Expanding the Navy again

#81
Political-military confrontation between contending states or groups below conventional war and above the routine, peaceful competition among states. It frequently involves protracted struggles of competing principles and ideologies. Low-intensity conflict ranges from subversion to the use of the armed forces. It is waged by a combination of means, employing political, economic, informational, and military instruments. Low-intensity conflicts are often localized, generally in the Third World, but contain regional and global security implications...

...There has not been a war since Korea...
So, in summary, you made a sweeping generalisation stating that war since 1945 had all been ‘low intensity’ before directly equating the Korean War to WWII.

You then appeared to imply that any conflict below a global nuclear exchange was limited in both nature and regional impact.

Now your own definition of low intensity conflict appears to exclude what most would consider were the key characteristics of the Korean, Arab-Israeli various, Vietnam, Indo-Pakistan various, Iran-Iraq, Falklands and GW1 conflicts.

Finally, you state ‘...there has not been a war since 1945...’, which I’d suggest is itself is a fairly arbitrary claim, meaningless to those involved, presumably based on the concept of declared war.

...You ask why I think the RN ,as it is presently constituted, has limited relevance to global war in the 21st Century and beyond---
That is a rhetorical question...
How can it be a rhetorical question when I’m asking you for your opinion following your earlier statement that ‘little else in today’s navy’ is ‘vital’ beyond nuclear submarines?

Regards,
MM
 

ratsroden

Lantern Swinger
#82
So, in summary, you made a sweeping generalisation stating that war since 1945 had all been ‘low intensity’ before directly equating the Korean War to WWII.

You then appeared to imply that any conflict below a global nuclear exchange was limited in both nature and regional impact.

Now your own definition of low intensity conflict appears to exclude what most would consider were the key characteristics of the Korean, Arab-Israeli various, Vietnam, Indo-Pakistan various, Iran-Iraq, Falklands and GW1 conflicts.

Finally, you state ‘...there has not been a war since 1945...’, which I’d suggest is itself is a fairly arbitrary claim, meaningless to those involved, presumably based on the concept of declared war.



How can it be a rhetorical question when I’m asking you for your opinion following your earlier statement that ‘little else in today’s navy’ is ‘vital’ beyond nuclear submarines?

Regards,
MM
The last war we fought was in Korea 1950-1953 with The Armistice signed at Panmunjom July 27 1953. There have only been Campaigns since.

The law of war is a legal term of art that refers to the aspect of public international law concerning acceptable justifications to engage in war (jus ad bellum) and the limits to acceptable wartime conduct (jus in bello or international humanitarian law). Among other issues, modern laws of war address declarations of war.
 
#83
The law of war is a legal term of art that refers to the aspect of public international law concerning acceptable justifications to engage in war (jus ad bellum) and the limits to acceptable wartime conduct (jus in bello or international humanitarian law). Among other issues, modern laws of war address declarations of war.
You're doing it again.
Please provide a link to your 'cut & paste' so the rest of us can enjoy the whole article and view it in context.
Like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_war
 
#84
The last war we fought was in Korea 1950-1953 with The Armistice signed at Panmunjom July 27 1953. There have only been Campaigns since...
I know.

However, you didn't limit your initial comments to UK conflicts and there have been several instances of wars being declared by other states. Either way, your point questioning the RN's future relevance seems to be based on the nature of conflict as opposed to whether a war is declared or not.

...The law of war is a legal term of art that refers to the aspect of public international law concerning acceptable justifications to engage in war (jus ad bellum) and the limits to acceptable wartime conduct (jus in bello or international humanitarian law). Among other issues, modern laws of war address declarations of war.
Yep, well aware of that thank you.

Now, once again, any chance you could explain why you consider the RN of such limited relevance to future UK defence needs?

Regards,
MM
 

ratsroden

Lantern Swinger
#86
I know.

However, you didn't limit your initial comments to UK conflicts and there have been several instances of wars being declared by other states. Either way, your point questioning the RN's future relevance seems to be based on the nature of conflict as opposed to whether a war is declared or not.



Yep, well aware of that thank you.

Now, once again, any chance you could explain why you consider the RN of such limited relevance to future UK defence needs?

Regards,
MM
Wars are not permitted to be declared by UN member States. The only legal wars that can be declared remain between South and North Korea- North and South Sudan- Turkey and Greece in Cyprus and any future countries that divide and rule. No wars have been internationally legally declared since 1953.
 
Last edited:
#87
Wars are not permitted to be declared by UN member States. The only legal wars that can be declared remain between South and North Korea- North and South Sudan- Turkey and Greece in Cypress and any future countries that divide and rule. No wars have been internationally legally declared since 1953.
You now appear to be moving the goalposts further and referring to the legality of declared wars! However, your favourite Wiki pages appears to suggest that you're incorrect. Ultimately, the UN Charter allows the declaration of war for defensive purposes.

But once again, whether a war is declared or not, it is irrelevant to the nature of conflict. So why do you consider the RN is so irrelevant to future UK Defence?

Regards,
MM
 

ratsroden

Lantern Swinger
#88
You now appear to be moving the goalposts further and referring to the legality of declared wars! However, your favourite Wiki pages appears to suggest that you're incorrect. Ultimately, the UN Charter allows the declaration of war for defensive purposes.

But once again, whether a war is declared or not, it is irrelevant to the nature of conflict. So why do you consider the RN is so irrelevant to future UK Defence?

Regards,
MM
Not the RN just most of it.

This stealth allows a submarine to put a massive amount of uncertainty into the mind of an enemy, forcing them to waste resources trying to hunt down subs that they aren't sure are even there, or cause them to completely abandon an area. During the Falklands War in 1982, for example, the sinking of the General Belgrano by HMS Conqueror kept almost the entire Argentine fleet bottled up in port.

From a strategic point of view, this element of uncertainty has been key to nuclear deterrence. An enemy might be able to so precisely locate another nation's missile bases and airfields as to make a nuclear first strike something worth considering, but a submarine armed with nuclear missiles will still represent the threat of devastating retaliation, which is part of the reason the US keeps half of its nuclear forces – and the UK its entire deterrent – on subs.

Small wonder that submariners regard their vessels as the true capital ships – whatever the carrier fans might say.

Putin said of our new aircraft carriers...
They'll make a very large slow moving target
 
#90
Not the RN just most of it.

This stealth allows a submarine to put a massive amount of uncertainty into the mind of an enemy, forcing them to waste resources trying to hunt down subs that they aren't sure are even there, or cause them to completely abandon an area. During the Falklands War in 1982, for example, the sinking of the General Belgrano by HMS Conqueror kept almost the entire Argentine fleet bottled up in port.

From a strategic point of view, this element of uncertainty has been key to nuclear deterrence. An enemy might be able to so precisely locate another nation's missile bases and airfields as to make a nuclear first strike something worth considering, but a submarine armed with nuclear missiles will still represent the threat of devastating retaliation, which is part of the reason the US keeps half of its nuclear forces – and the UK its entire deterrent – on subs.

Small wonder that submariners regard their vessels as the true capital ships – whatever the carrier fans might say.

Putin said of our new aircraft carriers...
They'll make a very large slow moving target
If I may, you appear somewhat obsessed with nuclear warfare. While such simplistic generalisations are fine and dandy, you may therefore note that our defence interests extend far beyond nuclear war and even conflict. For instance, our SSBNs require the Joint effects of RN surface assets, organic aviation and RAF aircraft (including but not limited to Maritime surveillance assets) to remain credible; surface assets provide critical intelligence and deterrence; an SSN is unable to splash a hostile MPA, a T45 is.

Regards,
MM
 
Last edited:
#92
The RN Surface Assets will be unmanned.
Blimey, how many times can you move the goalposts in a thread?!!!

Unmanned assets have their role and you'll note that nowhere have I stated that the RN would not be using remotely operated or autonomous systems. However, we know from significant operational experience in the Air Component that, while unmanned assets have their uses, they also have significant drawbacks that will not be overcome for several decades yet. Not least amongst these is that 'unmanned' assets often require significantly greater manpower to keep them working! By way of illustration, the small British Army H450 UAV effort in Afghanistan had more personnel than the RAF Tornado GR4 det!

I can't tell you the problems that Duncan Sandysesque 'the answer's unmanned, now what's the question?' mindset generates in Defence.

Regards,
MM
 
Last edited:
#94
Not the RN just most of it.

This stealth allows a submarine to put a massive amount of uncertainty into the mind of an enemy, forcing them to waste resources trying to hunt down subs that they aren't sure are even there, or cause them to completely abandon an area. During the Falklands War in 1982, for example, the sinking of the General Belgrano by HMS Conqueror kept almost the entire Argentine fleet bottled up in port.

From a strategic point of view, this element of uncertainty has been key to nuclear deterrence. An enemy might be able to so precisely locate another nation's missile bases and airfields as to make a nuclear first strike something worth considering, but a submarine armed with nuclear missiles will still represent the threat of devastating retaliation, which is part of the reason the US keeps half of its nuclear forces – and the UK its entire deterrent – on subs.

Small wonder that submariners regard their vessels as the true capital ships – whatever the carrier fans might say.

Putin said of our new aircraft carriers...
They'll make a very large slow moving target
As a former sundodger of 30 years (all SSN's) if you disregard the SSBN, which is last resort retaliatory strike, there is only so much an SSN can do, certainly sea denial and intelligence gathering, which cannot be effectively done on a local level although air and satellite assets are also a valuable resource, but the best an SSN can do against land targets is launch TLAM (been there, done that) which have a 1000 mile range and a relatively small warhead and are precision strike.

To put a large amount of boots on the ground, with the armour to go with them, you need amphibious forces, local air cover and logistical support, all defended by an appropriate warship screen. Air can only bring in a limited amount of troops and supplies which will require an airfield.

In conclusion, if you're going abroad to fight a war, you need surface assets, and more than we have now IMHO.
 
#95
As a former sundodger of 30 years (all SSN's) if you disregard the SSBN, which is last resort retaliatory strike, there is only so much an SSN can do, certainly sea denial and intelligence gathering, which cannot be effectively done on a local level although air and satellite assets are also a valuable resource, but the best an SSN can do against land targets is launch TLAM (been there, done that) which have a 1000 mile range and a relatively small warhead and are precision strike.

To put a large amount of boots on the ground, with the armour to go with them, you need amphibious forces, local air cover and logistical support, all defended by an appropriate warship screen. Air can only bring in a limited amount of troops and supplies which will require an airfield.

In conclusion, if you're going abroad to fight a war, you need surface assets, and more than we have now IMHO.
Bloody hell is that all our vastly expensive nuclear subs are capable of?

Then we really are buggerred!
 
#98
Following on from Paxman's post,

I know of someone who has done 'weeks' of sea time since 2005.
Still lives on the patch with his gaggle of kids. What incentive is there for this person to progress or leave?
 
Last edited:

wave_dodger

MIA
Book Reviewer
#99
Not the RN just most of it.

This stealth allows a submarine to put a massive amount of uncertainty into the mind of an enemy, forcing them to waste resources trying to hunt down subs that they aren't sure are even there, or cause them to completely abandon an area. During the Falklands War in 1982, for example, the sinking of the General Belgrano by HMS Conqueror kept almost the entire Argentine fleet bottled up in port.

From a strategic point of view, this element of uncertainty has been key to nuclear deterrence. An enemy might be able to so precisely locate another nation's missile bases and airfields as to make a nuclear first strike something worth considering, but a submarine armed with nuclear missiles will still represent the threat of devastating retaliation, which is part of the reason the US keeps half of its nuclear forces – and the UK its entire deterrent – on subs.

Small wonder that submariners regard their vessels as the true capital ships – whatever the carrier fans might say.

Putin said of our new aircraft carriers...
They'll make a very large slow moving target
Sorry but that's utter bilge!

The UK Armed Forces exist to do more than provide a deterrent effect.

When over 90% of world trade still moves by sea yet we have less than 1-4 weeks worth of foods and fuels in the UK we need a Navy able to ensure sea lines of communication are always open.

In recent times the RN and Allied Navies demonstrated this when the Somali pirates activities in the Gulf/Indian Ocean region started shipping fleets to pause and/or divert which caused a spike in fuel and other good prices. If you'd not had a Navy you'd be paying sky high prices for fuel and the more exotic goods we import.

If you're such a keen fan of submarines you'll be aware of their primary mission, hugely important if not critical but only one fragment of the tapestry that is a campaign/war.

Next topic, OP RUMAN - Without a UK MoD presence who was going to carry out and coordinate the HADR activity required to get the islands back up and running? Noting despite the best efforts of the press, we had a presence in the region before hand, had established supply dumps and had a plan, put into perfect effect, to resupply and upscale the effort after an activity - all without a submarine!

Carriers - slow moving targets? They proved to be pretty useful at the outset of HERRICK, allowing coalition (FR and US) aircraft to operate from sea based sovereign locations whilst overflight and host basing agreements were being established. Pretty hard to achieve that and the CAS/ISR without carrier based aircraft. RU envy of Allied Carrier Aviation is manifest, their record for flight safety in carrier operations is appalling, so they'll dismiss them at every opportunity but they do understand the power and potential of a Carrier Battle Group/Task Group even if they can't develop one themselves.
 

wave_dodger

MIA
Book Reviewer
The RN Surface Assets will be unmanned.
In time some may well be. T26 has a life out to 2050, the CVF has a 40+ year life, 2060. We might see some aspect of MCM undertaken by autonomous craft first but I'd bet there will be a manned mothership (somewhere with a NAAFI and gel), at the earliest 2030 at a guess.

T45 will be in service until at least 2040, maybe 2050 - the next generation AAW will be manned but will most likely have a far smaller crew and lot more AI drives systems and a lot more automated FF/DC capability.

SSN's are a good option to automate but again unlikely to see anything before 2050-60 at the very earliest.
 

Latest Threads

New Posts

Top