Slashdot Mirror
Royal Navy Giving Up Anti-Ship Missiles, Will Rely On Cannons For Naval Combat (telegraph.co.uk)
cold fjord writes: It will soon be a bit more difficult for Britain's Royal Navy to rule the waves as it gives up anti-ship missiles as a result of budget cuts. That will force the Royal Navy to go "old school" and rely upon naval gunfire for ship-to-ship combat. Cannon fire as the primary means of ship-to-ship combat has been largely obsolete since the 1950s following the invention of guided missiles in World War 2. Prior to that, cannon fire had been the primary means of naval combat for hundreds of years. Although the Royal Navy ranged up to 16" guns on battleships, the largest gun currently in active service is a 4.5" gun. That will leave the Royal Navy unable to engage targets beyond approximately 17 miles / 27 km, whereas Harpoon missiles provide an 80 mile / 130 m range. The loss of anti-ship missile capability will begin in 2018 and may last for 10 years for warships, and 2 years for helicopters. The Sun quotes a naval insider who said: "It's like Nelson saying, 'don't worry, I don't need canons, we've got muskets.'" The loss of missile capability heaps more misfortune upon a naval force that recently has seen its available frontline combat force drop to an unprecedented 24 warships.
When is the last time the British Navy fired an anti-ship missile from a ship? Almost 40 years? Seriously.
Is anyone seriously planning on attacking British warships with something besides rafts full of IEDs? What's the likelihood that Brits would be involved in a Naval engagement that didn't also involve the American Navy, a force that is nearly cartoonish compared to every other fleet on the planet? Is there some expectation that they'll be front-line in a shooting war beside an American carrier group?
-- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K
The 1780s called...
since the Falklands. now drones....that's more like it.
Doing actual fighting with guns 'n' stuff is medieval and almost obsolete. If you want to take over a country nowadays you do it with media and cultural programming.
No wonder Trump has been incessantly complaining that America's allies do not spend enough on their own defense and rely on the American firepower. The situation is quite similar all over Europe.
But Trump seems to be looking for ways to cut way back in military spending, letting Russia take over as the world's policeman for example. That seems to fit his skinflint personality, although he made characteristically pugnacious and unsupported statements about our military being under-equipped during his rallies and debates.
Trump has made a career out of talking big and then stepping back and letting someone else pick up the tab.
Considering the size of Great Britain compared to Russia, the Royal Navy is still far ahead in capabilities. For instance, the Royal Navy does not have to have a tug boat go along with their aircraft carrier because it breaks down so often.
Then again, the Royal Navy has more than one aircraft carrier. Unlike Russia.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
I was in Devon yesterday at the naval base which is also a tourist area. They have misappropriated multi-billion pounds on quango projects. They are one of the largest lobbying groups. Their defence budget is still the 5th largest in the world.
They have a statement quote:
"Despite having the world’s 5th largest defence budget, it is clear we are getting terrible value for money. British defence procurement has been plagued by waste, cock-ups and mismanagement over the last 40 years and the RN continues to suffer from this. There have been some success stories but most major warship, submarine or aircraft programme has delivered late and over budget. Although the last defence secretary, Phillip Hammond, attempted to bring some order to MoD finances, there has been only limited progress in reducing the colossal waste and inefficiency in defence procurement".
They have more missiles than they know what to do with. As they are one of the largest lobbying groups they are always coming up with fake stories and screaming poverty.
This can easily be fixed with tax cuts, particularly if targeted at billionaires.
The UK has been doing "creative accounting" to lie about the amounts they are putting into defense.
At the same time, China is massively increasing their defense spending with both official numbers, and much larger unofficial numbers...
" 80 mile / 130 m range", someone forgot a kilo in there..
One of the reasons Anti Ship missiles suck is due to time of flight and no discrimination systems to filter out what will effectively become a potential target once the platform reaches its designated area and begins its search pattern.
Every target has what's known as an AOU or " Area of Uncertainty ". This is typically designated as a circle around the targets last known position. The size of the AOU is based on:
Length of time since target update
Platform that generated update
Target Speed / heading / etc
The more time that passes, the larger the potential area said target can be in and the larger the circle grows.
Now assume you get really good positioning data on your target. Initial AOU size will vary based on what platform provided the data, but assume it's a solid hit.
Ignoring the fact we'll never shoot just one missile and that it would take forever to coordinate a dozen shots across multiple ships, let's say we just send one off from a few hundred miles out.
So not including super and hypersonic systems, most cruise missiles are subsonic so figure maybe half an hour flight time to reach the target area.
That AOU is going to grow considerably in half an hour and if other ships are in the area, those AOU's can start to overlap. Meaning you can have more than just your target in the search area when the radar goes active and begins looking for something to kill.
Bad news if you happen to be floating in the general area and are big enough to generate a radar return.
Now picture this scenario in a cramped space like the Persian Gulf where hundreds of ships and their gigantic overlapping AOU's make targeting anything a downright pita.
The newer platforms may be more intelligent ( LRASM is supposed to be ) but Gulf War era tech certainly was not. No mid flight updates. Once flying, the weapon was on its own.
Source: Ex Tomahawk Blk II/III TWCS Fire Control type
*its
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
What's the point of having a futuristic-ally armed ship anyway ? aside from its ability to transport a lot of supplies, fly the flag visibly and to do humanitarian missions in pirate infested seas all of which can probably work very well with regular naval guns.
For any real war I would have thought the best way to take out a ship would be from a submarine or from a land- or space- or air-launched missile.
and who's to say there isn't some clever way to make the guns more effective with "smart shells" or something
Nullius in verba
This is grandstanding to get the British people riled up and get popular opinion to support allocating more money for defense spending. They've set the doomsday date far enough in the future that they have time to let the bureaucrats allocate the money and save the day and keep the missiles on the ships.
Better known as 318230.
Just put the ships away. Scrap them all. And sit on your nice safe island. That way nothing can happen to you. Standing armies are over-rated anyway, all they do is get you in trouble. There's no problem with becoming a peaceful nation. It's a LOT cheaper! Only one thing - you're going to have to quit that warmongering habit. You know, sticking your nose in everywhere, telling people what to do, bombing them, etc. That tends to make people upset and if they get upset well you sort of need an army to discourage them. But if you're set on peace, then peace is possible. Just close your eyes. Go to sleep. And pay no attention to Mohammed there. That knife by no means is going to slit your throat...
"The Navyâ(TM)s Harpoon missiles will retire from the fleetâ(TM)s frigates and destroyers in 2018 without a replacement,"
So don't retire them?
Better to have a couple-year obsolete missiles (assuming they ARE obsolete, defense industry techs are pretty aggressive about selling upgrades) than NONE.
This is like local governments that, when told their state funds are being cut, START by laying off cops and firemen - it's a sham to make *any* budget cut seem agonizingly painful.
-Styopa
There are lots of ways to sink a ship. When I worked in that business we took very seriously the threat of low-flying aircraft with modern ECM pods and laser-guided bombs. The Queen Elizabeth will be commissioned in May, so while the Royal Navy may not have anti-ship missiles that doesn't necessarily mean it won't have a way to sink ships. I suspect F-35s, with their low radar cross-section, will be well-suited to that role.
And then there are submarines.
They will have operational F-35s in about.... ummm.... maybe 10 years
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
There goes my fantasy of making the UK our 51st State...
Thanks, I think..
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
The Republicans are not the ones sequestering and cutting Defense budgets, that's Democrats. Republicans have attempted to stop the bullshit spending and takeover of health insurance. Get your facts straight!
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
The US pays for wars all over the place which have been very expensive. 7-9 Trillion in the Middle East with nothing in return except destabilized countries with a populace that hates and is more aggressive to the US and its allies. Stop giving arms to rebels who turn those weapons on you, close bases that don't do us any good and bring troops to bases that do, and if we are defending a country we should receive compensation instead of paying a country to have a base. Further, there can be cuts to BS departments of money grubbing and lobbying, but that would be a secondary issue to tackle.
The US Defense budget is massive, but we sure don't spend it on troops and weapons. Way too much overhead and far too many pet projects.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
The world is getting ever more peaceful, right?
No need to worry about the NATO collapsing in the wake of a Trump presidency either. After all, there are reliable European allies who are already planning for a stronger EU defence integration if NATO turns into a paper tiger.
Oh, wait a second ...
Never mind. Good luck!
computers came about as a result of artillery calculations. Don't think that they can't be used on boats to quickly point them towards moving ships. Sure they will miss every so often, but they're a lot cheaper than missiles.
Non sequitur: Your facts are uncoordinated.
Ram 'em and board, mateys.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
https://youtu.be/_LNET_reE6o
History repeats.
People forget this due to the reversal afterwards, but one of the cost savings of the incoming Thatcher government in the UK was to scrap and sell all the aircraft carriers leaving a gap of some time with no aircraft carriers before HMS Illustrious and HMS Ark Royal (R07) were completed. The Argentinians took note and occupied the Falkland Islands expecting to be safe from a toothless Royal Navy.
They acted too quickly because while the sale of the HMS Invincible in February 1982 to Australia had gone through the aircraft carrier was still in the UK in April when the war broke out. The other operational carrier, HMS Hermes, was going to be scrapped some time in 1982 due to a decision made in 1981 but was still intact in April. The Argentinians got a bit of a shock in facing two aircraft carriers instead of the zero they expected. The carriers HMS Triumph and HMS Ark Royal (R09) had already been recently scrapped under the Thatcher government Navy reduction plan, but they were quite old ships anyway.
Nous nous sentons honteux et nous voulons nous excuser auprès de cet homme. Nous sommes en train de lui écrire pour nous excuser et l'inviter à venir dans notre club avec sa famille, a encore déclaré le Special One. Comme ça, il pourra voir ce qu'est vraiment supporter Chelsea. Une initiative qui devrait faire chaud au cur à cet habitant du Val d'Oise, particulièrement touché par ce qui lui est arrivé. Je me sens je ne suis pas en sécurité voilà dans mon pays, déclarait-il sur RTL jeudi. Vous êtes dans un pays où on vous traite de sale noir, excusez-moi franchement ça fait mal à la tête, a-t-il témoigné. Je suis vraiment en colère, mettez-vous à ma place. Je suis en colère contre ces gen air jordan pas cher . Pas sûr dans ces conditions qu'il souhaite réellement se rendre à Stamford Bridge.
"Cannon fire as the primary means of ship-to-ship combat has been largely obsolete since the 1950s following the invention of guided missiles in World War 2"
Ships have been obsolete since then as well. Any idiot with a couple of Exocets can sink those almost unmovable targets as easily as they want.
Didn't they learn that in the Falkland war?
what if america decides not to? An Island nation with shitty navy, that is so dumb. Even egypt has more ships then that. Turkey too. Insanity.
At least we're getting two ridiculous aircraft carriers to compensate.
130 m? That's not much range. Couldn't have meant km, could they?
So, Iceland can win the next Cod War!
Let's hope Argentina don't read this.....Goodbye Falklands...
My thought on it is that if the nation went to war in which naval battles were a possibility (or actually happening), the budget would be instantaneously available to them to do whatever necessary to protect their seas.
Having budget available doesn't mean you have munitions instantly available. There is a lead time to this sort of thing.
I'm sure they also have a rather large stockpile they could draw on in the meantime as well.
And what good are those if they are sitting in a warehouse somewhere because the launch systems have been removed from the ships and nobody has been trained to use them? Combat situations often don't announce themselves with several months lead time to get ready.
When is the last time the British Navy fired an anti-ship missile from a ship? Almost 40 years? Seriously.
I can't be bothered to confirm that statement but even if we agree that it is true, so what? Just because you haven't had a particular type of battle in a while doesn't mean it won't happen tomorrow. Nobody has been nuked since 1945 but (unfortunately) they still are actively maintained for particular contingencies. I don't really care one way or the other since I'm not a UK citizen but if anti-ship missiles are a tactical necessity in modern naval combat then it seems rather silly to bring a knife to a gun fight.
Not only is the UK one of the wealthiest nations on earth, it is one of a few, if not the only one among NATO nations that spends the recommended 2% on defence.
My guess is that they are hoping the US will continue to pick up the slack since the US wildly over spends on it's military. Not sure how long that will go on with the new idiot about to enter the White House. But I agree that it makes little sense for a maritime nation like the UK to have a second rate navy. The UK might have it's problems but it's not exactly in the poor house with one of the 5 largest economies by GDP in the world.
A lot of USAian ships no longer carry missiles because they are too expensive. The FFG's rely on a solely on 5" gun. Now we see that firing gun is getting too expensive with the advent of the new rail guns. Wars may be fought by soldiers and sailors, but are won by national economies. The Chin would destroy the USA in a shooting war. However the USAians keep buying cheap Chinese shit, thus sealing their doom. But then again, I am a a racist because I supported trump, so you should not believe me.
-Uncontrolled immigration works great, just ask the American Indians.
Is anyone seriously planning on attacking British warships with something besides rafts full of IEDs?
Probably not but only an idiot prepares just for the most likely contingency.
What's the likelihood that Brits would be involved in a Naval engagement that didn't also involve the American Navy, a force that is nearly cartoonish compared to every other fleet on the planet?
So the plan is to further rely on the US military to pick up the slack? Given the rhetoric from the idiot about to occupy the White House that might not be such a smart plan. Yes the US wildly overspends on its military. That doesn't mean the interests of the US and the UK will always align or that the US will always be interested in playing the role of protective big brother.
You can work out what colour it should be, though.
Light grey, like everything else.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
There is no navy on the world, except the US one, that is a thread to the UK's, or any other European navy.
Forgetting about the Russians aren't you? While they aren't what they were during the Soviet era they certainly qualify as a credible threat and they clearly aren't terribly friendly to UK and EU interests. I would expect the Chinese to become a credible naval power in due time as well. Possibly India too though like China distance will tend to defuse any tensions with the EU. Russia however is basically next door.
And the US are not a *serious* thread. if they would go rogue and try to attack Europe they need to get their carriers into strike range.
Umm, you do know that the US has intercontinental missiles, long range bombers, and troops and equipment ALREADY stationed in Europe right? While there is basically zero chance of the US attacking Europe they would not necessarily be likely to depend on carriers to do it should the need arise. Especially in light of the fact that several countries in Europe are nuclear armed. You can be quite sure that somewhere in the Pentagon there are plans for attacking Europe should the need arise and I'm pretty sure they've considered how to protect their carriers in such an eventuality.
Unlike the US navy most European navies are designed for "home defense"
I wouldn't fancy any of their chances against the US navy right now no matter what their disposition. There are some countries that could do some real damage but unless nukes get involved I'm pretty confident the eventual outcome of a naval fight with the US would favor the US. The US navy is about the most cartoonishly overpowered military force I can imagine.
The way I understand it, wouldn't Alaska be the first part of NA to see combat?
Probably not. There isn't much in Alaska worth attacking aside from a few military outposts, none of which are enormous. The territory is huge, rough, and there is little strategic or tactical value in most of it. Minimal industry, sparse population, terrible weather for much of the year. During WWII the Japanese more or less ignored Alaska because there was no value in attacking it despite it being the closest part of the US to Japan. (yes it's closer than Hawaii by about 600 miles)
It's hard to image the UK engaging a serious navy in a conflict where one of these carriers and their aircraft won't be involved. Perhaps we could drop some of this overly superior American attitude?
Two carriers? The US has 10 active aircraft carriers (with more on the way) plus another 9 ships that would be called aircraft carriers in any other navy. Between 2 to 4 of these 10 carriers are deployed at any given moment - a fact that will not be true for the 2 British carriers. (they need periodic time in port for repairs and training) It's not about being smug. The US navy is just WAY larger and more capable than any other navy currently operating. Personally I think this is a ridiculous waste of resources but it's currently the way it is.
... but also their allies. NATO has strategic plans, even in times of relative peace, which will need to be adapted. I can imagine this being a major headache, since the other members will have to pick up the slack.
So current british warships will only be able to land a 4.5" round 18 miles away - so what? If a warship needs to land weapons on targets further away, Britain has an air force it can call on, which can more than suffice I'm sure in those situations that require a target beyond 18 miles be hit.
If the propaganda is to be believed, the next-gen LRASM will have some impressive capabilities.
Here's some LockHeed War Porn for you to give you an idea of what they're wanting to do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
With a lot of ships being equipped with CIWS and anti-missile missiles I don't think anti-ship missiles are as effective as they once were. In fact the US Navy is doing a lot of development in railguns and GPS guided munitions to try to bypass such systems by firing a much faster projectile with a much smaller signature.
Take out the vending machines and sell them Big Mo (U.S.S. Missouri) that is sitting in Pearl Harbor! Those 16" guns should work quite well. Give some old Navy veterans some part-time spending money to train the new users...
You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
The voter who decided 4% of GNP is too much spending for one's military, or the voter who dependent upon a nation thousands of miles away from them for their national existence and economic interests?
Did it announce, "Carrier has arrived" when it showed up?
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
The US has a strong partnership with england and this canon nonsense will effectively prevent the Royal Navy from being of meaningful aid if a serious war breaks out. The very reason that the British Navy has not had to use missiles may very well be that other nations knew that British war ships carried missiles. I'm certain that the US would prefer that England fields a very, very strong Navy.
The Brits be swashbuckling again!
Rowboats and pea shooters next? They may as well just scrap any pretense at being a sea power along with the remaining ships. Or, they could rename them and call them HMS Hood #1, HMS Hood #2 ....HMS Hood #24.
E Proelio Veritas.
the Royal Navy ranged up to 16" guns on battleships
That should be 18". HMS Furious (launched 1917) was a light battlecruiser*, one of the "Glorious" class designed with two 18" guns in single turrets. While still being buillt however the forward turret was removed and replaced by an aircraft launching ramp, though it was still classed as a battlecruiser. The firing of the remaining 18" gun turned out to be shattering to the ship so within a year the Furious was rebuilt as a complete aircraft carrier - the first ever. It went through WW2. The other "Glorious class ships were completed with 15" guns.
The surplus 18" guns were fitted to some monitors (coastal bombardment ships) or in shore batteries.
* A sub-class of battleships
Wildly over spends? It's to keep the peace and make potential rivals give up before they ever get started.
Yes the USA hugely overspends on its military. The USA spends more money on its defense budget than the next ten biggest spending countries combined. That's more than China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, the UK, India, France, Japan, Germany and South Korea put together. There is no rational justification for that level of spending and it certainly doesn't keep wars from starting.
Germany started the Great War because they thought they would win. How'd that work out for everyone?
That's not what happened and if you bother to pick up a history book you would know it. It wasn't anywhere near that simple. First off the "Great War" was WWI and that wasn't started by Germany. That war was started by an entanglement of alliances and the shooting actually started with the Austro-Hungarian Empire when they declared war on Serbia. WWII was not solely started by Germany either. Japan was already in military action prior to Germany invading Poland in 1939. German leadership only thought they could win because they were quite frankly, delusional and overly ambitious.
You think peace is expensive, that's nothing on war.
Having one country with a gigantic and unsustainable military isn't going to stop all wars forever. The USA is borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars per year to pay for the federal budget and about a quarter of that is military spending. There is no way the US can maintain that level of spending without substantially higher taxes and even then it's probably impossible in the long run. And somehow other major world powers don't seem to need to spend ludicrous sums of money on their military.
I'm sorry but this seems not very 'insightful' to me.
When whas a US aircraft carrier last attacked by a missile?
So the US marine could do without all this expensive Phalanx nonsense, right?
When was the last time they fired a nuclear missile? So they should eliminate those too etc...
Yes, the U.K. has not had to fight any wars because you enjoy peace and protection from the U.S. It is easy to take the moral high ground when you let others do all the heavy lifting for you. And, make no mistake, the lifting needs to be done. You are under the horrible delusion that peace is the normal state of man. Sadly, this is not the case, which is obvious to anyone with even the smallest knowledge of history. Normal is that the stronger countries take from the weak. You should know this because your particularly nation raped most of the world of centuries and is in fact still living off of the plunder. Remember, the phrase "the sun never sets on the British Empire" is not reflective of your cheery personality, but more because you were the assholes of history.
The only reason this cycle of conquest has stopped is American values and might. The U.S. provides the shield under which you so snarkily live. You enjoy movement of goods across the ocean provided by U.S. fleets. You do not live in fear of invasion from a rising Russia not because of ridiculously underpowered Euro armies, but the U.S. ones. Hell, you even do the Brexit because the U.S. secures you from E.U. invasion....if you had anything worth taking that is.
Do I sound angry and bitter? Yes, yes I do because I and an increasing number of others are so very sick of your immature bullshit. In last 70 years, the world has experienced unprecedented levels of prosperity. This was achieved through creating order and the propagation of free economies. It is high time that you and the other parasitic western nations start carrying your fair share both economically and militarily.
It is simply pathetic that you can not defend yourself, and frankly, we are sick of doing it for you. Instead of endlessly bitching about how you would do things different, how about actually coming off your high horse and get your hands in the mud and actually do something that matters? Talk is easy. Building something is hard. Try it.
It boils down to a bet that future enemies will be one of the following: (1) low enough tech that the British navy can out muscle them with the simpler means, OR (2) under a friendly air cover that makes ship-to-ship missiles redundant, OR (3) next generation drones and next generation missiles will give such long reach that large ships are too vulnerable against high tech foes, thus ship-to-ship missiles are a poor value, OR (4) the US navy will cover your holes in capability.
Of course, none of the above may happen to be true. But there are upsides to trying to focus on some things, and not try to do everything.
My guess is that a pocket carrier or small airstrip with next generation drones can prey on shipping 200-300 miles away, so your ship-to-ship missiles are really not so important.
http://www.janes.com/article/65445/uk-to-retire-gws-60-harpoon-at-end-of-2018
In a surprise move, the Scottish Ministry of National Defense announced their long range whale harpoons have twice the distance that Lesser British naval warships do. "We can stand off outside the Limey maximum range and sink their ships" announced Erik McScattersby ", and they can't do a thing."
In an unrelated news item, Prime Minister Theresa May announced she is letting Scotland put independence up for a vote. "I can't really stop them, they caught us with our knickers down, and they just lift their kilts and moon us from long range whenever we talk about stopping Scotland from gaining independence from the United Kingdom" she admitted.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Exocet!
I believe the problem was that the British IFF identified the Exocet as a 'friendly'. It wasn't assessed a threat until too late. Someone forgot to update the database prior to engagement. British didn't expect to be facing hostile Exocets prior to the Falklands war.
Really? A 4.5" gun? That's what she said!
Bad dum tsh!
It takes a lot of the national budget to pay people not to work.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Ischk'nu?
Too bad Napoleon Bonaparte could not see that happen!
By removing the large deck guns they will have the space for the rail gun power plant.
Benefit is you loose the hazard of chemical exposives that you have with misseles and cannons (5 inch or more). Also the rail gun out ranges the cannons. Rail guns can reach out to 125 miles and they are early in there development.
Jerry
how many naval battles have been fought recently? main use of navy seems to be moving aircraft carriers around. and marines.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
They can let US ships sink their enemies for them, but they have £369m lying around to fix HRH's digs.
http://news.google.com/news/url?sr=1&ct2=us%2F2_0_s_0_1_a&sa=t&usg=AFQjCNEkQ8ojj0Du8qiy_0GfZpwWnycxTg&cid=52779274961814&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fnews%2Fuk-38025513&ei=LUIvWNCsINilqQKI06qYAw&sig2=euUL2FwIJapuYaBQ_pXl1Q&rt=HOMEPAGE&vm=STANDARD&bvm=section&did=7924189026995858276&sid=en_us-w&ssid=w&st=1&at=dt0
So the Royal Navy is now just target practice for real navies.