HMS Queen Elizabeth

[Born Hunter 17,910]

Off the back of that 'militia' comment. It can make for an interesting tangential discussion and I knew it would get brought up, what with the Navy get a boost at the same time that the Army are having a headcount reduction.

As I've said before, I'm not even sure the Army are getting a real headcount reduction because they are already undermanned to my understanding (of course not good in itself). What is counted as the target strength now isn't being fulfilled, I think. That aside with a finite budget (one that has been boosted rather than cut fyi) hard decisions need to be made. Traditionalists always want to hang on the proud historic regiments but at what expense? At the expense of meeting the real threats!

Case in point, we invented the battle tank, a proud British invention that changed the battlefield and warfare! Can't let it go, it's a part of the British Armies heritage and power..... yeah, so two RAF Tonkas fired a salvo of Brimstone into a 22 strong formation of Libyan battle tanks and wiped them off the books without breaking sweat.

Below the threshold tactics are becoming one of the emerging buzz-phrases in defence commentary. Particularly in the cyber and space domains. So do we keep all our tank regiments rolling with obsolescent kit or even upgrade a token force but at the expense of equipping ourselves for new threats?

The British military could still deploy at reinforced brigade strength like they did in the Falklands. How much redundancy there is is concerning, but that's the case across the board. And I've got to be honest, moving away from having a military geared towards serious land warfare and more towards lighter more manoeuvrable units that hit hard but aren't geared towards 'invasions' maybe isn't a bad thing.... Philosophers have been uneased by such standing armies for centuries.

Edited May 3, 2021 by Born Hunter

[steve66 3,757]

On 02/05/2021 at 09:57, walshie said:

The size of her! Makes you proud to be British. 

FFS what ever happens dont get it stuck in the suez 

[Born Hunter 17,910]

13 minutes ago, WILF said:

Good post mate

I just have a feeling of we don’t give two fucks about what’s happening within while making this massive show to those outside.

Theres nobody in the world coming for a war in the foreseeable future, meanwhile there is a massive war going on for the soul of our nation within our borders as we speak and we are loosing ! 
 

It just don’t  sit well with me all this “Look at the mite of Great Britain” with 9 billion quids worth of boat when the reality is, domestically our politicians couldn’t give a flying f**k about Blighty and are waving the white flag at home. 
 

We are in a war right f***ing now, right at this moment and everything that British Naval power ever represented since the time of the privateers has very nearly been completely wiped off the face of the earth.   

Well this might be a touch of silver lining for you. Blair the Brexit hater commissioned these carriers and now BoJo is getting every ounce he can out of them for his 'Global Britain' Brexit spin. 

[WILF 50,337]

34 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

Well this might be a touch of silver lining for you. Blair the Brexit hater commissioned these carriers and now BoJo is getting every ounce he can out of them for his 'Global Britain' Brexit spin. 

Bitter sweet pal, same bloke, different colour rosette ! Lol  

[WILF 50,337]

56 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

Off the back of that 'militia' comment. It can make for an interesting tangential discussion and I knew it would get brought up, what with the Navy get a boost at the same time that the Army are having a headcount reduction.

As I've said before, I'm not even sure the Army are getting a real headcount reduction because they are already undermanned to my understanding (of course not good in itself). What is counted as the target strength now isn't being fulfilled, I think. That aside with a finite budget (one that has been boosted rather than cut fyi) hard decisions need to be made. Traditionalists always want to hang on the proud historic regiments but at what expense? At the expense of meeting the real threats!

Case in point, we invented the battle tank, a proud British invention that changed the battlefield and warfare! Can't let it go, it's a part of the British Armies heritage and power..... yeah, so two RAF Tonkas fired a salvo of Brimstone in a 22 strong formation of Libyan battle tanks and wiped them off the books without breaking sweat.

Below the threshold tactics are becoming one of the emerging buzz-phrases in defence commentary. Particularly in the cyber and space domains. So do we keep all our tank regiments rolling with obsolescent kit or even upgrade a token force but at the expense of equipping ourselves for new threats?

The British military could still deploy at reinforced brigade strength like they did in the Falklands. How much redundancy there is is concerning, but that's the case across the board. And I've got to be honest, moving away from having a military geared towards serious land warfare and more towards lighter more manoeuvrable units that hit hard but aren't geared towards 'invasions' maybe isn't a bad thing.... Philosophers have been uneased by such standing armies for centuries.

I think history shows that “boots on the ground” always end up having to sort things out, of course they all work in conjunction and facilitate each other but it’s young men spilling blood into the soil that puts an end to things eventually.

The EU seem hell bent on provoking Russia in the east when they don’t have an army in any of the EU countries worth the name.

Sea power won’t deal with Russia, ever. 
Sea power gets men and supplies to any part of the world......that’s the function as far as I can see.

Thats another reason why I see it as just a massive, expensive gimmick. 
 

Like most politics these days it seems they are trying to say one thing while actively doing the complete opposite.

[Lenmcharristar 10,296]

What ever happens our men and women in the armed forces need better looking after when they return to civi street, get them the help and support to get them good jobs and settled again, and protect them from the enemies within and abroad, they deserve our utmost respect, some gave all, all gave some.

[Born Hunter 17,910]

Just now, WILF said:

I think history shows that “boots on the ground” always end up having to sort things out, of course they all work in conjunction and facilitate each other but it’s young men spilling blood into the soil that puts an end to things eventually.

Of course, but you can have all the best trained boots you want if you don't possess other enablers then they will be systematically wiped out or left out of the fight. An entire regiment of paras sat twiddling their thumbs at Brize Norton aren't worth shite compared to a battalion loaded in chinooks and flanked by apaches 15 minutes from the enemy. Reducing warfare to numbers misses the point. 

In '82 the Task Force harriers faced on paper superior jets in superior numbers.... They should have been rinsed by the laws of numbers. But they weren't, because rather than focus on numbers, procurement wisely focused on the whole package and the radar and sidewinder combination led to air superiority, not numbers. They didn't achieve air supremacy though, because they lacked numbers.

All things being equal numbers matter then but not at the expense of key enablers. A RFA tanker ain't as sexy as a destroyer, but that destroyer ain't in the game if the crew have starved to death and the ship run dry. I could reel off millions of these examples...

17 minutes ago, WILF said:

The EU seem hell bent on provoking Russia in the east when they don’t have an army in any of the EU countries worth the name.

Sea power won’t deal with Russia, ever. 
Sea power gets men and supplies to any part of the world......that’s the function as far as I can see.

Thats another reason why I see it as just a massive, expensive gimmick. 

You're right in that Russia are a very self reliant nation that is largely focused on land warfare. They don't do global reach, they reach as far as their kit can can go from their homeland generally. But they certainly do have the ability to contest in the maritime domain, primarily with submarines. The Royal Navy's main concern up to the 90's was hunting Russian subs that in the event of a shooting war were expected to attack our maritime supply lines, starving us into submission.

Russia should be more a concern for the continentals imo. Let them focus on largescale land warfare.

[Born Hunter 17,910]

The British military doesn't seem to be concerned about a war with Russia but instead are focused on below the threshold attacks, or grey zone attacks. Attacks that can't justify a military strike in retaliation but still hurt us economically or diplomatically. Stuff like cyber attacks and subtle infrastructure attacks. Which is why budgets have funded increased cyber warfare and a dedicated ship for detecting subs f***ing about with seabed cables.

The other concern they seem to have is proxy wars. Again, grey area shit. That's part of the reason behind the doctrinal shift towards being 'forward deployed' and this new 'Ranger' regiment. Troops working with local proxies of our own. 

[DIDO.1 22,864]

2 hours ago, Lenmcharristar said:

What ever happens our men and women in the armed forces need better looking after when they return to civi street, get them the help and support to get them good jobs and settled again, and protect them from the enemies within and abroad, they deserve our utmost respect, some gave all, all gave some.

To be fair they do get looked after much better now. I've seen with my own eyes how dead beats go into the forces and come out years later still deadbeats without a pot to pisss in. 

I've also seen with my own eyes, including family, come out the forces with houses and investments, further training and support. 

Not trying to start an argument at all pal and I agree with what you say....but things have changed in that department 

[South hams hunter 8,988]

On 03/05/2021 at 14:16, Born Hunter said:

The British military doesn't seem to be concerned about a war with Russia but instead are focused on below the threshold attacks, or grey zone attacks. Attacks that can't justify a military strike in retaliation but still hurt us economically or diplomatically. Stuff like cyber attacks and subtle infrastructure attacks. Which is why budgets have funded increased cyber warfare and a dedicated ship for detecting subs f***ing about with seabed cables.

The other concern they seem to have is proxy wars. Again, grey area shit. That's part of the reason behind the doctrinal shift towards being 'forward deployed' and this new 'Ranger' regiment. Troops working with local proxies of our own. 

Everytime the ruskis come down the channel in a sub they follow them for the full length but they also go quiet. Multiple times been texting my mate tryna organise fishing and then no reply for 2/3 days because they're not allowed any comms at all. 

[Born Hunter 17,910]

10 hours ago, South hams hunter said:

Everytime the ruskis come down the channel in a sub they follow them for the full length but they also go quiet. Multiple times been texting my mate tryna organise fishing and then no reply for 2/3 days because they're not allowed any comms at all. 

I dunno about the quiet but escorting them is standard NATO stuff. They’ll be keeping an eye on our two escorts when they pop in to the Black Sea later in the year.

One of the reasons I say our military aren’t very concerned about a proper war with Russia is our total lack of a naval strike missile. None of our fast jets have the weapons to seriously strike enemy ships believe it or not. They’d be reduced to using free fall bombs in suicidal runs.

[WILF 50,337]

2 hours ago, Born Hunter said:

I dunno about the quiet but escorting them is standard NATO stuff. They’ll be keeping an eye on our two escorts when they pop in to the Black Sea later in the year.

One of the reasons I say our military aren’t very concerned about a proper war with Russia is our total lack of a naval strike missile. None of our fast jets have the weapons to seriously strike enemy ships believe it or not. They’d be reduced to using free fall bombs in suicidal runs.

So, are we saying that if a destroyer or a battleship (not sure they have them anymore ? Lol) comes to destroy that new Aircraft carrier, none of the jets on board have the capability to defend it to maximum effect unless, as you say, they go on a suicide mission ? 

Edited May 5, 2021 by WILF

[Born Hunter 17,910]

16 minutes ago, WILF said:

So, are we saying that if a destroyer or a battleship (not sure they have them anymore ? Lol) comes to destroy that new Aircraft carrier, none of the jets on board have the capability to defend it to maximum effect unless, as you say, they go in a suicide mission ? 

In the event that an enemy warship came at the carrier strike group with intent then the fast jets would not likely be used to strike the ship, no. They don't have a suitable standoff weapon to keep things half safe for the pilots. The Lightenings flying combat air patrol would instead likely aid in the targeting role with their pretty f***ing immense situational awareness. Taking out the enemy warship would be left to either frigates firing anti ship missiles, maritime attack helicopters firing a choice of anti ship missiles or lightweight torpedos or the nuclear sub firing heavyweight torpedos. That's without going to guns of course.

But I wasn't even talking about carrier operations, I was talking at all in the British military! Neither the Lightenings nor the RAFs Typhoons are equipped with suitable antiship missiles. If enemy warships were attacking the UK then our fast jets wouldn't have many immediate options for striking them. There's reasons for that but it's still one of the capability gaps which has been neglected for too long due to decades of being preoccupied with deserts.

Edited May 5, 2021 by Born Hunter

[WILF 50,337]

1 hour ago, Born Hunter said:

In the event that an enemy warship came at the carrier strike group with intent then the fast jets would not likely be used to strike the ship, no. They don't have a suitable standoff weapon to keep things half safe for the pilots. The Lightenings flying combat air patrol would instead likely aid in the targeting role with their pretty f***ing immense situational awareness. Taking out the enemy warship would be left to either frigates firing anti ship missiles, maritime attack helicopters firing a choice of anti ship missiles or lightweight torpedos or the nuclear sub firing heavyweight torpedos. That's without going to guns of course.

But I wasn't even talking about carrier operations, I was talking at all in the British military! Neither the Lightenings nor the RAFs Typhoons are equipped with suitable antiship missiles. If enemy warships were attacking the UK then our fast jets wouldn't have many immediate options for striking them. There's reasons for that but it's still one of the capability gaps which has been neglected for too long due to decades of being preoccupied with deserts.

And yet air launched anti ship missiles (in this example the Exocet) did us immense damage in the Falklands conflict......I think it was a miracle that we didn’t loose more ships.

As it was they sunk our helicopters which meant them blokes had to walk across those bloody islands ! 
 

Im sure they have considered it all but it does seem strange to not have that, seemingly basic, capability dont you think mate ?

[Born Hunter 17,910]

9 minutes ago, WILF said:

And yet air launched anti ship missiles (in this example the Exocet) did us immense damage in the Falklands conflict......I think it was a miracle that we didn’t loose more ships.

As it was they sunk our helicopters which meant them blokes had to walk across those bloody islands ! 
 

Im sure they have considered it all but it does seem strange to not have that, seemingly basic, capability dont you think mate ?

I agree, like I said it's due to years of budget cuts leading to prioritising weapons for the wars in the desert. There are several instances of such but all are being fixed gradually.

Using the Falklands as a relevant case study I'd agree with the threat that Exocet type weapons represent but I'd point out that Conqueror essentially neutralised the Argentine navy on it's own early doors. I'm not sure if the Sea Harriers had their own anti ship missiles at that point (I know the attack helicopters did) but they would likely have not been significant in the outcome due to Conqueror's actions. Our modern equivalent, the Astute's, are utterly f***ing lethal!

The other two big lessons from the Falklands was the competence of the air defence systems on the destroyers and airborne early warning. The Type-45 destroyer is the Navy's answer to air defence, of which there will be two in the strike group. I'll save further detail on those. They'll also be joined by a yank and Dutch equivalent.

There was NO airborne early warning aircraft available to the fleet during the Falklands. The fleet was dependant on the radars of the ships themselves, which having limited altitude meant their radar horizon was like 20 miles or something like that. The Argentine fighters could get close with gutsy flying before the fleet knew they were being attacked. There were tactics the fleet employed to try to make up for this but ultimately they needed an airborne radar that would extend their radar horizon to hundreds of miles and because they didn't have one they suffered. The loss of Atlantic Conveyor made 3 Cdo really earn their rations, as you point out.

Learning from this three dedicated AEW Merlins have been fast tracked for this role and are aboard the carrier. I'd also add that the Lightening fighters have vastly greater situation awareness than the Harriers, or any other modern fighter. They contribute to this role significantly. 

The strike group will be well defended and for a fairly benign deployment they have plenty of strike options if needed. But for a modern war with a peer enemy then there is definitely areas of concern that need/are being addressed...