Admiral Beez
Major
I am optimistically hopeful on that last bit.Of course, they did manage to build the two carriers, which should remain handy for the next four decades or so.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I am optimistically hopeful on that last bit.Of course, they did manage to build the two carriers, which should remain handy for the next four decades or so.
I am optimistically hopeful on that last bit.
I am optimistically hopeful on that last bit.
It would be nice if you looked at the full picture that has been announced to date and didn't muddle the various ship designations that have been announced.IDK, the focus seems to be on the Type 32 frigates, intentionally designed to be low cost and low capability, akin to modern day Type 21s.
No, and that wasn't a claim I was making certainly. My point is that the RN is now too small for its potential tasks, especially if a conventional war breaks out with Russia.Is there any country in the world that has anything close to a reasonable, let alone perfect, defence procurement system?
An excellent, well conveyed point. I imagine the accountants in the Exchequer make that very argument when the RN asks for more ships. But your single T23 can only be in one place.A single T23 Frigate now provides more and better air defence than the entire TF had in 1982
Unfortunately it seems to be a disease that all nations have including your own.No, and that wasn't a claim I was making certainly. My point is that the RN is now too small for its potential tasks, especially if a conventional war breaks out with Russia.
Royal Navy now has more admirals than warships
The MOD has said there 34 serving Admirals, Vice Admirals and Rear Admirals and 75 ships - but only 19 of these are operational warshipswww.plymouthherald.co.uk
Indeed....Unfortunately it seems to be a disease that all nations have including your own.
An excellent, well conveyed point. I imagine the accountants in the Exchequer make that very argument when the RN asks for more ships. But your single T23 can only be in one place.
There's an excellent article in WarshipsIFR, titled "THE ROYAL NAVY'S LETHALITY PROBLEM – The British fleet is under-armed, but how to fix it?". I can't seem to find it electronically, but as I subscribe to the print issue I may be able to screen grab it. The article covers how the RN's destroyers and frigates have very limited long range ground attack capability, as well as other armament deficits. The article focuses on the findings of the below report:
"We're going to need a bigger Navy"
No, and that wasn't a claim I was making certainly. My point is that the RN is now too small for its potential tasks, especially if a conventional war breaks out with Russia.
Royal Navy now has more admirals than warships
The MOD has said there 34 serving Admirals, Vice Admirals and Rear Admirals and 75 ships - but only 19 of these are operational warshipswww.plymouthherald.co.uk
I'm not qualified to suggest the ideal size and makeup of the RN fleet, but for a surface fleet, six destroyers and twelve frigates does seem light, especially since at best a little over half of these would be active, not in refit, repair or rotation.
The political and military climate has changed since 1982. Firstly, Argentina is in no position materially to launch an invasion of the islands and hold on to them. Argentina has a squadron of A-4AR Fighting Hawks and the COAN has its Super Etendards as the country's sole combat jets (even then, the SE are being retired this year - just found out) and a handful of Pampas and Tucanos as training types that could be used for COIN duties and that's it (it has Korean built fighters under order). No Mirages, no Daggers, Canberras or a large number of A-4s as bomb trucks. It doesn't have the strike capability or the reach that it used to. The Armada is a shadow of its former self and does not have the capability to sustain a lengthy operation, let alone a seaborne invasion force.
Secondly, since the war, the British have constructed RAF Mt Pleasant, which is a very big base and Typhoons are regularly sent down there for detachment. It's worth remembering that while the navy might not have the same number of ships as it did in 1982, capability-wise it is in a better place, with a far more advanced electronic warfare capability. Also, the British armed forces are a mobile force and with Mt Pleasant, the RAF would send strike fighters there at a moment's notice. In 1982 the RAF's Harrier GR.3s were flown from the UK to Ascension Island and taken south aboard the Atlantic Conveyor and operated from the British carriers. Today the navy has F-35s operating from two modern carriers, Typhoons that can be deployed from Mt Pleasant. That's even before we look at the logistics of sending troops south. It's arguable that such a thing might not even be necessary and that the war could be won by airpower alone.
MPA is a veritable fortress, it would take a large and very well equipped landing force to try and take it