Articles

Thursday, October 1, 2009

Spin and Lies - Labour claims to "support the UK's military"

Claims by Gordon Brown that Labour "supports the military" are laughable when we examine just a few issues facing the Royal Navy

HMS Ark Royal emerges from refit with fabulous new paint job but no upgrade in capability, no regular fixed-wing aircraft and highly vulnerable to supersonic sea-skimming missiles
Photo: Andy Long

Last week HMS Ark Royal finished a 7-month long refit. The Ark Royal's commander was quoted saying: "... The ship is now faster, leaner and greener and looking forward to taking her place at the vanguard of the fleet." Labour's mismanagement and shoddy planning of the country's finances and its armed forces are plainly why the Ark Royal's commander's media statements did not contain variations of the following: "The ship is now more powerful" or "The ship now has enhanced and upgraded defences against airborne threats" or "For the first time in over 3-years the ship has her compliment of fixed-wing aircraft embarked. Over the coming months- for a change- the ship and her crew will be able to legitimately carry out the duties for which the ship was designed and her crew assigned". The French can keep fixed-wing aircraft assigned to their aircraft carriers but the UK is over-stretched by it's commitments in Afghanistan and a deadly lack of funding for our armed forces.

The fact is that ALL in-service (commissioned) Royal Navy warships, and especially the carriers HMS Ark Royal and Illustrious, are sitting ducks to recently developed supersonic anti-ship missiles, such as the Russian 'Sizzler' SS-N-27. Other than the upgraded US Navy Aegis/ESSM/Standard Missile system, only PAAMS/Aster is thought (carried by just 6 British Type 45 destroyers under construction) to be able to counter this type of missile.

The French can retrofit their aircraft carrier with new, cutting edge anti airborne threat missile systems that are required to meet today's threats, why- during the last 10-years- hasn't the Labour govt ensured that the same was done for the Royal Navy's carriers? Why are the UK's planned new carriers not going to have PAAMS/Aster or any anti airborne threat defences?

If Labour is a party that claims it looks out for the country's best interests, then why is Labour authorising funding for the RN's Flagships to be made "faster, leaner and greener" but not for them and the escorts to have their weapons and defensive systems upgraded? No matter how much "faster, leaner and greener" the Ark Royal or Illustrious are made, they won't be able to outrun or dodge missiles such as the SS-N-27. And if these 2 vital warships continue to be put on patrol without their fixed-wing aircraft (Harriers), as has been routine 2006-2009, not only does this make the country and its 'world leadership aspirations' appear as a joke internationally this can only immeasurably damage naval personnel morale while jeopardising their safety.

Considering that the completion of the new aircraft carriers for the RN is at least 5 years away and current Labour govt plans won't provide these ships with fixed-wing aircraft for 3 or 4 years after that, and recognising the existing extreme threat to all in-service Royal Navy warships (and other UK vessels) posed by anti-ship weapons and newly developed 'air independent propulsion' submarines, wouldn't a responsible, competent government be IMMEDIATELY assigning sufficient finances to the RN so that at least its Flagships and a few of its escort warships- had their airborne threat weapons and defensive systems upgraded?

Ark Royal's commander was also quoted saying: "... we are ready to start our sea training and be able to practice our war-fighting skills..." How can the Ark Royal and her crew practice without any fixed-wing aircraft on board? The Ark Royal was designed to have fixed-wing aircraft embarked at all times she is at sea and on patrol. Without aircraft (Harriers) Ark Royal can not legitimately function as a Royal Navy Flagship let alone perform as a 'fighting ship'. "Faster, leaner and greener" makes a great, 'politically correct sounding' 'sound bite' in a news clip aimed at the un-informed voting public. However should the RN have to get involved in a serious shooting war it would be dangerously exposed and there would only be this government to blame.

As the government cuts defence spending further (an act of political cowardice as there a few votes in defence) it sets the armed forces against each other in a bloody argument over resources. The RN is apparently the easiest target for further cuts and there is a fantasy being put about by many in the media (and even senior Army figures who should know better) that suggests the days or state-on-state conflict are over and that all our efforts should be devoted to counter-insurgency and anti-terrorist activities. Apparently programmes such as the new aircraft carriers or the nuclear deterrent are a 'waste of money' and equipping soldiers with more body armour and a few more helicopters will be the answer to all our future defence needs. This is short-sighted lunacy. While we applaud efforts to get additional funds and equipment to the troops fighting on the frontline in Afghanistan, we must recognise that counter-insurgency skills will only be a small part of the defences the UK will need in the future. The carriers which could be in service for 40 years (and are actually very good value for money) will provide a flexible, powerful tool that the people of the UK will be very glad to have when the unexpected happens. Any brief review of history will tell us we must 'expect the unexpected' and be prepared with flexible and balanced forces.

The UK needs a political party in government that will look out for the country's interests. Labour has blatantly failed to do this but can the Tories step up to the mark if elected? There will be hard choices to make requiring political courage, given the £90 Billion national debt run up by Labour which must be reduced. However defence has been cut to the bone already by successive governments and it must be the bloated social, health and civil service budgets than need to be paired, not the our national defences which so many politicians see as some kind of 'optional extra'.

Article partly based on comments left on Daily Telegraph website by Roderick V. Louis, Vancouver, BC, Canada

1:31 AM

11 Comments:

Roderick said...: A FEW MORE ISSUES FACING THE ROYAL NAVY- URGENTLY REQUIRING GOVT ACTIONS, THANKS TO 12-YEARS OF LABOUR's NEGLIGENCE:

- Due to Labour's astonishingly irresponsible cost-cutting strategies 2002-2009, all 6 of the undergoing construction/sea-trials Type-45 Destroyers are to be commissioned without more than 80 percent of their most basic, vital weapons and defensive systems, such as 'inner layer' 'Close In Weapons Systems' (CIWS's)* & "Cooperative Engagement Capability" (CEC)!!

(* current Labour govt plans are to see if the RN's obsolescent Type-42 Destroyers' several-decade old CIWS's can be cannibalized and fitted to Type-45's... once enough Type-42's are retired and if these warships are not sold on to other countries' navies...)

(How effective a 2, or more likely- almost 3 decade old- inner layer defense system would be to defend against 21st century airborne anti-ship threats like the SS-N-27 or similar class of missile, has not been commented on publicly by any naval warfare professionals or warship design bodies... )

CIWS's are mandatory for defending against modern anti-ship weapons that 'get by' 'outer layer' defences, of which Type-45's have very limited capabilities due to their unnecessarily puny missile storage capacities: barely 1/8th that of comparable classes of Destroyers fielded by the US, South Korean and Japanese navies (Burke, KDX III & Kongo classes).

Without CEC, warships in a squadron can not share their theatre data in a useful fashion that allows for joint engagement of airborne threats- greatly limiting the potential effectiveness of an outer layer defence system such as Type-45's PAAMS/ASTER...

Similarly, thanks to incredibly naive and dangerous Labour economizing, Type-45's are being so scandalously under-equipped at commissioning that they'll have no abilities to fire any types of anti-ship or anti-submarine weapons, such as torpedoes, from-ship...

If a Type-45's single helicopter*** is tasked with 'Airborne Early Warning And Control' (AWACS) duties- it's primary designed-for role- it won't be able to also deliver weapons to targets identified either by its or its warship's sensors.

(*** single rather than 2 helicopters each like other navies' similar class Destroyers, thanks again, apparently, to Labour's short sightedness)

Only after a fuss was made by senior MoD officials relatively recently, was funding approved for 'a sonar' to be fitted to Type-45's upon their commissioning. Unfortunately its a very inferior-capabilities type that is vastly lacking in capabilities compared to even the model of sonar fitted to the RN's present in-service 10 to 15 year-old Type-23 Frigates...

While its true that a 'Goalkeeper' CIWS has long ago (before Labour's 1997 election) been retro-fitted to the RN's 2 in-service aircraft carriers, it has no testing or combat records of success at defending against 21st century anti-ship airborne threats like supersonic, sea skimming cruise missiles, such as the SS-N-27...

Goalkeeper CIWS is a fine piece of kit for its type, but none the less ought to be recognized as what it is: a weapons system that was designed before the SS-N-27 and similar missiles had been developed...

CIWS's are just what their title stands for: "Close in Weapons Systems"...

CIWS's are intended to defend against threats that 'get close' to the particular warship...

CIWS's are by defnition, an 'inner layer' defence whereas the PAAMS/ASTER system is accurately defined as an outer layer defence, intended to not let airborne threats get close.

CONTINUED

Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada,; October 1, 2009 7:15 PM
Roderick said...: A FEW MORE ISSUES FACING THE ROYAL NAVY- URGENTLY REQUIRING GOVT ACTIONS, THANKS TO 12-YEARS OF LABOUR's NEGLIGENCE:

PART 2:

CIWS's are intended to be available for use by an individual warship mainly as a back up to its outer layer defences, such as in the event of a saturation attack by anti-ship missiles and a leaker gets by the outer layer...

As noted above: If the French can retrofit their aircraft carriers- such as the Charles Degaulle- with new, cutting edge outer layer anti airborne threat missile systems** that are required to meet today's threats, why- during the last 11-years- hasn't the Labour govt ensured that the same was done for the Royal Navy's 2 carriers: Ark Royal & Illustrious?

(** the UK, France and Italy joint project developed PAAMS system with Aster 15 and 30 missiles)

Both the US Navy's Nimitz class super-carriers & their medium sized carriers and France's aircraft carriers have been retro-fitted with BOTH an inner layer, Goalkeeper-like, CIWS defensive system AS WELL AS AN OUTER LAYER DEFENSIVE MISSILE SYSTEM: PAAMS/ASTER or AEGIS/ESSM/STANDARD MISSILE .... not because these countries' govt's like to waste money on unnecessarily redundant armament systems for their warships, but because they recognize the enormous threat represented to their navy's and their national interests by current anti-ship threats like the SS-N-27...

The US Navy's newest super carrier, the GHW Bush, is being fitted with both inner and outer layer anti airborne threat defensive systems...

Similarly, the US Navy's under development new generation of super-carriers- the G Ford class- are being designed to be fitted with extensive inner and outer layer anti airborne threat defensive systems...

Considering that SS-N-27's and similar anti-ship missiles won't be detectable by individual RN warships at the earliest until they are about 20 miles out, and considering that these missiles typically travel in 'terminal mode' at between 2/3 and 1 mile per second- obviously hitting an SS-N-27 as far out as possible would be preferable...

Goalkeeper's useful range is several hundred yards out to, in a stretch, 3.5 miles... (3 and a half to 5 seconds out). PAAMS/ASTER's useful range varies from at a minimum about 12 miles out to about 50... (12 seconds to almost one minute out)

Should a Flagship or any RN warship wait till the very last second before trying to hit an incoming supersonic, maneuvering threat, IE relying only on a Goalkeeper-like system- or should the incoming threat be engaged as far out as possible- allowing for a second try if the first misses??

Accepted Naval warfare doctrine demands that assets as valuable and as integral to modern navies as aircraft carriers- even old ones- ought to be able to competently defend themselves against known and likely to be confronted in-their-service-lives types of threats...

The Labour govt leaving the RN's present carriers and planning for its new, under design/construction ones to not be capable of this is gross negligence... not 'supporting the military' as Mr Brown argued several days ago...

Why are the UK's planned 2 new aircraft carriers- now undergoing a 'Labour-govt-directed', 1/2 half-baked design & construction process- not planned to have PAAMS/Aster or any 'outer layer' anti airborne threat defences??

All first world countries- with leading roles on the world's stages- & that possess fixed-wing aircraft-capable-navy's (other than the UK) are either retrofitting- or installing during construction- both inner layer CIWS's AND EXTENSIVE OUTER LAYER ANTI AIRBORNE THREAT DEFENSIVE SYSTEMS:

CONTINUED

Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada,; October 1, 2009 7:26 PM
Roderick said...: A FEW MORE ISSUES FACING THE ROYAL NAVY- URGENTLY REQUIRING GOVT ACTIONS, THANKS TO 12-YEARS OF LABOUR's NEGLIGENCE:

PART 3:

1) http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/design-preparations-continue-for-britains-new-cvf-future-carrier-updated-01630/#more-1630 -

Note the text:

"... Armament remains undecided, but the Royal Navy’s recent history suggests that the ships may be launched with vestigal self-defense capabilities, and upgraded later..."

Does this observation done by a comparatively objective, prominent naval-warfare/military-industry web site inspire 'confidence'?

Does this say 'strength or weakness'; 'competence or gross cack-handed incompetence' to existing and potential UK adversaries and trading partners??

2) http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/uss-theodore-roosevelt-headed-into-midlife-overhaul-02810/ -

Note the text:

"... Dec 12/08: Weapons upgrade.... Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems in Portsmouth, RI receives an $11.8 million modification to a previously awarded contract (N00024-06-C-5422), exercising the FY 2009 NATO SEASPARROW (anti airborne threat missile system- RVL) Program Office's FY 2009 options..."

"... Under this order, the USS Theodore Roosevelt will receive 2 MK29 MOD 4 ESSM ORDALT Kits, and 4 Solid State Transmitter (SSTX) MK73 MOD 3 ORDALT Kits. ORDnance ALTeration kits allow ships to swap out their older RIM-7 Sea Sparrow air defense missile systems for the RIM-162 ESSM, which is designed to deal with modern anti-ship missiles...."

"... This particular order also includes 2 more MK29 MOD 4 ESSM ORDALT Kits for use on LHD ships****..."

(**** the US Navy's 'medium-sized', 45,000-50,000 tonne aircraft carriers- RVL):

3) http://www.news.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=400&ct=4 -

Note the text:

"... Armament: Two RAM launchers; two NATO Sea Sparrow launchers (with Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM); two 20mm Phalanx CIWS mounts; seven twin .50 cal. machine guns."

4) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/lhd-8.htm -

Note the text:

"... This modification is a follow-on effort, which was previously performed under contract N00024-02-C-5421. Work will be performed in Portsmouth, RI and is expected to be complete by October 2010. The NATO SEASPARROW consortium, which includes the United States and 12 other countries, will fund this modification....")

5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_George_H.W._Bush_(CVN-77) -

Note under Armament:

2 × Mk 29 ESSM launcher &

2 × RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile

6) http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvn-21/ -

Note the text:

"... Weapons

"... The carrier will be armed with the Raytheon evolved Sea Sparrow missile (ESSM), which defends against high-speed, highly manoeuvrable anti-ship missiles. The close-in weapon system is the rolling airframe missile (RAM) from Raytheon and Ramsys GmbH...."

7) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cvn-78-specs.htm -

Note the text under Armament:

"
•Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile
•Rolling Airframe Missile
•CIWS ..."

CONTINUED

Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada; October 1, 2009 7:28 PM
Roderick said...: A FEW MORE ISSUES FACING THE ROYAL NAVY- URGENTLY REQUIRING GOVT ACTIONS, THANKS TO 12-YEARS OF LABOUR's NEGLIGENCE:

PART 4:

The facts are:

1) without modern-technology defences, surface ships of all countries' navy's are extremely vulnerable to current anti-ship airborne weapons...;

2) potent, easy to transport and hide, anti-ship weapons such as the SS-N-27 class of missiles- in addition to being launchable from aircraft hundreds of miles from a particular squadron,- can be launched from shore, surface vessels and submarines- and have been widely marketed during the last decade....;

3) Royal Navy 'picket vessels' such as the brand-new Type-45 Destroyers, that have 'some capabilities' to defend against SS-N-27 type anti-ship missiles, can not defend themselves from sub surface threats and will have great dificulty defending themslves from airborne threats- due to their Labour govt-dictated weapons systems deficiencies;

4) Due to this, Type-45's would not be in a position to defend any aircraft carriers or other ships in their battle group.... for very long... if up against a moderately smart, and medium technology-equipped foe...

5) The speed at which up to date airborne anti-ship weapons travel- and close on targets when in 'terminal mode'- obviates any possible argument that might have existed, pre-1970, for aircraft carriers to not possess their own airborne threat defences...

6) In the 21st century, all 1st world nations with carrier forces- except the UK- have recognized the above and are providing their aircraft carriers with both extensive outer layer and inner layer anti airborne threat defences...

7) Failure by the UK to do this as well- for its existing and any new aircraft carriers that may be provided to the Royal Navy- is inviting disaster- and ridicule worldwide....

The RN and other UK armed forces branches don't just require reasonable increases in annualized funding- they also need objectively-set, responsible capability benchmarks to aim at... both of which have not been provided and/or facilitated by the Labour govt during the last 12-years!!

__________________
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada; October 1, 2009 7:29 PM
Roderick said...: ... On a related issue:

4 'TRIDENT MISSILE-CARRYING' 'VANGUARD SUBMARINE REPLACEMENTS' WILL BE EQUIVALENT TO 3 OF TODAY'S VANGUARDS IN TERMS OF TOTAL NUMBERS OF MISSILE TUBES, SO WHAT IS TO BE GAINED- UK SECURITY OR INDUSTRY WISE- BY ONLY BUILDING 3??

THE PM's INTELLECTUALLY-DISHONEST, SCANDALOUSLY RISKY PROPOSITION OUGHT TO BE DEBATED AND REPORTED AS WHAT IT PLAINLY IS: A CHEAP, KNEE-JERK ATTEMPT* TO SWINDLE ATTENTION FROM INADEQUATELY INFORMED NEWS-MEDIA AND IMPROPERLY MANIPULATE VOTERS!!

* BY 'PROSTITUTING' A BACKDROP (UN) WHERE THE WORLD'S BIGGEST NEWS MEDIA CORPORATIONS ARE TEMPORARILY ASSEMBLED & FOCUSED EN-MASS-

PART 1:

The UK reducing its "nuclear warhead delivery system(s)"- IE: reducing nuclear warhead-carrying submarines from 4 to 3- is not equivalent to the UK making cuts in the country's nuclear arsenal...

As long as the United Kingdom has nuclear weapons and policies authorizing their conditional use, it is a fools logic to suggest that it would be prudent or functionally sensible for the country to not also possess reliable system(s) for delivering these weapons...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3f7f3766-a8a2-11de-9242-00144feabdc0.html
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/69ae6f84-a7da-11de-b0ee-00144feabdc0.html

Running the UK's main pillar of national defence and international power (and status) projection on an 'absolute minimum' standard- as represented by a 3-boat Trident system- would prompt questions among potential adversaries and existing/potential trading partners as to 'why is the UK doing this- and asking for catastrophe- when, considering the relatively puny numbers of nuclear warheads possessed by the UK compared to the world's total- about 1 and a 1/4 percent of world's total in 2009- the potential effects on the rest of the world would be negligible...

Considering that each of the Royal Navy's 4 current Vanguard nuclear missile (Trident) submarines has 16 missile tubes, equaling 64 missile tubes in total, and recognizing that Premier Brown has recently 'decreed' that the submarines which are built to replace Vanguards will only have 12 missile tubes-

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/naval/jmr/jmr090420_1_n.shtml

.... even if 4 Vanguard replacements are built (rather than 3) their total number of missile tubes will be only 48 (4 X 12) which equals the total number of missile tubes of 3 of today's Vanguards: 3 X 16= 48...

So, what is the point??

Achieving the PM's alleged 'reduction in the UK's nuclear missile launch capabilities' objectives doesn't require building only 3 new subs to replace today's 4 Vanguards since the new subs- at least today- are intended to each have 25% less missile carrying capacity than Vanguards (12 versus 16)...

4 of the new subs will have (only), in total, the same number of missile tubes as 3 of today's Vanguards (48)....

Better for the UK to formally work with the United States in their nascent project to replace the US Navy's existing 18 Ohio class nuclear missile submarines, and build at least 4 Vanguard-replacements for the Royal Navy- each one with capacities for 24 missile tube slots (similar to today's Ohio's capacities), and if- for periods during the lifespan of the new subs- it was adjudged that all 24 missile tubes on each new sub were not needed, then not-required missile tubes could be used for something else:

- swapped out for conventional warhead cruise missiles;

- unmanned underwater vehichles;

- special forces' deployment pods;

and the like...

The UK is already working with the US in the design and construction of vital components to be used in both countries' new-nuclear-submarine programmes, such as a 'common missile compartment':

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/09/25/business-technology-hardware-amp-equipment-us-general-dynamics-contract_6932954.html

CONTINUED

Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada; October 1, 2009 8:16 PM
Roderick said...: ... On a related issue:

PART 2:

So, why not build the UK's new subs the same size- with space for 24 Trident missile tubes each- rather than half this size as the PM recently 'decreed'?

As noted above- if all 4 submarine's missile tubes were adjudged to not be needed for new-Trident missiles- their tubes could be quickly swapped out for other purposes/functions...

It's a widely accepted human behaviour precept that a persons- or country's- 'stature', 'profile' and 'posture' can do far more to disincentiveize potential adversaries from attempting mischief or aggression than verbal discourse, logic or diplomacy...

All major UK political parties ought to be energetically strategizing how, over the coming decades, the UK's 'stature', 'profile' and 'posture' world-wide* can be maintained and enhanced- not grievously and unessesarily diminished- as would be the result of further reducing the Royal Navy's capabilities and the country's nuclear deterrent

Since 2001 the UK has reduced its deployable nuclear warheads by over 50% (over 300 to under 160), and has the least nuclear weapons of all the 'world's 5 major nuclear powers', IE- the USA, Russia, China, France and the UK:

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/AC00DD79-76D6-4FE3-91A1-6A56B03C092F/0/DefenceWhitePaper2006_Cm6994.pdf

The present Vanguard submarine-based UK nuclear deterrent consists of 4 Vanguard subs, with each sub having 16 missile tubes- each missile tube capable of launching 1 Trident nuclear missile= 64 submarine launched nuclear missiles...

* IN THEORY because: of the RN's four Vanguard class Trident-nuclear missile submarines- on any given day as (for over 1/2 a decade) regularly as few as only one of these 4 integral-to-the-country's defence and 'world-profile' vessels is operational-

http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=7413 :

"The Royal Navy is cannibalizing parts from various ships and (Trident nuclear missile/Vanguard) submarines to keep other vessels afloat and operational it has emerged..."

"... The revelation that the (present Trident/Vanguard submarine) nuclear deterrent is being gutted for parts is particularly worrisome. If there was a national or international emergency some of the Vanguard class submarines would most likely have to be left in the docks since they would most likely be missing parts crucial to the sub’s operations....":

http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=9925 :

"Some commanders may feel uneasy about (reducing Trident carrying subs from 4 to 3) given the fact that recently two of the (present Vanguard)submarines were out of service due to major repairs. In the future a similar scenario could leave Britain with one or zero active nuclear deterrent submarines..."

Prime minister Brown relatively recently 'decreed' that the UK's new Trident system submarines, when built, will each have only 12 missile tubes- instead of the Vanguard's 16- or the US Navy's Ohio class submarines' 24-

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/naval/jmr/jmr090420_1_n.shtml :

"The UK's next-generation ballistic-missile submarines will have 12 missile tubes rather than the 16 aboard the existing Vanguard-class Trident-armed submarines".

64 missile tubes with the present 4 Vanguard submarines-based Trident system

vs

only 36 missile tubes with the apparent Labour & MoD toadies' preferred system: 3 Vanguard-successor submarines/& their new Trident missiles->>

= almost a 50% reduction in the UK's nuclear deterent, and all without a parliamentary or public debate or public consultation/advisement...

This big and far-reaching a decision should not be in the arbitrary hands of only one politician!!!

And certainly should not be made without Parliament facilitating an extensive public consultation... AND NOT UNTILL AFTER A GENERAL ELECTION OCCURS!!!

CONTINUED

Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada; October 1, 2009 8:25 PM
Roderick said...: ... On a related issue:

PART 2:

So, why not build the UK's new subs the same size- with space for 24 Trident missile tubes each- rather than half this size as the PM recently 'decreed'?

As noted above- if all 4 submarine's missile tubes were adjudged to not be needed for new-Trident missiles- their tubes could be quickly swapped out for other purposes/functions...

It's a widely accepted human behaviour precept that a persons- or country's- 'stature', 'profile' and 'posture' can do far more to disincentiveize potential adversaries from attempting mischief or aggression than verbal discourse, logic or diplomacy...

All major UK political parties ought to be energetically strategizing how, over the coming decades, the UK's 'stature', 'profile' and 'posture' world-wide* can be maintained and enhanced- not grievously and unessesarily diminished- as would be the result of further reducing the Royal Navy's capabilities and the country's nuclear deterrent

Since 2001 the UK has reduced its deployable nuclear warheads by over 50% (over 300 to under 160), and has the least nuclear weapons of all the 'world's 5 major nuclear powers', IE- the USA, Russia, China, France and the UK:

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/AC00DD79-76D6-4FE3-91A1-6A56B03C092F/0/DefenceWhitePaper2006_Cm6994.pdf

The present Vanguard submarine-based UK nuclear deterrent consists of 4 Vanguard subs, with each sub having 16 missile tubes- each missile tube capable of launching 1 Trident nuclear missile= 64 submarine launched nuclear missiles...

* IN THEORY because: of the RN's four Vanguard class Trident-nuclear missile submarines- on any given day as (for over 1/2 a decade) regularly as few as only one of these 4 integral-to-the-country's defence and 'world-profile' vessels is operational-

http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=7413 :

"The Royal Navy is cannibalizing parts from various ships and (Trident nuclear missile/Vanguard) submarines to keep other vessels afloat and operational it has emerged..."

"... The revelation that the (present Trident/Vanguard submarine) nuclear deterrent is being gutted for parts is particularly worrisome. If there was a national or international emergency some of the Vanguard class submarines would most likely have to be left in the docks since they would most likely be missing parts crucial to the sub’s operations....":

http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=9925 :

"Some commanders may feel uneasy about (reducing Trident carrying subs from 4 to 3) given the fact that recently two of the (present Vanguard)submarines were out of service due to major repairs. In the future a similar scenario could leave Britain with one or zero active nuclear deterrent submarines..."

Prime minister Brown relatively recently 'decreed' that the UK's new Trident system submarines, when built, will each have only 12 missile tubes- instead of the Vanguard's 16- or the US Navy's Ohio class submarines' 24-

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/naval/jmr/jmr090420_1_n.shtml :

"The UK's next-generation ballistic-missile submarines will have 12 missile tubes rather than the 16 aboard the existing Vanguard-class Trident-armed submarines".

64 missile tubes with the present 4 Vanguard submarines-based Trident system

vs

only 36 missile tubes with the apparent Labour & MoD toadies' preferred system: 3 Vanguard-successor submarines/& their new Trident missiles->>

= almost a 50% reduction in the UK's nuclear deterent, and all without a parliamentary or public debate or public consultation/advisement...

This big and far-reaching a decision should not be in the arbitrary hands of only one politician!!!

And certainly should not be made without Parliament facilitating an extensive public consultation... AND NOT UNTILL AFTER A GENERAL ELECTION OCCURS!!!

CONTINUED

Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada; October 1, 2009 8:25 PM
Roderick said...: ... On a related issue:

PART 3:

THE UK FURTHER* HUGELY REDUCING ITS NUCLEAR DETERRENT- AS THE PRIME MINISTER HAS PROPOSED- WOULD BE A ONE-WAY TICKET OFF OF THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL FOR THE UK, AND WOULD IMMEASURABLY DAMAGE THE COUNTRY'S STANDING IN THE WORLD, BOTH POLITICALLY AND IN TRADE TERMS :

The UK govt using the always controversial nuclear disarmament topic to distract UK voters from Labour's egregious policy errors- & to simultaneously arbitrarily reduce the UK's relatively tiny nuclear deterent- rather than enabling an informed public discussion regarding the size and shape of the country's future nuclear forces is gross hypocrisy...

It also ignores contemporary facts, NOT THE LEAST OF WHICH IS THAT THE UK HAS REDUCED THE SIZE OF ITS NUCLEAR DETERRENT BY OVER 50% DURING THE LAST 10-YEARS!!!

If the Vanguard submarine replacement/Trident Replacement programme goes ahead as presently Labour-rigged, its outcome would result in a hugely more reduced UK nuclear deterrent than today's already substantially diminished UK capabilities..

1) "Red alert - China modernises its nuclear missile force"

Beijing is now deploying or developing up to five intercontinental nuclear-armed ballistic missiles in what amounts to China's most ambitious increase in intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capability since the late 1980s... :

http://www.janes.com/news/security/capabilities/jir/jir090521_1_n.shtml

2) Russia is rearming itself and selling masses of hardware/warships to countries like India, Brazil & China...

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/articles/20090703.aspx

Not to mention comparitively huge sales of advanced submarines, Frigates and similar vessels by France and Germany to many non-NATO nations... such as India, Singapore, Vietnam and many Persian Gulf countries...

3) Russia is reactivating two of its retired Typhoon SSBNs:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/articles/20090703.aspx

4) Russia Might Complete Bulava Flight Tests in 2009:

http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20090618_6389.php

5) Russia Set to Build New Nuclear-Armed Submarine:

http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20090626_8028.php

6) Russia to build eight nuclear submarines:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3124166/Russia-to-build-eight-nuclear-submarines.html

7) President Medvedev visited Sevmash, inspected ”Yury Dolgoruky”:

http://www.barentsobserver.com/president-medvedev-visited-sevmash-inspected-yury-dolgoruky.4612254-58932.html

8) State-of-the-art nuclear submarines to the Russian Navy:

http://www.barentsobserver.com/index.php?id=4608935

9) Russia to lay down 2nd Graney class nuclear sub in July:

http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20090625/155349485.html

"...Under the Russian State Arms Procurement Program for 2007-2015, the Navy will receive several dozen surface ships and submarines, including five Project 955 Borey nuclear-powered strategic ballistic missile submarines equipped with new Bulava ballistic missiles, two Project 885 Yasen nuclear-powered multipurpose submarines, six Project 677 Lada diesel-electric submarines, three Project 22350 frigates and five Project 20380 corvettes."

10) Russia may export up to 40 diesel submarines by 2015 :

http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20090624/155340341.html

At the risk of being too repetative- Prime minister Brown 'decreed' several months ago that the UK's new Trident system submarines, when built, will each have only 12 missile tubes- instead of the Vanguard's 16- or the US Navy's Ohio class submarines' 24-

The missile compartments used in the US Navy's Ohio class Trident-missile carrying submarines are, in effect, modular, coming in '6-pack' (6-Trident-missile-tube modules).

Why is this relevant to Gordon Brown's recent apparent unilateral decision to substantially under-size the design of the Royal Navy's Vanguard submarine replacements?

CONTINUED:

Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada; October 1, 2009 8:31 PM
Roderick said...: On a related issue...

THE UK HUGELY REDUCING ITS NUCLEAR DETERRENT- AS THE PRIME MINISTER HAS PROPOSED- WOULD BE A ONE-WAY TICKET OFF OF THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL FOR THE UK, AND WOULD IMMEASURABLY DAMAGE THE COUNTRY'S STANDING IN THE WORLD, BOTH POLITICALLY AND IN TRADE TERMS:

PART 3:

Why is this relevant to Gordon Brown's recent apparent unilateral decision to substantially under-size the design of the Royal Navy's Vanguard submarine replacements?

Because if these new vessels are constructed- as the PM has recently decreed- at only 1/2 the size of the US Navy's current Trident carrying Ohio class submarines- they will be needlessly and counterproductively greatly limited in the types of future roles/missions they can be assigned...

In other words, rather than having the UK's Vanguard successor submarines limited to only being assignable to carrying nuclear missiles- because with their 12 missile tubes each- and consequently very limited on-board space for hardware, armaments, etc- they are only able to be assigned to carrying Trident missiles.... wouldn't it make more sense to have these vessels built large enough so each vessel had space for 24 missile tubes each- and, if circumstances allowed or demanded- use 1/2 (12) for Trident missiles, and the other 1/2 (12) for conventional weapons such as Tomahawk cruise missiles, UUV's, UAV's, delivery of special forces to missions overseas, etc??

The UK public deserve considered, open & properly-informed debate among their MP's and representatives regarding the form, capabilities and levels of the country's future nuclear deterrent and its related hardware/subsystems, etc...

The UK's armed forces and its defense-related research and development industries need reasonable increases in long-term funding, not intellectually dishonest cop-outs...

A UK general election is needed now, in part so that hugely long-reaching decisions- that would be very difficult to reverse- regarding the UK's future defence capabilities are not made by a govt- and a small subgroup of govt- whose priorities are its/their survival rather than the country's long-term interests...

A general election is needed now- before Labour arbitrarily sacrifice the country's future to their apparent self-interest motivated re-election objectives...

_________________
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada; October 1, 2009 8:32 PM
Roderick said...: Today, the RN needs either:

1) its aircraft carriers' weapons and defensive systems updated starting immediately!!;

or

2) the immediate lend-lease of 2 or 3 up-to-date, fully equipped-with aircraft/weaponry/etc replacement carriers from the US...

http://www.news.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=400&ct=4

These ships' serving in the RN at least until the UK commissions- with a full compliment of fixed-wing and other aircraft- new UK-built aircraft carriers...

_________________
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada; October 2, 2009 6:19 PM
Roderick said...: A slight correction and a couple of additions to my above comments regarding the defenceless state of the RN's aircraft carriers:

Where I say ".... Goalkeeper's useful range is several hundred yards out to, in a stretch, 3.5 miles... (3 and a half to 5 seconds out). PAAMS/ASTER's useful range varies from at a minimum about 12 miles out to about 50...
(12 seconds to almost one minute out)..."

this was in error as I inverted the metric/Imperial measurements.

Should have read: "Goalkeeper's useful range is several hundred yards out to, in a stretch, 1 mile ... (a tenth of a second to, at best, 1.4 seconds out).

PAAMS/ASTER's useful range varies from at a minimum about 12 miles out to about 50... (12 seconds to almost one minute out)..

Also, I meant to include:

1) under Labour, both Ark Royal and Lusty had their missile based- 'Sea Dart'- outer layer, anti airborne threat defence systems removed during very lengthy refits (over 1-year-long each during 2004 & 2005); and

2) during these refits, it would have been quite usual protocol- and relatively simple- for a replacement outer layer defence system, such as PAAMS/ASTER, to be installed...

To not do this- as was the case- was gross negligence...

A warship that, previous to refit, was accustomed to operating its own anti airborne threat missile based systems, left refit without any missile based anti airborne threat systems...

Result?

A significant reduction in the ship's and crew's capabilities and readiness for to-be-expected eventualities....

Does Labour's stewardship of the RN over the last 12-years evidence of a govt 'that looks out for the UK's interests'? is competent?
responsible? ethical??

__________________
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada; October 4, 2009 6:48 PM