tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post5609751928594121149..comments2024-03-20T12:03:26.126+00:00Comments on Thin Pinstriped Line: A Daring Deployment - Thoughts on the Type 45 on operationsSir Humphreyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08704774192275240783noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-21134106159934662622013-09-25T13:15:28.157+01:002013-09-25T13:15:28.157+01:00Well obviously the USN may simply be being politic...Well obviously the USN may simply be being political. Can't see them being excessively awed with the absence of CEC on T45. Alternately its extremely restricted abilities past AAW.Escort agency Londonhttp://www.agency-escorts-london.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-52614828828016740052013-03-19T10:15:54.355+00:002013-03-19T10:15:54.355+00:00Hi Sir,
I loved reading this piece! Well written!
...Hi Sir,<br />I loved reading this piece! Well written!<br /><br />Merlen Hogg<br /><a href="http://www.th-service.no/hms/" rel="nofollow">hms</a>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02919074554562455003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-13335289558764839022012-08-19T11:47:04.830+01:002012-08-19T11:47:04.830+01:00Well of course the USN might just be being diploma...Well of course the USN might just be being diplomatic. Can't see them being overly impressed with the lack of CEC on T45. Or its very limited capabilities beyond AAW. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-6614841116232021102012-08-17T19:23:36.302+01:002012-08-17T19:23:36.302+01:00Sir Humphrey, I don't really think that you ar...Sir Humphrey, I don't really think that you are clear in your own mind about what either of us are saying. To be a credible force the RN MUST be able to deal with a capable enemy, and it is evident that the Navy of today simply does not have the resources to be able to maintain sustained operations against such an opponent. Without the USN to do the heavy lifting the RN would very quickly run into serious difficulties (my original point), and there is nothing in your replies which convinces me otherwise.<br /><br />Conflict rarely takes the expected form, and we cannot just assume that in future years the US will be there to hold our hand every step of the way. Most of our European allies have only modest capabilities and limited operational experience, so a joint European force without the USN would mean the RN taking a leading role. As I have already pointed out, it is clear to me that the Navy is ill-equipped to carry out this role.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-51565268577924163252012-08-16T09:02:44.693+01:002012-08-16T09:02:44.693+01:00Excellent, thank you kindly.Excellent, thank you kindly.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08849098023211945852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-6235652162765998062012-08-15T22:40:53.943+01:002012-08-15T22:40:53.943+01:00We are an island nation. 99% of our trade comes vi...We are an island nation. 99% of our trade comes via the high seas. A single container ship today carries the equivalent of a WW2 convoy of goods. <br />We could ignore the sea, we could ignore global choke points, but if we lost control or influence on them, then when these choke points are mined, closed or otherwise denied, then politicans will have a lot of explaining to do about the near complete collapse of the UK economy and way of life. Sir Humphreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08704774192275240783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-59256709957091010342012-08-15T22:39:35.841+01:002012-08-15T22:39:35.841+01:00Hi chris - everything I've heard has been posi...Hi chris - everything I've heard has been positive, with the T45 favourably compared to Aegis equipped vessels.<br /><br />Its interesting to note that two T45s in a row have been integrated into a US CVBG in the Gulf now, with more to occur in future. (Check out the RN website today).Sir Humphreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08704774192275240783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-88345258204133632802012-08-15T15:36:36.820+01:002012-08-15T15:36:36.820+01:00Really? Though we had North Sea oil.
As I underst...Really? Though we had North Sea oil.<br /><br />As I understand it, most of the oil is going to Asian countries or other West European lands. <br /><br />My point is why should we be protecting someone else's trade? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-77301741073040295602012-08-15T14:37:30.445+01:002012-08-15T14:37:30.445+01:00Could you expand on the USN reaction please?Could you expand on the USN reaction please?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08849098023211945852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-13705263363797022442012-08-15T13:19:54.316+01:002012-08-15T13:19:54.316+01:00"The oil trade in the Gulf region is not a Br..."The oil trade in the Gulf region is not a British matter. Let those countries who are supplied do the protecting. Why us?"<br /><br />But we are among those supplied by the Gulf oil trade! If it was disrupted, the damage to our economy would be enormous.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-31845998956579332512012-08-14T18:40:15.629+01:002012-08-14T18:40:15.629+01:00And to just passify the dark blue crowd, I'd a...And to just passify the dark blue crowd, I'd argue that barring F35, Sentinel R1, A400, MP replacements (hercs..) and upgrading E3, the RN should get the slighly bigger chunk of any increase - for the reasons SirH shares in the comments.<br /><br />But force balance is vital, thats why Labours "22 chinooks" idea was not met with smiles in the military and why Puma will live on - the T45's in a conflict senario will be mostly locked in battlegroup/airspace protection, the bloody lessons from '82 stung deep. <br />They are only part of the future structure of the RN, just wait for T26.<br />mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-50537664131085150762012-08-14T18:25:48.085+01:002012-08-14T18:25:48.085+01:00No, I'm sorry but you have to be realistic, ou...No, I'm sorry but you have to be realistic, out of the RN's budget. <br /><br />You cant just 'take' and not give in return, by your resoning there should be more Frigates than T45's because they are more useful numerically. <br />It has to be balanced, otherwise force balance across the forces is lost. <br /><br />If the RAF's "sharp end" budget is reduced then the savings should (and would, as your suggesting a massive shake down on structure and culture) go into the other core areas of the RAF's ISTAR and transport/battlefield transport... which are more useful to the wider HM Forces.<br /><br />I reckon this wont chime well to the Navy centric minds... but what we have now is more a case of take it or leave it (much like Voyager). Here's hoping post '15 the funds, or even just a small chunk of, used to maintain operations can be placed into the services budget, its here that maybe in the future an extra couple of hulls may be found (that or a country chooses it for their own navy...). Though I doubt it.<br />mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-39887348427900071302012-08-14T16:30:54.552+01:002012-08-14T16:30:54.552+01:00Was my point in the original post about why are we...Was my point in the original post about why are we there. It is flag waving and no amount of rhetoric about protecting British trade will wash.<br /><br />The oil trade in the Gulf region is not a British matter. Let those countries who are supplied do the protecting. Why us? <br /><br />One new warship to cover how many square miles of ocean? <br /><br />Are we just on hire for the rest of the world? If so, as I stated, let's see the cash for our services. <br /><br />As for the end bits of Empire argument, I don't buy it. THe FO did it's best to get rid of the Falklands and deny the islander's a British passport. That bit of treachery should never be forgotten. <br /><br />The Caribbean is under threat from who exactly? It is a nice retirement area for the great and the good of the British Establishment for sure but hardly a front line needing the precious few high end weapons we still have. Although Belize was a post Falklands issue that was taken seriously. Most of the rest is US bases such as Ascension.<br /><br />Having 6 T45 ships would mean only 2 are actually on station at any give time. The is the reality for the next 20 odd years at least. We really can't pretend we are a mini US any more. The forces should not be about pleasure cruises, I'd rather see a T45 and a couple of T23/26 permanently based in the Falklands, where there is a real threat that we have the resources to deal with.<br /><br />Maybe not a popular posting, I'll admit but a realistic one. Also if the economic argument rears it's head - the potential wealth of the Falkland area and Antarctica is considerably more than Asian oil tankers in the Gulf.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-25663440156136997962012-08-13T20:16:29.959+01:002012-08-13T20:16:29.959+01:00Hello Sir H - just found your site, got to know of...Hello Sir H - just found your site, got to know of you via your East of Suez posts over on Think Defence.<br /><br />Your "Why are we there" reply above is as well thought out and presented a defence of why the RN does what it does as I have seen. Nice one. I would however argue that some of what the RN does ought not to be paid for out of the UK defence budget. For example, how is training/helping another nation to deal with pirates in their own waters not classed as Foreign Aid, rather than strictly Defence work? The humanitarian relief work carried out by RN - is it cold-hearted of me to expect some remuneration for this, perhaps from the UN or regional organisations? Could the Caribbean nations not collectively chip-in to meet the costs of maintaining a foreign warship in their waters?WiseApenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-86701617901283183172012-08-13T19:27:24.532+01:002012-08-13T19:27:24.532+01:00Hi Anonymous - you seem to have misread my comment...Hi Anonymous - you seem to have misread my comments. I am not for one moment suggesting we cannot lose a ship. There are certain capabilites and platforms in existence that on paper at least present a very interesting challenge to opponents. <br />If you reread what I said, my view is simple. There are nations out there in possession of very good navies which if turned against the UK would pose a challenge to us. BUT the challenge is finding any reason for any of these nations to want to engage in a serious shooting war in isolation with the UK. As I noted, we anticipate coalition operations being the future, and that remains a near certainty. <br />While I would not rule out the possibility of the UK engaging in solo operations, I would rate it as exceptionally unlikely. What matters to the UK is the ability to present a first rate navy which is sufficiently capable so as to deter potential opponents, or to cause nations intent on causing mischief in some areas to consider whether it may be in their best interest to do so. Much of what the RN does best is often training, coalition work and capacity building, to ensure that our regional partners are at a good level of capability - do that well and we never even need to consider getting kinetic. <br />While it is possible we could find ourselves in a solo shooting war, the problem is that everytime this subject is debated on the internet, no one seems to have a credible nation in mind which in the near future can pose, and would wish to pose, a genuine military threat to the UK. Beyond wishlisting argentina, I genuinely cannot think of a nation which poses a direct threat to us as a nation alone. Perhaps you would care to name one?<br />Sir Humphreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08704774192275240783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-2495963148397874342012-08-13T19:06:06.169+01:002012-08-13T19:06:06.169+01:00Good answer, VMT!Good answer, VMT!Western Independenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04368666195785602803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-75990747742858173772012-08-13T18:28:10.640+01:002012-08-13T18:28:10.640+01:00Calm down dear. I am not "doing my damndest t...Calm down dear. I am not "doing my damndest to knock the RN" (in fact I am a dyed in the wool supporter of the Navy), but you invite criticism by constantly presenting advocacy as fact. If the RN is not intended to fight and win at the highest level, then what is the point of our current defence posture (i.e. limited numbers of high-end platforms)? Why are we building T45s, Astutes, etc. if, as you seem to be suggesting, we could not lose ships to an opponent? If this is the case, then surely cheap patrol frigates and corvettes would do? Your argument is completely self-defeating.<br /><br />Just because we have not lost ships in decades does not mean that it could not happen again. Was the Falklands conflict and the serious losses incurred predicted? Thought not. The whole point of defence is to protect against the unexpected, including serious threats to national security. We cannot just assume that future operations will be cosy multilateral affairs against weak, unsophisticated opposition (e.g. Libya). Unfortunately, you seem to regard any comment with which you do not agree as a direct attack on the RN as an institution (the "everything is shit" comment). Maybe, among all the "shit", there are some grains of truth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-61403315099623308212012-08-13T16:56:58.456+01:002012-08-13T16:56:58.456+01:00Anonymous - while I appreciate your view, I would ...Anonymous - while I appreciate your view, I would turn the question around. Please cite the serious well equipped opponent with whom the UK is likely to find itself in a solo shooting war within the next 2-3 years?<br /><br />The reality is that the areas where we anticipate likely operations are those where we work with coalition partners. There are some very, very good navies out there. That does not mean that they are imminently planning to attack a lone RN warship in the manner of a bad Tom Clancy novel. <br /><br />While I am inherently sympathetic to the view that we are stretched too thin, the problem I have with the view that we could lose ships quickly is that this nightmare scenario has not ocurred in decades. <br /><br />We are also guilty as a nation of regarding success as a bad thing. One of the reasons for starting this blog is because I was fed up with the standard 'everything is shit' approach taken to looking at the RN, while we looked back misty eyed to a past that never really happened. The modern RN is a fantastic organisation which punches above its weight, and which has far more capablity than almost any other nation on the planet. I am utterly fed up of some people doing their damndest to knock the RN, and the work it does. People seem determined to do it down, to do the UK down, and to refuse to accept what an incredibly competent military we possess in the UK. Sir Humphreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08704774192275240783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-31460015542101833562012-08-13T16:10:17.775+01:002012-08-13T16:10:17.775+01:00You are looking at the RN through rose-tinted spec...You are looking at the RN through rose-tinted spectacles again. The Navy may be fine as a supporting act to the USN, but as an independent force capable of taking on a serious, well-equipped opponent it is woefully inadequate. All it would take is for a couple of ships to be put out of action, even temporarily, and things could unravel very quickly. The excellent training, support etc. upon which you have commented before cannot compensate for the fact that resources are spread too thinly and we are trying to do too much with too little. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-63112438832803043242012-08-13T15:52:53.115+01:002012-08-13T15:52:53.115+01:00There is zero chance of any additional T45s being ...There is zero chance of any additional T45s being built.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-33598892729317723052012-08-12T23:52:29.416+01:002012-08-12T23:52:29.416+01:00Depends on what you mean by "deploy". Fo...Depends on what you mean by "deploy". For normal jogging you might see them go out with just a T23 goalkeeping, and other assets "on call" at various levels of notice to move should they be retasked or the situation deteriorate.<br /><br />For "the proud parents welcome the birth of a bouncing baby war", then that NTM gets activated and the RFTG forms up with the required assets for the situation, or the group doesn't enter the JOA until all the required assets have arrived.<br /><br />Don't forget, also, we're not in this alone. It might have been more PR than requirement that had HMS Manchester as sole escort for the HARRY S TRUMAN in the Arabian Gulf in 2008, but it was done (I know, I was aboard) but it was a good example to maintain; it wouldn't surprise me to see a DDG-51 playing SHOTGUN for a CVF until the designated T45 arrived from whatever other tasking it had been on. If that gets a big flat STOVL/LPH deck and hangar available sooner, our cousins might cover the gap rather than have a useful ship wait for support.Paul J. Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16839286213289657833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-51808488290718137792012-08-12T17:40:12.582+01:002012-08-12T17:40:12.582+01:00This begs the question as to what escorts the carr...This begs the question as to what escorts the carriers will deploy with, does it not?Western Independenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04368666195785602803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-3389230832503813402012-08-12T16:47:50.049+01:002012-08-12T16:47:50.049+01:00well said Sir Humphrey. Always makes me laugh when...well said Sir Humphrey. Always makes me laugh when people say we don't have an empire any more. They seem to totally forget the fact that we still have 14 overseas territories around the globe, some in strategically very important places. People seem to think "we live on this little island and that's all we need to worry about defending."mick 346https://www.blogger.com/profile/03777249489229912370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-53337377998251662382012-08-12T16:39:42.902+01:002012-08-12T16:39:42.902+01:00@mike
Launchers for type 23? The sea wolf on the ...@mike<br /><br />Launchers for type 23? The sea wolf on the type 23 is woeful in comparison to the aster that the type 45 carries. Though potential adding the harpoon missiles is a a possibility but not a necessity. <br /><br />@Sir Humphrey<br /><br />As has been shown in recent events, Libya etc TLAM has proven to be a very effective weapon. It provides a capability for deep strike missions against a wide range of targets.<br /><br />Though the Astute's have the ability to use these weapons, by doing so it compromises their ability to do other missions. This then raises the question in what other vessel would you want this capability.<br /><br />I think the type 45 is the ship for the job. While I agree the main role of the Type 45 must be AAW, I don't see how adding TLAM reduces the effectiveness of the type 45 in this role. While more Aster missiles could be carried in the extra VLS, it is already deemed that 48 is enough. There is already the space provided for the VLS tubes to house the weapon. By adding this capability to the type 45, not only does it cover a large area from aerial attack it threatens to be able to strike at targets deep within a country. <br /><br />I think there needs to be a balancing act between, how many ships you need to meet your strategic aims, how many ships you need to build to maintain the skills base, and how many ships our needed to achieve a reasonable cost per vessel. I don't think that 6 type 45s meet any of the above points. Though I understand the difficulties of building two more ships and why its not plausible given current circumstances. <br /><br />However if proper thought was given about our strategic interests, and long term planning and funding was made available to meet these, we could achieve significantly more with only modest increases in funds. I am a stout believer of deciding what our strategic interests are, how best to achieve these and then allocating the money to get the correct and right amount of equipment/personnel needed.<br /><br />I look forward to your next piece.<br /><br />mickmick 346https://www.blogger.com/profile/03777249489229912370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-30813448956759179372012-08-12T13:27:11.594+01:002012-08-12T13:27:11.594+01:00Why are we there?
Firstly we have strategic inter...Why are we there? <br />Firstly we have strategic interests in the region - natural resources and the like. A vast amount of UK trade passes through the indian ocean and gulf, and the loss of the straits of hormuz would send oil prices skyrocketting and cause an even bigger economic collapse and recession in the UK than currently seen. <br />The deployment to the Gulf serves as a symbol of protection for the over 100,000 UK Expatriates who live in the region, and provides a visible symbol for certain nations with ill intent that the region has friends and allies. By providing a visible presence, we not only look after our friends, but also help ensure long term trading and economic links with these nations.<br />It is an immensely complex web of relationships in these regions, and military presence is something which opens doors, gains influence and directly supports the UK economy. <br />Similarly in the West Indies, we have multiple overseas territories, all of whom require our support and assistance. We also gain from interdicting drugs, and wider work, which strengthens our relationship with the US, and also helps reduce drug trafficking in the UK.<br />It is worth noting that a number of European nations maintain similar deployments in the region for the same reasons.<br /><br />It is easy to see overseas deployments as flag waving, but the reality is they support our economy, help preserve our influence and ensure that the global strategic balance is aligned in a manner which suits our own interests.Sir Humphreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08704774192275240783noreply@blogger.com