The Royal Navy's New Mission...

Thoroughly confused...

...What are the acronyms and what's the relevance to the TL?

I agree that airfields and dockyards need adequate security and the Base Defence Force/Regiment will be needed. Consider it as a Marine Regiment which specialises in active site defence.
 
I think I've found the ideal Corvette for the Royal Navy, provided it doesn't have ridiculusly short legs. The Poles wanted them but ran out of money before the first was completed. I'd sugest the RN buys and completes the unfinished ship to test and if she's successful purchas the rights to the design.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawron_class_corvette



Type:Corvette
Displacement:1,650-2,050 tonnes
Length:90.10 m (295.6 ft)
Beam:12.80 m (42.0 ft)Draught:3.60 m (11.8 ft)
Speed:29.5 kn (55 km/h) (planned)
Armament:Guns: 1 × OTO Melara 76 mm gun
Anti surface: RBS-15 Mk.3
Anti air: RIM-162 ESSM or MBDA MICA
Torpedoes: MU90 Impact
Aircraft carried:1 × Kaman SH-2G Super Seasprite
 
You know that looks a LOT like the ANZAC frigates the Australian and New Zealand navies use, itself a development of the MEKO-class. You could take a look at them too, and see if they're the sort of thing you're after.
 
It's part of that family of warships, and I think that with a little tweeking would fill the patrol ship role well and be able to look after itself if it found itself in a high threat environment. The only potential drawbacks I can see are cost, and the government of the day may be tempted to say "These Corvettes are very capable, we'll buy some more of these instead of the new Frigates the Navy wants". Its a bit more hi tec than I was thinking as I didn't want a ship that could possibly be used as a Frigate substitute but the Navy would like them. They're very wary of dedicated patrol ships as they fear having a two tier fleet with the Government favouring the cheaper tier.
 
Last edited:

Hyperion

Banned
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.
;)

You would choose to commit national suicide so you can jack off to an aircraft carrier.

It's more than just a carrier.

A US Navy Carrier Strike Group usually needs the airwing, which ALWAYS returns to a naval air station after the carrier returns home. Sometimes a carrier can be in drydock for a year or so between deployments. The airwing still needs flight time, training missions, and sometimes deploying individual squadrons to land bases elsewhere.

Then factor in escorts. You would need one or possibly two Type 45s to act as air defense platforms for a single carrier.

Then you would need a minimum of two Type 23 frigates, or the future Type 26.

Then factor in the having a submarine, likely an Astute class, patroling with the carrier group as well.

Then factor in at least one resupply ship, possibly two depending on how the RN handles logistics and what materials are packaged on a given ship.

If you wanted to keep a carrier permanently tied to the Falklands, you would also be tying up a minimum of six other ships if you want a proper escort and supply train.

I'm sure as shit glad you aren't a military member. You would have probably gotten someone killed at some point.
 
Last edited:
This is a good idea as long as you're sure you won't need these types of forces at short notice. If the coming war ends up being a "come as you are" affair where you don't have 6 months to bring the reservists up to speed before deploying, it's less satisfactory. Along the same lines it also presumes that the TA soldiers can be pulled out of their civilian employment more or less at will, and although that might be the case I'm not entirely sure it would be received in a supportive light if there wasn't a clear, obvious threat to the UK.

Would you accept a modification to the idea? Instead of having only cadre staff as Regulars, let's assume there is a small Regular force based around let's say an armoured division, itself composed of three brigades (each of one armoured battalion, two mechanised battalions, an artillery regiment, an engineer regiment, air defence and all the usual supporting arms). At any time one brigade will be acting as trainers for the TA units conducting their own training; another will be on "active" status as a rapid response force; and the third will be in the "quiet" phase of the cycle doing repairs and maintenance, integrating new recruits, and giving leave more liberally. After 6 months they rotate roles and start all over again.
This has the advantage that there is a rapid response force available at any time if needed, and it can be deployed without robbing the TA of cadre staff or requiring partly-trained forces to be committed. It also provides a structure for expansion of the Regulars if needed (each Regular brigade becomes the core of a new division, it's personnel spread out to provide cadre for the newly formed units).

There are other nations which have had to deal with reductions in defence spending, and they have generally come to the conclusion that while reserves are useful, they take too long to reach a deployable standard in time of crisis and that they are more useful as a supplement to the regulars rather than a replacement for them. I'm thinking particularly of the New Zealand experience post-2000, where the reserve formations provide round-out units in case of mobilisation but otherwise the emphasis is on having a full-strength and capable RRF (Ready Reaction Force). There's also been a move towards making it easier for TF personnel to take a turn in the regulars if they wish.

The same style of organisation might be possible for RAF units as well, although I'm less familiar with their roles and requirements.

Sorry to drag this one up again, but I saw it when I was away and have been thinking about it.

The problem I see with extensive use of reservists is one of national military/diplomatic `posture`. By having forces ready to embark for war at any place in the world at 14/28/42 days notice the nation in question has a powerful diplomatic tool available for all sorts of situations every day of the year.

I think that in such a case mobilisation would mean war much like in WW1 or the Israeli mobilisation in 1967. A nation would hold off mobilising until the last minute so as not to appear agressive. But when the call to mobilise went out everyone would know it was serious and put their own plans into action as fast as they could.
 
The problem I see with extensive use of reservists is one of national military/diplomatic `posture`. By having forces ready to embark for war at any place in the world at 14/28/42 days notice the nation in question has a powerful diplomatic tool available for all sorts of situations every day of the year.

I think that in such a case mobilisation would mean war much like in WW1 or the Israeli mobilisation in 1967. A nation would hold off mobilising until the last minute so as not to appear agressive. But when the call to mobilise went out everyone would know it was serious and put their own plans into action as fast as they could.

Yes, that's a fair point. It's easy to think of these discussions as being specific to the nations we're talking about at the time, but it pays to remember that other states will be watching and drawing their own conclusions as well. Once you do transition to an all-reserve force, any mobilisation will be viewed with concern due to the signals it sends.

And, drawing on the times mentioned above and again going back to the Falklands experience, there are some contingencies in which you might not have the luxury of time available for mobilisation. However there is, as Riain points out, an additional benefit in diplomatic terms. The analogy could be to do with alarm systems - an alarm which gets a response from a sleepy security guard in an hour is a very different proposition from one which brings a squad of Waffen-SS in two minutes. In the same way having these forces available to deploy at short notice is useful not just in an operational context, but also in terms of the message it sends others.

I know that the argument is that the significantly-expanded Royal Marines would be a quick-response force, but they are essentially a light infantry force, which sends it's own signals about what sort of contingencies they could reasonably be committed to.
 
Remember the Title of the TL...

...The Mission dictates the resources required and we can't afford previous capabilities. A two-tier Navy with 60% of the funds is probably inevitable. I concede that the RNAS will have to exist half-ashore and half-aboard, so a third flight-deck would cover the refit headache. That's the point of integrating the RAF and Navy as a single service - I already conceded the need for some armour ashore. But this isn't a comfortable 'let's have everything' - it's the UK on austerity, possibly post-European Union. Halfway towards the Swiss, Swedes and Israel - and nobody wants to drag them into a war. NATO profile, but mainly national responsibilities.

Please proceed to sea, gentlemen. You're all doing very well...
 

abc123

Banned
You would choose to commit national suicide so you can jack off to an aircraft carrier.

It's more than just a carrier.

A US Navy Carrier Strike Group usually needs the airwing, which ALWAYS returns to a naval air station after the carrier returns home. Sometimes a carrier can be in drydock for a year or so between deployments. The airwing still needs flight time, training missions, and sometimes deploying individual squadrons to land bases elsewhere.

Then factor in escorts. You would need one or possibly two Type 45s to act as air defense platforms for a single carrier.

Then you would need a minimum of two Type 23 frigates, or the future Type 26.

Then factor in the having a submarine, likely an Astute class, patroling with the carrier group as well.

Then factor in at least one resupply ship, possibly two depending on how the RN handles logistics and what materials are packaged on a given ship.

If you wanted to keep a carrier permanently tied to the Falklands, you would also be tying up a minimum of six other ships if you want a proper escort and supply train.

I'm sure as shit glad you aren't a military member. You would have probably gotten someone killed at some point.


Well, thank's for lessons, who would have figured that... :rolleyes:

For your information, I do not wan't to keep carrier tied to Falklands, I don't know where did you read that? The point of carrier is that they are not tied to Falklands or anywhere else...

About my military membership, well, when such qualification comes from Manstein/Rommel/Hannibal/Alexander the Great v2.0, what to say...
:D
 
I think I've found the ideal Corvette for the Royal Navy, provided it doesn't have ridiculusly short legs. The Poles wanted them but ran out of money before the first was completed. I'd sugest the RN buys and completes the unfinished ship to test and if she's successful purchas the rights to the design.

She's very pretty, but probaly too highly specialised and too manpower intensive for what the RN needs. A C-3 type vessel replacing most mine hunters and existing patrol vessels is probably what is needed. Low spec, low crew, off the shelf equipment, comercial hull and capable of tacking mission modules (patrol, ASW, ect). Fitted for, but not with, harpoon and CIWS. Primary weapon system shoild be a single 76mm gun, maybe 2 30mm autocannons and a CAAMS ADF system. I'm thinking along the lines of the BMT Venator OPV.

http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/?/196/853/

About my military membership, well, when such qualification comes from Manstein/Rommel/Hannibal/Alexander the Great v2.0, what to say...

Very tue - I had forgot how Hannibal had used an aircraft carrier in his invasion of Italy...

Russell
 
... commercial hull...
I'd be wary of using commercial building standards, whilst you do get short term payoff in terms of initial costs there are also drawbacks. From what I've heard HMS Ocean which was built that way isn't as robust regarding day to day operations and will be completely knackered by the time she's paid off. Commercial build is okay if you have enough ships to keep the operational tempo to a manageable level but since the UK is always short the Navy ends up having to constantly use them and work them into the ground. There's also the question of whilst not being planned for full on war fighting duties how they would cope if they got hit by something.
 
I'd be wary of using commercial building standards, whilst you do get short term payoff in terms of initial costs there are also drawbacks. From what I've heard HMS Ocean which was built that way isn't as robust regarding day to day operations and will be completely knackered by the time she's paid off. Commercial build is okay if you have enough ships to keep the operational tempo to a manageable level but since the UK is always short the Navy ends up having to constantly use them and work them into the ground. There's also the question of whilst not being planned for full on war fighting duties how they would cope if they got hit by something.

Building HMS Ocean to comercial standards was an apauling idea - a poor, half-arsed design made worse. However, small patrol boats built to commercial standard will both be cheaper but also easier to repair. I beleve the current C-3 plan is to build them to commercial standards anyhow.

Russell
 
I think I've found the ideal Corvette for the Royal Navy, provided it doesn't have ridiculusly short legs. The Poles wanted them but ran out of money before the first was completed. I'd sugest the RN buys and completes the unfinished ship to test and if she's successful purchas the rights to the design.

Now that would actually make some sense, so there's no chance of it happening.

The RN could use this thing for quite a few purposes, Falklands guard ship, anti-piracy patrol off Somalia, general showing the flag and low intensity missions worldwide.

The big problems are as stated, range, (probably quite reasonable given the number of countries that use the MEKO), manning, (again doesn't seem too bad based on some other countries ships), and inter-operability with existing RN equipment, does the vessel need any particulary specialised weapons of systems that require special purchases or training. Also will bringing this ship upto RN spec make buying it prohibitively expensive in the long run?
 
They'd not go for a MEKO design, as it's furrin, but arguably for a similarly modular design that can be upgraded from policing to medium-high intensity roles, possessing the ability to serve as a capable adjunct to a cadre of expeditionary 'first-rate' vessels (T45s, SSNs and the Carriers (sic)) would be sensible.

They'd be of >3000t size, to be of any real use and versatility and to future-proof them.
 

abc123

Banned
Building HMS Ocean to comercial standards was an apauling idea - a poor, half-arsed design made worse. However, small patrol boats built to commercial standard will both be cheaper but also easier to repair. I beleve the current C-3 plan is to build them to commercial standards anyhow.

Russell

IMO C-3 class would be just what doctor prescribed for RN. Not too expencive, commercial standards for ships that are not for fight anyway, low manpower requierments..

Good joke about Hannibal and aircraft carriers.:D
 
Now that would actually make some sense, so there's no chance of it happening.

The RN could use this thing for quite a few purposes, Falklands guard ship, anti-piracy patrol off Somalia, general showing the flag and low intensity missions worldwide.

The big problems are as stated, range, (probably quite reasonable given the number of countries that use the MEKO), manning, (again doesn't seem too bad based on some other countries ships), and inter-operability with existing RN equipment, does the vessel need any particulary specialised weapons of systems that require special purchases or training. Also will bringing this ship upto RN spec make buying it prohibitively expensive in the long run?

As I understand it the hull is complete but its not been fitted out yet so the navy could install their own standard equipment.

As things stand now these ships would be used for, Falklands Guardship, Anti Piracy patrols around the Horn of Africa, Anti Drug smuggling patrols Carribean and Anti People Smuggling patrols in the Med as well as showing the flag. They could also if need be provide an RN presance around the British Isles if the Frigates are needed as escorts for the Carrier and Amphibious fleets elsewhere, though if the Frigates not already assigned as escorts to the expeditionary forces need to do this something has gone drasticly wrong.
 
Last edited:
It's a little off topic but as I was looking for a suitable Corvette class I came across the Insect class China River Gun Boats. We've touched on questionable names before but can you imagine the look on the face of a Royal Navy enlisted man on been posted to HMS Cockchafer. Not something I'd want tied to my cap.:D

It could be worse than that as well. There was the Ellerman Shipping Line that named a string of ships SS Lesbian. Imagine if one had been taken over as an accomadation vessel to house Wrens.:eek:
 
If all you want is a vessel suitable for low-intensity missions, a MEKO-class frigate seems like a remarkable degree of overkill. What about something like the OPVs the New Zealand navy uses for such purposes? These vessels are entirely useless in a shooting war but they're small, cheap, and require only a handful of crew while still being able to operate a helicopter and having a degree of modularity with respect to stores carried and equipment fitted.
 
More than a little alarmed...

...Wiki reports problems with weight and stability. 22 knots still seems a bit slow to me - and cruising's only 12. NZ sounds as if it's coping with a poor design, reading between the lines.
 
Top