Will the RN ever return to strength?

[perfectgeneral]

Have navies lost significance for the UK since WWII or is the steady decline in hulls a measure of the decline in defence spending overall?

I'm convinced that successive UK governments would love to have less and less military capability at their disposal, so that less responsability comes their way and they pay less out. Yet these same governments can't resist strutting the world stage and making grandstand plays. This one could go on until one day the joint chief of staff says, 'We can't do it'.

Is it more likely that UK defence spending will return to 2.5% of GDP (near cash accounting) or that we will drop the spend quietly to 1.5% (like Germany) and use accounting tricks to claim it is more? Can you believe the defence cuts we have had already, during a war?

 

[nz enthusiast]

Sounds like the UK is a bit like NZ at the moment our spending is around 1.5% of GDP, and the government is using fancy words to make it seem like we do alot. Australia seems to be increasing its spending above 2%, which probably in line with it wanting to have the means to protect itself from possible threats up north in Asia. US and China are also increasing 'defence' spending.

 

[corsair7772]

I think thats a bit unfair. The UK navy is still an opponent to fear. Mostly because of their subs i would say. And since falk lands theyve made great improvements in the protection of their task forces. No more point defence systems. All long range. Nothing like a thirld world airforce could get through its dense Interceptor, SAM, EW and CIWS layer as long as the carrier itself remains unchartered.

 

[pepsi]

That new ~60,000t carrier they are making is definately not a step backwards, thats for sure

Though im surprised the decision has been made for it to not be nuclear, with a carrier of that size surely its beneficial to have it nuclear, to hold more fuel for the aircraft and all that stuff

 

[gf0012-aust]

Sounds like the UK is a bit like NZ at the moment our spending is around 1.5% of GDP, and the government is using fancy words to make it seem like we do alot. Australia seems to be increasing its spending above 2%, which probably in line with it wanting to have the means to protect itself from possible threats up north in Asia. US and China are also increasing 'defence' spending.

The poms might have had some of their teeth pulled, but they still are the only other country that is capable of conducting expeditionary warfare on a large scale. No one else comes close.

Once they're digitised with Bowman etc... then they will jump up a few more pegs. In real terms, they are still No2. Russia only has 2nd spot due to nukes, and nukes are a damocles sword anyway.

 

[EnigmaNZ]

Sounds like the UK is a bit like NZ at the moment our spending is around 1.5% of GDP, and the government is using fancy words to make it seem like we do alot. Australia seems to be increasing its spending above 2%, which probably in line with it wanting to have the means to protect itself from possible threats up north in Asia. US and China are also increasing 'defence' spending.

Long term spending is about 0.9% of gdp. GDP $140 billion, Defence $950 million for op, $230 million for cap from depreciation, about $315 million cap charge that is paid back to the gov as assett rental. Lump sums loans for purchases when needed. Was 1.8% back in about 1990, but since then has grown less than inflation, about 2% pa, while GDP growth has been over 4% pa av.
Sorry for hijacking the thread, just needed to answer this.
The Falklands was a real wakeup call to Britian of the value of airpower, and the need to be able to project it long distances. Like the US of recent times, British ships had poor defence against air threats, more cost saving measures. Even today only 1 phalanx is used on a medium sized ship, and 2 on a large, wow, pathetic really, and in some cases they are being removed and replaced with RAM, why not add RAM and keep Phalanx. *bangs head on hard object in fustration*

 

[gf0012-aust]

Like the US of recent times, British ships had poor defence against air threats, more cost saving measures. Even today only 1 phalanx is used on a medium sized ship, and 2 on a large, wow, pathetic really, and in some cases they are being removed and replaced with RAM, why not add RAM and keep Phalanx. *bangs head on hard object in fustration*

I'm a bit fuzzy on where I found this, but I recall that Phalanx was only maintained as a "hail mary" system after they'd conducted some tests which showed that they were not effective on a fast moving heavy sea skimmer.

IIRC a kill was expected to be achieved at 5-800m and the numbers showed that there would be enough kinetic energy and momentum left in a heavy missile to continue on and possibly cause a superstructure/comms mobility kill. In a sense Goalkeeper was seen as superior as it had a heavier round, but had a slower rate of fire. Interestingly enough, the Chinese copied Goalkeeper.

In current SD systems RAM is faster and more accurate and will kill further out.

But, I'm really fuzzy on the source of that info so take it with a pinch of salt.

The advantage of Phalanx is that not only do they have lots of stock, but it is a non intrusive system, so any vessel that has reasonable unassigned deck space can retro fit it - it's also small enough to not dramatically upset a ships vertical centre of gravity too much.

But, if you work on the principle that any defence is worthwhile, then even Phalanx would give you some comfort. Under the new ROE's you certainly wouldn't see a USS Cole scenario again, and you'd not last very long if you got zippered up by one and you were stuck in a small boat intent on trying to put a hole in the hull.

 

[Aussie Digger]

But, if you work on the principle that any defence is worthwhile, then even Phalanx would give you some comfort. Under the new ROE's you certainly wouldn't see a USS Cole scenario again, and you'd not last very long if you got zippered up by one and you were stuck in a small boat intent on trying to put a hole in the hull.

Hence the Block 1B upgrade for the Phalanx. It is now almost as much for use again small attack craft as it is for air defence.

I certainly think that a combination gun/missile system is the way to go. I'm quite fond of overlapping/complementary capabilities for defence, but then some boats (like the ANZAC's) simply don't have the space to mount a gun CIWS AND additional missile CIWS, besides ESSM. I wonder if Australia's new AWD's will mount both?

 

[alexsa]

Even today only 1 phalanx is used on a medium sized ship, and 2 on a large, wow, pathetic really,

Actually until propsoed upgrades are instituted the situation is:

The Aircraft carriers have 3 CIWS (goalkeeper on two ships and phallax on the third).
The LHA (HMS Ocean) has 3 CIWS (Phallax)
The Type 42 have 2 CIWS amidships (phallax) as well as Seadart (old system to be honest).
The Type 22 batch 3 have one goalkeeper and Seawolf (which was built as an close in defence and is being upgraded to maintain its edge)
The Type 23 have Seawolf.
And the new Bay class have one Goalkeeper.

In addition all have a range of automatic weapons. Compared to a lot of USN ships thats not bad. Compared to the unmodified ANZACs its pretty damn good.

 

[Pendekar]

Have navies lost significance for the UK since WWII or is the steady decline in hulls a measure of the decline in defence spending overall

have u consider the addition of the Type 45 destroyers and probably Horizon class frigates? and if u scaled the naval power base on naval aviation, guess what? RN also involved in the VTOL JSF program.

u can't compare the percentage of GDP between 2 different countries like NZ and UK. 1.5% UK GDP might worth more then 3% NZ GDP. the point is, every country has a different GDP.

 

[perfectgeneral]

Phalanx is only fit for RFA oilers, amphibs and supply ships these days. I can't see a decent layered defence forming across the fleet until after (if) the budget cuts are reversed.

Type 45 - the Daring class - 'Destroyers' are big, bad, missile carrying light cruisers by size and weight. They will start service under-equipped just as AAW destroyers, toting Aster 15 and 30. Later versions and refits might involve a 155mm main gun and TLAM, for example.

CVF - the Queen Elizabeth class - heavy carriers will carry an airwing of about 36 JSF and 12 AEW and/or rotorcraft. That could be streached out to 45 JSF and 3 AEW if ASW rotorcraft are based on escorts. France seems very likely to be buying (building 33% of three) one too. The nuclear option costs a lot more and gains little. Modern replenshment at sea is that good.

The cutback to pay for all this on a reduced budget will see escort ship numbers drop to the minimum possible for our treaties and comitments (16 Frigates 8 Destroyers). Jane's describes this as, 'Sailing Close To The Wind'. The money to keep ships actively training at sea is missing. The quality of the RN will suffer. This cut has to be reversed soon.

 

[Ivan Otterstrom]

RN is surely a force to be reckoned with. However, RN may also re-evaluate its function as either a European force of a worldwide force. A European force may not require too many resources.

Comments?

 

[rickusn]

The RN is committed to the following areas:

APT(N)-Caribbean/N.Atlantic(warship prescence recently cut back)
APT(S)-Falklands/S. Atlantic
STANAVFORMED- NATO Squadron in the Mediterranean Sea
Persian Gulf/IO(reduced from two ship prescence to one)
Far East (slated for fewer/smaller deployments than in the past( will also place a bit more emphasis on the IO. Or so I understand from talks with unofficial sources.)
FRE Unit- Ship completely prepared for Rapid/Emergency/short notice response to contingencies and taskings.
STANAVFORLANT- RN has withdrawn from this NATO Squadron in the Atlantic

These six responsibilities require approximately 18(Down from 24) ships to cover with nominally one on deployment, one in refit and one training up.

That leaves seven(six if one T-23 Frigate is placed in ROS) ships for all other duties including Home Waters Patrol, Allied Exercises, Carrier and Amphibious Task Groups. Not to mention retaining a semblance of a " war surge" capability.

With the upcoming decommissioning of the carrier HMS Invincible some stress will also be reduced though most of the time only one carrier has been fully operational even with three in-commission.

Notice that the 13(2 AE, 2 AOR, 2(new) AO, 4(older)AO and 3 AO(small) ship logistic vessel strength has yet to be cut and that is the key to continuous, sustained world-wide naval operations.

Note: The small AO Grey Rover is slated to go out of service in 2006. And the other two plus the 4 older AO's are scheduled for decommissioning in 2009-2010. These seven ships are slated to be replaced by the MARS program but it hasnt yet been officially defined yet much less fully designed and under construction.

From official RN site (Note: text in () is mine):

"Two new purpose-built Fast Fleet Tankers joined the flotilla in 2002 - RFA (AO's) Wave Knight, launched at Barrow in September 2000, and RFA Wave Ruler, launched at Govan in February 2001. These 31,500-tonne ships are diesel-electric powered, with three refueling rigs, and aviation facilities to operate Merlin helicopters. They are proving to be a great asset to the Royal Navy Fleet.

The four fleet support tankers, RFAs (AO"s) Bayleaf, Brambleleaf, Oakleaf, and Orangeleaf were all built as commercial tankers, but underwent conversion to bring them to RFA standards and equip them for naval support when they entered RFA service. One of this class is normally based permanently in the Gulf to support the Royal Navy’s Armilla Patrol ships.

The three small fleet tankers, RFAs (AO's) Black Rover, Gold Rover, and Grey Rover complete the tanker fleet. These ships, too, are normally deployed away for long periods, one to support the Falkland Islands Guard ship and another with West Indies Guard ship.

(Note: Black Rover is currently deploying to the Far East with HMS York.)

RFAs (AOR's) Fort Victoria and Fort George are combined fleet support tanker and stores ships, designed to give “one-stop†support to naval task groups. Large ships of 31,500 tonnes displacement, they are able to supply both fuel and stores to ships at sea.

The other two Fort class ships, RFAs (AE's) Fort Austin and Fort Rosalie, are fleet support stores ships to replenish warships with stores such as food, spare parts and ammunition. "

Hope this is accurate and helpful.

 

[Aussie Digger]

The RN is planning on only a single new OPV to replace HMS Dumbarton Castle and HMS Leeds Castle for the Falklands Patrol duties, so this "may" require an additional frigate or destroyer for Atlantic Patrol South, in order to meet all their current patrol duties, or else as usual they will simply cut back on their ability to patrol as widely and as often as they once did...

 

[Nautilus]

The way I understand it (from numerous print articles) is that the surface fleet was cut back to enable funding for the CVF program. Sure the RN didn't like it but it was a necessary step. Keep in mind that the two CVF's have a projected life span of 50 years. Twice the life span of a RN frigate. Once the two carriers are built, it should be possible to bring the surface fleet back to a higher level (assuming the UK economy is doing alright).

Replacing the aging SSBN's will be just as costly and rather difficult to sell to the UK public (imho) as the cold war is over. Design would have to start around now to enable replacement of the old units on time but I doubt that funding will be made available over the coming year(s) given the CVF program is a critical point.

I have read somewhere that a combined SSN + SSBN design is being considered to cut cost. I don't think this makes sense from an operational perspective. Instead I'd look into cooperation with either the USA (more likely) or France to design a new class of SSBN's.

 

[Defcon 6]

I'm a bit fuzzy on where I found this, but I recall that Phalanx was only maintained as a "hail mary" system after they'd conducted some tests which showed that they were not effective on a fast moving heavy sea skimmer.

IIRC a kill was expected to be achieved at 5-800m and the numbers showed that there would be enough kinetic energy and momentum left in a heavy missile to continue on and possibly cause a superstructure/comms mobility kill. In a sense Goalkeeper was seen as superior as it had a heavier round, but had a slower rate of fire. Interestingly enough, the Chinese copied Goalkeeper.

In current SD systems RAM is faster and more accurate and will kill further out.

But, I'm really fuzzy on the source of that info so take it with a pinch of salt.

The advantage of Phalanx is that not only do they have lots of stock, but it is a non intrusive system, so any vessel that has reasonable unassigned deck space can retro fit it - it's also small enough to not dramatically upset a ships vertical centre of gravity too much.

But, if you work on the principle that any defence is worthwhile, then even Phalanx would give you some comfort. Under the new ROE's you certainly wouldn't see a USS Cole scenario again, and you'd not last very long if you got zippered up by one and you were stuck in a small boat intent on trying to put a hole in the hull.

The way you talked with me about Phalanx you made it sound far worse than that.

How effective is mounting more CIWS guns, and does anyone know anything about the BAE 57mm CIWS? if Aegis can track hundreds of targets, will it make better use of multiple gun emplacements?

 

[gmlevan]

The RN would be no where near its size today if it was not for the Falkland Island conflict. This conflict made the UK gov. see the importance of haivng a fleet that could attack. They were going to down size the RN to make it part of a NATO defese strartegy. The FL war made the RN stay afloat.

 

[perfectgeneral]

have u consider the addition of the Type 45 destroyers and probably Horizon class frigates? and if u scaled the naval power base on naval aviation, guess what? RN also involved in the VTOL JSF program.

u can't compare the percentage of GDP between 2 different countries like NZ and UK. 1.5% UK GDP might worth more then 3% NZ GDP. the point is, every country has a different GDP.

The Type 45 (6 vessels) replaces the Type 42 (8 left) and is an alternative to the Horizon frigate that was cancelled.

On a positive note the Type 45 is about the size of a light cruiser (ideal for carrier escort) with a maximum displacement of 8000 tonnes (5,800 tonnes light). These are bare bones vessels however, that in no way represent cruisers in there current specification. There is talk (as usual) of them being kitted out later (perhaps just the last batch - to avoid retrofit) to be more capable.

The RN has had to slash every budget to get CVF onto the drawing board (and it isn't off it yet!). The Type 23 frigates will be cut further in number (before their time) on the promise of a (as yet unplanned) future surface combatant. A large corvette would fit the trend/pattern.

The use of electric drive makes the conversion of CVF to nuclear power theoretically possible, but the cost of fuel oil will have to rise a great deal more before it looks the cheaper option.

If you want a link you could do worse than:
http://navy-matters.beedall.com
The Type 45 stuff starts at:
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/daring1-1.htm