Your National Naval Requirement

[Enigmatically]

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

[shark bait]

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.

[Enigmatically]

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.

Anyone?
Including USN?

And this task group/presence doesn't have to be ale to achieve anything? Just be there. Seems rather pointless

And you have solutioneered with submarines. Once again, what do you want them able to achieve?

[seaspear]

An interesting excercise , a defense minister would of course rely on information about the threats their nation faced in considering allocation of resources if the spenditure was required to be focused on discernable and growing threat say of submarines from country that for some period has been considered unpredictable then spending on vessels in asw could be a priority over abilities in amphbious warfare if other measures might be introduced instead ( pre deployment of troops and material by airlift) .A defense minister would seek advice on future developing technology for cheaper just as effective methods e.g. long range drones for patrols , certainly that naval platforms have room for growth and adoption of new technologies .

[Enigmatically]

An interesting excercise , a defense minister would of course rely on information about the threats their nation faced in considering allocation of resources if the spenditure was required to be focused on discernable and growing threat say of submarines from country that for some period has been considered unpredictable then spending on vessels in asw could be a priority over abilities in amphbious warfare if other measures might be introduced instead ( pre deployment of troops and material by airlift) .A defense minister would seek advice on future developing technology for cheaper just as effective methods e.g. long range drones for patrols , certainly that naval platforms have room for growth and adoption of new technologies .

Only partially. The defence minister would not be seeking alternative technologies. They would be recommended to him from the threat. So that doesn't stop you specifying what you want the navy to do.

And in reality I doubt the minister has much more information about growing threats than are in open source media. Certainly that is adequate for our purposes I am sure

[shark bait]

Anyone?
Including USN?

And this task group/presence doesn't have to be ale to achieve anything? Just be there. Seems rather pointless

And you have solutioneered with submarines. Once again, what do you want them able to achieve?

Everyone but the USN. The RN is NATO's second most capable navy, and that position should be maintained.

Task group and subs are to control whatever parts of an ocean is deemed necessary. Task group does that with aircraft, subs do the same but from under the waves

[Enigmatically]

OK. So you want to be able to undertake Sea Control of an area of blue or littoral water, against any other navy, including Russia or China, but not in their littoral waters. How big an area?

And on some pedantic points, submarines cannot do sea control. You need as a minimum surface assets for that-which you did acknowledge. And sea control requires consideration of above and below water or it is meaningless. So those points makes me wonder whether you are confusing sea control and sea denial.

You have also solutioneered to submarines. But sea control doesn't necessarily need them. Could be a surface task group with UUVs. Hence why I am pushing for the requirement, not your answer in terms of vessels and their design

[ArmChairCivvy]

v good, Enigmatically.

I wonder if any minister of defence has been asked to learn the definitions first, before starting on the job. And, of course, the ships (classes) have been a given to about 10 years forward... two elections, or more!

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

[shark bait]

So those points makes me wonder whether you are confusing sea control and sea denial.

No sea control. Subs and a carrier group can exercise sea control very well, removing hostiles, freedom of movement of NATO force, and control of trade and therefore economies, should be the goals of an RN fleet.

But sea control doesn't necessarily need them. Could be a surface task group with UUVs. Hence why I am pushing for the requirement, not your answer in terms of vessels and their design

Sea control defiantly needs something in the sub surface domain, right now the only credible option are Nuke Subs. I wouldn't pigeon hole that as the only solution, as technology develops things may change and the RN will have to respond.

[Enigmatically]

Submarines cannot provide sea control. How will they prevent aircraft from attacking the aircraft whose freedom of movement you are requiring?

I know I am being demanding and pedantic. But the point is that until you have gone through this exercise, comparing ships and systems is meaningless

[marktigger]

when you break the fleet down some areas are about the right size and should be maintained at that strength:-

Amphibious warfare fleet is about right at present and should always have suficient capability to lift, deposit and support 3cdo bde for a defined period. I would add an additional LPD(A) and start planning to replace Ocean and the LPDs with LHDs and replace Argus. With suficient shipping to lift a further Brigade of any type in RFA (Type) ships like the points which can be used in more benign times as a transport fleet for UK govt.

That then needs its Escort group and RFA's

Carrier Fleet the carrier Fleet when the 2 QE's I would suggest is going to be bare minimum a 3rd deck would be better with a Fleet Air Arm with suficient assets to cover 2 of them at any one time both in terms of merlin ASW, Merlin AEW and F35

both of those also need their escort groups and RFA's

standing tasks

WIGS
FIGS

would now add Deigo Garcia Guard ship (to cover indian ocean and east Africa) and Gibraltar Guardship to cover Med and Ascension Island Guard ship to cover that area of atlantic and East Africa.

For each of those tasks a Frigate. providing a Royal Navy Presence round our territories but also to contribute to contingencies or emergencies in those regions. Providing defence diplomacy. Also each supported by a Roving Replenishment and repair group.
these guard ship vessels not dual hatted into the Carrier or Amphibious groups escorts. But the reserve components could be used for this and if in the regon attached to the carrier/amphib group.

EEZ
Needs more than 5 OPV also needs coastal patrol vessels (whether this function should fall to civilian agencies is open to debate)

We also need to have sufficient ships to cover deployments refits and so escorts are not dual hatted (eg part of QE escort group but deployed in west indies as guardship) and a reserve is maintained. And the personnel & material to support them including RFA and FAA support.

[Enigmatically]

How do you know some areas are the right size or not? You haven't said what they have to achieve?

If the amphib reqt is to land and support 3 brigade then you don't need an LPH

etc
etc

[bobp]

All this is well and good but would like to point out a distinct lack of cash to do anything. The military have been cut to the bone any talk of a third carrier, more F35B, more Helicopters, more ships etc relies on the government purse to be opened which is not likely to happen for a long time.
Most of our defence requirements will rely on the assistance of other navies. As we leave the EU hopefully we will get more assets to patrol home waters, to carry out escort of Foreign Warships, Drug Smuggling and other Security tasks.

[shark bait]

Submarines cannot provide sea control. How will they prevent aircraft from attacking the aircraft whose freedom of movement you are requiring?

Not by them self no, but as part of a carrier group absolutely, in fact one wouldn't struggle without them?

If I has to state two key competencies it would air power and submarine power together to control the sea.

OK. So you want to be able to undertake Sea Control of an area of blue or littoral water, against any other navy, including Russia or China, but not in their littoral waters. How big an area?

I had to take some time and come back to this one because there are many variables that would demand a different response.

If we we're part if a global crisis, it would undoubtedly be a NATO response, in which case the value of the Royal Navy would be making a highly valuable contribution to NATO.

As part of a global NATO forces controlling a region, the gulf springs to mind, would be highly valuable.

But there may may be some smaller conflict that the UK is drawn into without the support of NATO, in which instance we would want to control the enemy's access to the open ocean.

Probably only ossiblee where they have access to one ocean like Brazil, it would be very different if not impossible for a country like Canada with access to multiple oceans.

I don't think there is as much value of controlling the littorals is there ? I would place controlling access to open ocean as much more important, allowing freedom of movement beneficial to the UK and restricted others.

Control access, control trade, control the economy, win. Worked for the Royal Navy on grand scale one upon a time.

[Enigmatically]

SB
You said the Gulf so I assumed you included the littorals.

But no amphib reqts for you?
No NGS implicitly?

The carriers are now just fleet carriers not deep strike?

[marktigger]

How do you know some areas are the right size or not? You haven't said what they have to achieve?

If the amphib reqt is to land and support 3 brigade then you don't need an LPH

etc
etc

really you need tha capability to land and support the CHF and attached Apache & chinook and LPH provides both sea and air support facilities. including integral Dock and hangers!

[shark bait]

But no amphib reqts for you?
No NGS implicitly?

The carriers are now just fleet carriers not deep strike?

I put amphib secondary, and I struggle reaching a conclusion on the UK amphibious response.

If the ocean is controlled very well is there need for a 'premium' amphibious force?
If we not going to do contested landings is there need for a 'premium' amphibious force?

In a real SHTF situation the carriers would have to be fleet carriers, air power at sea is key. I'm sure you could tell me more but I expect in a high intensity operation much of the carriers capacity will be allocated to to combat air patrols, with strike taking a secondary role.

The lower the intensity the more I assume will be focused on deep strike and in low intensity ops we'll be using them as combi LPH's.

[ArmChairCivvy]

I am assuming the Moderators are doing their job... and not letting the site to be interrogated by two opposing statements from the same contributor?
- I know it is challenging: as the IP address for the home (in a Nevada desert) is different from the one (in the office); be it next door, or on another continent

Following up with great interest... the BAE sponsored folks are almost as good as the Putinist Trolls (err, I am only assuming, so let me add: allegedly!)

[shark bait]

[marktigger]

But no amphib reqts for you?
No NGS implicitly?

The carriers are now just fleet carriers not deep strike?

I put amphib secondary, and I struggle reaching a conclusion on the UK amphibious response.

If the ocean is controlled very well is there need for a 'premium' amphibious force?
If we not going to do contested landings is there need for a 'premium' amphibious force?

In a real SHTF situation the carriers would have to be fleet carriers, air power at sea is key. I'm sure you could tell me more but I expect in a high intensity operation much of the carriers capacity will be allocated to to combat air patrols, with strike taking a secondary role.

The lower the intensity the more I assume will be focused on deep strike and in low intensity ops we'll be using them as combi LPH's.

But no amphib reqts for you?
No NGS implicitly?

The carriers are now just fleet carriers not deep strike?

I put amphib secondary, and I struggle reaching a conclusion on the UK amphibious response.

If the ocean is controlled very well is there need for a 'premium' amphibious force?
If we not going to do contested landings is there need for a 'premium' amphibious force?

In a real SHTF situation the carriers would have to be fleet carriers, air power at sea is key. I'm sure you could tell me more but I expect in a high intensity operation much of the carriers capacity will be allocated to to combat air patrols, with strike taking a secondary role.

The lower the intensity the more I assume will be focused on deep strike and in low intensity ops we'll be using them as combi LPH's.

I am very nervous about the CVF's being dual hatted LPH the "phrase putting all your eggs in one basket" an LPD replacement for ocean and the LPD's would also provide additional decks for the F35 and Merlin ASW & AEW in emergency. But usung the CVF in the LPH role isn't a good idea as it will be operating close to shore.

[Enigmatically]

I am assuming the Moderators are doing their job... and not letting the site to be interrogated by two opposing statements from the same contributor?
- I know it is challenging: as the IP address for the home (in a Nevada desert) is different from the one (in the office); be it next door, or on another continent

Following up with great interest... the BAE sponsored folks are almost as good as the Putinist Trolls (err, I am only assuming, so let me add: allegedly!)

Am I one of the two opposing posters you suspect of being someone else?
Or indeed a BAE sponsored folk?

I can assure you neither are true.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The lower the intensity the more I assume will be focused on deep strike and in low intensity ops we'll be using them as combi LPH's.

I have high respect for what you are bringing in for discussion, but I think you are thwarting the terminilogy, and therefore, any later quotes, eg.

deep strike?

The most we could hope for is battle field interdiction. Making people to make assertations to the contrary can be used in later quotations. Just like the other terms I was referring to in the earlier context (on this thread).

[ArmChairCivvy]

more @ Enigmatigally (and less @SB)
- should have made that clear (starting with a quote)

[The Armchair Soldier]

Moved this thread into General Discussion as it's not strictly equipment-related.

[Repulse]

UK requirement should be:
- Sea Control of all UK EEZ extended into the North Sea and English Channel
- ABM protection of the UK
- Ability to conduct preemptive air strikes anywhere in the world and deploy a 2 bde amphibious group globally
- Sea Denial of strategic choke points