Royal navy loses its anti-ship missiles

[Hawk66]

Is this really true: http://www.popularmechanics.com/mili...ship-missiles/

Unbelievable - if Margret Thatcher would know this

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Hawk66

if Margret Thatcher would know this

She'd probably have scrapped the ships too!

Still, Perseus might come into service before 2018, but I doubt it, should be a damn good missile when we do get it though, capable of hitting one large or multiple smaller vessels with one missile due to submunitions.
The Harpoon is pretty out of date now, even the US is working on its replacement, the AGM-158C. Russia and India are pretty far ahead on the anti-ship missile development and deployment trail with the Brahmos-II under development which is expected to be capable of going at Mach 7. The US, that we know of, doesn't have a hypersonic missile in development.

[Skybird]

Lets move out, containing Putin.

[Jimbuna]

Shouldn't be much of a problem because we probably won't have much of a navy worth fighting in the near future.

[em2nought]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Shouldn't be much of a problem because we probably won't have much of a navy worth fighting in the near future.

At -$0.01 scrap value per carrier, we will always be able to get a close shave for a reasonable price though.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/09/us/pen...craft-carrier/

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by em2nought

At -$0.01 scrap value per carrier, we will always be able to get a close shave for a reasonable price though.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/09/us/pen...craft-carrier/

Probably unavoidable but quite an ignominious ending

[Skybird]

If only they would run short on missiles only.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38044967

A war navy that cannot sustain unit losses, is no competitive war navy. And to me such numbers look suspiciously low.

Royal Navy warships - numbers since 1985

Year - Aircraft carriers - Assault ships - Frigates - Destroyers
1985 4 2 41 15
1995 3 2 23 12
2005 3 3 19 9
2016 0 3 13 6

German navy currently has 0 (nill) destroyers, 10 frigates, 5 corvettes and 6 submarines. Adding to that are 12 mine sweepers and short of 20 logistics and supply ships. 8 Recce aircraft, and 40 helicopters: usually two thirds and more of them grounded due to technical problems.

France: 1 aircraft carrier, 2 destroyers, 23 frigates, 11 amphibious combat ships, 10 submarines, and others.

Netherlands: 6 frigates, 4 subamrines, and others.

Norway: 5 frigates, 6 missile fast attack corvettes, 5 submarines, and others

Denmark: 3 frigates, 16 light patrol ships, 29 coastguard cutters, and logistics units.

Onme has ot keep in mind that for Britian and France, a certain number of ships is not immediatekly avialable for a battle over the Atlantic or Baltic, sinc ethey are on long distance patrols at the Falklands and Far East Pacific districts.

If the Argentinians ever manage to take the Falklands, i think there is no way for Britain to hope they could get them back again like in the early 80s. 1982 was it, or not?

[Jimbuna]

^ The UK figures are all over the news today.

It would appear that when the two carriers are launched in a couple of years we won't have sufficient escorts to protect them....best not mention the lack of aircraft to fly off them!!

[Skybird]

Have you forgotten that these carriers are so technologically advanced that Russian units will freeze in shock and horror by the mere sight of the carrier's blips on their radar?

Winning without needing to fight. That is superior warfare. Already the Chinese knew that.

And wasn'T Corbyn sugesting to not arm nuclear SLBMs with nuclear warheads anymore, and not even produce the missiles? The mere threat that one could produce them if only one would want it, is what is planned to keep the Russians away. If a far-left extremist like Corbyn indeed wants to keep the Russians away, that is - of which I would not be so certain. I think there is no difference betweenr German far lefties and British far-lefties, they tick the same. After all their song is called the Socialist International.

With the skymounting costs calculated for Brexitr, I sometimes think Brexit was a Russian parapsychological operation with the intention to knock Britain out of the NATO formula.

[eddie]

Don't know about the UK for certain, but I have read where a lot of countries in the EU are having trouble getting young men and women to join the military. If they had more ships, who would man them. And I do realize how expensive these new systems are. Getting kind of scary to see all of this happening over there.

[Mr Quatro]

One solution is for all of the friendly countries go to war with the unfriendly countries, right now today, before we are ready.

That way when the friendly countries are ready they will know what they should've been ready for in the first place.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by eddie

Don't know about the UK for certain, but I have read where a lot of countries in the EU are having trouble getting young men and women to join the military. If they had more ships, who would man them. And I do realize how expensive these new systems are. Getting kind of scary to see all of this happening over there.

Indeed, the costs. But I do not buy that a small technological advantage alone can compensate for getting outnumbered signficantly. War needs the material substance of the warrying faction to sustain a certain amount of losses. If you are in danger that every single loss youn suffer takes you out of the game already cannot be compensated for form reserve that do not exist, then you have a problem. Becasue in war against a highly developed enemy, there will be losses. Especially in maritime warfare of modern technology. Should I quote Admiral Gorshkov here?

Only solution: Do not maximise costs over maximising tech options, but chose for a bit cheaper stuff, and increase your numbers.

On the problem of manning ships, servicing in the armed forces must be more attractive. Its a service that is not just a job like any other - people have to risk their lives amd health and mental peace, maybe. I am against "statehood" in principle, but if you do not join my concerns over states and accept states instead, then you shoud consider to allow the state drafting amongst women and men. Ideally you have several rivalling security agencies, but that again has its own implications, not all of them easy to solve.

Maybe guaranteeing the integrity and safety of own borders and the sovereignty of the regional population over the land they claim their home and country - the one duty that Merkel and the EU is so spectacularly failing over, and willfully - is the only argument possible in defending the existence of at least a minimal state. If so, state must be given the tools to fulfill this demand to enforce the protecxiton of its borders. If it fails to do so, or is not allowed these means and ways, then a state in my zero-state-thinking is not needed at all. That is true for mass migration - but also true for military capacities that are sufficient to fight off any possible foreign military aggressor. I assume there is something similiar in British laws...!?

[Rockstar]

Form Line of Battle!

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Skybird

If so, state must be given the tools to fulfill this demand to enforce the protecxiton of its borders. If it fails to do so, or is not allowed these means and ways, then a state in my zero-state-thinking is not needed at all. That is true for mass migration - but also true for military capacities that are sufficient to fight off any possible foreign military aggressor. I assume there is something similiar in British laws...!?

The aim under the last white paper IIRC was to draw down the number of standing forces and bolster it with the Territorial Army, the reserves if you like. As it stands there's 87k regular, 30k regular reserve, and 28k volunteer reserve, so we an field at a push around 145k, which is about average for a Western European nation at the moment. In an emergency there are powers to draft, but it'd have to be a major war for it to be enforced, and it's questionable how long a major war between nuclear powers would go on for before someone pulled out the warheads.
I think there's quite a few firearms in boxes in warehouses somewhere, so you'd be able to put weapons in hands, but the rest of the kit would be a bit hit and miss, probably more akin to the Red Army of Stalingrad than NATO.
Honestly, we've priced ourselves out of the weapons market as individual nations, which is one of the many reasons I'm annoyed at this whole nationalism thing that is popular at the moment when we really need to be banding together to solve major global problems rather than splitting up and infighting and just making ourselves weaker to any external force.
Europe has been suckling from the American teet for a long time and right now we're going to be looking at being introduced to solids, and we really cannot afford to be bickering over borders when the likelihood of France being invaded by Spain is pretty damn small.
Still, that's just how it goes, we'll argue over who gets the best chairs on the fore-deck of the Titanic as the iceberg looms closer and closer.

[Jimbuna]

A lot depends on whether the iceberg is nuclear or conventional.

Should it be the former, we are as well prepared as we are ever going to be.

Should it be the latter, we'd better hope and pray that lend lease can be reactivated.