Debate on the Future of the Royal Navy

[Viper5]

Thread of the year.

From a non-brit's perspective, Bob brings up a very valid point. Focusing power projection on two ships, which means at most one in theatre, is risky. Moreover, lets not pretend that assault ships with a helo or two are instilling much fear. A few things stuck out:

1. Nuclear weapons on terrorists or smaller rogue nations.
Firstly, terrorist organization are really not geographically designed, rendering nukes useless. In terms of smaller nations, who specifically? The UK doesn't and even with carriers and the Type 45 (if it is ever armed) have the naval power to go toe to toe with the advent of Sunburn, etc. China? Same deal.

2. F35Bs.

FFS, they're not a panacea. They're at this rate a highly expensive alternative with limited range. Moreover, in terms of performance IE range, weapons, etc. the B is the most stunted of the ugly children. Moreover, with the size of the FAA and RAF and the number realities, its not realistic to assign them to every damn aerial role. KF35, if you please?

[[R-DEV]Rhino]

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Bob_Marley

It doesn't need to be a 0% chance, the chances are sufficiently low that a first strike attack would be viable against the UK.

I think it would be higher than you would predict. The aircraft for starters is a Stealth Aircraft and the aircraft carriers it's on + the destroyers etc also has a low radar profile, although nothing like as hard to detect as a Submarine, still come into the equation.

Also this wouldn't be the first time nuclear ordinance has been able to be delivered from an aircraft carrier in the Royal Navy. HMS Ark Royal (R09) back in the 60s and 70s, during the Cold War was the UKs first line of defence of any possible Russian invasion etc as it patrolled up the North Sea or somewhere around there, can't fully remember the details but also on board was Nuclear Ordinances that could be delivered by its Blackburn Buccaneer strike aircraft. If you want more of the details on this I could look it up but the basic plan was to use these to retaliate against Russia if need be, while also providing air cover around the region.

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Bob_Marley

Additionally, your proposed delivery system, the F-35B doesn't have the combat radius to strike Moscow. If the aircraft were launched from the Gulf of Finland.

With aircraft based in the UK the UK wouldn't even have the range to strike Warsaw! (I do not advocate making a nuclear strike on Warsaw or Moscow, they are simply being used as examples here) Let alone a rouge state in the middle or far east.

I never once even suggested they would or should be launched from the UK. Range is a limiting factor on them yes but these aircraft are incredibly flexible in how they can operate giving military planners many choices in order how they could be deployed.

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Bob_Marley

And you accuse me of not reading posts.

Significatly more expensive that scrapping the whole nuclear arsenal and acheving the same result of not having an effective nuclear deterrent. Infact, its worse than that, because not only is the UK left without a nuclear deterrent it is stuck with a nuclear arsenal that requires maintiance and looks absolutely hypocritical on the world stage demanding an end to nuclear weapons development in other states with no significant advantage to the UK.

You keep saying its better than nothing - its not, its significantly more expensive and less useful.

You obviously didn't read my post since you missed the entire part on me seeing your point and in some ways agreeing with you...

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Rhino

Thou I have to admit I am begging to become more inclined with getting rid of our nuclear deterrent altogether since in some ways it makes us a little less likley to become a target of an attack than processing nukes, but in other ways it makes us more venerable to attacks and to be bullied as well.

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Bob_Marley

Well your source states the missile either travels at 12,000 km/h (in order to reach 3,000km in 15 minutes) or at Mach 10. Which is 11,000 km/h apparently.

Well I dunno what to believe since if you google Mach 10 the google calculator comes up with:

Mach 10 = 3 402.9 m / s

Which is 3.4km/s, which I see where I made my mistake now because I put hrs instead of seconds, most likley just in habit of thinking of km/h instead of km/s, but my maths is still correct other than I'm not accounting for the accelerations times, its real flight path etc since I don't have thous values to work with

But the last 400km is the main bit which is pretty much a strait line anyways.

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Bob_Marley

Ah yes, just stay out of range. Of course. When the F-35B has a maximum combat radius of only 910km, of course.

Ye but it can still out range many types of ASMs and there are many other ways of taking out these threats as well.

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Bob_Marley

Godwin's Law (For the second time, I might add)

Well done, just ignore my point and try and be clever with something like that?

I was actually going to say Germany instead of Hitler if that would have made you happy but I didn't want to offend any German users on this forum.

My point still stands thou that tactics play a vital role in anything, I can give you 100s of examples of this if you really need that do not involve Hitler if you like? I could also give you a few Naval examples if that helps too? For example Trafalgar wasn't won by superior weapons or superior numbers (when in fact the RN had fewer ships, but they where arguably better), it was won purely by mainly tactics.

Just let me know if you want more examples.

[Viper5]

Any argument of "we haz best tactics" is, in all honesty, invalid in a debate. Its a patriotic farce, nothing more. All sides do it, and every military in the world has had its examples of tactical brilliance and duncery. Also, we're predicting everything to be perfect with Aster missiles and for them to operate at whatever Mr. Cheesy Salesman sold to the MOD. Realistic? Prolly not.

[Madhouse]

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Rhino

I think it would be higher than you would predict. The aircraft for starters is a Stealth Aircraft and the aircraft carriers it's on + the destroyers etc also has a low radar profile, although nothing like as hard to detect as a Submarine, still come into the equation.

Also this wouldn't be the first time nuclear ordinance has been able to be delivered from an aircraft carrier in the Royal Navy. HMS Ark Royal (R09) back in the 60s and 70s, during the Cold War was the UKs first line of defence of any possible Russian invasion etc as it patrolled up the North Sea or somewhere around there, can't fully remember the details but also on board was Nuclear Ordinances that could be delivered by its Blackburn Buccaneer strike aircraft. If you want more of the details on this I could look it up but the basic plan was to use these to retaliate against Russia if need be, while also providing air cover around the region.

You have failed to realise the advent of Spy Satilities, Russia & China (and i'm sure others do aswell) have the capbility of easierly detecting and following any ship or airbase, no matter how 'Stealthy' you make your ships. Until you can create a 'cloaking device' like in Star Trek, then you'll always be detectable visually.

The reason they could have the Ark Royal doing that job back in the day was because the technology of the Satilities was very premature and everyone's focus was to land a man on the moon first, not spy on each other with space ships, thats why the SR-71 Blackbird was developed at the time.

[Drav]

Wow, I've missed the boat on this argument ho ho!!

Not sure why you're lumping in the ballistic missiles with the aircraft carriers guys.....they both fulfill an almost entirely different purpose. Trident/ballistic missiles are a big stick to wave round on the world stage. They basically mean that no country can invade or attack your country conventionally without chucking all their chips in and getting their brains melted.

An aircraft carrier fleet is all about the force projection. You can rock up next to someone elses shoreline and seriously worry them, and if they dont have a big stick to wave, you can pretty much do what you like. Also, not every war is a nuclear one, and realisticly nuclear weapons are only a threatening presence in the most extreme situations (Cuba, Japan, Cold War etc) 'Saudi Arabia I'm going to nuke you unless you lower your oil prices' isnt likely to worry the oil barons too much, but sending a Naval fleet to blockade the gulf is....

So, two nasty weapons, both with good uses. One is the equivalent of 'Oi, gimme your lunch money or I'll knock yer teeth out,' and the other is, 'dont be thinking about taking my lunch money cos my brother is sitting outside your house with a petrol bomb.'

Ideally I think we should keep both for this very reason.

[Gaz]

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Drav

Wow, I've missed the boat on this argument ho ho!!

Not sure why you're lumping in the ballistic missiles with the aircraft carriers guys.....they both fulfill an almost entirely different purpose. Trident/ballistic missiles are a big stick to wave round on the world stage. They basically mean that no country can invade or attack your country conventionally without chucking all their chips in and getting their brains melted.

An aircraft carrier fleet is all about the force projection. You can rock up next to someone elses shoreline and seriously worry them, and if they dont have a big stick to wave, you can pretty much do what you like. Also, not every war is a nuclear one, and realisticly nuclear weapons are only a threatening presence in the most extreme situations (Cuba, Japan, Cold War etc) 'Saudi Arabia I'm going to nuke you unless you lower your oil prices' isnt likely to worry the oil barons too much, but sending a Naval fleet to blockade the gulf is....

So, two nasty weapons, both with good uses. One is the equivalent of 'Oi, gimme your lunch money or I'll knock yer teeth out,' and the other is, 'dont be thinking about taking my lunch money cos my brother is sitting outside your house with a petrol bomb.'

Ideally I think we should keep both for this very reason.

Drav hit it square on the nose

May I just say that seeing Rhino and Herbiie argue the toss about 'we'll do ok with shite optics' is a serious facepalm moment. Leave those decisions to the people who do the job and request the change ACOGs were UOR requests, specific for that theatre. I am VERY sure the lads are happy with a lighter and therefore more flexible weapon system due to the overall weight drop, the inclusion of a CQB optic instead of the huge EBS, and the more robust zero retention due to constant knocks. Not to mention the improved sight picture. Or the far superior low light fibre optic capability. Have either of you guys attempted to acquire a target at night, with even a high % moon state with SUSAT with the pointer lit up? It's utter balls. It's why we have CWS. The Tritium is ONLY as an emergancy backup, exactly on the same thought process as the SUSAT's EBS.

Herbiie, from this, to your insistance that non NATO rounds can be forced into NATO weapons....I ask you to shut up for your own sake. Not only are your rather aggressively put posts inaccurate, they are pure bullshit.

However, the debate about the pros and cons of the Carrier Fleet (or renewal thereof) is interesting. I think the future of the RN is good. Far better than the future of the RAF.

[CastleBravo]

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Bob_Marley

The Chinese? Well meet the DF-21 ASBM. Against which no naval craft, in service or under development, has any form of defence. Thats right. Nothing.

You got a source on that? I honestly don't know a lot about this magic bullet homing ICBM carrier killer but I would imagine that either its not gonna be that accurate or its gonna slow down tremendously once in the atmosphere in order to detect its target. Ever heard of reentry blackout? Spacecraft reentering the atmosphere get surrounded by a fireball and that layer of plasma can be very hard to get a radio signal through. I'm no engineer but I would think that if NASA had trouble getting telemetry from spacecraft that it would be A LOT harder to get a radar to function under those conditions. And that is assuming that you can keep the radar from melting, which itself would be no small task.

The only other example of a homing seeker in a ballistic missile I can think of is the Pershing II, which is much shorter range than the DF-21 and should therefore have a much slower reentry speed. Wikipedia states that the Pershing II performed a velocity control maneuver to slow the RV down to the desired speed in the terminal phase. It doesn't state the reason for this velocity control maneuver, but I wouldn't be surprised it if was needed in order for the radar to function.

The only solution I can think of would be something like what NASA did to get telemetry from the shuttle during reentry by sending the signal up to a satellite and then relaying it to control. If you put the tracking radar on a satellite then you can command guide the missile to the target. Of course being command guided it would be more susceptible to electronic warfare, and I wouldn't want to place any bets on a orbital radar burning through a few million watts of jam spewing out of an Aegis.

Without any more info on the DF-21 though I would assume that they built it to slow down tremendously in the terminal phase so that the seeker can function and that it won't be as difficult to jam, spoof, or shoot down as you seem to think.

I'm also curious how much a guided ballistic missile can maneuver. I don't know anything about how maneuverable ballistic missiles are, but I do know that carriers aren't stationary targets. If we were able to detect the launch of the missile (with satellites I'm sure) the carrier could simply turn around and go to flank speed and end up miles away from where the missile was targeted at launch. The seeker on the missile will be incapable of tracking the ship until its in the terminal phase, and by then the target would be no where near the missiles flight path. The missile would have to be capable of maneuvering while outside the atmosphere, and there would have to be equipped with a datalink getting fed updates on the targets location by some sort of off-board sensor (satellite most likely, a plane with a radar would be eating AIM-120s or METEORs if it painted a carrier)

[Sidewinder Zulu]

Originally Posted by CastleBravo

I'm also curious how much a guided ballistic missile can maneuver. I don't know anything about how maneuverable ballistic missiles are, but I do know that carriers aren't stationary targets. If we were able to detect the launch of the missile (with satellites I'm sure) the carrier could simply turn around and go to flank speed and end up miles away from where the missile was targeted at launch. The seeker on the missile will be incapable of tracking the ship until its in the terminal phase, and by then the target would be no where near the missiles flight path. The missile would have to be capable of maneuvering while outside the atmosphere, and there would have to be equipped with a datalink getting fed updates on the targets location by some sort of off-board sensor (satellite most likely, a plane with a radar would be eating AIM-120s or METEORs if it painted a carrier)

Well, the Nimitz Class Super carrier in the US Navy was built to be able to withstand any attack short of a nuclear weapon. If I'm not mistaken, part of the reason there was this huge investment into missile jamming technologies and cruisers designed to shoot down ballistic missiles was the fear that if the Cold War went hot, the Soviets could eliminate the superiority of the US Navy by planting some 150 kiloton nukes right in the center of a carrier battlegroup.
So unless a country is using nuclear weapons against an American or British carrier (which would be suicide, obviously) then the only way they're going to kill the aircraft carrier is if they send a size able force against it, certainly losing many ships, aircraft, and missiles in the process.
And in the case of the US, there are 11 supercarriers, so if you kill one, then it's not really too damaging strategically.

[DankE_SPB]

Originally Posted by Sidewinder Zulu

Well, the Nimitz Class Super carrier in the US Navy was built to be able to withstand any attack short of a nuclear weapon

everything can be killed in conventional way

If I'm not mistaken, part of the reason there was this huge investment into missile jamming technologies and cruisers designed to shoot down ballistic missiles was the fear that if the Cold War went hot, the Soviets could eliminate the superiority of the US Navy by planting some 150 kiloton nukes right in the center of a carrier battlegroup.

So far ABM capability is very limited, even on land-based system, not to mention naval. Even short range BM(like SCUD i.e.) are hard task for SAM. Though there are not many ballistic missiles to be afraid for navy, unless they are in harbour.
What you're referring to is anti-ship missiles and they are not ballistic missiles.

missiles was the fear that if the Cold War went hot, the Soviets could eliminate the superiority of the US Navy by planting some 150 kiloton nukes right in the center of a carrier battlegroup.

you seriously lowered soviet anti-ship ability
take for example project 949A submarine, 24 missiles, each can carry 550 kiloton nuke and missile(SS-N-19 Shipwreck) on its own is very nasty thing

[[R-DEV]Bob_Marley]

Originally Posted by CastleBravo

You got a source on that?

Yup. The US Naval Institute

Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack

Well, the Nimitz Class Super carrier in the US Navy was built to be able to withstand any attack short of a nuclear weapon.

The conventionally armed DF-21 is designed to kill Nimitz class ships - the PLA were most upset after the USN steamed around Taiwan going "nya nya nya you can't get me!" in 1996.

Also this wouldn't be the first time nuclear ordinance has been able to be delivered from an aircraft carrier in the Royal Navy. HMS Ark Royal (R09) back in the 60s and 70s, during the Cold War was the UKs first line of defence of any possible Russian invasion etc as it patrolled up the North Sea or somewhere around there, can't fully remember the details but also on board was Nuclear Ordinances that could be delivered by its Blackburn Buccaneer strike aircraft. If you want more of the details on this I could look it up but the basic plan was to use these to retaliate against Russia if need be, while also providing air cover around the region.

Indeed.

You are, of course aware that the Buccaneer was only authorised to carry tactical nuclear weapons, such as the WE.177A and Red Beard sauce (which were intended for destroying Soviet naval groups), which are not suitable for strategic roles (ie being a nuclear deterrent). Additionally, Buccaneer had a combat radius of around 1,850km sauce, more than double the range of the F-35B.

Range is a limiting factor on them yes but these aircraft are incredibly flexible in how they can operate giving military planners many choices in order how they could be deployed.

Flexibility has nothing to do with providing an effective nuclear deterrent.

Well I dunno what to believe since if you google Mach 10 the google calculator comes up with:

You callin the BBC a liar?



Also bear in mind that those figures are averages, its likley to be going a good deal faster on the way down.

'Saudi Arabia I'm going to nuke you unless you lower your oil prices' isnt likely to worry the oil barons too much, but sending a Naval fleet to blockade the gulf is....

Aside from the strategic insanity of blockading one's own oil supplies (and everyone elses. I suspect the last thing a fleet blocading the Gulf would have to worry about would be the Arab militaires, China, India and Japan are all almost entirely dependent upon oil exports from the Gulf for thier energy security and thats before you even factor in the US and the rest of Europe), such an outcome could be obtained without carriers - a force of submarines and missile boats would be perfectly capable of that without vulnerabiltiy of the carriers (and the gaping hole left in the RN's strategy should one of them get blown up).

Submarines and missile boats - shore strike capability can be achieved with cruise missiles, just as effective in naval supremacy, much less vulnerable to a single attack that utterly cripples the whole RN (and if/when one of them is sunk, it doesn't take hundreds of sailors and billions of pounds with it).