“UK RISKS BEING OVERTAKEN BY NEARLY ALL DEVELOPED WORLD COUNTRIES IN TERMS OF ITS NAVAL FORCES”
Almost 6-years of not adequately replenished “War On Terror” commitments & equipment losses, along with recent naval-programme cuts have left the Royal Navy virtually without an air-arm, & without known-to-be-effective defenses against 21st-century anti-ship weapons likely to be encountered in theatres such as the Persian Gulf, or the South Atlantic.
These include the Russian SS-N-27 “Sizzler” supersonic cruise missile:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=akO7Y_ORw538&refer=home
http://www.uscpf.org/html/events/2005/transcript.html
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Klub.html
UK “war on terror” (W.O.T.) activities in Afghanistan & Iraq have resulted in the deployment there of so many aircraft normally assigned to the RN’s 2 remaining ‘pocket’ aircraft carriers, that these vital ships are having to operate without their Harriers:
http://www.newbernsj.com/news/british_35707___article.html/american_ship.html
In September-2007, HMS Ocean- the RN’s, only dedicated helicopter carrier- was taken out-of-service for over 1 year for un-planned repairs:
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/HmsOceanInLineForMajorRefit.htm
Instead of putting £4 Billion toward the design/construction of 2 new “big deck” aircraft carriers- as part of a misguided UK/French project- the UK ought to ‘call-in a favor’ from ‘our best friends’, the USA, & ask for the lend/lease of 2 of their recently produced/nearing commissioning medium-sized “LHD Class” aircraft carriers, along with their armaments, aircraft & related logistical equipment:
- USS Makin Island (LHD 8) (nearing commissioning);
- USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7) commissioned June 2001;
These ships:
- weigh-in at about double the tonnage of the RN’s 2.5 decade-old, past-service-life Invincible Class carriers;
- deploy the same types of fixed-wing aircraft as RN carriers, but have 2X the aircraft carrying & sortie capacity;
- have far more versatile capabilities; &
- are out fitted with very recent technology radars & anti-missile/anti-submarine warfare systems.
… and would be far more appropriate for deployment to the Persian Gulf next year instead of (as is planned) the highly vulnerable-to-21st-century-anti-ship-weapons HMS Illustrious.
The lend/lease of several of the US Navy’s most up-to-date Destroyers to act as escorts for two of their lend/leased-to-the-UK ‘medium-sized’ LHA aircraft carriers- would enable competent anti-air-threat-protection for these carriers, a service not provide-able by the RN’s dangerously out-of-date Type-42 Destroyers.
All of the Royal Navy’s main (surface) escort ships, IE its 25-year-old Destroyers & even its ‘newest’ Frigates possess alarmingly out of date anti-air defense systems, with technologies that are not adequate for countering known 21st century anti-ship threats, such as the SS-N-27.
With funds saved from the USA lend/leasing the UK 2 of its medium sized aircraft carriers, the UK could expedite the approval-for-construction of ALL of the urgently needed (12) newly designed, leading-edge-technology Type-45 Destroyers-> that were committed to by the Labour govt in the late 1990’s (intended to replace the RN’s 25-year-old Type-42’s:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/type45.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/type42.htm
Type-45 Destroyers- EQUIPPED AS PER DESIGNERS’ SPECIFICATIONS- are purportedly the only ships world-wide that are capable of defending against the SS-N-27:
http://www.janes.com/defence/naval_forces/news/jni/jni060207_1_n.shtml
To be effective, all Type-45’s would need to be commissioned EQUIPPED AS PER DESIGNERS’ SPECIFICATIONS, instead of being commissioned as STRIPPED DOWN VERSIONS- as the Labour govt has recently directed for ALL of the 3 or 4 Type-45’s that ‘may’ be constructed*.
(* 6 are ‘committed’ to, as of November-2007, but, 2 of these are apparently ‘to-be-sold’ to Saudi Arabia.)
IE: no Sonar (read: no anti-submarine capabilities); no on-ship torpedo-launch abilities; no up-to-date “Close In Weapons Systems” (CIWS’s) required for defending against anti-ship cruise missiles, fast-attack suicide boats & low-aircraft, etc.
Instead, 25-year-old technology CIWS’s are being installed.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/type45.htm :
Additionally, instead of continuing with the ill-advised UK/French aircraft carrier venture - the UK should invite itself to be part of the USA’s ongoing project designing (& then building) the LHD Class’s successor: the “LHA-6 Class” medium sized aircraft carrier.
Projected to displace 51,000- 60,000 tonnes, LHA-6’s will be leaders of their type, regarding:
- offensive capacities;
- anti-missile & anti-submarine defenses;
- their abilities to set aside sections to function as hospital ships; &
- their abilities to function as battle-space data command centre’s.
LHA-6’s conceivably may be NUCLEAR-POWERED, necessary for running high-energy-use equipment, such as Directed Energy Weapons (DEW’s).
DEW’s are thought by many experts to be the only weapon likely to be able to counter the SS-N-27 “Sizzler”.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/usa-broadening-conservation-focus-to-weapons-systems-02186/#more
The Royal Navy ought to be able to be more than moral support to the USA in 21st century conflicts.
Without an expedited- if not immediate- replacement of its outdated, vulnerable aircraft carriers & Destroyers- not to mention its ‘Paleolithic’ supply and mine-sweeper ships- the UK is asking for disaster if it has to or chooses to intervene or participate in conflicts in which its adversaries possess up-to-date naval weaponry.
_____________________________________
______________________________________
Solutions?? “US/UK NAVAL PROJECTS CALLED FOR”
The recent go-ahead for over £4 billion to be spent on the design/build of 2 “big deck” aircraft carriers- & having these co-built in cooperation with France- a country that does not have expertise in this field- rather than having these vital ships co-built with a country which has unquestioned leadership in aircraft carrier technologies- the USA- is plainly ill-advised & will result in, comparatively, 3rd-rate carriers with:
- 20-year-old technologies; severe deficiencies in versatility & upgrade-ability; &
- not capable of operating Directed Energy Weapons (DEW’s) for use against known-today threats- such as the Russian “Sizzler” SS-N-27 super-sonic anti-ship cruise missile.
Even worse, unlike the UK versions, France’s new “big deck” aircraft carriers will be constructed with catapult-launch-of-aircraft capability, from a “flat deck”.
French versions won’t rely on ski-jump decks to launch aircraft like the UK’s planned (& its present ‘pocket’) carriers.
Compared to the UK’s, France’s new carriers will be:
- far more capable;
- able to deploy a much broader variety of aircraft, such as electronic countermeasure (ECM) & unmanned fighter aircraft
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/cv-ucavs-the-return-of-ucas-03557/
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ea18g-program-the-usas-electronic-growler-02427/#more ;
- & in a business where ‘size does matter’... 10,000 tonnes heavier than the UK’s (65k vs 75k).
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/france-steaming-ahead-on-pa2cvf-carrier-project-01621/
As proposed in the above comment, instead of continuing with the ill-advised UK/French aircraft carrier project, the UK ought to call-in a favor from the USA & invite itself to be part of the project designing & building the LHD Class’s successor: the “LHA-6 Class”.
info: http://acquisition.navy.mil/programs/ships/lha_6
LHA-6’s are to be built & commissioned for the US Navy by 2011- a full 4.5 years earlier than the planned UK/French carrier project’s first ships ‘may’ be delivered... & MAY BE NUCLEAR POWERED, to accommodate high energy need equipment, such as Directed Energy Weapons (DEW’s).
DEW’s are thought by experts to be the only type of ship-defense weapon likely to be able to counter 21st century naval threats like the comparatively widely deployed Russian SS-N-27 supersonic anti-ship missile.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/usa-broadening-conservation-focus-to-weapons-systems-02186/#more
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=akO7Y_ORw538&refer=home
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Klub.html
http://www.uscpf.org/html/events/2005/transcript.html
An LHD/LHA-6 approach would restore & significantly enhance the RN’s capacities long before HMS Ocean is repaired; years before UK ‘W.O.T.’ commitments end; & as much as a decade ahead of the misguided UK/French carrier project’s 1st ships.. at 1/2 to 3/5 the cost...
UK/French projects are not all inadvisable... but if this type of approach is going to result in technologically deficient, inferior products- compared to easily facilitatable alternatives- particularly in an area that directly affects national security, questions need to be asked why is it being used!!
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
“UK RISKS BEING OVERTAKEN BY NEARLY ALL DEVELOPED WORLD COUNTRIES IN TERMS OF ITS NAVAL FORCES” CONTINUED...
The premature decommissioning of nearly 1/4 of the RN’s Type 42 Destroyers in the late 1990’s, along with- in 2003- the sale to Chile of 3 Type-23 Frigates, has left the Royal Navy with less (surface) escort ships in 2007, than the French Navy- a condition that has not existed since the 1600’s.
One of the Type 23’s sold to Chile- HMS Grafton- was for 60% less than it cost to build her!!
Is this evidence of a govt that is serious about defense or the UK’s place and duties in the world??
Although most are considerably newer than the RN’s technologically out-of-date Type-42 Destroyers, the remaining Type-23 Frigates (along with their older sisters- Type-22 Frigate’s) will, in a measurably-soon time-frame, need to be replaced as a matter of basic Mod function.
During Labour’s 10-years in govt, only the most cursory planning has been carried out for this vital task. No ‘Frigate replacement’ designs (MVD’s) have been agreed on.
So what should be done??
Use the Type-45 as a template for the Type-23 & 22 Frigate replacements, but differentiate with ‘class 1’ being specialized for anti-submarine warfare; & ‘class 2’ being specialized for ‘land attack’ & expeditionary unit support purposes.
The French are designating several of their newest Destroyers
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/horizon2/
as ‘land attack’ models- equipping them with cruise missile launchers (Sylver 70’s) which are effectively a ’big’ version of the anti-air missile launchers (Sylver-50’s) used on the RN’s new Type-45’s.
Unless things change, the UK risks being overtaken by nearly all developed world countries in terms of its naval forces.
The UK’s new classes of Destroyer’s, MVD’s, and aircraft carriers could truly lead the world’s navies in terms of quality and capabilities (for their type and displacement sizes)...
… but without significant effort to change mindsets in the current govt & possibly the MoD, countries like South Korea will “cut the UK’s grass” to use a North American expression... and consequently take the trade related benefits...
Shouldn’t an objective of the UK govt be to ensure that its newest naval ships appear better than other countries that are building comparable classes of ships (Destroyers/Frigates)?
South Korea, Germany, France, Italy (& many others) all are undergoing major design/ build programmes of these classes of ships. How will the UK appear if its newest “ships of the line”, when commissioned, are half-equipped? ...with their most needed, vital-for-duty equipment not installed??
How does the (1/2 equipped as is now intended, or fully equipped) Type 45 compare to South Korea’s newest Destroyer variant the KDX III?
Type 45:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/type45.htm
South Korea:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/drs-wins-multiplexing-contract-for-korean-aegis-destroyers-0431/ or
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/rok/kdx-3.htm
Germany:
Their ‘reply’ to the Type-45:
http://www.deagel.com/Frigates/F124-Sachsen_a000440001.aspx
France/Italy:
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/horizon2/
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/fremm/
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/francoitalian-fremm-multirole-frigate-project-formalized-01513/
The UK’s Royal Navy is being negligently mis-managed and incompetently overseen by the current govt.
There is no reason why the RN can not lead the world in terms of the capabilities and technologies of its ships and equipment, as well as the skills & professionalism of its sailors.
If the UK is putting its newest, best & most bragged about warships to sea ½ equipped (Type-45 Destroyers), will this not make the UK a laughing stalk among major-power nations, as well as damaging potential trade relationships with countries looking to buy defense goods?
If the UK partners with another nation- France- in the design & building of major defense equipment, in this case aircraft carriers, and the UK’s version of these ships is very noticeably & significantly inferior and less capable than France’s version- won’t this damage the UK’s international profile??
Won’t this be counterproductive to the UK’s international profile in terms of its technological and manufacturing capacities?
If newly produced ships- and even planned new ones, such as the recently approved aircraft carriers- or MVD’s (Type-22 & Type-23 Frigate replacements) are being commissioned (or planned to-be-commissioned) without vital hardware and equipment that their designers intended for them to be out fitted with-> what sort of message does this send to those the UK wants to trade with, or countries that the UK may have to be militarily adverse to, down the road????
In early 1997 the US Department of Defense offered up to four US Navy Oliver Hazard Perry (FFG-7) class frigates as “optional extras” (as lend/lease) to permit the early withdrawal of the oldest Batch 1 Type 42 destroyers from the UK Royal Navy service.
This offer was not taken up by the UK, but it implies that the US agreeing to lend/lease LHD 7 and 8 and/or LHA-6’s are reasonable future objectives for the UK govt.
Due to its comparatively enormous cost and the project’s huge capacity to ‘distract’ the average voter, the UK/French aircraft carrier project will likely end up functioning as a false excuse for the UK govt to:
- decommission and/or sell-off-prematurely what remains of the RN’s fleets…
- not replace existing classes of Frigates/Destroyers/support ships and the like; &
Rather than allowing the unopposed continuation of the highly contrary-to-logic UK/French aircraft carrier project- the Conservative party ought to evaluate where there could be more UK/USA naval projects… particularly in areas that include aircraft carriers and development of defenses to emerging anti-ship weapons.
Roderick V. Louis
(near) Vancouver, BC,
Canada,
ceo@patientempowermentsociety.com
A very comprehensive post, some of it good, some of it bad.
It isn’t in our national interests to rely on other nations for armaments, as these can be reduced or meaningless should allies turn to enemies.
The last lend/lease deal the UK did with the US ripped us off in the Atlantic, with a bunch of barely operational rust buckets being hawked off to the RN in exchange for British sovereign land, and a whole heap of cash. Not to be repeated. Only this year have we ‘paid our debt’ to the US, 60 odd years after the wonderful ‘favour’.
The UK’s shipbuilding industry would suffer as a result of lost contracts for the Astute, Type 45, QE Class and the River’s. With tens of thousands of jobs at stake, it would be stupid to simply pay the Yanks for ships they built. Which, while they MAY be good vessels, wont improve the manufacturing sector of the UK in terms of military builds. So we lose 10,000 jobs, the BAE dry docks in Barrow are sold off, and we can no longer build our own weapons.
We have commissioned the new Albion Class to enable a rapid blue water deployment of marines and ground forces. The hew carriers will dwarf the prospective lend/lease options you cited in your post, namely the 40,000 tonne LHD’s you proposed. Why would we want these inferior carriers, able to carry only a few more planes than our redoubtable Invincible Class, than the 60,000 tonne, state of the art twin island CVF’s able to field near 60 aircraft????? Sounds like someone doesn’t want us to get capabilities that match their own.
The CVF’s are a British design, British manufactured, with little input from the French. Our manufacturing base constructs some superb products, and have made alot of money selling them overseas. Maybe the US would prefer us to keep out of their arms dealing territory, but tough, we aint gonna.
The stripped down versions of the Type 45 you are referring to, state that the vessels have been built for, but not with, certain systems. These would take minimal time for them to be added in event of modern war.
Your comments concerning the carrier that the UK is going to build for France (and its singular, you talks in pluralities), wont be better or more effective that the UK’s. Why would we make something better for another nation???? You also talk about the CVF’s being ill-equipped technologically compared to US carriers being proposed for 2010. but if your vessels are made after, then they will be more advanced than the US’. Obviously!
So we are going to sell our fleet so we can build 2 carriers????? I think not pal. This is some good scaremongering, and would even find some print in a tabloid rag, but serious studied analysis it aint!
Type 23 Frigate: Last vessel commissioned June 2002
Specifications
Weapon Systems
* 2 x quadruple Harpoon missile launchers
* 32 x Vertical Launch Sea Wolf Surface-to-air missiles (VLS GWS 26 Mod 1 Block 2 system)
* 1 x 114 mm (4.5 in) Vickers Mark 8 gun (all ships being upgraded to Mod 1 standard)
* 2 x Oerlikon 30 mm L/75 KCB guns on single Laurence Scott DS-30B mounts. Being upgraded to remote control with electro-optic director
* 4 x Cray Marine 324 mm (2 twin) fixed torpedo tubes, Marconi Sting Ray
* NATO Seagnat, Type 182 and DLF3 countermeasures launchers
Aircraft:
* Westland Lynx HM.8 or AgustaWestland Merlin HM.1 helicopter
* Armament:
o Sea Skua missiles (Lynx only)
o Sting Ray torpedoes
o depth charges
Electronic Systems
* Search: BAE Systems Radar Type 996 Mod 1, 3D surveillance
* Navigation: Kelvin Hughes Radar Type 1007 and Racal Decca Type 1008
* Fire control:
o 2 x GEC Marconi Type 911 Sea Wolf systems
o Sperry Sea Archer 30 optronic surveillance / director
* Bow sonar: Thales Underwater Systems Type 2050
* Towed sonar: Ultra Electronics Type 2031Z, being replaced by Type 2087 in eight ships
* Combat Management System: BAE Systems Command System DNA(1)
Last of the line is only 5 years old, and their are capabilities for surface-to-surface, surface-to-air and ASW. And what developed world nation is going to have a war against the UK? Seriously?