Rest in peace RN :-(

[WhitestElephant]

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.

Then we don't need an army 82,000 strong do we?

[Engaging Strategy]

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

Buying equipment because "we've had that for ages" is a terrible way of managing procurement. Look at how useful heavyweight anti-ship missiles actually are, even in a high intensity war fighting scenario. The risk that the target is misidentified, or the missile gets spoofed and locks onto a container ship or the ROE is too restrictive essentially ensures that you're never getting to use them under any realistic conditions. If it came down to a general fleet engagement with the Russians their missiles have four times the range of Harpoon, are much faster and deadlier.

The RN needs the ability to neutralise or sink ships, heavyweight anti-ship missiles have always been passed over in favour of other (better) methods. Something like vertically launched SPEAR 3 would be much more useable and therefore useful.

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

And nor will anybody in the RN. We've fought several wars and destroyed or neutralised several navies over the last 50 years. In all that time we've never fired a single SSM in anger. Not once.

[Spinflight]

That's a pretty inescapable conclusion...

What's the point in having an Army that can't go anywhere in force?

[Spinflight]

"And nor will anybody in the RN. We've fought several wars and destroyed or neutralised several navies over the last 50 years. In all that time we've never fired a single SSM in anger. Not once."

Neither have we launched any nukes.

You don't even have the semblance of a point.

Lets pretend that you do though. On the one hand we have every navy on earth that I can think of fielding SSMs. Also our prime ally the US doctrinally singling out SSMs as being a particularly important capability.

On the other you have the Ministry of Monty Python Defence Parody.

Do you see why even the most humble civvy might be a bit skeptical?

[Spinflight]

Come to think of it the RAF hasn't shot down a single plane in about 70 years... I wonder why the mandarins haven't decided that they couldn't possibly needs AAMs.

[shark bait]

Yes, it not being fired in 50ish years does not justify getting rid.

One could argue firing them is not the full point of their existence. Isn't is more to hold your enemy off well over the horizon to give you the space to operate off board systems that have a far greater opportunity to overwhelm defences, whilst keeping our platform in a safer area.

Getting rid of the current generation of Harpoon is not an issue, its not really adequate today, but binning heavy missiles entirely is unacceptable. It gets worse considering the F35 will not have any big missiles either! and on top of that we need something to put on the P8.

[abc123]

Then we don't need an army 82,000 strong do we?

Fully agreed. 30 000 should be plenty.

[abc123]

Getting rid of the current generation of Harpoon is not an issue, its not really adequate today, but binning heavy missiles entirely is unacceptable. It gets worse considering the F35 will not have any big missiles either! and on top of that we need something to put on the P8.

This. If they binned the Harpoons in favour of say NSM ( for F-35 and escort vessels, especially because of land-attack capability ) as stop-gap solution, nobody would complain.

But saying that you don't need something becauseyou haven't used it for a long time- IMHO complete nonsence. Pray, when did UK used Type 45 destroyers? Get rid of them ASAP. Same with Type 23 frigates, with exception of their guns. No need for torpedos and sonars, they never used them. And why Astutes need torpedos, RN didn't use them for 30+ years....

[abc123]

And nor will anybody in the RN. We've fought several wars and destroyed or neutralised several navies over the last 50 years. In all that time we've never fired a single SSM in anger. Not once.

So, how many navies RN destroyed during the age of sail without RN ships having this:



How many navies RN destroyed later ( late 19th Century-WW1- WW2 ) without RN ships having this:



Heawyweight SSMs are guns of current navies. You think that Lord Nelson would have defeated the French 1805 with bows and arrows- instead of guns?

[Spinflight]

Which may actually be the problem...

If the Navy got an SSM with land attack capability then the RAF might face a tough job getting the Storm Shadows certified on the Typhoon.

Or more likely the RAF telling the treasury they can handle any shipping threats with P-8 plus ASM. Possibly without having to move Australia this time.

[SKB]

HMS Warrior made all other ships in the world obsolete in 1861 without firing a single round. Warrior never fired a shot in anger in her entire service history either.
http://ukdefenceforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=609

[cky7]

Out of interest how many times in the last 50 years have we had to sink a large surface combatant? The only occasions I can think of were Belgrano where a torpedoe was the obvious choice (and no heavy ASM available anyway?) and smaller vessels where a heavy ASM would have been overkill/different weapons were the more cost effective choice.

I agree that against the Russians harpoon would be massively outranged but that doesn't explain why other options haven't been put into place (tomahawk, NSM etc)

[cky7]

Or more likely the RAF telling the treasury they can handle any shipping threats with P-8 plus ASM. Possibly without having to move Australia this time.

But in 2010 they didn't need MPAs either!

I take some of the load points others have brought up on board but still worry this is a bit of Duncan sandys cock up.

The amount were wasting on foreign aid is a disgrace whilst the armed forces are cut to pieces. Not a penny should be given for it IMO whilst things are this bad, I don't care what state they're in.

[abc123]

HMS Warrior made all other ships in the world obsolete in 1861 without firing a single round. Warrior never fired a shot in anger in her entire service history either.
http://ukdefenceforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=609

Well, the RN has evolved so much during last 150 years, now they will make all the warships in the world obsolete by removing it's missiles.

GDMT, you Britons have become a laughing stock.

[abc123]

I agree that against the Russians harpoon would be massively outranged but that doesn't explain why other options haven't been put into place (tomahawk, NSM etc)

So, if enemy has assault rifle and you have a gun, because assault rifle outranges your gun, you will drop the gun and take the knife or rock instead? That would be better?

[cky7]

So, if enemy has assault rifle and you have a gun, because assault rifle outranges your gun, you will drop the gun and take the knife or rock instead? That would be better?

Lol. I guess I'd try and stay out sight till they were in range of my gun then make sure I didn't miss, which sort of proves your point! I do agree harpoon is better than nothing, my point was more having to rely on it is bad enough when we should have had something at least as capable as our potential enemies in place. That just makes it more depressing though!

[abc123]

So, if enemy has assault rifle and you have a gun, because assault rifle outranges your gun, you will drop the gun and take the knife or rock instead? That would be better?

Lol. I guess I'd try and stay out sight till they were in range of my gun then make sure I didn't miss, which sort of proves your point! I do agree harpoon is better than nothing, my point was more having to rely on it is bad enough when we should have had something at least as capable as our potential enemies in place. That just makes it more depressing though!

Of course. With inferior missile, you would try to somehow use it the best way you can, maybe you suceed, maybe not, but you do have some chance.

With a gun as only anti-ship weapon, it's a bloody kamikaze mission. Your opponents can literally make circles around you outside of yout 15-20 km range...

[Digger22]

Simple answer then, as we are such laughing stocks, bring back a 15'' gun, rapid firing with self guidance shells. Like to see any CIWS in the world stop that! Boom!

[dmereifield]

http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/dear-th ... navy-fast/

Interesting piece from Save the Royal Navy. Many similar ideas to those suggested by those contributing to the threads on here

[ArmChairCivvy]

So, if enemy has assault rifle and you have a gun, because assault rifle outranges your gun, you will drop the gun and take the knife or rock instead? That would be better?

Lol. I guess I'd try and stay out sight till they were in range of my gun then make sure I didn't miss, which sort of proves your point! I do agree harpoon is better than nothing, my point was more having to rely on it is bad enough when we should have had something at least as capable as our potential enemies in place. That just makes it more depressing though!

Staying out of sight at sea? Better get some of these then:
http://noticiarionaval.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... -sous.html

[shark bait]

I'd agree with all of Navy lookouts "Immediate actions", but most of the rest are contentious.

[ArmChairCivvy]

I dont see any such on this thread??

[shark bait]

dmereifield, posted a link on some fixes for the RN.

The near term fixes all sound reasonable, but the longer term suggestions such as P8 and F35 for the RN only, keeping B1 rivers, sonars on B2 rivers or putting Ocean in reserve seem petty or stupid.

[ArmChairCivvy]

OK, thx, will look back on that basis

[dmereifield]

I was referring to the myriad of threads on this forum, not this one specifically. Unless I'm mistaken, nearly half the points under the immediate and medium term actions have been suggested or discussed on here. Though if I may say, as a lay person, many of the other suggestions on the list seem a bit odd or unrealistic