Britain resurrects anti-ship missile project

Economics tells that the dollar, pound, and yes, bitcoin, is backed mainly by its users’ belief in its value as an accepted medium of exchange.

Yes, this is correct

The GBP is backed by national production ( of goods and services). Unlike bitcoin et al which is backed up by pretty much nothing except speclation on higher future returns.

Correct ..

Totally why I will never in invest in crypto, there is a very good chance it will turn out to be a tulip bulb bubble.

Not really, the GDP is based on trust in the UK government paying it’s debt and overall belief in how the economy will be managed going forward Vs the other currency (currency has no value in itself, it has a value Vs another currency). If we default on our debt then the currency would plummet hard. Its like a company that those bankrupt, it’s assets are worth pennies in the dollar Vs it’s worth as a going concern.

Bitcoin & crypto currency in general is more backed by anarchists , business men , and criminals that want to see financial control and governance wrestled from the banks and given to them to do as they want …its backed by nothing tangible whatsoever.

Well to be honest the pound and dollar are backed by a promise from the respective national banks and so governments, there value is based on the perception of the credit worthiness of the national government authoring the currency. Bit coin and other crypto currencies have no such promise of value and the intrinsic value is based only on perception, where as national currency has a value based on the perceived value of the fungible asset as well as the perceived strength of the promise.

In effect crypto currency is a modern tulip bulb as there is no promise behind the value, its worth is only that which someone is willing to pay for it ( which is why crypto’s tend to collapse in value at inopportune moments). Personally I like assets which have a number of drivers to value… A classic example is a silver commemorative coin, it has a collectible value ( based on what someone is willing to pay around rarity), a value based on the silver content and silver market as well as finally a Value as a currency ( it’s a sort of triple lock on not lossing all your wealth).

That applies to anything. If your trading one good be it gold, cash, electronic dollar with another good say food/water/etc, the value of each is based on how much the seller wants for it which will be based on their individual needs for the other good. Neither has any inbuilt value.

No, I am not confused, Gordon Brown sold off about half of the UK gold reserves.

Please explain how NATO loses a war with Russia in the near future, and how you think FIAT currencies work because they do not just randomly collapse on whims.

One word Panic, panic will cause the fiat currencies to collapse. Europe will have its new world order, dominated by Russia.

Britain left the Gold Standard in 1931. The U.S.A also left the Gold Standard in 1971. Having bank vaults full of gold is totally unnecessary, in the modern scheme of economics.
Yes some countries keep reserves of gold as part of their foreign exchange reserves as well as foreign currencies. But it would have to be sold first and converted into Dollars to use as settlement of payment.
Example, if you were to retire to Australia and buy a house there, UK £s would have to be converted into Australian Dollars held in a bank in Australia on behalf of the UK.

One thing when the whiff of War is in the air the price of Gold and other precious metals rises a solid investment when economic uncertainties arise

You might have noticed, gold prices have been collapsing.

Bulls and Bears Doves and Hawks ,if it seems that the threat of War Iis becoming more likely for the West then as in the last century Gold and precious will undoubtedly rise The Bears Horde the Doves flyaway

Having a gold reserve is not the same as a gold standard.

NATO is not fighting Russia, and has no wish to fight Russia. It is sending aid, training and intelligence to a client state engaged in war, much as Russia did in Vietnam War or the US and Russia did in the Arab-Israeli conflicts.

Were NATO to fight seriously, the addition of fresh troops and massive air and naval forces would cause Russia to lose in Ukraine without biochemical and nuclear weapons, triggering a similar response, causing global catastrophe for all sides.

at the lowest price for many years and went in large with the Euro I believe?
I wouldnt use Gordon Brown as an indicator of clever financial strategum?

👍correct on that count John that was one reason that in 2010 the treasury was near on empty not overflowing with wealth

Ah the old classic argument used by those who know SFA about monetary policy, sir we salute you 😂

A Fiat currency only has value based on the goods that support that currency. In the case of Russia, that is mostly oil and gas. Over time, the Ruble will be worth less against world currencies as the demand for Russian oil and gas recedes. Your biggest market, Germany has every intention of finding alternatives which means Russia will find it harder to support the Ruble. Before you tell me that the Ruble has gone back to its pre-war value; this is because Putin has been artificially supporting it for the last couple of months. This is unsustainable.

This guys an imbecile. He’s sprouting utter tosh from the basement of the Kremlin whilst his handler walks about behind him with a gun to his head.

The Russian military cant even defeat Ukraine. There is literally zero chance they cant threaten territorial integrity of Germany or France. They would be stopped in rapid order within about 20-30 miles of entering Poland.

Unless Belarus, get too play with Putins gift of Nukes another unstable self obsessed Dictator

Unstoppable armies of Russia? Really?

Haha, what projection from you. It’s the other way around mate, though NATO have no plans to invade Russia.

And you done goofed by criticising your sock puppet account. Go back to your vodka and borscht.

Apparently, my gentle satire of John William’s pro-Russia position did not come through. My apologies. For my actual opinion, see the other post on the thread (“NATO is not fighting… were it to do so, Russia would lose…”)

In 1941 the British Military thought the same thing against the Japanese. How did that work out?

Japan surrenders in 1945 and hold onto nothing it gained in the previous years. What’s your point?

Well the bit between December 1941 and August 1945 had a few unpleasant moments which we’d probably be advised to learn from. Assuming your enemy is inferior and then sheltering behind a paper shield is what losers do.

Yeah but what he was saying is Britain underestimated the Japanese in 1941 and look how that turned out as some kind reference to russias war in Ukraine.
Where the only equal reference would be how Britain viewed the Japanese 140 odd days after they stuck. I it really bears little resemblance to the ukraine conflict as at that time Britain was dealing with more than just the Japanese in the Far East. Comparing the 2nd world war to Russias invasion of Ukraine is silly.
When the new artillery hunting drone is ready that will turn the tide on Russian tactics. Supposedly it can detect the direction of fire and the drone flies off to the location, searches and destroys.

Well, in 1941; how much contact had the British military with the Japanese? = nil. At this stage: how much military contact has Ukraine with Russia = lots. Therefore your point is mute. Ukraine (alone) has humiliated the Russians. Please don’t use the normal Putin bot nonsense of “we are fighting NATO as well as Ukraine”, because it is simply BS. Even the Nazi’s and Italians didn’t use that excuse for North Africa when Britain was supplied by the USA and others.

Because Japan hadn’t proved itself to be poor in its operations

I am not a Russian troll, but I do know that underestimating an enemy’s strength has led to many defeats.

Ask the commander of the Force Z,

British air forces in Malaya were insufficient to provide air cover to Force Z. Poor pre-war forecasts of Japanese intentions caused the deferment of air reinforcement, and by the time war was likely it was impossible to provide sufficient reinforcement in time.
Phillips also failed to make full use of intelligence resources. As a result, he grossly underestimated the scale of attack, and believed that the majority of enemy attack aircraft would be level bombers rather than land-based naval torpedo bombers.

Force Z – Wikipedia

Good points you post here John. Quality, timely and accurate intel is as relevant today as it was in Hannibal’s time. I do think though the situation in Malaya was doomed to failure from the start.

In particular, the RAF had circa 50% of the planned combat strength and the quality of the aircraft level much to be desired (the Buffalo fighter and Wildebeest bi plane torpedo bomber).

Important to note that in Dec ’41,the Far East was only fourth on the armament priority list, after the UK, Middle East and Russia.

Anything making sense in the MoD is its own death sentence!

You beat me to it..!

CR

Yep, false choice fallacy.

I’ve never worked public sector but I suspect the MoD is no different to any public sector organisation. Some good talented and dedicated people, but highly bureaucratic and staffed with ‘lifers’ incapable of getting a job elsewhere who end up in management. I’ve seen that in a couple of former public sector companies that have been privatised but, because of their market dominant or monopolistic positions, they haven’t had to reform themselves.

Those bureaucratic lifers are at the lower ranks of the Civil Service, not the higher ranks.

Not from my experience. They make it all the way to the top. On Government agency I worked for had 13 directors for an agency of 230 workers. Yep that is a director for every 17 workers… There were also more managers than there were non-managers… Bonus time came around (Pay increases were not a thing at that agency) and all the workers and management got a fixed £200 bonus. The First level of 6 directors got £15000 the next level of 6 directors got £25000 and the top director got £35000… They were totally useless and wasted £45 million per year.

Wow! that agency was run very differently from MoD areas.

I worked at DLO Andover as an army officer (Major) in 2002-3 and employed some four C2s, one Grade D and an AA in my Team. Not everyone got an annual bonus and that was very modest, but I recall it being more than £200.
The more senior civil servants were moved around reasonably frequently but not as frequently as serving army officers – and I am really quite sure that not all of them got a bonus – there was some sort of unofficial quota at play.
There was not a case of more managers than workers anywhere at DLO (a classic pyramid hierarchy being in place in all teams and departments. The lower level workers (C2s and D’s) invariably chose not to be mobile and stuck in a job for decades. My Grade D had done over 30 years in the same job and was unambitious, denying himself promotion by not wishing to be ‘a mobile grade (reassignable).

Similar story to my time at DE&S as a civilian contractor 2009-2011.

Nicely said Martin. Hope this gets added to all RN T23/T45s not just to 3 ships. This underarming mentality is downright stupid as is all the time, resource and money wasting. Hope Mr Wallace pushes this along along with all the other good stuff needed for the UK forces. C’mon 🇬🇧!

I don’t really understand this line of reasoning. Harpoons and NSMs have woeful range for the open ocean.

T23s and T45s require long-range anti-ship missiles. At the very least LRASM. Better still the Japanese Type 17 or Tomahawk Block Va.

Type 31s with NSMs in the Persian Gulf, fine. But T23s/T45s/T26s in the open ocean with NSMs? Woefully inadequate.

If T45 gets Ceptor in its proposed location where would IAShM go? The Harpoon canisters went exactly over where the Mk41 silo was to go……

The proposed CAMM silos is filling the space of MK 41 on T45.

Hence my comment of, “where will it go?”

Thought the Harpoons went between the bridge and the Sylver cells? From images released so far CAMM has been placed between the rear of the Mk8 4.5” and the forward end of the Sylver cells protective screen.

Yes, indeed the Harpoons went above the Mk41 FFBNW space.

The last proposal for Ceptor was in the top of the Mk41 space. There have been a few variations on the theme floating about.

Thing with Ceptor is that it is light and short so it isn’t a metacentric issue or needing multi deck penetrations so there are a large number of places to fit it: particularly if the warhead is above deck in an extended protective enclosure.

On frigates. The T45s are too unipurpose anyway, and I wouldn’t bother with an anti-surface weapon on them. Let the frigates (and subs) do anti-surface/ship. When the T83s come along, maybe that’ll be a different story.

That slightly missed the point.

The Russians and Chinese have lots of ships and subs.

So lots of munitions are required which require slots as you can’t reload.

If you are supporting marines ashore then lots of Cruise/Harpoon type stuff is needed as we seem to have given up on NGS or be depending on helicopters and drones and maybe F35B.

I agree on your point, but would the Type 45s be part of a littoral response group? We only have six and if there’s a peer war, I’d expect them to prioritize T45s for the carrier groups and remaining well away from land.

That’s why I said let the frigates get in closer and provide the missile support. Type 26s are a better all-round ship and have a 5″ gun which could, if pushed, do NGS. But I’d want scads of CAMM-ER on the Type 31s too, which can also provide some OTH support.

That’s a massive presumption. What about when the ship is in transit or has been tasked with say patrolling the Gulf of Hormuz? The ship needs a lethal offensive punch not only for deterrence. But also as a means to respond in kind. The other assumption is, why wouldn’t you have the best air defence ship protecting a littoral group?

“if there’s a peer war”

If there’s a peer war the RN isn’t going to last long. We have very little defence in depth or redundancy. The only survivable assets we have are the Astutes and we don’t have enough of them.

“Type 26s are a better all-round ship and have a 5″ gun which could, if pushed, do NGS.”

You want to use highly expensive T26s for NGS? That’s utterly insane. They wouldn’t last long.

250 million should cover purchase of at least 150 NSM. Even with a generous 100 million spend on servicing costs integration and hardware. I think 150 missiles would cover entirety of type 45 and 23 fleet for now and then allow a trickle down to type 31 and 32s when they enter service.

What use are NSMs out in the open ocean with a paltry range of about 200km? The fact that our government thinks fitting NSMs to our ships is even worth considering boggles my mind.

Since ships cannot generally find each other unless they are about 20 miles away (and radiating) 200miles is more range than a ship will ever need. The idea of ships firing antiship missiles at each other from 200miles away is red storm rising type fantasy. The 200 mile range is really there for land attack against fixed know targets.

“Since ships cannot generally find each other unless they are about 20 miles away…”

What a bizarre claim. If that were true then all anti-ship missiles would only have a range of about 20 miles, yet that’s clearly not the case. Tomahawk Block Va has a range of 1,000 miles (approx 1,600km) and is currently the longest-ranged western anti-ship missile I’m aware of.

It’s not bizarre it physics, the world is not flat and emissions do not go around corners ( they do curve a bit) so a ship cannot see another ship over the radar horizon. That is why the kill chain is immensely challenging and why ships sling missiles at each other from hundreds of miles away is a fantasy.

With the benefit of hindsight i think the T45’s should have been fitted with the SYLVER A70 VLS at build – even if never used to their potential it would have future proofed them for the use of any upgraded Aster 30 variants and given them the option of using NdCM for Land Attack,a capability they will now likely never have.

With the benefit of hindsight, I think the T45s shouldn’t have been built at all. Horribly noisy from what I’ve read, so total sub magnets (unlike the T26s). Plus all the propulsion issues that are taking years to fix and still no anti-ballistic missile capability or a decent modern CIWS.

Plus MdCN has far from impressive range.

Also, since the CAMM launchers have gone into the Mk41 slot, it would require a u-turn for the Darings.

I have yet to see any confirmation that the Mk41 position is going to be used by the new CAMM array. The only information I’ve read is that the CAMM arrays are being fitted in front of the existing Sylver launchers.

“In front of existing Sylver Launchers” is the Mk41 position, currently it’s a big void with a gym at the bottom of it, with CAMM fitted it’ll be a gym with a much lower ceiling.

https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navys-type-45-destroyers-reaching-their-full-potential-with-addition-of-sea-ceptor-missiles/

Like I intimated, it won’t use the Mk41’s space, but sit on top of it. Which still leaves a space in front of the bridge for a set of cannister launched anti-ship missiles, as per the Harpoons when fitted.

You’re mis-understanding: It is using the Mk41’s space, the only difference is that because the CAMM system is shorter than the Mk41 system the lowest parts of the space will still be available for a gym.

I never said anything about cannister launched Harpoons or ISSGW’s not being able to be fitted; simply that as long as the CAMM upgrade is going ahead you can’t add Mk41, as they’d sit in the same spot, so please don’t change the goalposts.

Sorry bud, didn’t think I was?

Didn’t think you where what?

Absolutely Andrew and I doubt severely if the T45s will ever see any kind of AshM fitted – VLS, canister launched or otherwise. I just don’t see it.

The T45s could mount 16 Harpoon sized missiles in the existing deck location just before the superstructure. I think a good upgrade would be MSN missile. I suspect that only frigates will get the interim missile. The T45 does not need MK41 VLS to do its air defence job. However fitting MK41 VLS and packing it with Sea Ceptor quad packed would be a more flexible approach.

I don’t think CAMM needs to be in MK41s, it has its own ExLS vls if that’s what you mean?

Sea Ceptor individual cells are only a fraction of the cost of Mk 41 cells.

Bae’s adaptable deck launcher will fit almost anywhere.

The NSM has woeful range out in the open ocean. It’s a missile designed for the littorals. T45s need something far longer ranged. Fitting the NSM-HL to Merlins, if possible, would be far better than fitting NSMs to any of our ships. And fitting anti-ship/land-attack missiles to our Poseidons would also make a lot of sense. Plus why don’t our Astutes carry anti-ship missiles?

Hi Andrew, yes, what an under ultilised space this is. The T45 designers obviously had the foresight to include it in. How much more formidable a T45 with MK41, quad CAMM (down the sides), Aster and even cannister AShMs would be. I know it’s all a lot of money, but it surely would be well spent to maximise these six ships capabilities post PIP and the T83s are a very long way off. I believe down here the RAN are upping their three AAW Hobart’s with Tomahawk, NSM, SM2/6 and LSRAM is in the mix. Keep hoping for the best for the RN.

The engine issues mean 2 x 6 tonne diesel generators are being swapped for 3 x 10 tonne generators and enough fuel to sustain full diesel propulsion
I suspect weight margin for 2 x 14 tonne strike length Mk41 has long gone

Doubt that. The type 45s at 7200 tonnes were designed to have a “wide margin” meaning a hull form that is large enough to accomodate a 10-25% increase in top weight to allow upgrades during service life. So should be plenty of capacity for any additional weapons and sensors they want to fit.
Thats the beauty of having larger surface combatants and why type 31, 26 and 32 are all the right ahips for the future.

“Thats the beauty of having larger surface combatants and why type 31, 26 and 32 are all the right ahips for the future.”

All surface vessels are ridiculously vulnerable to anti-ship missiles, torpedoes and mines. Why are we still building them?

Plus a French and UK SSBN collided a while back: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Vanguard_and_Le_Triomphant_submarine_collision

It seems to me that passive sonar is no longer up to the job of detecting the quietest of subs.

We need a totally new way of going about things. But the MIC loves its expensive projects that make everyone involved filthy rich using taxpayers’ money even if the end products aren’t fit for purpose.

The simple truth is ships are still the only way to have presence and influence, autonomous vessels can support them and become part of their systems but cannot replace them. How do you stop a pirate with a sub or keep a shipping lane open from a boat swarm or protect against air attack or undertake amphibious activity, protect amphibious groups ect. Subs are very good at interdiction, destruction of other ships, strike and intel gathering on the coast, but sod all use for all the other navel activities.

“The simple truth is ships are still the only way to have presence and influence”

As I said, it seems to me that passive sonar is no longer up to the job of detecting the quietest (and newest) of subs. Whether that’s diesel-electric AIP subs or SSNs.

Therefore I can’t see surface ships surviving long at all against subs in a peer conflict.

In a war against Russia or China I’d expect ships to be sunk in vast numbers (and vast numbers is something the RN doesn’t have anyway).

Plus that’s just subs. Anti-ship missiles fired from land, aircraft and ships will take out huge numbers of ships as well.

Well assuming the ships decide to stay and fight that is. In the Falklands War, the Argentinian surface ships went back to port after the ARA General Belgrano was sunk by the sub HMS Conqueror and took no further part in the war. That war also showed how vulnerable ships are to air-launched anti-ship missiles.

Subs can also fire land-attack missiles and do so well within the range of DF-21 and DF-26 missiles, which would be extremely dangerous for ships to do. Subs would also be immune to very long-range missiles like Kinzhal, which again would pose a huge threat to ships with no way to counter that threat since Kinzhal can be fired from way beyond the range of carrier aircraft flying CAP.

Oh and mines are another threat to ships as well.

So why do we still build warships? I don’t get it.

Surely it would make far more sense to build very large numbers of SSNs, diesel-electric AIP subs, stealth bombers and long-range stealthy armed drones (among other survivable stuff) rather than extremely vulnerable surface ships?

“How do you stop a pirate with a sub”

That sounds like the start of a joke. I don’t know, take it off him and eat it?
What do you do if you see a space man? Park in it man.

Anyway, lame jokes aside, pirates (and smugglers) aren’t a war issue, so it’s completely irrelevant to my original comment.

But in any case, couldn’t a diesel-electric AIP sub do that? Well unless the pirate (or smuggler) can afford (and get his hands on) an extremely high-tech quiet sub, in which case I doubt anything could detect it, not even a high-end naval sub or a high-end ASW ship with high-end ASW helicopters.

“or keep a shipping lane open from a boat swarm”

This isn’t a war issue either (well until it possibly is), so I’ll partially concede this point. This is why we’re building Type 31s to protect commercial ships from swarms of FACs and FIACs in places like the Persian Gulf for example.

Another area where ships are needed is in the fisheries protection role, but again that’s not a war issue.

“or protect against air attack”

Well if we stop building high-end warships then we don’t need to protect non-existent ships from air attack, do we?

Subs, stealth bombers and stealthy drones are all inherently far more survivable than surface ships.

“or undertake amphibious activity”

Where exactly? Are we ever going to invade Russia or China? I can’t see that happening. In Russian doctrine, wouldn’t that result in them firing nukes? Presumably the same goes for China?

As for the Falklands, prevention is better than cure. Type 212 subs with IDAS missiles would make a second invasion impossible I’d have thought. We could also buy land-based NSMs and equip the Typhoons with JSMs. A few SAMP/T SAM systems to complement the Sky Sabre systems wouldn’t go amiss either.

Rather than building carrier groups and amphibious capability, I’d say building a Europe-wide multi-layered IADS would make far more sense as well as building a modern take on the SOSUS system, but presumably using detection methods other than sonar.

It would also make sense for all countries that border Russia and Kaliningrad to build extensive networks of very wide and deep anti-tank ditches, man-made hills and man-made marshland. These could be complemented by motion sensors, tripwires, well camouflaged CCTV, remote-controlled weapons stations and UGVs with 30/40mm cannons and anti-tank missiles (e.g. Brimstone). It’s far easier to prevent an invasion than to kick out an invader after the fact. And don’t bring up the Maginot line. It had two massive gaps in it. A bucket with holes doesn’t hold water. And an imperfect defensive line won’t work.

If we want to stop China invading Taiwan, then loads of subs, stealth bombers and stealthy drones would be good in that role. Plus Taiwan needs loads of mobile land-launched anti-ship missiles and air-launched anti-ship missiles that can be fired from safe stand-off ranges.

“Subs are very good at interdiction, destruction of other ships, strike and intel gathering on the coast, but sod all use for all the other navel activities.”

Well as I said, if we don’t have any high-end warships they don’t need to be protected from air attacks, so we don’t need Type 45s/83s.
And since carrier aircraft lack range against DF-21 and DF-26 and don’t have the range to take out aircraft carrying Kinzhals, what use are carriers?
And since subs can take out other subs (well assuming they can detect them in the first place), then we don’t need Type 23s/26s.

We spend huge sums on high-end surface ships and yet they wouldn’t last long in a peer war, so why do we bother?

Plus as far as the RN is concerned we currently have atrocious offensive and defensive capability anyway. We could take steps to improve the situation, but I still don’t think high-end surface ships are worth it.

The simple answer is that one ship is very vulnerable which is way you have a task force with integrated ASW and AAW. The other answer is the kill chain. Weapons with a range of 100s of miles are lovely but the sea is vast and ships are actually really hard to find. Most people forget the sea is not flat and a ship 15 ish miles from you is completely hidden radar can no more see over the horizon than you can. Ships at war will not radiate in the EM which as if your radiating the opposition’s will see you first, co-ordinate their assets and kill you. So all ships hide and use passive sensors, this means they are not finding each other. Even aircraft will be hiding and listening as much as they can.

so it’s the same as it’s alway been the ovens are vast and ships move, finding and killing them is hard.

As for submarine threats, the simple truth is that the west’s opponents are not in a position to take on the west’s integrated ASW defences. Russia has for about 10 years now moved to a philosophy of Bastions for its subs in the northern oceans next to Russia, all they will be doing in any war with the west is acting as launched Long range cruise missiles at fixed targets. Russia decided a long time ago sending its subs against the west ASW was not worth doing and will not be trying to interdict the Atlantic.

Western Subs are very good indeed and unless you have something as effective as western integrated ASW they are highly destructive, but they cannot doe the roles of ships, the RNs main role, will be to protect shipping and protect amphibious assets as well as provide a visible threat and prolonged power projection,, submarines cannot do that….they don’t have the munitions to keep on station…apart form bash in the door once.

“The simple answer is that one ship is very vulnerable which is way you have a task force with integrated ASW”

You’re ignoring the point I made about the effectiveness of passive sonar.

Maybe western subs and ASW ships will be able to detect Russian and Chinese subs for the time being, but as time goes by they’ll build quieter subs. Well Russia might struggle with the sanctions for the time being, but China certainly will (and maybe Russia will buy new Chinese subs).

Will passive sonar be able to detect these new quieter subs? The collision of HMS Vanguard and Le Triomphant seriously make me question that.

And in any case, we don’t have many Astutes or ASW Type 23s at all (and we won’t have many Type 26s either). They can’t be everywhere at once and the western Pacific is a huge area.

Plus subs aren’t the only threat to ships anyway. There’s also anti-ship missiles and mines. Possibly even guided bombs/glide bombs dropped from stealthy aircraft (manned or unmanned).

“The other answer is the kill chain. Weapons with a range of 100s of miles are lovely but the sea is vast and ships are actually really hard to find.”

Are they? I’d have thought they’re tracked from the moment they leave port. There are plenty of ways to track them:

• Satellites (both orbiting and geostationary) with various detection methods
• Over-the-horizon (OTH) skywave radar which has a range of potentially thousands of kilometres (carriers aren’t stealthy)
• ELINT/ESM/COMINT aircraft, drones and ships, ideally stealthy and fitted with EO/IR sensors as well. Ships could presumably have towed-array sonars as well to detect ships as well as use surface-wave OTH radar.
• Subs/UUVs
• USVs: These could be solar powered and have batteries and/or fuel cells. They could potentially be used in very large numbers to cover large areas of ocean because of their relatively low cost.
• MPAs and AEW&C aircraft (accompanied by Su-57s, J-20s and tankers)
• Carrier-based AEW aircraft (either manned or unmanned; if unmanned they’d presumably be stealthy)
• Carrier-based fighters
• SOSUS-type networks
• HUMINT (e.g. spotters on commercial aircraft, commercial ships and deep-sea trawlers for example)

“Ships at war will not radiate in the EM”

Won’t they? So how are they going to detect aircraft and anti-ship missiles if their radars are off? Let alone shoot them down?

But let’s say for argument’s sake that you’re right and ships are hard to detect at sea, what can ships do that can’t be done by far more survivable assets such as subs, stealth bombers, stealthy drones, etc? (I’m talking about high-end warships here, so carriers/destroyers/frigates/cruisers, not ships like the Type 31 for escorting commercial vessels or low-end OPVs for example.)

“As for submarine threats, the simple truth is that the west’s opponents are not in a position to take on the west’s integrated ASW defences.”

You sure about that? The Gotland exercises showed how woefully inadequate American ASW capability is. Would the RN have fared any better? And that’s not the first time a diesel-electric sub has “sunk” surface ships in exercises.

But as I said, subs aren’t the only threat to surface ships anyway.

“Russia has for about 10 years now moved to a philosophy of Bastions for its subs in the northern oceans next to Russia, all they will be doing in any war with the west is acting as launched Long range cruise missiles at fixed targets.”

Even if that’s true, which I don’t think it is (or at least not entirely), all the more reason for Europe to develop a highly effective, multi-layered IADS to deal with incoming missiles fired from considerable ranges. You didn’t address that point which I raised in a previous comment.

“but they [subs] cannot do the roles of ships”

They can sink ships and fire land-attack missiles.

And in the future I expect many subs will carry IDAS missiles (or equivalents) to shoot down ASW helicopters. Maybe even MPAs as well depending on their altitude. Plus IDAS can also function as a short-range anti-ship missile and land-attack missile (between 20 and 40km depending on what source you read). It would seem to make sense to fit IDAS missiles to cheap attritable UUVs, which could be deployed in huge numbers.

But I didn’t only mention subs. I also mentioned stealth bombers, stealthy drones and other survivable assets and you didn’t comment on any of that.

“the RNs main role, will be to protect shipping”

Well that’s what the Type 31s are for. I can actually see a point of such ships, but they’re not high-end warships and it’s high-end ships I have an issue with because I seriously doubt their survivability in a peer war.

And even if high-end warships were highly survivable (which RN ships currently aren’t without significant upgrades), they take far too long to build and they can’t be quickly replaced if sunk, which is a huge problem for the RN because of its low numbers of ships. Not that these ships should ever be considered attritable anyway. Plus the support ships are even more vulnerable than our frigates and destroyers.

“and protect amphibious assets”

I covered this in a previous comment and you didn’t respond to anything I wrote.

“as well as provide a visible threat”

Currently RN ships lack a lot of offensive and defensive capability, which Russia and China are fully aware of, so I fail to see what threat they pose.

To make our surface ships more effective and survivable we’d need to make a lot of upgrades which I can’t see ever happening. And even if it did, it would take years.

“and prolonged power projection”

What power projection?

Our F-35Bs won’t get SPEAR-3 until Block 4, which has been pushed back to late this decade. Our F-35Bs currently have no dedicated anti-ship capability.

They also don’t carry SLAM-ER or AARGM.

They also won’t get Meteor until Block 4.

RN ships don’t carry TLAM and even if they did, Kinzhal, DF-21 and DF-26 mean that the carriers can’t get close enough to land to fire them. This also means that the carriers can’t get close enough to land for F-35Bs to carry out land attacks. Plus we have no way to refuel our F-35Bs since the QE and PoW don’t have cats & traps and so can’t launch the MQ-25 refuelling drone (not that it would help much because of the vast distances involved; one MQ-25 could only refuel one F-35B).

But in any case, as I said before, are we ever going to be in a position where we attack Russia or China on their own soil? You didn’t address that point.

Against Russia or China, especially China, our ships would be spectacularly ineffective unless significantly upgraded.

And they won’t be significantly upgraded unless the government is willing to spend the money required.

The war in Ukraine and the threat of an invasion of Taiwan should be causing us to make these upgrades and at a breakneck speed, but seemingly they’re not considered important. Nor is an effective multi-layered IADS.

But there are far better alternatives to high-end surface ships anyway, which would be much more effective and survivable. But we’re not spending money on those either.

Agree I don’t really see the need for MK41s for the T45, it can fulfil its Escort function with Aster and CAMM. Far better to have the Mk 41s on the T31 to turn them into a great surface warfare, strike assets so that no one knows what it’s carrying. That’s why US Burke’s make such good deterrents/geopolitical tools as no one knows if it’s carrying a load of tomahawks and that’s what makes them such a threat. Since our T31s are going to be forward based, having MK41 silos with some tomahawks will mean nations will have to think carefully about playing geopolitical games with the U.K.

I don’t understand your comment. The Type 31 is primarily designed to deal with FACs and FIACs when escorting commercial vessels, probably in the Persian Gulf mainly. Will T31s ever form part of a UK carrier group? I highly doubt it.

I think so: GPS but not terrain following. I think some of the Block II variants may also have in-flight retargeting but I can’t find any info on that.

Block 2+ includes a one-way data-link for target updates or retargeting. So if the seeker locks on to a decoy, the operator won’t see what it has locked onto, unless they are following it using radar or a EO device. Which then places them at risk from air defences.

Thx. Makes Sea Venom look very smart. Shorter range of course, and small warhead.

Sea Venom uses a high resolution infrared sensor, possible as good or better than NSM’s. This allows it to not only recognize its target, but aim for a specific spot.

Harpoon uses an active radar, which is likely an upper X band or lower Ku-band radar. Just like the majority of active guided anti-ship missiles, it will aim for the largest signal return. It hasn’t the processing power to map out a target. So it won’t recognize a vertical launch missile magazine for example. But it can be made to differentiate between the ship and the waterline and then dive towards the waterline. It can also do a pop up manoeuvre and then dive onto the ship, to try and confuse CIWS.

Spear-3 is a different kettle of fish. It uses the same radar from Brimstone. This is a millimetric wave radar, which does have the ability to map out and create a recognizable image of a target. This then allows it to aim for specific points on the target. It also means Spear-3 will be much harder to spoof or decoy compared to Harpoon. Much like how the Atlantic Conveyor got hit by Exocet. Any ship that is near the target ship that deploys chaff, is potential a victim to a radar guided anti-ship missile.

My understanding is that Sea Venom is manually guided, its I/R image being triangulated to the operator who stays below the radar horizon. So if it does not emit a radar signal and being small it will be difficult for CIWS to deal with.
I/R seekers and short wavelength radar seem to be the way to go.
I’d be interested to know about the imaging technology used in the IAI missiles like Gabriel. I think these may be using pixel pattern matching against a pre-loaded target image,…like facial recognition.

The Sea Venom has lots of options. It can be command line of sight operated (CLOS). Where the operator gives continuous targeting updates which are relayed by the 2-way datalink. This is to help it target a specific threat within a group or a specific area on a ship. However, the missile can also be completely autonomous. Where it is uploaded with a target profile and it flies off and hunts for it.

I think for the UK in particular IR target recognition kicked off with Storm Shadow. I believe this was one of the very first systems that used its IR sensor to positively identify its target.

Whilst we, the public, may not have a good understanding, you can bet the US and co do. They have F35s to test and the US alone has conducted countless air defence exercises against an all manner of threats to assess what is effective and what isn’t.

Russia claims to have used the SU57 operationally over Ukraine, although it’s not fair to say they’re holding back seeing as there are less than 10 operational aircraft.

The F117 shoot down was one incident (with errors induced by complacency) out of what, hundreds of sorties? That’s an excellent attrition rate if you ask me.

“What we don’t know is if stealth actually works or not”

I’m afraid anyone still holding that view has fallen prey to Russian propaganda even though the Russians themselves have been desperately trying to produce a stealth fighter, a stealthy drone and stealth cruise missiles themselves. Do you really think the US or the Chinese and every other military with the knowledge and the finance to support a stealth program would invest countless billions in a technology that they don’t know if it works or not? This is no longer theoretical stuff at this stage. Everyone who can produce a stealth airframe will. it’s the cost of entry in future air combat.

On another note, the reason why the Russians are “holding back” their stealth fighters is because they don’t have an operational stealth fighter. The last I checked they had around a dozen or so test units. In my opinion is not a matter of holding back, they just don’t have the capability to.

Right. Your whole pretext is inaccurate. Stealth worked in 1991 and still did in 2003 against what was supposed to be an air defence network that could rival Russia’s. The properties of radio waves and how they interact with materials has been researched since the 1940’s. With papers released to the public and others that have not. Radar stealth is a known quantity, which works. It is an undisputed fact, unless science has been wrong for the last 80 years?

Yes, Serbia did shoot down a F117 with a an old SA3 missile, in fact they also damaged a second one. However, the story of the engagement is more to do with American negligence, then a failing in the aircraft’s stealth. What Wiki says is that the Serbs fired two SA-3s, one missed, whilst the other got close enough to set off the proximity fuze. Which was enough to damage the aircraft and cause it to loose control, forcing the pilot to eject.

What Wiki doesn’t say is that the F177s had been using the same routes to fly into and out of Serbia over Croatia and Bosnia. They were also using clear comms to talk to the tankers. So the Serbs were able to map the routes by listening to and triangulating the comms. Over time a suitable pattern was built up, where they put a number of air defence batteries along these route paths. On the fateful day, a SA3’s P-18 Spoon Rest-D VHF-band long range surveillance radar, provided a rough intermittent track of the F117, within a 15 mile range. With additional spotters, triangulation from comms and the odd intermittent hit from the VHF radar, they managed to work out its predicted track. The USAF pilots did not vary their routes by using different daily staggered waypoints. This made them predictable.

The problem was the SA3 uses a RF based command line of sight tracking system. Which means a tracking radar must maintain “lock” on the target for the complete engagement. But this also means the radar which operates using a higher frequency band, will be seen by other NATO aircraft, that were actively hunting Serbian SAMs. They got round this problem by only activating the radar for 20 seconds. then moving locations. Which for 1999 was sufficient to not get detected. The operator admitted that the aircraft was not “locked” until the third attempt. By which time, the F117 was only 8 miles away from the launcher. Some of the Serbian SA3s also had a infrared and optical camera for passive use. It is still not publicly known if this SAM battery had the IR/TV camera system.

The SA3 missiles hit a terminal speed of Mach 3+, which meant only having the radar on for 20 seconds was enough to lock onto and track the F117. But why was even tracked?

The F117 used faceting of its external surfaces as its primary means of radar stealth. It did also have a radar absorbent paint added to the aircraft’s skin. Faceting is where you create an angle that bounces the oncoming radar wave away from returning to the receiver. It also used highly swept wings, which also did a similar function. So if one of the aircraft’s facets was directly perpendicular with the transmitter, it would reflect the radar wave straight back to the receiver. The radar absorbent paint was supposed to help mitigate this. However, the paint can only work over a fixed range of frequencies and has a limit on how much “power” it can absorb, before it reradiates back to the receiver. The F117 used a 1970’s faceting technology with a 1980’s radar absorbent paint. Stealth technology has come on a very long way since then!

Both France and in particular Sweden have shown how effective their aircraft’s electronic warfare (EW) capabilities are. Both the EW systems of the Swedish Gripen C/Ds during red flag and either Egyptian or Qatari Rafales operating over Libya taking out Turkish backed SAM sites. Allowed them to get much closer to a target than an aircraft not using EW. However, against a true 5th generation aircraft like a F35, both aircraft pale into comparison. Missiles like the US HARM, have a home on jam function, which means it can be used in an air to air role. AMRAAM is also repudiated to have this capability. The F35 does not need to use active jamming to get close to a target.

The F35 uses better aircraft shaping along with a more modern embedded radar absorbent skin. Which can still bounce radar waves away from the receiver. But its skin has a much greater capacity for absorbing RF, before it reaches its reradiation threshold. How close it can get to a target is closely guarded secret and quite rightly to. Don’t want to give the Trolls any ideas.

But let us compare what stealth aircraft Russia has fielded, zero! I will include the Su57 as it is not a stealth aircraft. I can quite categorically state this. As they have been continuously tracked by both Sentry, Wedgetail, Hawkeye and Erieye aircraft operating over Syria at a greater distance than expected. The aircraft does have a reduced radar cross section when compared to the Su27 family. Which when fully loaded is well over 5m2, to something closer to less than 2m2. Which is similar to a clean Typhoon. The main reason they aren’t using them over Ukraine, is they don’t have enough. Plus they are more then likely going to be illuminated and tracked by what remains of Ukriane’s air defences. Can they afford to have one shot down? It’ll would be very bad for PR and potential sales.

Technology wise the Su57s avionics will be significantly behind the F35’s. Russia simply does not have the financial or developmental resources to catch up, let alone be ahead of the USA. The Su57 has been using the N036 AESA radar. It has had a torrid birth. Originally created as part of the joint Russian/Indian FGFA project. Funding for its development was halted after India pulled out of the program. It was only restarted recently. How much actual money from the joint effort actually went into its development, rather than someone’s pocket? I can quite categorically state that the N036 is two generations behind the latest iteration of the AN/APG-81, based on images taken of it array and the aerial design alone. But the main question would be what processors does it use for signal processing? Russia does not have an advanced microprocessor research or manufacturing industry. So it probably uses commercial off the shelf items, whereas Northrop Grumman uses bespoke ones for their AN/APG-81. The processors performance will make a huge difference to how the radar performs and its ability to discriminate targets when faced with very high levels of jamming.

If France didn’t believe in radar stealth, then there would be no need for the FCAS program! France has not had any substantial investment in radar absorbent material development. Germany on the other hand has. But both are not in the same league as the UK, who are admittedly a step behind the US. Germany has upset France by announcing the purchase of the F35. This could compete with FCAS. But means Germany will then have a working knowledge of operating and maintaining a 5th generation aircraft. France will only get this with FCAS. The UK will have the knowledge of its F35s and be in a position to build Tempest on its F35 experience.

All this is based on official statements on capability of stealth, during which no US planes stealth or otherwise have been shot down. Reality is no one really knows. Can’t know if stealth is effective unless you have an equal scenario with a non stealth shot down and a stealth not, which would only happen in a war.

I did mention the Balkan war shoot down was highly loaded in the favour of the attacker.

Unless you have experience tracking the things which miltiary radar, at which point I stand corrected, then it’s all guess work.

I must admit I do have insider information on this. I have to be circumspect with what or how I answer.

As a sort of counter, I could suggest that the Red Flag exercises are good indicator on how stealth works. Red Flag is still the closest aircraft come to actually shooting at each other. It mimics everything up to missile release. Where live missiles are replaced with target acquisition ones. This is one of the very few occasions that F35s and F22s fly without the additional radar reflectors (Luneburg lenses) fitted. These aircraft are pitted against the the very latest iterations of F15Es. F16s and F18s. Which are backed up with AEW, ground based radar, ISTAR and even dedicated jammer aircraft like Growlers. The US is still very cautious with who these aircraft “play” with without the lenses fitted, even against other NATO aircraft!

There have been several complaints from 4th Gen aircraft operators saying the 5th Gen aircraft have an unfair advantage. As the results are so heavily biased in the 5th Gen’s favour. However, the USMC did just that, they refitted the lenses and the results were still heavily in their favour.

Was this purely down to stealth, no. But it helps, a lot! The F35 for example is blessed with superior situational awareness. In some respects better than the F22. So a potential enemy comes into its targeting envelop a lot sooner than it has the ability to detect the F35. Some of this is down to the better sensors. But it is also in part due to the aircraft’s radar absorbent material (RAM). The RAM allows the 5th Gen aircraft to stay outside the 4th Gen’s radar detection threshold, i.e when the radar decides the very small fuzzy return is an aircraft etc. This allows the F35 to dictate the engagement, but also allows it to fire BVR a lot sooner. It also means, the F35 can stay out of range, yet still maintain contact to give mid course updates etc.

During ground attack training missions against real SAM systems. The F35 has shown that it can constantly get within weapons release range using guided bombs. I wont say what type of bomb, or the SAM systems it was up against. There are some systems, the F35 has nearly overflown before being detected, which seriously fecked off the operators and the manufacturer who was there watching the mission. But suffice to say that it has been tested against Soviet, Russian and NATO systems. Where they all really struggled tracking the F35. Give the F35 powered guided weapons, the pilot is very likely to come home.

I would never say stealth is unbeatable or undetectable. It can however significantly reduce the detectability of an aircraft or missile etc, allowing an advantage. But it needs to be part of a complete package to reap the benefits. As per the F35, where it marries great stealth with seriously advanced avionics and weapons.

It’s really not guess work at this point. I think maybe the issue is people’s idea of what stealth is. Stealth is a combination of shaping, materials, ew, tactics etc. Stealth doesn’t mean an aircraft is invisible, it really should be viewed as delayed detection. Detection is delayed so much that by the time a radar operator is able to detect a stealth aircraft for example, it probably is way too late as most likely it has already launched it’s weapon and if you are the target you most likely only have a few seconds to live.

I didn’t realise it was so complicated!
I like the idea of the ramjet- it would help that MBDA can leverage their Meteor work for it too.
You mentioned that French exercise a few posts back, and I went looking. I could only find a verbal summary of its findings from a French Admiral, but apparently the report states that exercise Polaris proves that the subsonic AShM solution is no good- and that the stealth doesn’t work. He then goes on to blame the RN’s preference for this type of weapon for delays in the FC/ASW programme, obviously.
I think I remember you mentioning that the exercise specifically didn’t utilise stealthy subsonic AShMs, only unstealthy ones like Exocet I presume, so I wonder why he said that. Do you have access to the report, or some more detailed analysis of it by any chance? I wonder if French and UK experience with SCALP/Storm Shadow has shown that the stealth is in fact not as effective as perhaps thought? I found an Indian article that suggested as much, referencing operations over Syria.

I’ve yet to see any credible evidence to show Storm Shadow/Scalp cannot penetrate built up air defenses. The Indian report is based on evidence supplied by Russia. Who provided parts of missiles as evidence of them being shot down. These parts could just as easily have been found at the target impact sites.

It’s funny how Russia/Syria claimed to have shot down lots of Storm Shadow/Scalp but only a few Tomahawks? Which flies in the face of what the US, UK and France stated. Tomahawk is longer ranged and flies slower, it also uses a long tubular airframe. Which makes it easier to spot by radar. Storm Shadow has a much lower frontal radar cross section and a dumpier airframe, so it should be harder to find and track.

Looking at the reports from the Polaris exercise. The sub-sonic missiles were Exocet, whilst the high speed supersonic ones were based on Russian SS-N-26 Strobile (or P-800 Oniks, Mach 2.2 speed, and 300km range) and SS-N-27 Sizzler (Mach 3 speed, 300km range). At no point was a stealthy missile, such as the NSM/LRASM used. In fact, I’ve yet to find how the French Navy actually conducted the exercise, ie what target drones represented the missiles, or was it just a software simulated exercise?

At least during the Formidably Shield exercises off the Hebrides, it involves different types of target drones to represent specific threats. The Twin Banshee for subsonic, Rattler and GQM163 Coyote for supersonic, plus the odd Black Arrow for ballistic.

This is the problem I have with the French report. From numerous exercises, I know Banshee drones are really difficult to detect and track without the radar reflectors fitted. They have been used to mimic stealthy anti-ship missiles and can get really close before being detected. Significantly closer that just popping up over the horizon.

Which is why I find it peculiar, that the report is so heavily biased against a stealthy missile. It’s almost like there’s another agenda!

I must admit, I would be leaning towards a ramjet powered missile. If it can do a hi-hi-lo or hi-lo-lo profile depending on how close the target is would help. Over the water at 50ft or so cruising at Mach 1.4 should be doable, but ramjets really prefer higher cruising speeds. However, having the ability to dash in towards the target at very low level and speeds greater than Mach 3, has a distinct advantage. Especially if you make the missile’s hunting part (looking for the ship) of the flight passive, using imaging infrared and RF signal analysis. So you leave the ship with next to no warning of the missile’s approach.

There’s nothing preventing you from making the supersonic missile’s shape stealthy. Giving it a flattened lozenged shaped cross section, means the body can generate lift, so you can get away with using smaller wings. Using a split intake duct like Meteor’s can hide the burner from radar. Using ceramic leading edges instead of metal would also help, plus they wouldn’t heat up so quickly. A stealthy supersonic anti-ship missile is definitely doable!

So I had a bit of a wider read- apparently the problems the French experienced were primarily with the ship launched MdCN version; they failed to launch, which has been put down to not having enough time to fully commission the integration between the missile system and the shipboard CMS. Apparently the FREMMs involved were brand new and had been pulled from exercises straight into the Syria op, so they weren’t FOC. There’s no indication that any of the MdCN, SCALP or Storm Shadow were intercepted by Syrian/Russian air defences.
It is interesting that the quote from the French admiral almost separates the claim about stealth weapons fromt he results of the Polaris exercise; he says that the subsonic missiles were easy to counter, and then he goes on to say something along the lines of “we know the stealth stuff doesn’t work, and that they can be tracked from launch”- which doesn’t sound like it’s a new conclusion from the exercise. Bit of a mystery.
Sounds like there are some solid options for a high supersonic AShM, will be interesting to see what finally comes out of FC/ASW…!

“It will depend on the size of the missile, as the performance will be dictated by the volume of fuel carried.”

Obviously.

My point was that I’m yet to find any references to the range of FC/ASW online. It seems like a very woolly project to me.

I’ve read that there will be (a) a stealthy, long-ranged, subsonic missile for land attack and (b) a supersonic, highly manoeuvrable anti-ship missile. But I can’t find the ranges for either variant.

(a) We already have Storm Shadow, so why are we reinventing the wheel? If we want a longer ranged version of SS and/or we want variants that can be fired from ships and subs in addition to aircraft then why don’t we just modify SS instead of taking years to build a completely new missile? Surely this would be a quicker and cheaper option?

(b) Such a missile would be new for us and might well be useful, but only if it outranges the longest ranged Russian and Chinese ship-launched anti-ship missiles. And only if it’s easy to upgrade to maintain this range advantage into the future. Plus will this variant be launchable from aircraft and subs as well as from ships?

Plus I’m confused as to whether the (b) variant of FC/ASW will be supersonic or hypersonic. I’ve read conflicting information. And where did you read that the subsonic variant will have a terminal supersonic dash? I don’t recall reading that anywhere. That said, I think that might well be useful capability to have, since presumably it would make an otherwise mainly subsonic missile far harder to shoot down in the terminal phase (reduces reaction time).

“Do you want it to go supersonic before the target’s horizon or in view of the target”

Whatever would make a hit more likely.

If we want an extremely long-ranged and hypersonic missile then we’d be looking at the Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) missile from the US or a yet-to-be-conceived European equivalent. I’m not sure though if CPS will be an anti-ship missile or a land-attack missile or both.

I really don’t understand the world leading rhetoric all the time from the politicians.

What rubbish.
We are world class in lots of areas. Stop believing the media who hate this country.
Just off the top of my head
Education Oxford, Cambridge, legal services, Mgt Consulting and accounting PwC, EY, KPMG,
Music (just name the top UK bands in history eg Beatles, Rolling Stones, Queen, Bowie etc..)
Film, Acting and books (550m Harry Potter Books alone, Lord of the Rings, Etc..), Insurance services especially maritime (Lloyd’s of London),
Medical research and pharmaceutical AZ, GSK)
Technology ARM, Imagination Technology, we. Are one of 3 countries in the world with a trillion dollar Tech industry), Banking (Barclays, HSBC)
Jet engines and power generation (Rolls Royce)

I never said we didn’t have world class stuff, what I said is the government keeps saying we have world beating/leading and that isn’t true outside a few exceptions.

For example Barclays/HSBC, seriously big but barely make the top 5 in the world. Don’t think Barclays does.

London’s / Lloyds are no longer world leading insurance markets, it’s still top 3 but been a while since being top.

Music, all the bands are you mention are decades old, because all our music studios got taken over by foreign companies and now the music centre is in the US, which makes it harder for UK bands to compete due to travel costs.

Arm and imagination technology is owned by the Chinese.

Oxford and Cambridge are top tier but so are a number of other ones around the world like MIT, stanford, eth Zurich etc. You forgot UCL which is right up there.

Agreed on management consulting and same with global law firms. Not sure we want to be proud of them considering their links to money laundering and dodgy money.

Another area we excel is race cars, almost all the F1 teams are based here.

There are many areas we excel but doesn’t make us world beating.

Bravo!

I’m sure the French would want it however FC/ASW was started long before the current hypersonic hype and seems to be looking more at Mach 3 than Mach 5. Also everything that we have seen so far on hypersonic is more hype than practical weapon and seems unlikely that they have much in the way of terminal guidance. I don’t think that’s the kind of weapon the UK or France would want for such an important requirement.

You are wrong about Hypersonic missiles – there real value is to prosecute targets quickly so that they cannot move out of an area before the attack missile can locate the targets. The slower the missile the more area there is to search by the missile. It is all about fast reaction. Hypersonic missiles slow at low level to say M3 so the can use their sensors.

The problem with subsonic missiles is that they give far too much time for modern SAM systems to engage them. With improving radars stealth is going to become less effective. I cannot see the future being subsonic or even low supersonic….

So if speed is the issue why not just have an extensive network of airships? Either manned or unmanned. Or both.

They could fire anti-ship missiles from beyond the range of ships’ SAM systems as well as from beyond the range of carrier-based aircraft.

Airships could also fire long-range anti-radiation missiles from beyond the range of S-400 and other SAM systems.

Why spend ridiculous amounts of money on long-range hypersonic missiles when airships could fire far cheaper ordnance and achieve the same results?

The PLAN have much much better defences than Russia’s navy. Their type 51, 52 and 55 destroyers are capable of effective air defence. We think.
They have their own versions of Aegis. Their own VLS and their own CIWS which are stand alone with their own radar guidance. In fact their ciws look remarkably like goalkeeper. Strange that. Youd think they had reverse engineered it or simply stole the designs.
My point is Russia’s navy are mostly soviet era junk. Chinese navy is untested but could or more accurately should be much more capable.

As well as a Goalkeeper CIWS clone (Type 730 ) they have a ‘RAM’ lookalike System too ( HQ-10 ).

True but things have moved on.

Firing a radiation seeking missile will just temporarily knock out a radar site as all you take out is the rotor or array.

If you want to take it out properly a GPS guided munitions is needed onto the command and control unit.

Taking out the power set is another option, especially on Russian networked systems. However, if it’s a mobile system like. Buk, Tor etc, a kinetic hit on the radar will likely either do other damage to the system as well or just kill it through brute force.

That is the other thing really.

There might not be many emissions to seek!

Hence why seeking the more subtle signs of radars/comms/general EM/other things might suit over watch platforms and then send something in for the kill to a known spot?

Rather the point of fused data……

So very sad isn’t it. On paper and in an ideal world, the UK and France could do great things together. We both have high end defence industrial bases.

They are just impossible to work with unfortunately.

“Not entirely sure that it merits spending all that extra just to redesign it to fit internally?”

Why not? It seems silly to have a stealth jet and then carry ordnance externally, which compromises its stealth.

“Anti radiation missile, different issue, which might well be addressed with Spear 3 EW variant, albeit in a smaller missile than the one you mentioned.”

I thought SPEAR EW was going to be a spoofer/jammer like MALD/MALD-J, not an anti-radiation missile?

“$4M is cheap to take out a $500M warship, I agree.”

Well not exactly cheap, but certainly worth the expense to take out a high-end warship (which could well cost far more than $500 million).

“But NSM is $1.8M (thereabouts) so we get twice as many for the same money.”

But the NSM is much shorter ranged than LRASM, so having more of them is of no benefit at all when up against ships carrying Kalibr and YJ-18 anti-ship missiles for example.
And in any case, my preference as far as a ship-launched AShM is concerned would be the Japanese Type 17 once its range has been increased to 1,500km as planned. (The Type 17 looks very impressive from what I’ve read about it.)

What’s the point of fitting NSMs to our high-end ships when they’re outranged by Kalibr 3M54T and YJ-18 anti-ship missiles? It makes absolutely no sense to me at all.

And if we are going to buy NSMs, it would make far more sense imo to buy the helicopter-launched NSM-HL variant (assuming they can be fitted to Merlins/Wildcats that is), which would increase the range of the NSM by a few hundred kilometres and put it in the same ballpark range as Kalibr 3M54T and YJ-18. (That said a helicopter-launched variant of the JSM would be even better – I hope one is developed.) NSM-HL missiles would give all our ships anti-ship capability, including the carriers, T31s and T32s. Even replenishment/tanker ships, Point-class ships and River OPVs (fitting a helicopter hangar would make sense though).

“I’m guessing we’re going to have a fixed budget for this (i.e. the £250M we originally earmarked before scrapping the idea in Nov ’21) from which we have to take out integration costs (bolting to ship, cable runs, control module etc.) for which Lockheed are never cheap. Lockheed are yet to mount them on any ships outside of a Mk41 so, we’re looking at their cannister option”

Well fitting Mk41 VLS to the T45s makes sense, not just for anti-ship missiles, but also since CAMMs can be quad-packed in Mk41 cells greatly increasing the number a T45 could carry.

“I’m therefore suggesting, NSM is a known quantity & we get the number of sets & missiles we need for a price.”

But it’s utterly pointless when NSM is outranged by Kalibr and YJ-18.

“If we go LRASM, the question then becomes, how many would we get for our money?”

I’ve no idea, but I’d rather have half as many LRASMs that have the necessary range as opposed to NSMs that don’t have the necessary range against high-end Russian and Chinese ships.

But as I’ve already said, my preference is the Type 17 anyway.

And why on earth don’t our Astutes and Poseidons have anti-ship missiles? That would make far more sense imo than fitting NSMs to our high-end ships (although that said I think NSMs make sense for the T31s and T32s and especially NSM-HL).

“Hey, if Lockheed decide to match NSM pricing so we get the same number of systems and missiles & it’s fixed cost and time, so there can’t be any overruns…”

Well I can’t see that happening, although if it does great.

I wrote: “It’s pretty much useless in the open ocean.” [referring to the NSM]
You replied: “Interesting. I’d heard otherwise. Do you have a link to this you could share?”

I was talking about the NSM’s range, not its other capabilities. From what I’ve read it’s a highly capable missile, but it lacks range vs Kalibr and YJ-18. Fitting just NSMs to T23s and/or T45s makes no sense to me and would be a huge waste of money. If we fitted NSMs and Type 17s to our ships then that would be ideal, but I can’t see that happening.

That said a sub-launched variant of the NSM would be very useful. I’m surprised one hasn’t been developed (same goes for LRASM). And Poseidons (and Typhoons) carrying JSMs would also be very useful.

“I’d prefer longer range of LRASM, Tomahawk, Type 17 (interesting stuff, thanks for the lead)”

No probs. Someone else mentioned the Type 17 to me a while back. I’d never heard of it before and started reading up on it. It looks like a very good missile.

“but we have to be pragmatic – this is to be an interim missile, for a set budget.”

Buying a missile that lacks sufficient range against high-end Russian and Chinese ships isn’t being pragmatic. In fact it’s the height of insanity/negligence and will get sailors killed.

Plus FC/ASW is taking FAR too long to get built. We can’t go 6-8 years (possibly longer) without an adequate anti-ship missile. (In fact LOADS of military projects take far too long – this is something we seriously need to fix.)

Personally I’d scrap FC/ASW and buy Type 17s instead for the Type 23s (possibly the GP ones only), Type 45s and Poseidons. I mean we’re working with Japan to develop an AESA radar for Meteor (not sure if JNAAM is the same project or a different one), we’re co-developing a new fighter jet engine and now it looks like the Tempest and F-X fighter projects are going to be merged, so further collaboration with Japan makes a lot of sense.

The Astutes could also do with an anti-ship missile, but apart from the sub-launched variant of Harpoon what options are there? That said, Harpoons carried by Astutes make far more sense than Harpoons carried by ships because they’d be far more effective carried by subs.

AIUI there will be two variants of FC/ASW – one stealthy and subsonic and the other supersonic and highly manoeuvrable. I can’t find their ranges anywhere online. If the first variant doesn’t outrange LRASM what’s the point of building it? As for the second variant, it could possibly be useful, but that’s all dependent on its range and it’s years off anyway.

As for land attack, DF-21 and DF-26 mean that our carriers can’t get close enough to land for the F-35s to be of any use in the land-attack role. So how do we fix that problem? We don’t have stealthy bombers like the US to find and take out the missile launchers. And air-launched Kinzhal missiles present a whole other problem. How do we take out the aircraft carrying Kinzhals? I can’t see how it can currently be done. Kinzhal can be fired from way beyond the range of F-35Bs conducting CAPs. (And yes, I fully understand that these missiles require good ISTAR capability to target ships.)

I wrote: “F-35Bs will be able to carry 8 SPEAR 3s”
You replied: “Spear 3 total weight is 100kg? How much of this is warhead?”

I don’t know, but obviously it’s not a particularly powerful missile, but it’s designed to mission-kill ships not sink them.

“NSM has a warhead of 130kg.”

Which (a) is a huge step-down from Harpoon and (b) is completely irrelevant because the missile lacks range vs Kalibr and YJ-18. The NSM is a missile designed for the littorals, not the vast open ocean.

“I know the arguments of swamping defences & ‘mission kill’ etc. but, I think I’d want a bit more punch.”

Well that’s what you’d get with the Type 17 missile carried by ships and/or Poseidons (I wish there was a sub-launched variant too). Plus LRASM and JSM are currently being integrated on the F-35. The good thing about SPEAR-3 though is that an F-35B will be able to carry 8 internally, whereas AIUI LRASM and JSM would have to be carried externally by the F-35B. (Plus overwhelming defences and mission kills are perfectly valid arguments btw.)

“Partially stealthy weapon, terminal dodging etc. with a big hit.”

Again that’s what the Type 17 gives you. It could presumably also be carried by our P-8 Poseidons since the Japanese are going to use them with their P-1 MPAs.

“There are many that argue Sea Venom doesn’t have enough punch.”

Well it’s designed to take out vessels up to corvette size AIUI. That said, it lacks range and any vessel with a half-decent SAM system is going to shoot down Wildcats before they can get in range to fire any missiles. I’m not entirely sure what the point of Sea Venom is. LMM makes sense to take out FACs/FIACs, but Sea Venom? I don’t get it. Increase its range to 50+ km though and then it could be useful I think. That said, if a Wildcat appears over the horizon, fires Sea Venom(s) and then drops back down below the horizon maybe that would work. I’m not sure.

“Also some argue LRASM is better than NSM because of the bigger warhead it has.”

Yep, plus it’s much longer ranged. Then again, at the risk of sounding like a stuck record, my preference is the Type 17, both as a ship-launched missile and as an aircraft-launched missile.

Crikey, that’s a lot to unpack. Please don’t think I’m being rude if my answers are short. Just trying to be concise:

“NSM outranged” – good point. The only counter to this is IF any foe can’t find our ships till we get in range. This may be possible until we think of a peer-to-peer conflict where it becomes very unlikley. I think I agree with you – we need the range.

“Type 17” – you talk a lot about this & understand your enthusiasm. BUT, the current Type-12 is only slightly better than Harpoon. The big killer for all your affirmations on T17 & that it’s the right choice is: it’s not ready yet. We need something off the shelf & ready to go now to “fill the gap”.

“Mk41 VLS to the T45s” – waste of time & money IMO. Job is area air defence. Needs an ASM but cannister launched will be fine. If we get something with legs & land-attack capability, all the better but it doesn’t need Mk41. I’d probably agree we should cram as many Mk41 silos as we can into the T26 while they’re being built though!

“NSM-HL” – part of the logic for NSM is cross platform – Helicopter, P8, F35 & ships. All same missile base (with obvious differences) means easier training, maintainance etc.

Why P8 & F35 don’t have ASM already is beyond me. An ASM for F35 should have been procured to arrive along with the jets (but we’re not in Whitehall bud). Madness to have a £3B capital ship ferrying £100M jets around that have to use bombs to cause any damage!

“military projects take far too long” – agreed. Argued on here many times about “delays”. When you’re developing cutting edge tech, delays are to be expected, but some just boggle me. ***cough***AJAX!***cough***cough***

“sub-launched NSM useful.” – they’re working on it. http://www.navyrecognition.com/mobile/index.php/focus-analysis/naval-technology/2862-exclusive-latest-details-on-kongsberg-nsm-sl-submarine-launch-weapon-system.html

“scrap FC/ASW” – oof! Our French allies would not like that. Too complex to go into here. We’re working on hypersonics with USA/Aus which could replace it but…

“FC/ASW is years off” – yes & this project is to buy something to fill the gap between now and when it arrives. The specs etc. are undecided/unknown.

“DF-21 and DF-26… carriers can’t get close enough” – As you mention, they have to be able to target us first. Only 2 countries have this capability & range combo. In the event (God forbid) anything were to happen, the carriers wouldn’t act alone. This is where the whole ‘distributed lethality’ and ‘network centric combat’ stuff comes in – Sub launched cruise missiles can get close enough.

“overwhelming defences and mission kills are perfectly valid arguments btw” – I know, I know. Call me old fashioned but I’d want to ‘delete’ them, not sent them home to fix their radar.

“Partially stealthy…that’s what the Type 17 gives you.” – Is it to be stealthy? I didn’t read that anywhere.

“T-17 on P8” – for sure the P8 can carry the weight, it’s more an integration thing which is time and money. NSM & LRASM are already integrated on P8 and F35 – hence I keep referring back to those specific missiles & not the Saab or IAI offering. Logic says “yeah, but integration can be done quickly” but I would then ask – why can’t our F35’s fire Meteor yet….? It’s been in service for 6 years…

“Crikey, that’s a lot to unpack. Please don’t think I’m being rude if my answers are short. Just trying to be concise”

Well your answers aren’t short, but I do go on a lot, but only because it annoys me so much that our supposedly high-end warships are currently so bad in terms of both offence and defence.

I actually think there are FAR better alternatives to warships in many scenarios, but since we have them and are obviously going to use them no matter what, we should make them as effective and survivable as possible, otherwise we might as well just tow them out into the ocean and sink them just to save time, effort and lives. Because that’s where they’re going to end up anyway if we don’t seriously upgrade them. Anti-torpedo torpedoes for example and Aster 30 Block 1NT are no-brainers imo, but why are these weapons hardly ever discussed? I’d also replace Phalanx with a modern CIWS like Thales RAPIDFire. As for a large naval gun, what’s the point?

Any lame arguments about “where is the money going to come from?” seriously annoy me.

Upgrading our ships would be far cheaper than having to build new ships because our current ones have been sunk in a war. And it’s not like we don’t have the money anyway. We’re not a third-world country, are we? Ask the banks we bailed out for free.

“”NSM outranged” – good point. […] I think I agree with you – we need the range.”

Well obviously, it’s simple maths. If our ships don’t have anti-ship missiles that outrange the enemy’s ship-launched anti-ship missiles then they’re at a serious disadvantage and at serious risk. And we don’t even need to use the missiles. Just having them means that enemy ships are going to be wary of coming within range of our longer ranged missiles and so will stay out of range.

I’d have thought that was common sense, but some people don’t get it. Or they do, but still make the budget argument anyway. Maybe they’re morons. Or government beancounters? Or even worse fifth columnists?

““Type 17” – you talk a lot about this & understand your enthusiasm. BUT, the current Type-12 is only slightly better than Harpoon.”

Well firstly the Type 12 is a land-launched missile, whereas the Type 17 is a ship-launched and air-launched variant.

And secondly according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_12_Surface-to-Ship_Missile “The ship-launched derivative of Type 12, designated as Type 17 (SSM-2) missile has been put into service and it is to start deploying from Maya-class destroyer. The range has doubled to 400 kilometers and is also planning to re-apply for the improved version of the surface-to-ship system and the air-launched variant for the P-1 patrol aircraft.[6][7]

The MoD approved the development of an improved version of the Type 12 SSM on December 18, 2020 by the Cabinet. According to Japanese newspapers, the range will be extended from 200 km to 900 km, with a future target of 1,500 km.”

So even 400km far exceeds the range of our current Harpoons (and NSM as well). (Hell even 200km outranges the NSM.) And if carried by a P-8 Poseidon with a combat range of approx 2,200km then that gives you a range of approx 2,600km with the 400km version. Not to be sniffed at at all.

But once the Type 17 has its range increased to 900km, even as a ship-launched missile, that far exceeds the range of Kalibr and YJ-18, let alone when it gets upgraded to 1,500km or carried by a Poseidon.

I even read one article that mentioned 2,000km, although I’m not sure if that was referring to the Type 12 or Type 17 or both.

Anyway, whatever, getting the Type 17 now for our ships seems to make a lot of sense to me. 400km now, then shortly after that 900km, then later 1,500km and possibly even 2,000km. And remember the Type 17 has both anti-ship and land-attack capability.

As for FC/ASW I don’t even know what range the two proposed variants will have since I can’t find any mention of that online and the in-service date isn’t certain either. Possibly 2030, possibly even later. It seems like a very woolly project to me and I get the impression they’re just making it up as they go along. I’m not even convinced anything concrete has been written down or laid down in contracts. Let alone iron-clad contracts with no wiggle room.

Plus I’ve read that FC/ASW will come in (a) a stealthy subsonic land-attack variant and (b) a supersonic, highly manoeuvrable anti-ship variant.

We already have (a) in the form of Storm Shadow, so why are we reinventing the wheel? If we want a longer ranged version of Storm Shadow and/or a variant that can be fired from ships and subs in addition to aircraft, then surely it would be faster and cheaper to just modify SS rather than develop a completely new missile?

As for (b), that would be something new for us, but unless it outranges Kalibr and YJ-18 then what’s the point? I don’t see any point at all.

If we do go with the NSM, and it looks like we will, then that’s not going to be much use against ships with Kalibr and YJ-18. Buying NSM-HL and NSM would make a lot of sense (assuming NSM-HL can be fitted to Merlins and/or Wildcats that is), but I’m not sure what the in-service date of the NSM-HL will be. Mid-2020s maybe?

Two current anti-ship missiles I’m aware of with a half-decent range that can be launched from a helicopter are Marte-ER (100+ km) and Exocet AM39 (range up to 70km). As I said before, fitting anti-ship missiles to our Merlins and Wildcats (if possible) would give all our ships that carry either helicopter anti-ship capability, which would be very useful capability to have. And from what I’ve read, it confirms what I’d already surmised; namely that the helicopters will fly low and release the missiles at sea-skimming altitude, so in theory they should be able to shoot and scoot and so be survivable. Well in theory anyway.

“The big killer for all your affirmations on T17 & that it’s the right choice is: it’s not ready yet.”

But it is, as I covered above. And each incremental upgrade will significantly improve its capability. A range of 400km isn’t a bad start at all. It’s far superior to UK Harpoons and NSM right from the get-go. T17 with a range of 400km vs NSM with a range of 185km? There’s no comparison. Yet the UK wants to buy NSM. Why? Makes no sense to me at all. Corruption probably.

“We need something off the shelf & ready to go now to “fill the gap”.”

Well ship-launched NSM certainly won’t fill the gap and it worryingly looks like that’s what the government is going to go with.

The problem is that the west isn’t currently exactly knee-deep in good anti-ship missile systems. There are slim pickings.

One option though as far as ships are concerned would be the Tomahawk Block Va with a range of 1,600km. If we want a currently available missile with very good range then that’s clearly an option.

As for our Astutes, then buying new sub-launched Harpoons is an option.

And as for Poseidons then LRASM is an option.

That obviously means buying 3 different missiles which is far from ideal from a logistics viewpoint, but it’s doable. And it’s doable now as these missiles are currently available.

““Mk41 VLS to the T45s” – waste of time & money IMO.”

Really? Why?

“Job is area air defence.”

The T45 isn’t even good at the role it supposedly excels at, namely area air defence.The best missile the T45 currently has is the Aster 30 Block 0. At the very least it should be upgraded to Aster 30 Block 1NT and ideally the Enhanced Capability variant.

I’d also replace Phalanx with a good CIWS like Thales RAPIDFire as well as fit laser and microwave weapons.

““NSM-HL” – part of the logic for NSM is cross platform – Helicopter, P8, F35 & ships.”

Well exactly, but ship-launched NSM lacks range as covered above. NSM just on its own makes no sense, but if complemented with NSM-HL it starts to make sense imo, but I don’t know when NSM-HL will come into service. P8s with JSMs make a lot of sense and especially if accompanied by a dedicated EW aircraft.

As for F-35Bs, I’d like to see a JSM variant made that they can carry internally. Several countries use the F-35B so such a variant would presumably have good export potential.

“Why P8 & F35 don’t have ASM already is beyond me.”

Totally agree, it makes no sense at all.

The F-35B won’t get SPEAR-3 until Block 4, which has been pushed back to late this decade. Same goes for Meteor.

As for the Poseidons, we should have fitted them with LRASMs years ago.

“Madness to have a £3B capital ship ferrying £100M jets around that have to use bombs to cause any damage!”

Yep.

““military projects take far too long” – agreed. Argued on here many times about “delays”. When you’re developing cutting edge tech, delays are to be expected”

Contracts should be iron-clad.

“but some just boggle me. ***cough***AJAX!***cough***cough***”

Ajax has been a clusterfuck of monumental proportions. Too much new tech trying to be crammed into a new vehicle and poor manufacturing standards.

““sub-launched NSM useful.” – they’re working on it. http://www.navyrecognition.com/mobile/index.php/focus-analysis/naval-technology/2862-exclusive-latest-details-on-kongsberg-nsm-sl-submarine-launch-weapon-system.html”

Interesting, I wasn’t aware of that.

We should definitely buy this. Well assuming it can be launched from Astutes.

““scrap FC/ASW” – oof! Our French allies would not like that.”

Well, no, but what exactly is FC/ASW going to provide? I’d like to see concrete specs, but everything so far is so vague.

“Too complex to go into here. We’re working on hypersonics with USA/Aus which could replace it but…”

Are you talking about the Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) missile?

““FC/ASW is years off” – yes & this project is to buy something to fill the gap between now and when it arrives.”

But if what we buy is the NSM it’s utterly pointless. I thought you’d already agreed with me on that point because NSM lacks range.

““DF-21 and DF-26… carriers can’t get close enough” – As you mention, they have to be able to target us first. Only 2 countries have this capability & range combo.”

Which 2 countries?

“In the event (God forbid) anything were to happen, the carriers wouldn’t act alone. This is where the whole ‘distributed lethality’ and ‘network centric combat’ stuff comes in”

Are we going to attck Russia and/or China on their home soil?

“Sub launched cruise missiles can get close enough.”

Close enough to what?

““overwhelming defences and mission kills are perfectly valid arguments btw” – I know, I know. Call me old fashioned but I’d want to ‘delete’ them, not sent them home to fix their radar.”

If all 8 SPEAR-3 missiles hit their targets, the enemy will have to fix far more than their radars.

““T-17 on P8” – for sure the P8 can carry the weight, it’s more an integration thing which is time and money.”

Oh please. Time and money. What a lame excuse. If something is a game-changer, which I think the T17 is, then time and money are ridiculous and irrelevant objections.

“Logic says “yeah, but integration can be done quickly”…”

What we need is open souce, open architecture, plug-and-play capability. We need the ability to add new ordnance to new aircraft by simply plugging it in. We need a military version of USB.

“Aster 30 Block 1NT are no-brainers” – Agreed
“replace Phalanx with a modern CIWS like Thales RAPIDFire.” – Agreed. 40mm gives more range & could replace both Phalanx & 30mm.
““where is the money going to come from?” seriously annoy me.” and “the budget argument anyway.” – Defence spending takes a back-seat to NHS, Welfare and a host of other things in the minds of politicians. We ‘could’ afford much more but at a cost most of the public would not tolerate. We have a budget for the MoD & they must do what they can with what they have.
“Upgrading our ships would be far cheaper” – True
“Type 12 is a land” – apologies, I misspoke. Thank you for the link, didn’t realise the 400km was in service already. The 1,000km version will be a new variant (I’d guess bigger too) when it comes in.
“Type 17 has both anti-ship and land-attack capability.” – do you have some links as I’m struggling to find more info that isn’t Japanese?
“Yet the UK wants to buy NSM. Why?” – Shared pool of missiles with USA & Norway, integration will be very quick (the did the first LCS in less than 18 months), compatibility with F35 & P8… there are several reasons. You appear to see ‘huge range’ as the primary consideration but your opinion is not necessarily shared. You convinced me that ‘range’ should be a tad higher on the list but, I’m not the one signing the cheques bud.
“buying 3 different missiles which is far from ideal but doable” – agreed. I’d go LRASM for P8, work for F35 is already happening, NSM-HL for Merlin/Wildcat & NSM-SL for Astutes.
““Mk41 VLS to the T45s “Why?”” – They’re built for Aster. Fit Aster30 1NT & CAMM. What would MK41 get them? By the time we get PIP done, they’ll only have what, 8 years left?
“T45 isn’t even good at the role” – disagree. Block 1NT as above, agree.
“I’d like to see a JSM variant made that they can carry internally.” – no idea if this is being worked on but yes, could be decent export potential. In my dreamworld, we’d just fit EMALS (or similar) & get the C version so this (and a million other things) wouldn’t be an issue.
“Contracts should be iron-clad.” – Agreed. Just HMG are garbage at negotiations.
“what exactly is FC/ASW going to provide?” – no idea. Bigger, better, faster, more whiz-bang?
“Are you talking about the Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) missile?” – no idea where they are up to, what it’s called or what it’s going to do – https://thediplomat.com/2022/04/australia-uk-us-alliance-to-develop-hypersonic-missiles/
“Which 2 countries?” – Russia & China. Others may follow soon but for now, give almost any other country on the planet an ASM with 1,000mile range & it’s a minimal threat as they won’t know where to shoot it.
“Are we going to aattck Russia and/or China on their home soil?” – I wasn’t planning on it. You? You brought up DF-21 & 26. If we’re not talking about a peer conflict, what’s wrong with NSM? No non-peer has anything much better.
“Close enough to what?” – Hostile ASM batteries.
“Time and money. What a lame excuse.” – cool. Give me £100B and 200 years, I’ll give you photon torpedoes & phasers. I’m being silly & just joking. Point is, we need something pretty much now & (as above) we do have a budget that will be taken into account.
“military version of USB.” – Interesting idea. Agreed with ‘open source’ concept.

I forgot to say, I posted my first reply to you and because it took a while to get approved I thought it hadn’t been approved and so I posted it a second time.

But I made quite a few edits the second time, so my second reply to you contains quite a bit of stuff that isn’t in the first reply. At first glance they look like duplicate replies, but there’s stuff in the second reply that isn’t in the first.

I’d be interested to know what you think of the issues I raised in the second reply that weren’t in the first one.

As I said in my second reply, I think there are far better alternatives to high-end surface ships such as the following (this list has been heavily edited since my second reply):

• Diesel-electric AIP subs like the Type 212 with IDAS missiles (once IDAS comes into service): We could buy at least 3 Type 212s (possibly more depending on the fit-out) for the cost of one Astute. These could be forward-deployed wherever they’re needed. They’d be ideal for the Falklands, English Channel, GIUK gap and off Faslane. They could also operate off Gibraltar, elsewhere in the Med, in the Persian Gulf (complementing and protecting Type 31s), in the Taiwan Strait and anywhere else they’re needed. Type 212s would pose a huge threat to any ship that comes into range. IDAS (when it comes into service) will be able to shoot down ASW helicopters (possibly even MPAs depending on the flight altitude; hell maybe even fighter jets in the future, who knows) and IDAS also has a secondary role as a short-range anti-ship and land-attack missile (up to 40km) (I expect to see this range increase in the future). IDAS isn’t a powerful missile, but should be able to sink smaller vessels and mission-kill larger ones, as well as take out land-based SAM systems and land-based anti-ship missile systems within range (and again I expect to see the range of IDAS increase in the future, so even missile systems located some distance back from the coast would be at risk of attack)
• Stealth bombers: Would the US sell us say 6 second-hand B-2s once they start getting their new B-21s? And could we convert a couple of B-2s into stealthy tankers to refuel our F-35Bs (which seriously lack range, especially in the western Pacific)?
• Get Taranis into production: It’s an extremely long-range, stealthy, armed drone. Looks like a no-brainer to me. Just make sure there’s a man in the loop – we don’t want autonomous Taranis drones deciding which targets to attack on their own. That said, the ability for Taranis to fly autonomously if the data link with the operator is lost (without attacking anything) would make sense until the data link is restored.
• Stealthy, relatively long-range, recon UCAVs like the Chinese GJ-11 and the WZ-7 (the west currently has nothing like these, but if we did we could and should build them in vast numbers)
• Stealthy, long-range, relatively cheap, attritable Valkyrie drones carrying ALTIUS-600 drones internally that outrange S-400 – buy these in VAST numbers
• Stealthy, high-speed Skjold corvettes with NSMs
• Stealthy, very low-profile, relatively cheap, attritable USVs with NSMs (yet to be developed) (hell maybe even Brimstones would be good enough range-wise if these vessels are hard to detect and engage)
• Stealthy UUVs with IDAS. I’m aware IDAS isn’t in service yet, but very large numbers of relatively cheap attritable UUVs with IDAS (or equivalents) would be incredibly useful imo. And especially if a manned nuclear-powered mothership/mothersub is available to refuel, recharge and rearm them. I’m loath to throw the term “game-changing” about, but such a system would totally be game-changing. Well imo anyway.
• Buy tanker aircraft with a boom to refuel RAF Poseidons, Wedgetails and Rivet Joints (not sure how GlobalEyes refuel, but that’s an aircraft we should be looking at buying imo, along with Gripen Es that don’t need a runway to operate which would provide extremely useful capability in a war). Voyager doesn’t have a boom which is insane. Rather than fitting Voyager with a boom though (which you know we’ll screw up by adding hundreds of loads of unnecessary features, will take about 20 millennia to do and cost about 800 bajillion pounds to implement), buying new tanker aircraft with booms off the shelf should be far faster and also increase the total number of tankers we have. Also, fit all our tankers with BriteCloud and a DIRCM system to make them more survivable against radar-guided and IR-guided missiles (in the near future MSDM/HK-DAS anti-missile missiles and the SHiELD laser would be additional options that would make a lot of sense to fit; hell any reason why such aircraft couldn’t carry Meteor, ASRAAM and IRIS-T to defend themselves? IRIS-T can shoot down AAMs and SAMs and large aircraft such as these could carry a lot of missiles and other gear for self-defence)
• Fit the Typhoons with an anti-ship missile now. Marte-ER is the only option at present I think (could be wrong), but it has a range of over 100km. That would be plenty to deal with many vessels and even high-end ships don’t have SAM systems that greatly exceed that – Typhoon could fly low and fire Marte-ER at a ship once it appears over the horizon, then turn around and bravely run away like Sir Robin
• Could we even use Hawk 200s in the anti-shipping role around the UK? They’re relatively cheap aircraft so they could be bought in relatively large numbers and they can carry the Sea Eagle anti-ship missile with a range of over 100km (if a better and longer ranged missile could be fitted all the better). The Hawk 200 can also carry other ordnance and would provide an additional layer of defence after the Typhoons and F-35Bs without breaking the bank. Quantity has a quality all its own after all. I’ve never been a fan of just a few high-end, very expensive assets, which is where we currently are with the RN and RAF. We have limited defence in depth and precious little redundancy. Plus without a good multi-layered IADS, our aircraft could be taken out on the ground and our ships could be taken out in port. (In fact the whole of Europe needs an IADS. The TWISTER air defence system will be a good start, but we need to go even further.)
• Buy very long-range commercial aircraft like the Airbus A350-1000 with a range of approx 16,000km, convert them into military aircraft and fit them with anti-ship missiles and land-attack missiles that can be fired from safe stand-off distances without putting the aircraft at risk.
• Use airships in the same way, except airships unlike jet aircraft have far greater range and far greater endurance. As well as a very low acoustic and IR signature. They also fly relatively slowly and so could possibly get filtered out by SAM systems. That said, could airships be fitted with say 2 feet of RAM? Is that doable? And if so, how close could they get to SAM systems and aircraft before they could be engaged? HAV is a UK company that makes the Airlander. Such aircraft would be ideal for such missions imo and at a fraction of the cost of jet aircraft.

This isn’t an exhaustive list by any means, but imagine how much of the above we could have bought if we hadn’t built two ludicrously expensive carriers (of very dubious utility), 20 or so defective F-35Bs (with even more to come) and defective Type 45s (requiring long and expensive PIP fixes). Plus add in the Ajax cockup.

““Aster 30 Block 1NT are no-brainers” – Agreed”

Yep, as well as Aster 30 Block 2 BMD, but I’m not sure if that project has been cancelled or not. If it has, it should be resurrected immediately.

The European TWISTER project will be a good system from what I’ve read about it, but it’s about a decade off. Why does everything take so damn long to develop? Where’s the sense of urgency? People need to seriously pull their fingers out. We need to develop new systems in weeks or months, not years.

I’d also like to see the range of Aster 30 Block 0 significantly increased to keep enemy aircraft at arm’s length. Give it a max range comparable to SM-6.

““replace Phalanx with a modern CIWS like Thales RAPIDFire.” – Agreed. 40mm gives more range & could replace both Phalanx & 30mm.”

Phalanx is garbage imo both in terms of range and probability of a kill, but I think DS30M is probably worth keeping (and especially if upgraded with LMMs/Martlets) to provide another layer of defence against FACs/FIACs.

“““where is the money going to come from?” seriously annoy me.” and “the budget argument anyway.” – Defence spending takes a back-seat to NHS, Welfare and a host of other things in the minds of politicians. We ‘could’ afford much more but at a cost most of the public would not tolerate.”

How do you know what the public would or wouldn’t tolerate? Explain the issues to people clearly and logically and see what decisions people come to then.

For example, I’d have thought people would be in favour of a good effective multi-layered IADS if the risks were explained to them. And if they aren’t, then they’re idiots and they should be ignored and we should do it anyway. Even morons deserve to be protected. Or else deport them to the Isle of Man or something. Or Rwanda.

“We have a budget for the MoD & they must do what they can with what they have.”

The budget can (and should) be changed. And drastically considering the Ukraine war and the possibility of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Also we should never have relinquished Hong Kong. That was a ludicrous decision.

And what about UORs to make up for capability shortfalls? Can’t we use UORs to fix the RN and RAF in the short term? And if not, we need a new mechanism that will rapidly fix our current shortcomings.

““Upgrading our ships would be far cheaper [than replacing sunk ships]” – True”

Glad you accepted this point. I’ve had people argue this point with me in the past, which boggles my mind.

““Type 12 is a land[-based missile]” – apologies, I misspoke. Thank you for the link, didn’t realise the 400km was in service already.”

As I said, even 400km would be a (very) good start (outranges Harpoon and NSM).

“The 1,000km version will be a new variant (I’d guess bigger too) when it comes in.”

1,500km, not 1,000km, but yeah I’d assume it’ll be a larger variant.

““Type 17 has both anti-ship and land-attack capability.” – do you have some links as I’m struggling to find more info that isn’t Japanese?”

From the previous link I provided: https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/01/japan-to-greatly-extend-range-of-type-12-anti-ship-missiles-modify-it-for-f-15j/

“Also, according to the MoD document mentioned earlier, the improved Type 12 SSM will be able to attack not only enemy naval vessels but also ground targets.”

As I said, the Type 17 is a ship-launched and aircraft-launched variant of the land-launched Type 12. I’m assuming that any capability the Type 12 has will also apply (or will be applied at some point) to the Type 17. I may be wrong, but that’s the impression I get.

But as I said before, Poseidons with Type 17s with a range of 400km would be incredibly useful (max range approx 2,600km – and that’s even before Type 17 is upgraded to 900 or 1,500km). That would enable Poseidons to take out Russian ships in the North Sea from way beyond the range of their SAMs.

““Yet the UK wants to buy NSM. Why?” – Shared pool of missiles with USA & Norway”

Australia too. Yeah I understand the advantage of a shared pool of missiles, but for a war against Russia or China (especially China) we need a much longer ranged ship-launched anti-ship missile. NSM doesn’t cut it (or at least not alone; it would be good in the littorals, but not the open ocean).

We need a missile to keep enemy ships at arm’s length (i.e. a missile that outranges all current and future ship-launched anti-ship missiles). NSM doesn’t do that. The only currently available western ship-launched anti-ship missile I’m aware of that outranges Kalibr and YJ-18 is Tomahawk Block Va (range approx 1,600km).

NSM on Type 31s makes sense imo, especially if operating in congested areas like the Persian Gulf, and NSM-HL definitely makes sense for all our ships that carry helicopters (especially support ships), but for our Type 45s (and future Type 83s) NSM is too short ranged for the open ocean. I’d fit them with NSMs for the littorals since I’ve read that NSM excels in that role and is great at target discrimination in congested scenarios and where ROEs may be very restrictive, but NSM shouldn’t be the only anti-ship missile they carry. They need another missile for the wide open ocean. And that means a very long range missile that outranges every current Russian and Chinese missile. And that can be easily upgraded to maintain that range advantage into the future.

I don’t think fitting anti-ship missiles to dedicated ASW vessels makes much sense (ASW Type 23s, Type 26s) because of the noise they’d make on launch. After all, dedicated ASW vessels should be as quiet as possible. Surely this is why CAMM has a soft-launch feature? That said, why do Type 23s carry various guns?

Anti-ship missiles though could be fitted to the GP Type 23s, as well as the Type 31s (and possibly the Type 32s depending on what role they’ll fulfill, which is pretty vague at the moment).

Our lack of ship-based anti-ship missiles wouldn’t be so much of an issue if we had long-range anti-ship missiles on our Poseidons, Typhoons, Astutes, Merlins and Wildcats*, but we don’t. Not currently.

*Wildcats carry LMM/Martlet and Sea Venom, which are both relatively short ranged

We need anti-ship missiles NOW. We can’t afford to wait years. You feel the same way.

So what are the options? It seems to me that the CURRENT options are as follows (I may have missed some options or I may be mistaken about certain options, in which case I’m open to correction):

• Astute: New Harpoon variants. I’m not aware of any other currently available option. Is there one?
• Poseidon: New Harpoon variants, SLAM-ER, Type 17, LRASM
• Typhoon: Marte-ER
• Merlin/Wildcat: Marte-ER, Exocet AM39
• Type 45: New Harpoon variants, NSM, Type 17 [it’s all kinda moot though with the Type 45s currently out of action because of PIP upgrades]
• ASW Type 23: I don’t think it makes sense to fit anti-ship missiles to dedicated ASW vessels which are meant to be as quiet as possible
• GP Type 23: New Harpoon variants, NSM, Type 17 (not sure if there’s space to fit these missiles though or if there is which ones)
• F-35B: Nothing at present

“integration will be very quick (the did the first LCS in less than 18 months)”

18 months is quick? Damn. Then we’ve got serious problems. 18 days would be quick. Everything in the military takes far too damn long to get into service. We need to operate at all times like we’re at war, not the ludicrously leisurely bs we currently experience.

Look at WWII and the pace at which Sherman tanks and Liberty ships were built. We need to build stuff that fast and in equally huge numbers. Or better still even faster and in even larger numbers.

“You appear to see ‘huge range’ as the primary consideration but your opinion is not necessarily shared.”

I have several considerations.

One is ship-launched anti-ship missiles.

And the others apply to aircraft-launched anti-ship missiles and sub-launched anti-ship missiles. (Land-launched anti-ship missiles is another topic I haven’t even touched on yet.)

But whatever anti-ship missiles we’re talking about, they need to have sufficient range to do their job. Why would that opinion not be shared?

“You convinced me that ‘range’ should be a tad higher”

Why just a tad higher? As opposed to shit loads higher? (To use a technical military term.) If our ship-launched anti-ship missiles don’t outrange those of the enemy then we’re clearly at a disadvantage. Aren’t we? Or am I smoking crack? Am I missing something?

“but, I’m not the one signing the cheques bud.”

Well obviously not. Neither am I. But the people who do sign the cheques need a good kick up the arse. If they’re not prepared to do what is needed, they should be sacked. And ideally charged with treason since if negelecting defence of the realm isn’t treasonous, what is?

““buying 3 different missiles which is far from ideal but doable” – agreed. I’d go LRASM for P8, work for F35 is already happening, NSM-HL for Merlin/Wildcat & NSM-SL for Astutes.”

LRASM on the P-8s makes a lot of sense imo.

When will the F-35s get LRASM? And in any case, LRASM won’t be able to be carried internally on any F-35 variant AIUI. An internally carried variant should be developed imo. As well as a sub-launched variant.

The JSM will be internally carried on the F-35A and F-35C, but not the F-35B. Not a lot of joined-up thinking going on there.

NSM-HL for Merlins and Wildcats, if possible, makes a lot of sense. I’ve read though the first helicopter that will get it will be the MH-60R. That doesn’t mean that the Merlin or Wildcat couldn’t carry it though, but obviously testing would need to be carried out to determine that.

We need to go with whatever is currently available and can be fitted as soon as possible even if that mean we’re using different missiles which will complicate logistics. We simply can’t afford to wait years for alternative solutions.

“““Mk41 VLS to the T45s “Why?”” – They’re built for Aster.”

Yeah obviously. But that’s not enough.

Mk41 VLS would enable Type 45s to:

• Carry quad-packed CAMMs for 4 times as many CAMMs
• SM-3 (unless Aster 30 Block 2 BMD is still an option, which I’m not at all sure about)
• SM-6 which is a very versatile missile: anti-ballistic missile capability, very long-range anti-aircraft capability (keeps aircraft at arm’s length) and even half-decent anti-ship capability
• TLAM (will all TLAMs be upgraded to Tomahawk Block Vb standard? Not sure)
• VL-ASROC: Although I’d like to see its range increased to 100+ km; its current range is woefully inadequate
• JSM-VL

“Fit Aster30 1NT & CAMM”

Aster 30 Block 1NT imo makes sense to take out ballistic missiles.

As for CAMM, what’s the point of it?

AFAIK CAMM has only been tested against subsonic Mirach drones. Thales RAPIDFire could presumably take out subsonic missiles and presumably far far cheaper than CAMMs.

Another option would be the BAE Mk110 57mm gun, which would provide commonality with the Type 31 (and possibly the Type 32). This gun firing 3P ammo (and possibly MAD-FIRES) should also be able to take out subsonic anti-ship missiles.

That said, extensive tests should be carried out.

“What would MK41 get them?”

Everything I listed above.

“By the time we get PIP done, they’ll only have what, 8 years left?”

Probably far more, since how much time have the Type 45s actually spent at sea as opposed to in port? They haven’t exactly been worked hard.

““T45 isn’t even good at the role [of an air-defence ship]” – disagree.”

Why do you disagree? Why specifically?

““I’d like to see a JSM variant made that they can carry internally.” – no idea if this is being worked on but yes, could be decent export potential.”

Yep, several countries use the F-35B. I fail to see why there wouldn’t be export potential for an internally carried variant of the JSM for the F-35B.

“In my dreamworld, we’d just fit EMALS (or similar) & get the C version so this (and a million other things) wouldn’t be an issue.”

I can’t see cats & traps ever being fitted to the QE and PoW.

But even if they were, the F-35C isn’t a panacea.
The western Pacific is huge and without extremely long-ranged stealthy refuelling aircraft F-35s are never going to be much use in that environment.

MQ-25 refuelling aircraft won’t help much because one MQ-25 can only refuel one F-35B and can’t even fully refuel and F-35C. The distances are simply too large.

““Contracts should be iron-clad.” – Agreed. Just HMG are garbage at negotiations.”

Yep, but why is that the case?

““what exactly is FC/ASW going to provide?” – no idea. Bigger, better, faster, more whiz-bang?”

Bigger than what?
Better than what?
Faster than what?

At present FC/ASW is a very woolly project. It seems totally pointless to me. We should scrap it.

First we could (and should) modify Storm Shadow and secondly a supersonic anti-ship missile that will take a decade to develop? That’s absolutely pathetic. These people are taking the piss.

Any project that could take a decade or longer to develop needs killing. And we have far too many such projects.

What we need are projects that can be designed, manufactured and put into service in weeks or months, not years. We have far too many high-end ridiculously complex projects that currently exist or are being planned.

““Are you talking about the Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) missile?” – no idea where they are up to, what it’s called or what it’s going to do – https://thediplomat.com/2022/04/australia-uk-us-alliance-to-develop-hypersonic-missiles/”

OK, but a pretty vague article with no in-depth details.

““Which 2 countries?” – Russia & China.”

Yeah obviously, stupid question on my part.

“Others may follow soon”

That may well happen.

“but for now, give almost any other country on the planet an ASM with 1,000mile range & it’s a minimal threat as they won’t know where to shoot it.”

Maybe, maybe not. And in any case this will almost certainly change in the future.

““Are we going to aattck Russia and/or China on their home soil?” – I wasn’t planning on it. You?”

Lol. No I wasn’t planning to either, but surely you got the point I was making? Namely that attacking either country on their own soil may well result in a nuclear response. Russia has said as much in the context of the war in Ukraine.

So does it make any sense for our ships/aircraft/subs to have land-attack capability when it comes to Russia and China? I have no idea. Just asking.

Maybe it would make more sense for us to invest in multi-layered IADSes?

Europe is currently developing the TWISTER air defence system. It’s probably a decade off, but it looks very promising.

“You brought up DF-21 & 26.”

Yes I did. Are you saying DF-21 and DF-26 present no threat to western ships?

And more to the point, I believe DF-21 and DF-26 render western carriers totally impotent. Are you saying that’s incorrect? And if so, why specifically?

“If we’re not talking about a peer conflict, what’s wrong with NSM?”

Nothing at all.

But if we are talking about a peer conflict, which we should be, then NSM isn’t enough on its own.

I’d still fit NSM to ships, but it shouldn’t be the only anti-ship missile ships carry. Ideally ships would have NSM and a longer ranged anti-ship missile that outranges Kalibr and YJ-18. And that’s why I’m so in favour of the Type 17. Tomahawk Block Va is another option.

““Close enough to what?” – Hostile AsSM batteries.”

Are you talking about land-based anti-ship missile batteries?
If so, stealthy recon UCAVs would be ideal to take them out.
The west should develop such UCAVs and make them relatively cheap so they’re attritable. And we should manufacture them in vast numbers.

““Time and money. What a lame excuse.” – cool. Give me £100B”

Simple, cancel HS2. 100 billion right there.

But with 100 billion we could build a VAST number of UCAVs, USVs and UUVs.

But we don’t need 100 billion, do we?

“I’ll give you photon torpedoes & phasers. I’m being silly & just joking. Point is, we need something pretty much now”

Totally agree. See above.

“& (as above) we do have a budget that will be taken into account”

Screw the budget. Use UOR to equip our ships as required so they’re far more survivable and effective than they are at present.

And get other assets into service ASAP. And by “ASAP” I mean that the people in question should pull their fingers out and act as if we’re at war. People act with far more urgency when they’re at war.

““military version of USB.” – Interesting idea. Agreed with ‘open source’ concept.”

It’s absolutely ludicrous that it take YEARS to fit ordnance that already exists to ships/subs/aircraft that already exist.

We seriously need to fix this absolute insanity.

I did reply to both as I could see some differences. I’ll answer here for ease.
“better alternatives to high-end surface ships” – Ships provide persistence, area air defence, can’t win a war without boots on ground & subs/air can’t do it all. Ships also give diplomatic benefits.
‘buy some SSK’ – Agreed. Would like many more SSN but for speed of getting them in service, SSK would suit many jobs.
“B-2s?” – I wouldn’t want them. Old and increasingly maintenance heavy. Why not buy fresh B-21’s if you want a strategic/long range bomber? As for converting them to tankers, why? If we refuel F35B, we need carrier capable tanker. Don’t need stealthy tanker really as they can still refuel strike package outside hostile air defences. If you bought B2 & you want strike capability at longer range, you have B2’s…
“Taranis” – I’m not convinced it’s done/scrapped. Wouldn’t surprise me if we have a few. Would seem (from what we know) to be a great multiplier.
“GJ-11” – Taranis, Valkyrie et al.
“WZ-7” – not impressed. MQ4
Why ‘vast numbers’? What are we doing with them tomorrow?
“Skjold corvettes” – no range. Designed for Baltic.
“attritable USVs with NSMs” – OK.
“Stealthy UUVs” – UUV are ok for tasking with one thing & then have them return. Can’t do complex actions as Comms is very difficult underwater.
“IDAS” – is so a sub can shoot an ASW helicopter that’s hunting the sub. Very cool. But not a game changer. Systems like this is why we’re developing a UAV for frigates so we don’t lose Merlins. Subs don’t have the sensors to provide area air defence.
“tanker aircraft with a boom” – or just fit a probe to P8? Same with Wedgetail & RJ.
‘defensive measures to P8 etc.’ – agreed
‘missiles to P8 etc.’ – no. Just keep them out of harms way.
‘Typhoons anti-ship’ – agreed. Which one?
‘Hawk 200’s’ – possibly. We don’t need hundreds of platforms though. Leave it to Typhoon, F35, P8 & UAV’s.
“Buy very long-range commercial aircraft” – Nope. Do this: https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/rapid-dragon-turning-americas-cargo-planes-in-missile-packed-arsenal-ships/
“Airships” – No. It would take any hostile 10 minutes to reprogramme radar to detect it, then kill it. Way too vulnerable.
“DS30M is probably worth keeping” – Why? Just fit LMM to 40mm.
“How do you know what the public would or wouldn’t tolerate?” – Because defence hasn’t been an election issue for years. Polling. Surveys.
“Explain the issues to people clearly and logically” – nope. They won’t listen. Most people need some form of crisis to wake them up to problems. Hence, defence bump when Russia starts a war.
“they’re idiots and they should be ignored and we should do it anyway.” – largely not how the UK functions. Politicians want power. They need votes to gain power. Can spend on cr@p all they want as long as they deliver stuff public think they need whilst saying nice things. Defence stuff is expensive & press will scream that ‘another Astute could pay for 63 hospitals’ or some such. Try telling Joe Bloggs that he’s not going to get the dole anymore as we want to spend on defence & he should join the Army. You won’t have to wait long for the outcry… & let’s see who he votes for next time…
“should never have relinquished Hong Kong” – the vast majority of the territory was leased & the lease was expiring. China wouldn’t extend.
“UOR’s” – we’re not at war. What Operation are we urgently funding?
You say “Current Options” but we don’t need one working this instant (we could but we’d pay through the nose!). For most ASM choices, we have to allow 18-24 months which changes all calculations. NSM-SL & NSM-HL could be available along with LRASM for P8 & F35. Otherwise, if we needed it today, you are correct.
“We need to operate at all times like we’re at war” – why? I appreciate we could be quicker but, we do tend to keep pace with potential adversaries. Are you saying we’re in an arms race?
“tad higher” – forgive my British-ness. I was understating the issue.
“Treasonous” – careful. You’re sounding like a revolutionary. I’d happily see vast swathes of Civil Servants and Politicians lose their jobs tomorrow but, that’s not how it works nor how it should.
“LRASM won’t be able to be carried internally on any F-35” – I don’t care. It has the range to keep the F35 out of trouble. So does NSM & a bunch of others for that matter.
‘JSM not on F35B’ – it’s one of many compromises made for STOVL. Hence desire for CATOBAR.
“Mk41 VLS” – that’s a lot of missile types we don’t have…
“CAMM, what’s the point of it?” – Layers.
Type45 – https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/improving-the-type-45-destroyer/ World class radar, Aster 30 are world class, BMS is world class. All 3 elements probably need a polish/upgrade soon but those core elements are excellent and better than most of the world has. Sure, power plant is garbage but… PIP.
“I can’t see cats & traps ever being fitted” – it’s highly unlikely. Doesn’t mean it’s not the right thing to do though. You want to spend £100b on all sorts, give me £2b to get CATOBAR! What we doing for Gen 6 on the flat-tops? What UCAV we flying? What we doing about COD? AEW after crowsnest? Any land-based alternative is stationary (therefore vulnerable bases) and reliant on UK bases or other nations letting us deploy there. Carrier based means everything becomes harder, longer to develop, more expensive, compromised design without CATOBAR. And we’re 100% dependant on Lockheed & their timelines. Get CATOBAR & 24 x Navalised Typhoon, cost per flying hour is half & would pay for the CATOBAR. BAE will integrate whatever we want in 5 minutes.
“F-35C isn’t a panacea.” – didn’t say it was. It could be one piece of the puzzle though.
‘Contracts – why is that the case?’ – million-dollar question bud. Lack of consequences plays a part I imagine. You ever met a civil servant sacked for incompetence?
“FC/ASW is a very woolly project” – seems so. Or maybe we’re just not allowed to know. Or maybe it’ll push the boundaries so far, even they don’t know what it could do yet.
“Any project that could take a decade or longer to develop needs killing” – Disagree. Some things take time to be world-class. You’re putting us on a war footing – we’re not there yet.
“pretty vague article with no in-depth details.” – I know. But, as above & FC/ASW. We’re only allowed to know so much.
“land-attack capability when it comes to Russia and China?” – I think so. War should always be avoided where practical BUT, walk softly & carry a big stick. If they don’t see you have a big stick, their options change.
“carriers totally impotent. Are you saying that’s incorrect?” – Yes. Finding targets that far out relies on Satellites. We (well, the USA) can shoot those down. Or long range recon – that’s why we need AEW and Meteor. Day 1 of any conflict will be Cyber and taking out sensors. Adversaries can’t shoot what they can’t see. Plus missile defence systems are always improving.
“cancel HS2” – 10000% agree.
“ludicrous that it take YEARS” – Agreed. I understand it’s an engineering exercise & need to consider air-flow, drag, sending & receiving data from the weapon, munitions handling training, training operators etc. etc. but I can’t help thinking there’s a lack of urgency & a good amount of ass-covering, paperwork and health & safety slowing it all down.   

The more I think about it, the more I think that in a war against any country other than Russia or China then Type 212s with IDAS and Skjold corvettes with NSMs would be plenty good enough (although a long-range stealthy ISTAR UAV for the Skjolds would make sense). They’d make a great combo. We could afford a very large number of Skjolds and a decent number of Type 212s since they’re far cheaper than SSNs.

As for a possible future Russian invasion of Europe in say a couple of decades, then it seems to me that high-end ships aren’t going to help us much. Europe’s focus imo shouldn’t be on high-end manned ships but rather effective offence/defence provided by:

• Subs, especially diesel-electric AIP subs, with well hidden and protected bases
• A Europe-wide multi-layered IADS able to shoot down a wide range of targets including ballistic missiles and hypersonic missiles (this is what the TWISTER project should provide)
• Fighter jets that don’t need a runway to operate so they’re not vulnerable to being taken out on the ground
• Anti-tank ditches, man-made hills, man-made marshland and 24/7 surveillance of the borders. Plus the ability to take out tanks and other armour using stealthy UCAVs as well as UGVs with multispectral camouflage equipped with 30/40mm cannons and Brimstones (e.g. THeMIS with Brimstone). Prevention is better than cure – it’s better to prevent an invasion in the first place than having to kick out an invader after it’s invaded a country, which is much harder.
• The ability to quickly make roads, railways and bridges near the borders impassable, either by rigging them with explosives in advance, by developing large-diameter metal cylinders that rise out of a road to prevent vehicles from passing, by using spike strips that rise out of the road to puncture the wheels of wheeled vehicles and by lining roads with Claymores that can be remotely detonated. Hell, what about microwave weapons lining roads to burn out the electronics in vehicles that pass by? That would be well worth looking into I’d have thought (see the CHAMP and HiJENKS microwave systems for example).

As far as China is concerned, I can’t see us surviving long against them in a fight using ships. That said, I can’t see us going to war with them in the first place.

Taiwan needs help though to protect itself and the most useful things it needs imo are loads of anti-ship missiles (launched from subs, land and aircraft), SAM systems, diesel-electric subs, Gripens and sea mines.

One of the most useful things would be the ability of Taiwan to become an independent country. But currently that’s not possible because China has a veto in the UN Security Council. I’d like to see the veto removed from the permanent members. In fact get rid of the permanent members as well. The UN is currently a totally dysfunctional and totally undemocratic institution.

As far as the Falklands are concerned, again prevention is far better than cure. Type 212s with IDAS and Skjolds with NSMs would be excellent assets to prevent an attempted invasion. I don’t know if the Typhoons on the Falklands have anti-ship missiles, but if not they should be fitted with them. Land-based NSMs would make sense as well, as would SAMP/T to complement Sky Sabre. All that should make the Falklands pretty damn hard to invade again I’d have thought.

““Skjold corvettes” – no range. Designed for Baltic.”

They have a range of 1,500km, which is plenty for many scenarios including UK defence and the Falklands. Plus there’s nothing stopping us from developing a stealthy refuelling vessel to accompany them for greater range. And there’s nothing stopping Norway from developing a longer ranged variant. Plus Skjolds could be foward deployed wherever they’re needed.

I like Skjolds because they’re stealthy and low profile, making them very hard to detect and engage and because they’re fast making them inherently more survivable against torpedoes than slower surface vessels.

““IDAS” – is so a sub can shoot an ASW helicopter that’s hunting the sub. Very cool. But not a game changer.”

Type 212s are very hard to detect in the first place, but if one is detected by an ASW helicopter then IDAS makes the difference between the sub surviving or not surviving. Isn’t that game-changing? Torbuster would be another good addition to improve survivability.

Plus IDAS has short-range anti-ship and land-attack capability. I’d say that’s game-changing for a diesel-electric AIP sub.

“Type45 … Aster 30 are world class”

Really? AFAIK the only sea-skimming anti-ship missile that Aster 30 Block 0 has been tested against is a missile flying at about Mach 2.5. What about faster missiles? Is Aster 30 up to the job? Without testing there’s no way of knowing. But what missile is available for that testing anyway?

And Aster 30 Block 0 isn’t designed to shoot down ballistic missiles or hypersonic missiles. That’s what Aster 30 Block 1NT and Aster 30 Block 2 BMD* are for, neither of which Type 45s currently carry. And even if they did, again what would we test them against?

*And I think this project might have been cancelled anyway

Lastly Aster 30 Block 0 lacks range. It could do with a similar max range to SM-6 to keep enemy aircraft at arm’s length.

“BMS is world class”

What’s BMS?

“Sure, power plant is garbage but… PIP.”

Firstly this should never have been an issue in the first place.
And second PIP is taking years. Are any Type 45s currently operational?

I’ve also read that Type 45s are very noisy, so they’re sub magnets.

““I can’t see cats & traps ever being fitted” – it’s highly unlikely.”

Yep. A while back the government was considering fitting cats & traps purely to launch drones – what happened to that? But proper cats and traps to launch manned aircraft – I can’t see that ever happening.

“Doesn’t mean it’s not the right thing to do though.”

Why? This would enable us to launch F-35Cs, but while the C variant is somewhat longer ranged than the B variant, it’ll make no difference in the western Pacific where the distances are huge.

“And we’re 100% dependant on Lockheed & their timelines. Get CATOBAR & 24 x Navalised Typhoon”

To what end? To fight who?
Even if a navalised Typhoon variant were developed, the Typhoon isn’t stealthy.
And 24 Typhoons aren’t going to make much difference in a war against China.

“BAE will integrate whatever we want in 5 minutes.”

No they won’t, don’t talk nonsense. They’ll take their sweet time like they always do.

““F-35C isn’t a panacea.” – didn’t say it was. It could be one piece of the puzzle though.”

What piece of what puzzle exactly?
What exactly would we use F-35Cs for?
Going to war against China with a handful of F-35Cs would be insane. And that’s even assuming they could get close enough to land in the first place, which they couldn’t.

““carriers totally impotent. Are you saying that’s incorrect?” – Yes. Finding targets that far out relies on Satellites. We (well, the USA) can shoot those down.”

Destroy satellites and that creates loads of space debris which is an incredibly bad idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

And satellites aren’t the only way to find and track ships at sea by any means.

Mate, before we start redesigning the UK military, we need to decide what we want to be capable of. Become neutral (like Ireland), support NATO, or Power Projection are the three main choices. Which choice we make (as a nation) kind of shapes what we’re going to need.
 
Russia & Europe is a NATO issue. We’ll never fight them alone unless something radical happens.
China & Taiwan is a Taiwan issue. Again, IF we got involved, it wouldn’t be alone.
 
So, “Europe-wide multi-layered IADS” “Fighter jets that don’t need a runway” “Anti-tank ditches” are not a UK-only problem.
 
“Skjolds” – they’re cool. But they need range. Range = fuel, stores and comfortable quarters. None of which they have. Defending the North Sea, sure. You want to be a global blue water navy, Skjolds won’t cut it. Just deploying to the Falklands would need to refuel 8 times. I don’t even want to think what it takes to get them to SCS. It’s a coastal Corvette so quarters are for 24-48 hours tops.
 
IDAS range is 40km. “Game changing” – ok, maybe for the sub-world but not warfare in general. But what’s it doing against ASROC or similar?
 
Aster 30 v “sea-skimming anti-ship missile” – That’s what CAMM or Aster 15 are for.
Ballistic & Hypersonic – hence they need an update. I did say that. Anti-ballistic & hypersonic are pretty recent things bud. Not like everyone has had that ability since the 70’s or something. We’re talking an upgrade, not a leap like moving from muzzle loading cannon to LRASM.
 
BMS – Battle Management System. Again, no longer the latest & greatest & needs updated BUT still streets ahead of what Russia can field. Just ask Moskva. Can track hundreds, target & fire upon dozens of targets all at once.
 
PIP – correct, shouldn’t have been an issue. The first (HMS Dauntless) completed PIP 6 weeks ago. If they’ve any sense, she’ll be doing tests & then off to hot climates for more tests to make sure it’s all sorted.
 
Cats & Traps – I did already answer the ‘why’:
Cost per flying hour lower, enables large UAV/UCAV (which can be stealthy & do AEW, ASW, Refuelling), enables COD (very useful in wartime to have rapid deliveries of key replacement parts etc), means we can fly Typhoon or Grippen (more than half to cost per flying hour (flying 24 typhoons instead of 24 F35s saves $4.2billion!!!! over the airframe lifespan), Can fly Tempest in future (if we wanted). Against 99% of the world, Typhoon still VERY relevant aircraft. China & Russia not the only potential Opponents. ALSO, idea USAF have is stealthy F22/F35 ‘kick open the door’ on day 1 (SEAD etc) & then F15/F16 provide mass. USN have same concept.
 
‘BAE will take their sweet time’ – OK…… can’t tell if you’re trolling me now. They’ll do it a damned sight faster than Lockheed though won’t they!?
 
I’m aware of Kessler Syndrome. In time of war, I’ll take the chance.

“Mate, before we start redesigning the UK military, we need to decide what we want to be capable of.”

We need to be able to deal with whatever challenges present themselves, both current and future ones.

And we also need to be able to adapt very quickly to new threats, which means we need a totally new way of going about design, procurement and manufacturing.

We need equipment and weapons that can be designed and manufactured very quickly, that can be built in large numbers, that can be quickly replaced if lost, that can be quickly modified to meet new threats and ideally would be relatively cheap and attritable (this especially applies to drones).

“Become neutral (like Ireland)…”

I never suggested neutrality, but that said I’d like us to not follow the US into wars willy nilly. Iraq 2 should never have happened as it was based on a lie.

“Which choice we make (as a nation) kind of shapes what we’re going to need”

Well, yeah, of course.

The way I see it:

a) If there’s going to be a Falklands Part 2 at some point in the future (Argentina isn’t currently capable of an invasion), then a couple of Type 212s with IDAS and fast stealthy Skjolds with NSMs permanently based in the Falklands (with well hidden and defended bases) would make a Falklands Part 2 incredibly difficult I’d have thought. I don’t know if the Typhoons based there currently have anti-ship missiles, but if not they should be fitted with them. Land-based NSMs would also make sense and so would SAMP/T to complement Sky Sabre providing two layers of SAM-based defence. SAMP/T for medium to long range and Sky Sabre for short to medium range. Sky Sabre uses CAMM and SAMP/T uses Aster, so that gives us commonality with the Type 23s/26s, Type 45s and the Type 31s.

b) UK defence: Again Type 212s and Skjolds would make a lot of sense for the English Channel, GIUK gap, off Faslane and in the North Sea. Also off Gibraltar and the Persian Gulf.

c) I can’t imagine Russia would be in a position to invade Europe for a decade or two, possibly more, so I concede that my previous comments about upgrading ships and helicopters immediately didn’t make a lot of sense, as you pointed out. I’d go with Type 17s for the Poseidons, Type 17s and NSMs for the Type 45s, NSM-HLs for the Merlins and Wildcats (testing would be required to determine if this is doable) and NSM-SL for the Astutes. (As for F-35Bs carrying LRASMs, that would ruin their stealth. It wouldn’t matter against ships in the North Sea operating without a carrier since LRASM could be fired from beyond the range of ship-based SAMs, but if a carrier is present then the no-longer-stealthy F-35Bs could be detected and targeted by the carrier aircraft. Therefore I think internally carried SPEAR 3 makes much more sense so that F-35Bs can retain their stealth. That said an LRASM and/or JSM variant that F-35Bs could carry internally would be great).

d) As for a war with China that would probably revolve around Taiwan. But rather than the west and its allies fighting China directly, it would make more sense imo to equip Taiwan to make an invasion nigh-on impossible, which means supplying them with loads of mobile land-launched anti-ship missiles and sea mines at the very least. Brimstones to take out landing craft, diesel-electric subs and Gripens would also be very useful. And unlike the situation with Argentina and Russia, an invasion of Taiwan could come at any time.

“Russia & Europe is a NATO issue. We’ll never fight them alone unless something radical happens.”

I wasn’t suggesting we fight them alone and I didn’t write that. When I wrote “we” in the context of a war with Russia I meant Europe, not the UK operating alone. And I meant all countries in Europe, not just the European NATO countries.

“China & Taiwan is a Taiwan issue. Again, IF we got involved, it wouldn’t be alone.”

Obviously. And that’s a big “if”.

“So, “Europe-wide multi-layered IADS” “Fighter jets that don’t need a runway” “Anti-tank ditches” are not a UK-only problem.”

I never said they were. The point I was making is that prevention is better than cure. It’s better to prevent an invasion of eastern Europe than try to kick Russia out after the event. And prevention is better than cure in the Falklands and Taiwan as well. In fact, the focus should always be on prevention and many countries currently lack sensible preventative measures that would make an invasion much harder.

““Skjolds” – they’re cool. But they need range.”

I addressed this in my previous comment, but you didn’t respond to what I wrote.

And in any case, Skjolds would be ideal imo for the Falklands, around the UK and the Persian Gulf (to complement Type 31s).

Plus forward-deploying or permanently basing Skjolds abroad is always an option. Same goes for Type 212s.

In fact, what’s stopping us from buying or building ships with well docks to act as transporters for Type 212s and Skjolds to take them wherever we need them? Or even nuclear-powered submarine transporters? These vessels could also act as motherships/mothersubs to refuel, recharge and rearm Type 212s and Skjolds. They could also replenish them in terms of food, toiletries, medication, etc, and they could also be used to swap crews over.

“You want to be a global blue water navy, Skjolds won’t cut it.”

Well this ignores forward deployment and permanently basing abroad.

Plus there’s no reason why a new Skjold variant couldn’t be built with greater range. Or we could build a similar, longer ranged vessel. And USV tankers would be a possibility as well I’d have thought.

But why do we need our current high-end ships anyway? What do our high-end ships do that couldn’t be done by other assets?

• Anti-ship mission: Just relatively short-range Harpoons at present. Astutes can currently do this mission, but fit Poseidons, Typhoons, F-35Bs, Merlins, Wildcats, drones and airships with anti-ship missiles and that’s a lot of anti-ship capability. Type 212s are another option. We don’t need ships to carry out this mission and all the assets I’ve just mentioned would be more effective at it anyway since they’d greatly increase the range of the missiles. Plus unlike ships they’d be immune to torpedoes, anti-ship missiles, bombs/glide bombs and mines and so be more survivable.
• Land-attack mission: Astutes with TLAM, Typhoons with Storm Shadow and F-35Bs with SPEAR 3 (come Block 4). Other possibilities are stealthy UCAVs and airships. RN ships are currently incapable of this mission since they don’t carry any land attack weapons.
• Anti-sub mission: Airships would be far better suited to this mission than Merlins because of their long range and endurance which could be measured in days, weeks or possibly even months. And unlike helicopters they don’t create downwash, which AIUI is how subs with IDAS would detect hovering ASW helicopters. (That said, I have serious doubts about the effectiveness of passive sonar against the quietest of subs. I think we need new detection methods to find modern quiet subs and/or train dolphins say to stick trackers and/or explosives on them.)
• Anti-air mission: If you don’t have any high-end ships at sea such as carriers, frigates, destroyers and cruisers, then you have no need to protect non-existent ships from air attack, so no need for Type 45s or ships like them.
• AEW&C, ISTAR: Well ships can’t do these missions anyway, but very long-range airships with long endurance are ideal for these roles and especially if they’re amphibious meaning they could land pretty much anywhere without needing a runway (which makes them more survivable on the ground compared to aircraft that do need a runway). I mentioned RAM earlier, but I wonder if it would be possible to surround an airship’s airbag with a stealthy shape using lightweight composite materials? And is there any reason why airships all have very similar shapes? Could a flying wing design be developed using composite materials outside the airbag?

“Just deploying to the Falklands would need to refuel 8 times.”

I didn’t spell it out, but I meant having Skjolds (and Type 212s) permanently based in the Falklands. (Or anywhere else they’re needed.)

“I don’t even want to think what it takes to get them to SCS.”

Well couldn’t they be towed by another vessel? Plus my transporter idea I mentioned above.

“IDAS range is 40km. “Game changing” – ok, maybe for the sub-world but not warfare in general.”

Type 212s with IDAS seem like a no-brainer to me and it would make a lot of sense to buy some. And in the future start building our own diesel-electric AIP subs, which will keep people in work for decades and retain essential skills.

Plus as I said in my previous comment, I don’t see any reason why the range of IDAS couldn’t be increased. In fact I expect to see that happen in the future.

“But what’s it doing against ASROC or similar?”

IDAS outranges VL-ASROC, not that our enemies use it.
It also outranges the Chinese CY-5.
But if that changes in the future, then just increase the range of IDAS. Simples.

“Aster 30 v “sea-skimming anti-ship missile” – That’s what CAMM or Aster 15 are for.”

I read a while back that Aster 30 was tested against a sea-skimming Coyote missile flying at about Mach 2.5 IIRC. I think it was a French test.

“Ballistic & Hypersonic – hence they need an update.”

Aster 30 Block 1NT can deal with some ballistic missiles, although not all of them. I’m not sure what’s going on with Aster 30 Block 2 BMD to take out longer-ranged ballistic missiles. I think the project might have been cancelled.

And as for manoeuvrable hypersonic missiles, I’m not aware of any current western missile that’s capable of shooting them down. That’s what the TWISTER project is for AIUI (which will come in a ship-based and land-based version).

Next we need to develop a way to shoot down nuclear ICBMs/MIRVs, presumably using powerful lasers and/or microwave weapons.

“Anti-ballistic & hypersonic are pretty recent things bud.”

Well, yeah, but since Aster 30 Block 1NT exists, why don’t our Type 45s have it? Even this vessel has it and unbelievably it’s classed as an OPV: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaon_di_Revel-class_offshore_patrol_vessel
It’s got amazing armament for an OPV.

“BMS – Battle Management System. Again, no longer the latest & greatest & needs updated BUT still streets ahead of what Russia can field.”

Yeah true, but Kinzhal can be fired from beyond the range of F-35s flying CAP. A Tu-22 can carry 4 Kinzhals. The missiles will no doubt have to slow down the lower they fly, but if they’re flying at Mach 5 say as they approach a ship, then 4 Kinzhals flying at Mach 5 aren’t going to be easy to shoot down at all. Plus Kinzhal can use optical homing in the terminal phase, which would render EW and floating decoys useless. And if there are two or more Tu-22s then the situation is even worse.

Plus the Zircon missile can be fired by subs from way beyond the range of ASW Merlins, which complicates the situation even more.

I wouldn’t want to be on a Type 45 with 4 or more Kinzhals incoming as well as Zircons.

The sooner solid-state lasers become powerful enough to shoot down anti-ship missiles the better (weather permitting of course).

But if we don’t have any high-end ships at sea in the first place then anti-ship missiles don’t pose a threat to non-existent ships.

“Can track hundreds, target & fire upon dozens of targets all at once.”

Type 45s only carry 48 Asters, so 4 dozen shots and they’re out. I can’t see CAMMs being able to shoot down missiles flying at around Mach 5 since AFAIK they’ve only been tested against subsonic Mirach drones. Phalanx would be useless too.

“PIP – correct, shouldn’t have been an issue.”

Yep, it was an absolute balls-up. Which is worse – the Type 45 propulsion issues or the Ajax fiasco?

“The first (HMS Dauntless) completed PIP 6 weeks ago.”

OK thanks for the info.

PIP is going to take until 2028 to complete, so roughly one Type 45 a year, which is ludicrously slow.

While the other Type 45s are getting fixed, I’d like to see them fitted with Aster 30 Block 1NT and replace Phalanx with Thales RAPIDFire.

“If they’ve any sense, she’ll be doing tests & then off to hot climates for more tests to make sure it’s all sorted.”

Damn, can you imagine the outcry if the propulsion issues still haven’t been fixed?

“Cats & Traps – I did already answer the ‘why’:
Cost per flying hour lower”

I don’t recall you mentioning this and I have no idea about the CPFH costs for the F-35B vs the F-35C, but this is pretty much moot because if a carrier group is staying out of the range of DF-26 then neither aircraft has the range to reach land even with MQ-25 refuelling drones, which can’t fully refuel an F-35C.

And this assumes any country is willing to attack China on its own soil, which is a huge assumption.

“enables large UAV/UCAV (which can be stealthy & do AEW, ASW, Refuelling)”

No aircraft-launched drone could carry a meaningful amount of fuel a meaningful distance when up against DF-26. The distances are simply too great.

As for AEW and ASW, airships makes far more sense because of their huge range and endurance as I covered above.

And as for stealthy UCAVs, they would need to outrange DF-26 two times over (for the return trip) and be able to carry a useful amount of ordnance. It would make more sense to just use stealth bombers instead. And/or airships carrying long-range stand-off ordnance.

And again this assumes that countries would be prepared to attack China on its own soil.

What I find odd is that Biden won’t send US forces to Ukraine, but he’s said he’s willing to protect Taiwan if China tries to invade. That’s very inconsistent.

“enables COD (very useful in wartime to have rapid deliveries of key replacement parts etc)”

Again airships would be ideal for this role. Large cargo airships can carry up to 70 tonnes, far more than any carrier-based drone could.

But if we had large airships then they could carry loads of long-range stand-off missiles to take out ships and land targets, so I fail to see why high-end ships are even needed in the first place.

“means we can fly Typhoon or Grippen”

*Gripen

No we can’t because there aren’t carrier variants of either aircraft. And even if there were, just like all carrier aircraft they lack range.

“Can fly Tempest in future (if we wanted). Against 99% of the world”

What’s the 1% we couldn’t fly it against?

Firstly Tempest is an aircraft that will need a runway to operate, which means it will be very vulnerable while on the ground.

Secondly if it gets built, which is a big if (even with Japan on board), how many Tempests do you think will get built? I highly doubt we’ll be able to afford hundreds of them and so I highly doubt we’ll ever benefit from economies of scale, so the unit cost will be very high.

Thirdly there are several countries building 5th/6th gen aircraft at the moment, so even if Tempest does get built, I can’t imagine there would be a large export market. Most of the countries that could afford it would have their own home-built 5th/6th gen aircraft and the vast majority of countries that would like it couldn’t afford it.

Fourthly it’s a ludicrously ambitious project. We’ve never built a 5th gen fighter before, let alone a 6th gen one. In addition to being stealthy, I’ve read it’s going to be optionally manned (eye roll), have high levels of AI and sensor fusion and be able to control drones. Talk about trying to run before you can walk. I assume that all this complexity will make for an aircraft that’s riddled with problems, just as the F-35 is (still has over 800 unresolved probelms), because of trying to cram too much new tech into a new aircraft. In the case of the F-35 this was because of concurrency. We shouldn’t make the same mistake. We need to test the hell out of prototypes before we even think about going into production.

We should start with a much more modest aircraft imo. An aircraft that has the tech, avionics and weapons of a Tranche 4 Typhoon (especially with ECRS Mk2 radar), a stealthy airframe with RAM and internally carried ordnance would be a very good start and would be a formidable aircraft, but we’re trying to do too much too soon. Such an aircraft would be incredibly capable and if we build it so it’s modular with an open architecture to make future upgrades easy then we’d have a very capable aircraft that can be easily upgraded with new tech in the future such as HK-DAS anti-missile missiles and the SHiELD laser for example.

“Typhoon still VERY relevant aircraft.”

I totally agree and especially the Tranche 3 and Tranche 4 variants. When the UK Typhoons get ECRS Mk2 radar and the new Meteor missiles with AESA radar, they’ll be even better. Plus Typhoon ECR, which is a dedicated EW variant, will make the standard Typhoons even more survivable. But their Achilles’ heel is the fact that they need a runway to operate from. We could make them more survivable on the ground by doing the following:

• Buy SAMP/T to complement Sky Sabre
• Buy the MANTIS NBS C-RAM system to take out missiles and drone swarms
• Buy laser and microwave weapons to take out drones
• Disperse Typhoons across an air base, i.e. don’t have a row of hangars in a straight line (except dummy ones), rather randomly disperse the hangars across the base
• Disperse Typhoons across different bases
• Cover hangars and buildings with multispectral camouflage (especially buildings that contain fire-fighting equipment and runway repair equipment in case a runway is cratered)
• Build dummy hangars and buildings without multispectral camouflage to act as “sacrificial lambs” in the event of an attack on an air base
• Build multiple runways so that if one is cratered others can be used instead
• Ideally make a Typhoon variant that like the Gripen can operate from austere bases and be quickly refuelled and rearmed by a small ground crew

“China & Russia not the only potential Opponents.”

Well obviously. Argentina is another. Plus Iran if a RN ship escorting a commercial ship is attacked in the Persian Gulf. Who else? No other country springs to mind, but as I said my infallible crystal ball is in the repair shop at the moment. As the famous quote goes “Prediction is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future”.
“ALSO, idea USAF have is stealthy F22/F35 ‘kick open the door’ on day 1 (SEAD etc) & then F15/F16 provide mass. USN have same concept.”

Well let’s say the USAF decides to attack China on their own soil for whatever reason (I expect Russia won’t be a threat again for a decade or two):

• Firstly there’s the potential risk of a nuclear response, either tactical or strategic
• Secondly F-22s and F-35As would presumably fly from Kadena, which means they could be taken out on the ground before even taking off and/or the runway could be cratered
• Thirdly F-22s aren’t very long ranged with a combat range of about 800km, which means they can barely reach China from Kadena and then they’d have to return to base, leaving the F-35s more vulnerable than they would be with F-22 escorts
• F-35As have a combat range of about 1,200km, which will get them into China, but not very far (about 500km at the most). They’re incapable of carrying out very deep penetration strikes because they don’t have the range for that. Stealth bombers make more sense as they’re far longer ranged and can carry far more ordnance. Plus from what I’ve read, flying wing bomber designs are harder to detect by low-frequency early warning radar, despite the aircraft being larger than stealth fighters,
• F-35Bs and F-35Cs on carriers staying out of the range of DF-21s and DF-26s would be out of the fight.
• F-35s can’t carry much ordnance internally. Even if they succeed in taking out some ground targets such as anti-ship missile launchers and high-end SAM systems, the moment they turn around to fly back to base they’d be exposing their hot exhausts to the enemy which would make juicy targets for IR-guided SAMs fired from the ground and/or aircraft. I can’t see many F-35As making it back to base. (F-35s are mainly stealthy from the front.)
• For this concept to work, F-35As would need to take out a huge number of SAM systems, SHORAD systems and runways in order to make it safe for F-15s and F-16s to survive in Chinese airspace. Plus they’d need to be accompanied by tankers (especially the short-ranged F-16s), which would be targeted by J-20s. That’s a huge undertaking over a huge country and frankly I think it’s totally unworkable. Plus F-15s, F-16s and tankers based at Kadena could all be taken out on the ground, just as F-35As could.
• As for carrier-based F/A-18s and F-35Cs, they be out of the fight because of DF-21s and DF-26s.

“‘BAE will take their sweet time’ – OK…… can’t tell if you’re trolling me now.”

Trolling? What? No I’m not trolling you.

“They’ll do it a damned sight faster than Lockheed since they own a chunk of MBDA & want to sell us more missiles WON’T THEY!?”

Wanting to sell us missiles is neither here nor there. The problem as I see it is that none of these companies are set up to manufacture missiles quickly and in large numbers. Everything in the military world takes far too long to get designed and manufactured.

And in any case, you were talking about fitting missiles quickly to navalised Typhoons that don’t even exist.

“I’m aware of Kessler Syndrome. In time of war, I’ll take the chance.”

You’ll take the chance of damaging or destroying our own satellites? Well that’s just idiotic. We’d be shooting ourselves in the foot.

If we want to take out enemy satellites without causing space debris that could damage or destroy our own satellites then satellites with microwave weapons might be an option. Or maybe satellites with remote-controlled grabber arms and thrusters that can grab hold of satellites and throw them towards earth so they burn up on re-entry. But don’t create even more space debris. There’s enough already.

And lastly, re your reply about airships being easy to take out, the whole point I was trying to make is that they’d carry long-range stand-off ordnance so that they could attack ships and land-targets from beyond the range of ship-based SAMs, carrier aircraft, land-based SAMs and long-range land-based aircraft.

They could also be fitted with a DIRCM system, BriteCloud, a towed decoy and in the near future MSDM/HK-DAS anti-missile missiles and the SHiELD laser. They could also possibly be fitted with an EW suite like the Arexis suite for example. Hell, any reason why they couldn’t carry Meteor, ASRAAM and IRIS-T? IRIS-T, in addition to being an AAM, is able to shoot down other AAMs as well as SAMs.

Plus if the airships were covered in two feet of RAM I’d have thought that would make them very hard to detect and engage even by large land-based low-frequency early warning radars. The long range and endurance of airships makes this well worth looking into I’d have thought.

Large cargo airships can carry 70 tonnes, so they could carry loads of missiles as well as loitering munitions and possibly even glide bombs and UCAVs. Seems like a no-brainer to me and well worth testing to see how feasible to idea is.

“Adapt very quickly to threats” – the point of “decide what we want to be capable of” is to avoid the wooly catch all statements used in SDSR. i.e. I want to be capable of deploying, anywhere in the world, an armoured Division with associated air assets & sustain them indefinitely. I want to be able to deploy a carrier with zero notice anywhere on the planet with a minimum 32 fighter aircraft & associated support assets (frigates, Destroyer, Sub, helicopters etc.). Both these clear statements deliver clear associated requirements to make them happen – e.g. to sustain 1 Div, you need 3 fully equipped Divs to rotate in & out of theatre, you need X logistics support etc. etc.

“I never suggested neutrality” – didn’t say you did. Was one of the options for “decide capability”. I think you, like me, want to see the UK in a position to influence world events for the better.

“Falklands Part 2” – I’d assess what Argentina have & what they’re likely to have in the future. If up arming the Falklands is necessary, I agree with you (except maybe Skjolds).

“212” – (or similar i.e. Blekinge-class?) Agree.

“Skjolds” – I know they can be redesigned for greater range etc. but if you’re doing that, may as well just go with a Frigate. Future weapons likely need high power & something small like that, not enough space to create the juice. Sure we could forward deploy & have a mothership like we do for minehunters but part of the advantage of larger vessels is persistent presence (on station for months). Plus, bigger ships can host a helicopter significantly increasing range & utility. Plus, how heavy a sea state can the Skjold operate in? We’ll have to agree to disagree on their utility in blue water operations.

‘Russia NATO issue, China Taiwan issue’ – what I was meaning is, I can’t/won’t design global defences to protect the entire Wester Hemisphere. Each nation need to do their own thing & I can only deal with UK based stuff. That said, I would 100% encourage NATO & the EU to take this stuff seriously & create defences accordingly – as you rightly say, ‘prevention is better than cure’.

“Anti-ship mission: Just relatively short-range Harpoons” – yep. Need replaced.

“Astutes” only have 5 currently. Even once all 7 are active, we can only deploy 2. Even supplemented by several 212’s, any sub is more expensive to build, maintain & man compared to a surface vessel.

“Poseidons, Typhoons, F-35Bs, Merlins, Wildcats, drones and airships with anti-ship missiles and that’s a lot of anti-ship capability.” – For UK defence, agreed. What we doing about the rest of the planet? We’d need large surface combatants to host Merlin & Wildcats. We’d need a carrier for F35B. Or we need to beg a plead with foreign nations to be allowed to host aircraft on their land.

How do you win a conflict? Any Conflict? With anyone on the planet? Answer; take and hold ground. To take & hold ground, you have to control the air and surface (including the sea). If a hostile nation is an island OR surrounded by nations that don’t want to get involved hosting UK air power or even allowing UK to access their airspace, let alone soldiers onto their territory, what do you do? Answer: You control the sea, project power from the sea, control airspace from the sea, land a force and then control the land. Can’t control the airspace or land a force without surface vessels. If they could, why hasn’t ANY country on the planet done it?

“Anti-air mission: If you don’t have any high-end ships” – See ‘surface’ answer above.

‘IDAS Range’ – yep. It’s more a detection issue. Reliant on subs sonar, no Sampson on a sub. Can’t shoot want you can’t see.

“manoeuvrable hypersonic” – agree. We need to develop countermeasures.

“shoot down nuclear ICBMs” – Now you’re talking ‘Star Wars’ programme.

“Thaon di Revel” – it’s a modular warship. Base models outfitted like (and called) an OPV. Heavier armed versions likely to be called Frigates – take a look at the “light”, “Light+”, “Heavy” etc versions. Not unlike our T31’s. Build with X but capable of Y.

Upgrade to ‘Aster 1NT’ – Yep. Said we needed upgrade. But Aster 30 as is, is still an excellent missile.

“Which is worse – the Type 45 propulsion issues or the Ajax fiasco?” – Good question! I’d say Ajax at the moment. At least with T45 we had something to show for the cash (even if it had power issues in hot weather). With Ajax, we have 20 vehicles(?) that we can’t drive…

‘PIP ludicrously slow.’ – I agree. Argued this myself & got shouted down.

Cost per flying hour (approx.): https://dutchforce21.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/janes-graph_700.jpg – If you hunt around, you should find comparisons of A, B & C versions too. Point is, F35 is very pricey to fly. If we want (as I think we should) have an FAA capable of equipping both carriers with 32 airframes, that’s 64 total. If we split it 32 F35C and 32 Typhoon. The cost savings from not having 64 F35B pay for the CATOBAR conversion.

“No aircraft-launched drone could carry a meaningful amount of fuel a meaningful distance when up against DF-26.” – China aren’t the only threat/use case for a carrier. They’re one of 195 countries on the planet. I don’t know which will need our attention but CEPP is very relevant for 99%.

“Biden won’t send US forces to Ukraine, but he’s said he’s willing to protect Taiwan if China tries to invade. That’s very inconsistent.” – Not really. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Relations_Act

“No we can’t because there aren’t carrier variants of either aircraft.”
Navalised Typhoon – https://defense-update.com/20110210_naval_typhoon.html
Navalised Gripen – https://www.saab.com/markets/india/stories/2020/gripen-maritime-for-india
All design work is done. Just need a customer.

“What’s the 1% we couldn’t fly it against?” – You misread it. Against 99% Typhoon is good. The 1% would be the latest and greatest – F-22, F35, Su-57 etc.

‘Airships for COD’ – too big to land on Carrier.

‘Tempest’ – The programme is actually a ‘catch-all’ name for the future UK aircraft. UK gov have already said, ‘if next get is US, fine’ so BAE are sketching ideas to answer ‘what does future air conflict look like, can we make something’ & trying to prove they can build it for a decent price. If you look into ‘future factory’ concepts, it actually answers a lot of your complaints – i.e. rapid prototyping, rapid evolution of design, cheaper manufacturing, etc. Tempest actually incorporates a lot of the tech from the “cancelled” projects (including Taranis) and folds it into the Tempest programme. It’s likely to yield a ‘system of systems’ rather than simply a single jet.

“more survivable on the ground by doing” – I’d agree with most of that. ‘Typhoon like Gripen’, meh.

“Let’s say the USAF decides to attack China” – that’s a scenario that’s too complex for this (supposed to be about AShM).

“Airships” – maybe. Speed is an issue. We’re not there yet but certainly worth exploring the idea.

“I want to be capable of deploying, anywhere in the world, an armoured Division with associated air assets & sustain them indefinitely.”

For such a large number of troops we’d presumably need a lot more amphibious ships than we currently do. And more tankers and replenishment ships as well.

“I want to be able to deploy a carrier with zero notice anywhere on the planet with a minimum 32 fighter aircraft & associated support assets (frigates, Destroyer, Sub, helicopters etc.)”

For us to have 32 F-35Bs available for the QE at any one time we’d need far more than that number. About 2 or 3 times as many. On the QE’s last trip I think there were 8 UK F-35Bs on board, accompanied by 10 USMC F-35Bs. Not all the F-35Bs we have are all available for deployment at any one time because of training, maintenance, etc.

“I think you, like me, want to see the UK in a position to influence world events for the better.”

Well that would be nice, but we often do the exact opposite.

““Falklands Part 2” – I’d assess what Argentina have & what they’re likely to have in the future.”

Well at present I’d say they’re not capable of an invasion, but that could obviously change in the future. And Argentina has been saying recently it wants the Falklands back.

“If up arming the Falklands is necessary, I agree with you (except maybe Skjolds).”

Why not Skjolds? They’re pretty cheap by military standards (approx £100 million each), fast, stealthy, low-profile and survivable. Far more useful than a useless River OPV, which is what we currently have in the Falklands. What’s a River going to do if there’s another invasion with its 30mm cannon? Sod all.

““212” – (or similar i.e. Blekinge-class?) Agree.”

Type 212s, especially when they get IDAS in the future, are no brainers imo. I mentioned the Blekinge-class subs in a previous comment, but for me IDAS is incredibly useful capability to have. If the Swedish sub can carry IDAS, then clearly it’s another option to the Type 212.

““Skjolds” – I know they can be redesigned for greater range etc. but if you’re doing that, may as well just go with a Frigate.”

Why? A ship that’s stealthy and fast that can take out (or mission-kill) much larger ships that cost FAR more – that’s a no-brainer.

And even a standard Skjold has plenty of range for littoral waters.

I’d rather have loads of Skjolds (or Skjold-type vessels) any day rather than a low number of frigates, because (a) that gives you defence in depth without breaking the bank and (b) they’re far more survivable against torpedoes and anti-ship missiles than a frigate.

“Future weapons likely need high power & something small like that, not enough space to create the juice.”

Firstly, Skjolds with NSMs could take out ships or mission-kill carriers. For that capability alone I’d say it makes sense to buy them. Fit them with drones in a stealthy hangar to provide over-the-horizon targeting (e.g. a Schiebel Campcopter S-100 or something like it).

Secondly, as I said in my previous comment, it may be possible to build a Skjold variant or a Skjold-type vessel with a Small Modular Reactor (SMR), which I’ve read can fit in a standard shipping container. This would not only give these vessels unlimted range, it would also presumably provide enough power for laser and microwave weapons.

Thirdly, if we start building Skjold-type vessels (a) that would keep people in work for decades and retain vital skills and (b) we could even possibly look into a drone variant that’s smller and even lower profile and even cheaper by getting rid of the 76mm gun and SAMs for example. Make it so cheap that it’s attritable and make it easy to build fast in large numbers. Presumably Type 31s and Type 32s could carry such Skjold-inspired NSM-carrying USVs in their mission bays. Or maybe even a shorter-range anti-ship missile – the range would depend on how close such a USV could get to an enemy ship without being detected and engaged.

In fact, we could also look at fitting SMRs to our Type 45s (and their replacements), Type 26s, Type 31s and Type 32s so they can all be fitted with laser and microwave weapons (possibly even railguns), which would provide other very useful layers of defence against anti-ship missiles.

Also airships with SMRs could accompany a carrier group to shoot down ballistic and hypersonic anti-ship missiles. If they fly in the stratosphere where AIUI there’s little weather or wind, then the lasers wouldn’t be compromised by rain and fog like they would be when fired from sea level in unfavourable weather conditions.

Airships would also be ideal for AEW, ASW and ISTAR because of their long range and endurance.

Fit them with Meteors and they could take out aircraft carrying Kinzhals and DF-21s at ranges F-35Bs would be incapable of reaching without refuelling.

Fit them with Type 17s, JSMs or LRASMs and they could take out ships from beyond the range of their SAMs.

Fit them with Storm Shadow or JASSM-ER (and JASSM-XR in the future) and they could take out fixed land targets from beyond the range of S-400s and other long-range SAMs.

Fit them with AARGM-ER and they could take out mobile SAM systems.

“Sure we could forward deploy & have a mothership like we do for minehunters but part of the advantage of larger vessels is persistent presence (on station for months).”

Well (a) if you’re forward deploying and/or permanently basing vessels abroad, then why is persistence even an issue? and (b) persistence isn’t much use if the vessel is large, unstealthy and noisy (and when the tankers and replenishment ships required to provide such persistence are even more vulnerable than our warships).

And as I just said, Skjolds with SMRs would have unlimited range anyway. And if we don’t want to fit SMRs, it wouldn’t be impossible to build conventionally powered Skjold-type vessels with much greater range. But since such vessels operate best in the littorals, I’m not sure why drastically increased range would even be needed. Skjolds are already capable of approx 1,500km at 40 knots.

“Plus, bigger ships can host a helicopter significantly increasing range & utility.”

A Wildcat with LMMs and Sea Venoms is useful against FACs and FIACs and could possibly mission-kill larger vessels, although if those vessels have SAMs that outrange Sea Venom then the Wildcat might well get shot down; this is why NSM-HL makes sense to provide stand-off range. Or at the very least a longer ranged variant of Sea Venom. Or both.

An ASW Merlin isn’t much use unless operating from a dedicated ASW ship with a towed array sonar (and even then I have serious doubts about the ability of an ASW ship to detect quiet subs using passive sonar).

“Plus, how heavy a sea state can the Skjold operate in?”

The Wikipedia article says the following:
– In sea state 3: 45 knots (83 km/h)[3]
– In sea state 5: >25 knots (46 km/h)[3]
– In calm sea: >60 knots (110 km/h) (classified)

But they’re designed for the littorals anyway, not the open ocean. But that doesn’t mean they couldn’t operate in the open ocean, sea state permitting. Any ship with a mission bay could carry Skjold-inspired USVs with a UAV for ISTAR.

“‘Russia NATO issue, China Taiwan issue’ – what I was meaning is, I can’t/won’t design global defences to protect the entire Western Hemisphere.”

“I” again? Not sure why you keep saying “I”. It sounds really odd.

Surely it makes sense for Europe to develop a sophisticated, multi-layered IADS to protect it from aircraft, drone swarms and various missile types, especially ballistic and hypersonic missiles? This imo is currently one of the biggest gaps in European defence and should be fixed as soon as possible.

“Each nation need to do their own thing”

Except there’s far too much replication in Europe when it comes to military equipment.

Europe could (and should) cooperate on building a fewer number of such assets (by which I mean the number of weapons systems, not the number of individual assets) and so benefit from economies of scale, standardisation and commonality.

““Astutes” only have 5 currently. Even once all 7 are active, we can only deploy 2.”

Yep, based on the rule of thumb of dividing your total number of assets by 3. The Royal Navy currently has no defence in depth or redundancy. I think Astutes are the most survivable assets we have, but it would make sense imo to fit them with NSM-SL and Torbuster as well as IDAS when it comes into service, which would make them more effective and survivable than they already are. And when we have so few of them we should protect them as best as we possibly can.

“Even supplemented by several 212’s, any sub is more expensive to build, maintain & man compared to a surface vessel.”

Type 212s are cheaper than Type 45s and future Type 26s. And far more survivable. As for maintenance, I have no idea what that costs, but Type 212s have a much smaller crew than any surface vessel.

““Poseidons, Typhoons, F-35Bs, Merlins, Wildcats, drones and airships with anti-ship missiles and that’s a lot of anti-ship capability.” – For UK defence, agreed. What we doing about the rest of the planet?”

Well none of these assets are limited to just UK defence.

“We’d need large surface combatants to host Merlin & Wildcats.”

Not necessarily. A Batch 2 River OPV can carry either helicopter, although a hangar would makes sense. Fit the helicopter with NSM-HL and that turns currently useless Rivers into relatively cheap anti-ship assets.

And for smaller vessels (either manned or unmanned) then Schiebel Camcopter S-100 and FireScout drones are possible options. Or drones that are yet to be developed. Small airship drones would be ideal because of their range and endurance.

“We’d need a carrier for F35B.”

Well they can fly from land, but yeah otherwise you’d need a carrier or an amphibious ship like the America class for example.

“How do you win a conflict? Any Conflict? With anyone on the planet? Answer; take and hold ground.”

Not necessarily. Like I said, ask Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

And as I keep saying, prevention is FAR better than cure. Preventing an invasion in the first place is far better than having to kick out an invader after the effect (assuming that’s even possible). This is the unenviable position that Ukraine is currently in.

“You control the sea…”

OK, so how are we going to do that considering that:

   Harpoon is obsolete, short-ranged, unstealthy and soon to be withdrawn from service
   Our F-35Bs don’t currently have an anti-ship missile
   Nor do our Astutes
   Nor do our Merlins or Wildcats
   Nor do our Poseidons
   Nor do our Typhoons

How did we end up in such a ludicrous position? We don’t have many assets, so we need to make the most of the ones we do have.

“project power from the sea”

None of our ships have TLAM. Our Astutes do, but we don’t have many Astutes at all. And in any case TLAM could do with being upgraded to the Tomahak Block Vb standard. I assume that will be done, but it’ll probably take years as usual.

“control airspace from the sea”

We don’t have many Type 45s (plus most are currently undergoing PIP fixes) and the Type 45 doesn’t have Aster 30 Block 1NT, let alone something like SM-3.

AFAIK no current western missile is capable of shooting down manoeuvrable hypersonic missiles. That’s why TWISTER is being developed.

“land a force and then control the land”

We may be able to do this if there’s a Falklands Part 2, but almost certainly not against Russia and especially not China. We don’t have enough ships or troops to do this. And I doubt even the US does. China is huge and so is its armed forces. I can’t see how amphibious ships (and their landing craft) could get close to land without being sunk.

“Can’t control the airspace … without surface vessels.”

Of course you can. You can control the airspace with land-based SAM systems, fighter jets (ideally accompanied by stealthy refuelling aircraft), UCAVs with air-to-air capability and in the future potentially airships with air-to-air capability (either manned or unmanned).

That said, I can’t imagine stealthy Skjolds are easy to detect or to actually hit. Do they even need a Type 45 to protect them? Type 212s with IDAS certainly don’t.

“Can’t … land a force without surface vessels.”

Not in large numbers, no, but SEAL Delivery Vehicles (or equivalents) can do this for SF units.

Parachuting in is another option, again in relatively small numbers.

But against Russia or China I can’t see how a large-scale land invasion could possibly work. The amphibious and landing ships would be sunk. And that’s even if things didn’t escalate to nuclear war, which you think is a certainty against nuclear-armed countries anyway, so I don’t get where you’re coming from at all. You want the capability to invade nuclear-armed countries, but you think that would inevitably lead to nuclear war, so why do we need that capability in the first place? That doesn’t make any sense.

Against nuclear powers defence makes much more sense than offence. And especially systems to shoot down nukes (or otherwise render them inoperable) rather than investing money in military equipment and weapons systems that will never be used against such countries anyway.

“‘IDAS Range’ – yep. It’s more a detection issue. Reliant on subs sonar, no Sampson on a sub. Can’t shoot want you can’t see.”

Well obviously not, but IDAS is connected to the sub by a fibre-optic wire and IDAS is based on the IRIS-T air-to-air missile that is IR guided. AIUI subs carrying IDAS would detect hovering ASW helicopters using their passive sonar to detect the sound of the downwash on the surface of the water caused by the helicopter’s rotors (this wouldn’t be an issue btw if using airships for ASW, plus airships have far greater range and endurance than helicopters. Would be cheaper to operate too). Once IDAS clears the water it can then use its IR sensor to target the ASW helicopter.

Plus even Sampson, good as it is, is limited in range as far as sea-skimming missiles are concerned, despite being fitted pretty high up on Type 45s. That’s why Merlin Crowsnest flying from a carrier is required to see over the horizon.

Subs carrying IDAS could possibly also be fitted with UAVs to provide short-range over-the-horizon capability to take out ships and land targets at a range of up to 40km.

““manoeuvrable hypersonic” – agree. We need to develop countermeasures.”

Definitely. This is capability that TWISTER will supposedly provide if it works as advertised. It will come in both ship-launched and land-launched variants.

Chemical 1+ megawatt lasers (see the YAL-1 project), microwave weapons (CHAMP, HiJENKS) and railguns firing airburst ammo are other options. It’ll probably be a while before electric solid-state lasers are powerful enough to shoot down missiles* and even then they could be affected by rain, fog and smoke for example. That’s why I suggested putting lasers on airships operating in the stratosphere where there’s little weather or wind to interfere with their power or accuracy.

*I’ve read they’d need to be 300+ kilowatts to shoot down missiles and they’re currently not that powerful. (Some articles I’ve read said 500+ kilowatts.)

““shoot down nuclear ICBMs” – Now you’re talking ‘Star Wars’ programme.”

Yep, I don’t understand why this programme was cancelled. If it had been continued, imagine what it might have been capable of by now.

Same goes for YAL-1. AIUI ICBMs are most vulnerable in their boost phase. The YAL-1 project could presumably be resurrected using stealth bombers and/or stealthy airships with 2 feet of RAM. Or maybe even satellites, although obviously that wouldn’t be in the boost phase but high in the atmosphere.

““Thaon di Revel” – it’s a modular warship. Base models outfitted like (and called) an OPV. Heavier armed versions likely to be called Frigates – take a look at the “light”, “Light+”, “Heavy” etc versions.”

Yeah OK, but still why does this vessel have Aster 30 Block 1NT and our Type 45s don’t? Which btw are supposed to be DEDICATED AAW vessels.

“Not unlike our T31’s. Build with X but capable of Y.”

Also known a FFBNW, which has plagued the RN for far too long. FFBNW needs to stop.

Our Type 31s will be very different vessels to the Thaon di Revel. They’re primarily designed to deal with FACs/FIACs, which explains the 57mm and 40mm guns as well as the Wildcats with LMM and Sea Venom. I assume the Type 31s will mainly be used in the Persian Gulf escorting commercial vessels.

“Upgrade to ‘Aster 1NT’ – Yep. Said we needed upgrade. But Aster 30 as is, is still an excellent missile.”

Is it? It’s not been put to the test against anything yet in a war, so we don’t know if it works as advertised or not.

Also fit chemical lasers and microwave weapons.

And anti-torpedo torpedoes.

““Which is worse – the Type 45 propulsion issues or the Ajax fiasco?” – Good question! I’d say Ajax at the moment. At least with T45 we had something to show for the cash (even if it had power issues in hot weather). With Ajax, we have 20 vehicles(?) that we can’t drive…”

It was a rhetorical question, but I’m not sure which is worse. I get your point about actually having T45s (although most are currently in port undergoing PIP fixes), but honestly they’re both really bad.

“‘PIP ludicrously slow.’ – I agree. Argued this myself & got shouted down.”

Why on earth did you get shouted down for stating the blindingly obvious.

I don’t get it.

“Cost per flying hour…”

Yeah I’ve seen that graph before but (a) it doesn’t give the different CPFH figures for the different F-35 variants, (b) different countries calculate CPFH figures differently and (c) I’d like to see the costs purely in terms of fuel costs. I’m not saying the other costs are irrelevant (they’re not), but fuel costs per hour is something I’d be very interested to know.

“If you hunt around, you should find comparisons of A, B & C versions too.”

I’ve done a lot of hunting around over the years, but there’s a lot of confusing and contradictory information out there.

“Point is, F35 is very pricey to fly.”

Yep. And to maintain as well.

“If we want (as I think we should) have an FAA capable of equipping both carriers with 32 airframes, that’s 64 total.”

I thought our F-35Bs were owned by the RAF?

Anyway, whatever, we’d need 2 to 3 times that number to be able to have 32 aircraft on both carriers at the same time at any one time. So we’d need 128 to 192 F-35Bs in order to be able to have 32 F-35Bs on both carriers at the same time.

Fitting cats and traps to the PoW to launch drones like Valkyrie and Taranis might be worth looking at. They’re both long-range stealthy UCAVs, which would mean that carriers could stay out of the range of long-range anti-ship missiles, whether fired from land or aircraft. Russia and China may currently only have this capability, but that could well change in the future.

The cats & traps proposed by the government to launch drones would actually be just about powerful enough to launch Rafale Ms (max take-off weight 24,500kg) in addition to drones:

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/mod-confirm-aircraft-carriers-may-be-fitted-with-catapults/
Max launch weight: 24,949kg
Max trap: 21,318kg

“If we split it 32 F35C and 32 Typhoon.”

A navalised Typhoon doesn’t exist. Designs exist, but AIUI one’s never been built, has it?

I wish they did exist, especially the Gripen M, because it could presumably use rugged airstrips in the first island chain off China for refuelling and rearming. (Unlike you I’m not convinced that a conventional war between nuclear powers would necessarily result in nuclear war because of MAD – no-one wins, both sides lose.)

This is another interesting concept, but it’s just an idea at present: https://www.popsci.com/technology/aircraft-maker-bell-releases-futuristic-aircraft-concepts/

Such aircraft would be very useful for carriers and could also operate from islands in the first island chain.

“No aircraft-launched drone could carry a meaningful amount of fuel a meaningful distance when up against DF-26.” – China aren’t the only threat/use case for a carrier.”

No they’re not, but we currently have no way to take out DF-26 launchers or aircraft carrying DF-21 (and Kinzhal when it comes to Russia). This is a serious problem and we need a fix to make our ships much more survivable. (And also fit them with anti-torpedo torpedoes.)

“They’re one of 195 countries on the planet. I don’t know which will need our attention but CEPP is very relevant for 99%.”

CEPP? Carrier-Enabled Power Projection?

Surely a carrier group is overkill for most of those 195 countries? Focusing on defence to prevent an invasion in the first place is much cheaper than a carrier group made up of large vulnerable vessels.

As I said, boost the Falklands’ defences, buy Type 212s with IDAS and buy Skjolds and NSMs and why do we even need a carrier group to deal with 99% of those countries?

In fact Type 212s and Skjolds (and USV variants) would be very effective against Russia and China too. And more survivable than our exisiting surface ships. If you have no carriers or ASW vessels at sea, there’s no need for Type 45s to protect them.

““Biden won’t send US forces to Ukraine, but he’s said he’s willing to protect Taiwan if China tries to invade. That’s very inconsistent.” – Not really. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Relations_Act”

AIUI the Taiwan Relations Act says that the US will sell (or supply) military equipment and ordnance to Taiwan so that it can defend itself, but not that the US will come to Taiwan’s defence if China attempts to invade it.

That said, Biden said a while back that the US WOULD come to the defence of Taiwan if China attempted an invasion (but which the White House quickly walked back).

My point was that it was inconsistent on the part of Biden to make such a comment in relation to Taiwan, but he didn’t say the same thing about Ukraine. Although if he had, maybe the White House would have walked back such a statement as well.

““No we can’t because there aren’t carrier variants of either aircraft.”
Navalised Typhoon – https://defense-update.com/20110210_naval_typhoon.html
Navalised Gripen – https://www.saab.com/markets/india/stories/2020/gripen-maritime-for-india
All design work is done. Just need a customer.”

Has a navalised variant of either aircraft actually been built to date?

““What’s the 1% we couldn’t fly it against?” – You misread it. Against 99% Typhoon is good. The 1% would be the latest and greatest – F-22, F35, Su-57 etc.”

You said Tempest (not Typhoon) would be good against 99% of threats. Plus I was being flippant anyway. I’d have thought that Tempest would be effective against 100% of threats. Well assuming it ever gets built that is. But we really need to build a less ambitious aircraft imo.

As for the Typhoon, I think it’s a great aircraft. And it’ll be even better when it gets AESA radar, Meteor with AESA radar and HK-DAS anti-missile missiles. Possibly even the SHiELD laser in the near future (or maybe something based on Dragonfire). The dedicated EW variant Typhoon ECR will also make the standard Typhoons even more survivable. That said, we should look at dispersal and hangars with multispectral camouflage to make them more survivable on the ground. Also buy SAMP/T and MANTIS NBS to complement Sky Sabre for air base defence. And TWISTER in the future. Railguns firing airburst ammo to high altitudes are another option I think we should really look into. They could potentially shoot down ballistic missiles, hypersonic missiles and nuclear ICBMs/MIRVs in any weather conditions.

As for F-22s and F-35s, when are Typhoons ever going to fight against them? If that happens, then we have a SERIOUS problem because that means we’re at war with America.

As for the Su-57, Russia doesn’t currently have many and the dual-use sanctions are going to make it impossible I’d have thought for them to build more for quite some time.

That said, I’ve read that the R-77 can shoot down AAMs, so if Meteor currently lacks the ability to evade R-77s fired to shoot them out of the air, then they need to be given this evasive capability.

“‘Airships for COD’ – too big to land on Carrier.”

Well it depends on the size of the airship. They come in all sorts of sizes.

The Airlander 10 for example, made by the UK company HAV, is 92m long and 43.5m wide. The QE carrier is 284m long and 73m wide at deck level. I fail to see why an Airlander 10 couldn’t land on the QE or PoW.

The Airlander 10 has a max take off weight of over 33,000kg, far more than any current carrier-capable drone could carry.

Plus airships could be used for more than just COD:

• Airships would also be ideal for AEW, ISTAR, ASW and ELINT/COMINT missions because of their long range and endurance
• They could carry air-to-air missiles, air-to-surface missiles, glide bombs and loitering munitions
• I even wonder if the Airlander 10 flying at 100 knots could be used to refuel F-35Bs? They wouldn’t even need to be based on the carrier – they could fly from land. An Airlander 10 can fly at up to 100 knots, which is far faster than any surface vessel.

“‘Tempest’ […] so BAE are sketching ideas to answer ‘what does future air conflict look like, can we make something’ & trying to prove they can build it for a decent price.”

A decent price – precisely my point. All the ideas for Tempest like AI, optionally manned and controlling loyal wingman drones all mean that the Tempest will be far more complex and expensive than it needs to be. And it’ll probably be riddled with problems, just like the F-35 because of trying to cram too much new tech into a new aircraft (the Ford carriers suffered from the same syndrome).

As I said, it would make far more sense to learn to walk before we even try to run with more complex stuff. A stealthy aircraft able to carry ordnance internally and with the same missiles that the Typhoon carries (as well as Praetorian DASS, BriteCloud and HK-DAS) would be a formidable aircraft, but as usual we’re overcomplicating things, which is precisely what we did with Ajax when we could (and should) have just bought the CV90 with a 40mm cannon off the shelf.

““more survivable on the ground by doing” – I’d agree with most of that. ‘Typhoon like Gripen’, meh.”

Why “meh”? A Typhoon variant able to operate from austere makeshift bases would be more survivable on the ground than the current Typhoons that require an air base to operate from.

Or else we could just buy Gripen Es.

“We’re not there yet but certainly worth exploring the idea.”

Why aren’t we there yet?

An Airlander 10/Airlander 50 for example has huge range, endurance and payload. Fit either with long-range stand-off anti-ship missiles and land-attack missiles and they would be a formidable asset. Could also be used for AEW, AEW&C, ISTAR, ELINT/COMINT.

Could also be fitted with a 1+ megawatt chemical laser and a microwave weapon such as HiJENKS. And in the near future possibly SMRs to power high-powered solid state lasers.

Both manned and unmanned airships would be possible.

They seem like no-brainers to me.

“Think we broadly agree too. Missiles – NSM-HL & SL.”

These are absolute no-brainers for Merlins, Wilcats and Astutes.

“T17 or LRASM for P8 & Ships.”

Type 17 is my preference for the several reasons given previously. LRASM or JSM are other options. That said, ANY anti-ship missile would be better than the ridiculous situation we’re currently in. Which is NO anti-ship missiles on many of our assets. But if we can select a missile that provides commonality with various assets that would make sense.

“Don’t know enough about T17 to give an educated answer but range & warhead seem great.”

Well I’m no expert either and am justing basing my comments on what I’ve read online. It seems a great missile though and when it’s upgraded to 900km (and later 1,500km) it’ll be even better. Stealthy airships and/or UAVs with EO/IR sensors could be used to provide ISTAR capability (especially useful if satellites have been taken out of operation by whatever method).

“F35 – LRASM (can still fire well outside SAM range of ships so external is fine for me)”

Well, yeah, although when the Kuznetsov comes out of refit that will complicate things. This is why I think our F-35Bs carrying 8 SPEAR-3s internally makes so much sense. Plus SPEAR-3 is cheaper than LRASM (even when firing 8 of them) and with 8 of them you’re far more likely to successfully hit a ship. And especially if SPEAR-EWs are fired alongside SPEAR-3s.

“I understand prevention is your focus. Part of mine too, but I like balance. Part of what I’ve been saying is – having a strong offence IS a deterrent (i.e. prevents other nations doing things).”

Well yes and no. It depends on what assets you have. Our current assets don’t provide much of a deterrence at all as far as China is concerned – they seriously lack offensive (and defensive) capability.

And as I said before, a strong multi-layered IADS makes a lot of sense. Not just for the UK but for the whole of Europe. Or for any country for that matter.

“For me, WW2 Maginot line was good for it’s time”

Except it wasn’t. As I said, it had two massive gaps in it: the Ardennes Forest and up north because it didn’t extend to the sea.

That said, AIUI the line held where it didn’t have gaps in it. But what was the point when the Germans just drove through the middle of the line and around the end of it up north.

“but today, static defences don’t last. […] Belgium had border forts in WW2, it bought them 36 hours or so.”

Forts wouldn’t make any sense in this day and age. They’d be easily taken out. That’s why I specifically didn’t suggest forts when building modern-day defensive lines.

What I DID suggest was the following:

• Wide deep anti-tank ditches: So wide and deep that bridging vehicles and vehicles with fascines would be useless. Bombing ditches would achieve nothing. In fact it would make them deeper.
• Man-made steep hills: So steep that tanks and other armour couldn’t drive up them. Also so deep that it would take earth-moving vehicles weeks to move enough earth to create ravines (correct word?) so that tanks and other vehicles could drive through the hills. This would give the defender plenty of time to take out the earth-moving vehicles using a variety of methods. And also to take out tanks, other armour and logistics vehicles. With such defences in place I’d assume that a potential invader would conclude that invading is not even worth considering in the first place.
• Man-made marshland: Tanks, other armour and logistics vehicles can’t drive through marshland.
• Roads, railways, bridges: These could all be rigged with explosives to crater them and take them out at short notice. Any attempts to repair them could be thwarted by a variety of methods.
• Other options are large diameter cyclinders that rise out of a road to prevent vehicles from passing. As well as hollow tyre-puncturing devices that also rise out of the road to puncture the tyres on wheeled vehicles (being hollow they’d puncture tyres faster than alternatives).

I think all the above would make a land-invasion nigh-on impossible.

Add in a sophisticated multi-layered IADS (as well as land-launched anti-ship missiles, Type 212s and Skjolds for countries with a coastline) and you’re looking at a VERY well-defended country.

““”we have to be willing to.” To what end?” – Let’s say we have laser defences from ICBM & Integrated SAMs up the wazoo & AsHM on mobile launchers & 212 & Skjold with T17, all protecting the UK to the point we’re invulnerable. All NATO inc USA does the same. China attacks someone”

Well firstly this is all totally irrelevant to the topic of attacking China.

And secondly if all countries were as well defended as this, as well as having all the other defences mentioned in the previous paragraph, then I fail to see how a Chinese attack would be successful (or even contemplated in the first place).

“sanctions us”

If China did that they’d be shooting themselves in the foot considering how much they export to the west.

“starts murdering MORE of it’s own people”

China has been killing and imprisoning its own people for ages. We’ve not done anything to stop it. Same applies to many other countries as well.

“starts proxy wars with India & Indonesia”

Both countries could (and should) defend themselves as outlined above.

“What could we do about it?”

At present? Absolutely nothing. We don’t have enough ships, subs or aircraft to present a threat to China. Plus it’s got nukes.

“This is what I was saying about “we’ll never launch a nuke”. I don’t want a war with China. I don’t want a war with anyone. BUT the West have to be a potential threat to other nations so they won’t be a threat to our friends. Our willingness IS the prevention.”

Being willing is one thing. Having the capability is a totally different matter.

““Except no NATO country has said any such thing. The UK has CASD.” – Corbyn said he wouldn’t if elected… It’s not that crazy. But you are right, no one has.”

I can’t work out if Corbyn is ridiculously naive or a fifth columnist. He’s currently not in the Labour party and is an independent. I can’t see him ever ending up in a position of power though.

“ATACMS – I think they’ll get them. I also think they should!”

Same here.

“I think part of the delay was USA worried they’d use HIMARS deep into Russian territory or wrecklessly but they’ve shown to be very capable”

Yep.

“Tomahawk – ATACMS will reach far enough.”

Well, yeah, as far as the Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine are concerned. ATACMS has the range to reach Sevastopol from Mykolaiv and to the reach the Kerch bridge from Zaporizhzhia.

A land-launched variant of Tomahawk Block Va though would enable Ukraine to target Russian ships anywhere in the Black Sea.

““no longer trading with China at all” – tricky as ‘trade’ generally means ‘peace’. I think I’d probably support this though.”

As I said before, western companies love huge profits and consumers love cheap goods, but this has funded China’s huge rise economically including its military. We’ve brought this situation on ourselves.

That said, China’s current position leaves it vulnerable to sanctions, which would seriously affect its economy.

But it would have been far better to not have enabled China to end up so powerful in the first place.

Anyway, whatever, decoupling ourselves from China makes sense imo even if that means products cost more. I’d like to see us return to a situation where the UK manufactures a lot more stuff as opposed to the current situation where much of our money comes from the service industry, the financial sector and non-UK manufacturing firms based in the UK. That said I don’t want to see a return to shoddily produced UK goods. We should reintroduce apprenticeships on a large scale imo.

We also need to focus on independence in terms of food and energy production.

““equip and arm the Afghan government so that it could survive before, during and after the withdrawal” – we did.”

OK let me rephrase that: “Equip and arm the Afghan government TO SUCH AN EXTENT that it could survive before, during and after the withdrawal. AND ADEQUATELY TRAIN THEM SO THAT THEY COULD PREVENT THE TALIBAN REGAINING CONTROL.”

If it was determined that the Afghan government wasn’t up to the job then we shouldn’t have withdrawn until they were. The withdrawal was rushed and was an absolute clusterfuck.

““Vulnerable Ships” – I have mentioned things about this. Lets focus on it: ALL things are vulnerable. Subs to torps, mines & depth charges, aircraft to other aircraft & SAMs, soldiers to bullets, tanks to ATGMs, static defences to TLAM & Paveway bombs… the list goes on. In ALL warfare throughout ALL time, there has been a balance between ‘offence’ and ‘defence’. Just because a missile COULD kill a ship, doesn’t mean it will. Take a look at Iraq firing Exocet at US warships – think for 4 shots they hit nothing…”

Yeah obviously ALL things are vulnerable, but some things are FAR MORE vulnerable than others. Large unstealthy slow and noisy surface ships are FAR MORE vulnerable than subs, Skjolds, stealthy bombers and stealthy UCAVs for example.

Why build extremely vulnerable ships when better assets are available? Makes no sense at all. Plus Type 212s and Skjolds, as long as being more survivable are cheaper, which means we could afford more of them providing defence in depth.

““Vulnerable Ships” – I just want to hammer this home: We need offence to prevent other nations doing things.”

And what offence exactly do our current ships offer? Next to none. Just obsolete Harpoons.

““Stealthy” is not a panacea.”

I never said it was, but it damn well helps to make assets more survivable than non-stealthy alternatives.

“Need persistent presence”

Persistent presence can be provided by SSNs, diesel-electric AIP subs and airships.

““controlling the land surface could be achieved with… ” – nope.”

What specifically are you replying “nope” to. I mentioned several things.

“”Plus, how would you propose controlling the seas off say, Tanzania? Or Ghana? Or Chile?””

That’s not our job. That’s the job of those countries.

And what threats do you have in mind anyway?

“Most of the world? Your only answer would be ‘borrow air bases’ or… subs?””

ONLY answer? Not at all, don’t talk nonsense. I’ve suggested PLENTY of other things.

“Problem with using other peoples air bases is 1) they can kick you out”

The only non-UK air bases I previously mentioned were Kadena and bases in northern Australia. If we’re involved in a war where such air bases would be used then we’d all be fighting on the same side, so I fail to see why we’d be kicked out.

“they don’t usually have the facilities to maintain your aircraft”

Kadena certainly does as it’s a major US air base. As for bases in northern Australia, the aircraft I was referring to was a militarised Airbus A-350 with a range of about 16,000km carrying long-range anti-ship and land-attack weapons. Whether air bases in northern Australia could support such aircraft I don’t know (and if not, there’s nothing stopping us from sending our own ground crews to maintain them).

“Subs cannot control volume or air.”

I never said they could, but they’re great for taking out ships and for land attack.

““but you didn’t address anything I wrote.” – not sure if it was missed or I just moved past it. Not sure what you’re referencing here.”

There have been quite a few occasions now where you’ve ignored my counter-arguments. I would need to go back through all the previous comments to compile a list, but that would be very time-consuming.

“”Radar from land means curvature of earth, means 50 miles (ish).”

Well you’re ignoring over-the-horizon radar, which potentially has a rage of thousands of kilometres.

“Radar from planes, shoot them down.”

Aster 30 Block 0 has a range of 100+ km. Enemy aircraft could fire anti-ship missiles at Type 45s from beyond the range of Aster 30. And in the case of Kinzhals and air-launched DF-21s, from beyond the range of F-35Bs which is a serious problem.

As for stealthy GJ-11 recon UCAVs, they would seriously complicate matters.

“AEW? That’s what Meteor is designed for.”

And what if the aircraft in question is stealthy? Meteor is radar-guided, not IR guided.

Plus the R-77 is supposedly able to shoot down AAMs.

“‘Track ships from moment they leave port’ only if they leave their transponder on.”

Transponder? What? Why on earth would warships have transponders on in wartime? Talk sense.

There are plenty of ways to detect ships at sea:

• Ground-based over-the-horizon radar
• Satellites, both orbiting and geostationary ones (with several detection methods such as radar (including SAR), IR and EO sensors)
• GJ-11 stealthy recon UCAVs
• J-20s
• SOSUS-type networks
• Subs
• UUVs with both active and passive sonar
• HUMINT (spotters on commercial aircraft, commercial vessels and fishing vessels, especially deep-sea trawlers)
• Vessels (manned or unmanned) fitted with towed array sonar, ground-wave OTH capability and ELINT/COMINT capability as well as UAVs

“”I’d also ask, why is the Type-45 all angled & stuff? Is it because they built it to have the RCS of a small fishing boat? Yes. Yes it is.””

Obviously, but that makes no difference at all when it comes to detection methods that don’t rely on radar such as EO sensors, IR sensors, ELINT/COMINT, active/passive sonar, and human spotters.

Plus it seems to me that the Type 45 is designed to be stealthy from the sides against sea-skimming missiles. I’d expect it’s not that stealthy at all from above.

“Noisy? Yes they are.”

That’s what I’ve read several times now. The Type 26 on the other hand has CODLOG propulsion, an acoustically quiet hull and rafted engines with shock absorbers to make it as quiet as possible (slamming into waves would still be an issue though). The Type 45s should have been built in the same way as the Type 26s. Their replacements certainly should be.

“But it’s all relative. Our sonar on the Atutes is considered one of the best. They brag about ‘can hear a ship from 3,000 miles away’”

I’ve read this before and I have no idea what it means. How on earth can an Astute detect A SINGLE ship from 3,000 miles away? Even if passive sonar could detect sounds from such great distances (is that even possible?), I fail to see how an Astute could identify one specific ship at such a range.

“but that’s not targetting.”

No. No it’s not.

“They can’t pinpoint to within 50 miles from that far out.”

Engagement (not detection) ranges depend on several factors. The range could well be far less than that depending on several factors.

“At 50-60km they could target a vessel – let’s pretend the rest of the world has this sonar capability (they don’t!). 50-60km (40 miles) is nothing compared to the size of the oceans. And it’s nothing compared to the range of a Merlin (hosted and launched from a big noisy warship 1000 miles from land & 10,000 miles from the nearest UK airbase).”

Um, not sure what your point is. Those figures are totally irrelevant to the contect of ASW. And a Russian sub with Igla could potentially shoot down an ASW Merlin anyway.

““[is] passive sonar able to detect modern quiet subs?” – Yes.”

What are you basing that “yes” on?

The Gotland exercises (and other earlier exercises with SSKs) have revealed how vulnerable surface vessels are to such subs.

And as I said, the collision of HMS Vanguard and the French Le Triomphant doesn’t exactly fill me with confidence either.

“Not easy & as they get quieter it gets harder.”

Precisely my point.

“Maintenance is a big issue with subs. If not maintained, they get noisy really quickly.”

Well in that case it makes sense to maintain subs well. This is a very odd counter-argument.

“Part of why they cost so much (more than surface ships!) to build & maintain.”

Except Type 212s are cheaper than Type 45s or Type 26s. And WAY cheaper than a carrier.

““[has passive sonar reached its] detection limits as far as ships detecting subs is concerned?” – No.”

No? What are you basing that on? The Gotland (and other) exercises suggest otherwise.

““Secondly can quiet subs detect each other? A while back two SSBNs (HMS Vanguard and the French Le Triomphant) collided, which would suggest the answer is no.” – We don’t & possibly never will know the whole circumstances.”

What’s to know? They collided. Therefore they didn’t detect each other at all or only too late to take evasive action. Either way, it’s VERY concerning.

““China has loads of subs and we don’t have many ASW Type 23s.” – True. But 1 T-23 can kill multiple subs.”

Can it? Not if it can’t detect them it can’t.

“And we have Astute.”

Yes which is our most survivable asset. But we don’t have many of them.

““And yet again you’re ignoring what I previously wrote. Aircraft on carriers staying out of the range of DF-21 and DF-26” – I have answered this multiple times. Kill Chain.”

I gave a list above of several ways to detect and target ships at sea. Why does China have a kill chain issue when it comes to over-the-horizon missiles, but we don’t?

Tomahawk Block Va has a range of approx 1,600km? Does IT have a kill chain issue? And what about all the other western ship-launched anti-ship missiles that can fire beyond the horizon? Do they have kill chain issues too? This seems like a bogus argument to me.

““Why? Why on earth would we need to seize Chinese territory? To what end? I keep asking you this, but you don’t answer me.” – I’m gonna pop this in Bold so you see it. I don’t want to attack China.”

That doesn’t answer my question. You keep saying we need to be willing and able to attack China, but when I ask why you can’t give me a reason.

““we WOULD need to do though is to prevent a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.” – That’s a Taiwan problem.”

Taiwan produces huge numbers of semiconductors and computer chips. If China successfully invades Taiwan that will have a HUGE knock-on effect for many countries, not just Taiwan. It will also seriously affect global trade of many other items as well.

“Happy to sell them what they need.”

Except many countries WON’T sell Taiwan what they need because they fear a Chinese backlash if they did.

“We liberated the Falklands” – True. BUT we did so by an invasion.”

Yeah an invasion of the Falklands, not Argentina. (And is invasion even the right word? We recaptured the invaded Falklands.)

“Point of them was, can’t launch sonobuoys, torp interceptors or depth charges from a 57mm. Can with a 5′. That’s the point of them.”

Torpedo interceptors? What are you referring to?

Plus it doesn’t make any sense at all for an ASW vessel, that’s meant to be as quiet as possible, to be firing a noisy 5″ gun.

Plus ASW Merlins can drop sonobuoys and at far greater ranges than a 5″ gun without making a racket.

A 57mm gun on the other hand can shoot down drones with airburst ammo, take out FACs/FIACs and anti-ship missiles. I’d rather have a 57mm over a 5″ gun any day of the week.

““Main Battle Tanks: Replace…” – Nope. Suppliment with the things you said. KF51 design has 4th crew space to operate Unmanned vehicles for this purpose. Think that’s the way.”

I don’t see the point of tanks at all. Far too vulnerable. We need a totally new way of going about things. Stop doing things the way things have always been done and look at new ways of doing things that produce more survivable assets. And result in far fewer deaths.

““Large, slow, unstealthy and noisy surface combatants and support ships: Simply stop building them.” – Nope.”

Well that’s a great, well thought-out counter-argument.

“For such a large number of troops we’d presumably need a lot more amphibious ships than we currently do. And more tankers and replenishment ships as well.” – Yes. You see how my simple “capability” decision naturally dictates the numbers of actual kit we need. Good eh.
 
“For us to have 32 F-35Bs available for the QE at any one time we’d need far more than that number. About 2 or 3 times as many.” – Nope. They only deploy when a carrier does so when the carrier is in for maintenance, training, refit, so are the jets. I also didn’t say “It must only ever deploy with 32”. Happy for it to go with 18-24. I just want to capability of 32 when needed. 1.2 – 1.5 times as many would do it (based on US and French numbers).
 
“What’s a River going to do if there’s another invasion” – you just said in the previous para, “they’re not capable of an invasion”.
 
“Skjold class” – Been through this. Range is NOT just about power. It’s crew comfort and stores too. Size of platform also equates to size of sensors, number of weapons etc. Fit a Skjold with strike length VLS & see how it handles heavy seas. You’ve complained T45 ‘only has’ 48 Aster 30. Skjold isn’t going to fit more. You talk of a stealthy hangar, we’ll need a landing pad too so we’re going to be adding a minimum 120ft – plus space for air-crew, mechanics, tools, spares, their food and berths. But heli-deck needs to be wider too so add a few extra feet to the beam too. We’ve increased length, beam & therefore weight so we need more power now to keep speed, need a dozen or so feet extra to fit that in too… Before you know it, you’ve designed a T26.
 
“forward deployment + based abroad” + “why is persistence even an issue?” – We don’t have 300 bases around the world. This is why I chose Ghana as an example. Nearest base to Ghana is 1,600 miles away. ‘Persistence’ is needed as a boat bobbing off the coast for 10 minutes & then going home isn’t militarily too useful.
 
“isn’t much use unless operating from a dedicated ASW ship” – disagree. So does the military.
 
“detect quiet subs using passive sonar” – and yet, they do…
 
“designed for the littorals anyway,” – thank you. That was exactly my point. NOT a blue water asset. How are you closing the GIUK gap with them?
 
“I” again?” – stuff like this is annoying. “I” because I am expressing my personal opinion. I (personally) cannot and as a result will not pretend to understand the totality of what is required for the entire Western Hemisphere to defend themselves from any and all threats. “I” (personally) don’t want to pretend I have all the answers.
 
“OK, so how are we going to do that considering that: [etc.]” – isn’t that the point of this conversation? That we need AShM?
 
“None of our ships have TLAM.” – Agree. They should.
 
“Of course you can. You can control the airspace with land-based SAM systems, fighter jets” – from where? If you want to project power, “Land based” requires you to have a friendly nation let you put SAMs there. And base jets there.
 
“Type 212s with IDAS certainly don’t.” – again with IDAS… YOU CANNOT PROVIDE AREA AIR DEFENCE! I want to. 40km range & reliant on a sonar for detection!?!? “oh but it’s connected by a fibre-optic wire!”, sweet! You going to fire one every 5 minutes to “look around”?!?!
 
We keep talking in circles here – This is why I was asking “what do you want to be capable of”. You seem to want to protect the entire West, or every nation, or just UK – I can’t tell. I want to be able to project power as previously described. These two different capability desires will result in wildly different solutions.
 
We agree on many things but we’ll have to agree to disagree on a lot simply because of our starting points. I’m going to keep the rest of responses as short as I can whilst answering as many questions as possible:
 
“why does this vessel {di Revel] have Aster 30” – Not all do. Only the AAW specific version.
“FFBNW needs to stop”- yes.
“Is it? It’s not been put to the test” – Come on now. These things are tested (not in war) thoroughly.
“Why on earth did you get shouted down” – Dunno. Ask “Dern”.
“fuel costs per hour is something I’d be very interested to know” – calculate it. You can find fuel load, range & price of Jet fuel. The fuel cost for F35 is minimal. Much bigger is parts and the coating. Need reapplied constantly & it’s $1’000s per litre. Plus STOVL is LOTS of moving parts & needs many man-hours maintaining it.
“F-35Bs were owned by the RAF?” – No idea of “ownership”. FAA should have its own.
“We’d need 2 to 3 times that number to be able to have 32 aircraft” – as above.
“Typhoon …never been built, has it?” – nope.
“another interesting concept” – Seems familiar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_31 Seem to remember someone had a concept of the same with essentially, 2 harrier fuselages (engines & ducts) on either wing-tip.
“make our ships much more survivable.” – yep.
“CEPP? Carrier-Enabled Power Projection?” – yes.
“why do we even need a carrier group to deal with 99% of those countries?” – don’t know. Crystal ball is in for servicing.
“inconsistent on the part of Biden” – maybe. My point was, USA has long relationship with Taiwan & a law to say they’ll provide them with defence equipment etc. Ukraine doesn’t have this so can see the logic.
“F-22s and F-35s, when are Typhoons ever going to fight against them?” – Was an example. Not a prediction.
“Airlander” – I’ve given my opinion before. I worry they are slow. I’d be asking why the US Army lost interest…
“could be used to refuel F-35Bs?” – too slow for normal flight. They’d have to be in STOVL mode.
“Kuznetsov comes out of refit” – not convinced that will ever happen.
“why I specifically didn’t suggest forts” – was using it as an example… If you build any defensive structure, any hostile then has all the time in the world to develop something to overcome them before war.
“if all countries were as well defended as this” – they aren’t though. Can’t afford to be.
All examples I gave were random things off the top of my head to provide examples of ‘things we can’t predict’.
“Having the capability is a totally different matter.” – exactly my point. Can talk about A/T ditches & IADS all day, but I want us to have that capability.
“Afgan” – $7B in kit, 200+ aircraft, 70k vehicles. 300k ANA troops. $83B total to train and equip them. They didn’t want to fight bud.
“absolute clusterfuck” – agreed.
“What specifically are you replying “nope” to. I mentioned several things.” – all of the things.
“That’s not our job. That’s the job of those countries. And what threats do you have in mind anyway?” – that is my point. What if those countries can’t. I want to be capable if we wanted to. I can’t predict the future either.
“Airbus A-350 with a range of about 16,000km” – what about CAP? What about CAS? How do we provide that to troops anywhere in the world? I know you don’t want to because IADS etc. but, I do.
“potentially has a rage of thousands of kilometres.” – to what resolution? Does it work all day & night or susceptible to EM interference? Does weather affect it? I already know the answers to these questions.
“And what if the aircraft in question is stealthy?” – yeah, but… they’re not. Point was, ship + F35 + Meteor = more range than their airborne radar.
“Transponder? What? Why on earth” – that was my point…..
“plenty of ways to detect ships at sea:” – most of which are not operated by 99% of the planet.
“EO sensors” – limited range, shorter than radar.
“IR sensors” – limited range, shorter than radar.
“ELINT/COMINT” – A weird and mystical world. Something we’re quite good at (and good at hiding) I hear.
“active/passive sonar” – limited range, shorter than radar.
“human spotters.” – limited range, shorter than radar.
“Noisy T45” – replacements could do to be quieter, but you need to understand, even noisy as they are, passive or active sonar is only good for targeting at 20ish miles. Detection at 40ish miles. If T23/26 can create a safe bubble beyond 40 miles, they are fine.
“is that even possible?” – kind of the point. Yeah, it “could” detect a ship BUT only in perfect circumstances & only if there was not other ships around. Sonar cannot give you a picture like a radar does. It’s “hey, there’s a noise over there, not sure how far or what it is but…”
“What are you basing that “yes” on?” – Everything I’ve read. Research “Sonar 2087” for yourself.
“This is a very odd counter-argument.” – goes to additional running costs of subs. They’re expensive. Ships are cheaper.
“WAY cheaper than a carrier.” – yeah. Can’t do 9 month deployments though. Can’t do a million things a Carrier Strike Group can.
“No? What are you basing that on? The Gotland (and other) exercises suggest otherwise.” – things I’ve read. Plus I accept the fact that a lot of what our military can do and has done, we don’t get to hear about.
“What’s to know?”- what orientation? What depth? What location? What were the ambient noise levels? Was there a thermal layer? Induction zone? Depth under keel? Local topography? Did this happen at the start/end of deployment? Was the sonar manned? What were they doing where they were – joint exercise? Were they meant to be operating close together for some reason & a nav error happened? How do you even know they didn’t hear each other but a miscalculation meant they didn’t know how close they were? We don’t know… Again, sonar is not radar.
“Can it? Not if it can’t detect” – yeah but, we can. We knew of the subs shadowing CSG21.
“Kill chain… but we don’t?” – we do. Again, in all war; you develop a weapon, the other guy develops a counter. You develop a defence, the other guy develops a weapon to overcome it.
“but when I ask why you can’t give me a reason.” – Mate, I put it in bold about 5 times. IT IS A DETERRENCE.
“Taiwan produces…” – yep. But I will not plan their defence & not interested in discussing it.
“many countries WON’T sell” – That’s between Taiwan & the other countries.
“is invasion even the right word?” – Yes. Dictionary.
“Torpedo interceptors?” – Kingfisher will allow 5’ gun to launch depth charges that steer onto target. Further iterations will steer onto torpedo.
“firing a noisy 5″ gun” – I respectfully suggest you watch some stuff on YouTube about how sonar works.  “Sub Brief” (ex USN SSN Sonar Operator) could fill you in. It’s not radar. It’s also not great where there are changes in density (often temperature based) as it acts like a mirror. The transition between air & water acts as just such a layer. Subs often don’t know there’s ASW aircraft around unless they fly fairly close overheard – it’s not a sound/distance thing, it’s reducing the angle of incidence for the sound wave meeting the air/water boundary layer so the sound doesn’t just reflect off.
“I don’t see the point of tanks at all.” – ok.
“Well that’s a great, well thought-out counter-argument.” – dude, I have repeatedly explained the “why” of large combatants. I you disagree, cool… but don’t pretend I haven’t. One more time from the top so a child could grasp it;
–         I don’t believe you can win a conflict through defence only.
–         I want the UK to be capable of influencing international events.
–         To influence events, I want us capable of deploying a full Division & CEPP anywhere in the world.
In order to achieve the above, “Slow ships” are necessary in my opinion.

““For such a large number of troops we’d presumably need a lot more amphibious ships than we currently do. And more tankers and replenishment ships as well.” – Yes. You see how my simple “capability” decision naturally dictates the numbers of actual kit we need. Good eh.””

What does “good eh” mean in this context? I don’t know what you mean or what point you’re making.

““For us to have 32 F-35Bs available for the QE at any one time we’d need far more than that number. About 2 or 3 times as many.” – Nope. They only deploy when a carrier does…”

F-35Bs can operate from land as well.

“… so when the carrier is in for maintenance, training, refit, so are the jets.”

Aren’t these two unrelated issues?

In the same way that not all surface ships are avilable for deployment at the same time (divide total number by 3 as a rough rule of thumb), neither are all F-35Bs (or Typhoons or whatever).

“I also didn’t say “It must only ever deploy with 32”. Happy for it to go with 18-24.”

You’re contradicting yourself now.

You wrote ““I want to be able to deploy a carrier with zero notice anywhere on the planet with a MINIMUM 32 fighter aircraft & associated support assets (frigates, Destroyer, Sub, helicopters etc.)”

“1.2 – 1.5 times as many would do it (based on US and French numbers).”

Source for those figures?

The French use the Rafale-M, not F-35s. The F-35B or F-35C is a far more complex aircraft to maintain than the Rafale M.

And which aircraft are you referring to as far as the US is concerned? F/A-18, F-35B or F-35C?

““What’s a River going to do if there’s another invasion [of the Falklands]” – you just said in the previous para, “they’re not capable of an invasion”.”

Are you deliberately misunderstanding me?

You’re conflating several issues.

I previously said that I can’t see amphibious ships and landing craft surviving if trying to invade China. That’s got nothing at all to do with the Falklands or the River OPV.

I also said previously that we didn’t invade Argentina when recapturing the Falklands.

And lastly the point I raised was that Skjolds would be useful if Argentina tried to invade the Falklands again, whereas one River OPV would be as useful as a pedalo with a Nerf gun. But instead of addressing that point, you ignored it and deflected making an utterly nonsensical point.

““Skjold class” – Been through this. Range is NOT just about power. It’s crew comfort and stores too.”

Wow, you ignored everything I wrote that the Skjold has in its favour: fast, stealthy (both in terms of shape and RAM), low-profile, cheap, can be bought in large numbers to provide defence in depth and it carries NSMs to take out or mission-kill ships.

“Size of platform also equates to size of sensors, number of weapons etc. Fit a Skjold with strike length VLS”

When did I ever mention fitting a Skjold with a strike-length VLS? What on earth are you talking about?

“You talk of a stealthy hangar”

Yeah for a Schiebel Campcopter S-100 say, not a manned helicopter. Do you read my comments properly or just skim-read them?

““forward deployment + based abroad” + “why is persistence even an issue?” – We don’t have 300 bases around the world.”

Forward deployment doesn’t require us to have bases abroad and as for permanently basing abroad we own the Falklands and Gibraltar, among other overseas territories around the globe.

“This is why I chose Ghana as an example.”

What are you referring to here? Piracy?

All my comments have been in relation to war (or better still preventing war), not dealing with piracy. That’s a completely different issue and in any case it’s a job that I think should be taken away from the RN anyway. (Or any navy for that matter. Instead set up an international organisation to deal with piracy.)

Plus I’d like to see commercial shipping companies take a far more pro-active approach to making their vessels much harder to board in the first place. And if they ARE boarded, citadels (basically panic rooms for ships) would make a lot of sense, and especially if the ship can be controlled from the citadel. Ship insurance could also be made cheaper for ships that take sensible preventative measures – the more measures, the cheaper the insurance should be.

““[an ASW helicopter] isn’t much use unless operating from a dedicated ASW ship” – disagree. So does the military.”

Surely you need a ship with a towed array sonar to detect a sub in the first place? (Assuming this even works.) Then an ASW helicopter is sent out to detect and attack the sub with dipping active sonar and torpedoes. An ASW helicopter operating in confined waters may be able to detect a sub, but in the open ocean surely this would be like looking for a needle in a haystack?

[And please stop truncting my replies.]

““detect quiet subs using passive sonar” – and yet, they do…”

Do they? Maybe old noisy subs, but you yourself have acknowledged that this gets harder the quieter subs get.

““designed for the littorals anyway,” – thank you.”

What do you mean “thank you” as if you’ve won the argument.

I’ve made several points about the Skjold:
1) If used in the littorals, it could be used to stop a land invasion from sea (whether you’re talking about an island or mainland)
2) There’s no reason why the Skjold’s range couldn’t be increased (in several ways)
3) A Skjold-inspired vessel could possibly be built with a Small Modular Reactor (SMR) for unlimited range
4) A Skjold-inspired USV could be developed and deployed from the mission bays of a Type 31 or Type 32. Sea state permitting, a USV could be deployed in the open ocean in such a way.

But as usual you ignore all counter-arguments that you don’t have answers to.

“That was exactly my point. NOT a blue water asset. How are you closing the GIUK gap with them?”

From the north of Scotland to Iceland is 800-odd kilometres. From Iceland to Greenland at the narrowest point is 300-odd kilometres. And from the north of Scotland directly to Greenland is about 1,700km (shortest distance as far as I can tell using Google Maps).

The Skjold can cover 1,500km at 40 knots. Maybe we could come to an agreement with Iceland to refuel Skjolds? Or as I proposed, develop a stealthy low-profile USV tanker to refuel them. (Such a vessel could also be used for amphibious aircraft as well.)

As for a Type 212, that has PLENTY of range for the GIUK gap. But you chose to focus on the Skjold instead.

And yet again you ignored everywhere else I suggested using Skjolds: around the UK, the English Channel, off Faslane, the Falklands, off Gibraltar and the Persian Gulf (to complement Type 31s).

““I” again?” – stuff like this is annoying. “I” because I am expressing my personal opinion.”

Expressing an opinion is one thing. Writing “I can’t/won’t design global defences to protect the entire Western Hemisphere” is something completely different. It’s not YOU who’ll be designing anything. Such statements sound very odd.

““OK, so how are we going to do that considering that: [etc.]” – isn’t that the point of this conversation? That we need AShM?”

Yes, that’s how the conversation started. But the point I was making (after listing all our assets that don’t have anti-ship missiles) was HOW did we end up in this ludicrous position in the first place. That was the point I was making.

““None of our ships have TLAM.” – Agree. They should.”

Well that would require fitting Mk41 VLS, which I previously suggested in the context of the Type 45, but you dismissed the idea.

““Of course you can. You can control the airspace with land-based SAM systems, fighter jets” – from where?”

Each country should have its own SAM systems and fighters (and all the other defences I outlined). I’m sick of the UK (alongside the US) acting as a world policeman.

““Type 212s with IDAS certainly don’t.” – again with IDAS… YOU CANNOT PROVIDE AREA AIR DEFENCE!”

When did I ever say that IDAS is designed to provide air defence?

It’s designed to take out ASW helicopters and to provide short-range anti-ship and land-attack capability (up to 40km). That is all very useful capability to have that would make any sub carrying IDAS more survivable and more effective than it would be without IDAS.

“40km range & reliant on a sonar for detection!?!? “oh but it’s connected by a fibre-optic wire!”, sweet! You going to fire one every 5 minutes to “look around”?!?!”

What a ludicrous comment. I’m interested in a sensible debate (which we’ve been engaged in so far), not childish sarcasm and idiotic comments.

I wrote that it would make sense for subs to be able to launch a UAV to see over the horizon. That too could be connected to the sub with a fibre-optic wire.

That said, how do Astutes get targeting data to fire TLAMs? Presumably satellites/AEW&C aircraft find the targets and then the coordinates are relayed to the sub underwater using VLF/ELF radio waves.

“We keep talking in circles here – This is why I was asking “what do you want to be capable of”. You seem to want to protect the entire West, or every nation, or just UK – I can’t tell.”

Not EVERY nation, don’t be silly, that’s not our job.

My comments have been plenty clear enough.

I’ve stated several times that:

• I’d like geographical Europe (which includes the UK) to cooperate to develop an effective, multi-layered IADS
• Make aircraft that require a runway more survivable on the ground in the various ways I mentioned
• Buy and/or build fighters and other aircraft that don’t need a runway to operate
• Look into airships to fill a WIDE variety of roles
• It would make sense for countries that border Russia, Belarus and Kaliningrad to build anti-tank ditches, manmade hills and manmade marshland as well as rig roads, railways and bridges to crater/destroy them at short notice. This is because preventing an invasion is far better than trying to boot out an invader after the invasion has happened. If damaged roads or railway lines are attempted to be repaired then there are plenty of ways to stop the repairs. A few suggestions: HIMARS/M270s, UCAVs, UGVs with 30/40mm cannons and vehicles with Brimstones (manned or unmanned) would be good options for example. The borders would need 24/7 surveillance provided by any combination of satellites, airships, HAPs and camouflaged well hidden CCTV. Provide well-hidden and camouflaged recharging points at regular intervals for the UGVs.
• Strengthen the defences on the Falklands. At the very least fit the Typhoons with anti-ship missiles. Ideally also buy Type 212s, Skjolds and land-launched NSMs as well as SAMP/T and MANTIS NBS to complement Sky Sabre.
• In addition to the Falklands, Type 212s and Skjolds would also be ideal for UK defence in general, the GIUK gap, off Faslane, off Gibraltar and the Persian Gulf to protect commercial vessels. (This isn’t an exhaustive list by any means.)
• Sell Taiwan whatever it needs to defend itself (at present many countries won’t sell Taiwan anything for fear of a backlash from China)
• Invest a lot in R&D to develop various systems to shoot down ICBMs/MIRVs (or otherwise render them inoperable)
• Develop ways to take out enemy satellites without causing space debris that could damage our own satellites
• Cancel all third-world debt so those countries have more money to develop

“I want to be able to project power as previously described”

Let me get this clear:

Do you want the ability to INVADE Russia or China?

Do you want the ability to fight Russia or China at sea?

Do you want the ability to fight Russia or China in the air?

As I said before, I don’t want us getting involved in more stupid wars like Iraq 2 and Afghanistan.

I’m not particularly interested in “projecting power” (damn I hate that term). I’d rather focus on strong defence and preventing invasions in the first place.

You keep saying a strong offence provides deterrence, but you also think a conventional war with Russia or China would automatically lead to nuclear war, so your position is inconsisent and illogical.

“We agree on many things…”

Yes we do.

“…but we’ll have to agree to disagree on a lot simply because of our starting points”

Yeah, well, as I just said I think your starting point as far as Russia and China are concerned is inconsistent and illogical. That’s why I don’t want to agree to disagree, since that implies that we both have valid points, which I don’t think is the case in these specific instances.

When people agree to disagree it’s usually over triffling matters that aren’t worth arguing over. To give a silly example, I could say “Classic Cornish ice cream is the best” and you could say “Don’t be silly, chocolate ice cream is WAY better”. Then I’d say “OK, let’s agree to disagree”, since this is an issue that comes down to personal taste (literally). Russia and China though are NOT triffling matters by any means.

““why does this vessel {di Revel] have Aster 30” – Not all do. Only the AAW specific version.”

OK, but the point I was making was that our Type 45s are meant to be DEDICATED AAW ships. Therefore they need the ability to shoot down ballistic anti-ship missiles. They currently lack that capability, whereas an Italian ship that’s far cheaper DOES have this capability.

I wish I’d never brought up that damn ship in the first place now.

Do you think that our Type 45s need any of the following:

• Aster 30 Block 1NT (and ideally the Enhanced Capability variant)
• Aster 30 Block 2 BMD (or failing that SM-3)
• TLAM
• VL-ASROC
• Microwave weapons
• Laser weapons
• A better CIWS like Thales RAPIDFire and/or the Oerlikon Millennium Gun
• Anti-torpedo torpedoes

““Is it? It’s not been put to the test” – Come on now. These things are tested (not in war) thoroughly.”

Again, please stop truncating my replies.

I specifcally said that Aster 30 Block 0 has not been tested in a war and until it is we won’t know it’s up to scratch or not or whether it works as advertised as not.

Our missiles in the Falklands didn’t exactly work perfectly, did they? Things are different now? Are they?

As for tested thoroughly? AFAIK the only sea-skimming missile Aster 30 Block 0 has been tested against is a mid-supersonic Coyote target missile in a French test: https://www.naval-technology.com/news/newsfrench-navy-frigate-successfully-intercepts-supersonic-sea-skimming-missile/

I think I read somewhere that Aster 30 Block 0 had been tested against some Skud deriviative, but that’s hardly a stringent test or representative of Russia and Chinese missiles like DF-21, DF-26 and Kinzhal. The problem is we don’t have missiles like Russia and China do to test Aster 30 Block 0 against to see what it is and isn’t capable of, therefore it’s currently impossible to carry out realistic tests.

““Why on earth did you get shouted down” – Dunno. Ask “Dern”.”

What was the objection? Why precisely did you get shouted down?

““fuel costs per hour is something I’d be very interested to know” – calculate it. You can find fuel load, range & price of Jet fuel. The fuel cost for F35 is minimal.”

Well, kinda, but the amount of fuel used per hour obviously varies depending on a wide variety of factors.

That said, I’ve never understood why a lot of things are included in the CPFH that to my mind should be calculated and recorded separately.

“Much bigger is parts and the coating.”

Precisely my point. What do parts have to do with the cost per FLIGHT hour. Surely that should come under a totally different category called “Maintenance costs”.

“Need reapplied constantly”

I thought the F-35 used a fibre-mat RAM as opposed to a RAM paint? Or maybe it uses both?

“Plus STOVL is LOTS of moving parts & needs many man-hours maintaining it.”

Yeah, obviously, but that’s maintenance on the ground, whereas I’m talking about cost per FLIGHT hour.

““F-35Bs were owned by the RAF?” – No idea of “ownership”. FAA should have its own.”

Now I’m totally confused:

https://www.raf.mod.uk/aircraft/lightning-f35b/

So the RAF owns the F-35B?

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/our-organisation/the-fighting-arms/fleet-air-arm
“… the Fleet Air Arm has recently added a fearsome new weapon to its arsenal: the F35 Joint Strike Fighter”

Who owns the UK F-35Bs?

The RAF or the FAA?

““Typhoon …never been built, has it?” – nope.”

So it doesn’t make much sense talking about fitting navalised Typhoons to our carriers when a navalised variant has never been built. (Plus the carriers would need converting to cats & traps anyway.)

““another interesting concept” – Seems familiar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_31”

Interesting, thanks for the link, wasn’t aware of the Do-31 before.

Differs to the Bell concepts though in that it was purely jet powered, whereas Bell is looking to combine rotors and jets. Still an interesting aircraft though.

This also reaffirms the sense of making aircraft that don’t need a runway to operate from, which was the inspiration behind the Do-31. Even decades ago they realised that runways were vulnerable to attack, and especially in the early hours/days of a war.

““why do we even need a carrier group to deal with 99% of those countries?” – don’t know. Crystal ball is in for servicing.”

Cute. It was a rhetorial question, but the point I was making is that for the vast majority of possible threats out there I don’t think a carrier group is needed. SSNs, Type 212s and Skjolds would be plenty good enough imo. And before you say it, air defence isn’t required to take out ships attempting an invasion of an island or a mainland.

In fact, a carrier group is overkill in most cases and currently no use whatsoever against Russia or China. I addressed the kill chain argument in depth in my previous reply.

And before you say “What’s if there’s a Falklands 2”, then as I’ve already said numerous times before, prevention is better than cure. Uparm/updefend the Falklands.

I also suggested military versions of the A-350 with a range of about 16,000km carrying long-range stand-off anti-ship missiles and land-attack missiles. It’s about 6,500km from Ascension Island to the Falklands and about 7,000km from Ascension to southern Argentina. An A-350 has plenty of range. So do airships – even more so in fact.

““inconsistent on the part of Biden” – maybe.”

There’s no “maybe” about it. He said the US would defend Taiwan, but not Ukraine. (But then the White House walked back his comment.)

“My point was, USA has long relationship with Taiwan & a law to say they’ll provide them with defence equipment etc. Ukraine doesn’t have this so can see the logic.”

Check out the Budapest Memorandum. Both the US and the UK pledged to defend Ukraine’s borders if it gave up its nukes.

““F-22s and F-35s, when are Typhoons ever going to fight against them?” – Was an example. Not a prediction.”

Can’t you just admit it was a bad example?!

““Airlander” – I’ve given my opinion before. I worry they are slow. I’d be asking why the US Army lost interest…”

Because they’re idiots? Bribery? Being dyed in the wool and unable to think outside the box. All three?

I’ve covered airships in detail and your reply consists of a single dismissive sentence saying they’re slow? Come on fella, that’s a bit insulting. Plus large surface ships are WAY slower than airships, but you seem to like them well enough.

Airships would be useful for a wide variety of missions such as AEW, AEW&C, ASW, ELINT/COMINT and ISTAR (yes a lot of these missions overlap) because of their huge range and endurance. At least days, possibly weeks or even months.

I’ve already pointed out several times that they could carry long-range stand-off ordnance, which would mean they’d be immune to counter-attack.

Plus being slow they may well get filtered out by radars. After all, if radars didn’t filter out certain stuff like birds then radar screens would be full of clutter. Maybe flying slow would be a benefit?

I’ve covered other issues as well such as airships carrying drones and/or loitering munitions as well as being covered in 2 feet of RAM (which would be impossible with stealthy jet fighters and stealth bombers).

Also fit them with AAMs (such as Meteor/ASRAAM/IRIS-T), BriteCloud, a DIRCM system (and in the near future HK-DAS and a SHiELD laser) and airships would be very survivable I’d have thought. They could even possibly be designed to dock in the air to refuel, recharge batteries, rearm, replenish and swap crews.

Drone airships are another option.

You haven’t addressed ANY of this stuff.

““could be used to refuel F-35Bs?” – too slow for normal flight. They’d have to be in STOVL mode.”

Yeah, obviously, that’s precisely what I was referring to. Would be worth carrying out tests to see if this is possible I’d have thought. Could an F-35B fly slow enough to be refuelled by an airship? If possible, that would drastically increase the range of an F-35B.

““Kuznetsov comes out of refit” – not convinced that will ever happen.”

I’ve read it’s due to come out of refit next year. If that happens, then we’re going to need longer ranged anti-ship missiles on Poseidons than LRASMs. And/or fit them with AAMs.

““why I specifically didn’t suggest forts” – was using it as an example…”

An example of something I never even suggested. That makes zero sense.

“If you build any defensive structure, any hostile then has all the time in the world to develop something to overcome them before war.”

So explain to me how all the defensive structures I suggested could be overcome.

I suggested anti-tank ditches that are so wide and deep that bridging vehicles and vehicles carrying fascines would be useless.

I suggested manmade hills that are so steep tanks and other armour couldn’t drive up them.

I suggested manmade marshland that no vehicle could drive through.

I suggested rigging roads, railways and bridges with explosives so they could be cratered/destroyed at short notice. I also suggested large-diameter metal cylinders that rise out of the road to block vehicles as well as hollow metal rods that rise out of the road to puncture tyres. (Other options would be dragon’s teeth and Czech hedgehogs, ideally interlocking ones, and roads lined with camouflaged Claymores and even microwave weapons like CHAMP/HiJENKS.)

I suggested monitoring the borders 24/7 using a variety of methods.

I suggested HIMARS/M-270s, UCAVs and UGVs to take out tanks, APCs, IFVs and logistics vehicles.

I suggested multi-layered IADSes.

I suggested aircraft that don’t need a runway to operate.

I suggested land-based mobile anti-ship missile launchers, Type 212s and Skjolds for countries with a coastline.

As I said, all that would make any country VERY hard to invade, so much so that I think that any potential invader would decide it’s not even worth trying. And if they did try, the invasion would almost certainly end in failure.

Imagine if Ukraine had had all of the above defences back in February this year. Or 2014 even. Imagine all the death and destruction that could have been prevented.

““if all countries were as well defended as this” – they aren’t though. Can’t afford to be.”

Damn, you’re hard work.

Eastern European countries could certainly afford this. And in any case, such a project could (and should imo) be funded by the EU since defending eastern Europe is vital for the whole of Europe.

We could afford to uparm/updefend the Falklands/UK/Gibraltar without breaking the bank if using Type 212s and Skjolds.

Taiwan could afford to make its beaches far harder to assault without breaking the bank.

Cancelling third-world debt would give other countries the money to better defend themselves.

““Having the capability is a totally different matter.” – exactly my point.”

What?
You’ve previously spoken about the ability to invade China. Have you any idea how impossible that is? Amphibious ships and especially landing craft would get sunk before they get anywhere near the Chinese coast.
And in any case, you think that would automatically lead to full-scale nuclear war anyway, so what’s the point in trying to create such capability in the first place?

I asked you this before but you ignored the question.

““Afgan” – $7B in kit, 200+ aircraft, 70k vehicles. 300k ANA troops. $83B total to train and equip them. They didn’t want to fight bud.”

Source for all those figures?

And in any case, it totally ignores what I wrote when I said “Let me rephrase that”.

““What specifically are you replying “nope” to. I mentioned several things.” – all of the things.”

Well give me counterarguments to everything I wrote then. Just writing “nope” doesn’t cut it. It’s lazy and insulting.

““Airbus A-350 with a range of about 16,000km” – what about CAP? What about CAS?”

CAP: A-350s could be fitted with AAMs (Meteor, ASRAAM, IRIS-T) as well as AESA radar, PIRATE IRST, an EW suite, Praetorian DASS, BriteCloud, a DIRCM system and in the near future HK-DAS and SHiELD. That would make them pretty damn survivable. Plus there are 4 Typhoons based in the Falklands anyway.

CAS: What about it? A-350s aren’t going to be carrying out CAS, are they? That’s the job of other aircraft.

“How do we provide that to troops anywhere in the world? I know you don’t want to because IADS etc. but, I do.”

I have absolutely no idea what you’re on about. Please clarify.

““[OTH radar] potentially has a rage of thousands of kilometres.” – to what resolution?”

I’ve no idea, I’m not an OTH radar expert.

“Does it work all day & night”

Why wouldn’t it? Normal radar does.

“or susceptible to EM interference?”

Such as what?

“I already know the answers to these questions.”

Well answer them then. Don’t act cute.

““And what if the aircraft in question is stealthy?” – yeah, but… they’re not.”

Su-57s are (somewhat) stealthy.
J-20s are stealthy.
GJ-11 recon drones are stealthy (and armed).
The PAK DA, S-70, H-20 and FC-31/J-31 will be stealthy too when they come into service.

“Point was, ship + F35 + Meteor = more range than their airborne radar.”

Whose airborne radar? Which specific airborne radar are you referring to?

I’ve read that the S-400 can only engage (not just detect) an F-35 at about 30 or so kilometres. I’d assume the same is the case, give or take, for all the stealthy Russian and Chinese aircraft I just mentioned. Probably even less for GJ-11s and flying wing designs.

And I’d expect stealth aircraft could get within similar ranges of a Type 45 without being able to be engaged (the operative word being “engaged”, not “detected”).

““plenty of ways to detect ships at sea:” – most of which are not operated by 99% of the planet.”

They’re operated by Russia and China, which are the two major threats at present.

And this will almost certainly change in the future.

We shouldn’t act complacently.

““EO sensors” – limited range, shorter than radar.”
“IR sensors” – limited range, shorter than radar.”

It doesn’t make any difference if the aircraft in question is stealthy.

Plus unlike radar, EO/IR sensors (and dedicated IRST sensors) are passive sensors that can’t be jammed or spoofed. Plus good systems have pretty damn good range. They’re not limited to WVR by any means.

““ELINT/COMINT” – A weird and mystical world. Something we’re quite good at (and good at hiding) I hear.”

There’s nothing mystical about it, it’s physics.

““active/passive sonar” – limited range, shorter than radar.”

Well, obviously, because radar doesn’t work under water. Ships can still be detected by sonar though, especially large noisy ones like carriers, either by subs or SOSUS-type networks.

““human spotters.” – limited range, shorter than radar.”

You’re like a stuck record. You’re saying that like human spotters don’t work.

I notice though that you didn’t comment on orbiting and geostationary satellites that can use a variety of detection methods. Missiles using INS and satellite are commonly used.

““Noisy T45” – replacements could do to be quieter, but you need to understand, even noisy as they are, passive or active sonar is only good for targeting at 20ish miles.”

Source for that figure?

And even if that figure is correct(ish), Type 45s are going to be easier to detect and take out by subs firing torpedoes than Type 23s/Type 26s which are designed to be much quieter. Lose our 1 or 2 Type 45s and the carrier group has lost all its wide area protection.

I’m no fan of large surface combatants, which should be blatantly obvious by now, but if we ARE going to build such ships we should (a) build them with adequate offensive and defensive capability so they’re effective and survivable and (b) build enough of them so that we have defence in depth and redundancy. We currently have next to none of this capability.

Plus you didn’t address my comment about anti-torpedo torpedoes. I’ve brought them up a few times now and you keep ignoring them.

“Detection at 40ish miles. If T23/26 can create a safe bubble beyond 40 miles, they are fine.”

How would they create a “safe bubble” considering that (a) they have no on-board torpedoes, depth charges, VL-ASROC or anti-torpedo torpedoes, (b) if the weather’s bad, ASW Merlins won’t be able to take off and (c) if crew members are sick and/or ASW Merlins are undergoing maintenance/repairs they won’t be available in those scenarios anyway.

““is that even possible?” – kind of the point. Yeah, it “could” detect a ship BUT only in perfect circumstances & only if there was not other ships around. Sonar cannot give you a picture like a radar does. It’s “hey, there’s a noise over there, not sure how far or what it is but…””

I was asking if detecting one individual ship across the Atlantic is possible. I’ve read that several times, but I fail to see how that is even possible.

As for detecting ships at much closer ranges, that’s a completely different matter.

““What are you basing that “yes” on?” – Everything I’ve read. Research “Sonar 2087” for yourself.”

Again, please stop truncating my replies.

I asked if ASW ships/helicopters are able to detect the quietest of subs (whether SSNs or diesel-electric AIP subs). Reading up on the 2087 won’t answer that question and the people in the know aren’t going to say it doesn’t work as advertised, are they?

““This is a very odd counter-argument.” – goes to additional running costs of subs. They’re expensive. Ships are cheaper.”

You ignored my comment that said that Type 212s are cheaper to buy than T45s and T26s. They also have a much smaller crew. I also expect they’d be FAR more survivable in a war and FAR more effective, so in an evaluation of cost vs survivability/effectiveness, I’d go with the latter every time.

““WAY cheaper than a carrier.” – yeah. Can’t do 9 month deployments though. Can’t do a million things a Carrier Strike Group can.”

I’d be surprised if a carrier group (Astutes excluded) could survive 9 days against China, let alone 9 months.

A MILLION things? Like what exactly?

We currently have about 20 odd F-35Bs which currently have no anti-ship missiles, no anti-radiation missiles and no land-attack missiles. We can’t refuel them in the air. They’re riddled with 800 unresolved problems. They have atrocious sortie rates, mission capable rates and fully mission capable rates. ALIS has been a disaster. ODIN will probably be as well (cloud based, what could possibly go wrong?). We have no access to the F-35 source code and there’s no plug-and-play capability for existing or new ordnance.

We have T45s with no Aster 30 Block 1NT or TLAMs. TWISTER won’t be ready for years, possibly as late as 2030 or even later. Same goes for FC/ASW.

None of our ships have anti-torpedo torpedoes or a modern CIWS.

We have Astutes with no anti-ship missiles or Torbuster.

And we seriously lack ship and sub numbers. We have no redundancy or defence in depth.

But other than all that, we’re fine.

““No? What are you basing that on? The Gotland (and other) exercises suggest otherwise.” – things I’ve read.”

So things that contradict the numerous reports relating to the Gotland exercises presumably. Give me links so I can read these articles.

“Plus I accept the fact that a lot of what our military can do and has done, we don’t get to hear about.”

True, some stuff remains classified for years after the event (e.g. the cryptanalysis work done at Bletchley Park for example). And other stuff that still remains to be declassified. That said, I highly doubt we have warehouses full of wonder weapons that would dramatically change the outcome of any war.

What wins wars is a LOT of assets that can be built relatively cheaply and quickly, like Liberty Ships and Shermans in WWII. Not that I’d suggest going down that route again, because they weren’t very survivable, but instead we should be looking at survivable assets that can be built quickly and in very large numbers. That means UAVs, UCAVs, UUVs, USVs, UGVs – ideally stealthy and/or covered in multispectral camouflage.

““What’s to know?”- what orientation? What depth? What location? What were the ambient noise levels? Was there a thermal layer? Induction zone? Depth under keel? Local topography?””

It doesn’t matter. The subs didn’t detect each other, which means that passive sonar has SERIOUS limitations.

“How do you even know they didn’t hear each other but a miscalculation meant they didn’t know how close they were?”

Well that’s shit too. And in any case, I covered this when I wrote that they either didn’t detect each other at all or only until it was too late to take evasive manoeuvres. The fact you don’t think this is a serious issue and that you’re trying to dismiss this as anything as serious boggles my mind.

It seems to me that you’re either a Royal Navy fanboy or you have one or more vested interests in the RN .

““Can it? Not if it can’t detect” – yeah but, we can. We knew of the subs shadowing CSG21.”

The subs we could detect. What if there were subs there we COULDN’T detect? We’d have had no way of knowing that.

““Kill chain… but we don’t?” – we do.”

We do what? Stop truncating my replies. I have no idea what you’re replying to. And neither does anyone else reading this.

And I gave a list of ways that ships can be detected AND TARGETED at sea. You gave counterarguments to some of them (not all), but they were all flawed arguments as I covered above.

““but when I ask why you can’t give me a reason.” – Mate, I put it in bold about 5 times. IT IS A DETERRENCE.”

Firstly I’m not your mate and secondly writing stuff in caps, bold and underlined doesn’t change the fact that a Royal Navy carrier group doesn’t remotely present a threat to China. Therefore zero deterrence.

We seriously lack both offensive and defensive capability. I’ve pointed this out several times and you keep ignoring that fact. We currently present absolutely NO threat to China as far as conventional war is concerned. We don’t have enough ships or subs and our ships lack both offensive and defensive capability.

The only threat we present is from Trident and I never want to see that used.

““Taiwan produces…” – yep. But I will not plan their defence & not interested in discussing it.”

Firstly YOU won’t be planning anything.

Secondly you’re not interested in the global shortage of microchips becoming EVEN worse than it currently is?

Thirdly an invasion of Taiwan won’t only affect Taiwan.

““many countries WON’T sell” – That’s between Taiwan & the other countries.”

No it’s not. It’s got nothing to do with Taiwan at all. It’s got to do with the fact that most western countries won’t grow any balls and sell Taiwan the equipment and ordnance it needs to defend itself.

Countries need to recognise Taiwan as an independent country.

““Torpedo interceptors?” – Kingfisher will allow 5’ gun to launch depth charges that steer onto target.”

Well that’s a sub interceptor, not a torpedo interceptor.

Also 5″, not 5′ – reminds me of the Spinal Tap mix-up (but in reverse) over the size of the Stonehenge copy.

“Further iterations will steer onto torpedo.”

Source? Plus “further” means they don’t even currently exist, which is the impression you previously gave.

““firing a noisy 5″ gun” – I respectfully suggest you watch some stuff on YouTube about how sonar works. “Sub Brief” (ex USN SSN Sonar Operator) could fill you in. It’s not radar.”

Sonar’s not radar? Well obviously not. And radar doesn’t detect sound anyway, what on earth are you talking about?

Plus a 5″ gun fitted to a dedicated ASW vessel makes no sense at all.

““I don’t see the point of tanks at all.” – ok.”

OK? I’ve explained why I don’t see the point of tanks, but all you can write in reply is “OK”?

Explain to me how tanks are survivable in this day and age.

Tanks can be taken out by:

• ATGMs such as Javelins, NLAWs and Spike missiles fired from land at various ranges (by infantry and/or vehicles)
• Tank destroyers firing Brimstones (either manned vehicles or UGVs)
• Manned aircraft
• UCAVs
• Artillery (either gun artillery or rocket artillery given coordinates by UAVs)
• Anti-tank mines
• IEDs

It’s pointless to continue building expensive tanks when they’re easy to take out, take ages to build and can’t be quickly replaced if destroyed.

We need a new approach.

““Well that’s a great, well thought-out counter-argument.” – dude, I have repeatedly explained the “why” of large combatants. If you disagree, cool… but don’t pretend I haven’t.”

I’m not pretending anything. I’ve repeatedly said why I don’t agree with your counterarguments, but you repeatedly ignore my counterarguments to YOUR counterarguments.

I’ve repeatedly brought up alternatives to large surface combatants, but you either ignore them or dismiss them.

At this point you either have to be stupid, a Royal Navy fanboy, a government beancounter or an industry shill with one or more vested interests. Nothing else explains your obduracy. Well no actually one other thing does – being a fifth columnist.

“One more time from the top so a child could grasp it; I don’t believe you can win a conflict through defence only.”

Except I never claimed that, did I?

What I DID claim was that preventing an invasion is FAR better than having to drive out an invader after the effect.

I also claimed that when it comes to warfare that the UK is totally incapable of taking on China, so our current offensive capability (pathetic as it is) would be completely useless in a war against China.

“I want the UK to be capable of influencing international events.”

Why? We’ve made a mess of influencing international events in Iraq 2 and Afghanistan (as well as Northern Ireland, although that’s not international).

Why on earth would you want us to continue to be capable of inflicting more misery on other parts of the world?

Let’s focus on effective defence instead for the UK and the rest of geographical Europe. And enable other countries to defend themselves, especially Taiwan at present.

Also cancel all third-world debt so that those countries have more money to defend themselves (and to improve themselves in other ways as well).

“To influence events, I want us capable of deploying a full Division & CEPP anywhere in the world. In order to achieve the above, “Slow ships” are necessary in my opinion.”

As I’ve asked several times before, what can slow surface combatants achieve that can’t be achieved with:

• SSNs
• Diesel-electric AIP subs
• Fast stealthy anti-ship vessels (either manned or unmanned)
• Stealthy bombers
• Stealthy UCAVs
• An IADS
• Fighter jets, especially ones that don’t need a runway to operate
• Stealthy air superiority fighters
• Very long-range non-stealthy bombers firing long-range stand-off ordnance from safe ranges
• Airships for a wide range of missions as covered previosuly several times

And don’t say wide area air defence, because if we don’t have any carriers or Type 23s/Type 26s at sea, then we don’t need Type 45s to protect them, do we?

And don’t say anti-sub capability, because enemy SSNs and SSKs would present no threat to non-existent surface ships. (And fast anti-ship vessels such as Skjolds could outrun torpedoes anyway.)

All the above assets could take out:

• Ships
• A wide range of land targets
• Enemy aircraft

And all this could all be done at ranges that F-35Bs are currently incapable of.

What do large surface combatants add to the mix that can’t be achieved by the assets listed above? And which are all FAR more survivable and FAR more effective?

Large surface combatants are obsolete and we should stop building them. With the money we save we could build far more effective and survivable assets.

““What does “good eh” mean in this context?” – It means ‘deciding what capability you want can then be used to define what assets we require & that that is a good thing, don’t you agree?’
“Aren’t these two unrelated issues?” – No. When carriers are in for long term maintenance, the jets go in for long term maintenance. Look into how the USA field their air-wings.
“You’re contradicting yourself now.” – no I’m not. You just don’t understand. ‘I want to be capable of’, and ‘happy to have as routine’ are two different things.
“Source for those figures?” – Wikipedia? Look it up for yourself.
“And which aircraft are you referring to as far as the US is concerned? F/A-18, F-35B or F-35C?” – Wikipedia? Check USN Air wing for yourself. Same process is applied for F18 & F35. Availability rates aboard ship will be less for F35 than F18 but this is how the USN cycle air wings – they deploy when carriers do & don’t return until carriers do.
“Are you deliberately misunderstanding me?” – No. You’ve repeated said (and included in here further down) that you would “Strengthen the defences on the Falklands. At the very least fit the Typhoons with anti-ship missiles. Ideally also buy Type 212s, Skjolds and land-launched NSMs as well as SAMP/T and MANTIS NBS to complement Sky Sabre.” But you also stated “they’re not capable of an invasion”.
“What are you referring to here? Piracy?” – No. I was using it as a geographical example of a place we may want to influence which is impossible without a blue water navy.
“Surely you need a ship with a towed array sonar to detect a sub in the first place?” – Merlins deploy on Type 45 regularly.
“Do they? Maybe old noisy subs, but you yourself have acknowledged that this gets harder the quieter subs get.” – Yes.
“What do you mean “thank you” as if you’ve won the argument.” – They are designed for littorals. Not Blue water operations. You agreed.
“But as usual you ignore all counter-arguments that you don’t have answers to.” – If I am ignoring counter-arguments I a) don’t want to get into it, b) have already spoken but you have a different perspective or c) they make no sense.
“It’s not YOU who’ll be designing anything. Such statements sound very odd.” – No it isn’t. One of many reasons, I don’t want to get into a discussion about it.
“Each country should have its own SAM systems and fighters (and all the other defences I outlined). I’m sick of the UK (alongside the US) acting as a world policeman.” – OK. But we do want to influence world events. That’s why we’re sending weapons to Ukraine. And each country can’t afford SAM & Fighters.
“When did I ever say that IDAS is designed to provide air defence?” – You’ve brought it up repeatedly when I have enquired about area-air defences. Your answer is now ‘land-based SAMS & Fighters’ for nations that can’t afford them or lack the engineering capability to maintain advanced fighter aircraft.
“I wrote that it would make sense for subs to be able to launch a UAV to see over the horizon. That too could be connected to the sub with a fibre-optic wire.” – ok. That would give away the subs location.
“That said, how do Astutes get targeting data to fire TLAMs?” – Tend to be fired against fixed targets. GPS coords are sent.
“Not EVERY nation, don’t be silly, that’s not our job.” – But you talk of Estonia, and Taiwan and all of Europe. These are the things I don;t want to discuss because it is too broad of a topic.
“Cancel all third-world debt so those countries have more money to develop” – No.
“Do you want the ability to INVADE Russia or China?” – No. Not alone.
“Do you want the ability to fight Russia or China at sea?” – Yes. But to be clear, “fight” means ‘engage with’ not that I expect the RAF/RN to be able to wipe the seas clear alone.
“Do you want the ability to fight Russia or China in the air?” – Yes. But to be clear, “fight” means ‘engage with’ not that I expect the RAF/FAA to be able to wipe the skies clear alone.
“You keep saying a strong offence provides deterrence, but you also think a conventional war with Russia or China would automatically lead to nuclear war, so your position is inconsisent and illogical.” – Again, those are 2 of 195 nations on the planet. As a whole, I believe the West should have this capability with Russia & China (and we should be equipped to play our part). It’s also not automatic, it’s highly likely.
“Therefore they need the ability to shoot down ballistic anti-ship missiles. They currently lack that capability, whereas an Italian ship that’s far cheaper DOES have this capability.” – Yes, T 45 should, no the Italian Ship can’t. Not been commissioned or armed yet. It’s newer so it will get the latest tech, smaller (only carry 16 missiles) so cheaper.
“Do you think that our Type 45s need any of the following:”
   Aster 30 Block 1NT (and ideally the Enhanced Capability variant) – Yes.
   Aster 30 Block 2 BMD  – When it’s ready.
   TLAM – Yes.
   VL-ASROC – Not essential. Nice to have
   Microwave weapons – When they are ready.
   Laser weapons – when they are ready.
   A better CIWS like Thales RAPIDFire and/or the Oerlikon Millennium Gun – Yes. I’d switch out both 20mm and 30mm for a 40mm as long as the 40mm has independent power & sensors so it can remain active if the ships radar is down.
   Anti-torpedo torpedoes – when they are ready.
“Our missiles in the Falklands didn’t exactly work perfectly, did they? Things are different now? Are they?” – No they did not. I would humbly submit that if missiles & their tests can’t be relied upon, maybe we shouldn’t waste money on multi-layered IADS, OR we accept that the testing is good and they can do what they say they can.
“What was the objection? Why precisely did you get shouted down?” – Was told such engineering challenges are complex & the engineers would have had to overcome unknown issues. I countered with ‘BAE designed the thing, it was tied alongside for 4 years (dry dock for 2) before being taken for the work so could’ve inspected the actual boat for themselves, plus the systems could’ve been built & tested before cutting open the hull’ but was told I’m ‘not a naval engineer, I can’t possibly understand these things so shut up’.
“I thought the F-35 used a fibre-mat RAM as opposed to a RAM paint? Or maybe it uses both?” – No idea bud. I’m just going off what a BAE Engineer told me having spoken to some of his colleagues working with the RAF.
“Who owns the UK F-35Bs?” – No idea. IMO, FAA should have theirs for carriers, RAF should have some too.
“So it doesn’t make much sense talking about fitting navalised Typhoons to our carriers when a navalised variant has never been built. (Plus the carriers would need converting to cats & traps anyway.)” – Come on, if we’re doing that, Airships with AEW don’t exist & Skjold with reactors don’t either. I’ve been through the logic & cost savings. It’s not happening anyway, just what I’d like.
“Can’t you just admit it was a bad example?!” – No. I’ll admit I wasn’t very clear so to clarify: Typhoon is great against anything that is not a 5th Gen aircraft.
“Because they’re idiots? Bribery? Being dyed in the wool and unable to think outside the box. All three?” – OK then.
“Maybe flying slow would be a benefit?” – Not sure how modern military radar functions to be honest. I’d be pretty amazed if they can’t be detected though.
“You haven’t addressed ANY of this stuff.” – I’ve been avoiding it as I don’t know enough to have an educated conversation. Sure, if developed they could be a thing. My immediate reaction on what I know is: easy to intercept, can’t run away like a P8 or Wedgetail, can haul 70 tonnes but 2 x C17 can do the same & if we’re going more than 50-100 miles, I can use one C17 to make 2 trips in the same time, AAM’s benefit hugely from the velocity of their launch platform for range, AAM’s also benefit hugely from high altitude (thinner air) like 40,000+ feet. Radar Absorbing Materials – I’m not sure that’s actually how they work and as you know, they can also only do so much to reduce RCS (hence funny shapes of stealth aircraft too). Lasers, sure. As part of a static IADS, I can see them being used to haul heavy lasers to altitude & stay there. Worth looking into.
“I suggested anti-tank ditches that are so wide and deep that bridging vehicles and vehicles carrying fascines would be useless.” – So, a wall then… I’ll bring ramps and/or earth moving equipment.
“I suggested manmade hills that are so steep tanks and other armour couldn’t drive up them.” – Ramps, earth moving equipment.
“I suggested manmade marshland that no vehicle could drive through.” – amphibious vehicles. Or I’ll drive around. Or fly over. Or hovercrafts & lift my tanks. Or floating bridge.
“I suggested rigging roads, railways and bridges with explosives so they could be cratered/destroyed at short notice.” – Drive off-road, rebuild road. Bridge laying equipment/amphibious vehicles.
“I also suggested large-diameter metal cylinders that rise out of the road to block vehicles as well as hollow metal rods that rise out of the road to puncture tyres. (Other options would be dragon’s teeth and Czech hedgehogs, ideally interlocking ones, and roads lined with camouflaged Claymores and even microwave weapons like CHAMP/HiJENKS.)” – Mine clearing equipment, run flat tyres/tracks/earth moving equipment to tear it up and build new roads.
“I suggested monitoring the borders 24/7 using a variety of methods.” – OK. You’ll see the enemy coming.
“I suggested HIMARS/M-270s, UCAVs and UGVs to take out tanks, APCs, IFVs and logistics vehicles.” – I’ll develop mobile SHORAD to shoot them down.
“I suggested multi-layered IADSes.” – I’ll develop stealthy aircraft, stealthy cruise missiles, saboteurs etc to take out your eyes & ears.
“I suggested aircraft that don’t need a runway to operate.” – I’ll shoot them out of the sky.
“I suggested land-based mobile anti-ship missile launchers, Type 212s and Skjolds for countries with a coastline.” – I’ll develop stealthy aircraft, stealthy cruise missiles, saboteurs etc to take out your eyes & ears. I’ll make 100 T-26 with USV with active towed array to find your subs, 1,000 p8’s to hunt them, or use hovercraft to speed past them anyway.
I’m done playing fantasy armies now. In all your examples, they can be overcome. They just delay the advance. This isn;t a tower defence game.
“And in any case, you think that would automatically lead to full-scale nuclear war anyway, so what’s the point in trying to create such capability in the first place?” – Only automatic if one side is in a “backs against the wall, nowhere left to retreat” type situation. But best avoided. Having the capability works for all other nations, and forces China and Russia to spend several times more Billions defending against it. Its how the Cold War was won – keep having/developing new capabilities & they have to spend to counter them. If they spend more on the counter than you do on the threat, winning.
“Source for all those figures?” – There are lots.  https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/13/afghan-army-pentagon-504469
https://taskandpurpose.com/news/taliban-weapons-afghanistan/
https://www.voanews.com/a/pentagon-downplays-7-billion-in-us-military-equip“ment-left-in-afghanistan/6549546.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-58393763
“CAP: A-350s” – No. If this were viable, no one would build fighters.
“CAS: What about it? A-350s aren’t going to be carrying out CAS, are they?” – My point. I don’t want purely defensive. The only way to provide CAS 1,000 miles from the nearest friendly base is… a carrier.
“I have absolutely no idea what you’re on about. Please clarify.” – You don’t want to be world police or involve ourselves in other conflicts. I do. I want different things than you which therefore require different solutions.
“Why wouldn’t it? Normal radar does.” – No it doesn’t. Normal radar relies on line of sight. OTH bounces signals off the Ionosphere & is thus interfered with by solar radiation, solar weather (sun spots), global weather, turbulence, etc. etc. etc.
“Well answer them then. Don’t act cute.” – I was prompting you to research it… rather than assert it as a given fact without knowing what it does.
“““And what if the aircraft in question is stealthy?” – yeah, but… they’re not.”
 
Su-57s are (somewhat) stealthy.
J-20s are stealthy.
GJ-11 recon drones are stealthy (and armed).
The PAK DA, S-70, H-20 and FC-31/J-31 will be stealthy too when they come into service.” – wasn’t this about AEW – they aren’t stealthy. They won’t be in the near future. The reason I know this is that in order to detect out to 400+km, they have to have very powerful emitters which are easily detected 5-600 km away. It would be akin to dressing in black so you won’t be seen at night, then walking around with a head-torch on. So… they’re not stealthy.
“Whose airborne radar? Which specific airborne radar are you referring to?” – Almost any. US AEW is regarded as the best so lests talk Wedgetail: range = roughly 400km. Fighter plus 120+km meteor far outranges that.
“I notice though that you didn’t comment on orbiting and geostationary satellites” – already answered this. You didn’t like it. Kessler Syndrome.
“Source for that figure?” – Look it up. Already advised to watch Sub Brief on YouTube (ex US Navy Sonar Operator on LA Class SSNs), he can’t give too much detail/go into specifics but gives enough of an idea.
“but if we ARE going to build such ships we should” – Agreed with both points.
“Plus you didn’t address my comment about anti-torpedo torpedoes. I’ve brought them up a few times now and you keep ignoring them.” – We should get them when they’re ready.
“Reading up on the 2087 won’t answer that question and the people in the know aren’t going to say it doesn’t work as advertised, are they?” – No they won’t go into specifics. They’ll give you the same idea I have… Point was, I don’t have all the answers. Follow my logic though: if it didn’t work, we wouldn’t spend millions on it. Imagine passive sonar was useless now, but we still spend billions on T-26 and SSNs & nobody has come forward to say “hey, this stuff doesn’t work”. Pretty sure the tabloids would pay £1000’s for that story. Theres an old phrase, three can keep a secret only if two are dead. But in all the 20+ countries operating submarines and ASW platforms not one of thousands of people involved said it doesn’t work… doesn’t make sense to me.
“You ignored my comment that said that Type 212s are cheaper to buy than T45s and T26s. They also have a much smaller crew. I also expect they’d be FAR more survivable in a war and FAR more effective” – depends on what effect you want. I want area air defence. They can’t do that. I want to launch a helicopter. I want to run at 28 knots for 4 days straight. I want to land 2,500 soldiers and provide C&C plus attack helicopters plus fast jest for CAP and CAS. Again, we want different things & therefore different solutions.
“A MILLION things? Like what exactly?” – really…. Bored now.
“And we seriously lack ship and sub numbers. We have no redundancy or defence in depth.” – agreed.
“But other than all that, we’re fine.”- definitely never said that.
“So things that contradict the numerous reports relating to the Gotland exercises presumably. Give me links so I can read these articles.” – Not contradict. There have been how many exercises with subs, and one (the only one we ever hear about) results in a sunk carrier. Go look up exercises & their results for yourself.
“It doesn’t matter. The subs didn’t detect each other,” – wow. It very much does matter. Because passive sonar didn’t work once, we write the whole idea of ASW off.
“The fact you don’t think this is a serious issue and that you’re trying to dismiss this as anything as serious boggles my mind.” – Not dismissing it at all. I’m saying we don’t know what actually happened. On December 16, 1960, two airplanes collide over New York City, killing 134 people – this doesn’t make radar or ATC obsolete or worthless, mistakes were made.
“It seems to me that you’re either a Royal Navy fanboy or you have one or more vested interests in the RN .” – Sure, I like the RN. Could be because we’re on a forum page to discuss the RN and its new AShM… maybe…. I’m also open to the idea that I don’t know everything & that to achieve the things I want for my country, would require certain assets. You want other things & that requires different assets.
“What if there were subs there we COULDN’T detect?” – yep.
“We do what?” – Go back and read it yourself. You asked something like ‘our kill chain is vulnerable too’ so I agreed. It is.
“And I gave a list of ways that ships can be detected AND TARGETED at sea. You gave counterarguments to some of them (not all), but they were all flawed arguments as I covered above.” – the stuff above is not worth responding to. ALL of it fails to address the ‘range’ question. Every method you’re talking is 30-40km at best which is well below the minimum ranges we keep potential adversaries – detected through our radars, AEW, sonars, Merlin ASW etc etc. Go to google maps, right click anywhere, “measure distance” and show yourself what 40km looks like on a global view. Then think of that in the vastness of the Oceans… it’s nothing. You want to find a fleet with the Mk1 eyeball before they detect you with ALL the sophisticated sensors on and off ships (F35 + Crowsnest) that will be operating 100’s of km from the ships… seriously.
“Firstly I’m not your mate” – jog on then. Tired of talking in circles with you anyway.
“Royal Navy carrier group doesn’t remotely present a threat to China.” – that must be why they didn’t try and shadow it with subs, or do flyovers with their aircraft. Sure. And again, they’re one of 195 countries.
“Firstly YOU won’t be planning anything.” – neither will you pal.
“No it’s not. It’s got nothing to do with Taiwan at all. It’s got to do with the fact that most western countries won’t grow any balls and sell Taiwan the equipment and ordnance it needs to defend itself.” – ok…. Selling to Taiwan has nothing to do with Taiwan…. sure.
“Sonar’s not radar? Well obviously not. And radar doesn’t detect sound anyway, what on earth are you talking about?” – you have said things which give the impression that you are under the delusion that sonar works like it shows in ‘Crimson Tide’ & has a “blip” on a screen. Do some research.
“OK? I’ve explained why I don’t see the point of tanks, but all you can write in reply is “OK”?” – yep.
“At this point you either have to be stupid, a Royal Navy fanboy, a government beancounter or an industry shill with one or more vested interests. Nothing else explains your obduracy. Well no actually one other thing does – being a fifth columnist.” – aaaaaaaannnnnd, we’re done. You’re going to start chucking insults, cool. I’m done. I think I’ve been clear, I want to achieve X and that require assets that can do Y & your ridiculous Skjolds, AIP subs, A350, airships et al simply cannot do what I want. If you knew how such assets or weapon systems worked, maybe you’d see it but I’m not going to insult you or waste my time trying to explain the minutiae of it to someone that seems unwilling to comprehend that someone else might just possibly have a different opinion as to what they want the UK to be capable of. You want to achieve something else which requires other assets – I understand & the assets you discussed would probably get the job done. If that’s all I wanted to do, I’d probably agree. But it’s not. And I’m really tired of beating my head against a wall trying to explain it.
Thank you for bringing the T-17 to my attention.
Bye “mate”.

““You’re contradicting yourself now.” – no I’m not.”

Yes, you are. You said you wanted a MINIMUM of 32 F-35Bs on a carrier.

““Source for those figures?” – Wikipedia? Look it up for yourself.”

Which specific Wikipedia page(s)?

You made a claim, so the burden of proof is on you to back it up, not for me to go trawling through Wikipedia pages for something that backs up your claim. Give me a link or links.

You claimed ““1.2 – 1.5 times as many would do it (based on US and French numbers).”

Give me a link that gives those figures for the Rafale M, F-35B and F-35C.

““Are you deliberately misunderstanding me?” – No. You’ve repeated said (and included in here further down) that you would “Strengthen the defences on the Falklands. […] But you also stated “they’re not capable of an invasion”.”

Absolute nonsense, what on earth are you talking about?

““What are you referring to here? Piracy?” – No. I was using it as a geographical example of a place we may want to influence which is impossible without a blue water navy.”

And as I said, I’m sick of us getting involved in stupid far-flung wars.

I’d much prefer we focus on defence and war prevention* than idiotic “power projection” (damn I hate that term). People bandy that term about because they think it sounds cool (like “shock and awe”), but in reality it means death, maiming, misery and destruction.

*Although I’ll make exceptions for countries that have been unjustly attacked like Ukraine.

““Surely you need a ship with a towed array sonar to detect a sub in the first place?” – Merlins deploy on Type 45 regularly.”

Yes they do. But I covered this issue of Merlins operating separately from a dedicated ASW ship and you ignored everything I wrote. Type 45s don’t have a towed array sonar like ASW Type 23s do.

““Do they? Maybe old noisy subs, but you yourself have acknowledged that this gets harder the quieter subs get.” – Yes.”

So if that doesn’t mean that passive sonar is reaching the end of its usefulness I don’t know what it DOES mean.

““What do you mean “thank you” as if you’ve won the argument.” – They are designed for littorals. Not Blue water operations. You agreed.”

I agreed that Skjolds are DESIGNED for the littorals. I ALSO suggested ways they (or variants, including drone variants) could be used for long-range missions even in the open ocean and as usual you ignored my comments.

““Each country should have its own SAM systems and fighters (and all the other defences I outlined). I’m sick of the UK (alongside the US) acting as a world policeman.” – OK. But we do want to influence world events. That’s why we’re sending weapons to Ukraine.”

Damn you’re hard work.

I’ve already said that Iraq 2 was based on a lie (non-existent WMDs) and I don’t want us to get involved in another idiotic war like that ever again (although we almost certainly will). Plus Afghanistan was an absolute mess throughout, especially the rushed withdrawal. You agreed with me on both points.

As for helping Ukraine defend itself, I’m perfectly fine with that. In fact I’d like to see us give Ukraine even more equipment and weapons to end this war as quickly as possible. It was an unprovoked invasion based on lies and Russia needs to be booted out of Ukraine, including Crimea, as soon as possible.

“And each country can’t afford SAM & Fighters.”

Again, you’re hard work.

Not every country no, but I obviously wasn’t talking about such countries. I was referring to the countries that Russia and China DO pose a threat to. And THOSE countries certainly can afford SAM systems and fighters.

In fact they already have them, but they lack an INTEGRATED Air Defence System, ways of making fighters on the ground much harder to take out and/or fighters that don’t need a runway to operate (with the exception of the Gripen in Sweden and Taiwanese underground aircraft bunkers for their F-16s).

““When did I ever say that IDAS is designed to provide air defence?” – You’ve brought it up repeatedly when I have enquired about area-air defences.”

What on earth are you talking about? I’ve never once claimed that IDAS is designed to provide air defence (specifically wide area defence).

What I HAVE said is that subs don’t need a Type 45 to protect them from air attack. And if they’ve got IDAS they can shoot down ASW helicopters (and possibly even MPAs if they’re flying low enough).

“Your answer is now ‘land-based SAMS & Fighters’ for nations that can’t afford them”

Don’t put words in my mouth. I was clearly referring to countries that CAN afford them. And countries to which Russia and China pose a threat.

Don’t make such ludicrous childish statements in a pathetic attempt to score points.

““Do you want the ability to INVADE Russia or China?” – No. Not alone.”

Or in other words, yes, but with allies.

Why you want the ability to invade China boggles my mind. I’ve repeatedly asked you why we would ever need to invade China and you keep ignoring the question.

But for argument’s sake, let’s say we and our allies DO need to invade China (for whatever utterly insane reason), how on earth are we going to do that?

Conventional wisdom says that you need 3 times as many troops as the defending armed forces. We and our allies don’t have 3 times as many troops. And even if we did, we don’t have enough amphibious ships and landing craft to get them ashore. And even if we did, they’d be easily sunk. So invading China is absolutely impossible.

What the west COULD do though is decouple itself entirely economically from China. Over time that would deprive China of huge amounts of income and over a decade or two its economy would shrink so much that it would no longer be able to fund its miltary. Or at least not to current levels.

““Do you want the ability to fight Russia or China at sea?” – Yes. But to be clear, “fight” means ‘engage with’…”

I don’t know what the difference between “fighting” an enemy and “engaging with” an enemy is. To me the two terms mean exactly the same thing.

“… not that I expect the RAF/RN to be able to wipe the seas clear alone.”

Well obviously not. Our current capability is woefully inadequate and not up to the task. Our F-35Bs won’t get SPEAR-3 until Block 4, which has been pushed back to late this decade. 2028 or possiby later. Are we going to attack Chinese ships with Paveway IV?

The only effective and survivable assets we currently have against China are subs. And weren’t not exactly knee-deep in them.

““Do you want the ability to fight Russia or China in the air?” – Yes […] not that I expect the RAF/FAA to be able to wipe the skies clear alone.”

Again, obviously not. We only have 20-odd F-35Bs that can only carry 4 AIM-120s internally. Plus they can’t carry a short-range IR-guided missile internally, they can’t be refuelled in the air and they have no gun.

““You keep saying a strong offence provides deterrence, but you also think a conventional war with Russia or China would automatically lead to nuclear war, so your position is inconsisent and illogical.” – Again, those are 2 of 195 nations on the planet.”

So what? They’re the two biggest threats we face.

“As a whole, I believe the West should have this capability with Russia & China”

Wanting the capability to invade them is utterly bonkers.
Plus it’s totally impossible anyway.

Effective defence however makes sense and is perfectly achievable with sensible (and affordable) upgrades to our existing assets.

“It’s also not automatic, it’s highly likely.”

I’m pretty sure you previously wrote that fighting either country would inevitably lead to nuclear war. If that doesn’t mean automatic, what does it mean?

““Do you think that our Type 45s need any of the following:”

  Aster 30 Block 1NT (and ideally the Enhanced Capability variant) – Yes.

  Aster 30 Block 2 BMD – When it’s ready.”

I’m not sure if the Aster 30 Block 2 BMD project has been cancelled or not, which is why I wrote “Failing that, SM-3”.

“TLAM – Yes.”

Yet when I previously suggested fitting Mk41 VLS to the Type 45s you dismissed the idea. Yet again you ignored this point.

“VL-ASROC – Not essential. Nice to have”

Nice to have? What if an ASW Merlin can’t get airborne because it’s undergoing repairs, crew members are sick or the weather is too bad? It’s better to have layers of defence and redundancy.

That said, VL-ASROC could do with being longer ranged so it outranges all enemy torpedoes. Give it pop-out wings to increase its range to 100+ km?

“Microwave weapons – When they are ready.”

Land-based microwave weapons that can take out drones already exist. I can’t imagine it would take much to make ship-based variants.

“Laser weapons – when they are ready.”

They already exist. Solid-state lasers aren’t currently powerful enough to shoot down missiles, but they can shoot down drones and could also be used to blind EO/IR sensors on missiles (weather permitting).

Plus 1+ megawatt CHEMICAL lasers could presumably be used to shoot down missiles (weather permitting). YAL-1 (a chemical laser) was capable of shooting down missiles 20 years ago.

Plus stick 1+ megawatt chemical lasers on airships operating in the stratosphere where the (lack of) weather won’t negatively affect the lasers.

“A better CIWS like Thales RAPIDFire and/or the Oerlikon Millennium Gun – Yes. I’d switch out both 20mm and 30mm for a 40mm as long as the 40mm has independent power & sensors so it can remain active if the ships radar is down.”

That makes total sense re an independent power supply and sensors (for redundancy and back-up).

And despite what I said previously, I think you’re right that it makes sense to replace the 30mm guns as well. Well assuming we actually buy enough 40mm CIWS guns to do that. If not, at the very least replace Phalanx and keep the 30mm guns, but ideally yeah replace all of them (although space might be an issue, not sure).

“Anti-torpedo torpedoes – when they are ready.”

I’m currently aware of 4 anti-torpedo torpedoes: SSTD CAT, Sea Spider, MU90 Hard Kill and Tork. (Oh and Torbuster for subs.) We should be rigorously testing these to see if they work as advertised.

All of the above shows how woefully underarmed the Type 45s currently are. (And ALL our surface ships for that matter.)

““Our missiles in the Falklands didn’t exactly work perfectly, did they?” – No they did not. I would humbly submit that if missiles & their tests can’t be relied upon, maybe we shouldn’t waste money on multi-layered IADS”

That’s a complete non sequitur and makes absolutely no sense at all. By that idiotic logic, we should get rid of ALL SAMs, whether ship or land based.

What IS required is rigorous realistic real-world testing to ensure that our missiles (and radars) DO work as advertised (and in all sorts of scenarios).

AIUI our radars in the Falklands couldn’t filter out background clutter since they were designed for the open ocean and that’s one reason why our missiles performed so badly in Falkland Sound. Another was that some of our missiles were far from cutting edge. We also lacked AEW and CIWS.

One major current problem though is that we don’t have missiles like the Russian and Chinese ballistic and hypersonic missiles to test our ship-based and land-based missiles against, so realistic testing is impossible. Therefore we should build missiles similar to theirs so we CAN carry out realistic testing. That would also provide us with far more effective missiles than we currently have. It would be a win-win.

“OR we accept that the testing is good and they can do what they say they can.”

The same was said in the Falklands and that turned out to be absolute nonsense. Unless missiles are repeatedly PROVED to be capable of what they’re advertised as being capable of, then I won’t take anyone’s word for it. And missiles should be tested in the most stringent scenarios, not easy ones that make tests easy to pass.

““So it doesn’t make much sense talking about fitting navalised Typhoons to our carriers when a navalised variant has never been built. (Plus the carriers would need converting to cats & traps anyway.)” – Come on…”

Come on? It DOESN’T make sense.

“… if we’re doing that, Airships with AEW don’t exist”

No they don’t, but unlike navalised Typhoons airships currently exist. Plus how hard would it be to fit an airship with AEW capability? And unlike Merlin Crowsnest they’d have far longer range and endurance.

(And a bit off-topic: If very-high altitude airships were developed that fly higher than ship-based or land-based SAMs, they could simply drop relatively cheap JDAMs on ships and land targets at will. WAY cheaper than a carrier group. And FAR more effective.)

“& Skjold with reactors don’t either”

Obviously. But would fitting Skjolds (or a vessel based on it) with SMRs be impossible? Or a drone variant? As I said, I’ve read that small SMRs can fit inside standard shipping containers, which would provide unlimited range to vessels and also possibly power for laser weapons and microwave weapons.

Such airships and Skjolds/Skjold variants would be far more useful than navalised Typhoons imo. They’d be cheaper, faster to manufacture and could be bought in large numbers.

““Can’t you just admit it was a bad example?!” – No.”

Damn you’re stubborn. Typhoons won’t ever fight F-22s and F-35s.

““Because they’re idiots? Bribery? Being dyed in the wool and unable to think outside the box. All three?” – OK then.”

OK then? What does that even mean?

““Maybe flying slow would be a benefit?” – Not sure how modern military radar functions to be honest. I’d be pretty amazed if they can’t be detected though.”

I read an article a while back (I think it was in relation to the B-2 IIRC) that said that stealthy aircraft would be even harder to detect by radar if covered in two feet of RAM, but obviously this isn’t feasible with fast-flying B-2s, B-21s, F-22s and F-35s.

I read that article and wondered if fitting two feet of RAM to a relatively slow-flying airship would be feasible. And if so, this would make airships much harder to detect (and engage) using radar. It would be worth testing I’d have thought. Plus airships inherently have a low IR and acoustic signature. They’re also much cheaper to operate than jet aircraft.

Plus as I also previously wrote, would it be possible to use lightweight composite materials (plus RAM) to surround an airbag with a stealthy shape? If so, you’d benefit from the range and endurance of an airship, but with the stealth and aerodynamics of a stealth jet. Maybe not the speed, but worth looking into I’d have thought.

““You haven’t addressed ANY of this stuff.” – I’ve been avoiding it as I don’t know enough to have an educated conversation.”

Well I’m no expert either. I’m just thinking of things that might work and that would be worth looking into.

“My immediate reaction on what I know is: easy to intercept”

How can you write that? It ignores ALL the things I wrote that would make airships (or any other aircraft for that matter) hard to detect and engage as well as make them more survivable:

• Two feet of RAM (if feasible)
•  A lightweight stealthy and aerodynamic outer “shell” (for want of a better word) (again if feasible)
•  An EW suite (and/or a GaN AESA radar with EW/EA capability)
• A towed decoy
• PIRATE IRST (as used by the Typhoon) (or an improved version)
• DAS (as used by the F-35)
• A defensive suite similar to the Typhoon’s Praetorian DASS
• AAMs (e.g. Meteor, ASRAAM, IRIS-T) (from what I’ve read, IRIS-T, in addition to being a short-range AAM, has the ability to shoot down other AAMs as well as SAMs)
• BriteCloud to thwart radar-guided missiles
• LADM decoy missiles as used by the Gripen are another option
• A DIRCM system to thwart IR-guided missiles (although airships inherently have a low IR signature anyway)
• Guns firing airburst ammo to shoot down AAMs/SAMs (possibly for example a scaled-down version of a land-based 30/40mm cannon firing airburst ammo)
• Possibly an air-launched Starstreak variant to shoot down AAMs/SAMs
• In the near future: HK-DAS/MSDM and the SHiELD laser to take out AAMs and SAMs

I’d have thought that any airship (or any other aircraft for that matter) with all of the above would be incredibly hard to detect and engage. And even if it IS engaged, it would stand a very good chance of decoying missiles or destroying them.

“can’t run away like a P8 or Wedgetail”

A P-8 or Wedgetail can’t run away from an AAM. The J-20 was specifically designed to shoot down large aircraft like these as well as tankers.

“can haul 70 tonnes”

Depends on the airship in question. AIUI the largest cargo airships can carry 70 tonnes, but an Airlander 10 can carry about half that. Still a very good payload though.

Far smaller airships could be designed and built for other missions like AEW and ASW for example.

“but 2 x C17 can do the same”

A C-17 doesn’t have anywhere near the range and endurance of an airship. This is why airships are ideally suited to so many roles.

Plus airships can land in far more places and aren’t dependent on a runway. An amphibious airship could also operate from rivers, lakes, reservoirs and even the open ocean (sea state permitting).

“AAM’s benefit hugely from the velocity of their launch platform for range”

Yes they do. That said, this is more of an issue AIUI when targeting agile fighter jets as opposed to large lumbering aircraft like tankers for example.

“AAM’s also benefit hugely from high altitude”

Again, yes they do, although again, see my previous reply.

And airships are perfectly capable of operating at high altitudes if designed to do so: https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Preparing_for_the_Future/Discovery_and_Preparation/Could_High-Altitude_Pseudo-Satellites_Transform_the_Space_Industry2

“Lasers, sure. As part of a static IADS, I can see them being used to haul heavy lasers to altitude & stay there. Worth looking into.”

And especially with chemical lasers, which are capable of 1+ megawatts, which current solid state lasers aren’t. Up in the stratosphere such lasers wouldn’t be affected by rain, fog or other weather so the lasers would work much more effectively than they would at sea/ground level. This is a no-brainer imo and something we should be spending a lot of R&D money on.

Apart from conventional ballistic and hypersonic missiles, they may even be capable of shooting down nuclear ICBMs/MIRVs, which would be a massive game-changer.

““I suggested anti-tank ditches that are so wide and deep that bridging vehicles and vehicles carrying fascines would be useless.” – So, a wall then… I’ll bring ramps and/or earth moving equipment.”

Ramps? They’d have to be bloody big ramps. And carried by what exactly? Put in place how? Plus they’d be vulnerable and easy to take out.

As for earth-moving equipment, that could be taken out using a wide-range of methods (as could ramps). As well as the tanks, other armour and logistics vehicles waiting for the earth-moving equipment to do its job. Which could take hours, so all these vehicles would be sitting ducks all that time.

““I suggested manmade hills that are so steep tanks and other armour couldn’t drive up them.” – Ramps, earth moving equipment.”

Ditto my previous comment.

Plus I said manmade hills that are so deep that it would take earth-moving equipment days (or possibly far longer) to move the earth. And by deep I didn’t just mean vertically but also horizontally. That too would make such vehicles easy sitting ducks.

““I suggested manmade marshland that no vehicle could drive through.” – amphibious vehicles.”

I’m not aware of many amphibious MBTs, logistics vehicles and mobile SAM systems that can drive through marshland.

And even if they could, marshland would slow them down so they’d be easy to take out.

“Or I’ll drive around.”

I specifically said that the defences should cover the entire length of the border(s) with Russia, Belarus and Kaliningrad. But you ignored that.

“Or fly over.”

That’s what SAM systems, SHORAD systems, MANPADS and air superiority fighters are for.

And how are you going to get THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS of MBTs, APCs, IFVs and SAM systems into a country by air? Can’t be done.

“Or hovercrafts & lift my tanks.”

Huh? Easy to take out.

Plus LCACs are used at sea for amphibious landings and at most can only carry one MBT anyway.

“Or floating bridge.”

1) Easy to target and take out, especially with 24/7 surveillance as I suggested.

2) A large area of marshland would make pontoon bridges incredibly difficult or even impossible. Also see 1). The vehicles on the bridge would be sitting ducks.

““I suggested rigging roads, railways and bridges with explosives so they could be cratered/destroyed at short notice.” – Drive off-road”

Firstly Russia couldn’t do this back in Feb because the ground was too wet and soft and heavy tracked vehicles got stuck in the mud. That’s why they stayed on the roads.

Secondly the whole idea of ditches, hills and marshland is to make driving off road either incredibly difficult or impossible. And to seriously slow down vehicles so that they’re easy targets.

“rebuild road”

Easy to attack anyone trying to carry out repairs. Check out the Antonovsky Bridge near Kherson.

“Bridge laying equipment/amphibious vehicles.”

You’re repeating yourself now.

““I also suggested large-diameter metal cylinders that rise out of the road to block vehicles as well as hollow metal rods that rise out of the road to puncture tyres. (Other options would be dragon’s teeth and Czech hedgehogs, ideally interlocking ones, and roads lined with camouflaged Claymores and even microwave weapons like CHAMP/HiJENKS.)” – Mine clearing equipment”

Would MICLIC/Python (and similar systems) help to take out large cylinders? Even if they would, that assumes that they get to deploy before being targeted.

Plus you didn’t even address Claymores and CHAMP/HiJENKS. The former would damage/destroy logistics vehicles and the latter would burn out the electronics on any vehicle that passes by, rendering it useless.

“run flat tyres”

AIUI current run-flat tyres don’t run forever and operate for about 50 or so km. They’re designed to get you somewhere where the wheels can be changed. And if hundreds or even thousands of wheeled vehicles have been punctured then you have a SERIOUS logistics problem. That’s a LOT of tyres to change.

““I suggested monitoring the borders 24/7 using a variety of methods.” – OK. You’ll see the enemy coming.”

And therefore be able to target the enemy you see coming.

““I suggested HIMARS/M-270s, UCAVs and UGVs to take out tanks, APCs, IFVs and logistics vehicles.” – I’ll develop mobile SHORAD to shoot them down.”

Even S-400 (vaunted as it is) doesn’t appear to be coping too well against HIMARS in Ukraine, let alone Russian SHORAD systems.

UCAVs (and manned aircraft too) with anti-radiation missiles can target S-300s, S-400s, SHORAD systems, anti-battery radars and GPS jammers.

UGVs and manned vehicles with Brimstones and 30/40mm cannons firing APFSDS rounds can target MBTs, APCs and IFVs. A SHORAD system would be useless against such vehicles.

Plus loitering munitions are another option I didn’t mention earlier. Either fired individually by infantry and/or fired from multiple launchers fitted to vehicles.

““I suggested multi-layered IADSes.” – I’ll develop stealthy aircraft, stealthy cruise missiles, saboteurs etc to take out your eyes & ears.”

A multi-layered Europe-wide IADS would make Europe FAR better protected than it is at present against a wide range of Russian aircraft and missiles.

Russia only currently has a handful of Su-57s and with the dual-use export sanctions currently in place, I can’t see that changing for quite some time.

As for missiles, Russia currently has several conventional ones that could hit the UK. That’s why I think the UK should buy TWISTER when it comes into service. In fact, I’d like to see the UK join the European TWISTER project if possible.

As for saboteurs, that’s always a risk, but if your argument is that it doesn’t make sense to build an IADS because of saboteurs then that’s a ludicrous argument. The solution is to improve security and surveillance, not to throw our hands up in the air and say “what’s the point?”.

““I suggested aircraft that don’t need a runway to operate.” – I’ll shoot them out of the sky.”

Oh good grief, you really are hard work. I suggested ways to make aircraft more survivable ON THE GROUND you absolute plank.

“I’ll make 100 T-26…”

Will you really? Absolutely idiotic comment.

“1,000 p8’s to hunt them”

Right, now you’ve got to be trolling. That’s an utterly inane comment.

““A MILLION things? Like what exactly?” – really…. Bored now.”

Exactly, you’re talking absolute nonsense and you have no counterarguments.

““And I gave a list of ways that ships can be detected AND TARGETED at sea. You gave counterarguments to some of them (not all), but they were all flawed arguments as I covered above.” – the stuff above is not worth responding to.”

If you have counterarguments then provide them.

“ALL of it fails to address the ‘range’ question. Every method you’re talking is 30-40km at best”

Absolute nonsense. You think OTH radar, satellites and surveillance aircraft are limited to 30-40km?

““Firstly I’m not your mate” – jog on then.”

Jog on? The only people I know who talk like that are idiots in lame football hooligan films. And people who emulate them.

“Tired of talking in circles with you anyway.”

You ignore any counterarguments of mine you can’t answer. That’s not talking in circles, it means you can’t answer my objections to your arguments. I keep asking you questions that you keep ignoring.

““Royal Navy carrier group doesn’t remotely present a threat to China.” – that must be why they didn’t try and shadow it with subs, or do flyovers with their aircraft. Sure.”

Tf you talking about? If the RN went up against China IN A WAR it wouldn’t last two minutes. If you think otherwise you’re utterly deluded.

““Firstly YOU won’t be planning anything.” – neither will you pal.”

I never I said I would be “pal”. Damn you’re an idiot.

““No it’s not. It’s got nothing to do with Taiwan at all. It’s got to do with the fact that most western countries won’t grow any balls and sell Taiwan the equipment and ordnance it needs to defend itself.” – ok…. Selling to Taiwan has nothing to do with Taiwan…. sure.”

Taiwan has no say in what other countries sell it. You really are an absolute dipstick.

““At this point you either have to be stupid, a Royal Navy fanboy, a government beancounter or an industry shill with one or more vested interests. Nothing else explains your obduracy. Well no actually one other thing does – being a fifth columnist.” – aaaaaaaannnnnd, we’re done. You’re going to start chucking insults, cool. I’m done.”

YOU’RE done? You refuse to answer many of my questions, you patronise me, you condescendingly call me “mate” and “pal” and offer insultingly stupid answers to my questions you do answer. But YOU’RE done? Damn.

“I think I’ve been clear, I want to achieve X and that require assets that can do Y & your ridiculous Skjolds, AIP subs, A350, airships et al simply cannot do what I want.”

What YOU want? YOU don’t run the RN. Or the rest of the UK’s armed forces for that matter.

There’s nothing RIDICULOUS at all about Skjolds (fast, stealthy anti-ship vessels), diesel-electric AIP subs (which you previously agreed about btw), A-350s or airships (plus you agreed with SOME of my suggestions about airships anyway and thought they were worth looking into).

YOU want the ability to invade China. That’s absolutely insane. As well as impossible.

I’ve offered a far more sensible (and realistic) option, which is based on defence and prevention.

Not responding to everything. Better things to do. Going to point out a few things though:
“You said you wanted a MINIMUM of 32 F-35Bs on a carrier.” – nope. What I actually said was “I want to be able to deploy a carrier with zero notice anywhere on the planet with a minimum 32”. Key word being “ABLE”… can deploy with less if they want. But in time of war, I want to be ‘able’ to send 32. It’s called ‘nuance’.
“You made a claim, so the burden of proof is on you to back it up” – this isn’t a court. I thought I was having an intelligent conversation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Naval_Aviation – look at how many Rafale M the French have. That’s their only type of carrier jet in service.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_air_wing#Current_Carrier_Air_Wing – this article provides a breakdown of a USN CVW.
“Absolute nonsense, what on earth are you talking about?” – I literally copied and pasted 2 quotes from you…
“And as I said, I’m sick of us getting involved in stupid far-flung wars.” – Cool. That’s your opinion & neither you nor I get to decide. Our elected representatives decide. In my opinion, we should but choose more wisely in future. I disagreed with Iraq2 at the time & agree with you on that one. Afghan was woefully handled & should have been handled by aircraft & special forces, in and out in 6 months.
“So if that doesn’t mean that passive sonar is reaching the end of its usefulness I don’t know what it DOES mean.” – Nuance. It’s harder, but not impossible. As they get quieter, it gets harder, so they make better sonar.
“Skjolds…as usual you ignored my comments.” – No. I stated that to adapt them, need helicopter, need hangar, so longer, stability means wider beam, means more drag and also heavier, so more engine power, plus more power for lasers etc etc. so bigger again & before you know it, you have a large surface combatant. Just because you don’t appreciate metaphors or similes, please don’t accuse me of ignoring you. I just didn’t write it in crayon for you.
““TLAM – Yes.” Yet when I previously suggested fitting Mk41 VLS to the Type 45s you dismissed the idea. Yet again you ignored this point.” – https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/adaptable-deck-launcher
Or
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BGM-109_Tomahawk_Cruise_Missiles.jpg
I was operating on the mistaken belief that you knew about such things….
“I don’t know what the difference between “fighting” an enemy and “engaging with” an enemy is.” – some may interpret “fight” as ‘defeat alone’. You have proven that I have to spell things out in detail, or I get misunderstood…
“Nice to have? What if an ASW Merlin” – ASW is not their primary mission. I’d like them to have ASROC (or similar) but not at the expense of the other capabilities. I think future (T83 or T4x) should be able to complete below, on and above the surface.
“Come on? It DOESN’T make sense.” – Not to you…
“What YOU want? YOU don’t run the RN” – Do you? I find it hard to believe Admiral Sir Ben Key has the username TheBatsman’sHoldingTheBowler’sWilley… neither of us do. We’re two people who WERE having a conversation about what they would like to RN/UK armed forces to be equipped with. The fact I have to point this out beggars belief – unless English isn’t your first language in which case I apologise.
I’m going to wrap up now as 1) I don’t have time for this or explaining every little detail about what “running away” might mean or AAMs range being the major issue in launch velocity (not ‘agile fighters’) or a myriad other things, and 2) I don’t want to start exchanging insults (“lame football hooligan films. And people who emulate them.”) or calling into question your ability to understand plain English.
Our different approach/answer to what is required stems from our different desires for what we want our forces to be capable of. I would like to see the UK to be capable of influencing global events and our armed forces capable of:
·        Defend our own land & airspace (yes, this includes IADS).
·        CASD
·        Deploy a full carrier strike group, anywhere on the globe with a minimum 32 fighter aircraft.
·        Deploy a Division strength land force, with associated supporting elements & sustain them anywhere on the globe.
You want something else from our forces. End of discussion.

““You said you wanted a MINIMUM of 32 F-35Bs on a carrier.” – nope. What I actually said was “I want to be able to deploy a carrier with zero notice anywhere on the planet with a minimum 32”. Key word being “ABLE”… can deploy with less if they want. But in time of war, I want to be ‘able’ to send 32. It’s called ‘nuance’.”

Well with that kind of “logic”, I can’t possibly reason with you. This is my last reply to you.

“We’re getting WAY off topic here”

Well off topic as far as adding anti-ship missiles to our ships is concerned, yeah, but the discussion evolved to cover adding anti-ship missiles to other assets, which is a totally related topic.

And I think we broadly agree on this issue, although we may disgree a bit in some cases as to which missiles make the most sense for which assets. But we both agree that anti-ship missiles make sense, not just for ships, but for other assets as well.

My preference is Type 17s for Poseidons and Type 45s*, JSMs for Typhoons and then various NSM variants (NSM, NSM-HL, NSM-SL) for GP Type 23s/Type 31s, Merlins/Wildcats and Astutes. The Type 17 gives us commonality with Japan. The NSM gives us commonality with the US, Norway and Australia. I think where we disagree is the Type 17, while I think you agree about the NSM variants.

*Obviously we need assets to provide long-range ISTAR capability, but in addition to satellites I think Taranis makes perfect sense for this role and should be put into production. Or else we should buy RQ-170 Sentinel drones from the US, assuming they’re willing to sell any. Small ISTAR drone airships are another option, especially because of their long range and endurance.

And btw you didn’t address any of my previous comments that countered your objections to airships.

As far as our F-35Bs are concerned, as I wrote previously, I think internally carried SPEAR 3s make total sense, although if LRASM and/or JSM variants were made that F-35Bs could carry internally that would be incredibly useful.

I can’t emphasise enough how important I think prevention is though. It’s cheaper than fighting a war and it would save lives.

This is why Europe needs a very good multi-layered IADS.

TWISTER will be great from what I’ve read about it when it comes into service around 2030 or so, but there are plenty of other systems that could be bought in the meantime, e.g. Sky Sabre, SAMP/T, David’s Sling, SM-3, SM-6, THAAD and MANTIS NBS for example. This isn’t an exhaustive list by any means. Ground-based railguns firing hit-to-kill and airburst ordnance to very high altitudes and 1+ megawatt chemical lasers are other options that I think would make a lot of sense. And put laser weapons on airships operating in the stratosphere where AIUI there’s little moisture or wind and that would make them far more effective than they would be operating from the ground.

Type 212s with IDAS and fast stealthy Skjolds with NSMs would be excellent for taking out ships, which is essential capability to have to prevent invasions of islands (obviously), but they could also prevent amphibious landings on mainlands. And both vessels are far cheaper than SSNs and large unstealthy ships, so many countries could afford them in decent numbers. Plus AIUI SSNs aren’t much use in littoral waters anyway. And if even Type 212s (or equivalents) struggle in certain very shallow waters, then it might make sense to make smaller midget sub variants that can operate in such environments.

And stealthy low-profile Skjolds are hard to detect and can outrun torpedoes, which means they’re inherently far more survivable than our existing large ships. They have sufficient range for UK defence, the Falklands, Gibraltar and the Persian Gulf for example.

Also there’s nothing stopping us from building similar vessels to Skjolds but with greater range. And we could even look at Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), which I’ve read can fit in a standard shipping container. That would give stealthy low-profile Skjold-type vessels unlimited range (USVs as well).

Plus such vessels could be forward deployed and/or permanently based abroad, which I’ve mentioned before a couple of times now, but you haven’t addressed either point.

As for a land invasion of eastern Europe, I’ve already addressed how to make that nigh-on impossible. Again it’s far better to prevent an invasion rather than having to kick out an invader after the invasion, which is the situation Ukraine is currently in. If they’d built very deep and wide anti-tank ditches along the entire border with Russia and Belarus (let alone all the other preventative measures I suggested), would an invasion have even been possible?

““Threads” – no, but I know enough to understand.”

If you get a chance to watch it, do so. It’s a great film.

“WW2 Germany – yep. Militarily impressive.”

Yeah, very.

“Myriad of reasons but put simply, in 39-43 they were fighting a different type of war that few knew how to deal with.”

Well, coming back to the topic of prevention, the Maginot line was the right idea, but France made two masive mistakes. One was not covering the Ardennes Forest (which Churchill pointed out, but he was ignored because France incorrectly thought it was impenetrable) and the other was not continuing north to the sea. Ideally the Maginot line would have covered the eastern borders of Belgium and the Netherlands and continued to the North Sea. (Denmark also needed a defensive line.) The Maginot line had TWO massive holes in it. A bucket with holes doesn’t hold water. Finland’s Mannerheim line was also a good idea, but by the start of WWII it wasn’t finished.

Imagine how the war might have turned out if the Maginot line had been built properly with no gaps in it and if the Mannerheim line had been ready before the war started. (There were other defensive lines in Europe as well.)

Imo countries that border Russia, Belarus and Kaliningrad need to start building effective defensive lines immediately and like there’s no tomorrow. Plus buy loads of SAM systems and land-based anti-ship missiles for European countries that have a coastline. Shit loads of HIMARS with M31 rockets (70-80km) and ATACMS (300km) and in the near future ER-MLRS (150km) and PrSM (500km) wouldn’t go amiss either.

““would the west and its allies ever directly fight China?” – we have to be willing to.”

To what end? Why would we ever NEED to invade China. Being WILLING is neither here nor there.

“It’s like if all NATO leaders said ‘we’ll never launch a nuke’…”

Except no NATO country has said any such thing. The UK has CASD.

““Considering the current war in Ukraine, it would seem not.” – Ukraine aren’t allies to NATO or anyone else. That’s why they’re fighting alone.”

They’re fighting alone in the sense that no other country is fighting alongside them, but they’re not in the sense that the west and its allies have provided Ukraine with huge amounts of military equipment and ordnance.

And the longer the war continues, the better the equipment supplied becomes. At the start of the war, who would have thought that Ukraine would have been supplied with M777s, PzH 2000s, CAESARs, K9s, M270s, HIMARS and Harpoons?

There’s even talk now of supplying Ukraine with ATACMS for M270/HIMARS with a range of 300km to take out Russian ammo dumps that have been withdrawn from beyond the range of M31 rockets. I hope that happens. And as Ukraine advances in the south, once it gets within range of the Kerch bridge, I’m sure ATACMS will be used to render it unusable. That would put a serious spanner in the works as far as Russian logistics are concerned.

The US has insisted that Ukraine doesn’t fire into Russian territory using HIMARS, but Ukraine could still abide by this agreement even if it’s given ATACMS. Ukraine could use ATACMS to target targets in Russian-occupied territory that are currently out of the range of M31 rockets.

There’s even talk of supplying western fighter aircraft to Ukraine. This may well take months, but it’s a huge change of tone compared to earlier in the war when the transfer of Polish MiG-29s was blocked by the US.

Also SAM systems such as NASAMS and IRIS-T SLM have also been pledged to Ukraine. When they’ll arrive though I have no idea, but again this shows a massive change of tone compared to the early stages of the war.

And if possible, I’d like to see Ukraine provided with a land-launched variant of Tomahawk Block Va (range 1,600km). This would enable Ukraine to take out Russian ships anywhere in the Black Sea.

And a land-launched version of Tomahawk Block Vb would presumably enable Ukraine to take out the Kerch Bridge. This would severely negatively affect the Russian’s ability to get equipment, ordnance and supplies into southern Ukraine.

Anyway the point I was making was that no country wants to fight in Ukraine alongside the Ukrainian armed forces because of the risk of Russia using tactical or strategic nukes. And surely the situation would be the same in a war over Taiwan, which is why it makes sense to arm Taiwan so it can defend itself and prevent an invasion?

““decouple themselves economically from China” – Agreed. We want China reliant on the West, not vice-versa.”

Well to me decoupling means no longer trading with China at all.

““there’s a difference between defence and attack” – yes. But you need both, especially to win a conflict.”

As I’ve said several times now, prevention is better than cure. If you can prevent an invasion (whether by sea or land), then that’s far better than fighting a war to expel an invader.

““*This war was based on lies about WMDs” – agreed.”

Yep.

““**The perpetrators were Saudis, not Afghans,” – long topic but essentially, we went as that’s where some were training/hiding.”

Yep, Pakistan too.

““Criminal matter” – Afghan Gov refused to help/extradite them”

OK, fair comment.

“so we effectively joined an ongoing civil war. Stupid.”

Yep, VERY stupid.

“Should’ve bombed camps, Spec-Forces dismantle terrorist org & left.”

Things are never that simple. Take out one camp and another 10 would replace them like a hydra on steroids.

What we should have done imo is equip and arm the Afghan government so that it could survive before, during and after the withdrawal. And the withdrawal was an absolute mess. It should have be a staggered withdrawal over several months (maybe even years) and shouldn’t have even started before the Afghan government was in a position to govern the entire country. What happened though was that western and allied forces withdrew and the Taliban almost immediately retook power. And the Taliban weren’t even responsible for 9/11 anyway. What an absolute clusterfuck. I’m not a fan of western countries acting as world policemen, but if they do at least do it competently.

““sending them [surface ships] against China in a war?” – To win a war, you have to destroy your enemy or their will to fight. Usually accomplished by taking and holding ground. You CANNOT achieve this though air power alone”

Tell Nagasaki and Hiroshima that.

And in any case, my point was that large unstealthy surface combatants are ridiculously vulnerable to a wide range of threats. I keep bringing this up, but you’ve not addressed the issues I’ve raised.

Large unstealthy (and noisy) surface vessels are vulnerable to:

   Torpedoes
   Anti-ship missiles fired from land, manned aircraft, ships and subs
   Glide bombs released by long-range stealthy recon UCAVs like the GJ-11
   Sea mines

“We cannot simply gear ourselves up to take on Russia or China just because they seem the greatest threat.”

I never suggested that we should do any such thing. I specifically said that we should be prepared for any threat that presents itself.

That said, I can’t think of any scenario where Type 212s with IDAS missiles and Skjolds (or equivalents) with NSMs wouldn’t make an invasion of an island or a mainland incredibly difficult (or even impossible).

“For any opponent (NOT just China) you have to control the surface, including the seas.”

As far as Europe is concerned, controlling the land surface could be achieved with anti-tanks ditches, man-made hills and man-made marshland as well as a sophisticated multi-layered IADS. I’ve mentioned this before a couple of times already and you haven’t addressed what I wrote.

As for controlling the seas, that could be achieved with all sorts of anti-ship missiles fired from land, manned aircraft, UCAVs, manned helicopters, drone helicopters*, ships, USVs, UUVs, diesel-electric AIP subs and SSNs. That said, ships (especially large noisy and unstealthy ones) aren’t necessary for taking out enemy ships. They can do the job, but they’re hardly the ideal assets for this role because all the other assets would all be far more survivable. And in most cases, the other assets would be cheaper as well as quicker to build (especially drones).

*e.g. the Schiebel Camcopter that can carry two LMMs and/or the MQ-8 Fire Scout.

“Put simply, we use cyber attacks on Comms”

I’ve no idea how this works or how effective it is. Plus surely systems can be hardened to make them far less susceptible to cyber attacks?

“subs with TLAM to kill launchers”

Anti-ship missile launchers and SAM launchers are mobile, which makes them far harder to locate and target than static targets. Can TLAM take out moving targets? If not, it needs MTI capability. Does Tomahawk Block Vb have this capability? And what would we use for ISTAR at very long ranges? Our current MPAs, AEW&C aircraft and ELINT/COMINT aircraft are all unstealthy, so again they would be shot down by J-20s. Taranis would presumably be ideal in this role, but first we’d need to put it into production.

“as well as Anti-Satellite missiles to break kill chain of AShM”

I covered this in my previous comment, but you didn’t address anything I wrote. There’s no point in having a debate if you ignore my counter-arguments and then just repeat what you originally said.

“Then subs, aircraft & surface assets to kill their subs.”

Yet again you’re ignoring what I’ve written previously.

Firstly is passive sonar able to detect modern quiet subs? The Gotland (and other exercises) would suggest not. And subs are getting quieter all the time. Has passive sonar reached its detection limits as far as ships detecting subs is concerned? On the other hand, quiet subs wouldn’t have any problem I’d have thought detecting large noisy surface vessels such as carriers, Type 45s, Type 31s, tankers and replenishment ships. China has a lot of subs and could presumably take out these surface vessels no problem with their subs alone, let alone their other assets.

Secondly can quiet subs detect each other? A while back two SSBNs (HMS Vanguard and the French Le Triomphant) collided, which would suggest the answer is no.

Thirdly what aircraft? Western MPAs wouldn’t last long in Chinese airspace. They’d be shot down by J-20s. And where would they fly from anyway? Kadena presumably, which means they could be taken out on the ground and/or the runway could be cratered preventing them from taking off.

Fourthly as for Type 23s, they may be relatively quiet as far as surface vessels go (although presumably not when slamming into waves), but they could be targeted by long-range manned aircraft and long-range stealthy UCAVs (especially the latter which could presumably get close enough to drop glide bombs without being detected or engaged). Plus I’d have thought Type 23s would have to operate a considerable distance from Type 45s and carriers because of the noise those ships make. How far exactly I don’t know, but if it’s greater than the range of Aster 30, then they’re not protected by Type 45s, making them even more vulnerable than they would be otherwise.

Fifthly China has loads of subs and we don’t have many ASW Type 23s.

“Then Carriers to clear skies and bomb their army, Comms, Logistics etc etc”

And yet again you’re ignoring what I previously wrote.

Aircraft on carriers staying out of the range of DF-21 and DF-26 would be out of the fight. DF-26 has a range of 5,000km. MQ-25s wouldn’t make any difference when the F-35C only has a combat range of about 1,200km and an MQ-25 can’t even fully refuel one F-35C. The maths (and distances) are in the favour of China.

“Then you have to land troops & seize territory.”

Why? Why on earth would we need to seize Chinese territory? To what end? I keep asking you this, but you don’t answer me.

What we WOULD need to do though is to prevent a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. And for that job, Type 212s and Skjolds would be incredibly useful. And survivable. And could be bought in large numbers, especially Skjolds. A quick Google search says they cost $125 million each (£102 million), which for small vessels able to take out large ships is pretty damn cheap by military standards. We could afford loads of them over the coming years. And in the future, we’d ideally start building our own equivalents.

Also give Taiwan loads of land-launched and aircraft-launched anti-ship missiles, SAM systems as well as sea mines and Brimstones to take out landing vessels. (This isn’t an exhaustive list by any means, but it’s a pretty damn good start.)

“Surface ships will likely stay well away for the first several weeks…”

Damn right they will if they have any sense.

“… but they are a necessary component for many things.”

Not as far as a Chinese invasion of Taiwan is concerned they’re not. They’d be utterly pointless and easily sunk. (I’m talking about large noisy unstealthy warships and support ships here, not small fast low-profile and stealthy Skjold-type vessels.) (As for Type 31s, they make sense to protect commercial ships in the Persian Gulf say from FACs/FIACs, but they’d be more survivable if complemented by Type 212s and/or Skjolds anyway).

And I can’t think of ANY scenario where we’d be better off with our current ships as opposed to Type 212s and Skjolds. They’d give us a large-ish navy with depth in defence and redundancy, neither of which we currently have. And they wouldn’t be easy to take out, unlike our existing ships.

““Why would we ever need to invade either country?” – Falklands?”

We liberated the Falklands from the Argentinian invasion. We didn’t invade Argentina, did we? There was no need to.
By the same token, if China attempts to invade Taiwan, or worse succeeds, why would we need to invade China?

“Kuwait?”

Kuwait was invaded by Iraq and Iraq was kicked out. Not sure what your point is. How does this relate to us invading China?

“Former Yugoslavia?”

This war was to stop the genocide. I don’t see how this relates to China. Or an invasion of China.

“ISIS Caliphate”

Again not sure how this relates to China.

“Plus, we might not ‘want’ to invade, but we need the capability so certain countries know we could if – god forbid – we had to”

Firstly I never said anything about wanting to invade (you’d be a psychopath if you WANTED to invade China) and secondly (and more to the point) why on earth would we NEED to invade either Russia or China? To what end? I’ve asked you this several times now and you haven’t provided an answer. Plus we don’t even have the capability to invade China anyway. I doubt even the US does. It’s a huge country and its armed forces are huge as well.

““naval guns. What use are they?” – this applied to previous stuff too”

Firstly you haven’t answered my question. What use are 4.5″ or 5″ naval guns? They lack range.
I’d rather have a 57mm or 76mm gun. They’re far more flexible and useful weapons than a main deck gun imo.
Are ships going to sit 30km or so offshore to carry out NGFS? That would be a suicide mission in this day and age. Even artillery could take out such ships, let alone all the other assets that could be used against them. Plus these large deck guns are noisy, so subs could presumably easily detect the ships when firing these guns.

Secondly as for saying “The idea is, you dismantle a lot of hostiles ability to kill ships before you send the ships”, I don’t know how we’d do that exactly. We don’t have stealth bombers to take out land-based anti-ship missile launchers and to crater runways that aircraft carrying anti-ship missiles would take off from (and to take out aircraft on the ground). Is finding quiet subs with passive sonar even possible any more? And even if it is, China has loads of subs – far more than we have ASW Type 23s (or Type 26s in the future). As for ships and aircraft carrying anti-ship missiles, China has loads of those too. Harpoon is outranged by YJ-18 and currently our small number of F-35Bs have no anti-ship capability at all. It wouldn’t make any sense to send our currently woefully armed ships against China in a war. They wouldn’t last long at all and would be completely ineffectual.

RAND wargames have come to the same conclusion: https://breakingdefense.com/2019/03/us-gets-its-ass-handed-to-it-in-wargames-heres-a-24-billion-fix/ [Btw I don’t agree with EVERY suggestion RAND came up with, but a lot of it makes a great deal of sense to me.]

“Also, every navy uses them so they must see some value….”

A lot of stuff is used because that’s because the way things have always been done. Doesn’t mean it makes sense. Or that if something DOES work, that the same results couldn’t be achieved in a different way, ideally using cheaper and more survivable assets. Some things I don’t see the point of include:

   Main deck guns (4.5″ and 5″ guns): Replace with 57mm and/or 76mm guns as well as laser and microwave weapons
   Phalanx: Replace with Thales RAPIDFire and/or the Oerlikon Millennium Gun
   Main Battle Tanks: Replace with manned and unmanned vehicles with Brimstones as well as loitering munitions, either launched by infantry or launched from vehicles with launchers that can carry multiple loitering munitions
   Large, slow, unstealthy and noisy surface combatants and support ships: Simply stop building them. To stop invasions of islands or mainlands by ship Type 212s (or equivalents) and Skjolds (or equivalents) would be more than enough imo. As for preventing land invasions, I’ve covered this is detail in previous comments, but again you haven’t addressed my comments.
   Aircraft that need an airbase to operate from (such aircraft are vulnerable on the ground; this can be mitigated against in several ways but often isn’t): Replace with Gripens (or equivalents), transport aircraft using the Rapid Dragon system (ideally carrying anti-ship missiles as well as land-attack missiles), amphibious fixed-wing aircraft (e.g. MC-130J) and amphibious airships.

And yet all this vulnerable/ineffective stuff still gets built, even though better alternatives are available. It’s down to a combination of being dyed in the wool and always doing things the way things have always been done and the bureaucracy that plagues the military making changes hard to implement, let alone quickly. Special forces units have always been better in this respect – AIUI they can pretty much choose whatever equipment and weaopns they need and they get it quickly. The entire military should operate this way as far as possible (obviously small SF units are going to be able to adapt far quicker than much larger traditional units, but still).

“And https://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/product/innovating-to-enable-our-customers-to-stay-ahead”

Not sure what your point is here.

““Interesting. Got a link?” – Nope. Just what I’ve heard.”

From some bloke down the pub or someone actually in the know?

““our F-35Bs (and all carrier aircraft for that matter) seriously lack range in the western Pacific:” – Agreed. That’s why I want CATOBAR so I can also get a refuelling drone (like MQ25 but WAY cheaper).”

I? So it’s not the Royal Navy any more, but Stu’s Navy. Will you operate alone or cooperate with NATO?

I’ve already addressed this issue a few times now. CATOBAR, F-35Cs and MQ-25 refuelling drones won’t provide enough range vs DF-26. Why you keep ignoring this fact boggles my mind.

And if a country doesn’t have very long-range anti-ship missiles like DF-21 and DF-26, then refuelling F-35Bs and F-35Cs isn’t even needed anyway.

“If we want ‘stealthy’, cool. I can see the argument. Point with using B2 to refuel is, if the B2 has basing and range to get to where F35’s are, I’d just load it with bombs & have it carry on & hit the target instead of refuelling F35.”

A few issues:

   If the US was prepared to sell us some second-hand B-2s and if the UK decided to buy some (two big ifs), how many would we buy? The US only has 21 and so I can’t imagine we’d be able to buy many. I previously said 6, but maybe even that’s optimistic.
   6 B-2s, while useful, wouldn’t be enough for a country the size of China. That’s why I suggested converting a couple of B-2s into tankers to refuel F-35Bs (not that we have many of those either). B-2s could fly from northern Australia or Diego Garcia for example. They could also refuel Typhoons over Europe (and Tempests in the future). B-2 tankers would be far more survivable than non-stealthy tankers.
   In an ideal world, we’d have dozens of extremely long-ranged stealth bombers (and stealth UCAVs like Taranis) in which case we wouldn’t need F-35s at all, but that’s not (currently) the case.
   This is why I suggested military versions of Airbus A-350s with a range of about 16,000km. If these aircraft carried very long-range stand-off ordnance, this would enable them to take out ships and land targets without putting themselves at risk. You rejected this idea, suggesting Rapid Dragon instead. Rapid Dragon might make sense in some scenarios, but C-130s and C-17s don’t have anywhere near the range of an A-350. Rapid Dragon is a good idea imo, and especially since transport aircraft AIUI can operate from rugged airstrips, it’s just that C-130s and C-17s lack range for many scenarios, especially in the western Pacific. And again, where would they fly from?

“If you need to refuel to push CAP out, cheaper ways and more attritable [ones] than a B2 conversion [exist].”

The H-6 bomber can carry the DF-21D with a range of about 1,500km. No current western carrier-based aircraft has the range to take out an H-6 at that sort of range.

An F-35C refuelled using an MQ-25 (which isn’t even in service yet) would in theory have the range to reach an H-6, but could it do so before the H-6 fires DF-21D? Very debatable. And that’s even assuming that the H-6 could even be detected at that sort of range anyway. Plus if an H-6 is accompanied by a J-20 for protection (and/or a J-31 in the future), then taking out an H-6 will be hard and certainly not guaranteed. In fact the F-35s might end up getting shot down.

As far as Russia is concerned, Kinzhal has a range of 2,000 to 3,000km depending on the launch aircraft. How to take out launch aircraft at those sorts of ranges?

““meets the definition of a war of attrition?” – When I said “Industrial war of attrition”…”

I’m not sure what the difference is between a war of attrition and an industrial war of attrition.

All military equipment and ordnance is manufactured by military industries, so I’m not sure what you’re on about.

“Ukraine hasn’t attacked Russian Tank Factories.”

No, but it’s attacked Russian fuel depots in Russian territory.

Plus the dual-use sanctions have caused Russian tank factories to stop production: https://fortune.com/2022/03/22/russian-tank-manufacturer-sanctions-ukraine-war/

“In a conflict with China/Russia, it’s unlikely (not impossible) that a non-nuclear war would be so rapid, and new systems so complicated & hard to develop & field, both sides wouldn’t be able to build & field 10,000 new tanks before it was over.”

This is precisely why I said that the west and its allies need the ability to design and build equipment quickly and in large numbers.

Current high-end surface ships, tanks and manned fighter aircraft all take far too long to build. And if destroyed they can’t be quickly replaced.

Instead we should be looking at:

(a) Assets that take some time to build but not too long, aren’t ridiculously expensive and that are inherently more survivable than existing assets, e.g. Type 212s (or equivalents), Skjolds (or equivalents), Gripens (or equivalents). We should stock up on such equipment now and in pretty large numbers.

(b) Assets that are relatively cheap and attritable, e.g. USVs, UUVs, UCAVs, airship drones, UGVs with Brimstones (e.g. THeMIS), UGVs with 30/35/40mm cannons with APFSDS and airburst ammo, stealthy ISTAR/ELINT/COMINT/ESM UAVs, loitering munitions, etc. We should stock up on such equipment in vast numbers.

(c) High-end, but survivable, assets like Taranis and manned stealth bombers

And as for tanks, the current war in Ukraine has shown how unsurvivable they are. I’m fully aware of the argument that they haven’t been used properly in a combined arms manner, but I simply don’t buy it. Tanks have always been easy to destroy and it’s getting easier all the time. Tank destroyers with Brimstones will make tanks even more vulnerable than they already are.

“Look at the speed a precision in Iraq (1990) – dismantled the 4th largest army in 6 weeks.”

That army was large but full of obsolete equipment and badly trained troops.

““defence makes more sense than offence when it comes to China” – China can’t attack us.”

Well they could with long-range missiles, but I’m not sure why they would.

But the point I was making was that defence makes more sense when it comes to Taiwan than offence does.

I addressed all this in my previous comment, but you didn’t respond to any of the points I made.

“We’re not going to defend Taiwan.”

Aren’t we? Why not?

““China as a peer” – It’s in reference to tech. We’re in that league.”

No we’re not. Not even close.

Type 45s currently don’t have the ability to shoot down ballistic anti-ship missiles, let alone hypersonic missiles. And they’re supposedly dedicated AAW vessels, which is just incredibly embarrassing and pathetic.

YJ-18 drastically outranges Harpoon.

F-35Bs currently have no anti-ship capability. And won’t until Block 4, so 2028 or possibly later.

Can Type 23s detect current Chinese subs and take them out. I have no idea, but I do know that subs are getting quieter all the time and that we don’t have many Type 23s, whereas China currently has about 60 subs.

The only good assets we have are our Astutes and we don’t have many of them. Plus they don’t have anti-ship missiles or Torbuster. (And they should get IDAS when it comes into service.)

Plus the Chinese navy is huge, it dwarfs the Royal Navy. It’s about the same size as the US Navy now (varies depending on whether you’re talking about the total number of vessels or total displacement – either way the Chinese navy is huge).

““large-scale conventional war, I fail to see why that would result in future wars being fought with sticks and stones.” – Think the idea is, if 2 nuclear powers go to war, even conventional, with the aim of ‘total defeat’ (a la Germany 1945), as we approach a ‘Berlin being surrounded by the Red Army’ scenario, someone will shoot a nuke to relieve pressure & turn the tide.”

Well in that case it’s no longer a conventional war, is it?

“Then the other side shoots one back. Escalation. More nukes fired. End of the World.”

You’re describing MAD, which isn’t what I was talking about. I specifically said “large-scale conventional war”.

As for MAD, I covered that in my previous comment.

““JSM is a Norwegian missile” – Built with Ratheon for the US. Hence, US missile.”

No, not a US missile, a Norwegian missile built by Raytheon in the US. US-built, not US-designed. Did Raytheon invent the JSM? No. Norway did.

““[will] other countries use SPEAR-3 and Meteor or just the UK?” – SPEAR 3, not yet but seems likely.”

Well only time will tell.

“Meteor, Yes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_(missile)#Operators”

Well looking at that list, you’re looking at countries that have the Typhoon or the Rafale.

Will F-15s, F-16s, F/A-18s, F-22s, F-35As and F-35Cs ever carry Meteors?

Think we broadly agree too.

Missiles – NSM-HL & SL. T17 or LRASM for P8 & Ships. Don’t know enough about T17 to give an educated answer but range & warhead seem great. F35 – LRASM (can still fire well outside SAM range of ships so external is fine for me).
 
Where it appears I haven’t addressed stuff previously posted, it’s usually as I don’t want to argue OR, as this conversation has split over multiple reply strings, may have been lost. e.g. Airships – I’m not educated enough on them. Do think they’re VERY slow and vulnerable.
 
I understand prevention is your focus. Part of mine too, but I like balance. Part of what I’ve been saying is – having a strong offence IS a deterrent (i.e. prevents other nations doing things).
 
In simple terms: Did your dad padlock the drinks cabinet OR did you just not take his scotch because he’d beat the **** out of you if you did? OR did he do both?
 
Skjolds – let’s just agree to disagree.
 
For me, WW2 Maginot line was good for it’s time but today, static defences don’t last. Personal opinion. Belgium had border forts in WW2, it bought them 36 hours or so. Not saying some AT ditches etc wouldn’t be good, but will only slow them. To win a war, you have to have offensive capability.
 
“”we have to be willing to.” To what end?” – Let’s say we have laser defences from ICBM & Integrated SAMs up the wazoo & AsHM on mobile launchers & 212 & Skjold with T17, all protecting the UK to the point we’re invulnerable. All NATO inc USA does the same. China attacks someone, sanctions us, starts murdering MORE of it’s own people, starts proxy wars with India & Indonesia. What could we do about it? We have all the defences in the world so we’re ok right? But have 0 power to influence their actions. Heck, just say we have all that stuff & Guatemala invades Belize. We sending Guatemala a nasty letter?
 
This is what I was saying about “we’ll never launch a nuke”. I don’t want a war with China. I don’t want a war with anyone. BUT the West have to be a potential threat to other nations so they won’t be a threat to our friends. Our willingness IS the prevention.
 
“Except no NATO country has said any such thing. The UK has CASD.” – Corbyn said he wouldn’t if elected… It’s not that crazy. But you are right, no one has.
 
Ukraine – true. Better equipped than we are now! HAHA!
 
ATACMS – I think they’ll get them. I also think they should! I think part of the delay was USA worried they’d use HIMARS deep into Russian territory or wrecklessly but they’ve shown to be very capable so… fingers crossed.
 
Tomahawk – ATACMS will reach far enough.
 
“situation would be the same in a war over Taiwan”- possibly. But USA keep saying they’d defend them. Plus that act I referenced last time. Both give China doubt which is likely enough to stop them.
 
“no longer trading with China at all” – tricky as ‘trade’ generally means ‘peace’. I think I’d probably support this though.
 
“prevention is better than cure” – as above. Willingness/capability IS the prevention.
 
“Yep, Pakistan too.” – 100% agree! Nobody mentions this usually…
 
“Take out one camp and another 10 would replace them” – not necessarily. In the early days of Afghan, we were smashing Al Qaeda pretty well, they ran to Pakistan. Only new volunteers were for Taliban which wouldn’t of happened if we’d have just left after Al Qaeda were smashed. (All very simplistic obviously. Too complicated to go through the intricacies).
 
“equip and arm the Afghan government so that it could survive before, during and after the withdrawal” – we did. They had more Blackhawks than anyone outside the US Army! They crumbled. Didn’t want to fight. Can’t just “build” a nation. Hopefully the politicians have learnt this now & won’t try again.
 
“world policemen” – largely agree.
 
Tell Nagasaki and Hiroshima that. – fair point. But that would be their “will to fight”. “Usually” by taking ground, sometimes by other means…
 
“Vulnerable Ships” – I have mentioned things about this. Lets focus on it: ALL things are vulnerable. Subs to torps, mines & depth charges, aircraft to other aircraft & SAMs, soldiers to bullets, tanks to ATGMs, static defences to TLAM & Paveway bombs… the list goes on. In ALL warfare throughout ALL time, there has been a balance between ‘offence’ and ‘defence’. Just because a missile COULD kill a ship, doesn’t mean it will. Take a look at Iraq firing Exocet at US warships – think for 4 shots they hit nothing…
 
“Vulnerable Ships” – I just want to hammer this home: We need offence to prevent other nations doing things. Offence requires control of the surface. Control of the surface MAY require surface ships. “Stealthy” is not a panacea. Need persistent presence with powerful radar etc. This means size.
 
“controlling the land surface could be achieved with… ” – nope. Would just slow them down. And if that’s all you have, the only way to win is nukes.
 
“controlling the seas” – all things listed help. Persistent presence is lacking though. Plus, how would you propose controlling the seas off say, Tanzania? Or Ghana? Or Chile? Most of the world? Your only answer would be ‘borrow air bases’ or… subs? Problem with using other peoples air bases is 1) they can kick you out, 2) they don’t usually have the facilities to maintain your aircraft, certainly not long term. What you need is an airbase with all your stuff on it & people to fix the UAV, UCAV, Helicopters, F35s etc. that you can just move around wherever you need it… like a carrier. Subs cannot control volume or air.
 
“but you didn’t address anything I wrote.” – not sure if it was missed or I just moved past it. Not sure what you’re referencing here. If it was about ‘satellites aren’t the only way’ then, sure. Radar. Radar from land means curvature of earth, means 50 miles (ish). Radar from planes, shoot them down. AEW? That’s what Meteor is designed for. Launched at 60k ft and a Mach 1.5+ it’ll reach out 100 miles. Add that to the 600 or so an F35 can fly & you’re well past the 400km (250ish mile) range on modern AEW. Sub to detect? It’ll struggle to send the data anywhere without risking detection itself & data has to be pretty live to provide targeting. ‘Track ships from moment they leave port’ only if they leave their transponder on. Oceans are pretty big bud. I’d also ask, why is the Type-45 all angled & stuff? Is it because they built it to have the RCS of a small fishing boat? Yes. Yes it is. Noisy? Yes they are. But it’s all relative. Our sonar on the Atutes is considered one of the best. They brag about ‘can hear a ship from 3,000 miles away’ but that’s not targetting. They can’t pinpoint to within 50 miles from that far out. At 50-60km they could target a vessel – let’s pretend the rest of the world has this sonar capability (they don’t!), 50-60km (40 miles) is nothing compared to the size of the oceans. And it’s nothing compared to the range of a Merlin (hosted and launched from a big noisy warship 1000 miles from land & 10,000 miles from the nearest UK airbase).
 
You enter a bunch of questions here “firstly, secondly etc.” & I don’t know what they’re in reference to. I suspect it’s something with a plan to “attack China”. Don’t want to. Just need the threat to – as prevention. Think of any of the other 193 countries on the planet, surface ships & carrier works (or see above).
 
“passive sonar able to detect modern quiet subs?” – Yes. Not easy & as they get quieter it gets harder. Maintenance is a big issue with subs. If not maintained, they get noisy really quickly. Part of why they cost so much (more than surface ships!) to build & maintain.
 
“detection limits as far as ships detecting subs is concerned?” – No. Like the evolution of tech in making subs quieter, the sonar keeps getting better too. If they ever make completely silent, then sure, passive may not work.
 
“Secondly can quiet subs detect each other? A while back two SSBNs (HMS Vanguard and the French Le Triomphant) collided, which would suggest the answer is no.” – We don’t & possibly never will know the whole circumstances. SSBNs go very very slow and silent – they’re just designed to hide. SSN is designed to hunt: Can creep around quietly BUT need to cover distance to find and kill targets… at which point they’re noisy (relatively speaking).
 
“what aircraft?” – not sure what you’re talking of here. I’m guessing my answer about “carrier” should cover it.
 
“Fourthly as for Type 23s” – I’ll cover all this with – ‘ships defences’ and they operate within the combined arms bubble (i.e. F35’s, T45 radars, Crowsnest etc.). Their detection range is bolstered by helicopters & sonobuoys.
 
“Fifthly China has loads of subs and we don’t have many ASW Type 23s.” – True. But 1 T-23 can kill multiple subs. And we have Astute. And we have Merlin. And we won’t fight alone.
 
“And yet again you’re ignoring what I previously wrote. Aircraft on carriers staying out of the range of DF-21 and DF-26” – I have answered this multiple times. Kill Chain. TLAM. Ships defences. China is only one of 195 countries on the planet.
 
“Why? Why on earth would we need to seize Chinese territory? To what end? I keep asking you this, but you don’t answer me.” – I’m gonna pop this in Bold so you see it. I don’t want to attack China. The West have to be a potential threat to other nations (inc China) so they won’t be a threat to our friends. Our willingness IS the prevention.
 
“we WOULD need to do though is to prevent a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.” – That’s a Taiwan problem. Happy to sell them what they need. I’m not going to plan their defences.
 
“We liberated the Falklands” – True. BUT we did so by an invasion. Just like the allied invasion in June 44.
 
“How does this [Kuwait] relate to us invading China?” & “Former Yugoslavia” – all were invasions.
 
“why on earth would we NEED to invade either Russia or China? To what end?” I don’t want to Invade anyone including China or Russia. The West have to be a potential threat to other nations (inc China & Russia) so they won’t be a threat to our friends. Our willingness IS the prevention.

“Firstly you haven’t answered my question. What use are 4.5″ or 5″ naval guns? They lack range.” – https://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/product/innovating-to-enable-our-customers-to-stay-ahead
OR
https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/sas-2019/2019/05/sas-2019-bae-systems-vulcano-precision-guided-munition-for-naval-5-inch-155mm-guns/
I have posted one of these before. Point of them was, can’t launch sonobuoys, torp interceptors or depth charges from a 57mm. Can with a 5′. That’s the point of them.
 
“Are ships going to sit 30km or so offshore to carry out NGFS? That would be a suicide mission in this day and age.” Only suicide against an opponent with AShM. You want to shoot a £1m TLAM at a toyota filled with terrorists with AKM’s? Waste of ammo bud.
 
“Secondly as for saying…..” – Again you’re talking China. We alone are unlikely to cause a threat. We in the west should (as detailed above).
 
‘outranged’ and ‘F35 no AShM’ – yes I know. Hence part of this discussion…
 
“Main Battle Tanks: Replace…” – Nope. Suppliment with the things you said. KF51 design has 4th crew space to operate Unmanned vehicles for this purpose. Think that’s the way. Just my opinion. Agree to disagree.
 
 “Large, slow, unstealthy and noisy surface combatants and support ships: Simply stop building them.” – Nope. Reasons above. My opinion. Agree to disagree.
 
“again you haven’t addressed my comments” – I did but not clearly enough. I don’t want to Invade anyone including China or Russia. The West have to be a potential threat to other nations (inc China & Russia) so they won’t be a threat to our friends. Our willingness IS the prevention.
 
“The entire military should operate this way as far as possible” – whilst I agree things could be a damned sight better, not sure this would be the way to solve it.
 
“From some bloke down the pub or someone actually in the know?” – someone in the know.
 
“I? So it’s not the Royal Navy any more, but Stu’s Navy. Will you operate alone or cooperate with NATO?” – Now you’re being silly.
 
“I’ve already addressed this issue a few times now… DF26” – And I’ve already addressed this. China is one of 195 countries.
 
“And if a country doesn’t have …DF-21 and DF-26 …refuelling isn’t needed” – Disagree. What if you want to strike a target 4-500 miles inland?
 
“How to take out launch aircraft at those sorts of ranges?” – Don’t know.
 
“I’m not sure what the difference is between a war of attrition and an industrial war of attrition.” –As you know, attrition warfare is a military strategy consisting of belligerent attempts to win a war by wearing down the enemy to the point of collapse through continuous losses in personnel and materiel.
 
Industrial attrition – (think WW2) where while the enemy are destroying our kit, we make new stuff. We destroy theirs, they make new stuff. We try and stop them making new stuff. They do the same. Eventually, one of us runs out of stuff. Odds are, a future war with the West v Russia or China, we won’t have time to make any new stuff before it’s over. It’ll be fought with the inventories we have.
 
“[Taiwan] Aren’t we? Why not?” – not our allies.
 
“““China as a peer” – It’s in reference to tech. We’re in that league.” – No we’re not. Not even close.” – um. Ok. Agree to disagree.
 
“no longer a conventional war, is it?” – think that’s the point. Nuclear powers can’t have a “Conventional war” bud… because escalation…
 
“Norwegian missile” – in the eyes of the US DoD, it’s built in USA, therefore it’s a US missile and in service with USN. Semantics bud.
 
“Will F-15s, F-16s, F/A-18s, F-22s, F-35As and F-35Cs ever carry Meteors?” – Don’t know. For Jets only operated by the USA (F35C, F22) unlikely as they require all weapons to be made in USA – unless MBDA wants to sell the licenses but then that’s a political thing requiring Governments of France & UK & probably Germany(?) to agree…

“Crikey, that’s a lot to unpack. Please don’t think I’m being rude if my answers are short. Just trying to be concise”

Well your answers aren’t short, but I do go on a bit, but only because it annoys me so much that our supposedly high-end warships are currently so bad both offensively and defensively as far as a peer war is concerned.

That said, would western and NATO countries (and their allies) ever fight Russia or China directly anyway? We’re not doing that in Ukraine because of the potential nuclear risk, instead we’re arming Ukraine, so maybe the best option as far as Taiwan is concerned is to give them loads of military equipment and training now so they can defend themselves and so that the mistakes made with Ukraine aren’t repeated with Taiwan.

(That said, if Russia or China attacks a NATO country first that triggers Article 5. I’m going to have to sleep on this. I have all these different scenarios running around in my head and I’m confusing myself.)

And if we go down that route, then any talk of fitting RN ships with far longer ranged anti-ship missiles possibly becomes moot. So now I’m beginning to doubt my previous arguments. That said, I still think NSM-HL makes sense to give all our ships anti-ship capability, even low-end River OPVs (although I’d fit a hangar to them).

I actually think though that there are far better alternatives to high-end warships that would be far more effective and survivable such as:

• Astute replacements (which ideally will have VLS cells, IDAS, anti-ship missiles and Torbuster for self-protection from torpedoes)
• Diesel-electric AIP subs like the Type 212 with IDAS missiles. These could be forward-deployed wherever they’re needed.
• Stealth bombers: Would the US sell us some second-hand B-2s once they start getting their new B-21s? And could we convert a couple into stealthy tankers to refuel our F-35Bs?
• The stealthy, armed, very long-range Taranis drone: Why hasn’t this gone into production?
• Stealthy recon UCAVs like the Chinese GJ-11 and the WZ-7
• Stealthy, long-range, attritable Valkyrie drones carrying ALTIUS-600 drones internally that outrange S-400
• Stealthy, high-speed Skjold corvettes with NSMs
• Stealthy USVs
• UUVs

““Type 17” – you talk a lot about this & understand your enthusiasm. BUT, the current Type-12 is only slightly better than Harpoon.”

Well firstly the Type 12 is a land-launched missile, whereas the Type 17 is a ship-launched and air-launched variant.

And secondly according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_12_Surface-to-Ship_Missile “The ship-launched derivative of Type 12, designated as Type 17 (SSM-2) missile has been put into service and it is to start deploying from Maya-class destroyer. The range has doubled to 400 kilometers and is also planning to re-apply for the improved version of the surface-to-ship system and the air-launched variant for the P-1 patrol aircraft.[6][7]

The [Japanese] MoD approved the development of an improved version of the Type 12 SSM on December 18, 2020 by the Cabinet. According to Japanese newspapers, the range will be extended from 200 km to 900 km, with a future target of 1,500 km.”

So even 400km far exceeds the range of our current Harpoons (and NSM as well). (Hell even 200km outranges the NSM.) And if carried by a P-8 Poseidon with a combat range of approx 2,200km then that gives you a range of approx 2,600km even with the 400km version. Not to be sniffed at at all.

As for FC/ASW I don’t even know what range the two proposed variants will have since I can’t find any mention of that online and the in-service date isn’t certain either. Possibly 2030, possibly even later. It seems like a very woolly project to me. I’m not even convinced anything concrete has been written down or laid down in contracts. Let alone iron-clad contracts with no wiggle room.

Plus I’ve read that FC/ASW will come in (a) a stealthy subsonic land-attack variant and (b) a supersonic, highly manoeuvrable anti-ship variant.

We already have (a) in the form of Storm Shadow, so why are we reinventing the wheel? If we want a longer ranged version of Storm Shadow and/or a variant that can be fired from ships and subs in addition to aircraft, then surely it would be faster and cheaper to just modify SS rather than develop a completely new missile?

As for (b), that would be something new for us and probably useful, but what’s its range?

““Mk41 VLS to the T45s” – waste of time & money IMO.”

Really? Why? With Mk41 VLS the T45s could carry missiles they currently can’t. And as I said, CAMMs can be quad-packed in Mk41 cells.

“Job is area air defence.”

The T45 isn’t even good at this role it supposedly excels at. The best missile the T45 currently has is the Aster 30 Block 0. At the very least it should be fitted with Aster 30 Block 1NT. And I’d also replace Phalanx with a good CIWS like Thales RAPIDFire as well as fit laser and microwave weapons.

“Why P8 & F35 don’t have ASM already is beyond me.”

Totally agree, it makes no sense at all.

The F-35B won’t get SPEAR-3 until Block 4, which has been pushed back to late this decade.

As for the Poseidons, we should have fitted them with LRASM years ago imo.

“Madness to have a £3B capital ship ferrying £100M jets around that have to use bombs to cause any damage!”

Yep totally.

““military projects take far too long” – agreed. Argued on here many times about “delays”. When you’re developing cutting edge tech, delays are to be expected”

Contracts should come with penalty clauses for late delivery.

But even if projects do come in on time, it simply takes far too long to build ships. And if they’re sunk they can’t be quickly replaced. That’s why I’d prefer different assets that would be far more survivable than ships like those I mentioned above. Such assets would also be more effective than our current ships and some of them would be considerably cheaper to buy and operate. As for cheap attritable drones, they could be bought and deployed in huge numbers.

“but some just boggle me. ***cough***AJAX!***cough***cough***”

Yep Ajax has been an absolute mess. Trying to fit too much new tech into a new piece of military equipment is always going to cause problems (same goes for the F-35 and Ford-class carriers). Plus I read the vibration issues are due to the sides of the vehicle not being cut to the correct tolerances so the sides are of unequal lengths. Or something like that anyway. If true that’s mind-boggling.

““sub-launched NSM useful.” – they’re working on it. http://www.navyrecognition.com/mobile/index.php/focus-analysis/naval-technology/2862-exclusive-latest-details-on-kongsberg-nsm-sl-submarine-launch-weapon-system.html”

Interesting, I wasn’t aware of that.

We should definitely buy this.

““scrap FC/ASW” – oof! Our French allies would not like that.”

Well, no, but what exactly is FC/ASW going to provide? I’d like to see concrete specs, especially in terms of speed and range for the two variants, but everything so far is so vague. And as I said, as far as one of the variants is concerned why don’t we just upgrade Storm Shadow? And make a sub and ship-launched variant as well?

“Too complex to go into here. We’re working on hypersonics with USA/Aus which could replace it but…”

Which missile are you referring to?

““FC/ASW is years off” – yes & this project is to buy something to fill the gap between now and when it arrives.”

Yeah, although I’m beginning to wonder if FC/ASW is even needed if we’re never going to fight Russia or China directly anyway. (Yeah I know, I’m contradicting myself.)

““DF-21 and DF-26… carriers can’t get close enough” – As you mention, they have to be able to target us first.”

I fail to see why that’s not possible. There are plenty of ways to track ships at sea. I’d expect they’re tracked from the moment they leave port.

““overwhelming defences and mission kills are perfectly valid arguments btw” – I know, I know. Call me old fashioned but I’d want to ‘delete’ them, not sent them home to fix their radar.”

With two F-35Bs with 8 SPEAR-3s each, the enemy would almost certainly be fixing much more than just their radars. Other sensors like EO/IR sensors could be targeted, as could the helicopter(s), the bridge and the CIWS systems. I don’t know if SPEAR-3 can do a last-minute pop-up, but if so it could presumably then attack the VLS cells from above. So much damage could be caused that I expect they’d have to write the ship off, since it would be beyond repair.

““Partially stealthy…that’s what the Type 17 gives you.” – Is it to be stealthy? I didn’t read that anywhere.”

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/01/japan-to-greatly-extend-range-of-type-12-anti-ship-missiles-modify-it-for-f-15j/

“Furthermore, the Type 12 SSM did not adopt the same shape as the NSM and LRASM to ensure stealth performance. However, this modification will reduce the Radar Cross-Section (RCS) to ensure such stealth performance. As a result, its appearance will be completely different from the current one.”

The Type 17 is a Type 12 variant, so presumably it will be stealthy too.

““T-17 on P8” – for sure the P8 can carry the weight, it’s more an integration thing which is time and money.”

Everything takes time and costs money.
But a P-8 with the ability to engage ships at safe stand-off ranges is surely worth it? That said, LRASM would provide the same capability.

“NSM & LRASM are already integrated on P8 and F35”

Are they? I thought they were in the process of being integrated. Got a source?

“Logic says “yeah, but integration can be done quickly” but I would then ask – why can’t our F35’s fire Meteor yet….? It’s been in service for 6 years…”

Because Meteor (and SPEAR-3 as well) won’t be integrated until the F-35’s Block 4 which has been pushed back to late this decade. And probably because they’re not a priority for LM whereas US missiles are, so Meteor and SPEAR-3 are at the bottom of the list I’d have thought.

“would western and NATO countries (and their allies) ever fight Russia or China directly anyway?” – God I hope not. If we openly say we would “never” be willing to, what stops them steam-rolling across half the planet? If we say we’ll “Never”, why get any new weapons as we’ll “never” use them. We have to be ready, willing and able to fight and defeat some nations to make sure they can be deterred from becoming hostile.
“far better alternatives to high-end warships” – I see your point but if you look across the spectrum of war-fighting; How do subs provide area air defence? How can a sub land significant numbers of troops ashore? How can a sub provide combat management, comms, logistics & fire support to troops ashore?
“Would the US sell us some second-hand B-2s?” – I wouldn’t want them. Old and maintenance heavy. Why not buy fresh B-21’s if you want a strategic/long range bomber? As for converting them to tankers, why?
“Taranis” – Last I heard, we shared a load of technical data with Dassault for Neuron & they said “thanks, bye!” & gave us nothing. Nothing more public was released but I’m not convinced it’s done. Agreed though, only £143m for development means unit costs would be cheap.
“it simply takes far too long to build ships and if sunk etc..” – we build them slowly on purpose to keep the yards in work. Should build more of them and faster IMO. As for not being able to replace quickly, the total industrial wars of attrition from the past are incredibly unlikely. We’ll fight a future conflict with what we have & it’ll be over in 1-2 years. If it’s with a peer, the end won’t be pretty. Einstein once said “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”
“Are they? I thought they were in the process of being integrated. Got a source?” – My sincere apologies, you are right. All I can find is plans & contract award for the integration (expected to be completed this year) but not actually done yet. Still, we can piggy back off others having done the work.
“And probably because they’re not a priority for LM whereas US missiles are” – precisely my point. LRASM & NSM are in the process of integration so Lockheed can sell more LRASM. How high on Lockheed’s list will it be to make T-17 work on an F-35? Answer is: it’ll be at the very very bottom. So if we got T-17, we’ll still be waiting to use it on an F-35 till sometime after the next ice-age.

““would western and NATO countries (and their allies) ever fight Russia or China directly anyway?” – God I hope not.”

Same here. It would cause vast amounts of death and destruction on both sides, even if nukes aren’t used. You ever seen the film “Threads”? Absolutely terrifying.

I doubt a Russian invasion of Europe will be possible for a decade or two, possibly longer depending on how long the dual-use sanctions remain in place. That said, in case Russia ever gets to the point in the future where an invasion of Europe is possible, then we need to be prepared. I don’t want to see a repeat of the period between WWI and WWII. Hitler played on the resentment/anger/humiliation among many Germans between the wars and many people in the west didn’t see WWII coming even though clear warning signs were there. I mean Germany rearming was a dead giveaway. Even now it still boggles my mind that just one country was able to achieve so much militarily. On one hand I’m incredibly impressed at the scale of what Germany achieved*, on the other I’m repulsed by it.

*This is purely from a miltary point of view, not a humanitarian or emotional one.

It would make sense imo for every country that borders Russia and Kaliningrad to start building very wide and deep anti-tank ditches, steep man-made hills and man-made marshland at a breakneck speed. Roads, railways and bridges near the borders should be dug up, dismantled and destroyed. Or if that’s not possible right now, rig them with explosives so they can be cratered/destroyed at short notice.

The borders should be monitored 24/7 by using airships and/or HAPS as well as concealed/camouflaged CCTV and physical tripwires. UGVs with anti-tank missiles could be remotely controlled to take out tanks, IFVs and APCs. All that should make a land-invasion incredibly difficult and probably not worth considering in the first place.

Then Europe needs to develop a highly effective and multi-layered IADS, especially in eastern Europe in the countries that border Russia and Kaliningrad. It would also make sense to buy loads of Gripens, since they don’t need a runway to operate and so would be very hard to take out on the ground.

New fighters that can also operate from austere bases should also be developed. Ideally they’d carry ordnance internally and have some measure of low observability, but still be able to take off from austere bases.

As for aircraft that do need a runway to operate, then we need to disperse them across several air bases, build hangars with multispectral camouflage, build easily detected dummy hangars and build multiple runways for redundancy in case one runway is cratered.

I’m not saying all the above would make Europe immune to invasion by Russia, but it would make it incredibly difficult. So much so that I expect Russia would decide it’s not worth even attempting.

Will we do all the above or just sleep-walk into the future, leaving Europe far more vulnerable than it should be?

As for China though, an invasion of Taiwan may well happen at some point. How soon I have no idea, but I think it will certainly be attempted at some point. The only effective and survivable naval assets the west has against China imo are SSNs and diesel-electric AIP subs. All surface ships would be ridiculously vulnerable to anti-ship missiles, torpedoes and mines. Stealth bombers would also be pretty survivable I’d have thought, and especially over water, but currently only the US has such aircraft.

But as I said, would the west and its allies ever directly fight China? Considering the current war in Ukraine, it would seem not. So in that case, it would seem to make sense to arm Taiwan so it can defend itself.

So loads of mobile land-launched anti-ship missiles (e.g. late-variant Harpoons, NSMs and Type 12s), SAM systems (e.g. Sky Sabre, SAMP/T, NASAMS, David’s Sling), diesel-electric AIP subs (e.g. Type 212, Gotland, Blekinge), F-35As, Gripen Es and sea mines.

But many countries won’t sell or provide military equipment to Taiwan for fear of a backlash from China. This needs to change.

And the sooner the west and its allies decouple themselves economically from China the better, since every good that people buy from China funds the Chinese military. Chinese goods have flooded western markets. I went to Homebase a few years back and picked up several items at random. The vast majority of items I picked up were made in China. This needs to be fixed. Companies love huge profits and people love cheap goods, but this all comes at a huge cost.

“If we openly say we would “never” be willing to [attack Russia or China], what stops them steam-rolling across half the planet?”

Well there’s a difference between defence and attack.

As far as a Russian invasion of Europe is concerned, that’s currently not possible. Hell, they’re struggling against Ukraine, so in a conventional war against Europe Russia wouldn’t last long. In fact I expect we’d wipe the floor with them. But we shouldn’t be complacent and as I said above we need to prepare for a possible future where Russia is in a position to successfully invade Europe. But that’s us defending ourselves, not attacking Russia on its own soil.

In the context of the current war in Ukraine, Russia has said that any attack on its own soil will result in a nuclear response. That said, Ukraine has attacked Russia on its own soil a few times now and so far there hasn’t been a nuclear response. Did Russia only mean a NATO attack on Russian soil, not a Ukrainian one? Or are their nukes so degraded that they’re no longer functional? If it’s the latter, then Russia’s bluffing. I hope that’s the case, but there’s no way of knowing that for certain. We really need defensive systems that can shoot down nukes to be on the safe side. And especially since Russia could eventually build new nukes.

As far as a Chinese invasion of Taiwan is concerned, what’s required is the ability to make the invasion impossible (duh). I covered this above. This could be achieved imo with anti-ship missiles fired from both land and aircraft, diesel-electric AIP subs and sea mines.

In the Falklands War, after HMS Conqueror sunk the ARA General Belgrano all the Argentinian surface ships returned to port and took no further part in the war. If China can’t detect subs and if its ships are also being attrited by mobile land-launched anti-ship missiles and aircraft-launched anti-ship missiles, then would China press on hoping that an adequate number of its huge number of ships would eventually make it to Taiwan or would the surface ships return to port as happended in the Falklands War? I have no idea, but it seems to me that the more subs and anti-ship missiles Taiwan has the better. The more it has, the less likely a successful invasion will be.

But as I also said above, many countries won’t help Taiwan out. US is an exception, but I read a while back that even land-launched Harpoons won’t reach Taiwan until the mid-2020s. They need them now. And in vast numbers. Again, why does everything take so damn long? This needs to be fixed as a matter of extreme urgency. And other countries should arm Taiwan as well. It’s not like there’s a shortage of weapons systems that could be sent.

“We have to be ready, willing and able to fight and defeat some nations to make sure they can be deterred from becoming hostile.”

I totally agree, although that’s a bit rich on our part after Iraq 2* and Afghanistan**, although as I said above there’s a difference between offence and defence.

*This war was based on lies about WMDs
**The perpetrators were Saudis, not Afghans, although admittedly Afganistan harboured them (as did Pakistan). But why go to war with an entire country to get a handful of perpetrators? Surely this could (and should) have been handled as a criminal matter, not a military one, by extraditing the perpetrators? Afghanistan was an absolute clusterfuck, especially the withdrawal. Many Afghans who aided the west and its allies during the war were thrown under the bus.

Also it’s currently very hard to attack China anyway. As I said before, I believe that DF-21 and DF-26 render current western carrier groups completely impotent. I’m fully aware of the kill-chain argument, but there are plenty of ways to track a carrier group at sea. I expect they’re tracked from the moment they leave port, so I don’t buy the argument that China can’t track or target carrier groups.

““far better alternatives to high-end warships” – I see your point but if you look across the spectrum of war-fighting; How do subs provide area air defence?”

Obviously they can’t. That’s not what they’re designed for.

But my point is that since surface ships are so vulnerable, what’s the point of sending them against China in a war? I don’t expect them to last long at all. RAND wargames have come to the same conclusion. And if we don’t send surface ships into a war with China, then there’s no need to defend non-existent ships from air attack, is there?

“How can a sub land significant numbers of troops ashore?”

Obviously it can’t. But why would we need to land huge numbers of troops ashore against either Russia or China? Why would we ever need to invade either country? And to what end?

That said, carriers, frigates, destroyers and cruisers can’t land significant numbers of troops ashore either. For that you need amphibious vessels, LCACs and landing craft. And those vessels, just like all surface vessels, are extremely vulnerable. And the closer they get to land the more vulnerable they become.

“How can a sub provide combat management, comms…”

Again it can’t. That’s not what they’re designed for.

That’s what AEW&C aircraft, ISTAR aircraft and ELINT/COMINT aircraft are for, aren’t they?

But such big lumbering aircraft would be easy targets for Su-57s and J-20s. As would tankers.

“… logistics …”

Um, no, subs can’t carry out logistics. But logistics vessels are the most vulnerable of surface vessels.

“… & fire support to troops ashore?”

What’s the range of 4.5″ and 5″ naval guns? About 30km give or take? Using surface ships to carry out NGFS is a suicide mission in today’s world. Even gun and rocket artillery outranges naval guns. I don’t understand why modern ships even have naval guns. What use are they?

That said, IDAS (when it comes into service) will have a land-attack capability so subs that carry them could presumably take out certain land targets like SAM systems and SHORAD systems as well as fuel and ammo dumps. Well providing they’re in range, that is.

““Would the US sell us some second-hand B-2s?” – I wouldn’t want them.”

Well aren’t you the picky one?! No-one was offering you any!

“Old”

Well if they still have a decent amount of life left in them, I’d want them.

“and maintenance heavy”

OK, and? They’d be incredibly useful assets imo.

“Why not buy fresh B-21’s if you want a strategic/long range bomber?”

B-21s would be an excellent option. But will the US export them? They didn’t export the F-22. But if they will export them, then yeah we should totally buy some.

“As for converting them [B-2s] to tankers, why?”

Because our F-35Bs (and all carrier aircraft for that matter) seriously lack range in the western Pacific: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/concept-stealth-tanker-isnt-absurd-you%E2%80%99d-think-182149

““Taranis” – Last I heard, we shared a load of technical data with Dassault for Neuron & they said “thanks, bye!” & gave us nothing.”

Interesting. Got a link? I’d like to read up on this. Not heard this before.

“Agreed though, only £143m for development means unit costs would be cheap.”

I have no idea about costs, but Taranis seems like a no-brainer to me and regardless of cost. An extremely long-range, stealthy UCAV. What’s not to like?

““it simply takes far too long to build ships” – we build them slowly on purpose to keep the yards in work.”

Yep. I can understand keeping shipyards in work and to retain essential skills, but build useful vessels, not pointless and ridiculously expensive River-class OPVs that are useless as warships and totally OTT for the fisheries protection role. For that we could (and should) buy UKBF 42m customs cutters from Damen, fit them with a 30mm cannon and job done. We could afford loads of such vessels.

These shipyards imo should be building relatively cheap attritable USVs and UUVs in vast numbers. That would keep them in business for decades and we’d end up with vessels that are far more useful and survivable than anything we currently have. Plus we’d have loads of them and so could afford to lose them in a war of attrition. We could also quickly replace the ones we lose, which can’t be said of our current ships by any means.

“Should build more of them and faster IMO.”

I totally disagree because current surface ships are ridiculously vulnerable to anti-ship missiles fired from land, subs, ships and aircraft as well as torpedoes and mines. Relatively cheap, attritable USVs and UUVs on the other hand make much more sense to me. As well as stealthy, very fast vessels like the Skjold corvette. We could either buy Skjolds and/or build a similar vessel ourselves.

“As for not being able to replace quickly, the total industrial wars of attrition from the past are incredibly unlikely.”

Really? Have you seen what’s happening in Ukraine?

Russia has been firing stupid amounts of artillery at Ukrainian towns and cities reducing them to rubble. And on top of that they’ve been firing large numbers of cruise missiles as well. Huge numbers of Ukrainians have died, both soldiers and civilians. Russia’s artillery is inaccurate, so they just fire shit-loads of shells and rockets at towns and cities willy nilly.

Ukraine has returned the compliment by taking out large numbers of Russian fuel and ammo dumps, command and control centres, staging areas and several SAM systems. HIMARS gets all the glory, although I’m sure M270s have been involved as well.

Surely that meets the definition of a war of attrition?

“We’ll fight a future conflict with what we have & it’ll be over in 1-2 years.”

Firstly, 1-2 years? My infallible crystal ball is currently in the repair shop, so I have no way of knowing how accurate that prediction is.

Secondly, saying we’ll fight a future conflict with what we have sounds very defeatist to me. We need to make sure that what we have not only meets the (predicted) wartime requirements, but drastically exceeds them. You can never have enough ordnance in a long drawn-out war. The supply needs to be continuous.

“If it’s with a peer, the end won’t be pretty.”

Totally agree. But that’s why imo defence makes more sense than offence when it comes to China (and to a lesser extent Russia).

That said, as far as the UK is concerned, I think it’s very odd referring to China as a peer. They’re in a totally different league. They’re the Premier League. We’re the Championship (at best). The UK might punch above its weight, but it’s no match for China.

“Einstein once said “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.””

Yep I’m familiar with the quote.

But if a war with Russia or China results in a nuclear war and MAD, then there won’t be much fighting going on in the future. Many millions will die in the first strikes and the survivors will die from radiation poisoning and starvation. I’m not sure what effect such a war would have on the southern hemisphere, but I’d expect winds to blow fallout south. Plus there’ll be nuclear winter in the north and global finance and trade will be severely affected.

As for a large-scale conventional war, I fail to see why that would result in future wars being fought with sticks and stones.

Einstein may have been a genius in his field, but I really don’t understand this quote. It sounds cool though and is very quotable.

Then again I might be wrong. I’ll check when I get my crystal ball back from the repair shop.

““Are they? I thought they were in the process of being integrated. Got a source?” – My sincere apologies, you are right. All I can find is plans & contract award for the integration (expected to be completed this year) but not actually done yet. Still, we can piggy back off others having done the work.”

True.

““And probably because they’re not a priority for LM whereas US missiles are” – precisely my point. LRASM & NSM are in the process of integration so Lockheed can sell more LRASM.”

AIUI it’s JSM, not NSM. (Although obviously JSM is an NSM variant.)

The JSM is a Norwegian missile though that’s in direct competition with LRASM and yet both JSM and LRASM are currently being integrated onto the F-35, which doesn’t make much sense if LM is only prioritising US missiles, which I previously claimed. I’m confusing myself now (again).

Anyway, whatever, SPEAR-3 and Meteor, which are both European missiles, won’t be fitted to our F-35Bs until Block 4, which has been pushed back to late this decade. Will other countries use SPEAR-3 and Meteor or just the UK? If it’s just the UK then that presumably explains why these missiles are such a low priority for LM, whereas JSM will presumably be bought by several countries? I could be wrong though. Just thinking out loud really.

“How high on Lockheed’s list will it be to make T-17 work on an F-35?”

Very low I’d have thought, but the Type 17 could be fitted to P-8 Poseidons, Type 45s, possibly GP T23s and Type 31s (space permitting) and presumably Typhoons.

“Answer is: it’ll be at the very very bottom. So if we got T-17, we’ll still be waiting to use it on an F-35 till sometime after the next ice-age.”

I agree as far as the F-35 is concerned, but see the previous paragraph. The F-35 isn’t the only platform the Type 17 could be fitted to.

We’re getting WAY off topic here bud.
“Threads” – no, but I know enough to understand.
WW2 Germany – yep. Militarily impressive. Myriad of reasons but put simply, in 39-43 they were fighting a different type of war that few knew how to deal with.
“would the west and its allies ever directly fight China?” – we have to be willing to. To make sure we don’t & keep some sort of balance. It’s like if all NATO leaders said ‘we’ll never launch a nuke’ – what would stop someone nuking us all tomorrow without fear of repercussions?
“Considering the current war in Ukraine, it would seem not.” – Ukraine aren’t allies to NATO or anyone else. That’s why they’re fighting alone. Taiwan may be the same – IDK.
“decouple themselves economically from China” – Agreed. We want China reliant on the West, not vice-versa.
“there’s a difference between defence and attack” – yes. But you need both, especially to win a conflict.
“*This war was based on lies about WMDs” – agreed.
“**The perpetrators were Saudis, not Afghans,” – long topic but essentially, we went as that’s where some were training/hiding.
“Criminal matter” – Afghan Gov refused to help/extradite them so we effectively joined an ongoing civil war. Stupid. Should’ve bombed camps, Spec-Forces dismantle terrorist org & left.
“sending them [surface ships] against China in a war?” – To win a war, you have to destroy your enemy or their will to fight. Usually accomplished by taking and holding ground. You CANNOT achieve this though air power alone nor through Subs. We cannot simply gear ourselves up to take on Russia or China just because they seem the greatest threat.
For any opponent (NOT just China) you have to control the surface, including the seas. Put simply, we use cyber attacks on Comms, subs with TLAM to kill launchers & command & Control, as well as Anti-Satellite missiles to break kill chain of AShM. Then subs, aircraft & surface assets to kill their subs. Then Carriers to clear skies and bomb their army, Comms, Logistics etc etc. Then you have to land troops & seize territory. Surface ships will likely stay well away for the first several weeks, but they are a necessary component for many things.
“Why would we ever need to invade either country?” – Falklands? Kuwait? Former Yugoslavia? ISIS Caliphate? Plus, we might not ‘want’ to invade, but we need the capability so certain countries know we could if – god forbid – we had to – i.e. invade a neighbour, start a genocide etc. etc.
“naval guns. What use are they?” – this applied to previous stuff too: The idea is, you dismantle a lot of hostiles ability to kill ships before you send the ships… Also, every navy uses them so they must see some value…. And https://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/product/innovating-to-enable-our-customers-to-stay-ahead  
“Interesting. Got a link?” – Nope. Just what I’ve heard.
“our F-35Bs (and all carrier aircraft for that matter) seriously lack range in the western Pacific:” – Agreed. That’s why I want CATOBAR so I can also get a refuelling drone (like MQ25 but WAY cheaper). If we want ‘stealthy’, cool. I can see the argument. Point with using B2 to refuel is, if the B2 has basing and range to get to where F35’s are, I’d just load it with bombs & have it carry on & hit the target instead of refuelling F35. If you need to refuel to push CAP out, cheaper ways and more attritable than a B2 conversion.
“meets the definition of a war of attrition?” – When I said “Industrial war of attrition” I meant a conflict wherein new weapons systems are designed, built & fielded & where each party attempts to physically destroy the industrial base of the other – e.g. Fletcher Class, Flower Class, Essex Class, Lancaster Bomber, Churchill Tank etc. etc. Ukraine hasn’t attacked Russian Tank Factories. In a conflict with China/Russia, it’s unlikely (not impossible) that a non-nuclear war would be so rapid, and new systems so complicated & hard to develop & field, both sides wouldn’t be able to build & field 10,000 new tanks before it was over. Look at the speed a precision in Iraq (1990) – dismantled the 4th largest army in 6 weeks. That was 30 years of tech advances ago. More likely both sides will fight with the kit we have & once it’s used up, it’ll be very difficult to build replacements in significant numbers before it’s over. Not necessarily bombs, bullets and shells, but full weapons systems (i.e. an Astute SSN) will take too long. Just my opinion bud and it’s precisely why we agree that “We need to make sure that what we have not only meets the (predicted) wartime requirements, but drastically exceeds them.”
“defence makes more sense than offence when it comes to China” – China can’t attack us. We’re not going to defend Taiwan. We need both capabilities though. They aren’t the only two nations we could be in conflict with. Cold-War strategy for NATO-v-Soviets was to be defensive, slow their advance, buy time for USA to send everything they have, wear down their forces, then counter-attack. The ‘attack’ bit being fundamental to winning.
“China as a peer” – It’s in reference to tech. We’re in that league. Pure military might, on our own; no.
“large-scale conventional war, I fail to see why that would result in future wars being fought with sticks and stones.” – Think the idea is, if 2 nuclear powers go to war, even conventional, with the aim of ‘total defeat’ (a la Germany 1945), as we approach a ‘Berlin being surrounded by the Red Army’ scenario, someone will shoot a nuke to relieve pressure & turn the tide. Then the other side shoots one back. Escalation. More nukes fired. End of the World. Effects of a full exchange will 100% be global. Even in a limited exchange, depletion of ozone leaves 70% of Earth unprotected from UV – kills crops, look at the food shortages about to happen because Ukrainian grain can’t get to where it’s needed. In a full exchange… Imagine Ukraine (along with the rest of Europe & Russia) just didn’t exist – whose feeding the middle east & Africa now? Ocean surface temperature drops between 2 and 6 °C – that may trigger another ice age lasting millennia. 10 degree drop in temp at the equator – look at the potential damage 2 degrees of global warming may cause & imagine what 10 down would do – plants & animals, whole eco-systems die. World economic systems are gone. Global Comms almost completely wiped out. Satellites won’t work (all maintained by UK, USA, France, Russia, China & we’re all dead). What nations aren’t immediately vapourised will likely collapse within 2-3 years due to food shortages & economic collapse. What’s left of humanity after 10 years (if there is anyone) will scratch out a subsistence living wherever plant life managed to survive. Survivors will scavenge for hand tools (forget power grids) and won’t have time for art, science, research, crafting/making new AR-15’s and the ammo as they’ll be too busy just trying not to die. Centuries of accumulated human knowledge and progress will be wiped out & humanity (if we clung on) will have to rebuild from roughly the stone/iron-age. It’s Biblical.
“JSM is a Norwegian missile” – Built with Ratheon for the US. Hence, US missile.
“other countries use SPEAR-3 and Meteor or just the UK?” – SPEAR 3, not yet but seems likely. Meteor, Yes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_(missile)#Operators

My understanding is that LM have contracted BAE US to develop an updated RF sensor (the current one is also BAE). This appears to be in response to the new JSM (later to be back ported to NSM) RF seeker from BAE Australia. As part of Australia agreeing with Norway to help fund JSM, they wanted Konsberg to test the newly developed Australian RF seeker they had put money into. Tests became orders. Konsberg currently have access to a better RF seeker than LM.

“Konsberg currently have access to a better RF seeker than LM.”

Certainly possible but the requirements for each missile are slightly different so without access to the classified data its almost impossible to say which is better as the newer seeker could also be descoped for a less demanding threat environment.

I don’t know much of him other than he wasn’t popular when he was HS.
I like Mourdant myself.

To be honest the reason jeremy Hunt was not a popular minister of state for health was that he was totally focused on improvement in safety over what the medical profession wanted. It was always the Drs that really did not like hunt as he would not let them get way with their usual “it’s our way or no way”. He made a massive difference in hospitals on a Saturday and as a health professional who’s been focused and managing risk and safety in healthcare I actually respect the man a lot. I did once call him the devil himself at a kings fund conference, when he was sat next to me ( I did not realise it he was there…whoops), but I actually respect him as a politician who has really focused on improving the well being of the country ( he was health sec for years because he insisted in keeping that role and then went on to chair the health select committee).

Thanks, I was hoping you’d comment. Ok, so not a bad sort then, that is good to hear.

Yes he is one of the few politicians of all sides that I would be happy to vote for as prime minister, I think he’s able to make unpopular decisions if it’s in the public interests as well as a person who is clearly there to make a difference and not just for the power and prestige.

Tugendhat doesn’t impress me for Def Sec. The next Def Sec needs to get a grip on Procurement not just land systems but the issues are the most acute there. They’ll need to introduce responsibilty for programmes. Uniformed and non uniformed people given responsibilty for a particular programme or at least a specific defined part of it. That way anyone who flips up will be easily identified and face the consequences. I think that will solve most of our problems with procurement but the Military and Civil Service will fight it to the death and they know how to fight dirty. We need someone with balls and from outside the cosy service mafia

Yes agree, l don’t think the things are likely to ever be fired, they are more a statement of intent than anything else, so keep it cheap and focus money on other key capabilities. Personally I still think we would be better off getting a decent air launched capability for fast jets as well a trying to bring in spear 3 as quickly as possible and get that mounted on out escorts in large numbers ( no force would ever want to engage an RN ship that could launch a swarm of spear threes).

I definitely think multiple hits will be harder to deal with than one big heavy slow missile. I found the Perseus development missile very interesting with its 2 pop out effectors. So a big supersonic anti ship missile with 4 spear warhead type would be formidable and a game and tactic changer.