Military Review

Ex-mistress of the seas. What will be the British fleet of the future?

25
Not so long ago, the naval resource, widely known in narrow circles, dealing with naval issues, presented its vision of the future Royal Navy fleet. Experts have not discovered America, I must say. Nevertheless, the presented graph may be of interest to people who are not indifferent to these issues. Earlier, by the way, Naval Analyses experts have already presented a detailed analysis of the underwater and surface forces of the countries of the Old and New Worlds. Now let's see in more detail what exactly is at stake.




Surface forces

The basis of the tactical potential of the Royal Navy in the future will be two aircraft type "Queen Elizabeth." This is two times more than in Russia: unless, of course, the heavy aircraft carrier “Admiral Kuznetsov” is considered to be a full-fledged aircraft carrier. However, with the British ships is also not all smooth, but more on that later.

For a start, the English can be congratulated on the commissioning last year of the lead ship of this type - the aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08). And at the end of September, the 2018 of the year on the new aircraft carrier, which was located near the coast of the United States, for the first time landed two fifth-generation fighter F-35B. And here the main possible minus is hidden. As you know, after some hesitation, the British abandoned the use of starter catapults, finally choosing a springboard scheme that almost automatically prevents heavy aircraft from taking off from the deck.



It would seem, what problems can be in the presence of "invisible" in the composition of the air group? The fact is that the combat radius of the shortened takeoff and vertical landing of the F-35B is a modest 800 kilometers. At the same time, having a much larger combat radius - more than 1000 kilometers - the F-35C is now “inaccessible” without a cardinal alteration of the ships, which Britain most likely will not do. By the way, the second aircraft carrier - HMS Prince of Wales (R09) - should be put into operation in 2020 year. Wait is not long.



Next in the list of surface ships on the chart you can see the destroyers of the type 45, also known as destroyers of the type "Daring", on behalf of the lead ship - HMS Daring. The British planned six of them and all six have already been built. First handed over to the fleet in 2009.

These ships are the largest and most powerful air defense destroyers that Britain has. It is important to say that they do not have strike weapons, but in theory destroyers can be equipped with long-range cruise missiles. The basis of the weapons "Derring" are PAAMS anti-aircraft missile systems, which in theory can destroy air targets at a distance of more than 80 kilometers using Aster-15 and Aster-30 missiles.



Let's go back a bit. As you know, the Queen Elizabeth type aircraft carriers have very symbolic defensive weapons. To defeat airborne targets, the ship has three anti-aircraft artillery complexes Phalanx CIWS. Roughly speaking, he is defenseless against air attacks if deck fighters do not have time to rise into the air. In this sense, the British fleet of the future is seen as a kind of "Lego designer." Where ships of the same type by themselves (outside the carrier strike group) will not be of particular value, and the risk of their loss will be very great. The Falklands War is a good example of the importance of an integrated approach in the design of warships. But, in general, the British are right or not - only time will tell.

Note also that in The 2017, the edition of The Sunday Times wrote that new British destroyers rumble “like a box with wrenches” and are heard by submarines a hundred miles away. However, such sharp attacks towards one or another type of military equipment should also be treated with caution. Everywhere there are interested parties who want to tarnish one or another side.

The following in the list of large surface ships are frigates of the 26 type, which are designated in the picture as City Class. A total of eight of them are planned: so far none of these ships have been completed. By itself, this eight is intended to replace thirteen frigates of the 23 type. So far, it is rather difficult to say something concrete, except that these will be large warships with a standard displacement of approximately 7000 tons. They plan to use Tomahawk cruise missiles deployed in the Mk 41 launchers as tactical strike weapons. In addition, you can use the latest European supersonic anti-ship missile CVS401. Attached is a good anti-aircraft weaponry and an acoustically low-noise hull, which increases the chances of fighting submarines.

In general, from the outside, everything looks good, but there are some concerns. Knowing the approach of the leadership of Britain, it cannot be ruled out that some of the functions will be made purely optional, and perhaps they will be completely abandoned. However, before the commissioning of the "fortune telling in the coffee grounds" is better to refuse. So it will be more correct.



In addition, on the chart presented by Naval Analyzes, you can see five small frigates of the Type 31 or General Purpose Frigate (GPFF), the fate of which in the light of financial reductions seems very ambiguous. Well, in the right-most corner there are five River-class Batch 2 patrol ships. We will talk about them sometime later.

Submarines

It is noteworthy that, according to Naval Analyzes, Britain in the foreseeable future will completely abandon the four strategic submarines of the Vanguard type, as well as the remaining multi-purpose Trafalgar-type submarines. In general, it is logical, considering that the first of the “Trafalgar” began to be exploited back in 1983 year. The only British multipurpose submarine of the future will be the Astyut-type submarine. At least three of these boats are already in the fleet.



However, with “Vanguard”, it seems to us, the specialists of the organization hurried. Suffice it to say that now the Vanguard boats with Trident II D5 missiles (UGM-133A) are the only British nuclear deterrence system. At the same time, all four planned strategic Dreadnought submarines are just to be built. Now, work continues on the construction of the first boat of this class and laid the second such submarine.

With all the technical risks, it is not planned to save precisely on the strategic forces in Britain. In December last year, it became known that the country would allocate an additional 400 million pounds sterling for the Dreadnought program. “These 400 millions of investments guarantee the implementation of the program. For decades, we will have a system of nuclear deterrence at sea. This funding will help not only to create 8 thousands of jobs right now, but also to create a new complex for training engineers for the British submarine fleet, ”said British Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson.

True, there is one "but." The Dreadnought boat will receive twelve Trident missiles instead of sixteen that Vanguard has. Even for comparison: the new Ohio-type American submarine is already in the strategic version carrying the Trident II D24 5. But this is an absolute record holder among such submarines, moreover, it is a legacy of the Cold War. When the money for defense almost did not count.



In general, the British fleet of the future can be called "economical". It cannot be compared in its combat potential not only with the American, but also with the Chinese. On the other hand, the British Navy will remain one of the strongest in Europe in the coming decades. Not the greatest, but still an achievement.
Author:
25 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. irazum
    irazum 10 January 2019 07: 27
    +8
    Apparently the Britons believe that this is quite enough for defense. "Phantom pains" about "Lady of the Seas" are in the past.
    1. IGU
      IGU 10 January 2019 10: 48
      +4
      Quote: irazum
      Apparently the Britons believe that this is quite enough for defense. "Phantom pains" about "Lady of the Seas" are in the past.
      Why shouldn’t they take it that way, So far, they perfectly solve their tasks by political methods, and young NATO troops from eastern Europe will fight for them.
    2. Steel falcon
      Steel falcon 10 January 2019 21: 06
      +2
      There is no need to maintain large armed forces of Britain, France, Germany and other European "olds" - the military structures of the European Union already number almost 2 million people - more than in the US Armed Forces, and slightly less than in the PRC Armed Forces. The EU may well "pour" even a full-fledged superpower.
  2. Ravil_Asnafovich
    Ravil_Asnafovich 10 January 2019 07: 37
    +1
    To build ships, it’s not for you to do minor trivialities in which the little Britons succeeded fellow .
    1. Corn
      Corn 10 January 2019 08: 21
      +13
      2 aircraft carriers, 6 destroyers, 3 frigates, 3 nuclear submarines, quite good progress in 18 years, we would also be "dirty".
      1. Hypersound
        Hypersound 10 January 2019 15: 04
        -1
        And what about the land and the air force?
        1. Steel falcon
          Steel falcon 10 January 2019 21: 30
          +2
          ~ 510 aircraft (including almost 200 combat training aircraft) and 8 helicopters in the FACC + 10 training aircraft and 186 helicopters in the FACC. Army - 80 people: motorized infantry division, mechanized division, air assault brigade, artillery, reconnaissance, communications, MTO, military police, etc.
          1. Hypersound
            Hypersound 10 January 2019 22: 31
            -2
            The question was rather rhetorical :) It meant that in terms of land and air force everything is rather weak, as for the status of a "great power"
            1. Steel falcon
              Steel falcon 10 January 2019 22: 41
              +3
              Britain is the strongest militarily country in Western and Central Europe, and its influence is very, very great, although it clearly lacks the glory of the glorious Victorian era ... however, it is useless to compete with Belle Epoque. winked
              1. Hypersound
                Hypersound 10 January 2019 23: 17
                0
                Quote: Steel Falcon
                Britain - the strongest militarily country in Western and Central Europe

                On fishlessness and cancer - fish

                PS:

                Quote: Steel Falcon
                Britain - the strongest militarily country in Central Europe


                And I thought Ukraine laughing
                1. Steel falcon
                  Steel falcon 10 January 2019 23: 21
                  +2
                  And I thought Ukraine

                  1. Hypersound
                    Hypersound 11 January 2019 01: 34
                    -1
                    Well, the valtsman said. And he is an honest man)
    2. rayruav
      rayruav 10 January 2019 21: 22
      0
      Comrade Ravil, and they don’t know how to build good ships? you are probably an astronaut: you’ll rarely find your land
      1. Usher
        Usher 12 January 2019 15: 26
        0
        No, they don’t know, but what good ship did they build? Example? Not a single example except Dreadnought and that he took out from the fact that industry was developed and then the path of development of the linear forces of Britain went somewhere into oblivion. They took in quantity, not quality. Ripals and the Prince of Wales to you as an example or Hood.
  3. bone1
    bone1 10 January 2019 19: 00
    -1
    Yes, the "mistress of the seas" fell below the plinth. laughing
    1. Steel falcon
      Steel falcon 10 January 2019 21: 16
      +3
      If they are below the baseboard, then all the rest are in the basement.
      1. bone1
        bone1 10 January 2019 21: 35
        0
        The rest is the USA and China? laughing
  4. rayruav
    rayruav 10 January 2019 21: 16
    -2
    if you don’t take pl, then the Royal Navy’s problems are akin to ours: lack of adequate funding, their shipbuilders are able to create world-class samples, but all the same, the Americans produce lm-2500 turbines in cooperation, and it’s more difficult for us and the country has no place to put more damned pensioners together polymer-redoubt complex
  5. Saxahorse
    Saxahorse 10 January 2019 23: 40
    +1
    And here lies the main possible minus. As you know, after some hesitation, the British refused to use launch catapults, finally choosing a springboard, which almost automatically eliminates the take-off from the deck of heavy aircraft.

    Sorry, but where does this conclusion come from? And even more so, where is the conclusion about the impossibility of using the F-35C or Raptor? :)

    The springboard was invented specifically for fighters. Machines with a large margin of safety and high energy. The springboard can create problems for auxiliary vehicles, for example, transporters or AWACS-based machines of the same E-2 Hawkeye type. They have yes, on the springboard, the wings can fly off. For heavy percussion machines, the springboard is not an obstacle.
    1. Soho
      Soho 11 January 2019 10: 30
      0
      The springboard can create problems for auxiliary vehicles, for example, transporters or AWACS-based machines of the same E-2 Hawkeye type.

      Well, they themselves answered this question. How can an aircraft carrier group secure long-range radar reconnaissance without the same Hokai? Unless if you swim along the shores of the North Sea. But then, was it worth piling up such an expensive trough?
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 11 January 2019 21: 33
        0
        They use AWACS helicopters.

        Now ordered 10 pieces.
        1. Avior
          Avior 22 March 2019 10: 39
          0
          Americans roam around them and Indians with the idea of ​​AWACS based on Osprey.
          Not being conducted yet smile
  6. Dr. Bermental
    Dr. Bermental 11 January 2019 16: 16
    +1
    all powers will die sooner or later - Christ is the last resort .. who is saved in the Stainless, who is not the one outside ..
  7. Usher
    Usher 12 January 2019 15: 25
    0
    Quote: Steel Falcon
    There is no need to maintain large armed forces of Britain, France, Germany and other European "olds" - the military structures of the European Union already number almost 2 million people - more than in the US Armed Forces, and slightly less than in the PRC Armed Forces. The EU may well "pour" even a full-fledged superpower.

    Are you real
  8. Usher
    Usher 12 January 2019 15: 29
    0
    Quote: Soho
    The springboard can create problems for auxiliary vehicles, for example, transporters or AWACS-based machines of the same E-2 Hawkeye type.

    Well, they themselves answered this question. How can an aircraft carrier group secure long-range radar reconnaissance without the same Hokai? Unless if you swim along the shores of the North Sea. But then, was it worth piling up such an expensive trough?

    You take off by plane and fly where you need to