Royal Navy: "We don't have enough ships"

xcr · Post by **xcr** » 2005-02-14 04:50am

Canada has had carriers in the past (all British built...). The last one was scraped in 1970 (a very few years out of a refit that would have extended its useful life into the 80's.) The RN is not the onlyy navy that is a shadow of its former self...

I dont think, givin the Liberal election victory, that one can expect any carriers (which would require British or US help for training, givin that its been 35 years since Canada had a carrier). In fact I dont hold out fuch hope for the future destroyers, or even the new supply ship/ transports.

Still, dispite the bad treatment of the military, Im glad the Tories lost the election.

wood · Post by **wood** » 2005-02-14 12:20pm

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we have the world's third largest navy at the end of WWII?

And now... let's see... 12 frigates, 4 destroyers... umm.... I think that's it unless you start counting support vessels, and they aren't all operational at any given time either.

But as for the RN, isn't the HMS Victory still officially in service?

That's one more at least

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2005-02-14 12:25pm

The empire doesn't exist and the Commonwealth is self-sufficient for the most part. The need for a large navy doesn't exist, but I agree that this is the Chancellor of the Exchequer squeezing one too many pennies.

xcr · Post by **xcr** » 2005-02-14 12:55pm

Well, there are some older destroyers sitting in habour in Halifax. They could perhaps be returned back to servece in ~a year. Perhaps.

In the late 50's, early 60's Canada had one of two navies in the world capable of sustained 24h carrrier ops for days at a time. The US was the other, with larger ships (True fleet carriers, to Canada's solitary Light fleet carrier). Now the navy air wing consists of a few ancient and barly air-worthy sea-kings.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2005-02-14 12:58pm

brianeyci wrote:Well the last sentence pretty much sums up my opinion as well. Will our CF-18's last until then?

The RCAF believes they can now last to about 2017, what with the recent ugrade contract that will replace the radar, computer system and most of the avionics on 80 of the aircraft by 2009: The upgrade will bring them up to the standard of the US F/A-18C aircraft (previously, they were at the same F/A-18A standard as they were when we bought them in 1984), and the airframes will be refurbished to some degree. They should now be compatible with the JTIDS datalink system used by the rest of NATO, and they will also be able to use such weapons as JDAMs and AMRAAMs...

brianeyci wrote:Pathetic how we had to go around begging for spare parts in Kosovo.

Equally pathetic was how their systems were so obsolete they were no longer compatible with those of the other NATO countries, which led to some embarrasing operational problems in Kosovo: In light of the above that shouldn't be a problem anymore...

wood wrote:Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we have the world's third largest navy at the end of WWII?

In terms of number of ships only: In terms of actual combat power, the RCN of that era was a bit lower than that.

The bulk of our ships then were puny corvettes, destroyers, and destroyer-escorts: we didn't have any surface combatants larger than a light cruiser (of which we only had two). As for carriers, we had a handful of escort carriers (baby flat-tops) and a two light carriers. Most of our ships were British built, and were given to us simply because the RN didn't have enough warm bodies to crew them. In short, our WWII navy was built almost entirely to protect convoys against aircraft and U-boats, not to engage other navies in direct combat...

xcr · Post by **xcr** » 2005-02-14 01:19pm

Actually, there were no fleet carriers in the RCN in ww2. The forst one was commishined post-ww2. It was returned to the RN after it was apparent that it did not meet the requirments of the RCN. The Brits used it for a while in less demanding climates. It was replaced by another, which served till the last one was commishoned. Also, while the escort carriers were crewed by Canadians, the air wing was British, and the ships were officially in the RN.

kheegster · Post by **kheegster** » 2005-02-14 06:38pm

Rogue 9 wrote:
Shinova wrote:Does Britain hold a lot of overseas possessions and territories like the US does?

I was thinking that the British's or the EU in general's strong arm was their economic influence, not their military presence. But anyway.
The Falklands is still held by Britain and they'd like to keep it that way. I don't know if Argentina is still agitating to get the "Maldives" back, but if they are this announcement would be making me nervous if I was Britain.

Malvinas. Las Islas Malvinas. Maldives is in the Indian Ocean.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2005-02-15 06:15am

wood wrote:snip

But as for the RN, isn't the HMS Victory still officially in service? That's one more at least

And a battleship no less

Victory is Flagship of the Seconed Sea Lord and is indeed in commision, albeit undergoing a very long 'refiit' {restoration and conservation}

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2005-02-15 09:03am

kheegan wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote:
Shinova wrote:Does Britain hold a lot of overseas possessions and territories like the US does?

I was thinking that the British's or the EU in general's strong arm was their economic influence, not their military presence. But anyway.
The Falklands is still held by Britain and they'd like to keep it that way. I don't know if Argentina is still agitating to get the "Maldives" back, but if they are this announcement would be making me nervous if I was Britain.
Malvinas. Las Islas Malvinas. Maldives is in the Indian Ocean.

Whatever. Either way it's the Falklands and they can piss off.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2005-02-15 10:46am

Stuart Mackey wrote:
wood wrote:snip

But as for the RN, isn't the HMS Victory still officially in service? That's one more at least
And a battleship no less Victory is Flagship of the Seconed Sea Lord and is indeed in commision, albeit undergoing a very long 'refiit' {restoration and conservation}

Yes, but they better be careful how they advertise that or we Yanks might trump it with an Iowa.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2005-02-15 11:36am

Bah just purchase some Wasp's from Ingalls. They'll only run you about a billion or so a piece and the US has done most of the legwork for you

.

RadiO · Post by **RadiO** » 2005-02-15 05:07pm

CmdrWilkens wrote:Bah just purchase some Wasp's from Ingalls. They'll only run you about a billion or so a piece and the US has done most of the legwork for you .

But then we'd be shit out of luck when the V/STOL JSF variant gets cancelled and we have to buy Rafales.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2005-02-15 06:18pm

RadiO wrote:
But then we'd be shit out of luck when the V/STOL JSF variant gets cancelled and we have to buy Rafales.

Just get a lengthened version. I'm sure Ingalls has one on the table (they've got a couple) which is long enough to operate CTOL aircraft. And if they don't, I'm sure they can as many feet as you need into the hull. That's also make for some monstrous vehicle and landing craft capacity. Unloading a whole armored battalion with a dozen LCAC's would be nice.

kheegster · Post by **kheegster** » 2005-02-15 06:34pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote:
wood wrote:snip

But as for the RN, isn't the HMS Victory still officially in service? That's one more at least
And a battleship no less Victory is Flagship of the Seconed Sea Lord and is indeed in commision, albeit undergoing a very long 'refiit' {restoration and conservation}
Yes, but they better be careful how they advertise that or we Yanks might trump it with an Iowa.

I thought that the USN's flagship is the USS Constitution?

Prozac the Robert · Post by **Prozac the Robert** » 2005-02-15 09:02pm

Hmm, I can't find anything like this story anywhere other than the telegraph website. Can anyone else find anything? I was under the impression that defence spending actually increased in the last budget.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2005-02-15 11:40pm

kheegan wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote: And a battleship no less Victory is Flagship of the Seconed Sea Lord and is indeed in commision, albeit undergoing a very long 'refiit' {restoration and conservation}
Yes, but they better be careful how they advertise that or we Yanks might trump it with an Iowa.
I thought that the USN's flagship is the USS Constitution?

Not really. It's ocassionally given some symbolic honors but it's not formally anyone's flagship.

I was simply pointing out that if we find out some one else has a "battleship" compensation issues demand that we have one, or more. And the New Jersey and Wisconsin are just a bit tougher.

SecondStorm · Post by **SecondStorm** » 2005-02-16 02:16am

Stuart Mackey wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:snip

And I must say, the Frogs could beat the Royal Navy.
You assume the Brits dont 'Copenhagen' the Frogs first

*grumbles*
Backstabbing Brits.

Here we have all our forces on the border waiting for a French attack and then the British attack our capital (without a declaration of war mind you), firebombs it into oblivion and swipes our fleet both military and merchant.

"But but we didnt want the evil French to take your fleet !
Well thank you for that but could you please remove that knife in my back. It stings and burn"

Swine!

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2005-02-17 01:46am

Is it normal for about 50% of a nations fleet to be unavailible for 'warfighting'? If they're reducing to 25 ships, and only 12 are estimated to be availible, is this because of more British dock problems, or lack of maintenance, or transit time to and from station?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2005-02-17 02:01am

Stark wrote:Is it normal for about 50% of a nations fleet to be unavailible for 'warfighting'? If they're reducing to 25 ships, and only 12 are estimated to be availible, is this because of more British dock problems, or lack of maintenance, or transit time to and from station?

50% being available for deployment is actually very good, the USN for example has about 33% of its vessels on operations unless its in a surge mode in which ships undergoing training are deployed and other deployments are extended. You can't use machinery and men for months on end and not have a lot of down time.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2005-02-18 09:03am

Stormbringer wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote:
wood wrote:snip

But as for the RN, isn't the HMS Victory still officially in service? That's one more at least
And a battleship no less Victory is Flagship of the Seconed Sea Lord and is indeed in commision, albeit undergoing a very long 'refiit' {restoration and conservation}
Yes, but they better be careful how they advertise that or we Yanks might trump it with an Iowa.

*thinks* ok, yanks win.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2005-02-18 09:04am

SecondStorm wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:snip

And I must say, the Frogs could beat the Royal Navy.
You assume the Brits dont 'Copenhagen' the Frogs first
*grumbles*
Backstabbing Brits.

Here we have all our forces on the border waiting for a French attack and then the British attack our capital (without a declaration of war mind you), firebombs it into oblivion and swipes our fleet both military and merchant.

"But but we didnt want the evil French to take your fleet !
Well thank you for that but could you please remove that knife in my back. It stings and burn"

Swine!

Ahh such a polite nation.

Exmoor Cat · Post by **Exmoor Cat** » 2005-02-18 07:18pm

IIRC, the French cocked up their carriers by building the deck too short of their fighters??

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2005-02-18 07:27pm

Exmoor Cat wrote:IIRC, the French cocked up their carriers by building the deck too short of their fighters??

The deck was fine for fighters, the problem was E-2 Hawkeye's, which where not to be in the air group when the ship was designed. They could operate off the carrier, but the angled deck was a couple meters too short by the standards the USN had for safe landing operations and so it was extended.

Significantly bigger issues involved insufficient reactor shielding, which required the reactor to be shut down when the ship first ran trials, she was towed back to port. Those and other machinery issues persisted for several years; there was also immense trouble with the ships screws and they eventually had to be totally replaced. The carrier's reactor also doesn't provide sufficient steam to sustain top speed and use the catapults.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2005-02-18 08:05pm

They used an SSN scale PWR didn't they? I recall the reason it overheated so much was because it was like using a single Duracell to run a speedboat.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2005-02-18 08:45pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:They used an SSN scale PWR didn't they? I recall the reason it overheated so much was because it was like using a single Duracell to run a speedboat.

I don't think so; she's got twin reactors and 80,000hp going to the shafts for a mighty top speed of about 28 knots. That's not very demanding at all even if they used a submarine reactor as the basis of the design. The ship just wasn't built right and it took a lot of adjustments to get everything running correctly. That's not uncommon, espically when you've got a design which is being very artificially limited in displacement. For example, when the US put the North Carolina in the water it took over a year before vibration issues with her screws could be worked out.

The French are also just really bad at building reliable nuclear warship, there SSBN fleet is abominable in that regard. With six boats they couldn't always keep on at sea. Meanwhile the Royal Navy always kept one at sea with four boats, and could have kept two constantly at sea had the fifth Resolution been built.