Well, speaking for myself, as a Scotsman, I have little in common with Francis drake or Elizabeth the first anyway.

I’d imagine that Winston Churchill would be gratified at the robust criticism afforded by our liberal democratic institutions to be honest. The fact that such criticism is tinged with some form of ignorance of the technical issues is inescapable given the obscurity of knowledge required to have even a rudimentary understanding of geo politics and defence strategy.

Then again, the same criticisms can be laid a tthe door of any number of programmes, technical and social in many countries across the world. It is up to the government of the day to make the case for nationalising or privatising, building or breaking up.

So really, I don’t see why you are getting so upset. The kind of criticisms will follow programs like the QE CVs for the simple line of poetry that someone once wrote about the British:

“In God and soldier we adore, in times of war and not before”

Hum, no. It is not the same thing.
And i doubt Churchill would be any happy of how his country looks now, so akin to throwing away its world relevance, so sea-blind when it comes to the RN he always cared for and even lead, and at a lot of other things which would most likely puzzle him at the very least.
I may be wrong, but the UK of today looks far different and far less credible than it did until perhaps ten years ago. Last time it impressed in favorable way was in 2000 with the resolute way in which the Sierra Leone problem was dealt with.

What a difference between that and the pathetic way piracy is now fought, and how the Royal Marines were held back by coward politicians when they were ready to step in in the infamous situation of the kidnapped yatch and fix it with whatever force it was required.

No, it truly isn’t the same thing. And it is not just a lack of knowledge that surfaces in some comments, for example about the CVFs. It is a total, depressing lack of any kind of pride, actually.
Something that astonishes whoever looks at it from the outside.

Given the current state of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, if it became apparent that many more vessels be being brought back in to service and those already available were all being made ready to put to see it would raise quite a few flags in Mons and Brussels let alone those countries in the area. The Russian Navy no longer has the capability to carry out a no notice surge and the Dardanelles are an easy bottleneck to block. Yes the fleet could exist in dribs and drabs, but their passage and destinations would be noted and other navies would increase their posture. Greece and Turkey (If operating togther) have more than enough platfroms to cope with almost any senario and add the Italian and French navies and it becomes a bit onesided in numbers and capability, and the Russians know this.

The Black Sea Dleets main contribution is the power in can project within the Black sea with only Turkey being a major player. Ukraine is a wild card but until it get its own political house in order and decides where its loyalies lay it will remain on the sidelines, of course assuming it isn’t the target of any Russian operation!

That was said for years of the whole Russian fleet. Then came the deployment to Venezuela for a major exercise, the revival of the strategic bombers flights, and the operations against Georgia that included a relevant contribute of the Black Sea Fleet that everyone considered rusty and not operative.
Did this raise any significant worry in Europe/NATO? No, apparently no, since no one seems to care about Russia’s program of rearming.

Until the PAK-FA flied last January, the official western stance was “it is a bluff. They don’t have money nor technology to fly a 5 generation stealth fighter. And there’s no way they have been building 3 prototypes without us knowing it”.
Yet IT DID EXIST, AND IT DID FLY.
Now, Russia says it expects the PAK-DA, their new strategic bomber, possibly inspired by B2, to fly in 2015, and the stance has not changed. “Oh, we were wrong on the fighter, but they sure can’t have worked on a new bomber!”
It would be quite embarassing if we were to see a new bomber fly for real in 2015.

Again, “many more vessels” are being brought into service by Russia, actually. They already are. Yet, no one seems to consider that worth a reflection. Within next year the russian navy will have at least another one Kirov active, several ships updated, and several new ones launched.

Most notable sea programs we are aware of:

A program to develop a “fourth generation” diesel-electric submarine, it produced a highly improved version of the Project 636 Kilo class with much quieter, new combat systems, and possibly air-independent propulsion.

Sankt Peterburg began initial sea trials on 29 November 2005. On 22 April 2010 it was reported that the submarine had finished all testing and would join the Russian navy later in the year.[1]

The Lada-class diesel submarine launched in October 2004 is among the best in its class featuring virtual silence, powerful missiles and torpedoes, and sophisticated sonar equipment. The Admiralty Shipyard is building another three Lada-class submarines, and plans to launch between four and six of them by 2015.

* Saint Petersburg (B-585)

Laid down in December 26, 1997, Launched October 28, 2004. Delivered to Russian Navy on 24 April 2010 and commissioned on 8 May 2010. Assigned to Baltic fleet

* Kronshtadt (B-586)

Laid down on July 28, 2005, will be assigned to ??? fleet

* Petrozavodsk (B-587)

Laid down on July, 2006 at the Admiralty Shipyards, will be assigned to ??? fleet

* Sevastopol (B-588)

Laid down on November 10, 2006 at the Admiralty Shipyards, will be asigned to Black Sea fleet

And about their new attack SSN submarines, Yasen class, (Graney for NATO):

In 2004 it was reported that the work on the submarine was moving forward, but due to the priority given to the new SSBN Borei-class submarine, Severodvinsk, the lead unit of the Yasen class would not be ready before 2010. In July 2006 the deputy chairman of the Military-Industrial Commission, Vladislav Putilin, stated that two Yasen class submarines were to join the Russian Navy before 2015.

On July 24, 2009 the work on a second Yasen submarine, named Kazan, was started. On July 26 the Russian navy command announced that one multipurpose submarine would be laid down every year, not necessarily of this class, starting in 2011.

The Borei class (Russian: Борей; sometimes transliterated as Borey, also known as the Dolgorukiy class, is a ship class of nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine produced and operated by the Russian Navy. The class is intended to replace the Delta III and Typhoon classes now in Russian Navy service. The class is named after Boreas, the North wind.

Although the Yuriy Dolgorukiy was officially rolled out of its construction hall on 15 April 2007 the submarine was not put into the water until February 2008. By July 2009 it had yet to be armed with Bulava missiles and is therefore not fully operational, although ready for sea trials on 24 October 2008.[8] On November 21, 2008 the reactor on the Yuriy Dolgorukiy was activated[9] and on 19 June 2009 began its sea trials in the White Sea. The submarine will undergo up to six trials before being commissioned and the problem with the Bulava missile could delay it even more.

On December 15 a defense Ministry official announced that the laydown of the fourth Borei class submarine had been postponed from December to the first quarter of 2010. The reason for the delay was said to be “organizational and technical reasons”. Fourth ship of class will be constructed under new modification 955U. On 8 February 2010 shipyard officials announced that the work on the fourth Borei class submarine had started

The Admiral Sergey Gorshkov class frigate (alt.Eng. Sergey Gorshkov), also known as Project 22350, is the latest Russian Navy frigate that will be able to execute long-range strike, anti-submarine and escort missions in far ocean zones.[citation needed] According to some sources, Project 22350 was based upon Project 1135.6 Talwar/Krivak IV class frigate developed by Russia for India.

The Russian Navy intends to procure 20 such ships through 2015. The lead ship, Admiral Sergey Gorshkov (actual name Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Sergey Gorshkov), was laid down on February 10, 2006 in Severnaya Verf Shipyard at St. Petersburg. In late October 2008 the Russian deputy prime minister, Sergei Ivanov, announced that the first ship in the class would be ready by 2011. He also said that the timely construction of combat ships is now a priority task of the Russian shipbuilding industry.

On June 24, 2009, during the “Mvms-Imds 2009” International navies’ expo, the Russian Navy Commander Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky announced that the production of a second “Admiral Gorshkov” class frigate would begin at Severnaya Verf shipyard in St. Petersburg by the end of the year. In November 2009 the Severnaya Verf shipyard in St Petersburg announced that it would start the construction of the second Gorshkov frigate on November 26.

Is it enough for you as naval rearming program worth rising an eyebrow, then? Or should i list some other major program?
Because there could be the Mistrals (up to 5, 3 built in Russia, 2 in France) or the stated project for the future that calls the russian navy to plan for the 2020 on a new strategic guideline centered around 6 aircraft carriers, 2 new classes of corvettes being built, 5 Landing Ships of the Ivan Green class.

The four super-cruisers of the Kirov class are being overhauled: 1 is expected fully operative in 2012, the other 2 within the 2020 are going to be refitted, upgraded and put back in active service.

Now, if this isn’t something that causes eyebrows to rise, you have to tell me who the hell would care for the moves of ships so utterly undervalued as those of the Black Sea Fleet.

The idea as to what threats are credible sounds like a good idea for this thread to discuss to help focus the discussions.

Brainstorming threats –

Low level threats – piracy of the coast of Africa (persistent), drug trafficking in the Caribbean (persistent), the risk of weapons smuggled into Iran or North Korea (policing of the seas/ISTAR), natural disaster requiring sea or air lift (sadly rather relatively common)

Medium level threats – state on state naval/aviation skirmishes in the Antarctic and Artic regions over resources (likely short duration followed by diplomatic solution), instability in Southern hemisphere countries leading to collapse of the Government resulting in humanitarian crisis or risk to embassy/British Nationals (typical short duration intervention followed by diplomatic solution or the African Union providing peace keepers), troubles in the Balkans leading to conflict (increasingly likely due to recent events, will be tackled by EU or NATO intervention), Argentina attempting to retake the Falklands (unlikely), state on state conflict by non-conventional means i.e. cyber attack or economic warfare (quite likely but I cannot see the UK being the prime target for this sort of warfare anytime soon).

High level threats – Argentina, in alliance with other South American countries attempting to retake Falklands, state failure in Middle East requiring NATO intervention, Russia launching attack against one or more of the new EU member states requiring EU response (possible but I imagine that they will not do so without provocation and this gives us an out), state failure in Pakistan requiring NATO response, major state on state warfare requiring NATO to provide peacekeepers/stabilisation force (China/India, South/North Korea, major Middle East conflict likely started in response to Iran, Russia/China, Turkey/Greece) and finally major conflict between NATO and any major power up to and including nuclear war.

Any others threats anyone can think of? I have addressed what I have perceived as the level of threat with the UK needing greater capabilities to deal with the medium and high level threats but any proper risk assessment should also include likelihood and to be honest I think most of the high level threats are very unlikely for the foreseeable future and many of the medium risk threats would likely only occur once or twice a decade. Given the risks, the shape of our alliances, what sort of force structure/levels do we need in the circumstances?

Roughly, i agree with the scenarios you outline. I’d add, though, that Argentina may not want to retake Falklands with a new invasion, but there’s many other things it could do, namely:

Active opposition to shipping. Closing its ports to ships going to and from the Falklands, closing its air space for flights going to and from the islands, and it could send its warships escorting the drilling oil rigs and any other vessel away from the Falklands.
This would be an easier move, and Clyde would be unable to oppose it, as would the Typhoons, both for lack of range and even more for lack of adequate weapons, mostly air-launched anti-ship missiles.
In the worst case, the RN would have to escort the ships in and it would be a war of nerves against argentinian vessels which would likely maneuver in aggressive way. Unlikely to reach the stage of firing at one another, but it would be a great strain for the population of the islands, for the RN, for the military budget and for the political will of the UK, also because we can expect Venezuela, Chile and even Brazil to be very vocal about the crisis.
A possibility of serious clash at sea exists depending on how the crisis evolves.

Move number two: insert a military team on the oil rigs around the islands and held hostage the crews and the platforms.
Possible countermove: a risky raid of SAS/SBS.
Political weight of the event: massive, especially if there was a risk of ecologic disaster tied to the oil platforms.

Other scenarios: 1) Iran blocks the Hormuz strait in answer to economic sanctions if they get truly serious.
2) Israel attacks the nuclear plants in Iran, possibly with a tacit agreement of Saudi Arabia. Iran, Siria and Egypt all declare war on Israel.
3) Lebanon situation degenerates again. NATO forces in the area caught in crossfire.
4) Lebanon situation degenerates further. Siria and possibly Egypt intervene, perhaps followed by Iran. For sure, they’d step up economic and miliatary aid to Hezbollah from day one.

5) The arsons in Russia have caused shortage of grain, end of exporting and price growth of 20% and more.
Imagine a major disaster happening in the gas drilling plants in Russia: exporting closed, half of Europe sees its supply cut to zero. Finland imports 100% of gas from Russia, Germany 37%, Czech republic 79%, Slovakia 100%, Ungheria 54%, Serbia 87%, Greece 82%, France 20%, ITaly 25%. Without considering the oil they buy from Russia too.
Internal disorders, black outs, economic crisis, international tensions. Developments? Possibly nasty.

6) New Georgia troubles, Russia advanced further into the country. NATO response, first diplomatic and then eventually with a military effort to ensure the crisis ends.

And there’s undoubtedly many more possible scenarios that could be depicted.

Only a small picture included, lower block two taking shape in Portsmouth.

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/8320118.Landmark_reached_in_construction_of_supercarriers/

The comments make my heart bleed.

But who the hell was so horribly bent on teaching you britons the goddamn phrase “we’ve got no empire anymore! We got no empire anymore! We don’t need this, we can’t afford that!”

Seriously, this people in these comments is both ridiculous and depressing. If britons have such a low idea of their own country, something is horribly messed up there.

Anyway, thanks for sharing!
Despite the bitching and stupid comments about delays and cost overruns and idiocies, the program is actually going awesomely well so far, and i reckon it will continue going well, unless the government once more imposes delay for absurd, irrilevant short term savings that push up final price…

Also, i’d like to know that guy who commented calling the carriers “insanely expensive”. He’s an idiot. They are not. They are actually damn cheap for what they are, and also require a very small crew.
Hell, can’t they feel some pride at a creation of this size? Never before Europe saw something of this magnificence, and they all spit on it.

Truly, i don’t understand britons anymore… i can’t quite make out in which kind of world they think they live. Was it labour who made of so many britons such pathetic wimps and losers…?
It is absurd for someone like me who looks at the UK from the outside to think that today’s britons have anything to share with Francis Drake, Elizabeth I, Arthur Wellesley, Horatio Nelson, Winston Churchill and Bernard Montgomery, or, in more recent times, with Sir John Forster “Sandy” Woodward.

If one reads what many britons say on your online newspapers, it is more likely he’ll think to douchebags like John Lackland and Neville Chamberlaine.

Liger,

If we do not plan to go to war, if Russia does not plan to go to war, if Pakistan, India and everyone see no clashes at all ahead… then why the hell Russia and all the others keep building more and more arms, more and more technologically advanced?

If your answer is “China and India (and let’s add even Russia) need weapons to prove their might on the international stage and impress each other and the US and Europe” my conclusion is: the Cold War CHANGED, but did not end. And we did not understand it.

Liger, why keep bringing India into the discussion, when you should be looking at what the UKs requirements are. Sounds to me more like a someone, somewhere is arming so should we!

India is arming because it has Pakistan & China to deal with, nothing less & nothing more, and even so, its restricting its expenditure as a % of GDP to a stated level and not increasing it. Despite many calls to raise it by a percent point, the increase in overall expenditure follows the overall growth of the Indian economy. That apart, the chances of the UK & India having a conflict are remote, and even if that were the case, the UK would have to arm itself to the teeth to wage a successful campaign in entirety, and to what end, and what strategic objective?

Better off, posing some hard questions over the kind of conflicts the UK expects to engage in, and prepare for those rather than posit such far off crystal ball gazing. Otherwise, there is no end to capabilities required, and expenditure.

IMO, if the UK concentrates on getting its economy on track, expenditure will recover. After the events of the past two years, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, some belt tightening was inevitable and I do doubt it will be as drastic as your papers make it out to be.

I talk of India because it is an example of a worldwide trend.
And you gave me the answer i had already foreseen. India has got China and Pakistan to “deal with”.
UK has not got a rearming Russia as neightboor who sends bombers 20 times a month and rising to show themselves around UK’s coasts and skys? Argentina? Iran, possibly?
Again, do you have an idea of the implications of a scenario in which China, Pakistan and India “deal” with each other…? The IIWW would look like children games. There’s no way the UK or any other nation with economic and commercial interests in the area wouldn’t be touched.

And anyway, i question very sharply the way the UK is “getting its economy back on track”. One, because the current method won’t work. Two, because destroying the armed forces isn’t getting economy back on track. Three, because there’s NO HOPE AT ALL to see the forces getting back what they lose with the incoming cuts unless the UK experiences a politic miracle which shifts priorities to defence. No matter how the economy improves (and it won’t improve that much anyway). Such an epic shift in policy for the UK looks irrealistic to hope in, unless we end up in near state of war.
And then it’ll be too late to organize.

I don’t say the UK should start an arms race. But i can’t see a justification for the obscene cutting that’s going on from over 10 years and risks reaching levels that’ll make the forces look like they are coming out of the III World War after losing it.
The UK should have some very clear points in mind, and preserve that level of force. It is universally accepted the army can’t physically get that smaller than now or it’ll become nearly useless.
The Navy is already overstretched like hell and its future is at risk.
The RAF is being menaced with cuts that are simply too cruel. I can agree with cutting Tornado, i can agree with phasing out the Tranche 1… but after that all, it should at least have the certainty to get part of Tranche 3B and all the 138 F35 needed. Instead even this won’t happen.

Think of it in any way you want. Think of “the likely conflicts” to come (and accept that in the past the exercise of forecasting wars has mostly every time been a failure) in every way you want, think of the debt however you like to, but at the end of the day you’ll come up with a minimum set of requirements for the Armed Forces that should be sacred. And that simply AREN’T unaffordable. They could and should be obtained, but the money gets wasted in countless demented other things, included (standing to the latest reports) paying Viagra and penis surgery to european parliamentars, giving away 0.7% of GDP on aid, investing in charity-for-gay programs that cash-stripped armed forces shouldn’t really envision, and so along.

And justify this slaughter with pathetic, hopeless arguments like “there’s no state-on-state war anymore” which to me looks horribly resemblant to the “forever peace” promise of Chamberlain and Hitler in Munich.
Foreing Policy, and defence in particular, shouldn’t be planned on absurd wishes supported by no evidence at all, ignoring facts.

FFBNW may well be bean-counting, penny pinching of the worst kind or it may turn out to be genius. (Or inadvertent genius caused by bean-counting)

CIWS are heading in different directions at the moment. Even confining ourselves to what the spams are up to

Phalanx 20mm
RAM
SeaRAM Phalanx chassis
CREWS Phalanx chassis
57mm

Are all possible options (admittedly on T45 at least two of these may be difficult due to the need to get ammo and/or power feed to the amidships position.

Will CAAMM cannisters bolt-on to the midships of T45? Would RN prefer that to using RAM? ’til its trialled fully we don’t know. RAM may turn out to be the better system.

Do we even know if the hangar roof is capable of taking a weapon?

I’d much rather see CVF with 2 Phalanx and 2 SeaRAM than 4 Phalanx. But if CAAMM is the winner we all hope then maybe again RN would rather bolt on CAAMM and have 3 or 4 Phalanx. Until trials are complete neither we nor they know which way to jump.

The RN have been concerned over the relative effectiveness (or lack of) of small calibre CIWS so allowing these other flavours time to mature and then make a decision seems a better idea than just buying Phalanx coz that’s what we’ve got most of currently and its the visual archetype that laymen can most recognise.

Similarly at first glance tis nonsense to leave the central aisle of T45 VLS silo empty and the C position empty of Harpoon launchers but by doing so options are open:

Middle row BMD Aster or Scalp or Tomahawk
C postion CAAMM cannisters

Middle row quadpack CAAMM
C position Harpoon or Scalp cannisters

It is simply penny-pincing, pure and simple.

However i’ll answer some questions: the 57 mm is a deck-invasive system, more of a gun for an OPV than a real CIWS. The installation on RN ships is higly unlikely unless it is chosen as main weapon of the C3 ships, and even this i see as unlikely. It will unfortunately end up having just a 30 mm gun like the current minesweepers.

CAMM: if it goes on the Type 45, it is going to be quad-packed in the cells that now are loaded with Aster 15. Most likely at least. I don’t see it going amidship, and either way CAMM is not a CIWS system, but a point-defence missile to replace Sea Wolf.

Fitting missiles to the hangar roof of Type 45: it would happen only in case of war, no less. But it should be possible to bolt on it CAMM canisters since CAMM is a cold-launch missile and thus does not need a true VLS silos with the exhaust-management and all the other complications tied to it.
Since CAMM is fired out of the canister by compressed gas and ignites its rocket only when 100 feet high into the air, and because it has no dedicate targeting and radar combat system, it can be bolted pretty much everywhere.

Type 45 can take up to two more 8-cell launchers in its silos. The RN would like to fit 2 MK41 modules “Strike Lenght” for Tomahawk missiles, but Sylver A70 could be also fit, or more Sylver A50 cells for more Aster missiles, depending on needs. (and money)
Apparently, the Fire Shadow loitering ammunition is also regarded as a possible future fit in the launch cells.
The space behind the VLS silos is reserved to Harpoons or anyway Surface-Surface missiles, that would be installed in the same fashion as on the Type 23.

Sea RAM: the RN trialed it on HMS York in 2001. It is the dream of the Senior Service for the future, but acquisition was stopped by lack of money and is unlikely to happen any time soon.

As to effectiveness, Phalanx 1B is very good a system and can target even surface fast-movers like suicide boats. However, its limited range and stopping power generated concerns on its effective capability to stop anti-ship missiles. Even destroying an incoming missile at one mile of distance, the ship would still suffer damages from the slivers of the russian supersonic big missiles. SERIOUS damages.

That’s why RAM missiles are the way the US navy followed: they expand the range to a good 9 km in the best case, and thus destroy missiles at a good distance, with a higher kill probability and improved safety for the vessel.
Anti-surface engegement is left to other weapons though.

The best defensive outfit for the CVF would be a mix of Phalanx/Sea RAM coupled to a bunch of CAMM canisters.
This would give it almost as much protection as the very well armed Cavour or like the Charles de Gaulle: both have Aster 15 missiles. The Cavour also adds Strales/Davide 76 mm CIWS and it has been reported that the carrier could carry Aster 30 as well since the Sylver A50 launchers were installed, and not the shorter A43.

THE BLACK SEA FLEET!
Unless the proverbial martians land on Earth, the Russian Black Sea Fleet would be has big a threat to Italy, Spain and Portugal has Darth Vader and Senator Palpatine…
The Russian Black Sea fleet is a collection of defensive surface and submarine units that for the bigger part looks better in a museum than in any major naval engagement, but even ignoring that, how in the hell would they cross the Bosphorus? And the Dardanelles?! Flying?!

Oh, really?

Well, and then if Russia is not a threat at all to them, can’t you see them saying “oh, no, thanks. It is your problem up north. That is no threat to us.”

Noooo! They will come in force and fight and die on behalf of someone else. Now this is a sound reasoning on which to base the defence strategy of the UK.
And to think well about it, everyone on NATO should just plan in the optic that the allies will be ready and willing to fight and die for them and disarm as well, even faster than they already are.
Then there will be no serious NATO anymore, but there will still be the US. Oh, they would come for sure, wouldn’t they? Perhaps it would be a bit late, but they would, no?

Or perhaps, without a new Pearl Harbour to give them a push, they may decide that they are better off caring about their own business…?
The US consideration of many allies has been going downhill dangerously seen the way they have escaped providing more assets for Afghanistan when they were asked. I think they are tired of a NATO that is, admittedly, an organization that lives on the US shoulders and more and more tends to hide behind America’s broad frame.

Americans officers, also in the NATO meetings, have been very vocal about the ever shrinking defence budgets in Europe and the way Europe’s might is becoming smaller and smaller and less and less relevant, while still openly relying on America’s help.
And you can’t honestly blame them, if you make a little effort and try to see what NATO is becoming with their eyes. From their point of view, you’ll see NATO in a whole different way.