ARmy Rumour SErvice

**jagman** · 02-01-2012, 15:18

Originally Posted by Pigshyt_Freeman

I wonder how this was known for certain at the outset of the operation. Libya had an air force, not a very impressive one but it had air bases closer to our vessels than NATO did. It strikes me that somebody hoped for the best and was right. Next time they will say "based on solid past experience of operations...." but still be hoping for the best.

Its not much of a basis to send a ship to war on is it? We've got away without properly arming warships in the past so it'll be alright this time.
Still, I suppose we can rest assured that the Iranians won't attack a RN warship on because it "might" have some missiles in it's magazines......

**rickshaw-major** · 02-01-2012, 15:22

Originally Posted by A2_Matelot

Feck me, there are some proper armchair Admirals reading way too much into this today.

Lets just say that when certain platforms sail for certain deployments as directed by the RN plan, they have specific kit and load-outs as directed by said plan. This covers all geo/political areas of the globe where we operate and want to influence, hence the platforms are equipped and loaded accordingly.

Would a Seppo surface asset be short of a full load? Before you answer I have just talked to a Seppo matelotOF 3 and when I mentioned this he thought it was the 1st April instead of the 2nd February. On a closer note would Jackie Cunningham have done it? He was one of ours.

Let's just say the plan is unconvincing, lacks flexibility in asset deployability at very short notice and to misquote von Clausewitz doesn't allow for the plan changing on meeting the enemy.

Signed

An Armchair Admiral reading that half a billion quids worth deployed without the air cover we payed to have installed.

**labrat** · 02-01-2012, 15:26

Originally Posted by rickshaw-major

I have this vision of SSN at sea without battle loads.

Ahem: (although each submarine can carry up to 192 nuclear warheads with 12 warheads per missile)

As a result of our reassessment of the minimum necessary requirements for credible deterrence we will:
. reduce the number of warheads onboard each submarine from 48 to 40
. reduce our overall nuclear weapon stockpile to no more than 180
. reduce the number of operational missiles on each submarine.
. reduce our requirement for operationally available warheads from fewer than 160 to no more than 120

The overall impact of the changes identified by the value for money review will be to reduce costs by £3.2 billion, saving approximately £1.2 billion and deferring spending of up to £2 billion from the next 10 years;

http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum.../dg_191634.pdf

**Drlligaf** · 02-01-2012, 15:36

Different war, place and time, but a certain US Army CO decided to go into battle without his Gattling guns, because they were too heavy and cumbersome and he wouldn't need them. Custers last mistake.
Fitting Pussers war canoe with perhaps only half its missiles would not exactly be cumber some, but would help guard against nasty surprises. After all that is what war is about, you try to prepare for the task but bear in mind the enemy will try to thwart your plans. Expect the unexpected.

**rickshaw-major** · 02-01-2012, 15:47

Originally Posted by labrat

Ahem: (although each submarine can carry up to 192 nuclear warheads with 12 warheads per missile)

As a result of our reassessment of the minimum necessary requirements for credible deterrence we will:
. reduce the number of warheads onboard each submarine from 48 to 40
. reduce our overall nuclear weapon stockpile to no more than 180
. reduce the number of operational missiles on each submarine.
. reduce our requirement for operationally available warheads from fewer than 160 to no more than 120

The overall impact of the changes identified by the value for money review will be to reduce costs by £3.2 billion, saving approximately £1.2 billion and deferring spending of up to £2 billion from the next 10 years;

http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum.../dg_191634.pdf

I know - but I was talking SSN and not SSBN.

**frenchie** · 02-01-2012, 15:49

Originally Posted by chocolate_frog

e-bay ALWAYS have plenty of Seawolf for sale. And if not we can knock 'em up in no time, just likemaking shells in WW2.

I'd be fairly surprised if those AAW ships gave fcuk about a frigate, if they were protecting what amounts to a captial ship now adasy.

I doubt it also but a threats a threat and would be dealt with accordingly and at the furthest possible distance from the carriers.

**frenchie** · 02-01-2012, 15:59

Originally Posted by rickshaw-major

If this is truly the case - and we weren't at CES - then WTF are we doing spending all of this money for power projection. I have this vision of SSN at sea without battle loads.

I agree it doesn't seem very wise to not carry CES but if it's not carried does this free up space, for example to sleep crew in if your taking on civilians?

**Dollsteeth** · 02-01-2012, 16:02

"we've got things that float, things that track, things we cant talk about yet, things that are empty that should be full..."

**jagman** · 02-01-2012, 16:09

Originally Posted by frenchie

I agree it doesn't seem very wise to not carry CES but if it's not carried does this free up space, for example to sleep crew in if your taking on civilians?

No. HMS Westminster is a Type 23 Frigate. All her Sea Wolf missiles live in a vertical launch system. You can't sling a hammock in there for extra sleep space

Sea Wolf GWS.26.VLS. missile launchers. - ShipSpotting.com - Ship Photos and Ship Tracker