Reuters: UK May Axe Carriers, Trident Safe - Defence Source

Discussion in 'The Fleet' started by soleil, Aug 19, 2010.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Now I know sweet feck all about budgets etc.

    But why on earth would you scrap something that's currently being built !? 8o
     
  2. Re: Reuters: UK May Axe Carriers, Trident Safe - Defence Sou

    Well that's cleared that up then :roll:
     
  3. Yet another non-story unfortunately. They all seem to be based around a 'source' saying they're looking at all the options. How many more ways can they rehash this before the SDSR?
     
  4. Re: Reuters: UK May Axe Carriers, Trident Safe - Defence Sou

    THE PLANNED 'BIG DECK' AIRCRAFT CARRIERS ARE SO BADLY DESIGNED- DUE TO PREVIOUS LABOUR GOVT INTERFERENCE- WHO BUT MOST INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST & WILLFULY BLIND-TO-RISKS WOULD ENDORSE THEIR COMPLETION

    Britain needs a COMPETENTLY EQUIPPED NAVY!!

    Why don't the RN's and the RFA'a vessels that have been commissioned between 1998-2010 have any missile-based anti airborne threat defensive systems?

    HMS Ocean, Bulwark, Albion, the 4 RFA Bay class LSD's, and others were built & commissioned without missile-based anti airborne threat defence systems, and without vitally important inter-ship & inter-squadron communications and sensor systems...

    In order to save money, the UK's new Type-45 Destroyers and the planned 'big deck' aircraft carriers' are being built & commissioned into service without 80% of the basic, industry-standard weapons, defensive systems & sensors that their designers' originally intended- and that in other 1st world countries' navy's are mandatorily fitted to new Destroyers, aircraft carriers and similar surface combatants.....

    Not only are there far too few Type-45 Destroyers being built for the Royal Navy- (6) instead of the urgently needed (14)- these warships' anti airborne threat missile system does not work:

    http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jmr/jmr100104_1_n.shtml

    http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome/Royal-Navy-destroyers-at-sea.5889279.jp

    In the late 1990's, the RN's (then) 3 aircraft carriers had their obsolescent 'Sea Dart' missile-based anti airborne threat missile systems removed- AND NOT REPLACED- in order to save money...

    Despite many technologically proficient missile-based anti airborne threat defensive systems existing 1998-2010, the RN's (now only) 2 aircraft carriers have not had their removed-in-the-late-1990's Sea Dart anti airborne threat missile systems replaced: does this say 'responsible govt policy'??
    -------------

    Other countries with aircraft carriers such as the US, France, Italy, Japan and even Brazil fit their aircraft carriers and similar classes of vessels with up-to-date missile-based anti airborne threat defensive systems...

    In most cases these countries also fit their aircraft carriers and similar classes of vessels with armour, armoured bulkheads and other damage control type systems...

    Why doesn't the UK do this??

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/mos...-Behind-scenes-Britains-biggest-warships.html :

    "... Money has also been saved in side armour protection, though Knight insists this was a strategic rather than a budgetary issue. The CVF's first line of defence is the frigates and the new Type 45 destroyers around us,' he adds. 'Our only self-defence is close-in weapons systems and small guns.

    "Instead, what you have on the ship is 36 of the most lethal aircraft*** ever made.'..."

    *** aircraft whose designed-capabilities DO NOT include protecting warships from incoming anti-ship missiles...

    http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/ :

    ".... A number of protective measures such as side armour and armoured bulkheads proposed by industrial bid teams have been deleted from the design in order to comply with cost limitations...."
     
  5. Re: Reuters: UK May Axe Carriers, Trident Safe - Defence Sou

    Roderick V Louis from Vancouver,

    Please do not cut&paste the usual drivel that you crayon all over websites. You are ballistically dull.
     
  6. Re: Reuters: UK May Axe Carriers, Trident Safe - Defence Sou

    PART 2:

    "MBDA'S SAAM-FR NAVAL AIR DEFENCE SYSTEM SUCCESSFULLY CARRIES OUT FIRST SALVO FIRING", 30_05-2005:

    http://www.mbda-systems.com/mbda/site/ref/scripts/newsFO_complet.php?lang=IT&news_id=138

    note:
    (a) the above Aster-15 missile test firing was from France's Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier; AND
    (b) the UK's presently in-service aircraft carriers were stripped of their obsolescent 'Sea Dart' anti airborne threat (AAW) missile systems in the late 1990's; AND
    (c) the UK Labour govt refused to fund a replacement AAW system to be fitted 1998-2010; AND
    (d) in order to save money, the planned aircraft carriers won't have any anti airborne threat missile systems whatsoever...

    The US, Italy, France, Japan and even Brazil fit and are retrofitting their carriers with technologically up-to-date anti ASCM/anti-airborne threat (AAW) weapons: for the UK to not be doing the same for its existing and planned carriers is gross negligence....

    Even Brazil makes sure that its nearly 50-year old Aircraft Carrier is fitted with up-to-date, missile-based anti airborne threat defence systems:

    08_01-2010 Janes article- "Refitted Sao Paulo returns to sea":

    http://www.janes.com/news/defence/naval/idr/idr100108_1_n.shtml -

    ..."(As a result of the refit, the Sao Paulo has) three new twin-Mistral surface-to-air missile launchers "...

    For the previous UK Labour govt to have not funded the same for the Royal Navy's 3 aircraft carriers that were in-service in 1998; the 2 that remain in-service today AND the now-planned 2 'big-deck' aircraft carriers is overt evidence of a political party that is either pathologically incapable or unwilling to make hard choices in terms of priorizing allocations of public monies....

    http://www.military-today.com/navy/improved_nimitz_class.htm :

    "... These (US Navy Nimitz class supercarriers) were completed with Kevlar armour over their vital areas and have improved hull protection arrangements...

    "The Kevlar armour has been retrofitted to the earlier carriers, as have many of the advanced systems built into the newer ships..."


    http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/uss-theodore-roosevelt-headed-into-midlife-overhaul-02810/ http://www.news.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=400&ct=4

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/lhd-8.htm

    http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvn-21/

    http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvn-21/cvn-213.html

    http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvn-21/cvn-214.html

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cvn-78-specs.htm

    http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003686.html :

    "... The Hyuga... will carry an Aegis-type air defense system, with the U.S.-developed AN/SPY-1 multi-function radar; her principal "weapons" armament will be 64 advanced ESSM-type missiles... "

    "... She will also be fitted with two 20-mm Phalanx (radar guided) "Gatling" guns for close-in defense against anti-ship missiles, and she will have six tubes for anti-submarine torpedoes...."


    http://defense-update.com/products/h/hyuga_250409.html -

    "... Hyuga is equipped with 16 Mk41 VLS (Vertical Launch System) cells (each cell carries and can launch 4 ESSM-type missiles- rvl) for anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles and accommodates two 20mm Phalanx (radar guided) anti-missile cannon and two triple 12.75-inch torpedo mounts for self defense...."
    -----------------------
    -----------------------

    1a) "why do ALL of the US Navy's in-service 'big deck' Nimitz and Improved Nimitz class aircraft carriers as well as the LHA and LHD classes of ‘medium sized aircraft carriers’ have armour and armoured bulkheads?" and

    1b) WHY ARE THESE VESSELS FITTED COMPREHENSIVELY WITH ANTI AIRBORNE THREAT MISSILE SYSTEMS & THE ADVANCED RADARS + COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS REQUIRED TO OPERATE THEM?"

    - http://www.military-today.com/navy/improved_nimitz_class.htm -

    2) "why are the US's newest 'big deck' carriers- such as the recently commissioned G Bush and the undergoing-design "Gerald Ford†class- built with extensive amounts of armour and fitted with armoured bulkheads and/or being designed to be fitted extensively with armour and with armoured bulkheads?"

    3) "why are the US's newest 'big deck' carriers- such as the recently commissioned G Bush and the undergoing design Gerald Ford class built with and/or designed to be fitted with anti airborne threat missile systems and the advanced radars required to operate these systems?"

    4) The same questions could be put to persons serving on, overseeing and/or involved in the design of the US Navy's 10 'medium sized' (LHA and LHD class) aircraft carriers... (each about twice as big as the UK's Invincible class carriers (HMS Illustrious & HMS Ark Royal)) such as the USS Makin Island:


    http://www.navy.mil/local/lhd8/ -

    http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&ct=4&tid=400 -

    http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/navy/amphibiousassault/lhd1Wasp.html -

    http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/navy/amphibiousassault/lha1tarawa.html -

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lhx.htm

    http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/uss-theodore-roosevelt-headed-into-midlife-overhaul-02810/

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cvn-78-specs.htm -

    ... and the above questions could be put to designers of the US Navy's Makin Island successor class of 'medium sized aircraft carriers', due to enter service in 2014 or thereabouts...
    ----------------

    Why are the UK's planned 'big deck' aircraft carriers designed- and being built- without anti airborne threat missile systems and the advanced-technology radars required to operate these weapons????

    Considering that anti airborne threat missile systems are integral to aircraft carriers belonging to ALL other countries' navies world-wide, why isn't the UK govt enabling the UK's planned new carriers to be fitted with these weapons and the radars required to operate them?

    Why are the UK's planned 'big deck' aircraft carriers designed and being built without aircraft-launch catapults??


    Catapults are necessary for aircraft carriers to be able to embark, launch & recover a variety of the most versatile & capable types of fixed-wing aircraft, such as Airborne Early Warning & Control (AWACS) types:

    E-2D Hawkeye: The (U.S.) Navy's New AWACS-

    http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/e-2d-hawkeye-the-navys-new-awacs-03443/

    The RN's new carriers will be restricted to Harrier type (short/vertical take off & land) fixed-wing aircraft & helicopters- that can not duplicate even remotely the capabilities of modern, fixed-wing AWACS...

    http://www.janes.com/news/defence/systems/jni/jni091020_1_n.shtml
    http://www.janes.com/news/defence/idr/idr080611_1_n.shtml :

    "... In 1982 the Falklands conflict provided a stark reminder of the vulnerability of surface forces operating in a hostile air environment without (AWACS) AEW support..."

    "... The absence of such a capability in the face of sustained air attack gave the UK Royal Navy (RN) insufficient warning to counter threats at long range, & directly contributed to the loss of several ships...."
     
  7. PART 3:

    If the egregious threat presented to surface vessels by supersonic sea skimming anti ship cruise missiles (ASCM's)- such as the Russian SS-N-27 'sizzler'- ought to be ignored then why would the U.S. be devoting so much of its resources to beef up its Navy's surface combatants' defences??

    "China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities",
    19_11-2008:

    http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL33153_20081119.pdf -

    Page CRS-92:

    "Surface Ship (Anti-Air Warfare) AAW Upgrades...

    "Are current (US) Navy plans for upgrading surface ship anti-air warfare (AAW) capabilities adequate?

    "The PLA's (China's Navy's) acquisition of advanced and highly capable ASCMs such as the SS-N-27 Sizzler and the SS-N-22 Sunburn raises the question of whether current plans for modernizing (US) Navy surface ship AAW capabilities are adequate..."

    Russia, Iran & China are known to have been marketing clones of and marketing similar missiles to the SS-N-27 world-wide for over a decade...
    ============

    The U.S. Dept of Defense recently released it's annual report to Congress on the People's Republic of China's: Military & Security Developments 2010:

    http://www.defense.gov/pubs/pdfs/2010_CMPR_Final.pdf

    One of the most commented upon topics is the extensive proliferation worldwide of advanced 'Anti-ship Cruise Missiles' (ASCMs)- in this case Russia's & Chinese clones... & how this class of weapons pose extreme risks to the U.S. & allies' naval forces.

    Since the mid 1990s the US. Defense Dept, Congress & its 'Govt Accountability Office' (GAO) have been FORMALLY evaluating- ON A SCHEDULED BASIS- the US Navy's INDIVIDUAL ships' abilities to conduct 'Ship Self Defense' (SDS) against Anti-ship Cruise Missiles (ASCMs) & appropriating BILLIONS of dollars to upgrade (almost ALL) existing & fit ALL new US Navy surface vessels* with technologically advanced, capable anti airborne threat/ anti-ship cruise missile defensive systems...

    * such as Destroyers, Frigates, Amphibious Assault ships, LHA's, LHD's, AIRCRAFT CARRIERS & the like...

    The United Kingdom on the other hand has, during the late 1990s up to 2010, systematically disarmed its front-line surface combatants** IE removed these vessels' obsolescent anti airborne threat 'Sea Dart' systems... leaving these ships defenceless to anti-ship cruise missiles...

    ** such as Type-42 Destroyers & Invincible class Aircraft Carriers...

    Other RN surface vessels have not fared much better:

    due to the age &/or inadequate-technology of their anti-airborne threat weapons systems- especially their combat management system (CMS), types of AAW missiles & radars- ('Sea Wolf' & similar AAW weapons fitted to Type-22 & Type-23 Frigates) they're no better able to cope with ASCMs than the disarmed Type-42s & Invincible class carriers...

    During the last 12-years nearly a dozen new RN*** & RFA**** ships/combatants have been built & commissioned into service with, in most cases, ZERO anti-airborne threat weapons systems:

    *** other than the scandalously abbreviated Type-45 Destroyer programme & its resulting 6 devoid-of-industry-standard weapons-&-sensor systems ships: no capabilities against subsurface, surface and land-based threats...

    **** such as the 'Bay class' Landing Ship Dock (LSD) vessels...

    In other cases, vitally important, central to fleet-function & UK 'power projection' roles ships have been built & commissioned into service 'with' anti airborne threat weapons systems- BUT with incompetent systems that have negligible capabilities against even 1990's-technology ASCMS... (HMS Ocean & the Landing Platform Dock (LPD) vessels)...

    The UK's planned new 'big deck' aircraft carriers have been designed- due to previous Labour govt interference- WITHOUT 'missile-based' ASCM/airborne threat defences & without the high-technology weapons-targeting radars that would be required by missile-based ASCM defensive systems....

    Below are links to reference documents showing that, since the mid 1990's the U.S. has been making planned, scheduled efforts to afford ALL of its Navy's surface vessels with 'Ship Self Defense' (SDS) capabilities against ASCMs & other types of airborne threats that are known to exist today & expected in the near, mid & far term future:

    1) 02-2010 U.S. APPROPRIATION/BUDGET ACTIVITY RECORDS FOR NAVY 'SHIP SELF DEFENSE SYSTEMS' (SSDS) PROJECTS:

    http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2011/Navy/0604755N_PB_2011.pdf

    PAGE 1:

    "This program consolidates... efforts related to Detect & Control aspects of Ship Self Defense (SSD)...

    "Analysis & demonstration have established that surface SSD based on single-sensor detection point-to-point control architecture performs marginally against current & projected Anti-Ship Cruise Missile (ASCM) threats.

    "The supersonic seaskimming ASCM reduces the effective battle space to the horizon & the available reaction time-line to less than 30 seconds from first opportunity to detect until the ASCM impacts its target ship.

    "Against such a threat, multi-sensor integration is required for effective detection, & parallel processing is essential to reduce reaction time to acceptable levels & to provide vital coordination/integration of hardkill & softkill assets...

    "These SSD projects address & coordinate the detect & control functions necessary to meet the rigorous SSD requirements within a development structure dedicated to systems engineering.."

    PAGE 11:

    "(Ship Self Defense System) SSDS MK2 facilitates... implementation of modifications...

    "SSDS MK2 is in development & integrates other ship self defense elements, such as AN/SPQ-9B radar, Sea-sparrow (missile) system, (Cooperative Engagement Capability) CEC & Tactical Data Links for joint (vessel/aircraft platform) interoperability.

    "SSDS MK2 provides enhanced capabilities for (individual ship) Self Defense against air & surface threats using both ownship & remote data to address AAW Capstone requirements. SSDS MK2 becomes the integrated, coherent real time Command & Control System for Aircraft Carriers & Amphibious ships."

    2) 07-2000 U.S. Govt Accountability Office special Defence Acquisitions Report: Comprehensive Strategy Needed to Improve Ship Cruise Missile Defense:

    http://www.gao.gov/archive/2000/ns00149.pdf :

    PAGE 3:

    "Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. Navy has shifted its focus from preparing for warfare... However, the proliferation of increasingly sophisticated anti-ship cruise missiles threatens the ability of Navy ships to operate & survive...

    "In response to this threat, the Chief of Naval Operations directed a comprehensive review of ship selfdefense requirements...

    "Completed in fiscal year 1996, this study formally identified the capabilities needed by each ship class to defend against cruise missile threats in the near, mid-, & far term.

    "Since then, the Navy has spent $3.8 billion to improve its ship self-defense capabilities against cruise missile attacks, & it plans to spend another $5.1 billion over the next 6 years...

    "This report responds to your request that we (1) assess the Navy’s progress since 1996 in improving the self-defense capability of surface ships against cruise missiles & (2) evaluate Navy plans for meeting future anti-cruise missile self-defense requirements..."

    3) 03-2004 GAO report on Cruise Missile & Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Technology proliferation:

    http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04493t.pdf :

    PAGE 2:

    "Conventional anti-ship cruise missiles pose an immediate threat to U.S. naval vessels because of the widespread availability of these weapons worldwide. At least 70 nations currently possess some type of anti-ship missiles armed with conventional, high explosive warheads, & at least 32 nations are developing or manufacturing more than 250 models of UAVs.."

    PAGE 5:

    " ... anti-ship cruise missiles threaten U.S. naval forces deployed globally.

    "We reported in 2000 that the next generation of anti-ship cruise missiles- most of which are now expected to be fielded by 2007- will be equipped with advanced target seekers & stealthy design.

    "These features will make them more difficult to detect & defeat.

    "At least 70 nations possess some type of cruise missile, mostly short-range, anti-ship missiles armed with conventional, high-explosive warheads, according to a U.S. government study.

    "Countries that export cruise missiles currently include China, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Norway, Russia, Sweden, United Kingdom, & the United States. China & Russia have sold cruise missiles to Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, & Syria.

    "Nations that manufacture but do not yet export cruise missiles currently include Brazil, India, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, South Africa, & Taiwan. None of these nonexporting manufacturing countries is a member of the Wassenaar Arrangement, & only Brazil & South Africa are in the MTCR... "

    4) 03-2007 GAO Annual Report on selected U.S. Weapons Systems' progress & funding:

    http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07406sp.pdf

    "LHA 6 (50,000 tonne 'Aircraft Carrier') Program

    "Technology Maturity

    "The... Ship Self Defense System (SSDS); Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC); Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM); & Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) are all mature technologies used on numerous Navy ships... further development will not be required for ship integration..."

    5) "Cooperative Engagement Capability" (CEC) sensors, computer, communications & related hardware:

    http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/cec-coooperative-enagagement-for-fleet-defense-updated-03120/

    6) http://www.janes.com/news/defence/systems/jni/jni091020_1_n.shtml

    http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdw/jdw091201_1_n.shtml :


    "... The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) will decide in 2010 whether to acquire the US Navy's Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) for integration into selected Royal Navy (RN) surface ships after concluding a third tranche of Assessment Phase (AP3) studies.

    "This comes five years after initial plans to integrate the UK CEC system into Type 23 frigates & Type 45 destroyers were brought to a sudden halt as a result of budget pressure...."

    7) http://www.janes.com/news/defence/naval/idr/idr080611_1_n.shtml :

    "In 1982 the Falklands (Malvinas) conflict provided a stark reminder of the vulnerability of surface forces operating in a hostile air environment without AEW support.

    "The absence of such a capability in the face of sustained air attack gave the UK Royal Navy (RN) insufficient warning to counter threats at long range, and directly contributed to the loss of several ships... "

    8) "Soviet/Russian Cruise Missiles"

    SS-N-27 'sizzler': http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-Cruise-Missiles.html
     
  8. Re: Reuters: UK May Axe Carriers, Trident Safe - Defence Sou

    I'm really not into all this number crunching but I have to ask,
    When we do pull out of Afghanistan,no PM in his right mind would involve us in another Mid East or African conflict.
    We would have a leaner Army with better equipment I agree but not a tactical attack Force in large numbers.
    Iran,Korea etc are beyond our scope.To lose more servicemen overseas would guarantee a public uproar.
    I expect the EU to take control of a EU Army and with the Germans,French,Belgians etc in the control Ops,we will never fight another conflict.
    ERGO! We need a powerful RN with Trident and two carriers.
    The RAF can have the Eurofighter and lots of drones plus refuelling and AWAC's [bought from the Yanks.}
    Makes sense to me.
    We will have no more heavy Theatre involvement as no PM would want to be tarred with the Blair brush.
     
  9. PART 4:


    Why is a technologically up-to-date, adequately sized & properly planned Royal Navy- possessing both sub-surface and surface combatants that are 'fully equipped' with weapons, communications and defensive systems needed??

    Answer- "Falklands' war tested modernized Super Etendard in Argentine Navy's agenda", 21_02-2010:

    http://en.mercopress.com/2010/02/21...zed-super-etendard-in-argentine-navy-s-agenda

    "... The possible transfer to Argentina of a refurbished model of the French manufactured fighter-bomber Super Etendard, which had an outstanding performance during the 1982 Falkland Islands conflict, is under consideration by the French Ministry of Defence..."

    http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes...iage-Club-K-changes-cruise-missile-rules.html

    "Deadly new Russian weapon", 26_04-2010:
    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63P2XB20100426

    "Argentina gets first Russian defense deal", 26_04-2010:

    http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Se...irst-Russian-defense-deal/UPI-64361272276060/

    "The deal also comes amid designs by Russia & Argentina to... share use of the Russian Global Navigation Satellite System (GLONASS)"...

    (in case the US ever cuts off Argentina access to the GPS system?????)

    Both Argentina & Brazil had active nuclear weapons porogrammes up until the late 1990's......

    - "Missile Survey: Ballistic & Cruise Missiles of Selected Foreign Countries", 26_07-2005:

    http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL30427_20050726.pdf :

    "One significant trend is the increasing number of missile production & development facilities... Fifteen countries are known to produce ballistic missiles: the United States, France, Russia, China, ... & Argentina."

    Below are links to a (China Military channel) CCTV 7 programme that someone posted to youtube, divided up into 3 parts, each part about 7-8 minutes long...

    1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ofe1SYkLJgk&feature=related

    2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-nNVvtacXU&feature=related

    At 1:24 up to 3:17, showing repeated screen-shots of U.S. Nimitz class aircraft carriers and, apparently, China's recently developed (conventional, maneuverable-warhead armed) 'Anti-ship Ballistic Missiles' (ASBMs) targeted at these U.S. carriers.

    Starting at 7:18 is a couple of minute cartoon showing what is plainly a U.S. aircraft carrier being attacked by one of China's ASBMs- and being sunk...

    3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaDXzCC5aCU&NR=1

    :23 up to about 1:20 shows screen shots of what are plainly projected appearances of the U.K.'s planned new 'big deck' aircraft carriers...

    A good deal of unusual smiling and chuckling by both the programme host and (apparent) weapons expert guest during the :23 to 1:40 portion of this clip...

    After about 1:21 shows screen shots of what are the UK's currently in-service Invincible class aircraft carriers (HMS Illustrious and Ark Royal?)

    This Chinese language web page: http://www.mdc.idv.tw/mdc/navy/royalnavy/type45.htm

    is almost entirely about the U.K.'s Type-45 Destroyer programme... and- from using Internet translation services- seems to be very bluntly reporting the huge and highly dangerous-for-the-UK weapons systems deficiencies of Type-45s...

    THE UK'S DESIRED WORLD-PROFILE ALONG WITH ITs FORESEEN FUTURE ROLES & POTENTIAL DUTIES OUGHT TO BE PARAMOUNT IN THE UK's DEFENCE MEGA-PROJECT DECISION-MAKING!!!

    SOLUTION TO THE UK's DEFENCE-FUNDING CHALLENGES: REACTIVATE LEND/LEASE??


    Both the United States' Senate and House of Representatives Defence and budget-related committees are deliberating proposals to substantially downsize their country's navy and how budget reductions can be implemented in all of their armed forces branches...

    This while the UK is struggling to find ways of financing major- but very needed- military acquisition programmes, particularly for the Royal Navy and ancillary services...

    Could a productive strategy to perhaps partially meet both countries' objectives be the US 'gifting to the UK' several of its most recently built fighter aircraft & helicopter carrying naval vessels (along with their aircraft + weapons) that could be inducted into the RN in place of the UK's planned- but, due to budget constraints- enormously counterproductively lacking in capabilities- new 'big deck' aircraft carriers??

    The UK could sell its 2 partially completed, impractically-designed 'big deck' aircraft carriers to reliable countries such as India, S. Korea or even Brazil; work with the buyer(s) to 'custom fit' these vessels with radars, communications, armaments, etc; and could commit future years' funding to a 're-design' of the botched-by-the-previous-Labour-govt' big deck' aircraft carrier programme...

    COULD THE US LEND/LEASE TO THE UK


    1) http://www.navy.mil/local/lhd8/ -

    2) http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&ct=4&tid=400 -

    3) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/lhd-8.htm

    4) http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvn-21/

    5) http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvn-21/cvn-213.html

    6) http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvn-21/cvn-214.html

    7) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cvn-78-specs.htm

    _________________
    Roderick V. Louis,
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
     
  10. Re: Reuters: UK May Axe Carriers, Trident Safe - Defence Sou

    Roderick Fcukpig Louis - I have never seen such a load of unsubstantiated bollox anywhere.

    ********* that cut and paste without adding a single word of their own are no better than a festering, puss dripping zit.

    You've done your bit for the UK economy, now fcuk off.
     
  11. There's just so many things to pick apart, I have no idea where to start...
     
  12. Re: Reuters: UK May Axe Carriers, Trident Safe - Defence Sou

    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz oh sorry fell asleep there

    not sure about putting missile systems on RFA's and subsurface stuff, you would end up with an RN ship with a few RFA lads cooking their tea and wiping the engines down. the Bay boats were really over the horizon support ships ...carrying mexifloats, well out the way supposedly. Albion, Bulwark up front with all their defence equipment. i can understand fitting Phanlanx or goalkeeper, but thats self defence, plus where would you fit it all, the space is supposed to be for carrying stores.
     
  13. Re: Reuters: UK May Axe Carriers, Trident Safe - Defence Sou

    Roderik Louis.........Go take a hike, or play with a caribou, do something else somewhere else
     
  14. Re: Reuters: UK May Axe Carriers, Trident Safe - Defence Sou

    Those that say "all Britain really needs is a small navy sufficient for defence and protection..." are not that wrong....

    A 25 or 35 warship navy is 'small' when compared to the past navies of many nations- and many, many countries' the UK's size today, and to today’s 300-ship US Navy...

    Part of protecting the UK's interests rests with its armed forces being able to project 'the appearance' of overwhelming competence and capabilities- albeit for their small size- to potential adversaries...

    If the UK's armed forces are not only small, but outdated and not-up-to-current-mission-demands, countries that otherwise would not initiate conflict- will do so.

    Considering the pivotal, central position that the UK still plays in the world- in terms of its leading role membership on financial/trade, legal, military and political bodies- the result of hostile countries initiating conflict with the UK can and likely would have world roiling negative effects....

    The UK ought to be taking every step that is reasonably possible in order to retain the competence and capabilities of its armed forces... and to maintain AND INCREASE its 'world-leading technological advantages' over possible adversaries... particularly in the areas of 'power projection' and constructive-deterrence….

    Building 'make-work-project', virtually empty-of-weapons-&-sensor systems warships- such as the big deck aircraft carrier and Type-45 Destroyer programmes- don't fit these objectives...

    The UK could sell its 2 partially completed, impractically-designed 'big deck' aircraft carriers to reliable countries such as India, S. Korea or even Brazil; work with the buyer(s) to 'custom fit' these vessels with radars, communications, armaments, etc; and could commit future years' funding to a 're-design' of the botched-by-the-previous-Labour-govt' big deck' aircraft carrier programme...

    UNTIL THE UK BUILDS & COMMISSIONS ITS OWN- PROPERLY DESIGNED & CAPABLY EQUIPPED FOR 21st CENTURY DUTIES- AIRCRAFT CARRIERS, COULD THE US LEND/LEASE TO THE UK??

    1) http://www.navy.mil/local/lhd8/ -

    2) http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&ct=4&tid=400 -

    3) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/lhd-8.htm

    4) http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvn-21/

    5) http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvn-21/cvn-213.html

    6) http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvn-21/cvn-214.html

    7) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cvn-78-specs.htm


    _________________
    Roderick V. Louis,
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
     
  15. The UK's planned new 'big deck' aircraft carriers have been designed- due to previous Labour govt interference- WITHOUT 'missile-based' ASCM/airborne threat defences & without the high-technology weapons-targeting radars that would be required by missile-based ASCM defensive systems....

    The new Type-45 Destroyer is to be charged with defending ALL of the fleet's vessels from air attack..... but only 1/2 a dozen Type-45s have been built/are under construction...

    And the Type-45s anti airborne threat Sea Viper/PAAMS missile system failed on 2 out of 4 tests during 2009...


    What sort of guarantee is there that the causes of the UK receiving defective Aster missiles- resulting in 2 test failures last year (occurring May & November 2009) won't occur again??

    "Aster missile/Sea Viper investigation", April 09-2010:

    http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes...identified-after-Sea-Viper-investigation.html -

    "An investigation has identified "production weaknesses" in recent batches of Aster missiles, according to the (UK) MoD.

    "Jane's understands that the munitions' structural integrity was impaired by a production engineering change...."


    Several questions that could be/ought to be put to the UK MoD, govt and UK industry officials are:

    1) 'why aren't the UK's Sea Viper/Aster missiles being manufactured- or at least assembled- at plants in the UK??' (considering that the Sea Viper (aka 'Aster 15 and Aster 30) missile manufacturer is MBDA- and that the UK's BAE is a major shareholder in MBDA):

    "... MBDA is jointly owned by BAE SYSTEMS (37.5%), EADS (37.5%) and FINMECCANICA (25%)":

    http://www.mbda-systems.com/mbda/site/ref/scripts/newsFO_complet.php?lang=IT&news_id=140

    2) 'why have France's tests of their missiles (apparently) not suffered the problems of the UK's'?

    3) 'why have other countries- such as:

    a) Saudi Arabia (Al Riyadh class Frigates

    http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/al_riyadh/ ); and

    b) Singapore (Formidable class Frigate,

    http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/mindef_websites/atozlistings/navy/assets/vessels.html )

    ... that have recently bought Frigates fitted with Aster-15/Aster-30/PAAMS (Sea Viper) based AAW missile systems (apparently) not suffered the same or similar problems as the Aster missiles provided to the UK??

    ===========
    ===========

    From http://www.defpro.com/news/details/17633/ article: "... the system achieved a direct hit in a salvo (multiple missiles) firing against a manoeuvrable sea-skimming target travelling at hundreds of miles an hour...."
    ---------------

    1) BUT, what were the targets??? easy, for-public-relations-purposes drones/targets??

    2) Or targets that accurately emulated up-to-date Anti-ship Cruise Missiles (ASCMs) such as the SS-N 27 'sizzler' and its clones??


    .... the SS-N-27 is a type of Anti-ship Cruise Missile (ASCM) which have been sold and extensively proliferated across the world 1998-2010...

    Despite EXTREME difficulties replicating supersonic sea skimming anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCM's) the US- and apparently France- are using an Orbital Sciences test vehicle to test their ESSM and SM-2 (US) and Aster-15 and 30's (France) anti airborne threat missiles' capabilities against supersonic sea skimming anti-ship cruise missiles...:

    http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/gqm163-ssst-a-tricky-coyote-to-match-wits-with-defenses-03155/ :

    "...March 20/07: Orbital Sciences Corp. in Chandler, AZ received a $9.2 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for the procurement of one (1) GQM-163A 'Coyote' Supersonic Sea Skimming Target (SSST) Vehicle, support equipment, spare parts, technical data, and technical assistance for the government of France under the Foreign Military Sales Program.

    "... The GQM-163A will support the validation of a French weapons system - exactly which system was not specified..."


    3) Were France's Sea Viper missiles tested during 2001-2010 the short-range Aster-15's or longer range Aster-30's??

    4) Did any fail under similar conditions to the UK's two failed tests tests during 2009??

    5) Have any Aster-15s and Aster-30s EVER been tested against a credible SS-N-27 surrogate??

    6) How does the UK PAAMS-s experience contrast with France & Italy's with their (EMPAR radar-based) PAAMS-e systems?
    -------------------

    From http://www.defpro.com/news/details/17633/ article:

    "... Training culminates in a realistic war at sea with other ships, submarines and aircraft, where every possible scenario is simulated, from attack from above and below water to fires and floods...

    "... 'The successful completion of BOST has proved that HMS Daring will provide the Royal Navy with a world class platform and a step change in capability...'"

    ------------------

    7) Unlike other countries' surface combatants of similar size and classes, Type-45s:

    - can not fire any anti-submarine weapons- such as torpedoes- from-ship;

    - are fitted with a tenth rate sonar;

    - are not fitted for 'Cooperative Engagement Capability' (CEC);

    - can not defend against Ballistic missile attacks;

    - embark ONLY ONE Helo rather than TWO;

    - can not be armed with ASUW weapons;

    - are NOT fitted with 'Close In Weapons Systems' (CIWSs), for use in situations when Type-45s' primary anti airborne threat weapons system (Sea Viper/PAAMS) runs out of missiles or miss their target AND for use against fast attack suicide boats, slow moving airborne threats (UAVs), etc...;

    8) So, how could there have been a credible 'successful' completion of BOST????
    ==============
    ==============

    How could the advantages of comprehensively fitting out Type-45 Destroyers not outweigh the enormous- AND IMMEASURABLY LONG TERM- damages being wrought upon the country’s international political, 'industry-competence' and military-capabilities reputations by the MoD continuing the decade of previous-Labour-govt-dictated Type-45 build programme idiocy: these urgently required warships being barely 25 percent equipped/fitted out for basic 21st century services and duties upon their commissioning and putting into service??

    TYPE-45's WERE CONCEIVED AS MULTI-ROLE/MULTI-MISSION DESTROYERS- WHY HAS THIS CHANGED??


    According to the MoD in 2002 and after main-gate approval, Type-45's were to be multi-role Destroyers with multi-mission capabilities (similar to the US Navy's Burkes, France & Italy's Horizons & FREMMS, S Korea's KDX III's, Japan's Kongos & Atagos, Holland's De Zeven Provinciens, Australia's Hobarts and Anzacs, Germany's F124s & Spain's F-100 Alvaro de Bazans)...

    How does the current deplorable situation contrast with Parliament deliberations from 2000-2005?

    July 10-2000: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmdfence/779/779ap09.htm :

    "5. the Type 45—in common with all destroyers and frigates—will be a multi-role, general-purpose platform capable of operations across the spectrum of Defence tasks..."


    July 23-2003: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmdfence/694/694we05.htm :

    "Envisaged as a replacement for the Type 42 destroyers, the Type 45 will be a multi-role, general-purpose platform capable of operations across the spectrum of tasks..."

    So,

    1) "why aren't the Type-45's rolling off of the assembly line being fitted with the weapons, communications, defensive and related equipment required to function as 'multi-mission/multi-role' Destroyers??"

    If cost is the answer from the MoD/govt, then:

    2) "is it reasonably sound and responsible logic for the govt to be directing and/or sanctioning the building and putting into service what are in reality only partially built warships??"

    3) "Would the army accept land fighting vehicles that- although fitted with engines and wheels upon delivery to the Army- were to have their guns and armour fitted at a later- NOT SPECIFIED- date??"

    4) "What would such a practice do to army service personnel morale, the country's reputation world-wide and its abilities to deter potential aggressors/defend itself in the future??"




    Roderick V. Louis,
    Vancouver, BC, Canada,
     
  16. wave_dodger

    wave_dodger War Hero Book Reviewer

    Re: Reuters: UK May Axe Carriers, Trident Safe - Defence Sou

    Someone likess the sound of their own voice (or look of type)..Rods drivel

    Google Mr Louis. Very interesting results, he seems to be a professional "commentator" on pretty much everything European, yet lives in Canada?
     
  17. The 6 new Type-45 Destroyers currently undergoing construction/sea trials are to be charged with providing air defence for ALL of the RN's surface vessels AND any other vessels- RFA, civilian, succonded- that are part of future conflicts and assigned duties...

    CUMULATIVE MISSILE-ARMAMENT CAPACITY OF ALL SIX TYPE-45s IS 33% LESS THAN ONE OF THE US's BURKE CLASS OR ONE OF S. KOREA's KDX III DESTROYERS...


    Each of the UK's six newly built/undergoing construction Type-45 Destroyers- is fitted with a 48 missile-cell 'sylver A50' missile launcher.

    Each 'sylver A50' missile cell can be armed with a maximum of one anti airborne threat type missile:

    - the short range Aster-15; or

    - the longer ranger Aster-30...

    Each 'sylver A50' missile cell CAN NOT be armed with other categories of weapons- such as ASW, Anti-Surface, Land-Attack, etc...

    Result is the total number of anti airborne threat missiles that can be fielded by ALL SIX Type-45s is 6 x 48= just 288...

    The US's Burke class Destroyers (costing roughly the same as Type 45s to build) are fitted with a 96 cell Lockheed Mk 41 Strike length missile launcher.

    Each of the Mk 41's missile cells can be armed with:

    - 1 long range (SM-2) missile; or

    - 1 ballistic missile defence (SM-3) missile; or

    - 'quad-packed' with 4 short-range (ESSM) missiles...

    ... meaning that, if all of a Burke's 96 missile cells were 'quad-packed' with ESSMs, a Burke destroyer could be armed with 4 x 96= 384 anti airborne threat missiles... almost 33% more than ALL six of the UK's Type-45s...

    Additionally, unlike the 'sylver A50', the Lockheed Mk 41's individual missile cells CAN BE ARMED WITH ASW, Anti-Surface, Land-attack and other types of weapons...

    http://www.baesystems.com/ProductsServices/vls_mk41_missile.html :

    "...As the U.S. Navy's VLS Mk 41 missile canister design agent, BAE Systems has developed the Mk 25 Quad-Pack canister, which can vastly increase a ship's self-defense capability. The Mk 25 Quad-Pack allows the system to store and fire four Evolved SeaSparrow Missiles (ESSMs) in a canister space that normally contains a single weapon."

    http://www.baesystems.com/ProductsServices/vls_mk41_strike_length_missile.html
    http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2100&tid=550&ct=2 :

    "The MK 41 VLS is a modular, below deck missile launching system (and) is a multi-missile, multi-mission launcher, capable of launching SM-2, SM-3, SM-6, ESSM, Tomahawk, and Vertical Launch ASROC missiles..."

    http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/MK41VerticalLaunchingSystem/index.html

    VIDEO: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/MK41VerticalLaunchingSystem/video2.html

    And as an added bonus, the SM-2 and ESSM missiles (which the MK 41's missile cells can be armed with) can be used against surface threats/targets- a function that these missiles' peers (Aster 30 and Aster-15 missiles) are not capable of...

    This is not to say that the SM-2, SM-3 and ESSMs are better or worse than Aster-15s and Aster-30s..

    But to make a point that, as presently constructed Type-45s are going to be highly limited in their theatre-endurance and mission-capabilities.... endangering whole squadrons or fleets should they be deployed to a hostile zone in the future...

    Solution??

    - Build at least a dozen more Type-45s; and

    - Fit ALL Type-45s with additional missile cells* and if deemed strategically appropriate: fit Type-45s with two different models of missile launchers- so that Lockheed's Strike length Mk 41 (which comes in 8-cell modules) was fitted to ALL Type-45s...

    (* Type-45s were designed with sufficient space to be fitted with a 72 cell 'sylver A50' missile launcher or the longer, more versatile 'sylver A70'** missile launcher and could accommodate a 24 cell Lockheed MK 41 Strike length launcher on top of their current (puny length) 48 cell 'sylver A50')...

    (** http://www.dcnsgroup.com/cen/sylver_caracteristique.html :

    "The SYLVER(r) A70 modules ordered for the Franco-Italian FREMM frigates*** are designed to accommodate (Aster 15 and 30 missiles) and Scalp Naval cruise missiles."

    www.dcnsgroup.com/download.php?file=/files/pdf/Sylver.pdf

    *** 27 FREMMs are ordered- between France & Italy- for delivery between 2011 and 2022... and according to recent news reports- despite its 8% of GDP budget deficit, France is not going to cancel any of the nearly 1 and a half dozen FREMM Frigates ordered for its Navy:

    http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4700442&c=AIR&s=TOP

    _________________
    Roderick V. Louis,
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
     
  18. A Type-45 Destroyer might "be able to see a golf ball at 100 miles..."

    The term 'might' is the most operative word...

    This, as the only circumstances in which a Type-45 Destroyer* could 'see'/detect a golf ball or perhaps an incoming airborne threat such as an Anti-ship Cruise Missile (ASCM) or hostile aircraft would be if THOSE THAT LAUNCHED THE GOLF BALL/ASCM OR ARE PILOTING THE HOSTILE AIRCRAFT ARE STUPID ENOUGH TO NOT KEEP THE GOLF BALL/ASCM/HOSTILE AIRCRAFT AT A LOW ALTITUDE...


    A Type-45's maximum detection range for sea skimming ASCMs, low-flying aircraft and the like is about 20-miles or approximately the distance from a Type-45 to the visible 'horizon'...

    Type-45s' radars can not 'see' over the horizon, but can 'see' high-flying objects out to a distance of several hundred miles...

    This is well known internationally by navies, naval colleges and MoDs of ALL developed and the vast majority of developing world countries...

    * as they are currently/currently planned to be equipped/fitted out: without 'Cooperative Engagement Capability' (CEC) sensors and communications kit and without respective Type-45's being part of a naval battle group possessing capable airborne early warning and control assets...

    http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/cec-coooperative-enagagement-for-fleet-defense-updated-03120/

    http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdw/jdw091201_1_n.shtml :

    "... The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) will decide in 2010 whether to acquire the US Navy's Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) for integration into selected Royal Navy (RN) surface ships after concluding a third tranche of Assessment Phase (AP3) studies.

    "This comes five years after initial plans to integrate the UK CEC system into Type 23 frigates and Type 45 destroyers were brought to a sudden halt as a result of budget pressure...."

    Without CEC, ships fitted with PAAMS/Sea Viper systems are in effect restricted to a less-than-8-mile radius ship fleet-defence protection capability-envelope:

    .... and are unable to react to the most likely to be encountered- and most capable- types of airborne anti-ship threats, IE supersonic sea skimming anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs*)- until ASCM's are less than 40 seconds from potential impact and about 18 miles out...

    What utility is there in having 2/3 of a Type-45's anti airborne threat missile armament (32 of 48 Aster/Sea Viper missiles) consisting of the comparatively long-range Aster-30s (50-60 mile range) instead of the short-range Aster-15s (12-15 mile range) as is planned, since Aster-30s long-range capabilities will be un-usable against sea skimming ASCMs approaching from 'over the horizon'- and hence not detectable until closer than 20-miles out??

    Just launching an Aster 15 or Aster 30 requires as much as 2 seconds after initial detection- eating up valuable time and allowing an approaching sea skimmer to travel 1 and 1/2 miles...

    It takes time for a launched Aster missile to reach a potential point of intercept with an approaching ASCM: enough time for an approaching sea skimmer to be within 12-15 miles of an intended target...

    12-15 miles is the maximum engagement range of the Type-45s' short-range Aster 15s...

    What Commander would not want to engage approaching ASCM threats farther out than 12-15 miles?

    What Commander would not want to be able to engage approaching ASCMs while they were over the horizon- allowing more than one shot if the first is unsuccessful/ misses???

    Without airborne radar- AND Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC)- Type-45s' engagement capability range is needlessly AND VERY DANGEROUSLY limited:

    E-2D Hawkeye: The (U.S.) Navy's New AWACS-

    http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/e-2d-hawkeye-the-navys-new-awacs-03443/

    The RN's (planned) new carriers will be restricted to Harrier type (short/vertical take off & land) fixed-wing aircraft & helicopters- that can not duplicate even remotely the function of modern, fixed-wing AWACS...

    http://www.janes.com/news/defence/systems/jni/jni091020_1_n.shtml
    http://www.janes.com/news/defence/idr/idr080611_1_n.shtml :

    "... In 1982 the Falklands conflict provided a stark reminder of the vulnerability of surface forces operating in a hostile air environment without (AWACS) AEW support... The absence of such a capability in the face of sustained air attack gave the UK Royal Navy (RN) insufficient warning to counter threats at long range, & directly contributed to the loss of several ships...."
    Have many UK citizens/residents/British subjects thought out how catastrophic- and irreversible- the consequences would be for the UK to not maintain its leadership and 'top table' roles/positions on almost ALL of the world's political, economic, financial, security, military, legal, human rights and other multi-national bodies??

    By not retaining- and where possible- expanding- its decades-long pervasive, constructive and widely respected world-wide presence through its 'global capability military and its ubiquitously accessible Internet, Radio and TV-delivered news, information and entertainment media- the UK will be rendering itself an unnoticeable, irrelevant'third rank' country, equivalent to a Hungary, Lithuania or Romania... but with much higher wages and costs-of-doing business... ['i]Romania with a large moat'[/i]

    A UK with a drastically diminished military- and no govt-articulated long-term road map setting out specifically delineated and time-lined capabilities improvements objectives for the parts of its armed forces that most 'project UK presence' world-wide, IE the Royal Navy and Marines- would be inviting its removal from the world's most important and influential political, economic, financial, security, military, legal, human rights and other multi-national bodies...

    The way the UK Defence acquisition game should change is by govt setting in place a 2 to 3 decade, AMBITIOUS, explicitly delineated in legislation, BOLD vessel + related equipment build/acquisition programme for the Royal Navy...

    This, rather than allowing the previous Labour govt's 12-years of Defence-planning and acquisition programme incompetence and gross negligence to, by inertia, vaporize the bulk of the UK's military and consequently destroy the country's ability to project power, technological expertise and constructive presence world-wide....



    _________________
    Roderick V. Louis,
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
     

Share This Page