StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Sure, and a RAM or similar type of "cheap" point defense system is almost a must.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
overlander
Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,902
This small article is in Jane,s online magazine about the warns of ROYAL UNITED SERVICES INSTITUTE R.U.S.I. say to them that they are talking down the Royal Navy too.
RUSI report warns on UK naval capability.
A leading UK policy study body has warned that the Royal Navy's ability to meet future threats and challenges is being steadily eroded by continuing reductions in the size of the fleet. The Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) paper, 'British Defence and Security Policy: the Maritime Contribution', written by Dr Lee Willett, the head of the institute's maritime studies programme, also contends that rationalisation of support infrastructure could also leave the navy unable to respond to an emergent crisis.
Absolutely not. What they are doing is warning that current government policy, if continued, will harm the navy. What you do is claim that the fleet is inevitably doomed to decline into insignificance, often making demonstrably false assumptions, or presenting speculation as fact. They are trying to prevent what they fear may happen. You appear to be glorying in the thought of what you have decided will happen.
overlander
Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,904
I think that you suppose what i am thinking not what in reality I am.
Of course, I don't know what you are thinking. All I know about you is what you post here, & I've formed my opinion from that. If it doesn't represent your true opinions & feelings, why do you not adjust your tone? You've been told before what impression it gives.
Let us pick an example: your recent post in which you claimed that the current government was cutting the number of escorts by half. When challenged, you claimed that no replacement for the remaining Type 22s had been announced, & you assumed that they would be retired without replacement. If we go through this in detail, we find -
1. It included a falsehood, whether intentional or mistaken, i.e. that no replacement for the Type 22s had been announced.
2. Even if your incorrect assumption about the Type 22s was true, the numbers were wrong. To cut numbers by half would mean retiring some Type 23s before any replacement was in service.
3. The timing is wrong. It requires the Labour party to be re-elected (currently a rather remote prospect), or whoever forms the next government to continue cutting.
At each step, you present a worst case, which in some cases is implausible (Labour re-election), & in others plain untrue. It's a consistent pattern, in line with all your other posts. In my experience, anyone who is so relentlessly pessimistic that they find the bad even where it does not exist, finds what they want to find. If it isn't there, they find it anyway, because they want it to be true.
Last edited:
Just saw in my local paper that HMS Exeter the last major front line unit from the Falklands conflict has returned to Portsmouth to be mothballed and most likely scraped.
As far as number of escorts is concerned you have to get a careful balance between capability and numbers. I believe that the navy is a bit short on escorts at the moment I would have liked 8 type 45 to have been built rather than 6. we can build more when a conflict looks likely to start but as the Falklands war proved you can find your self in a sticky situation at very short notice and as it takes several years to design and construct a modern warship I think the Navy should have enough number at all times to protect its vital trade routes and coast as well as being able to protect a task force any where in the world.
As far as number of escorts is concerned you have to get a careful balance between capability and numbers. I believe that the navy is a bit short on escorts at the moment I would have liked 8 type 45 to have been built rather than 6. we can build more when a conflict looks likely to start but as the Falklands war proved you can find your self in a sticky situation at very short notice and as it takes several years to design and construct a modern warship I think the Navy should have enough number at all times to protect its vital trade routes and coast as well as being able to protect a task force any where in the world.
overlander
Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,907
As Swerve and others would say you are talking down the royal navy, the number of escorts is more than enough, the rest is to be pessimistic.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Correct me if i am wrong, but Daring would have an all military crew right now, and if neccessary could be rushed into commission. Dauntless would have a partial military crew by now (about to start sea trials) and in an emergency, could probably be commissioned within a few months.
But the total number of ships in commission, particularly AAW ships is worrying. Maybe they should keep the four better T42B3's in service a bit longer then planned until FSC comes online.
overlander
Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,909
This would be a logical decission, to maintain the 4,s batch 3 but unfortunately at present times is just a dream, I think Manchester will be decommissioned in a few years with the other 3 following as soon as the darings are finished.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Its supposed to be one T42 decommed each year, with i think two in 2010 and the last in 2014
the T42B3 there like T22B3, they are still in good nick had a look around Manchester a few weeks ago and much nicer sea boats than the stubbie boats the officer of the watch said that was the only boat he was ever sea sick on.
Sooner the short T42 leave the happier the sailors will beI didnt mean for it to come across like that, I think we a little bit short on escorts but not massively. I would like to have seen 8 type 45 and around 24 frigates thats not a massive amount more than we have today.
I have been reading some book i got from the library about ship construction and it says that it is difficult to perform self maintenance on the Type 23 due to its design as they where never designed for long global deployments which has caused some maintenance problems does anyone know if this is true?
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
With the apparent obsolescence of the T42's, and with all the ships lost in the falklands being replaced by the more expensive T22's, it would seem that the RN at the time were more interested in point defense rather then Area Defense. Going Along those lines, and with the T45's on order, wouldn't it have made sense to start retiring the B1 and B2 T42's in the early 2000's and keeping the T22B2's (give them a refit to remove Exocet and add a medium gun in its place) and the 3 T23's that were sold off?the T42B3 there like T22B3, they are still in good nick had a look around Manchester a few weeks ago and much nicer sea boats than the stubbie boats the officer of the watch said that was the only boat he was ever sea sick on.
The Sea Wolf seems to be a more capable system then Sea Dart anyway. Plus all the ships in question are newer then the last of the T42B3's by at least 3 years.
The problem with this proposal is that Seawolf has too short a range (6-7km)to protect anything except the ship carrying it, while Sea Dart is a true area air defence weapon, with a range of over 80km. Retire all the Type 42s, & we can't put the amphibious ships, the carriers, or anything else that doesn't have organic air defence within range of an airborne threat.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
You are right of course, i'm just considering that with the lateness of FSC, the more younger and still capable ships being around as possible, would probably be nice right about now.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Have the RN released the timeline for decomissioning the T22B3's and the oldest of the T23's?
Yes, have a look at Beedalls Navy Matters.
Although keeping the Type 42 Batch 3 as AAW Vessels is no go considering the age of their Missile systems, I do see mileage in keeping 2 or 3 of the best Type 42B3's as glorified patrol vessels for lesser duties in the Carribean(sp?) etc. Maybe land the Seadart missiles. Keep them going with a large batch of spares from the other Type 42s until whatever the C3 option of FSC turns out to be to take over from them.
If people think the RN has bad AAW coverage, then some of the navies in the rest of Europe have got bigger problems if you ask me.
Although keeping the Type 42 Batch 3 as AAW Vessels is no go considering the age of their Missile systems, I do see mileage in keeping 2 or 3 of the best Type 42B3's as glorified patrol vessels for lesser duties in the Carribean(sp?) etc. Maybe land the Seadart missiles. Keep them going with a large batch of spares from the other Type 42s until whatever the C3 option of FSC turns out to be to take over from them.
If people think the RN has bad AAW coverage, then some of the navies in the rest of Europe have got bigger problems if you ask me.
You're not wrong ! Give or take a 3 week window, Daring could sail into service....(almost). Dauntless is in the middle of engine testing, due to go on initial sea trials later this year.
FSC...?
Pie in the Sky, at the moment. Until UK Govt decide how they're gonna finance it, The RN decide what they want & the "shipbuilder of choice for the RN" finalises a design to match the RN requirements, your talking a 3 - 5 year minimum before they're probably ready to cut steel, followed by another 2 years in build before it's ready to go sailing.
FSC has always appeared not to be ready / in-service until the 2015 - 2020 window. Unless the RN wants to go down the small hull / limited equipment / < 90 sailors per ship route (i.e. less than 105 Metre hulls), it WON'T be.
SA
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
5 years from now gets us to 2013, add 2 years for building and you go to 2015.
The last 3 T42B3's were all commissioned in 1985, The first T42B3 is to decommission 2011 and last in 2014. The crew of a T42 is roughly 1.7 times the size of the crew of a T23, so if you played the numbers game and kept the three younger T42B3's active for an extra couple of years (2012-2014-->2015-2017) you could crew 5-6 new ships with their smaller crews. The crews of the 4 T22B3's (1.3x the crew of a T23) could crew 5-6 new ships.