warships.

[hptmurphy]

It has been reported in warships IFR . that the carrier HMS Invincible and the OPV HMS Leeds castle have been decommisioned
.....some of the type 23s are also on the way out but these are not as important as they are not living links with the Falklands war

...where the RN are reputed to have learned a lot of lessons that have been factors in the development of the current fleet
...we are now coming close to the end of the classes that served in that war
...and have the lessons been forgotten with the rundown of the current fleet.

[moggy]

Hms invincible was de-commissioned about 3 weeks ago, was live on sky news too much money
to keep her going, saw her going to the falklands war when i was on emer many years ago

[Goldie fish]

Contender Bezant is still in service.

RFA Argus to the rest of us.

[GoneToTheCanner]

Hi all
Given that the RN are scrapping their Sea Harriers,maybe they have forgotten how close they came to losing the Falklands for real. It might take another small war to emphasise the need for a serious carrier-borne fighter fleet.
regards
GttC

[Aidan]

Well, given that they have two medium sized carriers on the way (40kt), to be equipped with F-35s, I think they know ...

[ias]

But when, the "Maingate" on these is 2007.

Is it not, that the expectation is, they'll not fight a conventional air war again, that they'll have air superiority and will only need ground attack assets?

IAS

[Aidan]

The F-35 will be a lot more capable than then Sea Harrier ever was at air to air ( LPI-AESA radar, Aim 120s, stealthy, much better payload/range/speed), and will also bring a lot more A-G capacity to the table. Combined with AEW Merlins (most likely), the new carriers will drastically improve the situation regarding air defence, rather than the inverse.

Then theres the Type 45 Frigates, (Aster 30, anyone?) together with the long range of the E-3Ds. Very few countries can field that kind of hardware.

[hptmurphy]

seeing these are still along way off...are they not a bit premature about getting rid of the current vessels,,especially the Type 23s....does it not make more sense to remove vessels after the new ones ahve been accepted than remove the current ones on the grounds that they may build the entire order..after all contracts have been cancelled in the past.

As for the Invincible ..the wording seems to state that she may no longer maybe entitely sea worthy!..and not in reference to the extensive refit she recieved two years ago..seem like a lot of money was spent..and the payback time was never met.

[Aidan]

Premature? Probably, but theres a lot of politics involved also - the 'through deck cruisers' are all mechanically dubious at this point from what I hear, it might be more advantageous for the RN to start retiring them to hurry up the CV project (first one will probably be ready after 2012). One thing is for sure, they've run (over the last 10 years) into a fairly serious funding crunch.

The RAF are in the middle of the Typhoon purchase, which is sucking up a lot of defence expenditure, as is the minor matter of Iraq. Discretion may be the better part of valour when it comes to making a point to the MoD (if you don't give us money, you start losing valuable deployable assets). They have plenty of amphib capacity coming on line though, which is the major concern right now. They are going to be even more dependent on the US (or the French :redface: ) for air cover for a few years though. And they is betting a lot on the F-35 working out.

Good thread here, mainly on the Sea Harrier, but verges into the RN debate as a whole

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=98152

[hptmurphy]

Its great to be making statemnets at command level given the politicians raely react any way but if there was to be a change of government in the UK before these ships were actually built chances are the order could be cancelled as part of a political parties election promises on cutbacks...it has happened before.

The only positive angle is the Ivincible is merely being laid up...not being scrapped immediately so you could theoretically end up wit a Fearless repeat that she could be recommissioned if needs be...on the other hand the sale of the newer assets such as the type 23s is irreversible...

[Goldie fish]

Irreversible, and premature. Their replacements are a long way off, and the Type 42 replacements are barely at the plate cutting stage.

[Lordinajamjar]

Irreversible, and premature. Their replacements are a long way off,

I don't remember them but I'll take your word for it. They must have been great ships.

[andy]

Hi all
Given that the RN are scrapping their Sea Harriers,maybe they have forgotten how close they came to losing the Falklands for real. It might take another small war to emphasise the need for a serious carrier-borne fighter fleet.
regards
GttC

I think that was the last day of empire. Britan doesnt have the military might to act alone ever again. They can barely run the Basra operation let alone a full war. Any future war will probably invovle the USA.

[Aidan]

Britain hasn't had the military might to act alone against a first rate military power for over 50 years, this is nothing new.

The capacity offered by the 'carriers' is slight, mainly because their CAP airframes are old, underpowered and difficult to maintain (and are being retired). JFH, which will be all Gr.7s and 9s now will do what is needed, but only close to the shore. Theres a definite advantage to retiring at least one to free up some resources.

As for acting alone, they still can against many opponents and in many situations. A pair of 60,000 tonne (my mistake earlier) carriers is quite a punch. And remember, this is force projection from the sea. Their Ef-2000s and E-3D, and whatever the FOAS is going to be, is a serious force to be reckoned with. Globally, there aren't many forces with that much capability. I wouldn't write them off just yet.

[Lordinajamjar]

Britain hasn't had the military might to act alone against a first rate military power for over 50 years, this is nothing new.

It's new to me.