Aircraft Carriers III


Gatekeeper

Brigadier
Registered Member
Are you trolling or just stupid? We're talking about the current fleet, not some theoretical force deployment 10 years from now.

Maybe take a look at the source document where in between rosy plans for the future they announce cuts to current capabilites throughout the forces to make ends meet:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It's great isn't it. Our friend talks about a one off increase announced by none-other than liar liar, where's my £350 million for the NHS Boris.

It's the long term trend we need to look at. The U.K. simply could not mustered the size of the armada that sees them sailing down to the south Atlantic to take on a handicapped opponent. At the start of that conflict. The U.K. has three carriers, 12 destroyers 36 frigates. What is the size of the U.K. fleet now?
 

Mr T

Senior Member
Alright, funds going to operating forces instead of R&D and procurement are being cut.
SL, with respect, "funds" or budgets are not the same as assets. A loss of a specific asset early when a replacement is already in the works does not mean you have not received an overall and potentially permanent increase in your budget/funds.

In this case, the Royal Navy's budget for operational use is not being cut. Only two assets - an old frigate that was going to be retired fairly soon anyway and another that was ready for scrapping - will be retired slightly early.

The point I'm making that these minor changes have no bearing on the funding for the Royal Navy going forwards or how much money it has available to deploy ships already constructed.

Doesn't change the fact that the Navy frigates are going to remain old and few for until new frigates begin entering service in the 2030s.
Relatively few, yes, but again their chronological age is largely irrelevant because of all the upgrades they've received.
I want to talk about what a CV deployment would look like now, and the reasons why it probably won't happen.
There's two ways to look at that. Do you think the MOD gave cursory consideration to a permanent overseas deployment for one of the carriers but don't see it as necessary, or that they desperately want to make it happen but will be forced to conclude at some point it can't be done. I see it as the former.

If there was a pressing need to base a carrier in the Arabian Sea or further east, it could in principle be done as the money would be there. It would mean cutting or stopping certain other deployments such as in the Atlantic to ensure there were sufficient escorts, but the raw numbers are there even account for ships undergoing maintenance.

But right now there is no pressing need and it's much better to keep the current posture.

It's great isn't it. Our friend talks about a one off increase announced by none-other than liar liar, where's my £350 million for the NHS Boris.
It's a permanent increase
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

The announcement of a "one-off" increase is not a one-off spend. It's the full amount the budget will rise to over the next couple of years.

This is fairly simple stuff, I'm surprised you don't get it.
 

silentlurker

Junior Member
Registered Member
In this case, the Royal Navy's budget for operational use is not being cut. Only two assets - an old frigate that was going to be retired fairly soon anyway and another that was ready for scrapping - will be retired slightly early.

The point I'm making that these minor changes have no bearing on the funding for the Royal Navy going forwards or how much money it has available to deploy ships already constructed.
15% of the frigate fleet is disappearing and that has no change on the operational budget? Where is the money going then?

Surprised they're retiring two frigates when the UK has a critical shortage and slapping on a VLS and new radar makes their chronological age "largely irrelevant".
 

Mr T

Senior Member
15% of the frigate fleet is disappearing and that has no change on the operational budget? Where is the money going then?
Back into the Royal Navy's pot. Indeed the very fact that those frigates will no longer have money spent on them means there would be more money to ensure other ships are ready for deployment.
Surprised they're retiring two frigates when the UK has a critical shortage
SL, I'm trying to discuss this with you honestly, but I'm wondering why you keep ignoring the simple facts. I have said, more than once, that one of those two ships was no longer suitable for service. It had been laid up for years. This is well accepted in Royal Navy/UK mil circles. Is there any particular reason you refuse to acknowledge this?

If a ship is only good for scrap, getting rid of it has no impact on the fleet. So in reality at most the Royal Navy is losing 1 frigate out of 12, not 2 out of 13.

and slapping on a VLS and new radar makes their chronological age "largely irrelevant".
The Type 23s have had a VLS for ages. Only the old Sea Wolf was fired from box launchers. And given that the radar is probably the most important part of a ship's command and control structure, I have no idea why you don't rate Artisan.

Or to put it another way, what do you think are the weak points of the Type 23 that make them unsuitable for a modern naval conflict? I'll give you the Harpoons as they're an older block, but that's not enough to imply the Type 23 is useless, especially given that I-SSGW will be providing a new anti-ship missile in the next few years.
 

Timmymagic

New Member
Registered Member
Not to mention their frigate fleet is a design 30 years old with only 13 of them.
Just remind me about the Arleigh Burke Class again....designed mid 80's, in service since 89...pretty much the exact same timeline as T23....

Only the UK isn't building T23's anymore...last one was launched 20 years ago...meanwhile the AB's are still being built...because the US has a serious issue with designing and building surface combatants, if the last couple of classes are anything to go by.
 

Timmymagic

New Member
Registered Member
The U.K. has three carriers
Nope.
At the start the UK had 2 operational carriers. HMS Hermes and HMS Invincible. HMS Illustrious was not commissioned, she was on builders trials. Bulwark had been decommissioned. Albion already scrapped and Ark Royal and Eagle were both being scrapped at Cairnryan.
The new HMS Ark Royal didn't arrive until 84.
12 destroyers 36 frigates

Most of those ships were actually incapable of defending themselves and had questionable utility. In practice there were 8 Destroyers that were worthy of the name (1 x Type 82, 7 x Type 42) and 6 Frigates ( 4 x Type 22 and 2 Leander fitted with Sea Wolf). The rest were ships due to be replaced or solely useful for ASW in the N. Atlantic under Allied air cover.

In addition the 2 LSD were steam powered and not in great shape (and not very big). The one good thing was the RFA was in a decent shape.
 

Timmymagic

New Member
Registered Member
CSG21 is continuing with the Falcon Strike 21 exercises off Italy (US, UK, Italy and Israeli F-35's involved).

A stop at Souda Bay is probably next with some ships visiting Piraeus, and Black Sea trips for some escorts. Then expect the CSG to undertake a number of days of airstrikes/combat patrols over western Iraq and eastern Syria with F-35B's.

Meanwhile...off the UK South Coast...HMS Prince Of Wales just landed her first F-35B...

 

Timmymagic

New Member
Registered Member
A stop at Souda Bay is probably next with some ships visiting Piraeus, and Black Sea trips for some escorts. Then expect the CSG to undertake a number of days of airstrikes/combat patrols over western Iraq and eastern Syria with F-35B's.

This now looks a little unlikely. QE made a logistics stop in Augusta, Sicily (the Cavour was moored nearby).
 

Top