project reality header
Go Back   Project Reality Forums > Off-Topic Forums > Off-Topic Discussion > Military Technology
24 Apr 2018, 00:00:00 (PRT)
Register Forum RulesDeveloper Blogs Project Reality Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Military Technology Discussion on military hardware.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-16-2010, 06:00 AM   #1
[R-DEV]Rhino
PR:BF2 Developer
Supporting Member

[R-DEV]Rhino's Avatar
Default Debate on the Future of the Royal Navy

~ Posts Moved From UK Elections 2010 topic to form a new topic on the future of the Royal Navy.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeepo View Post
However, the Lib Dem anti-nuclear policy is a HUGE no no for me, so I would definitely not vote for them. However, I do like their idea to give more £ to the troops.
Ye its a huge disappointment that policy for me too thou I don't think its going to stop me for voting for them since I somewhat agree with Trident is a very expensive system that should be reviewed, but I do not agree with scrapping our Nuclear Deterrent completely.



Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Masaq View Post
Defence getting talked about now, and I agree wholeheartedly with Clegg and the LDems... scrap the nukes, use the money to properly finance the rest of the military. Have a proper debate nationally about the role of our military, and a proper review of defence spending. Never mind the fact that even if the Dems were elected, I doubt they'd actually be able to axe Trident's replacement within a single parliament.
And if we get into a situation because we didn't have that deterrent for stopping a possible big conflict in the future we would have wished we had invested that £15bn or w/e into a replacement when we are forking out 100s of bns to fish a major war.

Don't forget that before WW2 we thought it was safe to cut back on our military drastically and look where that left us. We had no wait on our shoulders to even begin to denture Hitler from stopping what they where doing while if we had a well equipped army and showed we where prepared to use it things might have not escalated into what they become. Hitler in the early days just looked at our Army and laughed and right so when compared to his at the time.
In theroy if we had a Nuke back then, even thou I know it wasn't even invented (well the theroy was there but wasn't developed ) we could have used that weight to most likley stop Hitler in his tracks, unless he had a death wish, thou he would have yes most likley still got away with invading a bunch of surrounding countries and our Priminister at the time (forgot his name) may have not had the stomach to put his weight behind a nuke as deterrent but it would have still given him something to back his words on if nothing more.
Thank god we still had some what of our Navy left and we had the Spitfire in the works to stop Germany invading our tiny island and throwing us into complete starvation.


Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Mongolian_dude View Post
I really like Clegg, actually. I do think his views on nuclear deterrents, while with good intentions, were poorly conceived. Arguing that our capabilities were built and designed to fight the now non-existent Soviets means that they are somehow not suited to doing the same to other nations in the present is one step in the through process too short. Although Trident seems 'a bit much', I think complete disarmament is a little silly. It would be nice to spend a little of that on our lads up front though, aswell as some other public sector.
Indeed, there are much cheaper options to a nuclear deterrent out there, although yes less effective than a Trident it would still do its job.

For example we could switch to airborne nuclear bombs, the F-35bs we are buying are capable of delivering nuclear bombs which would basically mean we would have a very flexible Stealth Nuclear Bomber aircraft that can be deployed from not only an airstrip, but also an aircraft carrier or even many types of improvised runways since it has such a small take-off and landing area requirement, improvised runways can simple be a short strait stretch of road, although I wouldn't advise launching a nuclear attack from one but the option is still there
With that system and a little more investment, we could get our current aircraft carrier package we have already invested into and an airborne nuclear deterrent on the side as well, for under I'm guessing (can't find any sources on how much the B61 etc costs per unit etc) an extra 2bn (which would go ontop of our 4.1bn we are already paying for the aircraft carriers + aircraft), coming to a total of around 6bn for the entire package, meaning we would be saving around 13bn on a nuclear deterrent, while still getting one and the money we save can be invested in other areas. The extra 2bn would go into making some modifications to our aircraft carrier design to make them capable of storing nuclear arms (making a led cased room etc), modifying airbases and the extra security needed for them and then getting the bombs themselves, which we could probably just buy directly off the Americans if we really wanted to. For that we would then be getting both a piratical, flexible weapon that can be used in all types of warfare (the aircraft carriers and the F-35bs) and a nuclear deterrent in the same package.


Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Bob_Marley View Post
if only they'll promise to bin the new floating exocet targets, I mean... uh... aircraft carriers too.
We need thous aircraft carriers badly. I really hate how much everyone underestimates the power and the flexibility of an aircraft carrier and how useful they really are, let alone the deterrent they produce as well. I bet you if they are cancelled, we will wish we hadn't cancelled them when we find ourselves in anouther situation where an aircraft carrier is the only tool for the job required or is a significant weapon/tool in a conflict. I could list a bunch of good examples, of even the time the last Queen Elizabeth program was last cancelled when later on they decided afterwards based on what some aircraft carriers just going out of service had done, they really needed one and then retrofitted the Invisible class we have today for the job and a good thing they did too as otherwise we would have lost the Falklands too and would have been most like bullied even more by other counties as a result of loosing it. The fact that we took back the Falklands against all odds is a remarkable achievement in our history and since then have we lost any more territory?

Besides, the aircraft carrier program is in full swing and would be idiotic to cancel right now since so much investment has gone into it, you would be wasting just as much money if not more to cancel the project as you would be to let it continue and for something that's going to be in service for 50 years, its a pretty good investment.

I also bet you that at least once in its 50yr service, at least one of these aircraft carriers will be used and to grate effect where nothing else could have done the same job or as effectively.


Quote:
Originally Posted by gazzthompson View Post
One point i care about is defence, and To my understanding, im quite happy with browns commitment to the troops in afghanistan. As he said, ALL Urgent Operational Requirement (UOR) has been met (the list is quite long) tho there was something about lack of helicopters?
Ye, I believe that one of the things Mr Brown has done is invest a lot into defence which is good, but I wouldn't agree that all of thous investments where the right ones. Like one thing I really dont get is lots of little investments to replace perfectly good things (as far as I'm aware anyways), like for example buying loads of ACOG scopes when what excatly is wrong with the SUSAT? Yes the ACOG is better than the SUSAT, but is it really that much better to justify spending all that money on them? They are both 4x optics and they both do the same job, just the ACOG is a little clearer... I would much prefer to see thous investments go into new ways of protecting our troops from the threat of IEDs rather than something that helps us shoot the Taliban we can not even see, and when we can see them the SUSAT is perfectly upto the job and far better than the iron sights on the AK-47s thous Taliban are using, hence why the Taliban prefer not to engage our troops directly

[R-DEV]Rhino is offline
Last edited by [R-DEV]Rhino; 04-19-2010 at 06:09 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2010, 06:51 AM   #2
Bob_Marley
Retired PR Developer

Bob_Marley's Avatar
Default Re: UK: General Election 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Rhino View Post
In theroy if we had a Nuke back then, even thou I know it wasn't even invented (well the theroy was there but wasn't developed ) we could have used that weight to most likley stop Hitler in his tracks, unless he had a death wish, thou he would have yes most likley still got away with invading a bunch of surrounding countries and our Priminister at the time (forgot his name) may have not had the stomach to put his weight behind a nuke as deterrent but it would have still given him something to back his words on if nothing more.
Thank god we still had some what of our Navy left and we had the Spitfire in the works to stop Germany invading our tiny island and throwing us into complete starvation.
Aaaand Rhino just Godwin'd the thread. Good job.

Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Rhino View Post
Indeed, there are much cheaper options to a nuclear deterrent out there, although yes less effective than a Trident it would still do its job.

For example we could switch to airborne nuclear bombs, the F-35bs we are buying are capable of delivering nuclear bombs which would basically mean we would have a very flexible Stealth Nuclear Bomber aircraft that can be deployed from not only an airstrip, but also an aircraft carrier or even many types of improvised runways since it has such a small take-off and landing area requirement, improvised runways can simple be a short strait stretch of road, although I wouldn't advise launching a nuclear attack from one but the option is still there
With that system and a little more investment, we could get our current aircraft carrier package we have already invested into and an airborne nuclear deterrent on the side as well, for under I'm guessing (can't find any sources on how much the B61 etc costs per unit etc) an extra 2bn (which would go ontop of our 4.1bn we are already paying for the aircraft carriers + aircraft), coming to a total of around 6bn for the entire package, meaning we would be saving around 13bn on a nuclear deterrent, while still getting one and the money we save can be invested in other areas. The extra 2bn would go into making some modifications to our aircraft carrier design to make them capable of storing nuclear arms (making a led cased room etc), modifying airbases and the extra security needed for them and then getting the bombs themselves, which we could probably just buy directly off the Americans if we really wanted to. For that we would then be getting both a piratical, flexible weapon that can be used in all types of warfare (the aircraft carriers and the F-35bs) and a nuclear deterrent in the same package.
Uh-huh.

You know why the British nuclear deterrent switched to submarines, right? Because air delivery sucks unless you can afford a strategic bomber fleet to be on station round the clock (Britian can't).

Say the Russians get some funny ideas and decide to launch thier nukes at blighty. You know how long we'd have to retaliate with land based aircraft? less than eight minutes if launched from land bases in Russia. Less than thirty seconds if launched from a Russian submarine in the North Sea.

Which means those birds would be on the ground, which means they'd be destroyed before they got off the ground. Even if they get off the ground, they'd have to negosiate extensive anti-aircraft defences.

OK, so they're on your beloved aircraft carriers. We'll only have two, which means at any one time one is likley to be undergoing refitting and the other one will be off somewhere else in the world. Russia attacks, the British nuclear deterrent is on manuvers in the South Atlantic. On a big, easily detectable, easily sunk missile target. It'll be at the bottom of the sea, sunk by a Russian submarine faster than you can say "queen liz". Sounds like a flawless plan to me!

Because of the limited resources of the UK (and its size) the only viable option for a credible nuclear deterrent is a submarine based system. Anything else is far too vulnerable or far too expensive to have a credible second strike capability.


Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Rhino View Post
We need thous aircraft carriers badly. I really hate how much everyone underestimates the power and the flexibility of an aircraft carrier and how useful they really are, let alone the deterrent they produce as well. I bet you if they are cancelled, we will wish we hadn't cancelled them when we find ourselves in anouther situation where an aircraft carrier is the only tool for the job required or is a significant weapon/tool in a conflict. I could list a bunch of good examples, of even the time the last Queen Elizabeth program was last cancelled when later on they decided afterwards based on what some aircraft carriers just going out of service had done, they really needed one and then retrofitted the Invisible class we have today for the job and a good thing they did too as otherwise we would have lost the Falklands too and would have been most like bullied even more by other counties as a result of loosing it. The fact that we took back the Falklands against all odds is a remarkable achievement in our history and since then have we lost any more territory?

Besides, the aircraft carrier program is in full swing and would be idiotic to cancel right now since so much investment has gone into it, you would be wasting just as much money if not more to cancel the project as you would be to let it continue and for something that's going to be in service for 50 years, its a pretty good investment.

I also bet you that at least once in its 50yr service, at least one of these aircraft carriers will be used and to grate effect where nothing else could have done the same job or as effectively.
And I hate how much people seem to be in love with the biggest, most expensive, most vulnerable weapons system in service today.

Sure, its got alot of firepower. Its got alot of endurance. Its also laughably easy to detect and sink. And when its sunk it'll take hundreds of British lives with it and billions of pounds. All it takes is one missile and theres an awful lot of missiles out there in the big, bad world.

Also, who the hell you gunna use em on? The Argies? They don't want a military solution. If they do, they'll build up thier armed forces long before making any suggestion of it (and you can be the first things they'll buy are submarines and ASMs). The Iranians? Go ahead. Send them into the Persian Gulf. Remember Operation Millennium Challenge? Well it'll be like that. Only this time no one is going to "re-float" the lost carriers. 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.



Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Rhino View Post
Ye, I believe that one of the things Mr Brown has done is invest a lot into defence which is good, but I wouldn't agree that all of thous investments where the right ones. Like one thing I really dont get is lots of little investments to replace perfectly good things (as far as I'm aware anyways), like for example buying loads of ACOG scopes when what excatly is wrong with the SUSAT? Yes the ACOG is better than the SUSAT, but is it really that much better to justify spending all that money on them? They are both 4x optics and they both do the same job, just the ACOG is a little clearer... I would much prefer to see thous investments go into new ways of protecting our troops from the threat of IEDs rather than something that helps us shoot the Taliban we can not even see, and when we can see them the SUSAT is perfectly upto the job and far better than the iron sights on the AK-47s thous Taliban are using, hence why the Taliban prefer not to engage our troops directly
First off, SUSATs only last about 12 years (after that the gas used to illuminate the scope at night looses its radioactivity and stops being illuminated. Thats what the T in SUSAT is for, Tritium). So they need replacing. The ACOG is also lighter.

But all that is irrelevent as SUSAT is going to be replaced with the Elcan Spectre DR, not the ACOG

The key to modernising any weapon is covering them in glue and tossing them in a barrel of M1913 rails until they look "Modern" enough.

Many thanks to [R-DEV]Adriaan for the sig!
Bob_Marley is offline Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2010, 08:30 AM   #3
[R-DEV]Rhino
PR:BF2 Developer
Supporting Member

[R-DEV]Rhino's Avatar
Default Re: UK: General Election 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Bob_Marley View Post
Uh-huh.

You know why the British nuclear deterrent switched to submarines, right? Because air delivery sucks unless you can afford a strategic bomber fleet to be on station round the clock (Britian can't).

Say the Russians get some funny ideas and decide to launch thier nukes at blighty. You know how long we'd have to retaliate with land based aircraft? less than eight minutes if launched from land bases in Russia. Less than thirty seconds if launched from a Russian submarine in the North Sea.

Which means those birds would be on the ground, which means they'd be destroyed before they got off the ground. Even if they get off the ground, they'd have to negosiate extensive anti-aircraft defences.

OK, so they're on your beloved aircraft carriers. We'll only have two, which means at any one time one is likley to be undergoing refitting and the other one will be off somewhere else in the world. Russia attacks, the British nuclear deterrent is on manuvers in the South Atlantic. On a big, easily detectable, easily sunk missile target. It'll be at the bottom of the sea, sunk by a Russian submarine faster than you can say "queen liz". Sounds like a flawless plan to me!

Because of the limited resources of the UK (and its size) the only viable option for a credible nuclear deterrent is a submarine based system. Anything else is far too vulnerable or far too expensive to have a credible second strike capability.
Like I said, its nothing as good or effective as the Trident system BUT its much, much cheaper.

The proposal of getting rid of Trident is because there is little to no threat from Russia etc, the threat is now from smaller countries and terrorist groups. This system would detour them where they have little to no defence against a stealth bomber.

If we ever got into a WW3 situation, we would 99% chance we would be on the same side as America so we would be able to rely on there nukes anyways for that situation as they would have no choice but to be involved. But in a smaller situation, America may turn its back on us like they did with the Falklands, refusing to help us in any way possible. Although a nuke is a little extreme in thous situations, if threatened with a nuke ourselves and we have nothing to throw back at them other than a bunch of troops and tanks, we would be pretty stuffed, and just say America didn't want to get involved because they supported both sides (like in the Falklands etc) or they didn't want to face possible war on there side, we would be left out to dry and although war probably wouldn't happen in that situation, we would most likley have to sacrifice something to prevent war which we would most likley not have to if we had nukes.


I would rather have a cheap and not the best nuclear capabilities with America backing us up with the larger nukes if needed, than just relying 100% on America to protect us. Thou of course, I would prefer on top of that to have a fully capable nuclear deterrent but it is very expensive and we most likley can not afford it.




Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Bob_Marley View Post
And I hate how much people seem to be in love with the biggest, most expensive, most vulnerable weapons system in service today.

Sure, its got alot of firepower. Its got alot of endurance. Its also laughably easy to detect and sink. And when its sunk it'll take hundreds of British lives with it and billions of pounds. All it takes is one missile and theres an awful lot of missiles out there in the big, bad world.

Also, who the hell you gunna use em on? The Argies? They don't want a military solution. If they do, they'll build up thier armed forces long before making any suggestion of it (and you can be the first things they'll buy are submarines and ASMs). The Iranians? Go ahead. Send them into the Persian Gulf. Remember Operation Millennium Challenge? Well it'll be like that. Only this time no one is going to "re-float" the lost carriers. 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.
Your really thinking more of the US's current Navy rather than our future navy when you say that.

For a start, all our modern ships have a pretty low radar profile, making them much harder to detect and lock, including the new aircraft carriers. They are not huge radar signatures like the Nimitz class

Also its unlikely that one anti-ship missile would sink a ship. These things are designed to be able to take damage and if they do take it they have backup systems to keep them afloat. Although one missile would most likley put it out of action, it would most likley still be salvageable. Also you seem to forget that the new Type 45 destroyers coming into service, there AA system is meant to be the most advanced ship-born one in the world and although its not fully tested yet etc, it has a shot at taking out thous DF-21 ASBM.

But arguing that a carrier can be easily sunk, how is that really different from any other ship out there, being it a frigate, destroyer, assault ship etc? We might as well scrap our entire navy with that argument.

And as to who we are going to use them on, we never know what the future is going to throw at us but I suggest we are prepared for every scenario.

Also what is better in an counter-insurgency situation, an airfield in the heart of enemy territory that can easily be mortared, car-bombed etc that also takes months to setup with getting all the logistics there which is a total nightmare or an aircraft carrier off shore that would only take most likley a few days to sail there on short notice and once its there it can start operating at full capacity's from the start, with the only realistic threat from the insurgents being they might try and loading up a small boat with explosives and trying to run it into the side of a ship, which if they try would be shot to bits as soon as it got inside the no go zone around the protection fleet.



Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Bob_Marley View Post
First off, SUSATs only last about 12 years (after that the gas used to illuminate the scope at night looses its radioactivity and stops being illuminated. Thats what the T in SUSAT is for, Tritium). So they need replacing. The ACOG is also lighter.

But all that is irrelevent as SUSAT is going to be replaced with the Elcan Spectre DR, not the ACOG
I wasn't aware that the illumination in the SUSAT only lasts for 12 years, but what's wrong with it after that's ran out other than its not very good at operating at night?

And that's the first I've heard of the Elcan is replacing it, what going to happen to all the ACOGs we've got now then?

[R-DEV]Rhino is offline Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2010, 11:28 AM   #4
Bob_Marley
Retired PR Developer

Bob_Marley's Avatar
Default Re: UK: General Election 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Rhino View Post
Like I said, its nothing as good or effective as the Trident system BUT its much, much cheaper.

The proposal of getting rid of Trident is because there is little to no threat from Russia etc, the threat is now from smaller countries and terrorist groups. This system would detour them where they have little to no defence against a stealth bomber.

If we ever got into a WW3 situation, we would 99% chance we would be on the same side as America so we would be able to rely on there nukes anyways for that situation as they would have no choice but to be involved. But in a smaller situation, America may turn its back on us like they did with the Falklands, refusing to help us in any way possible. Although a nuke is a little extreme in thous situations, if threatened with a nuke ourselves and we have nothing to throw back at them other than a bunch of troops and tanks, we would be pretty stuffed, and just say America didn't want to get involved because they supported both sides (like in the Falklands etc) or they didn't want to face possible war on there side, we would be left out to dry and although war probably wouldn't happen in that situation, we would most likley have to sacrifice something to prevent war which we would most likley not have to if we had nukes.


I would rather have a cheap and not the best nuclear capabilities with America backing us up with the larger nukes if needed, than just relying 100% on America to protect us. Thou of course, I would prefer on top of that to have a fully capable nuclear deterrent but it is very expensive and we most likley can not afford it.
You either have a capable nuclear deterrent or you don't have one at all - there is no middle ground. Without a credible second strike capability there is absolutly no point in maintaing a nuclear arsenal (if you do, you're basically saying to the world "we're prepared to use nukes offensively).

Without a second strike capability there is no deterrent. Deterrence requries that you can do to whatever some one is doing to you to them. Without a second strike capability nuclear deterrence simply does not work, therefore there is no logical need for a nuclear arsenal. Unless of course you're planning to nuke someone offensively.





Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Rhino View Post
Your really thinking more of the US's current Navy rather than our future navy when you say that.

For a start, all our modern ships have a pretty low radar profile, making them much harder to detect and lock, including the new aircraft carriers. They are not huge radar signatures like the Nimitz class

Also its unlikely that one anti-ship missile would sink a ship. These things are designed to be able to take damage and if they do take it they have backup systems to keep them afloat. Although one missile would most likley put it out of action, it would most likley still be salvageable. Also you seem to forget that the new Type 45 destroyers coming into service, there AA system is meant to be the most advanced ship-born one in the world and although its not fully tested yet etc, it has a shot at taking out thous DF-21 ASBM.
No it doesn't. There is no fleet defence system currently in use or in development that can enguage, much less destroy a Ballisitic missile.

Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Rhino View Post
But arguing that a carrier can be easily sunk, how is that really different from any other ship out there, being it a frigate, destroyer, assault ship etc? We might as well scrap our entire navy with that argument.
Yup. I would. Big ships are a thing of the past. One missile gets past, hundreds dead and billions gone. Replace the lot with small ships armed with big missiles and submarines.

Still fully capable of conducting the current missions required of the RN (counter piracy, counter narcotics) but at a much lower cost and when they get sunk in a conventional war they don't send hundreds of sailors to davey jones with them.

Also, carriers are particularly guilty. The queen liz class weigh in at £3.9 billion a pop plus £1,938,948,345 worth of F-35Bs and thats before we get on to the loss of life, early warning aircraft and ammunition costs if they go down.

They'll be expensive, hard to replace crew too. Pilots, Aircraft technicians, etc.

Loose a carrier and its getting on for £6 billion+ lost. Loose a heavily armed patrol boat and its less than a tenth of that with much, much lower loss of life (as in 30< compared to >400)

Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Rhino View Post
And as to who we are going to use them on, we never know what the future is going to throw at us but I suggest we are prepared for every scenario.

Also what is better in an counter-insurgency situation, an airfield in the heart of enemy territory that can easily be mortared, car-bombed etc that also takes months to setup with getting all the logistics there which is a total nightmare or an aircraft carrier off shore that would only take most likley a few days to sail there on short notice and once its there it can start operating at full capacity's from the start, with the only realistic threat from the insurgents being they might try and loading up a small boat with explosives and trying to run it into the side of a ship, which if they try would be shot to bits as soon as it got inside the no go zone around the protection fleet.
uh-huh. And where exactly do you think the RN will be conducting COIN operations without nearby airbases. Hell, if the MoD really wanted to it can hit most of Europe and the ME with UK based aircraft and ariel refuling.

While it is true that land bases in such a country would be vulnerable to such attacks 1) there is the option of bases outside of the country in most cases (such as current bases in Saudi or Kyrgyzstan. 2) when they are subjected to such attacks they don't end up a mile below water full of dead bodies.

The only time that sort of thing could occur would be if Britian were forced to defend its interests in the South Atlantic once again. Which it wont be in the near-medium term. If it is, the Argentines will be much more heavily armed than last time (and top of thier shopping lists will be submarines) and they'll blow any British expaditionary fleet out of the water. The only hope for the Falklands in such a conflict lies in the units already there and the ability of the UK's hunter-killer submarine fleet to starve out an occupation force.

Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Rhino View Post
I wasn't aware that the illumination in the SUSAT only lasts for 12 years, but what's wrong with it after that's ran out other than its not very good at operating at night?

And that's the first I've heard of the Elcan is replacing it, what going to happen to all the ACOGs we've got now then?
Thats the point - its not very good at night. Night is by far the safest time for the armed forces of developed nations to operate in COIN warfare - they hold all the aces at night, removing that advantage means more casualties. Additionally, in conventional war it puts British troops at a disadvantage compared to thier advasaries, which again, means more casualties.

Then you clearly don't keep up with the news. ACOG will be replaced along with SUSAT in due time - it was an UOR not a long term replacement.

The key to modernising any weapon is covering them in glue and tossing them in a barrel of M1913 rails until they look "Modern" enough.

Many thanks to [R-DEV]Adriaan for the sig!
Bob_Marley is offline Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2010, 02:52 PM   #5
[R-DEV]Rhino
PR:BF2 Developer
Supporting Member

[R-DEV]Rhino's Avatar
Default Re: UK: General Election 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Bob_Marley View Post
Unless of course you're planning to nuke someone offensively.
*looks around nervously*

But in all seriousness, again your talking about nuclear conflicts with Russia, China or w/e where I'm more referring too smaller countries that might be possibly developing nuclear arms that do not have the long range capability.
I can't find the range value of the Trident missile system thou I'm guessing its somewhere between short and medium range missile. If so your argument on the weapon not being launched before the attackers launchers there pretty much applies to the current trident system which in turn your saying is pointless. Other than a submarine is harder to detect so it could stay around without support for a bit to get into a postion before launching its missile against the country, there is no grantee that it will not be undetected nor sunk before it can launch and most of the time the intelligence should pick up on anything before a strike happens and the sub (or in my proposal carrier) can be in position on standby before the attack happens and it is pretty common practice btw to have ships on standby around places of possible conflict, epically subs and carriers.



Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Bob_Marley View Post
No it doesn't. There is no fleet defence system currently in use or in development that can enguage, much less destroy a Ballisitic missile.
I guess we will just have to see how the Aster 30 performs in its later tests against super-sonic targets.



Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Bob_Marley View Post
Replace the lot with small ships armed with big missiles and submarines.
A ship armed with submarines? hehe



Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Bob_Marley View Post
Also, carriers are particularly guilty. The queen liz class weigh in at £3.9 billion a pop plus £1,938,948,345 worth of F-35Bs and thats before we get on to the loss of life, early warning aircraft and ammunition costs if they go down.

They'll be expensive, hard to replace crew too. Pilots, Aircraft technicians, etc.

Loose a carrier and its getting on for £6 billion+ lost. Loose a heavily armed patrol boat and its less than a tenth of that with much, much lower loss of life (as in 30< compared to >400)
Well the Plan is not to loose them and I guess we are simply never going to agree on this subject so we can just agree to disagree here



Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Bob_Marley View Post
uh-huh. And where exactly do you think the RN will be conducting COIN operations without nearby airbases. Hell, if the MoD really wanted to it can hit most of Europe and the ME with UK based aircraft and ariel refuling.
A carrier could be the first response to a COIN or any other conflict before anything else can get there. I doubt a extended COIN would go down without a airbase being setup no but aircraft carriers where used extensively by the US though out the entire Vitenam war to the bitter end. Although yes they did loose the war, it wasn't down to air power.

Also yes while some land based aircraft from the UK can hit the ME with aerial refuelling, they can not constantly maintain a combat air patrol like that its simply unrealistic. In 1966 during Op Royal Knight the RAF tested its capability of protecting fleet, 750 miles out over the north sea relying on aerial refuelling etc. While they did successfully do that, they could not maintain a a combat air patrol of twp FG1s over the fleet for 6 days and would have needed 14 Phantom FG1s and 10 Victor refuelling aircraft and that's presuming all of them are constantly operational, dont develop any faults and dont get shot down while an aircraft carrier can easily have more than a pair of jets protecting at any time, can quickly and easily reinforce them and need much fewer aircraft in order to do so.

Although yes now we do have longer range aircraft than back then, that was only 750 miles away and not 1/2 way round the globe.



Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Bob_Marley View Post
1) there is the option of bases outside of the country in most cases (such as current bases in Saudi or Kyrgyzstan.
Most of the time countries will refuse you to launch aircraft from there land in the fear of there land getting bombed or simply want nothing to do with the conflict. The Americans wouldn't even let us launch aircraft from there land in the Falklands for god sakes and the Russians wouldn't allow the Americans to launch bombers to bomb Japan in WW2 as well as god knows how many more examples I could put on top of that, and when you get permission you still need to set-up shop there which can take quite a long time, even in an existing air base which is in most cases much longer than it takes to sail an aircraft carrier there, which may I note you dont need permission to launch aircraft from in pretty much all parts of the world


Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Bob_Marley View Post
The only time that sort of thing could occur would be if Britian were forced to defend its interests in the South Atlantic once again. Which it wont be in the near-medium term. If it is, the Argentines will be much more heavily armed than last time (and top of thier shopping lists will be submarines) and they'll blow any British expaditionary fleet out of the water. The only hope for the Falklands in such a conflict lies in the units already there and the ability of the UK's hunter-killer submarine fleet to starve out an occupation force.
The Argentinians did have submarines in the Falklands war you know? Any that attempted to come close to the fleet where sunk

And there are many other scenarios that could pop up in the future where an aircraft carrier is the only option. Just because the Falklands is one of the best example in history dosen't mean its the only one.




Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Bob_Marley View Post
Thats the point - its not very good at night. Night is by far the safest time for the armed forces of developed nations to operate in COIN warfare - they hold all the aces at night, removing that advantage means more casualties. Additionally, in conventional war it puts British troops at a disadvantage compared to thier advasaries, which again, means more casualties.
From what I've seen and read, pretty much all the fighting currently in Afghanistan is in the day time, normally the morning when its still cool. I've not seen much to say any of the fighting happens at night? Please can you provide a source?


Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Bob_Marley View Post
Then you clearly don't keep up with the news. ACOG will be replaced along with SUSAT in due time - it was an UOR not a long term replacement.
I'm sorry is that meant to be an attack on me basically saying I don't know what I'm talking about? And for your information I do keep up with the news as best as I can, but that dosen't mean I or even you get to hear everything. I can remember you saying a while back that the RN was going to be getting the F-35C instead of the F-35B when it was in fact only a rumour going about and was pretty common information that it was only a rumour.

[R-DEV]Rhino is offline
Last edited by [R-DEV]Rhino; 04-16-2010 at 02:57 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2010, 04:37 PM   #6
Herbiie

Herbiie's Avatar
Default Re: UK: General Election 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Bob_Marley View Post
No it doesn't. There is no fleet defence system currently in use or in development that can enguage, much less destroy a Ballisitic missile.
Erm - we've been doing that since the Falklands.

Excohet Missiles (yes my spelling is crap) were shot out of the sky by several British Frigates during the Falklands war - not effectively or efficiently I'll grant you, it's one or two, but it's still possible.

Also - I highly doubt that Britain will engage in very many conflicts where the enemy has the ability to destroy one of our larger ships e.g. an aircraft carrier, whereas if we have a large aircraft carrier then we have a nice floating air base from which (along with assault ships such as HMS Ocean) to launch well prepared well supported amphibious Operations - something that is much more likely in the British role of International policeman/bully.

Also do you know the role that our two Air Craft carrier played in the Falklands war?
If it weren't for them we would of lost - they intercepted most Nimrod's with their sea harriers, so much infact that even before the San Carlos landings Argentine pilots were literally refusing to fly out of fear our the RAF.

The Argentinians DID have Submarines then - but they ran away with the rest of the Argentine Navy after we accidentally sunk their flag ship (We tried to fire a warning shot to inflict light damage, so we fired a manually targeted one instead of an automatic one, missed, and blew it out of the water... whoops...).

Summary: I agree With Nic- I mean Rhino....

Also Marley - British Troops are some of the best trained in the world, we have the longest basic training programme. We can operate at night with Iron Sights - my Unit does it (being Royal Armoured Corps and territorial, even those of us who have been Deployed haven't been issued with SUSAT or ACOG scopes!).

though Rhino - Platoon Houses such as Musa Queleh (Though it does all seem to have quietened down in recent months) come under attack 24/7 - infact in 2006 literally all day and all night the troops were being shot at.

BUT - when someone shoots at you, it gives away their position. Fire at the gun flashes lads, fire at the flashes.

Herbiie is offline
Last edited by Herbiie; 04-16-2010 at 04:42 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2010, 06:05 PM   #7
Bob_Marley
Retired PR Developer

Bob_Marley's Avatar
Default Re: UK: General Election 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herbiie View Post
Erm - we've been doing that since the Falklands.

Excohet Missiles (yes my spelling is crap) were shot out of the sky by several British Frigates during the Falklands war - not effectively or efficiently I'll grant you, it's one or two, but it's still possible.
Right... Read that again. Ballistic Missile.

Ballistic Missiles fly like this:



Exocet Missiles (as most others) are low level, sea skimming missiles. As in they fly perpendicular with the sea and come at the ship from the side.

This is the important difference. All current and planned fleet defence measures are designed to counter a missile coming from the side, not straight down.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Herbiie View Post
Also - I highly doubt that Britain will engage in very many conflicts where the enemy has the ability to destroy one of our larger ships e.g. an aircraft carrier, whereas if we have a large aircraft carrier then we have a nice floating air base from which (along with assault ships such as HMS Ocean) to launch well prepared well supported amphibious Operations - something that is much more likely in the British role of International policeman/bully.

Also do you know the role that our two Air Craft carrier played in the Falklands war?
If it weren't for them we would of lost - they intercepted most Nimrod's with their sea harriers, so much infact that even before the San Carlos landings Argentine pilots were literally refusing to fly out of fear our the RAF.
So you'll put billions of pounds and hundreds of lives onto something that essentially won't be used over the course of its service life.

Yup. Sounds smart to me.

Also, Fleet Air Arm, not RAF. The RAF never operated the Sea Harrier or in the Air Defence role during the Falklands conflict - RAF harriers were used in the ground attack role. And they didn't establish complete air superiority anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herbiie View Post
The Argentinians DID have Submarines then - but they ran away with the rest of the Argentine Navy after we accidentally sunk their flag ship (We tried to fire a warning shot to inflict light damage, so we fired a manually targeted one instead of an automatic one, missed, and blew it out of the water... whoops...).
No, the unguided torpedoes were used because the guided ones (Mk.24 "Tiger Fish") didn't work

Quote:
Notes: Mod 0 was an ASW torpedo. When this entered service trials in 1973, the reliability was very poor, about 40% on average functioning as intended. This torpedo depends heavily on data provided by the firing submarine, but the torpedo tended to dip and break the guidance wires during launch. Mod 0 failed provisional fleet acceptance trials in 1979 but was issued to the fleet starting in 1980. Mod 1 had an anti-ship seeker, but experienced problems with the shipboard tactical-data system and with actual torpedo control. During this time, the Royal Navy Torpedo Factory (RNTF) was closed and production passed to Plessey. The redesigned Mod 1 version passed trials in 1978 and was issued to the fleet the following year.

However, in a test performed in 1982 immediately after the Falklands War, two out of five Mod 1 torpedoes fired at a target hulk failed to function because of bad batteries and none of the others even hit the target. This unreliability was well known in the Fleet, which is why the ancient Mark VIII** torpedoes were used to sink the Argentine cruiser Belgrano.
Sauce

Anyway, the Argentine units in the Falklands (by and large, there were notable exceptions such as thier Naval Air Crews and Special Forces) were well equipped but poorly trained and led. So of course they bloody ran - they'd just been notified that at least one hunter-killer submarine was on the loose.

They know that and they won't make the same mistake again. If Argentina does seek to enforce its claim by military means it wont be in the shot-medium term at a minimum - plenty of time to put together a better submaine force (and not make stupid mistakes like sending a WWII vintage cruiser out on its own).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Herbiie View Post
Also Marley - British Troops are some of the best trained in the world, we have the longest basic training programme. We can operate at night with Iron Sights - my Unit does it (being Royal Armoured Corps and territorial, even those of us who have been Deployed haven't been issued with SUSAT or ACOG scopes!).

though Rhino - Platoon Houses such as Musa Queleh (Though it does all seem to have quietened down in recent months) come under attack 24/7 - infact in 2006 literally all day and all night the troops were being shot at.

BUT - when someone shoots at you, it gives away their position. Fire at the gun flashes lads, fire at the flashes.
I never said British troops wern't well trained - my point is they should have the best equipment (or in this case, perfectly average equipment for western forces) - denying them a night capable optic (something that the British armed forces have had since the SUIT) on the grounds that they're "well trained so don't need one" is utter idocy. That sort of thinking would have left troops with the L85A1 (after all, they're well trained. Why bother giving them a reliable rifle - they're good enough not to need one).

Quote:
But in all seriousness, again your talking about nuclear conflicts with Russia, China or w/e where I'm more referring too smaller countries that might be possibly developing nuclear arms that do not have the long range capability.
I can't find the range value of the Trident missile system thou I'm guessing its somewhere between short and medium range missile. If so your argument on the weapon not being launched before the attackers launchers there pretty much applies to the current trident system which in turn your saying is pointless. Other than a submarine is harder to detect so it could stay around without support for a bit to get into a postion before launching its missile against the country, there is no grantee that it will not be undetected nor sunk before it can launch and most of the time the intelligence should pick up on anything before a strike happens and the sub (or in my proposal carrier) can be in position on standby before the attack happens and it is pretty common practice btw to have ships on standby around places of possible conflict, epically subs and carriers.
You're missing a key point - Those missiles are on submarines. They're hard to detect and don't have to strike instantly - days, weeks or even months after an initial attack retaliation is possible. Air delivery does not have that option - aircraft are tied to airbases or carriers, which means they can easily (in comparison) be destroyed before a counter attack is launched.

Thats the advantage of submarines - they're easy to miss and if you miss even one, you're boned.

Of course there is no guarentee - there never can be. But its not about guarentees, its about probability. With a submarine based defence system the probability is that the UK will be able to retalitate with at least one of its nuclear armed submarines regardless of how well planned an attack upon the UK is.

With a land based nuclear deterrent that probability is much, much lower. A carrier based system is better, but still incredibly vulnerable in comparison to a submarine based system.

Trident should either be replaced/upgraded or not. A non-submarine based deterrent would be ineffective in its intended role (that of deterrence) and would serve only to give states with nuclear aspirations another excuse to persue nuclear arms (as such a replacement would clearly only have offensive applications)

Quote:
I guess we will just have to see how the Aster 30 performs in its later tests against super-sonic targets.
OK, this is starting to make my head hurt - it doesn't matter if its supersonic or not. Ballistic missile! Completely different attack profile!

Quote:
A ship armed with submarines? hehe
Rhino starting a grammar and spelling argument?

Well, I'll be nice. I'm not going to get involved in that one.

Quote:
From what I've seen and read, pretty much all the fighting currently in Afghanistan is in the day time, normally the morning when its still cool. I've not seen much to say any of the fighting happens at night? Please can you provide a source?
Kenwayy.

Quote:
I can remember you saying a while back that the RN was going to be getting the F-35C instead of the F-35B when it was in fact only a rumour going about and was pretty common information that it was only a rumour.
No, I said they should get the F-35C (bigger, longer ranged, heavier payload, no VTOL system taking up weight and space) and that the option was being looked at, I never said they are getting the F-35C.

I was simply pointing out that in that particular case you were incorrect.

Quote:
Any that attempted to come close to the fleet where sunk
Abandoned, actually. Damage prevented it from submerging but it was most certainly not sunk.

Quote:
Also yes while some land based aircraft from the UK can hit the ME with aerial refuelling, they can not constantly maintain a combat air patrol like that its simply unrealistic. In 1966 during Op Royal Knight the RAF tested its capability of protecting fleet, 750 miles out over the north sea relying on aerial refuelling etc. While they did successfully do that, they could not maintain a a combat air patrol of twp FG1s over the fleet for 6 days and would have needed 14 Phantom FG1s and 10 Victor refuelling aircraft and that's presuming all of them are constantly operational, dont develop any faults and dont get shot down while an aircraft carrier can easily have more than a pair of jets protecting at any time, can quickly and easily reinforce them and need much fewer aircraft in order to do so.

Although yes now we do have longer range aircraft than back then, that was only 750 miles away and not 1/2 way round the globe.
Scrap the other big ships too. No need for fleet defence if theres no fleet do defend.

The key to modernising any weapon is covering them in glue and tossing them in a barrel of M1913 rails until they look "Modern" enough.

Many thanks to [R-DEV]Adriaan for the sig!
Bob_Marley is offline Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2010, 06:17 PM   #8
Herbiie

Herbiie's Avatar
Default Re: UK: General Election 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Bob_Marley View Post
Also, Fleet Air Arm, not RAF. The RAF never operated the Sea Harrier or in the Air Defence role during the Falklands conflict - RAF harriers were used in the ground attack role. And they didn't establish complete air superiority anyway.
No - it was a squadron of RAF Harriers, I would tell you which Squadron but I don't have access to my Material on the Falklands atm.

Unguided torpedoes were used because they did not wish to sink the ship because it was outside of the 200 Mile Exclusion Zone. Again I can't source that but I will asap.

About the fighting at night - my point was that they operate fine at night without reliable night scopes, so where's the Problem?

Now, Hecklar and Coch (again spelling fail) refusing to make replacement L85A2s...

Herbiie is offline Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2010, 06:25 PM   #9
Sidewinder Zulu

Sidewinder Zulu's Avatar
Default Re: UK: General Election 2010

I love how this turned from a discussion of British politics to a debate about the strengths and weaknesses of the Royal Navy and ballistic missile defense systems.
Still interesting though.
Sidewinder Zulu is offline Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2010, 06:25 PM   #10
[R-MOD]Mongolian_dude
Forum Moderator

[R-MOD]Mongolian_dude's Avatar
Default Re: UK: General Election 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Rhino View Post
Well the Plan is not to loose them and I guess we are simply never going to agree on this subject so we can just agree to disagree here
I've always wondered why the MoD doesn't employ Miniature Carries, as opposed Super Carriers. Considering our naval air arm will be entirely VTOL, has the need for runways has not essentially disappeared? With that said, could we not deploy multiple smaller carriers, capable of carrying 5-10 aircraft and their associated logistics? That way, we have the option of deploying our naval airpower more flexibly. Also, it allows us the choice to deploy and spend less on aircraft and their carriers, and develop some form of Super-Frigate for an almost-impenetrable air defence, that could tackle these nasty little Chinese missiles Bob speaks of

This way, the MoD isn't putting all our eggs in one basket.


...mongol...

Military lawyers engaged in fierce legal action.
[R-MOD]Mongolian_dude is offline Reply With Quote
Reply


Tags
aircraft, carriers, debate, deterrence, future, navy, nuclear, royal
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:23 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin. ©vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
All Content Copyright ©2004 - 2018, Project Reality