The Royal Navy's New Mission...

Defining the Mission...

Whilst it is possible to think up a range of scenarios, what can the UK reasonably expect to fund and what missions can it cope with?

1. Defence of mainland UK against attack and invasion. Chiefly a naval and air defence problem backed up by locally-based territorial forces stiffened by a professional cadre.
2. Defence of offshore oil/gas/wind turbine and wave-power assets. Chiefly a naval ASW and air defence problem.
3. Defence of essential shipping and air freight. Chiefly a naval ASW and air defence problem.
4. Defence by deterrent against nuclear/biological/chemical threats. This is Trident or its successors.
5. Defence of overseas dependencies such as Falklands, Gibraltar, Belize and minor island dependencies. This is Marine type.
6. Contribution to defence of allies against third parties. This should be limited to ASW and minor strike roles, with some special forces.
7. Contribution to disaster relief, mainly in the Third World. A peacetime use for amphibious/air-portable assets.

Normandy beach-head type activities are no longer feasible and this needs to be made clear.

We are left with a need for naval and air forces and a modest but well-equipped rapid deployment force to overseas, but with a genuine Home Defence Service as backup in case of invasion or major terrorist attacks of the kind mountable by al-Quaeda and the IRA. Anything else is not affordable.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Modified last post with details...

...Is this feasible? The Canadian/Swiss/Swedish solution, with more teeth. And, yes, I allowed for a logistical support 'tail'.

But no Normandy-type landings and a restriction to What We Can Do, not What We Dream Of.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
...Is this feasible? The Canadian/Swiss/Swedish solution, with more teeth. And, yes, I allowed for a logistical support 'tail'.

But no Normandy-type landings and a restriction to What We Can Do, not What We Dream Of.

Sure, it is just a matter of internal UK politics. Now the down side is being less muscular, the USA might ignore the desires of the UK on foreign affairs to a greater extent. But overall, you plan seems to make as much sense as the current UK defense plan. The UK has no real military threats besides Argentina, and the Falklands could be defended cheaper with fewer ships and more land/air forces in the Falklands.
 
and the Falklands could be defended cheaper with fewer ships and more land/air forces in the Falklands.


I'm not so sure of that. Land based air power backed by troops on the ground would beat of a landing but there also needs to be an ability to break through a blockade. If the troops and land based air forces can't be re supplied then no matter how well they fight surrender is inevitable.
 

abc123

Banned
What would I love to see:

RAF disbanded, some assets ( like Typhoon, but ITTL Sea Typhoon ) given to FAA ( and FAA can easily leave one or two squadrons for air defence of UK and other squadrons would be based in carriers ) and other things like strtegic level UAV or combat support aircrafts also in FAA.

Some other like transport aircrafts, tanker aircrafts, tactical level UAV and helicopters- given to Army Air Corps.

So, basicly, only two services, RN and Army.

Army based on 5 current large mixed brigades and single airborne brigade.

Royal Marines with 2 commando brigades.

With budget for RN about 60% of total defence spending.
 
Last edited:
I can live with that...

...Back to a smaller Army/Royal Flying Corps and Royal Navy/Royal Naval Air Service?

40% to Army and 60% to Navy looks alright to me...

...Tell me, Old Boy, do we share Cranwell?:D

The nukes deal with strategic threats - assisted by cruise missiles and UAVs. Most minor threats may come from extra-national political groups that regard Britain as a threat to their objectives. The exceptions are threats to overseas territories and to strategic resources such as oil and gas. The floating air base of a carrier is therefore justified for that and the defence of offshore production platforms.
 

abc123

Banned
...Tell me, Old Boy, do we share Cranwell?:D


Well, actually, I'm not fan of joint solutions. Better let one service to do the same thing ( training of pilots ) for all services. So FAA get's training for all airplane pilots ( EF and transport aircrafts etc. ) while AAC get's training for all helicopter pilots.
 
Aircraft like the C130 and tankers could be flown by reservists, but leaving only 1 or 2 squadrons for defence seems needlessly reckless. At the moment you could say there is little threat of air attack on Britain unless it's a 9/11 type attack but what about 10-20 years from now. You need to maintain a certain level of forces to keep hard won skills and I'm not just talking about the pilots. Ground control stations need to be able to deal with vectoring multiple aircraft on to different targets in a short amount of time this takes practice and with only two squadrons for air defence they won't get it. Now the US Air National Gaurd proves that high performance combat aircraft can be flown by reserve crews but again to be effective they need regular forces to back them up and train against. I would propose an air defence force of twelve squadrons, 4 regular squadrons rotated from service at sea and 8 reserve squadrons manned by a mix of pilots whose term of service in the regulars is up and directly recruited reserve pilots drawn from the University Air Squadrons.
 

abc123

Banned
Aircraft like the C130 and tankers could be flown by reservists, but leaving only 1 or 2 squadrons for defence seems needlessly reckless. At the moment you could say there is little threat of air attack on Britain unless it's a 9/11 type attack but what about 10-20 years from now. You need to maintain a certain level of forces to keep hard won skills and I'm not just talking about the pilots. Ground control stations need to be able to deal with vectoring multiple aircraft on to different targets in a short amount of time this takes practice and with only two squadrons for air defence they won't get it. Now the US Air National Gaurd proves that high performance combat aircraft can be flown by reserve crews but again to be effective they need regular forces to back them up and train against. I would propose an air defence force of twelve squadrons, 4 regular squadrons rotated from service at sea and 8 reserve squadrons manned by a mix of pilots whose term of service in the regulars is up and directly recruited reserve pilots drawn from the University Air Squadrons.


Say, what prevent's putting carrier aircrafts on land bases for air-defence of UK if need arises?
Also, with say, 3 carriers of CVF-size, there's allway's at least 2 carrier-based squadrons that are permanently in land bases.
Plus 2 for air-defence of UK, that's pretty much enough for any concievable threat to UK.

Bold- simulators are good enough for that, much better and cheaper than using real jets for that.
 
Last edited:
Interesting, but...

...Should we be looking at the 'mother ship' & squadron of UAV interceptors idea?

RAF current squadron size should make your suggestions an affordable concept for an RNAS/FAA to support. I was dismayed that only four squadrons actually cover AEW and air defence and only two of these appear to have Typhoons.

Do we need to consider weapons platforms armed with more capable missiles for interception and strike duties? Airliners with cruise missiles have been mentioned.

Coming to naval requirements - maybe more fast missile-armed patrol craft and AIP diesel submarines need to be considered. Nukes have a 'noise' problem due to steam turbines. The Swedish, German and Greek AIP subs offer long submerged patrol durations and are quieter than the US nuke attack subs.

Thoughts, folks?
 

abc123

Banned
...Should we be looking at the 'mother ship' & squadron of UAV interceptors idea?

RAF current squadron size should make your suggestions an affordable concept for an RNAS/FAA to support. I was dismayed that only four squadrons actually cover AEW and air defence and only two of these appear to have Typhoons.

Do we need to consider weapons platforms armed with more capable missiles for interception and strike duties? Airliners with cruise missiles have been mentioned.

Coming to naval requirements - maybe more fast missile-armed patrol craft and AIP diesel submarines need to be considered. Nukes have a 'noise' problem due to steam turbines. The Swedish, German and Greek AIP subs offer long submerged patrol durations and are quieter than the US nuke attack subs.

Thoughts, folks?


IMO, if you wan't to buy say, somebody mentioned 30 commercial airliners ( let's go for A330 because of easier logistics ) that would mean that you will spend somewhere around 9-10 billion of dollars for them.

IMO it's better to buy something for the Navy, like additional SSN or carrier or LPH or... Or, if you insist on cruise missiles, let's go really cheap and make "arsenal ship". Take tanker hull and put there Mk41 with Tomahawks, it shouldn't cost you more than 1 billion per ship...

Or, alternative solution, buy larger number of A330 Voyager tankers and put 2-4 missile pilons under their wings, so that they can be used for occasional cruise missile ( like Storm Shadow or maybe even JASSM-ER with 1000 km range ) launch. Not terribly effective solution, but it can help...

About submarines, I would go for all-nuclear fleet, because British needs are different than German or Greek.
 
First of all, string a few politicians up to send a message........plenty of space on the Victory.
 
Point taken, but...

...Much of the real wastage is from time-servers in the not so Civil Service. Redundancies are in order, methinks.
 
Perhaps a solution might be to take politicians out of the loop. They give the MoD a budget and a mission statement (horrible term, but applicable) and then leave them to it. Just have a department at the NAO do oversight and sack the idiots in the civil service side running procurement.

A squadron or two for regular air defense is probably sufficient for the UK, especially if you have a rotation of naval squadrons on the ground too. The UK itself had few threats warranting more than a dozen or so planes on ready status. Falklands could do with a multirole unit with good anti shipping and air to air - a dozen planes would be nice.

With two carriers at sea with a 40+ air group makes a pretty convincing stick, especially with a third in port and a marine force with teeth.

Logistics would be important too - but a good chunk of this could be outsourced.
 

abc123

Banned
Perhaps a solution might be to take politicians out of the loop. They give the MoD a budget and a mission statement (horrible term, but applicable) and then leave them to it. Just have a department at the NAO do oversight and sack the idiots in the civil service side running procurement.

A squadron or two for regular air defense is probably sufficient for the UK, especially if you have a rotation of naval squadrons on the ground too. The UK itself had few threats warranting more than a dozen or so planes on ready status. Falklands could do with a multirole unit with good anti shipping and air to air - a dozen planes would be nice.

With two carriers at sea with a 40+ air group makes a pretty convincing stick, especially with a third in port and a marine force with teeth.

Logistics would be important too - but a good chunk of this could be outsourced.


About Falklands, I would sincerely pull back allmost all UK military personell from there, maybe I would leave there 2-3 MPA ( something small, no need for something big, like CASA 235 MPA ).
Better to have 2-3 carriers that you can send down there if Argies try something foolish and spank their ass again, than keep single infantry company there ( not really strong deterrent IMHO ) or 4 Typhoons, and there's one or maybe two that are really ready for action.;)

I can find better way to spend 700 millions of USD annually. In 30 years that's about 21 billion. ;)
 
IMO, if you wan't to buy say, somebody mentioned 30 commercial airliners ( let's go for A330 because of easier logistics ) that would mean that you will spend somewhere around 9-10 billion of dollars for them.

You don't need to buy new aircraft, there are hundreds of mothballed air liners in the New Mexico dessert that can be converted to fill the necessary roles. The VC10s and Tristars were bought second hand and are still fullfilling their role well. They are however reaching the end of their second lives and need replacing. The RNAS/FAA will need tankers and transport aircraft and redundant aircraft have been proven to meet these needs well. Using this type of aircraft will make it easier to recruit reserve pilots as the pilots can build up flight hours in commercial type aircraft and gain valuable experience as aircraft commanders years before they could reach that possition in civillian lives.

30 aircraft is only two operational squadrons and 1 Operational Conversion Unit plus a small reserve for maintenance and replacements. The Aircraft are needed anyway and fitting them with hardpoints to launch cruise gives the extra option of a long range strike at reletively short notice for a comparitively small extra expenditure.
 

abc123

Banned
You don't need to buy new aircraft, there are hundreds of mothballed air liners in the New Mexico dessert that can be converted to fill the necessary roles. The VC10s and Tristars were bought second hand and are still fullfilling their role well. They are however reaching the end of their second lives and need replacing. The RNAS/FAA will need tankers and transport aircraft and redundant aircraft have been proven to meet these needs well. Using this type of aircraft will make it easier to recruit reserve pilots as the pilots can build up flight hours in commercial type aircraft and gain valuable experience as aircraft commanders years before they could reach that possition in civillian lives.

30 aircraft is only two operational squadrons and 1 Operational Conversion Unit plus a small reserve for maintenance and replacements. The Aircraft are needed anyway and fitting them with hardpoints to launch cruise gives the extra option of a long range strike at reletively short notice for a comparitively small extra expenditure.


Well, I'm would imagine that if you want aircraft that will remain in service for next 30+ years, you do need a new aircraft. They have lower logistical costs, use less fuel, have more modern electronics, their spare parts will be available for next 40+ years off-the-shelf, training for flying and maintaining them could mostly be made at British Airways etc...
I for sure wouldn't love to fly in some 30-40 years old VC10 or Tristar in combat mission or to fly in general. And to do that another 20+ years....
 
Compared to commercial airliners the VC10s and Tristars are pampered. A commercial aircraft only earns money in the air and so mainenance has to be fitted in where ever possible to minimise the time that it is out of service. Military aircraft on the other hand generaly only fly for a few hours a week and are thouroughly inspected after each flight. Also as there are no shareholders to appease they are more likely to have components replaced early rather than as late as is safe. This is how the VC10s are still able to be inservice more than 40 years after production ceased.

Airlines and Airforces face different economic circumstances. An airline needs to make a profit on every flight so the emphasis is on fuel economy and load carrying. They also need to be able to say to their customers that they have the most up to date aircraft (which they imply is also the safest) possible. They also have to meet stricter enviromental controls than Military aircraft.

Airforces on the other hand need aircraft that they can keep in service for many years and while fuel ecconamy is an issue it is less of an issue than longevity and the strength of an airframe. The main issue is whether the Aircraft will get the job done not whether it will make money.
 

abc123

Banned
Compared to commercial airliners the VC10s and Tristars are pampered. A commercial aircraft only earns money in the air and so mainenance has to be fitted in where ever possible to minimise the time that it is out of service. Military aircraft on the other hand generaly only fly for a few hours a week and are thouroughly inspected after each flight. Also as there are no shareholders to appease they are more likely to have components replaced early rather than as late as is safe. This is how the VC10s are still able to be inservice more than 40 years after production ceased.

Airlines and Airforces face different economic circumstances. An airline needs to make a profit on every flight so the emphasis is on fuel economy and load carrying. They also need to be able to say to their customers that they have the most up to date aircraft (which they imply is also the safest) possible. They also have to meet stricter enviromental controls than Military aircraft.

Airforces on the other hand need aircraft that they can keep in service for many years and while fuel ecconamy is an issue it is less of an issue than longevity and the strength of an airframe. The main issue is whether the Aircraft will get the job done not whether it will make money.


Well, since both Trident and VC10 ARE commercial airliners converted for military usage, your last paragraph is useless.

I wonder, wich airplanes you wan't to use for that purpose? VC10 and Tristars?

I don't see how you want to use aircrafts that are not produced 20 years or more, their spare parts are probably worth their weight in gold.
Using old aircrafts where spare parts are rare- you don't want to go that road.

Now, if you can find some really cheap and good used Boeing 767 or Airbus 330, why not?

But, sincerely, I would rather have Arsenal Ship, armed with say 200 or 300 cruise missiles ( Tomahawk with 1500 miles range ), it would give HM Forces pretty strong punch...
 
I didn't phrase that last paragraph well what I should have said is military owned aircraft. When an airliner is retired for economic reasons the aircraft itself may have many more years life left the military not having to make a profit can exploit those extra years where an airline cannot.

What aircraft would I select? You're right I would chose one of the long range Airbuses I would prefer the A340 aircraft for the extra redundancy of four engines but that is likely to be too expensive so I would go for the A330. (This is what the RAF has on order for the VC10-Tristar replacement Airbus is building a dedicated aircraft for the Tanker/Transport role).

Why hang cruise missiles of the aircraft? Responce time. A long range jet aircraft can circumnavigate the world in a day giving the ability to get within cruise range of a target within hours of a crises. A ship may take weeks to come into range of a target giving them time to prepare. That time delay may well cost British lives.
 
Top