need, instead of buying off the shelf and loosing the capability to design and build this type of aircraft.

The same goes for the Rivet Joint purchase.

If we follow your train of thought we will only ever be buying aircraft from the USA and designing ships to lowest common denominator and then getting them built cheaply in Asia.

 

[stuuu28]

Ok then what areas should we develop our own systems then?

The Nimrod has been an excellent aircraft that has served us well why wouldn't we try to build on years of operation and technical knowledge to design and build what we need, instead of buying off the shelf and loosing the capability to design and build this type of aircraft.

The same goes for the Rivet Joint purchase.

If we follow your train of thought we will only ever be buying aircraft from the USA and designing ships to lowest common denominator and then getting them built cheaply in Asia.

It seems to me that other countries are working really hard and trying to build up their defense industries. where aas we seem to be quite content to let ours go to the wall.

Mibbies a bit of and exaggeration.

 

[1805]

Ok then what areas should we develop our own systems then?

The Nimrod has been an excellent aircraft that has served us well why wouldn't we try to build on years of operation and technical knowledge to design and build what we need, instead of buying off the shelf and loosing the capability to design and build this type of aircraft.

The same goes for the Rivet Joint purchase.

If we follow your train of thought we will only ever be buying aircraft from the USA and designing ships to lowest common denominator and then getting them built cheaply in Asia.

Read my post it doesn't meet the criteria I set out?

Nimrod is based on a very old design (the DH Comet) to bring it up to standard they have virtually build a new design. Even for the original requirement of only 21 airframes (no export ever likely) that is not a sound number. It like BA saying we need 21 aircraft and trying to build them from scratch. I am surpised the RAF didn't suggest Nimrod as a candidate for the Tanker project, at least they have the sense to use a commerical off the shelf design with ironically the Comet was just not a successful one!

 

[Volkodav]

Read my post it doesn't meet the criteria I set out?

Nimrod is based on a very old design (the DH Comet) to bring it up to standard they have virtually build a new design. Even for the original requirement of only 21 airframes (no export ever likely) that is not a sound number. It like BA saying we need 21 aircraft and trying to build them from scratch. I am surpised the RAF didn't suggest Nimrod as a candidate for the Tanker project, at least they have the sense to use a commerical off the shelf design with ironically the Comet was just not a successful one!

I worked with an engineer who had been on the new wing part of the Nimrod project, in his estimation, based in the difficulties they encountered matching the extremely well engineered wings to the old dimensionally variable airframes, it would have been less risky and possibly cheaper to just design and build a new aircraft from scratch.

The UK had the know how, skill and experience to do it but not the political will. A largish, composite airframe with engines buried in the wings could have been given an element of RCS reduction and become a brilllient basis, not only MPA but also ISR, tanking, you name it.

 

[swerve]

Mostly true, but the numbers don't add up. The development cost for an all-new Nimrod MRA4, with new-build fuselages to standard measurements but otherwise the same design, could have been a little cheaper & quicker into service, but it's still billions of pounds, & ends up with an expensive aircraft, built in small batches, with expensive support.

We don't have the budget to further develop & buy such an aircraft for ISR. Using MRA4 for ELINT was decided against on financial, risk, & capacity (volume of airframe) grounds some time before the whole thing was scrapped. We're planning to retire smaller, cheaper to run ground surveillance aircraft we already have in service to save money. We already have AEW aircraft.

As a tanker, it'd be expensive & small. Compare it with what's selling. It doesn't fit into the forward-deployable tactical tanker niche, or the high-capacity niche.

All variants have a critical weakness in the export market: there's no support base. MPAs, tankers & ISR aircraft based on commercial aircraft can tap into worldwide support networks. Spares are readily available & relatively cheap. Nimrod didn't have that, & was therefore much more expensive to support, & with much greater risk.

Any completely new type designed from scratch would have been more expensive & risky, but still with most of the disadvantages of MRA4.

 

[1805]

Mostly true, but the numbers don't add up. The development cost for an all-new Nimrod MRA4, with new-build fuselages to standard measurements but otherwise the same design, could have been a little cheaper & quicker into service, but it's still billions of pounds, & ends up with an expensive aircraft, built in small batches, with expensive support.

We don't have the budget to further develop & buy such an aircraft for ISR. Using MRA4 for ELINT was decided against on financial, risk, & capacity (volume of airframe) grounds some time before the whole thing was scrapped. We're planning to retire smaller, cheaper to run ground surveillance aircraft we already have in service to save money. We already have AEW aircraft.

As a tanker, it'd be expensive & small. Compare it with what's selling. It doesn't fit into the forward-deployable tactical tanker niche, or the high-capacity niche.

All variants have a critical weakness in the export market: there's no support base. MPAs, tankers & ISR aircraft based on commercial aircraft can tap into worldwide support networks. Spares are readily available & relatively cheap. Nimrod didn't have that, & was therefore much more expensive to support, & with much greater risk.

Any completely new type designed from scratch would have been more expensive & risky, but still with most of the disadvantages of MRA4.

Completely agree, I can't believe people are seriously suggesting it would have been viable to build an aircraft for tiny production runs, particularly after the whole Nimrod (MR4 & AEW) disaster. It just shows the limited understand of the issues the RN/MOD faces when procuring equipement.

 

[stuuu28]

No in this specific example, we should buy off the shelf. I am a keen supporter of a UK defence industry and the RN being seen to contribute to the economy as part of the RN value proposition.

However I think we need to be more focused in what we chose to build and why. MR4 and for that matter AEW are almost case studies in what not to try and build nationally.

We should try to concentrate on systems that meet the following criteria (ideally all three or at least two):

- We actually have the capability already or can develop it relatively easily

- We have sufficient volumes or export potential to justify over the industrial cycle.

- Truly of strategic importance to have the capability to build/develop (either industrially of militarily)

I admit these are very broad but if we applied them or something like them we would be in a much better position. Any out side them we buy off the shelf and use out buying power to secure counter trade arrangement where we do want to focus. Almost like the Jack Welch approach at GE where they focused on being or getting to be "number on or two in any market" or they exited it.

Ok

Your first point would apply to the MR4, we already had the capability MR2 and they thought they could develop the MR4 with in time and budget, after all the original contract was £2 billion for 21 planes, obviously this turned out not to be the case but thats hindsight for you.

Also your third point would also apply to the MR4 unless you can tell me why an island nation with with a history of being blockaded by submarines and a total reliance on sea trade wouldn't consider marine reconnaissance a strategic capability.(unless you are actually David Cameron)

 

[PeterCrisp]

I suppose the only good thing about the Nimrod situation is that it's unlikely we will get blockaded any time soon so Navy have the time to get a decent unmanned replacement.

 

[1805]

Ok

Your first point would apply to the MR4, we already had the capability MR2 and they thought they could develop the MR4 with in time and budget, after all the original contract was £2 billion for 21 planes, obviously this turned out not to be the case but thats hindsight for you.

Also your third point would also apply to the MR4 unless you can tell me why an island nation with with a history of being blockaded by submarines and a total reliance on sea trade wouldn't consider marine reconnaissance a strategic capability.(unless you are actually David Cameron)

Well if they were upgrading the electronics of the MR2 I would agree, but as soon as the design was effectively a new aircraft the Nimrod airframe should have been dropped. I don't know when that was btw, but it must have been early on. According to Wiki the weight is c20% bigger, it was a massive rebuild, and really does sound like a new aircraft!

Just to clarify the strategic capability, I was refering to the capability to build/develop not the weapon system. I appreciate they are not completely unrelated. But for example Trident is strategic system but the ability to build them is not strategic to the UK (the French might not agree with this). An example of strategic capability (in my opinion) would be gas turbines?

I don't know the detail but I wonder how much of the cost issues with MR4 relate to the plane (which could probably have been done better by any modern commerical airliner) and how much was the electronics which I would have said it could have been argued was the strategic industrial capability we should have retained. It also looks like they have done the old mistake of massive (unnecessary in the case of the aircraft) innovation in an already highly complex project.

It would be comic if it was not so sad!

 

[1805]

I suppose the only good thing about the Nimrod situation is that it's unlikely we will get blockaded any time soon so Navy have the time to get a decent unmanned replacement.

I also think, looking on the positive side, the scale of the disaster is so great there may be a change in the approach to defence procurement for the better (well we can hope!)

 

[citizen578]

I suppose the only good thing about the Nimrod situation is that it's unlikely we will get blockaded any time soon so Navy have the time to get a decent unmanned replacement.

There's a multitude of other scenarios beyond overcoming a blockade* to be considered.
I'm highly concerned about the security of the nuclear deterrant, for example.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caEmQNa6--M"]YouTube - Nimrod 03.02.11[/nomedia]

I've been watching the maritime UAV scene with some interest. I defintiely think there is scope for the UK to field a BAMS-type system in the medium term, but there's little to suggest that there is anything in the pipework for a high-spec ASW aircraft, let alone one that can take on the multitude of taks the Nimrod would have been capable of.
In the mean time we're stuck with a 'mutton-dressed-as-lamb' approach, utilising assets which are already stretched outrageously thin.

*we're already undergoing a de-facto blockade of the Falkland Islands, one which I can almost guarantee will get a whole lot worse in 2011.
It's one thing for the government to plan to use UK-based assets, with a logisical and clear numerical advantage in local waters to mitigate the loss of an MPA capability... to suggest that we are capable of doing the same with a handful of airframes/hulls operating from isolated and most support facilities 8000 miles away is quite another

 

[1805]

Just as an indication on alternatives, and how mad the original decision was: According to Wiki (just an indication) A321 costs $99.7m (c£65m) which is probably related to the fact they have built 4550+ of the A319-321 family. Even the A330 (750+ built) which is twice+ the size of the Nimrod and would have had commonality with MRTT is only c£140m.

If they had wanted to maintain UK capability they should have built something around the RJ100, smaller but it would have be far cheaper.