Type 45 Destroyer, Royal British Navy

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by PaddyInf
It's all about quality mate, all about quality

.

Quantity tends to have a quality of it's own I'm told, there is a point when you need more than quality to sustain a force. Still though, it's why I used the USMC for comparison, lets not debate that shall we...

Nothing to debate here fella. The USMC are a completely different force from the British Army with vastly different doctorines. The USMC are a very efficient and effective force, but are not comparible to us for this reason alone. I agree, it's best not to get into a p1ssing contest over it.

I'm sure that if you spent any time with us you would see our ability to sustain a workable force that can dominate and suppress an enemy that out number us, as well as sustain this using highly efficient support and supply chains. You only have to take a look at our recent actions in Iraq and more notibly Afghanistan to see this. Fact is, these operations would not have been possible with lower quality troops, particularly with the surprisingly low casualties (not low enough however).

Originally posted by stumason
DW, I wasn't aware Defence Spending has been cut whatsoever. I was under the impression that it has in fact increased almost year on year, at least since 1997.

Mate have you seen what has been cut to fund our little trip into iraq?
We ditchedthe future surface combatant program which means the RN is without a replacement for the frigate's.
We're cutting down our submarine force (attack subs) and cutting down on the number of surface ships we have (destroyers).

The Navy, currently, is getting the best investment seen since the days of the Empire. Cannot argue with their procurement plans.

Mate 2 carriers (I agree thier nice) and 6 destroyers are not a navy, thats a coastal defence force, as westy and others have pointed out we need both numbers and quality. We cant keep up with the yanks I aceept that but come on, even you have to admit the navy is being downgraded to hell.

The Airforce has some big procurements in the pipe as well. The Typhoon for one and the A-400, when Airbus finally pull their finger out. Costing ALOT of wedge.

Thats the thing though, the RAF for all its good calls is still a force without legs. As it stands the navy is the only long arm of the MOD and as always its being reduced in size, whether its down to piss poor logistics or piss poor funding is debatable but whatever is the cause it needs to be sorted out quickly.

Originally posted by PaddyInf
I'm sure that if you spent any time with us you would see our ability to sustain a workable force that can dominate and suppress an enemy that out number us, as well as sustain this using highly efficient support and supply chains.

On a limited basis yes, but the logistics and supply chains of the UK are not the most efficient. I worry for an Iraq type of situation, with your current force level the UK would not be able to (alone) mount anything but a limited strike against such a country. The manpower and logistical support is just not there for anything larger than that. It's past history but the Falklands needs to be mentioned.

Originally posted by PaddyInf
Fact is, these operations would not have been possible with lower quality troops, particularly with the surprisingly low casualties (not low enough however).

Yet at the same time would the UK be able to commit and effectively sustain more troops... say 20K to Iraq in order to occupy and patrol a much larger territory? That's where quantity comes into play.

[edit on 27-5-2007 by WestPoint23]

Your points are valid. We simply do not have the same number of troops in the UK as there are in the US. Indeed neither does any other country with a population of 60 million. That is why we have allies around the world, including the US.

We couldn't sustain a presence as large as the one you stated without outside help, at least not without reducing our commitments elsewhere. There is the crunch of the matter - we have commitments in around 20 different countries at present. Our army is less than 100'000 strong. Our overall armed forces is only 1/4 million. If we reduced overseas commitments then we would be able to commit a decent amount of trops for a sustainable period. However, like I said in my previous post, we are severely overstretched.

What I can say is that our 100'00 troops can equal and most likely surpass pretty much any other equal number of foreign troops in virtually any given task.This is not a challenge, it is merely a fact.

I completely agree with Paddyinf. Our regular forces are indeed, stretched across the globe and are having to rely on the Territorial forces even more.

To equate our forces with those of say the US, is laughable. The US has highly mechanised, technologically superior armed forces befitting the world's only superpower. Even the USMC and US Navy have bigger Air Arms than our Royal Air Force.

This link gives a complete breakdown of regular forces in the UK's services:

www.publications.parliament.uk... - see Table 5. As you can see, there is a total force reduction of 2.1% across the board.

However, given the size of the troops committed in Afghanistan, the Battlegroup deployed to Helmand Province are showing the Taleban time and time again, that small may their numbers be, they are certainly no pushover.

Originally posted by fritz
However, given the size of the troops committed in Afghanistan, the Battlegroup deployed to Helmand Province are showing the Taleban time and time again, that small may their numbers be, they are certainly no pushover.

This is exactly the point that I was making. When I was in Helmand we were causing massive damage to the Taliban. I fired literally thousands of rounds and we as a group caused hundreds of enemy casualties with very few friendly casualties. Considering that we were out numbered in a hostile area, often with little or no logistic support, I think that we did a bloody good job.

Show me another force that faced these sorts of hardships in the recent WoT and came out on top. This is the difference. We don't have the best kit or the biggest numbers, but we make up for it in pure aggression and professionalism.

Originally posted by devilwasp
We ditchedthe future surface combatant program which means the RN is without a replacement for the frigate's.

We ditiched the FSC because the scope of the project had become too wide ranging and was not furfilling the needs of the navy. The scope, risks and likely costs had got out of hand.

It was beiefly replaced with the MVD/VSC plan (medium vessel derivative/ versitile surface combatant, a two class solution using a derivative of the type 45 hull fitted for ASW and Land attack, and a smaller LCV type vessel)

The MVD/VSC plan was dropped in 2006 when the Sustained [Maritime] Surface Combatant Capability pathfinder programme was established, and instead S2C2 thinking seems to be heading under the "Future Surface Combatant" motif towards a force mix of high, medium and low capability vessels - the first entering service in the 2017-2020 time frame.

The first findings of the S2C2 pathfinder programme were released last month, i will write a review of thesometime soon as i have not yet managed to find them online.

In fact i managed to find much the same stuff as i had on S2C2 on Janes.

"Work conducted under the UK Ministry of Defence's (MoD's) Sustained Surface Combatant Capability (S2C2) programme has formulated a bold three-tier plan to recapitalise the bulk of the Royal Navy's (RN's) surface fleet through to 2035.

The new strategy envisages a Future Surface Combatant (FSC) capability being delivered by three distinct ship types variously optimised for high-end warfighting, stabilisation operations and a miscellany of constabulary and minor war vessel tasks. In addition to fleet rationalisation, maximising commonality of equipment/systems, and providing industry with a steady production 'drumbeat', it also attempts to balance the need for high-end warfighting capabilities with the requirement to have sufficient hulls for emerging maritime security tasks.

Although not yet fully endorsed by the MoD, the draft blueprint is already understood to have received a favourable reception from the Navy Board.

S2C2, one of two ' Pathfinder' initiatives established last year, has brought together a joint MoD/industry team to produce a long-term roadmap for the delivery of an affordable and sustainable Joint Maritime Surface Combatant Capability and inform the FSC programme. 'Pathfinder' work is also intended to establish a new model for MoD and industry to deliver through-life capability management as part of a wider programme of equipment acquisition reform resulting from the Defence Industrial Strategy (DIS).

S2C2 will report at the end of March 2007, with study outputs informing the MoD's Directorate Equipment Capability (Above Water Effects) next planning round (PR08). Current planning assumptions foresee FSC starting to enter service in the latter half of the next decade.

Presenting an overview of early outcomes to a Defence Manufacturers Association conference on 30 January, S2C2 team leader Commodore Steve Brunton told delegates that current thinking had shaped plans for the replacement of the RN's current Type 22 Batch 3 and Type 23 frigates, plus a range of minor war vessels, with three new classes of surface combatants. He identified these as:

• a Force Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Combatant (known as C1);
• a Stabilisation Combatant (C2);
• an Ocean-Capable Patrol Vessel (C3).

"S2C2 largely focuses on the relationship between the current Type 22 and Type 23 frigates and FSC," Cdre Brunton said, "but it has also developed linkages to other capabilities. Mine countermeasures [MCM], patrol vessels and surveys vessels all offer us opportunities.

"The plan we have developed takes eight existing classes down to just three. The capability currently delivered by the Type 22s and Type 23s would be replaced by C1 and C2, while C3 would replace the capabilities of our existing mine warfare fleet but also offer additional capability for maritime security tasks."

Jane's understands that C1 is envisaged as a multimission combatant of about 6,000 tons displacement. "It would operate as an integral part of the maritime strike group or amphibious task group," said Cdre Brunton, "offering high-end ASW, land attack and coastal suppression. It would also have an organic MCM capability and facilities for an embarked military force".

He continued: "C2 would meet the policy requirement for operations in support of small-scale stabilisation operations, sea line protection and chokepoint escort." One continuing debate is whether C1 and C2 should be based on the same generic hull but with differences across their respective equipment fits to reflect the capability split between the two.
C3 is currently envisaged as a vessel of approximately 2,000 tonnes displacement with a range of 7,000 n miles. "We see this vessel being used for maritime security and interdiction operations," said Cdre Brunton. "It would also have a large mission bay aft, reconfigurable for special forces, MCM or a Lynx helicopter."

Analysis on the force mix continues. Early planning estimates suggest a requirement for 10 C1-type vessels and eight C2 ships. The initial requirement for C3 is thought to number eight ships, these being primarily roled for MCM as replacements for the current Hunt-class and Sandown-class vessels. However, this number could rise significantly if potential long-term replacements for the three River-class offshore patrol vessels, the Falkland Islands patrol vessel HMS Clyde, and the survey ships HMS Echo and HMS Enterprise later enter the equation.

Cdre Brunton acknowledged that the roadmap developed under S2C2 "is not yet endorsed MoD policy", but added: "We are hoping for endorsement [in PR08] to make this option set a reality." "

Originally posted by paperplane_uk
We ditiched the FSC because the scope of the project had become too wide ranging and was not furfilling the needs of the navy. The scope, risks and likely costs had got out of hand.

It was beiefly replaced with the MVD/VSC plan (medium vessel derivative/ versitile surface combatant, a two class solution using a derivative of the type 45 hull fitted for ASW and Land attack, and a smaller LCV type vessel)

The MVD/VSC plan was dropped in 2006 when the Sustained [Maritime] Surface Combatant Capability pathfinder programme was established, and instead S2C2 thinking seems to be heading under the "Future Surface Combatant" motif towards a force mix of high, medium and low capability vessels - the first entering service in the 2017-2020 time frame.

The first findings of the S2C2 pathfinder programme were released last month, i will write a review of thesometime soon as i have not yet managed to find them online.

Thank you for proving me paper, its not often I enjoy being wrong but thankfully this time I am wrong.
Its nice to see that there is light at the end of the tunnel instead of a faint glow, thanks for the update BTW.

Bae systems are reporting that HMS Daring will put to sea for trials in a month. Can't wait to see whats she looks like under way!

www.baesystems.co.uk...

i was on-board HMS Daring from the beginning of the build process to the launch and a while afterwards, i have also worked on dauntless and i am currently on Diamond. The MD of BAE Systems Mr Vic Emery was interviews today on the outcome of the HMS Daring Sea-Trials and according to him its one of the most advanced ships we have ever taken on trial.

I saw HMS Daring on the BBC yesterday. They had their (not sure why) Declan Currie, Business chap on board. The turning circle of that ship is amazing and apparently it does 0-30 knots in under a minute, which I am told, is rather quick!