The Royal Navy is gonna be toothless for a while...

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4270
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

The Royal Navy is gonna be toothless for a while...

Postby phavoc » Tue Dec 06, 2016 2:28 pm

According to this article the UK's Royal Navy is slated to be without a replacement SSM to engage other naval targets in 2018 due to a lack of funds to replace it's missiles. It's current Harpoon missile inventory is slated for retirement in 2018, and currently there are no funds set aside to purchase new ones.

Now part of me thinks this isn't going to happen. A frigate or destroyer isn't going to be using it's guns to engage an enemy in this day and age. And I also don't think that the entire inventory of Harpoon's will be decommissioned in the same exact year - they don't buy them that way, plus there is always their war stockpile to drawn down. And, failing all that, there is still time to allocate funding in a budgetary cycle for replacements that could be drawn from US inventory, if not net-new builds. Harpoon's aren't terribly expensive, only $1.2million apiece.

Still, the article does bring up a good point - missiles aren't free, and military's have to pay for all the missiles in the magazines of the warships.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/militar ... -missiles/
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6346
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: The Royal Navy is gonna be toothless for a while...

Postby Condottiere » Tue Dec 06, 2016 5:42 pm

Ours may be vacuum packed, and molecularly examined with x-rays if there's any decay.

As regards the Royal Navy, during an emergency, I'm sure they can dip into the armouries of their allies.

My worry would be less that the missile is a dud, unless it acquires the wrong target, and more if it misfires while still in the tube.
IanBruntlett
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1012
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 5:18 pm
Location: Northumberland, England

Re: The Royal Navy is gonna be toothless for a while...

Postby IanBruntlett » Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:12 pm

phavoc wrote:According to this article the UK's Royal Navy is slated to be without a replacement SSM to engage other naval targets in 2018 due to a lack of funds to replace it's missiles. It's current Harpoon missile inventory is slated for retirement in 2018, and currently there are no funds set aside to purchase new ones.
The I.T. website, "The Register", runs the occasional Royal Navy story. http://search.theregister.co.uk/?q=roya ... er_page=20
-- My writings : https://sites.google.com/site/ianbruntlett
-- ACCU - Professionalism in programming - http://accu.org
-- Free Software Page : https://sites.google.com/site/ianbruntl ... e-software
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4270
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: The Royal Navy is gonna be toothless for a while...

Postby phavoc » Tue Dec 06, 2016 11:38 pm

IanBruntlett wrote:The I.T. website, "The Register", runs the occasional Royal Navy story. http://search.theregister.co.uk/?q=roya ... er_page=20
Hey, bringing back the Swordfish would save the RN a TON of money over the F-35's. And let's be honest, if biplanes were good enough to cripple the Bismark, they'd be good enough to cripple Ruskie ships too.
Chumbly
Stoat
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 4:41 am
Location: Arizona

Re: The Royal Navy is gonna be toothless for a while...

Postby Chumbly » Wed Dec 07, 2016 12:18 am

phavoc wrote:
IanBruntlett wrote:The I.T. website, "The Register", runs the occasional Royal Navy story. http://search.theregister.co.uk/?q=roya ... er_page=20
Hey, bringing back the Swordfish would save the RN a TON of money over the F-35's. And let's be honest, if biplanes were good enough to cripple the Bismark, they'd be good enough to cripple Ruskie ships too.
With its small size, and fabric skin... its probably "stealthier" than the F35 too :? with slow speed and propeller engine.. who knows if an S300
SAM could even lock on to it. Radar might even look like "Hey.. Sir.. there is this flock of birds... I think they are attacking us...." :wink: :roll:

Chumbly
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6346
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: The Royal Navy is gonna be toothless for a while...

Postby Condottiere » Wed Dec 07, 2016 12:22 am

The Kuznetsov has demonstrated it's not a threat; going submarine hunting seems viable for the Stringbag.
wbnc
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 1551
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:57 pm

Re: The Royal Navy is gonna be toothless for a while...

Postby wbnc » Wed Dec 07, 2016 6:03 am

I'm fairly sure there is some wiggle room in the use by date on missiles. the only component that are likely to need to be replaced are the propellants, warhead and batteries. as long as basic upkeep was performed and the shipping weapons were properly stored the electronics and frame are pretty durable.

Pull the missile, check the propellant for cracks and replace the parts that go boom and you have a functional weapon again.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 2992
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: The Royal Navy is gonna be toothless for a while...

Postby AnotherDilbert » Wed Dec 07, 2016 1:35 pm

It's worse than that...

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

Royal Navy has no shipkiller missiles. RAF has no naval capability.

Royal Navy finally has two new carriers (without cats&traps), but no aircraft. The F-35C might be delivered in sufficient numbers in a decade or so...


More or less all European militaries are at least that bad. Budget cuts after the end of the cold war have been brutal. Much of the "military" spending has been pure pork-barreling (e.g. British carriers).

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/pul ... rink-13852

The Swedish Army has been reduced from ~500000 reserves to a few thousand professionals, which is typical. The French and German armies are down to ~100 - 200 thousand men each. Absurdly the Finnish Army is one of the biggest in Europe.

Equipment is to a large degree old, worn, and obsolete or simply missing. No-one has the logistical capability of waging a large-scale conventional war, even close to home. No-one has practiced large unit coordination and manoeuvre in decades.

Even after Georgia and the Ukraine defence budgets have not been significantly increased.
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4270
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: The Royal Navy is gonna be toothless for a while...

Postby phavoc » Wed Dec 07, 2016 1:47 pm

France seems to be one of the few European military powers that is able to deploy fully. The UK is hit or miss. RAF and their ground forces have deployed in a number of conflicts around the world. Since the Falklands the RN hasn't apparently done much but gone downhill. I don't think their carriers were a good investment. The RN doesn't have that sort of need for power projection. They would have been better suited to spend the money on their poor destroyer and frigate fleet.

As far as their nuclear option goes, it would be far smarter to simply buy US boomer hulls to go with their US Trident missiles. The days when the UK could afford the R&D to design and build cutting edge military systems is past.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6346
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: The Royal Navy is gonna be toothless for a while...

Postby Condottiere » Wed Dec 07, 2016 3:35 pm

Image

It's politics and the incestuous Procurement Dance.

Generally it seems that the Tories go down the austerity path, and whatever alchemy bubbled out of the Blair years resulted in an all or nothing Queen Elizabeth doctrine, the world's largest helicopter carriers, with the implication that one of them will get sold, though logic would have shown that the only ones interested would have:

1. India - bargain basement price

2. Brazil - bankrupt

3. France - build their own

4. Russia - direct threat

5. China - vetoed by the Americans

6. Japan - internal politics and regional diplomacy; would have built their own

Interservice rivalry continues with the RAF wanting control of everything that flies; the only thing you can say about the F-35 is that the Americans are so invested in that programme, is that they'll keep pouring resources into it, proving the axiom about throwing enough money at a problem will eventually solve it, my guess twenty twenty five.

Apparently, taken by themselves, the QEs are an excellent and efficient piece of machinery, but acquired at the expense, together with it's air complement, of everything else.

As for the French, they still need hard power projection to stabilize their client states.
Tom Kalbfus
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 2515
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 8:56 pm

Re: The Royal Navy is gonna be toothless for a while...

Postby Tom Kalbfus » Sun Dec 18, 2016 2:22 am

phavoc wrote:France seems to be one of the few European military powers that is able to deploy fully. The UK is hit or miss. RAF and their ground forces have deployed in a number of conflicts around the world. Since the Falklands the RN hasn't apparently done much but gone downhill. I don't think their carriers were a good investment. The RN doesn't have that sort of need for power projection. They would have been better suited to spend the money on their poor destroyer and frigate fleet.

As far as their nuclear option goes, it would be far smarter to simply buy US boomer hulls to go with their US Trident missiles. The days when the UK could afford the R&D to design and build cutting edge military systems is past.
How many European Countries have aircraft carrier fleets? Do you think its much cheaper to call on the US Navy for help? You know if the UK is going to rely so much on the United States, why don't it just become part of the United States? If not, then it should be able to defend itself without a major part of their strategy based on calling the United States for help! There is not always going to be a Winston Churchill at 10 Downing Street and an FDR on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
steve98052
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 796
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2013 6:13 am
Location: near Seattle

Re: The Royal Navy is gonna be toothless for a while...

Postby steve98052 » Sun Dec 18, 2016 4:21 am

Please, folks, read the rules for apostrophes. They're use for two purposes: the possessive and contractions. They are not used for plural. You're making my eyes hurt.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6346
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: The Royal Navy is gonna be toothless for a while...

Postby Condottiere » Sun Dec 18, 2016 7:42 am

The United States Navy has 10 Nimitz-class aircraft carriers, eight Wasp-class amphibious assault ships, one America-class amphib ship. Each of these can launch the new F-35 Lightning II, whether in catapult-assisted C variant or short-takeoff and vertical landing B trim. That's 19 Lightning-capable of ships. And now, we can officially kick that figure up to 20.

Defense News reports Secretary of Defense Ash Carter and British Defense Secretary Michael Fallon officially inked a deal to deploy US Marine Corps F-35Bs on the Royal Navy's new carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth. The American aircraft will join the British ship on her first operational deployment, in 2021. The deal is advantageous for both sides of the long-running alliance – for a start, both the USMC and the Royal Navy will fly the F-35B. Eventually.

The Royal Navy has struggled to fund a purchase program to deploy aircraft on the first Queen Elizabeth-class carrier, and won't start aircraft trials with British F-35s until late 2018. The QE won't have a suitable number of British-flagged fighters until 2023, so attaching Marine F-35Bs gives the Royal Navy's carrier a reason to exist during its first deployment. It's unclear if American aircraft will deploy to the second Queen Elizabeth-class carrier, the HMS Prince of Wales – she's currently two years behind schedule and probably won't be commissioned this decade.

For the Marines, the benefit is obvious – yet another platform to deploy from. It also provides a nice balance to the British sailors serving aboard US Navy carriers, where they're honing their skills in preparation for service on the Royal Navy's twin flattops.

"Embarking USMC F-35s does get the UK out of an embarrassing position of having a lot of floating real estate with very little to go on it. But it's convenient for both sides and there is operational utility in such a policy," Doug Barrie, a senior air analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, told Defense News.

http://www.autoblog.com/2016/12/16/usmc ... y-carrier/


I think the plan is that when the Americans pivot fully to the Pacific, clustering around the first island chain, they'll requisition the Queen Elizabeths and role them as auxiliary aircraft carriers to cover gaps in the Atlantic.
Sigtrygg
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:23 am

Re: The Royal Navy is gonna be toothless for a while...

Postby Sigtrygg » Sun Dec 18, 2016 10:47 am

steve98052 wrote:Please, folks, read the rules for apostrophes. They're use for two purposes: the possessive and contractions. They are not used for plural. You're making my eyes hurt.
Don't you mean "They're used for"?
steve98052
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 796
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2013 6:13 am
Location: near Seattle

Re: The Royal Navy is gonna be toothless for a while...

Postby steve98052 » Sun Dec 18, 2016 11:19 am

Sigtrygg wrote:
steve98052 wrote:Please, folks, read the rules for apostrophes. They're use for two purposes: the possessive and contractions. They are not used for plural. You're making my eyes hurt.
Don't you mean "They're used for"?
Oops! One should always proofread carefully when complaining about grammar. In my defense, repeated apostrophe misuse is something that people should learn to avoid, but there's not much one can do to avoid a typo caused by predictive keyboard acting up. Still, it looks bad in the middle of a complaint about incorrect writing.
Tom Kalbfus
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 2515
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 8:56 pm

Re: The Royal Navy is gonna be toothless for a while...

Postby Tom Kalbfus » Sun Dec 18, 2016 1:36 pm

steve98052 wrote:
Sigtrygg wrote:
steve98052 wrote:Please, folks, read the rules for apostrophes. They're use for two purposes: the possessive and contractions. They are not used for plural. You're making my eyes hurt.
Don't you mean "They're used for"?
Oops! One should always proofread carefully when complaining about grammar. In my defense, repeated apostrophe misuse is something that people should learn to avoid, but there's not much one can do to avoid a typo caused by predictive keyboard acting up. Still, it looks bad in the middle of a complaint about incorrect writing.
I am a touch typist, but unfortunately, not every key I type registers when I am typing in the edit windows, some letters get left out, and if I do not catch them before I submit, I sometimes don't bother to correct them, I figure people can figure it out over the typos.
IanBruntlett
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1012
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 5:18 pm
Location: Northumberland, England

Re: The Royal Navy is gonna be toothless for a while...

Postby IanBruntlett » Sun Dec 18, 2016 2:06 pm

Tom Kalbfus wrote: I am a touch typist, but unfortunately, not every key I type registers when I am typing in the edit windows, some letters get left out, and if I do not catch them before I submit, I sometimes don't bother to correct them, I figure people can figure it out over the typos.
I also touch-type. I also proof-read friends' things. No matter how good you are, mistakes will always creep in. How you handle the mistakes is just as important :)
-- My writings : https://sites.google.com/site/ianbruntlett
-- ACCU - Professionalism in programming - http://accu.org
-- Free Software Page : https://sites.google.com/site/ianbruntl ... e-software
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4270
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: The Royal Navy is gonna be toothless for a while...

Postby phavoc » Sun Dec 18, 2016 7:12 pm

I use my phone for a lot of responses. Between fat fingers and autocorrect I inject more than a few errors.

The grammar police can toss off.
Rick
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1452
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:13 am
Location: Lincoln, UK

Re: The Royal Navy is gonna be toothless for a while...

Postby Rick » Wed Dec 21, 2016 1:07 am

Tom Kalbfus wrote:How many European Countries have aircraft carrier fleets? Do you think its much cheaper to call on the US Navy for help? You know if the UK is going to rely so much on the United States, why don't it just become part of the United States? If not, then it should be able to defend itself without a major part of their strategy based on calling the United States for help! There is not always going to be a Winston Churchill at 10 Downing Street and an FDR on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Actually the last few times since WW2 it's been the USA inviting the UK to participate; Afghanistan, Iraq (twice), Syria, Korea. If the US is going to ask the UK to dance again, it might be time to start saying 'no'. And yes, the UK is perfectly able to defend itself against current threats - I don't think an aircraft carrier is particularly useful when dealing with the terrorist threat, unless ISIS are given an old carrier, some destroyers and maybe some jets from the same mysterious source that got them those brand-new Czech AK's? :D
"Understanding is a 3-edged sword" bit like a toblerone, really.
Tom Kalbfus
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 2515
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 8:56 pm

Re: The Royal Navy is gonna be toothless for a while...

Postby Tom Kalbfus » Wed Dec 21, 2016 2:45 am

Rick wrote:
Tom Kalbfus wrote:How many European Countries have aircraft carrier fleets? Do you think its much cheaper to call on the US Navy for help? You know if the UK is going to rely so much on the United States, why don't it just become part of the United States? If not, then it should be able to defend itself without a major part of their strategy based on calling the United States for help! There is not always going to be a Winston Churchill at 10 Downing Street and an FDR on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Actually the last few times since WW2 it's been the USA inviting the UK to participate; Afghanistan, Iraq (twice), Syria, Korea. If the US is going to ask the UK to dance again, it might be time to start saying 'no'. And yes, the UK is perfectly able to defend itself against current threats - I don't think an aircraft carrier is particularly useful when dealing with the terrorist threat, unless ISIS are given an old carrier, some destroyers and maybe some jets from the same mysterious source that got them those brand-new Czech AK's? :D
The UK is all about the Navy, the French have an Air Force, and the Germans have an Army, that is how I would divide the responsibilities towards the Defense of the Continent. You presuppose that the threat would be terrorists. Terrorism is just an annoyance, what the armed forces are for is to get the idea drilled into the enemy' head that a terrorist attack on the continent is a bad idea! The real threat is Russia of course.
Image
Just look at how that country dwarfs the rest of Europe! Do you want your country to be a part of Russia? Russia has expressed an interest in gobbling up some more land, your country needs to give them a good reason why not, unless you really would like your country turned into a Russian province. if you main strategy is to call on the USA for help should your country have trouble, that is a flawed strategy. There are some people in the UK that want to get rid of its nukes, once they do that, then Russia could invade, and if the United States has the wrong President, we might just look the other way and choose not to get involved, it would be a mistake on our part, but can you risk it? You should be most interested in your own country's survive and not depend on a foreign power for your defense. The UK is traditionally a naval power so therefore it should have aircraft carriers. If I was running your country I'd have 80% of the Defense budget in the Navy, France and devote 80% of its Defense budget towards an Air force, ad Germany can build a first rate army with 80% of its defense budget, and put those nations together and you have a superpower!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bardicheart and 14 guests