Sea Jet
Suspicion breeds confidence
Sea Dart will be quite handy against an AS-4, but you wouldn't get many shots off against a M3.5 weapon before being overwhelmed. Sea Wolf also would be effective with the caveat that its a BIG beast and Sea Wolf is a small missile with a small warhead, so it may need more than one hit to achieve a high enough kill probability. This of course assumes 100% availability of your weapons and sensors. Webf is correct, lose your ability to take out threats before they can engage you and most likley you swim home if you are that lucky.
Lupus Domesticus
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the outside, it appears that what is essentially a very simple argument, is becoming bogged down in its own detail.
Many contributors here seem to be in agreement, but their cause is not helped very much by inceasant attention to valid, and important, but ultimately irrelevant, comment on the various comendable technical advantages of the SHar.
To this foreign civilian, the issues at stake would appear to be thus.
1. Regardless of argument to the contrary, no-one can predict what will happen in the future.
2. Regardless of history or treaties, other countries wil help you or not depending on whether it suits them to so do.
3. Dispensing with a capability on the basis that you can always depend on an ally to supply it, by definition reduces sovereign independence, and with it, operational military flexibility and responsive ability.
4. Regardless of arguments to the contrary, objections to the retention of any particular capability on the basis of cost, are without foundation. Governments pick and choose their spending priorities for political reasons. These may always be subject to change and interpretation.
Military reality will not always be afforded the luxury of change and interpretation.
There is always plenty of money, when a Government owns and controls its own Central Bank.
Just a few thoughts.
Many contributors here seem to be in agreement, but their cause is not helped very much by inceasant attention to valid, and important, but ultimately irrelevant, comment on the various comendable technical advantages of the SHar.
To this foreign civilian, the issues at stake would appear to be thus.
1. Regardless of argument to the contrary, no-one can predict what will happen in the future.
2. Regardless of history or treaties, other countries wil help you or not depending on whether it suits them to so do.
3. Dispensing with a capability on the basis that you can always depend on an ally to supply it, by definition reduces sovereign independence, and with it, operational military flexibility and responsive ability.
4. Regardless of arguments to the contrary, objections to the retention of any particular capability on the basis of cost, are without foundation. Governments pick and choose their spending priorities for political reasons. These may always be subject to change and interpretation.
Military reality will not always be afforded the luxury of change and interpretation.
There is always plenty of money, when a Government owns and controls its own Central Bank.
Just a few thoughts.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone want to buy a SHar?
Wasn't this, was it?
Meanwhile, Navy News reports progress with the final Bay class landing ship. Here's the link.
The final ship of the Fleet’s four new auxiliary landing ships will take to the water in a couple of the months as the revolution in the RN’s amphibious forces reaches its final stages.
So long as the enemy has no aircraft, submarines or surface vessels, eh? Or the loss of the Sea Harrier, and the approx 20% reduction in frigate/destroyer numbers might cause problems.
Meanwhile, Navy News reports progress with the final Bay class landing ship. Here's the link.
The final ship of the Fleet’s four new auxiliary landing ships will take to the water in a couple of the months as the revolution in the RN’s amphibious forces reaches its final stages.
So long as the enemy has no aircraft, submarines or surface vessels, eh? Or the loss of the Sea Harrier, and the approx 20% reduction in frigate/destroyer numbers might cause problems.
Suspicion breeds confidence
The CVF project is an utter shambles. By comparison the box-heads have delivered the first of their new class of anti-air destroyers 3 months early and under budget. With a bit of luck I'll be going out to look one over next month. 
CVF isn't the only shambles. Astute delayed. Type 45 delayed. FSC cancelled. And according to information released under the Freedom of Information act the DPA intend to remove old Phalanx systems from T42s being decommisioned and fit them to the T45.
Smart Procurement?
Meanwhile, some sources suggest that Invincible will go into extended readiness this autumn. Is this just part of the normal CVS cycle, or another cut (by stealth)?
Getting back to the main topic of this thread, I recently found this on the net:(US) Navy Perspective On Airpower.
Smart Procurement?
Meanwhile, some sources suggest that Invincible will go into extended readiness this autumn. Is this just part of the normal CVS cycle, or another cut (by stealth)?
Getting back to the main topic of this thread, I recently found this on the net:(US) Navy Perspective On Airpower.
From the MOD website: KBR appointed Physical Integrator for CVF
Does this mean CVF might actually get to the Main Gate stage soon?
CVF will be the principal platform for the RN/RAF Future Joint Combat Aircraft (FJCA) which will replace RN and RAF Harriers. FJCA will be capable of operating in all weathers, day and night, to provide air defence for the carrier, as well as flying strike missions and conducting offensive support for ground forces ashore.
But Ministers think they can say with certainty that we won't need air defence during the next few years, do the
Also look at the way that is worded. Are Ministers of the opinion that only carriers need air defence? What about:
Amphibious forces (as important a part of power projection as carrier aircraft, and vulnerable to attack, and attractive targets for an enemy seeking to deliver a knock out blow, possibly by inflicting large numbers of casualties).
Other surface forces (Naval forces do not just conduct/support carrier operations, ships may be used for many other roles in an operational theatre, and losing a single ship would be a crippling loss after last year's cuts).
Seaborne logistics (what if a chartered/STUFT vessel carrying say 25% of the helicopters commited to a certain operation was lost?). The Point class Ro Ros, designed specifically to reduce the problem of finding suitable shipping, and operated under a PFI scheme with crews of Sponsored Reservists are no less valuable - particularly if they are full of vehicles, helicopters or something equally vital. No less vulnerable either - and the RNR protection teams aboard these types of vessels will be able to offer no defence against air/missile attack.
On another note, an oft quoted advantage of the carrier is that you can stay in international waters and give a potential adversary something to think about. However, if you have no air defence, then they can take out your carrier, if they think they have to get the blow in first. Likewise, our own leaders (political and military) may be faced with a "use them or lose them" type situation.
Does this mean CVF might actually get to the Main Gate stage soon?
CVF will be the principal platform for the RN/RAF Future Joint Combat Aircraft (FJCA) which will replace RN and RAF Harriers. FJCA will be capable of operating in all weathers, day and night, to provide air defence for the carrier, as well as flying strike missions and conducting offensive support for ground forces ashore.
But Ministers think they can say with certainty that we won't need air defence during the next few years, do the
Also look at the way that is worded. Are Ministers of the opinion that only carriers need air defence? What about:
Amphibious forces (as important a part of power projection as carrier aircraft, and vulnerable to attack, and attractive targets for an enemy seeking to deliver a knock out blow, possibly by inflicting large numbers of casualties).
Other surface forces (Naval forces do not just conduct/support carrier operations, ships may be used for many other roles in an operational theatre, and losing a single ship would be a crippling loss after last year's cuts).
Seaborne logistics (what if a chartered/STUFT vessel carrying say 25% of the helicopters commited to a certain operation was lost?). The Point class Ro Ros, designed specifically to reduce the problem of finding suitable shipping, and operated under a PFI scheme with crews of Sponsored Reservists are no less valuable - particularly if they are full of vehicles, helicopters or something equally vital. No less vulnerable either - and the RNR protection teams aboard these types of vessels will be able to offer no defence against air/missile attack.
On another note, an oft quoted advantage of the carrier is that you can stay in international waters and give a potential adversary something to think about. However, if you have no air defence, then they can take out your carrier, if they think they have to get the blow in first. Likewise, our own leaders (political and military) may be faced with a "use them or lose them" type situation.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 11th Feb 2005 at 17:55.
Suspicion breeds confidence
One thing every govt does before an election is place large warship orders. The appointment of KBR says in other words "We don't trust BWoS as far as we can throw them to get this right - so we'll use a firm that knows how to project manage things". In that respect its good news and brings one step closer to main gate. Mid Summer?
Perhaps they should rename one to "HMS Princess Consort"
STUFT brings with it a whole set of problems as you point out. They need to be defended and we barely have enough escorts to defend HVUs as it stands. I seem to remember the args rolling bombs out the back of C-130s during Op Corporate.
I wouldn't pay too much interest in how a press release is worded. Its what the navy does with them that matters.
Perhaps they should rename one to "HMS Princess Consort"
STUFT brings with it a whole set of problems as you point out. They need to be defended and we barely have enough escorts to defend HVUs as it stands. I seem to remember the args rolling bombs out the back of C-130s during Op Corporate.
I wouldn't pay too much interest in how a press release is worded. Its what the navy does with them that matters.
Last edited by Navaleye; 12th Feb 2005 at 08:39.
I wish politicians would listen to the First Sea Lord's warning.
Worrying indeed. As for STUFT or Chartered Vessels (I think the MOD prefers commercially chartered ones for legal/political reasons) then surely there is an issue of duty of care towards the crews? What if lack of air defence aircraft or escorts results in the loss of one of these ships, and the MOD is sued by the survivors or next of kin? Surely Ministers could not use the defence of due dilligence?
Meanwhile - the aircraft for Marstrike 05 have embarked aboard Invincible.
Worrying indeed. As for STUFT or Chartered Vessels (I think the MOD prefers commercially chartered ones for legal/political reasons) then surely there is an issue of duty of care towards the crews? What if lack of air defence aircraft or escorts results in the loss of one of these ships, and the MOD is sued by the survivors or next of kin? Surely Ministers could not use the defence of due dilligence?
Meanwhile - the aircraft for Marstrike 05 have embarked aboard Invincible.
We haven’t got enough ships to fight another Falklands Way, says the head of the Navy.
Defence Correspondent, Daily Telegraph.
That’s the header to the article. Just WHERE in the article does Sir Alan West say anything of the kind?
He makes no mention of the FI, just states that in his opinion he would rather have 30 escorts than 25. IF the carriers are not ordered he claims that soldiers and sailors will at some time in the future die.
In a recent Defence select committee report West claims that the RN COULD mount a similar operation to that mounted to regain the Falklands.
WEBF,
You are showing your lack of legal knowledge, the MOD is not liable for ANYTHING that happens during war fighting combat operations, the recent admission of liability over the Sgt Tank commander was only possible because it was NOT combat ops, it was maintaining law and order.
Defence Correspondent, Daily Telegraph.
That’s the header to the article. Just WHERE in the article does Sir Alan West say anything of the kind?
He makes no mention of the FI, just states that in his opinion he would rather have 30 escorts than 25. IF the carriers are not ordered he claims that soldiers and sailors will at some time in the future die.
In a recent Defence select committee report West claims that the RN COULD mount a similar operation to that mounted to regain the Falklands.
WEBF,
You are showing your lack of legal knowledge, the MOD is not liable for ANYTHING that happens during war fighting combat operations, the recent admission of liability over the Sgt Tank commander was only possible because it was NOT combat ops, it was maintaining law and order.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Pr00ne,
1SL was referring to the block obsolence of a large part of our fleet. The carriers are fast approaching their OSD and shortly will not be able to provide any air cover to the fleet and the T42s are falling apart. We need new orders now if the situation is bre addressed. In that respect he was bang on.
1SL was referring to the block obsolence of a large part of our fleet. The carriers are fast approaching their OSD and shortly will not be able to provide any air cover to the fleet and the T42s are falling apart. We need new orders now if the situation is bre addressed. In that respect he was bang on.
In fact, this country needs about 30 surface combatants to carry out standing tasks and handle contingencies like sending a task group to take part in a major operation.
Adml Sir Alan West, the First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff, said that the Government's defence cuts have left the Navy with too few ships to sustain even moderate losses in a maritime conflict, despite Ministers' assurances. Losses are of course more likely with organic air defence - ie the Sea Harrier.
Incidentally he talked about the issue of the fleet not being able to absorb losses at the Select Commitee. You could argue all night over the semantics, but the message seems pretty clear to me.
And on a legal note -
the MOD is not liable for ANYTHING that happens during war fighting combat operations.......
Does that apply to merchant ship crews (civillans, after all) who find themselves sent into a war zone?
Adml Sir Alan West, the First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff, said that the Government's defence cuts have left the Navy with too few ships to sustain even moderate losses in a maritime conflict, despite Ministers' assurances. Losses are of course more likely with organic air defence - ie the Sea Harrier.
Incidentally he talked about the issue of the fleet not being able to absorb losses at the Select Commitee. You could argue all night over the semantics, but the message seems pretty clear to me.
And on a legal note -
the MOD is not liable for ANYTHING that happens during war fighting combat operations.......
Does that apply to merchant ship crews (civillans, after all) who find themselves sent into a war zone?
Suspicion breeds confidence
Does that apply to merchant ship crews (civillans, after all) who find themselves sent into a war zone?
WEBF
That is still NOT the same thing as saying we could not mount another Op Corporate!
The fact that he no can longer justify allocating a Frigate or Destroyer permanently to some NATO standing Sqn or to the Caribbean is hardly the same as saying the retaking of the Falklands is not an option.
The MOD's legal obligations in a war zone simply do not exist in a war fighting area when combat operations are taking place. As to merchant ships, most of their crews are foreign nationals so it would be nothing to do with the UK MOD. Ships taken up for trade is a different matter and they would be treated the same as combatants.
That is still NOT the same thing as saying we could not mount another Op Corporate!
The fact that he no can longer justify allocating a Frigate or Destroyer permanently to some NATO standing Sqn or to the Caribbean is hardly the same as saying the retaking of the Falklands is not an option.
The MOD's legal obligations in a war zone simply do not exist in a war fighting area when combat operations are taking place. As to merchant ships, most of their crews are foreign nationals so it would be nothing to do with the UK MOD. Ships taken up for trade is a different matter and they would be treated the same as combatants.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a recent Defence select committee report West claims that the RN COULD mount a similar operation to that mounted to regain the Falklands.
We've already seen the STANAVFORMED committment slashed.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bit off thread here chaps. Surely the point of this thread is to show the shortcomings of the SHAR in a true light?
Having lit fuse retires to a safe place.
Having lit fuse retires to a safe place.
JessTheDog,
Sir Alan West was very specific, we could mount another OP Corporate on our own and are in a far better position to do it now than we were in 82.
As to existing commitments, well, we didn't exactly preserve them in 82 did we, NZ provided a Frigate for Hong Kong, NATO commitments in the Atlantic went out of the window and NATO assigned RAFG assets went South along with nearly all of the AT and AAR fleet.
The Army equivalent of Sir Alan West, Jackson I think is the guy, also said that we could mount another Corporate unaided, not that we were exactly "unaided" in 82.
Sir Alan West was very specific, we could mount another OP Corporate on our own and are in a far better position to do it now than we were in 82.
As to existing commitments, well, we didn't exactly preserve them in 82 did we, NZ provided a Frigate for Hong Kong, NATO commitments in the Atlantic went out of the window and NATO assigned RAFG assets went South along with nearly all of the AT and AAR fleet.
The Army equivalent of Sir Alan West, Jackson I think is the guy, also said that we could mount another Corporate unaided, not that we were exactly "unaided" in 82.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Very true. If it had not been for the good old US of A we wouldn't have got past Ascension.
However, I also think that the RN COULD embark on an Operation as large as the Falklands Islands task force. In some respects you have to remember that many of our ships were very old. HMS Hermes was over 20 years old. HMS Antrim, Glamorgan, Plymouth, Yarmouth etc etc... All old ships with equipment designed just after WW2. That coupled with Brand spanking ships...Invincible, Brilliant, Broadsword. This helped to ease the balance. But the one thing that many people over look when contemplating past and present Navies is the one thing that maintains its consistency. PEOPLE. Our people are second to none. I strongly believe that in the Armed Forces we have a group of people who would fight and put their lives on the line what ever the cause, whatever the reason. Having spent over 25 years in the Armed Forces I truly believe that our people are the greatest asset we hold and without the courage, commitment and fortitude of our men and women this country would be in a far worse state.
However, I also think that the RN COULD embark on an Operation as large as the Falklands Islands task force. In some respects you have to remember that many of our ships were very old. HMS Hermes was over 20 years old. HMS Antrim, Glamorgan, Plymouth, Yarmouth etc etc... All old ships with equipment designed just after WW2. That coupled with Brand spanking ships...Invincible, Brilliant, Broadsword. This helped to ease the balance. But the one thing that many people over look when contemplating past and present Navies is the one thing that maintains its consistency. PEOPLE. Our people are second to none. I strongly believe that in the Armed Forces we have a group of people who would fight and put their lives on the line what ever the cause, whatever the reason. Having spent over 25 years in the Armed Forces I truly believe that our people are the greatest asset we hold and without the courage, commitment and fortitude of our men and women this country would be in a far worse state.