Enigmatically wrote:So let's start from a different angle. You have been appointed minister for defence. You have to define what it is you want the navy to be able to do in 10-35 years.
No solutioneering in terms of numbers or type of ships. You have experts to work that out. What do you want the navy to be able to do?
Over 35 years? Well, there'd be very little we'd realistically need to do (Ireland). I'd like to be able to:
Deny sea access: Irish Sea and North Atlantic
Fisheries Patrols: EEZ
Ground strike/surface combat capability: Within the North and South Atlantic, maybe the Mediterranean
Extended supply/deployments to support Irish soldiers on peacekeeping missions abroad: Jadotville isn't going to happen again if we park a missile-frigate or missile-cruiser off the coast as a last resort measure.
Wouldn't need any sort of amphibious assault capability, and having LHDs/LPDs wouldn't be very cost efficient if you could just park a FREMM up on the coast of somewhere and blow them to hell and back anyway.
According to the Mirror (yes not the most reliable...):
"The Royal Navy is getting an extra £1bn to beef up its fleet as Russia continues to threaten UK waters.
Defence Secretary Micheal Fallon announced a raft of new measures including specialised early warning systems and eight new state-of-the-art patrol ships.
That is on top of an existing investment programme designed to protect British interests."
Is this correct, or have the Mirror got the wrong end of the stick? An extra billion for the Navy and 8 new patrol ships? Even if they are mistaken (the MoD hasn't announced this on their website) I can't figure out what 8 patrol ships they are referring to, since we are only supposed to be getting the 5 new batch 2 rivers......
dmereifield wrote:Is this correct, or have the Mirror got the wrong end of the stick? An extra billion for the Navy and 8 new patrol ships? Even if they are mistaken (the MoD hasn't announced this on their website) I can't figure out what 8 patrol ships they are referring to, since we are only supposed to be getting the 5 new batch 2 rivers......
My guess is that they're misclassifying the Type 26 as patrol ships.
Well at least that's something, even if the Mirror reports of an additional £1.25 billion for the RN is BS. Here's a though exercise though, if the RN did receive an additional one off sum of £1.25 billion for procurement, what would you guys wish to spend it on? Bear in mind there wouldn't be a commensurate increase in man power to support your fantasies. I would prioritise replacement of Harpoon and an additional, 9th, T26
dmereifield wrote:Well at least that's something, even if the Mirror reports of an additional £1.25 billion for the RN is BS. Here's a though exercise though, if the RN did receive an additional one off sum of £1.25 billion for procurement, what would you guys wish to spend it on? Bear in mind there wouldn't be a commensurate increase in man power to support your fantasies. I would prioritise replacement of Harpoon and an additional, 9th, T26
With an extra £1.25bn, I think that if you cancelled T31 you could get very close to 13 T26!
dmereifield wrote:Here's a though exercise though, if the RN did receive an additional one off sum of £1.25 billion for procurement, what would you guys wish to spend it on? Bear in mind there wouldn't be a commensurate increase in man power to support your fantasies.
Would want to spend it on people.
Use it to end the hollowing out of personnel, and return to a fully fleshed out service. Use that to increase the availability of our most in demand assets, like putting more escorts to sea, and double crewing the Astute's.
However your exercise proposes spending it on equipment, so under that stipulation;
Upgrade the 8 HM1 Merlin
Buy sonars for the other 5 T23's
Buy NSM for the fleet
If theirs anything left over take HMS forth out the water and add a 20m section at the back, same with her sisters
dmereifield wrote:Well at least that's something, even if the Mirror reports of an additional £1.25 billion for the RN is BS. Here's a though exercise though, if the RN did receive an additional one off sum of £1.25 billion for procurement, what would you guys wish to spend it on? Bear in mind there wouldn't be a commensurate increase in man power to support your fantasies. I would prioritise replacement of Harpoon and an additional, 9th, T26
With an extra £1.25bn, I think that if you cancelled T31 you could get very close to 13 T26!
dmereifield wrote:Here's a though exercise though, if the RN did receive an additional one off sum of £1.25 billion for procurement, what would you guys wish to spend it on? Bear in mind there wouldn't be a commensurate increase in man power to support your fantasies.
Would want to spend it on people.
Use it to end the hollowing out of personnel, and return to a fully fleshed out service. Use that to increase the availability of our most in demand assets, like putting more escorts to sea, and double crewing the Astute's.
However your exercise proposes spending it on equipment, so under that stipulation;
Upgrade the 8 HM1 Merlin
Buy sonars for the other 5 T23's
Buy NSM for the fleet
If theirs anything left over take HMS forth out the water and add a 20m section at the back, same with her sisters
More sailors for the ships we have
Buy NSM at least a 150 so we have some in reserve.
10 Merlin Helicopters, 2 New plus 8 refurbs
More RFA crew members for new ships such as the MARS tankers.
Anything left to be spent on Accomodation ashore.
Enigmatically wrote:As I have said before, most of the discussions are arse about face on here, because you are picking your favoured designs without first saying what the requirement is (or indeed knowing much about the design apart from the visible bits).
So let's start from a different angle. You have been appointed minister for defence. You have to define what it is you want the navy to be able to do in 10-35 years.
No solutioneering in terms of numbers or type of ships. You have experts to work that out. What do you want the navy to be able to do?
Sea denial - what area and against whom?
Sea control- Ditto?
Protect amphibuous landing on UK shores - from whom?
Maritime based strike? Against what sort of scenario (country, depth etc)
Amphibuous landings? Opposed by what? Number of troops in first and successive waves? Armed vehicles
What has to be concurrent (so whilst defending against amphibuous attack from United States of Trump, do we still need to conduct drug patrols?
and so on
Let's exclude nuclear deterrent for the moment. Assume we remain a committed part of NATO, but have left the EU. World political situation apart from that is whatever you think it will be
This is a matter for professionals, not politicians. The Defense Minister would perhaps initiate a study to arrive at answers.
[quote Fallon said today the manufacturer contract for Crowsnest will be signed this year.
by@LandSharkUK
Postby dmereifield » 01 Jan 2017, 22:52
Well at least that's something, even if the Mirror reports of an additional £1.25 billion for the RN is BS.[/quote]
All these things have sources (to get past the Editor in Chief, I presume. Having said that, Wiki has disqualified the daily fail* as a source)
----------
* they are in good company, though. Wiki also banned contributions from IP addresses on the Hill (yes, the physical one, not the publication) for a year as all those "research" assistants were busily writing entries to make the world look the way they would like it to be
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
SB GOT IT PRETTY CLOSE, BUT NOT A T31 IN SIGHT
The ability to continually maintain a battle group, centered around either the Carriers or an LPD to exercise sea control any where, against everyone.
The ability to maintain a presence in north & south Atlantic, Gulf, and Indo-Pacific region with a combatant, or the task group above.
Spend the rest on subs, primarily as a response to Russia and China, but also the increasing number of sub operators around the world.
AETHULWULF brings the T31s in indirectly, with the need to concentrate “escorts” to , err, escorting
the Group [shorthand for what now is MTF] should be able to sustain operations for a period of 180 days. The Group should be able to operate in high threat environments against Tier 1 opponents (e.g. Russia, China ) without reliance on protection or escort vessels from other nations. The Group must be capable of interoperability with the US, France and other potential coalition partners. When not conducting operations against Tier 1 opponents, elements of the Group (e.g. FF, DD, SSN) should be available for independent operations. When no operations are being conducted, one carrier group must be held at 5 days notice to deploy. The second carrier group should be at at 60 days notice to deploy (or 180 days while in refit). With sufficient notice[, the second Group should be able to either deploy to an operational area independent [?[ of the first Group for 180 days, or] deploy to relieve the first Group to maintain a continuous carrier operation for up to 360 days.
The amphibious assault group should maintain at 20 days notice the capability to:
•within a 6 hour period deliver 4 full commando companies ashore (2 air, 2 sea)
In addition, the amphibious assault group should maintain at 90 to 180 days notice the capability to:
•within a 6 hour period deliver 12 full commando companies ashore (6 air, 6 sea)
SPINFLIGHT brings CEPP parameters into the party (and dimensions the 'not response time limited' build up)
4. Maintain a naval force capable of projecting timely weight of accurate fires 30nm inland, and precision strike 150nm inland within the European and Middle Eastern regions.
5. Maintain amphibious forces capable of landing, supporting and sustaining 2 Brigades within the European and Middle Eastern regions. (means ability to take, hold and repair a reasonable sized port chaps)
ANOTHER THOUGHT added:
USN has gone from a 600 ship navy [not to a 320-350 but] to a 1000 ship strategy – they’ve only built a third of "it" and are integrating more tightly with the key allies; on our part the T31 presence is a good mobilizing and motivating factor, to achieve the same albeit on a smaller scale?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Even better, bring back the old benchmark of being equal to the total strength of the two most powerful navies besides the UK, so adding the USN and the PLAN how many ships would we have?!
LordJim wrote: so adding the USN and the PLAN how many ships would we have?!
In our war plan repertoire that would be Red-Orange equivalent of the US plans of 30's vintage:
"War Plan Red[15]
Plan for the United Kingdom (with sub variants Crimson, Scarlet, Ruby, Garnet, and Emerald for British dominions)
War Plan Orange[16]
Plan for Japan.
War Plan Red-Orange[17]
Considered a two-front war with the United States (Blue) opposing Japan (Orange) and the British Empire (Red) simultaneously.
Yellow: Dealt with war in China"
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
LordJim wrote:Even better, bring back the old benchmark of being equal to the total strength of the two most powerful navies besides the UK, so adding the USN and the PLAN how many ships would we have?!
PLAN
1 Aircraft carrier (2nd on its way; while CdG will stay in refit quite long, for the nuclear recycle to be completed this time around)
5 Amphibious transport docks (LPD)
1 Mobile Landing Platform
8 Attack submarines (SSN); 5 Ballistic missile submarines (SSBN); sum 13
34 Destroyers
51 Frigates
29 Mine countermeasures vessels
Take away the Soviet-era copies and forget about SSKs... and it is pretty even (for today)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Wasn't sure where to post this, but this seemed as good a place as any....
Seeing the Falklands anniversary on the news this week got me thinking, in similar circumstances, if a naval task group was required to be rapidly deployed (with say ca. 3 weeks notice) to potentially enforce a naval blockade and to conduct an amphibious assault to recapture a BoT, what would the task group comprise today? I.e. In a shit hit the fan scenario, what could we scramble together at the drop of a hat?
I appreciate that without a defined enemy, theatre or any other info it is difficult to suggest what the group "should" comprise, but what would be the absolute max effort (assuming standard rules for working up, leave etc are out of the window)...
How many DD, FF, SSN, RFA (would RFA Argus be used for aviation), LSD, LPD etc could be readied on such short notice? Would HMS Elizabeth II be rushed into service (if so, would she be used as an LPH or would the dozen or so F35s be pushed into service?), would HMS Ocean be recomissioned? etc
Appreciate any suggestions (this is a thought exercise not a moan at the decline in fleet size compared to 1982 or a question about whether we could do it again today)
