Rest in peace RN :-(

[abc123]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11 ... with-guns/

Well, the title say's it all....

But I find this quote interesting:

Rear-Adml Chris Parry, said: "It's a significant capability gap and the Government is being irresponsible. It just shows that our warships are for the shop window and not for fighting."

Now, some gentlemen here have been saying about French, Italian, German, Spanish etc ships, what? Just for shop window and support of industry?

At least they have bloody missiles...

[marktigger]

prime minister in PMQ's failed to answer the question and didn't recognise the scenario so obviously not briefed on it

[abc123]

prime minister in PMQ's failed to answer the question and didn't recognise the scenario so obviously not briefed on it

Why am I not surprised?

[Spinflight]

A spokesman for the Navy said: “All Royal Navy ships carry a range of offensive and defensive weapons systems. Backed by a rising defence budget and a £178 billion equipment plan, upgrade options to all our weapons are kept under constant review.”

More like a spokesman for the Ministry of Dunces.

It's.... Embarrassing. Sadly not surprising.

[abc123]

A spokesman for the Navy said: “All Royal Navy ships carry a range of offensive and defensive weapons systems. Backed by a rising defence budget and a £178 billion equipment plan, upgrade options to all our weapons are kept under constant review.”

More like a spokesman for the Ministry of Dunces.

It's.... Embarrassing. Sadly not surprising.

It's the same mantra they keep saying all the time, probably thinking that if they say it enough times, it will become a truth. It won't.

UK defence budget isn't rising and what the UK get's for that eye watering amount of money? I dare to say that the UK is the world's champion in spending a lot and getting surprisingly little in return.
That's when they do spend.

When they don't, then you get ships without missiles. In damn 21st Century.

[marktigger]

yea[ Aircraft carrier Blah Blah Blah, New Submarines Blah Blah Blah F35 Blah Blah Blah you can almost write the party line with out reference to the MoD

[donald_of_tokyo]

Looking at the gaps RN are going have in many fields frequently (SSM, Maritime Patrol Aircraft, Harrier/F35B, SeaSqua/SeaVenom, AEW (? was it solved?) ), I am inclined to admit, RN is either underfunded (of course) or looking too high.

I think RN is looking "too high", making it unaffordable. RN should not be a big castle made of sand. It shall be a little smaller castle made with rocks.

Thus, RN shall better;
- forget about "2 CVF" and let it "1+1 in reserve" --> this will significantly reduce man-power crisis. Also with less operation cost (fuel etc), it will even save the whole SSM issue. F35 number can also be reduced, in long term.
- forget about "19 escorts" and admit "16 hi-end" (= 6 T45 and 10 T26) + a few (3) up-gunned River OPV Batch.3. In other words, disband 2 T23 NOW without CAMM modernization --> freeing up modernization cost, further relaxing man-power issue, or even reducing the man-power as a whole (they shall go to RFA).

A fleet must be "well-balanced". That is the lessons learned on Falklands war. Gap is critical. It is not just a number of escorts. It is the equipments, training, and logistic chains. I think SSM gap is unacceptable, especially in a sense it is very cheap. Actually, it is only getting a few dozens of Harpoons (only a few dozens of million dollars in total) to be kept for another 10 years or so. 30-40 M GBP for ten years, what is the problem? There are many Harpoon B1C to be used for more than 10 years world-wide, so it is not a technical issue. It is just a cost issue = RN's "will".

We see too many gaps now and then. It is clear HMG cannot afford the RN we think of.

It's time to re-think. Let's be realistic.

[Spinflight]

It isn't a matter of underfunding per se though.

It's the serial incompetence of defence acquisition which doesn't learn from past mistakes and compounds them with barely an eye to future effects. Whether that be slowing down work on the Astute's, Carriers, Type 26s or the constant kneejerk scrappings usually straight after expensive refits. The contractual cockups with the Type 45s and their testing. Someone should post a thread for a definitive list of MoD failures.

A few few years ago I was in a bar in Sri Lanka and the bar staff were hooting with laughter over the MoD cock ups. It was funny at the time but coming back to my original point, it's also embarrassing.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Mistake must be cured. But, I do not expect MODs mistakes to decrease. That is another issue, almost unrelated to the current problem.

What I think is, there is clear "indecision". There are two aspects to my point of view: lack of resource allocation, and lack of "real".

- Too strong tendency to look for "the best solution" --> needs time and money, in many case with delays --> then gap the real life needs.

This is the case we see many times. But we must

- Spot the "needs", "no gap" is the TOP LEVEL REQUIREMENT --> need project-A by the time B, procure it to meet that dead line --> if there is a delay, say happy to invest on interim solution project-C, and get it by the time B. No resource? Be happy to CUT THE ORIGINAL "BEST" solution-A. It is not the best solution anymore, because it could not meet the top level requirement for NO GAP.

For example, why not go for NSM NOW or why not buy (only) 50 Harpoons, even ex-used Block 1C/D NOW. MBDA Perseus is the best? It does not meet the schedule, so just forget it. IT DOES NOT MEET OUR REQUIREMENT = NOT TO GAP. (actually skip it another 10 years = in total 20 years, to make it NSM replacement).

Gapping is equivalent to just "praying" that there will be no war within several years. Good, If you can rely on that "pray", why no do it FOREVER ? = the whole armed forces can be disbanded, and huge savings comes in.

No it will not go that way. Gapping is abandoning the real life. Gapping is declaring it is NOT NEEDED.

ADD: Sorry I may be saying to much. "Not able to pay a small amount of money to extend Harpoon", this fact make me feel MOD/RNs "irresponsibility". If MOD is not providing resource, RN must provide it internally, by disbanding something, and say, "because HMG did not provide resource we put top level on it, we cannot meat the HMG's requirement. Sorry sir this is the reality".

Solution here will be to either "add resource" or "reduce requirement". I think we are already at a point to adopt the second choice, I'm afraid.

This is my point.

[Spinflight]

Response from an MoD civil servant on another forum...

"Some key points to note here. Firstly, the RN has known about this impending retir,ent for many years. It has delegated authority in its budget to find and buy replacements. It has repeatedly chosen not to, preferring instead to fund other more relevant capability.

The Harpoon is an excllent 50 year old design if you are fighting a blue water open ocean force, with no third party ships, no complex roe problems and a comfort that if you fire it, and it decides to hit a different target, or ehat you thought was a Kirov is actually a fisherman from Skegness,then you wont end up being done for war crimes.

The RN has never fired a single 'heavy' ASM in nearly 50 years of operating them against an enemy ship. Nor for that matter has any other NATO ship (may have tp check on the USN) and in the rest of the world no one else seems to have fired them except some air Launched exocet in the 1980s in the Gulf and Falklands.

The areas we work in are hugely complex and rely on good ISR whilst the threat we will shoot against is far more likely to be a FIaC swarm and not a single escort ship. This target set requires a completely different set of kit, and this is whwre guns and lightweight missiles are essential. I suspect getting Sea Venom in will become extremely important. I am not worried about the loss of Harpoon and neither is any Warfare Officer that I have spoken to on this."

[Engaging Strategy]

Response from an MoD civil servant on another forum...

"Some key points to note here. Firstly, the RN has known about this impending retir,ent for many years. It has delegated authority in its budget to find and buy replacements. It has repeatedly chosen not to, preferring instead to fund other more relevant capability.

The Harpoon is an excllent 50 year old design if you are fighting a blue water open ocean force, with no third party ships, no complex roe problems and a comfort that if you fire it, and it decides to hit a different target, or ehat you thought was a Kirov is actually a fisherman from Skegness,then you wont end up being done for war crimes.

The RN has never fired a single 'heavy' ASM in nearly 50 years of operating them against an enemy ship. Nor for that matter has any other NATO ship (may have tp check on the USN) and in the rest of the world no one else seems to have fired them except some air Launched exocet in the 1980s in the Gulf and Falklands.

The areas we work in are hugely complex and rely on good ISR whilst the threat we will shoot against is far more likely to be a FIaC swarm and not a single escort ship. This target set requires a completely different set of kit, and this is whwre guns and lightweight missiles are essential. I suspect getting Sea Venom in will become extremely important. I am not worried about the loss of Harpoon and neither is any Warfare Officer that I have spoken to on this."

^THIS.

Everyone's initial reaction to the Harpoon issue is to flail and screaming blue murder about capability cutting. After pausing and actually thinking about it it's pretty obvious that heavyweight AShM aren't especially relevant. The RN has probably had one of the best records of sinking enemy ships over the last 40 years or so. It's always been done with either torpedoes fired from an SSN or helicopter-launched missiles. Not once have we ever fired an SSM in anger.

Frankly, if we're in serious need of a heavy anti-ship missile the best place for it is on an F-35 flown from the carrier. Able to strike well beyond the range of contemporary Russian and Chinese systems (unlike Blk 1C Harpoon) and limited to the force intended for high intensity war fighting.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Spinflight-san

Thanks. Interesting read. May be he is right, but may be he is just following my criticism = Looking for the best, forgetting the real/Today.

Then,
- why RN added Harpoon to 4 T45s? If he is correct, it was completely a waste of money. If RN did not do it, maybe another 1 Merlin could be upgraded to HM.2 standard?
- why not extend SeaSqua to meet SeaVenom entrance date? In other words, why not implement SeaSqua to Wildcat? Good point saying for tight ROE. But that means, RN need to buy a new SSM to meet that ROE. It has nothing to do with Harpoon disbanding. If Harpoon does not meet requirement, it must have been disbanded years ago. But, USN is still using it. Why? Maybe because they are thinking about using it in top-tier war, where there is no Merchant vessel in the vicinity. For "peace time war", USN and RN shall just use guns and laser guided bombs for now. USN is not disbanding harpoon for it. It is different story, I guess.
- There is no SSM in the horizon. Why not buy 50 NSMs now, which have "two-way networking data link". Duplication with the LAM/SSM to be equipped on Mk.41 VLS? It is very small problem compared to getting a Gap. Looking too much for "the best", again.

Uhm, I think I shall go to sleep. I look like too much exited. Not good thing for discussion.

[marktigger]

it is the problem with Un manned vehicles without any visual recognition system fire and forget is one thing but if the the Lock is broken or it just locks onto the largest radar return you could take out a tanker or cruise ship thats in the vacinity like Atlantic conveyor. (also reason the Large RFA's need protection like missiles and CIWS)
But yes procurement has been a mess and the navy has been blinded by the carrier program with everything sacrificed to get the carrier program. But then ministers and the treasury have been guilty of cutting naval funding . Dangling the carriers infront of the admirals and encouraging them to slash the fleet much more probably than they had ever hoped!

[RetroSicotte]

I've said this about other capability "gaps" (12 years is not a "gap", it's a loss) on this forum when the "Lets try and make this not sound as bad to defend Britain online" thing crops up.

If these were not considered essential bits of kit then every single leading navy in the world who uses, upgrades, retains and develops them would not be doing just that.

The UK is not some special godlike race of people who function on a higher level of understanding than other countries, most especially the US with the USN. It is not "doctrine", it is not "they are irrelevant and only the UK is smart enough to figure it out!" The USN has explicitly stated that they are more important than ever and are putting enormous resources towards catching up with other nations who have soared ahead.

It is cost cutting to try and have 13 ships they can call frigates.

That is literally all it is. It's as sad, boring and capability destroying as that.

[Spinflight]

Well nothing has ever been the MoD's fault.

They've always been more interested in protecting their own backs and pensions.

Do you really think anyone was ever fired over snatch land rovers or myriad other decisions that have stained their hands in blood?

It's always been done with either torpedoes fired from an SSN or helicopter-launched missiles. Not once have we ever fired an SSM in anger.

We don't have many subs at sea at any one time and merely the inconvenience of inclement weather nullifies his argument. We've fielded SSMs for more than 50 years, merely the capability is a deterrent.

Legalistic bollocks and raising the threat of civilian casualties is contemptible given that we are putting our own servicemen at risk.

Still, it's just the sort of gut wrenching spin you expect from them isn't it?

Anyone know just how much of the defence budget goes towards these parasites?

[WhitestElephant]

@donald_of_tokyo

I agree with you and am likewise inclined to think the Royal Navy is too large for the resources currently allocated to it. I would rather have a slightly smaller navy done right, with no capability gaps, rather than what we have now; an already small-ish navy hollowed out with capability gaps, FFBNW and a man-power crisis.

If we go ahead with T31, it will only serve to compound the problem.

[abc123]

Response from an MoD civil servant on another forum...

"Some key points to note here. Firstly, the RN has known about this impending retir,ent for many years. It has delegated authority in its budget to find and buy replacements. It has repeatedly chosen not to, preferring instead to fund other more relevant capability.

The Harpoon is an excllent 50 year old design if you are fighting a blue water open ocean force, with no third party ships, no complex roe problems and a comfort that if you fire it, and it decides to hit a different target, or ehat you thought was a Kirov is actually a fisherman from Skegness,then you wont end up being done for war crimes.

The RN has never fired a single 'heavy' ASM in nearly 50 years of operating them against an enemy ship. Nor for that matter has any other NATO ship (may have tp check on the USN) and in the rest of the world no one else seems to have fired them except some air Launched exocet in the 1980s in the Gulf and Falklands.

The areas we work in are hugely complex and rely on good ISR whilst the threat we will shoot against is far more likely to be a FIaC swarm and not a single escort ship. This target set requires a completely different set of kit, and this is whwre guns and lightweight missiles are essential. I suspect getting Sea Venom in will become extremely important. I am not worried about the loss of Harpoon and neither is any Warfare Officer that I have spoken to on this."

I'm sure that there isn't any question in the world that you couldn't spin around it and find an excuse why not to do it.

[abc123]

Everyone's initial reaction to the Harpoon issue is to flail and screaming blue murder about capability cutting. After pausing and actually thinking about it it's pretty obvious that heavyweight AShM aren't especially relevant. The RN has probably had one of the best records of sinking enemy ships over the last 40 years or so. It's always been done with either torpedoes fired from an SSN or helicopter-launched missiles. Not once have we ever fired an SSM in anger.

Frankly, if we're in serious need of a heavy anti-ship missile the best place for it is on an F-35 flown from the carrier. Able to strike well beyond the range of contemporary Russian and Chinese systems (unlike Blk 1C Harpoon) and limited to the force intended for high intensity war fighting.

Of course, that's the way of thinking that has brought the RN in current despicable situation.

But of course, Whitehall mandarins will hardly ever find itself in a situation where they will want that their ship has Harpoons.

[Spinflight]

If they had a track record behind them, some professional credibility then such spin might be vaguely believable, on a good day.

Given it is the MoD though...

[abc123]

If they had a track record behind them, some professional credibility then such spin might be vaguely believable, on a good day.

Given it is the MoD though...

Fully agreed.

But, let's not absolve the senior RN leadership of their fair share of culpability for this monumental cockup.

[LordJim]

It the same problem over and over again, a Government's aspirations as what it wants to do on the world stage with regards to defense verses a total aversion to actually spending the amount to meet said aspirations. Solution fill the gap with PR spin which the majority of the UK population will lap up as they believe that defence is not a high priority. Even body bags being off loaded form a C-17 didn't affect this way of thinking. In another thread I have mentioned that the Army will only be able to deploy ONE heavy/medium brigade for operations from now on regardless of official statements. The RAF is going to be down to between twelve and sixteen Typhoons and maybe twelve F-35s (If these are not on a carrier at the time) being able to be deployed. However the Government would like us all to believe we can deploy over three times this amount. As for the huge equipment plan, under the spin it is a over a very long timeframe and when looked on annually is insufficient to delivery anywhere near what is needed in the required timeframe. Again step forward spin, smoke and mirrors. An don't expect any senior serving officers to sacrifice their careers to go public on this reality either. The only way to gat people attention if for WWIII to breakout or the Armed Forces to mutiny.

[bobp]

Well said Lord Jim agree with every word. I doubt I will ever see a improvement in this situation for a long time if ever.

[abc123]

Well said Lord Jim agree with every word. I doubt I will ever see a improvement in this situation for a long time if ever.

And then we wonder about Trump calling Europe ( including the UK ) as defence free riders... Well, Mr Trump, if you need any more evidence for your claim, here you have, you can't even ask for better example.

[Spinflight]

Well I'm not going to stick up for the self serving Admirals, they've become yes men who do as they're told.

On the whole though I've generally thought the RN does a pretty good job of getting the right kit. Merlins were ferociously expensive, but worth it. Astutes, though a cocked up programme, are pretty awesome. Most importantly the carriers. My main criticism would be numbers, though I'm not convinced that has been entirely their fault.

Thing is they claim that we spend 2% of GDP when it is nowhere near. More like 1.5% if you don't include foreign aid which has bugger all to do with defence. Also I don't know how much those 40 odd thousand civil parasites cost but even at half their original strength of 87000 it must take a huge chunk out of the budget. When there are more civil parasites than sailors, and the RN has a manpower crisis it speaks volumes. I did see something which suggested the Israeli equivalent had a staff of 400.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The RAF is going to be down to between twelve and sixteen Typhoons and maybe twelve F-35s (If these are not on a carrier at the time) being able to be deployed. However the Government would like us all to believe we can deploy over three times this amount. As for the huge equipment plan, under the spin it is a over a very long timeframe and when looked on annually is insufficient to delivery anywhere near what is needed in the required timeframe.

Fully agree about that 10-yr number always being quoted (spin).

But take those plane numbers (and Tornados for F-35s for a few years, still): Are those mentioned the FE@R numbers that are part of official plans ( that the Parliament has apptoved, and oversees their implementation)?