The Royal Navy's New Mission...

Even the C3 variants of the Type 26 might be a little bit on the large size. For duties like the Atlantic Patrol Task (North), formerly the West Indies Guard Ship, and various patrols and things things like anti-narcotics operations thye've generally been forced to use Type 22 or Type 23 frigates simply because that's all they have. Something like the Israeli Sa'ar 5-class corvette has always struck me as something that would be rather handy for second tier operations like that and generally showing the flag. Lower manpower, reduced size, smaller draught so it can go places that larger vessels like the current frigates can't - handy in places like the Gulf, might of helped avoid the HMS Cornwall debacle from a few years back. Of course it only really works it if you're going to buy enough of them to make it economical.

I agree that a Corvette would be better suited to patrol work and I think that in time thats what would be ordered. The reason I suggested using the older Frigates though is to keep the treasury happy. Far too often when the time comes to order new ships the Navy will ask for say 12 of the ships they need, the Government of the day will first say they're going to order 10, when the time comes to order the ships they'll actually order 8 and then later cancel 2, leaving the navy with half the ships they wanted.

This way when the type 22's really do need replacing the navy can say that they're not adding to the fleet but rather maintaining what capabilities they already have when they ask for new ships. To keep the decision making process to a minimum rather than ordering a new design the navy shoul select a type that is already being built for export like one of Vosper Thorneycrofts Corvettes. When the type 23s need to be replaced just repeat the order.

Incidentally because they will be operating in areas with a minimal threat of attack alot of the high tech equipment on the type 22s & 23s can be mothballed or removed reduceing the manpower requirements.

It's a pity the Navy sold off the Peacock class patrol ships as these along with the River class OPVs would have provided a usefull patrol squadron and the ships have many years life left in them.
 
Last edited:
If you want expansion of the Royal Navy, particularly to the detriment of the other forces, then you need to have a credible threat.

Assuming the POD is today, the easiest way would probably be to have Argentina increase it's defence spending (which isn't hard as they barely spend enough to keep the Defence Ministry stocked with chocolate biscuits these days). If the Argies are seen to start building more new Destroyer, Frigates, LPDs or even subs and carriers, the British would be forced to built the RN up to a level where it was capable of putting together a task force at least the size of Operation Corporate.

I think the only way we are going to see the RAF and British Army regular forces reduced is if we have closer Military integration with France and Germany whereby we have a similar understanding to what the British and the French had in WWI (the French provide the bulk of the land forces, the British provide the bulk of the Naval forces).

In reality I can't see the RAF being reduced by much even in this scenario, and certainly not merged with the FAA. Air power is far too essential in this day and age and maintaining a sizeable and capable air force in this day and age is almost as big a deterrent to an invasion by a foreign power as a nuclear deterrent.
 

abc123

Banned
I think the only way we are going to see the RAF and British Army regular forces reduced is if we have closer Military integration with France and Germany whereby we have a similar understanding to what the British and the French had in WWI (the French provide the bulk of the land forces, the British provide the bulk of the Naval forces).

In reality I can't see the RAF being reduced by much even in this scenario, and certainly not merged with the FAA. Air power is far too essential in this day and age and maintaining a sizeable and capable air force in this day and age is almost as big a deterrent to an invasion by a foreign power as a nuclear deterrent.


Bold: That's my general idea, UK would become provider ofsignificant naval contribution to the alliance, while land contribution will be small.

About RAF, why you have to have Air Force as independent organisation? Especially if your homeland isn't in danger and whole your strategy is expeditionary oriented ( closest enemy is Iran ), ship based airpower is better than land based because navalised aircrafts can use land bases while land based aircrafts can't use carriers.
RN now has the opportunity to see what is the importance of carriers. If you don't have them all your shiny Typhoons are useless, except if you don't send BIG number of them in Falklands ( and so you can't use them somewhere else ). Do not think that Argies can't defeat that four aircraft at Mt. Pleasant. Or infantry company.;)
 
I agree that a Corvette would be better suited to patrol work and I think that in time thats what would be ordered. The reason I suggested using the older Frigates though is to keep the treasury happy. <snip>

Given the costs of keeping these vessels in service, and their increased manpower requirements over a corvette or patrol vessel, I'm not sure the Treasury WILL be noticeably happier about this idea. A small frigate has a crew of around 200, a patrol boat well under 100 (25 or so is probably closer). From the point of view of operational utility, 4 patrol boats can be in 4 places at once, while a converted frigate can only be in one and costs a lot more. It just doesn't seem to make a lot of sense unless funding isn't a huge concern.
 
Given the costs of keeping these vessels in service, and their increased manpower requirements over a corvette or patrol vessel, I'm not sure the Treasury WILL be noticeably happier about this idea. A small frigate has a crew of around 200, a patrol boat well under 100 (25 or so is probably closer). From the point of view of operational utility, 4 patrol boats can be in 4 places at once, while a converted frigate can only be in one and costs a lot more. It just doesn't seem to make a lot of sense unless funding isn't a huge concern.
Of course, though, the Treasury would want to replace 1 frigate with 1 patrol boat rather than with 4 of them...
 

abc123

Banned
Of course, though, the Treasury would want to replace 1 frigate with 1 patrol boat rather than with 4 of them...

Then a solution is clearly to abolish the Royal Navy and all other HM Armed Services to please HM Treasury.
:eek:
 
The higher manning levels can be used to persuade the Government to pay for Corvettes by presenting the switch as a saving costs, which would be true. What I'm aiming for is to get the patrol force established fairly quickly with the ships that are at present redundant so that when the Navy is looking for ships purpose built for the role the Treasury has to justify removing a capability rather than the Navy justify adding one. I never intended for these ships to fill the patrol role permenantly.

I've said all along that these ships would have been modified to fit their new role so the manning levels will not be the same as when they were the mainstay of the fleet. If you're chasing drug runners, smuglers and pirates you don't need the ability to shoot down supersonic aircraft, or to track nuclear submarines in the deep ocean. Idealy I'd want 10 of the Clyde variant of the River Class Offshore Patrol Vessel the de rated Frigates would be filling the cap.
 
River Class??? OMG time...

...Far too slow! The drug runners use aircraft, semi-submersibles and high-speed launches. The River class has been too slow to catch illegal trawlers. Better off with a fast patrol boat - maybe buy some of the Greek hydrofoils or convert something like the HSC 'Manannan'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSC_Manannan which for part of its life was the USS Joint Venture.
 
The river class have hellipads, but I concede the point. I'm not sure hydrofoils are a good idea though they've always struck me as being vulnerable to floating debries and rough weather. If you're looking for high speed then you're going to have to sacrifice range and habitability.

Vosper Thornycroft have done good business over the years selling Corvettes to the Middle East so if you can keep every man and his dog from adding the latest fad and wouldn't it be good if dream to the spec you should be able to order some very usefull little ships off the shelf. Ordering off the shelf would save time and possibly money by avoiding all the last minute changes in design or equipment as well as the Government being able to say "You sold this type of ship to ***** for X million pounds. Why are you trying to charge us 3 times as much"?
 
About RAF, why you have to have Air Force as independent organisation? Especially if your homeland isn't in danger and whole your strategy is expeditionary oriented ( closest enemy is Iran ), ship based airpower is better than land based because navalised aircrafts can use land bases while land based aircrafts can't use carriers.
RN now has the opportunity to see what is the importance of carriers. If you don't have them all your shiny Typhoons are useless, except if you don't send BIG number of them in Falklands ( and so you can't use them somewhere else ). Do not think that Argies can't defeat that four aircraft at Mt. Pleasant. Or infantry company.;)
1. Land based aircraft are typically cheaper like for like.
2. Land bases allow for a greater range of aircraft - you're still going to need refuelling tankers, transport planes, long range bombers (perhaps) and associated fighters to go with them.
3. Carriers are easier to sink than air bases are to destroy from the air.
4. Carriers take a lot longer to build and cost an awful lot more than a concrete runway with a radar tower next to it.
 

abc123

Banned
The higher manning levels can be used to persuade the Government to pay for Corvettes by presenting the switch as a saving costs, which would be true. What I'm aiming for is to get the patrol force established fairly quickly with the ships that are at present redundant so that when the Navy is looking for ships purpose built for the role the Treasury has to justify removing a capability rather than the Navy justify adding one. I never intended for these ships to fill the patrol role permenantly.

I've said all along that these ships would have been modified to fit their new role so the manning levels will not be the same as when they were the mainstay of the fleet. If you're chasing drug runners, smuglers and pirates you don't need the ability to shoot down supersonic aircraft, or to track nuclear submarines in the deep ocean. Idealy I'd want 10 of the Clyde variant of the River Class Offshore Patrol Vessel the de rated Frigates would be filling the cap.


Yep.

Royal Navy doesn't need corvettes. If we use Saar 4.5 as example, I'm pretty sure that the aren't much cheaper than some cheaper frigate ( like say Valour class ) frigate and they are SMALL ( about 500 t ) so they are not built for use in open seas, they are good for Israel ( where main task is patrolling a front of Lebanon or Gaza Strip ), but not for UK.

Large OPVs, like BAM or French Floreal class is something that RN needs for their non-war duties.
;)
 
Last edited:

abc123

Banned
1. Land based aircraft are typically cheaper like for like.
2. Land bases allow for a greater range of aircraft - you're still going to need refuelling tankers, transport planes, long range bombers (perhaps) and associated fighters to go with them.
3. Carriers are easier to sink than air bases are to destroy from the air.
4. Carriers take a lot longer to build and cost an awful lot more than a concrete runway with a radar tower next to it.

1. I agree. No doubt. But carrier aircrafts can do what land based can't do, because carrier can be 200 miles close to Falklands today and 200 miles close to Iran in a week, while land based aircrafts can be either all on Falklands ( and then they can't be used for Iran ) or in Iran ( giving great opportunity to Argentinians to attack Falklands and when they conquer them, you can than put all of RAFs fighters in Ascension, but for nothing )

2. Certainly, but carriers can carry refueling aircrafts ( like brazilians will convert S-2 Tracker for refueling ) or their aircrafts can buddy-buddy refuel other aircrafts.
I agree that you still need transport planes, that's inevitable.

3. It isn't so easy to: a) find aircraft carrier and b) to sink aircraft carrier. It is much easier to attack land base than carrier.

4. Sure, but they are worth more than land base. And also, it isn't so simple thing to build a airbase, nor it is cheap..
Also, you can't move airbase, Mt. Pleasant is in Falklands and it will stay there, never mind does UK has problems with Iran or with Libya or China.
 
Last edited:
Time and again the RAF has claimed that the fleets needs can be met by land based aircraft. It doesn't work. Every time it's been tried the navy has been let down. As for the claim that land based aircraft can meet all the requirements of the government due to longer range and higher carrying capacity, as well as having bases that can't be sunk in theory it's true. In practice its more complicated. Land based airpower needs airfields withing range of the target so needs friendly powers to agree to your aircraft operating from their territory. You need permission to overfly countries with armed aircraft, and by having to arange this you lose the element of surprise. Carriers can avoid much of this because they are already British territory as the USN says with a carrier you have "4.5 acres of soverign terretory anywhere in the world". Unless the country you're attacking is completely land locked you don't have to ask for permission to overfly a third country that may or may not agree.
 
All the reasons you have given are reasons why it is smart to maintain both a land based air force and a supplementary carrier based force.

The whole point of a carrier is to offer a landing platform for aircraft in areas where there might not otherwise be one, not to replace an airfield if there is one available.

Otherwise wouldn't the 2010 Strategic Defence Review have called for Mt Pleasant to be closed, the Typhoons to be sent home/disbanded, and HMS Illustrious to be parked off of San Carlos Water with a squadron of Sea Harriers aboard?
 
For the sake of the discussion I'm going to issue a very general spec for the future patrol ship. I use the term Corvette as I see it as a successor to the WWII Flower and Castle Classes.

Requirements for Future Corvette.

1000 to 2000 tonnes.
Speed of 20 - 25 knots
Crew 60 - 80
Endurance 21 days
Hellipad and hanger for Lynx
Automatic 76mm Gun
CIWS X 2
2 High Speed Launches with Minigun
Disaster relief stores
 

abc123

Banned
For the sake of the discussion I'm going to issue a very general spec for the future patrol ship. I use the term Corvette as I see it as a successor to the WWII Flower and Castle Classes.

Requirements for Future Corvette.

1000 to 2000 tonnes.
Speed of 20 - 25 knots
Crew 60 - 80
Endurance 21 days
Hellipad and hanger for Lynx
Automatic 76mm Gun
CIWS X 2
2 High Speed Launches with Minigun
Disaster relief stores


Yeah, that's something that could be just fine for UK needs.
;)
 
For the sake of the discussion I'm going to issue a very general spec for the future patrol ship. I use the term Corvette as I see it as a successor to the WWII Flower and Castle Classes.

Requirements for Future Corvette.

1000 to 2000 tonnes.
Speed of 20 - 25 knots
Crew 60 - 80
Endurance 21 days
Hellipad and hanger for Lynx
Automatic 76mm Gun
CIWS X 2
2 High Speed Launches with Minigun
Disaster relief stores
But are you going to name one of them 'HMS Pansy'? :p
 

abc123

Banned
All the reasons you have given are reasons why it is smart to maintain both a land based air force and a supplementary carrier based force.

The whole point of a carrier is to offer a landing platform for aircraft in areas where there might not otherwise be one, not to replace an airfield if there is one available.

Otherwise wouldn't the 2010 Strategic Defence Review have called for Mt Pleasant to be closed, the Typhoons to be sent home/disbanded, and HMS Illustrious to be parked off of San Carlos Water with a squadron of Sea Harriers aboard?

True, that would be ideal.
But, if you have to choose between RN with 2 QE carriers and current RAF on one side and RN with 3 carriers and with RAF disbanded on another side, I know what would I choose.
;)
 
Top