The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

John Fedup said:

Giving up the nuclear deterrent option by cancelling the Dreadnought class would certainly free up lots of cash for the UK government but there is no guarantee this money would go towards properly funding the RN's other programs. The merits and politics of such a decision, I don't know.

Click to expand...

I don't see the UK giving up the sea based nuclear deterrence, but wonder why their was not a joint US/UK programme to offset a number of cost for both nations, surely their was more merit in a joint programme than just the Common Missile Compartment.

StobieWan said:

Neither of the QEC's will be sold - the entire planning has been around getting a carrier capability with a high availability. It's not happening, find some other place to resume the usual Oz carrier routine please.

Click to expand...

To be honest, I would be less surprised if the RN was increased in size and capability rather than cut as things appear to have reached the point that even members of the public seem to realise there is an issue.

Volkodav said:

Ironically the Type 21 was planned with Seawolf and as a fast Sloop, i.e. small destroyer capable of air, ASW and anti-surface operations, rather than a single role frigate. The unbuilt batch II was a very impressive design.

Click to expand...

I was on exchange and a few of my PWO class mates were posted to T21s.
I have to say they were more yachtlike than warlike and once fitted with Exocet there would have been little room for extra weapons. Something would have to be sacrificed to fit Seawolf,
In 1978/9 Seawolf was having very severe problems with serviceability. The first T22 s, Broadsword IIRC couldn’t get the thing to work once all the boffins left. The missile was relatively simple but the shipborne systems were hugely complex. They were becoming very cynical. Early days were not easy.
But back to T21. They were very suitable for sovereignty patrols but had some severe limitations as high end war fighters and I ardently hope the RN has learned that lesson when the final iteration of T31 is rolled out

ASSAIL said:

I was on exchange and a few of my PWO class mates were posted to T21s.
I have to say they were more yachtlike than warlike and once fitted with Exocet there would have been little room for extra weapons. Something would have to be sacrificed to fit Seawolf,
In 1978/9 Seawolf was having very severe problems with serviceability. The first T22 s, Broadsword IIRC couldn’t get the thing to work once all the boffins left. The missile was relatively simple but the shipborne systems were hugely complex. They were becoming very cynical. Early days were not easy.
But back to T21. They were very suitable for sovereignty patrols but had some severe limitations as high end war fighters and I ardently hope the RN has learned that lesson when the final iteration of T31 is rolled out

Click to expand...

Never seen the word "ardently" used more appropriatly.

t68 said:

I don't see the UK giving up the sea based nuclear deterrence, but wonder why their was not a joint US/UK programme to offset a number of cost for both nations, surely their was more merit in a joint programme than just the Common Missile Compartment.

Click to expand...

Even though both are close allies, submarine technology is one of a nation's most valuable and closely held secrets, especially when it comes to boomers. Just the fact the US shares reactor technology and the D5 is pretty amazing. Joint production of SSBNs would have enabled the US to committ more resources to the urgently needed Virginia SSNs however.

Big tanker 39000 tons ! i don't think all RFA ships homeported to Portland a little port someone know please ?




The Royal Navy has commissioned its second Tide-class tanker RFA Tiderace in a dedication ceremony in Portland.

Second Tide-class tanker RFA Tiderace enters service

Most RFAs are homeported at Marchwood or Falmouth I think.

t68 said:

I don't see the UK giving up the sea based nuclear deterrence, but wonder why their was not a joint US/UK programme to offset a number of cost for both nations, surely their was more merit in a joint programme than just the Common Missile Compartment.

Click to expand...

Just a thought

Maybe there is merit in limiting the nuclear deterrence to Tomahawks fired form the new Astute class.
A case of comparing apples and oranges maybe, but the benefit would be increased numbers of attack submarines and extra funds to be spread around the rest of defence.
All up a more flexible and appropriate deterrence
A submarine launched tomahawk will geographically still reach most potential adversaries and should be enough to stare down some one else with the figure on the trigger.
The cost of four new mega subs may be a bridge too far without compromising a balance defence force for the 21st Century.
The UK may need to make that call.

Regards S

I don’t see them giving up the SSBN’s in a hurry, being able to turn large parts of any country you so choose into a parking lot within 30-40 minutes is a pretty big deterrent.

I would be surprised if there is a successor program to Dreadnaught though, I would question how long a Ballistic missile will remain a viable strike option into the future with current missile defence programs.

It will be interesting to see how big production hypersonic missiles turn out to be, how manoeuvrable they are and how quickly they proliferate. They should be much harder to detect and harder to shoot down, still a massive thermal profile though.

StevoJH said:

I don’t see them giving up the SSBN’s in a hurry, being able to turn large parts of any country you so choose into a parking lot within 30-40 minutes is a pretty big deterrent.

I would be surprised if there is a successor program to Dreadnaught though, I would question how long a Ballistic missile will remain a viable strike option into the future with current missile defence programs.

It will be interesting to see how big production hypersonic missiles turn out to be, how manoeuvrable they are and how quickly they proliferate. They should be much harder to detect and harder to shoot down, still a massive thermal profile though.

Click to expand...

Honestly, I do not see first world ballistic missile capabilities being effectively countered by BMD programmes anytime soon. If the RN were to launch a full scale nuclear strike from the Vanguard-class SSBN's, that would be four subs firing 16 ballistic missiles each, or a total of 64 ballistic missiles, each of which can a dozen nuclear MIRV warheads. What this in turn means is that unless the full scale strike could be engaged during the boost phase before the warheads separate, the RN boomers could launch up to 768 nuclear warheads of 100 kilotons or more.

Given that the accuracy of current BMD systems suggests firing four interceptors per inbound, that would require over 3,000 interceptors to deal with just the UK's boomer's. Now if future MIRV warheads are smaller, and/or the launching ballistic missile is larger, then that could mean even more inbound warheads in the future.

At some point, the difficulties in detecting, tracking, and then accurately engaging ballistic missile warheads get to the point in which there is no real, effective BMD options. The expensive work started by the 43rd POTUS (USD$40 bil. by now, if not more) was for a comparatively limited system which could engage a small number of fairly large and inaccurate ICBM's that might be launched by Iran and/or N. Korea. What I say a small number, I am talking about ballistic missile numbers likely in the single digits with a single, non-MIRV warhead. Once capabilities are developed which multiply the number of warheads being launched/carried, it can become very easy to make the interceptor requirements unmanageable.

Stampede said:

Just a thought

Maybe there is merit in limiting the nuclear deterrence to Tomahawks fired form the new Astute class.
A case of comparing apples and oranges maybe, but the benefit would be increased numbers of attack submarines and extra funds to be spread around the rest of defence.
All up a more flexible and appropriate deterrence
A submarine launched tomahawk will geographically still reach most potential adversaries and should be enough to stare down some one else with the figure on the trigger.
The cost of four new mega subs may be a bridge too far without compromising a balance defence force for the 21st Century.
The UK may need to make that call.

Regards S

Click to expand...

No, no, no and a thousand times no - either give up nuclear patrols and strike capability entirely or do it properly with CASD - nuclear armed cruise missiles don't cut it and I'd sooner just not run a nuclear capability than hobble the RN with a half way house like cruise missiles.

Todjaeger said:

Honestly, I do not see first world ballistic missile capabilities being effectively countered by BMD programmes anytime soon. If the RN were to launch a full scale nuclear strike from the Vanguard-class SSBN's, that would be four subs firing 16 ballistic missiles each, or a total of 64 ballistic missiles, each of which can a dozen nuclear MIRV warheads. What this in turn means is that unless the full scale strike could be engaged during the boost phase before the warheads separate, the RN boomers could launch up to 768 nuclear warheads of 100 kilotons or more.

Given that the accuracy of current BMD systems suggests firing four interceptors per inbound, that would require over 3,000 interceptors to deal with just the UK's boomer's. Now if future MIRV warheads are smaller, and/or the launching ballistic missile is larger, then that could mean even more inbound warheads in the future.

At some point, the difficulties in detecting, tracking, and then accurately engaging ballistic missile warheads get to the point in which there is no real, effective BMD options. The expensive work started by the 43rd POTUS (USD$40 bil. by now, if not more) was for a comparatively limited system which could engage a small number of fairly large and inaccurate ICBM's that might be launched by Iran and/or N. Korea. What I say a small number, I am talking about ballistic missile numbers likely in the single digits with a single, non-MIRV warhead. Once capabilities are developed which multiply the number of warheads being launched/carried, it can become very easy to make the interceptor requirements unmanageable.

Click to expand...

I think you will find that after the 2010 SDSR the UK has only 48 Trident Missiles and180 Warheads and the Boats go on Patrol with only 8 Missiles and 40 Warheads

58 Trident II in service i have ?

Redlands18 said:

I think you will find that after the 2010 SDSR the UK has only 48 Trident Missiles and180 Warheads and the Boats go on Patrol with only 8 Missiles and 40 Warheads

Click to expand...

Operating with a couple of assumptions, namely that (according to some US documentation) some ground-based missile interceptors can reach approximately 97% accuracy if fired in volleys of four missiles at a BMD target, and therefore 180 warheads would require 720 interceptors and leaves 5 to 6 warheads to slip through, which do you think is more achievable?

Increasing the number of warheads available for use/in inventory, so that all 48 SLBM's can be fitted with five warheads on average (raising the warhead total to 240 or increasing by 60) or increasing the number of interceptors by 240+, which would then likely permit 7 leakers.

The reality is that BMD is very much a numbers game, with the numbers favouring the ballistic missiles and the side that launched them. An opponent trying to design a BMD system to counter the UK's SLBM capability, and designing the BMD capacity based around the UK only having 48 SLBM and 180 warheads is designing a system to fail. The UK has spare capacity in terms of SLBM's which can be carried and launched so if a potential adversary looks as though they could be able to defend against the current UK nuclear arsenal (which might or might not be an accurate total, for secrecy reasons...) the UK could increase the number of Tridents in inventory so that all four Vanguard-class SSBN's could be loaded with ballistic missiles if needed, as opposed to just three. By the same token, the current numbers suggest that the Tridents carried are normally loaded with only five MIRV's, leaving space for up seven additional warheads, decoys, or a mix. In many regards, it would likely be easy (by comparison at least) to raise the total of carried warheads/decoys to overload and overwhelm a potential adversary's BMD system.

Even if, during a time of rising tensions and with adversaries arming themselves with BMD systems a patrol were to be send out with only eight SLBM's aboard, carrying a total of 40 actual warheads, if the other seven spaces aboard the SLBM's were filled with decoys, that would likely require nearly 400 interceptors.

StobieWan said:

No, no, no and a thousand times no - either give up nuclear patrols and strike capability entirely or do it properly with CASD - nuclear armed cruise missiles don't cut it and I'd sooner just not run a nuclear capability than hobble the RN with a half way house like cruise missiles.

Click to expand...

I appreciate the response and can only politely disagree.
I think there is a good case to put forward, that the expense of replacing the Vanguard class and associated Missiles and systems actually hobbles a balanced UK defence force unless there is a massive injection of cash.
If funds are limited then do justice to existing and proposed capabilities.
Fund and crew the carriers with realistic numbers of aircraft, provide the surface escorts they will need ,and maintain the amphibious fleet, both for now and fund their replacements.
Add numbers to the Astute class
Keep the Marines both in force size and equipped for the modern battle space.
Fleet auxiliary and coastal patrol vessels all have a role to play and offer much to the situation at hand.
Investing a bucket of cash and compromising the above to provide a massive nuclear deterrent seems a niche capability from another era..
Tomahawks off the Astute class still have a deterrence capability as do modern professional conventional forces.
Its the later that provides greater options to land and sea grabs by unsavoury large bullies.

Time for the UK to ask this question.



Regards S

Agree, the question should be asked.

Stampede said:

I appreciate the response and can only politely disagree.
I think there is a good case to put forward, that the expense of replacing the Vanguard class and associated Missiles and systems actually hobbles a balanced UK defence force unless there is a massive injection of cash.
If funds are limited then do justice to existing and proposed capabilities.
Fund and crew the carriers with realistic numbers of aircraft, provide the surface escorts they will need ,and maintain the amphibious fleet, both for now and fund their replacements.
Add numbers to the Astute class
Keep the Marines both in force size and equipped for the modern battle space.
Fleet auxiliary and coastal patrol vessels all have a role to play and offer much to the situation at hand.
Investing a bucket of cash and compromising the above to provide a massive nuclear deterrent seems a niche capability from another era..
Tomahawks off the Astute class still have a deterrence capability as do modern professional conventional forces.
Its the later that provides greater options to land and sea grabs by unsavoury large bullies.

Time for the UK to ask this question.



Regards S

Click to expand...

It is fair that people ask whether the UK should maintain a nuclear deterrence or not. However, if it is deemed that the UK should maintain a nuclear deterrence, then it should be a proper deterrence, which would mean a SSBN force, SLBM's and the option for MIRV's.

There is a significant difference between how a SSBN carries out a nuclear deterrence patrol, and how an SSN carries out a patrol.

When comparing the nuclear warhead delivery capabilities of a Tomahawk cruise missile and a Trident II SLBM, they are orders of magnitude different, to the point that MAD is not guaranteed if attempting to deter an adversary armed with ICBM's or SLBM's using cruise missiles.

A single Astute-class SSN can carry a maximum of 38 Tomahawk cruise missiles, at the expense of all other ordnance (like torpedoes) an SSN would normally carry. These 38 Tomahawks could each have a single nuclear warhead, and had a max range of perhaps 2,500 km. That comparatively short range would require nuclear deterrence patrols be conducted fairly close to the shores of some potential adversary nations. OTOH a single Vanguard-class SSBN, even only carrying half the max number of potential SLBM's, and each SLBM having less than half the max number of MIRV's (five out of a possible dozen) would still be carrying two more nuclear warheads, but more importantly, can launch those SLBM's from a comparatively 'safe' distance where the SSBN would be unlikely to be detected prior to launch. IMO just as important is that a warhead from a SLBM can be on target thousands of km's away within about 20 minutes, while a Tomahawk cruise missile would take over two hours to reach a target 2,000 km away and provide an adversary a significant window of opportunity to respond/intercept the cruise missiles.

Todjaeger said:

It is fair that people ask whether the UK should maintain a nuclear deterrence or not. However, if it is deemed that the UK should maintain a nuclear deterrence, then it should be a proper deterrence, which would mean a SSBN force, SLBM's and the option for MIRV's.

There is a significant difference between how a SSBN carries out a nuclear deterrence patrol, and how an SSN carries out a patrol.

When comparing the nuclear warhead delivery capabilities of a Tomahawk cruise missile and a Trident II SLBM, they are orders of magnitude different, to the point that MAD is not guaranteed if attempting to deter an adversary armed with ICBM's or SLBM's using cruise missiles.

A single Astute-class SSN can carry a maximum of 38 Tomahawk cruise missiles, at the expense of all other ordnance (like torpedoes) an SSN would normally carry. These 38 Tomahawks could each have a single nuclear warhead, and had a max range of perhaps 2,500 km. That comparatively short range would require nuclear deterrence patrols be conducted fairly close to the shores of some potential adversary nations. OTOH a single Vanguard-class SSBN, even only carrying half the max number of potential SLBM's, and each SLBM having less than half the max number of MIRV's (five out of a possible dozen) would still be carrying two more nuclear warheads, but more importantly, can launch those SLBM's from a comparatively 'safe' distance where the SSBN would be unlikely to be detected prior to launch. IMO just as important is that a warhead from a SLBM can be on target thousands of km's away within about 20 minutes, while a Tomahawk cruise missile would take over two hours to reach a target 2,000 km away and provide an adversary a significant window of opportunity to respond/intercept the cruise missiles.

Click to expand...

2500km wont reach very far into either Russia or China, the 2 most likely Countries that the UK deterent is aimed at.

Stampede said:

I appreciate the response and can only politely disagree.
I think there is a good case to put forward, that the expense of replacing the Vanguard class and associated Missiles and systems actually hobbles a balanced UK defence force unless there is a massive injection of cash.
If funds are limited then do justice to existing and proposed capabilities.
Fund and crew the carriers with realistic numbers of aircraft, provide the surface escorts they will need ,and maintain the amphibious fleet, both for now and fund their replacements.
Add numbers to the Astute class
Keep the Marines both in force size and equipped for the modern battle space.
Fleet auxiliary and coastal patrol vessels all have a role to play and offer much to the situation at hand.
Investing a bucket of cash and compromising the above to provide a massive nuclear deterrent seems a niche capability from another era..
Tomahawks off the Astute class still have a deterrence capability as do modern professional conventional forces.
Its the later that provides greater options to land and sea grabs by unsavoury large bullies.

Time for the UK to ask this question.



Regards S

Click to expand...

I'm perfectly open to having the discussion but a cruise missile would require a new warhead design and that's a billion plus in change already, then there's no missile in production (the US scrapped all their nuclear tipped TLAM) So, more production effort. That added to the fact that a cruise missile can't do the job of anything other than a first strike reliably means it's not an option for a deterrent, neither is it cheap.

I'm saying either do away with nuclear attack or do it right - I am not saying there's no room for discussion - instead I'm contributing to that discussion by pointing out that the option of using cruise missiles has already been considered and ruled out as not cost effective in a prior study.

Right now, we've got all the expensive bits already worked out - ie, a working and proven SLBM, warheads to match. Scrapping Trident is roughly cost neutral as if you choose to do away with it, you then have to face the costs of decommissioning a ton of stuff related to the supply chain and you'd not see any savings for thirty or more years (again, this has been studied)

Scrapping Trident = saving money isn't as straight forward as that I'm afraid and bringing a new cruise missile warhead into being will cost about the same as a Successor sub. We've already got leases on Trident missiles so there's no need to factor in replacements for them at this time -we just need to design and test Successor with the CMC - and from that we get a more modern reactor design which would feed forward into replacements for Astute in the future.

Either do it right (CASD) or give up on nuclear weapons - the half way house of a cruise missile tipped with a warhead is just wasted money.

Todjaeger said:

It is fair that people ask whether the UK should maintain a nuclear deterrence or not. However, if it is deemed that the UK should maintain a nuclear deterrence, then it should be a proper deterrence, which would mean a SSBN force, SLBM's and the option for MIRV's.

There is a significant difference between how a SSBN carries out a nuclear deterrence patrol, and how an SSN carries out a patrol.
.

Click to expand...

I agree entirely which then begs the question, why should the RN alone carry the budget expense of the nuclear deterrent? I think there was previous comment on this subject some time ago.
The deterrent is a whole of nation choice and responsibility so in my opinion it should be budgeted as a stand alone defence item and removed from the RN budget.
This discussion over the last few posts arises from a drain of resources away from the conventional RN which has suffered a severe opportunity cost by standing up the bombers and preventing a better balanced ORBAT.