Europe’s navies are falling behind when it comes to anti-aircraft warfare.

[peacefan]

Unprepared: Europe Will Definitely Lose the Next War

Europe isn't combat-ready.

nationalinterest.org

Unprepared: Europe Will Definitely Lose the Next War​

Europe isn't combat-ready.

by Michael Peck
Here's What You Need to Know: The problem?
Europe’s navies are falling behind when it comes to anti-aircraft warfare.
The problem? European warships don’t carry as many missiles as their American and Asian counterparts. More specifically, their vertical launch systems (VLS), which consist of dozens of cells that each contain a missile, don’t have as many cells as the VLS on U.S. and Asian warships.
“One striking differential in terms of European navies’ capabilities concerns VLS capacity,” writes Nick Childs, a researcher for the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies. “Most European platforms are built around a maximum forty-eight-cell VLS capability for their principal weapons systems. U.S. ships accommodate at least ninety cells, rising to 122 on the Ticonderoga. Japan’s ships likewise sport some ninety cells, while South Korea’s latest ships have eighty. The PLAN’s [Chinese navy’s] Type-052Ds host sixty-four cells for their principal weapons and the Type-055s 112. Clearly, such numbers have significance in terms of being able to sustain operations in a high-intensity confrontation. Given the difficulties of resupply, particularly at sea, it also has implications for those European navies, particularly the British and French, contemplating long-range deployments, such as to the Indo-Pacific.”
Childs dates the advent of the U.S. Navy’s Aegis air defense system in the 1980s as a turning point. “It comprised phased-array radars and an integrated combat system, as well as better surface-to-air missiles, to improve processing, reaction time and channels of fire, and to provide an extended engagement envelope. Shortly after, as a further significant enhancement, came the introduction of the multiple-cell vertical launch system (VLS) in place of trainable twin-arm missile launchers,” he notes.
Europe followed suit, though building more sophisticated ships resulted in fewer ships being built, says Childs. But ships like France’s Forbin-class, and Australia’s Spanish-designed Hobart-class destroyers, have just VLS tubes.
Asian navies have chosen to follow the U.S. model of Aegis ships packing numerous VLS launch cells. “The most significant recent advances, however, have been in Asian navies,” says Childs. “This has included the introduction into the navies of Japan and South Korea (and soon also the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN), in the shape of the Type-055) of vessels in the cruiser class, at 10,000 tons or more full-load displacement, rivaling the US Ticonderoga-class cruisers in size.”
Ships with plentiful VLS anti-aircraft missiles significantly enhance the ability of Asian navies to form well-balanced task forces. Nonetheless, Childs counts the U.S. Navy as having 8,720 VLS cells on its Ticonderoga- and Arleigh Burke-class ships, compared to 864 on China’s Type 052C and D destroyers.
Nor is it clear if China’s Aegis equivalent is as good as America’s. “On the face of it, these are highly-capable units, although there are still question marks over the performance of their combat systems, radars and weapons relative to, for example, the latest baseline Aegis systems,” Childs notes.
Russia is replacing multiple VLS models with a single universal VLS that can be fitted to different classes of warships, including cruisers, corvettes and submarines. However, Russian critics warn that a planned supersized version of the Kalibr cruise missile won’t fit in existing VLS cells.
There is no doubt that VLS has significantly changed naval warfare. Before the 1980s, missile launchers could fire one or two missiles at a time, which then had to be slowly reloaded from the ship’s magazine. Having a hundred or more missiles in VLS cells ready to fire vastly increases a ship’s firepower, though reloading the cells is a problem (the U.S. Navy is looking for ways to reload VLS cells at sea).
Michael Peck is a contributing writer for the National Interest. He can be found on Twitter and Facebook.
This article appeared earlier in 2020.
Image: Flickr.

Although this article is around 2 years old, it's very relevant today, if we want to project a realistic deterrence against China in any conflict involving the US and by extension the EU protecting Taiwan or other allies in the South China Sea region from sudden or pre-signaled Chinese aggression.

 

[peacefan]

i've forwarded this thread to the whitehouse.gov/contact for everyone's convenience.

 

[fncceo]

Europe's navies were ill-prepared for the last war as well.

At the outbreak of World War II, Britain's navy, often-touted as the greatest European navy, was in very poor shape. At the start of the war, Britain possessed only 7 aircraft carriers, most carrying outdated Fairey biplane torpedo bombers.

Her largest Battleship, HMS Hood, was ill-armored and was completely destroyed (killing all but 3 of her crew) by a single shot from the more modern German battleship, Bismarck.

England's destroyer force was so depleted that she accepted 50 outdated Wickes Class -- originally built for the First World War -- from America and was glad to get them. The British derisively referred to them as "Gift Horses" ... don't look them in the mouth, just be glad to have them.

 

[peacefan]

Europe's navies were ill-prepared for the last war as well.

At the outbreak of World War II, Britain's navy, often-touted as the greatest European navy, was in very poor shape. At the start of the war, Britain possessed only 7 aircraft carriers, most carrying outdated Fairey biplane torpedo bombers.

Her largest Battleship, HMS Hood, was ill-armored and was completely destroyed (killing all but 3 of her crew) by a single shot from the more modern German battleship, Bismarck.

England's destroyer force was so depleted that she accepted 50 outdated Wickes Class -- originally built for the First World War -- from America and was glad to get them. The British derisively referred to them as "Gift Horses" ... don't look them in the mouth, just be glad to have them.

This is pretty huge, if true, which i'm not yet doubting it is.

it means that the rich + the politicians that oversaw us Europeans and North-Americans since the 1800s started to kill each other off according to Machiavelli's supposedly masterbook on politics and warfare, and then shifted that warfare to the general population.
add to that the corruption-and-appeasement-in-advance-of-real-conflict *and* this poor armament for domestic troops, and we've got some very serious crimes against humanity going on here, done by our own politicians.
YOU DO NOT GET TO TRY THE SAME IDIOT IDEAS THAT GOT MILLIONS KILLED PREVIOUSLY. NEVER AGAIN.

 

[fncceo]

This is pretty huge, if true, which i'm not yet doubting it is.

it means that the rich + the politicians that oversaw us Europeans and North-Americans since the 1800s started to kill each other off according to Machiavelli's supposedly masterbook on politics and warfare, and then shifted that warfare to the general population.
add to that the corruption-and-appeasement-in-advance-of-real-conflict *and* this poor armament for domestic troops, and we've got some very serious crimes against humanity going on here, done by our own politicians.
YOU DO NOT GET TO TRY THE SAME IDIOT IDEAS THAT GOT MILLIONS KILLED PREVIOUSLY. NEVER AGAIN.

Part of the problem was the countries like Britain were still adhering to limitations on the sizes of capital ships set up under post-World War I treaties, while Germany and Japan clearly were not.

The other part was expense. Big ships and leading edge planes cost a lot of money. It's hard to get politicians to approve them when they are telling their voters that they are working for peace. Germany and Japan transitioned to a war-time economy several years before The Allies and had a lead in all types of ships and aircraft at the outset of the war.

 

[peacefan]

Part of the problem was the countries like Britain were still adhering to limitations on the sizes of capital ships set up under post-World War I treaties, while Germany and Japan clearly were not.

The other part was expense. Big ships and leading edge planes cost a lot of money. It's hard to get politicians to approve them when they are telling their voters that they are working for peace. Germany and Japan transitioned to a war-time economy several years before The Allies and had a lead in all types of ships and aircraft at the outset of the war.

Well, i don't want to become a parrot with the vocabulary of Fox News' anchors and guests, but i find that their viewpoints have a lot of merit in today's world.
(1) instead of fostering a recession by raising wages after a tax cut for the wealthiest 1% (who are *today* still spending on luxury goods), and then during that recession turn to handouts from campaign promises just so people can even have some of their meals outside of their door, Biden and his controllers should have seen that old trick coming (wage raises -> recession) and demand that trickle down effect go into effect or raise taxes on the wealthiest, according to their campaign promises.
(2) with the money saved by avoiding a recession, we *should* invest in military R&D and plan for extremely rapid buildup of a wartime economy in case this becomes necessary (either by our own secret planning or the secret planning of the (Middle-)Eastern Alliance). it is USELESS to do domestic investment when that home turf faces outside threats coming from a known powerful foreign source. in such cases, you need to invest in your military.

 

[peacefan]

of course the appeasers are gonna think : well, at least the people had a few more years of peace before the war started.

my reply : avoid the wars entirely. by being friendly, also in economic terms, yet very superior in strength.
how many total casualties for WW1? 20 million dead, 21 million wounded. WW2? 70-85 million dead.
Vietnam? 1.3M
But Iraq+Afghanistan? 550K.
a overly-well-armed army creates significantly less casualties, and i think we should force the rich and the politicians to respect this fact just as much as they appear to show respect during ceremonies for the fallen.

force by means of exposing them publicly, so we'll need the cooperation of the mass media, and for that we can turn to that old trick of *persistent* demonstrations and now, during winter, online demonstrations.

 

[Mushroom]

Although this article is around 2 years old, it's very relevant today, if we want to project a realistic deterrence against China in any conflict involving the US and by extension the EU protecting Taiwan or other allies in the South China Sea region from sudden or pre-signaled Chinese aggression.

That is not even anything new.

The Royal Navy got thoroughly spanked four decades ago by a third world country using off the shelf export missiles. And they had to scramble to try and convert cargo ships into temporary carriers because they did not have enough. Then lost three ships and had eight others damaged to unguided iron bombs. They had to scrape and improvise against Argentina with a fleet of 2 carriers and 64 destroyers and frigates. Today they have 2 carriers, and 19 destroyers and frigates.

They could not even take back the Falklands if that were to happen today. They barely had enough ships last time, and now they have less than 1/3 the fleet of 1980. Oh, and their subs have decreased from 44 to 11.

I for one do think that our last President had at least one thing right. Almost nobody in Europe is taking their defense seriously, and relying upon the US to come in and bail them out if something big was to happen. When it comes to guns versus butter, in the last few decades the butter is winning.

And for the last year everybody has been screaming about Russian Militarism. And they have one large aircraft carrying missile cruiser, two battle cruisers, two cruisers, ten destroyers, eleven frigates, and eighty corvettes.

In the event of a war breaking out with Russia or China, the US would be largely on their own because the British and French navies combined could not have a chance of standing up to even the PLAN. Let alone the Russian Navy.

 

[whitehall]

Europe's navies were ill-prepared for the last war as well.

At the outbreak of World War II, Britain's navy, often-touted as the greatest European navy, was in very poor shape. At the start of the war, Britain possessed only 7 aircraft carriers, most carrying outdated Fairey biplane torpedo bombers.

Her largest Battleship, HMS Hood, was ill-armored and was completely destroyed (killing all but 3 of her crew) by a single shot from the more modern German battleship, Bismarck.

England's destroyer force was so depleted that she accepted 50 outdated Wickes Class -- originally built for the First World War -- from America and was glad to get them. The British derisively referred to them as "Gift Horses" ... don't look them in the mouth, just be glad to have them.

The day of the dreadnaughts were over before WW2. Almost all the American battleships were destroyed at Pearl Harbor, the Bismarck ended up being scuttled by her crew and the biggest battleship in the world the Yamato had relatively little impact until it was destroyed. Germany's surface navy was laughable and Japan never recovered after four carriers were destroyed during the battle of Midway. The era of naval warfare was over with the advent of missile technology.

 

[Mushroom]

a overly-well-armed army creates significantly less casualties, and i think we should force the rich and the politicians to respect this fact just as much as they appear to show respect during ceremonies for the fallen.

It is all about Guns Versus Butter. It is not the rich paying, it is that they are spending money to appease their people with "bread and circuses", and think that they do not need a formidable military.

Myself, I just shook my head when they had riots and protests in the UK because they dared to want students to pay for part of their own education. For decades they have largely given those that do nothing to defend their nation everything, and nothing to those that do defend it. Myself, I look at the small numbers of recent equipment and much of the rest being four decades old and older and just shake my head.

 

[Mushroom]

Almost all the American battleships were destroyed at Pearl Harbor

Wow, now that is a complete and utter fail.

On 7 December 1941, the US had 17 battleships.

At Pearl Harbor, 4 battleships were lost, and 4 were damaged.

The loss of 4 out of 17 battleships is not anywhere even close to "almost all". In fact, if all those sunk and damaged were combined, it is not even half.

Now it is a fact that it decimated the Pacific Fleet, as 8 of the 9 battleships in that fleet were damaged or destroyed. The exception being the USS Colorado, which was in Washington for refit. But the 8 Battleships in the Atlantic Fleet were unharmed.

And there were enough to shuffle some around. The entirety of Battleship Division 3 was detached from the Atlantic and sent to the Pacific. The USS New Mexico had in fact was transferred in May 1941 from the Pacific to the Atlantic fleet. She was then transferred back and after some repairs after a collision she was in service in the Pacific in August. The same with the USS Mississippi and USS Idaho. Each of the ships spent from 3 to 6 months in drydock getting new gun barrels, having many of their 5" guns removed and transferred to merchant ships, and getting newer anti-aircraft guns.

Even 2 of the 3 battleships of BatDiv 5 moved to the Pacific during the war. As after Torch and Overlord were done their role in the Atlantic was largely over, so they spent the rest of the war participating in such operations as Iwo Jima, Philippines, and Okinawa.

And of the ships in Hawaii at the time? Less than two weeks after Pearl Harbor, the USS Pennsylvania, USS Maryland, and USS Tennessee were all back in service and departed Hawaii for the US for upgrades. Two months later the USS Nevada was back in service and reported to Washington for upgrades. So half of those you claim were "destroyed" were only out of service for a few months to just under a year.

Sorry, that is a complete and utter fail for facts. Please try to speak from history, and not just make things up because they sound impressive.

 

[Dayton3]

of course the appeasers are gonna think : well, at least the people had a few more years of peace before the war started.

my reply : avoid the wars entirely. by being friendly, also in economic terms, yet very superior in strength.
how many total casualties for WW1? 20 million dead, 21 million wounded. WW2? 70-85 million dead.
Vietnam? 1.3M
But Iraq+Afghanistan? 550K.
a overly-well-armed army creates significantly less casualties, and i think we should force the rich and the politicians to respect this fact just as much as they appear to show respect during ceremonies for the fallen.

force by means of exposing them publicly, so we'll need the cooperation of the mass media, and for that we can turn to that old trick of *persistent* demonstrations and now, during winter, online demonstrations.

What makes you think wars are avoidable?

 

[whitehall]

Wow, now that is a complete and utter fail.

On 7 December 1941, the US had 17 battleships.

At Pearl Harbor, 4 battleships were lost, and 4 were damaged.

The loss of 4 out of 17 battleships is not anywhere even close to "almost all". In fact, if all those sunk and damaged were combined, it is not even half.

Now it is a fact that it decimated the Pacific Fleet, as 8 of the 9 battleships in that fleet were damaged or destroyed. The exception being the USS Colorado, which was in Washington for refit. But the 8 Battleships in the Atlantic Fleet were unharmed.

And there were enough to shuffle some around. The entirety of Battleship Division 3 was detached from the Atlantic and sent to the Pacific. The USS New Mexico had in fact was transferred in May 1941 from the Pacific to the Atlantic fleet. She was then transferred back and after some repairs after a collision she was in service in the Pacific in August. The same with the USS Mississippi and USS Idaho. Each of the ships spent from 3 to 6 months in drydock getting new gun barrels, having many of their 5" guns removed and transferred to merchant ships, and getting newer anti-aircraft guns.

Even 2 of the 3 battleships of BatDiv 5 moved to the Pacific during the war. As after Torch and Overlord were done their role in the Atlantic was largely over, so they spent the rest of the war participating in such operations as Iwo Jima, Philippines, and Okinawa.

And of the ships in Hawaii at the time? Less than two weeks after Pearl Harbor, the USS Pennsylvania, USS Maryland, and USS Tennessee were all back in service and departed Hawaii for the US for upgrades. Two months later the USS Nevada was back in service and reported to Washington for upgrades. So half of those you claim were "destroyed" were only out of service for a few months to just under a year.

Sorry, that is a complete and utter fail for facts. Please try to speak from history, and not just make things up because they sound impressive.

The fact is that the Battleships did little except shell some beachheads before the Marines landed. American battleships kept a low profile during WW2 until the Missouri was used for the surrender. The entire battleship fleet was retired or scrapped within four years of Pearl Harbor.

 

[Dayton3]

The fact is that the Battleships did little except shell some beachheads before the Marines landed. American battleships kept a low profile during WW2 until the Missouri was used for the surrender. The entire battleship fleet was retired or scrapped within four years of Pearl Harbor.

Except for the Iowa class battleships. And they proved their worth time and time and time and time again after World War Two.

 

[Mushroom]

The fact is that the Battleships did little except shell some beachheads before the Marines landed. American battleships kept a low profile during WW2 until the Missouri was used for the surrender. The entire battleship fleet was retired or scrapped within four years of Pearl Harbor.

Once again, I suggest you actually try to learn some history, and not just make things up as you go along.

I will just ignore all the others (like Guadalcanal), and jump straight to Leyte Gulf. The largest naval engagement in history. Which saw 14 US battleships and 7 Japanese Battleships involved. Most spectacularly, at Surigao Straight, where a trap was laid by the US consisting of 6 Battleships, 4 Heavy Cruisers, 4 Light Cruisers, and 28 Destroyers. 5 of the 6 US battleships had been damaged or sunk at Pearl Harbor.



You really need to learn some real history here, because almost every time you say something like this, I do a major freaking face palm.

It's like you do not know history at all, and just spout something off because you believe it. I am just shaking my head, because almost anybody that knows more than the absolute basics about WWII should know about Leyte Gulf and Surigao Straight. They hardly kept a "low profile", as can be seen in the battle stars the Battleships were awarded during the war.

The USS North Carolina alone won 15 Battle Stars. Including naval engagements at the Gilbert Islands, Marshall Islands, Mariana Islands, Palau, and the Philippine Sea.

The same with the USS Washington, earning 13 Battle Stars.

The USS Sough Dakota won 13 Battle Stars, And in the Second Battle of Guadalcanal it and the USS Washington were involved in the sinking of the Japanese Battleships Hiei and Kirishima.

I have absolutely no idea where you come up with most of your garbage, but it is almost all amazingly wrong. Low profile indeed, they were on the front lines because they could take more punishment than the carriers could, and were in the fight with other surface threats (as well as a lot of attention by Japanese aircraft) from the start of the war to the end.

 

[Mushroom]

Except for the Iowa class battleships. And they proved their worth time and time and time and time again after World War Two.

All of them were heavily involved.

The main role of Battleships was actually protecting the carriers. Which is why after Pearl Harbor they all had most of their 5" secondary armament removed and replaced with anti-aircraft guns. They were a major part of US battle formations during the war, leading the attacks by the carriers, and being almost "sacrificial bait" for any aircraft that tried to find the US carriers. Before they could find them, they had to first pass through a screen of battleships.

The main advantage of the Iowa class was they were the newest ones, and were the only US Battleships that could keep up with the new "Fast Carriers" that the US was deploying. They were significantly faster than the North Carolina and South Carolina class ships, so normally escorting the new Midway and Essex class carriers. Meanwhile, the older battleships tended to escort the Yorktown class ships. That is because only the Iowa class could keep up with the Midway and Essex class carriers.

The Dakotas, Carolinas, and Colorado class Battleships generally escorted either escort carriers or the early experimental fleet carriers. The Navy simply paired them up so they were close to each other in speed.

 

[whitehall]

Except for the Iowa class battleships. And they proved their worth time and time and time and time again after World War Two.

How?

 

[Dayton3]

How?

Iowa class battleships fought in World War Two, Korea, Vietnam, and two places (Lebanon and Iraq) in the Middle East.

 

[Mushroom]

Iowa class battleships fought in World War Two, Korea, Vietnam, and two places (Lebanon and Iraq) in the Middle East.

And made the Soviets nervous as hell.

They were brought back in the 1980's specifically to counter a new ship class that the Soviets had brought into service. And that is the Kirov class Battlecruiser. And those were specifically designed to counter the newest class of US aircraft carriers. As they had 20 P-700 GRANIT (SS-N-19 SHIPWRECK) missiles. Those were hypersonic anti-ship missiles that carried a ton and a half of high explosives. Capable of sinking any ship in the US fleet at the time.

President Reagan did not want to respond with an arms race with more missiles to counter that threat, so responded in another way. Because the Iowa class were the last ships in inventory that still had old style armor, they were actually largely immune to the damage if struck by one of those missiles. So they were all brought back into service, with the intent that if the Cold War ever went hot, they would be hunting those Soviet Battlecruisers.

And the Soviets did not like that at all! They had planned to build 5 of them, and by the time the second one was launched the US had responded with 4 ships that they simply could not sink. One was cancelled before construction started, and 2 of the 4 completed have already been scrapped.

I for one have long advocated bringing back at least a limited number of big gun armored ships. Because they are largely immune to modern anti-ship missiles simply because they are not designed to penetrate that kind of armor. And the design of the Iowa and Alaska class ships was intended to hold their own against multiple large caliber armor piercing shells.

 

[AZrailwhale]

All of them were heavily involved.

The main role of Battleships was actually protecting the carriers. Which is why after Pearl Harbor they all had most of their 5" secondary armament removed and replaced with anti-aircraft guns. They were a major part of US battle formations during the war, leading the attacks by the carriers, and being almost "sacrificial bait" for any aircraft that tried to find the US carriers. Before they could find them, they had to first pass through a screen of battleships.

The main advantage of the Iowa class was they were the newest ones, and were the only US Battleships that could keep up with the new "Fast Carriers" that the US was deploying. They were significantly faster than the North Carolina and South Carolina class ships, so normally escorting the new Midway and Essex class carriers. Meanwhile, the older battleships tended to escort the Yorktown class ships. That is because only the Iowa class could keep up with the Midway and Essex class carriers.

The Dakotas, Carolinas, and Colorado class Battleships generally escorted either escort carriers or the early experimental fleet carriers. The Navy simply paired them up so they were close to each other in speed.

The biggest limitation on Battleships in the pacific is that they were fuel hogs. That’s why most of the Japanese battle line spent most of the war anchored in the DEI where they could draw fuel right from the wells. Up until 1943, the old US battleships were VERY restricted in movement and the newer, more fuel efficient Treaty battleships carried the load.