My Ideal Royal Navy.

Why do you need jets with precision missiles to kill unarmed speedboats used by pirates? Machine guns and unguided rockets from props or helos is more than enough.

 

I think he was having a laugh at my expense.

 

Well 'William' it would be great if we had a fleet like that..............and if you want to see the RN expanding in the future, you would have to vote 'UKIP' in the next election, as they said they would restore the surface fleet to year 2000 levels at least, and build a 3rd Aircraft carrier.

Shame our banks squandered a large proportion of our wealth.......i mean 'RBS' losses alone would of funded the entire defence budget of the UK for a year.

Bankers eh.....................what a bunch of .........

 

I have looked over the UKIP plan and I think it's a load of rubbish personally, there is money that could go into the military if we cut foreign aid, but not enough to build a 3rd carrier. However I would like a 3rd carrier, for when QE or POW is in refit.

It's also a shame the Labour party over spent and didn't regulate the banks enough and that people are stupid enough to want loans for almost nothing and credit cards they can't pay back. The problem was the whole system, not just the banks. Never the less a lot of them are BANKERS.

 

Oh, oyu had better miltiply that figure a lot my friend, a lot.

Now the secret of Defense budgets. The single most expensive part of any military is not the ships, it is not the airplanes, it is not the fancy missiles. It is the maintenance and training of the equipment and the military members. The second most expensive part if the pay and support of the members of the military and their family.

In the US Military, "Procurement" (buying new toys that go "bang") actually comes in a distant third ($140 billion) behind training, operations and maintenance ($283 billion) and pay and support for dependents ($180 billion).

If you want that impressive Navy in 10 years, you had better start the building boom now. New bases, new barracks, new hospitals, new recruits (since you are going to need more Petty Officers and middle-ranking officers once the ships do arrive).

Takt that number you are planning, and multiply it by at least 10 I would think. Because you are going to need a lot of other things, everything from the aircraft to put on those carriers, the helicopters to put on the destroyers, the torpedoes and missiles to go on all of them, the fuel, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

It is not anywhere near as easy as you are making it out to be, trust me there.

 

I will give you a budget break down of what I think. Procurement budget of £156 billion over 12 years, £94 billion would be spent on ships. That leaves £62 billion to be spent on aircraft and armament costs. 240 F-35C's at £140 million each would cost £33.6 billion, 40 F-35B's at £150 million each would cost £6 billion, 20 Hawkeye at £120 each would cost £2.4 billion, 120 Lynx Wildcat's at a cost £30 million each would cost £3.6 billion, 100 Merlin's at a cost of £45 million each would cost £4.5 billion, 40 Chinook's at a cost of £60 million each would cost £2.4 billion and 20 Apache's at a cost of £40 million each would cost £800 million, £53.3 billion would be spent on aircraft. Leaving 8.7 billion to be spent on armament. The Royal Navy budget would be £240 billion over 12 years, for training, running costs, pay, housing, infrastructure and so on. The total budget over 12 years would be £396 billion.

 

*scratches head*

Apache's for the Navy?

Sorry my friend, bad choice there, big time.

There are a great many reasons why the Marine Corps still uses the venerable AH-1 Cobra. For one they only have 2 top blades (as opposed to the Apache's 4), which makes it easier and quicker to move around and store aboard ship. Also it is smaller, also making it easier to store. It is also designed to be able to handle the rough seas and the salt water corrosion that is involved in Naval operations, something the Apache is not designed to do.

Consider the space on your flight deck of hanger bay of this:



And compare it to this:



And you can see why Naval and Marine forces still use them. The Apache is a fine bird, but it is a poor choice for Naval operations.

And for the same reason, dump the Chinooks. The CH-47 is a fine bird also, but not suited for the same reasons as the Apache. Instead go with the Naval version, the CH-46 Sea Knight. They are a bit smaller, but are already designed to handle the issues associated with naval operations and salt water.

One thing you have to remember, if you want to convert a land version of an aircraft to naval operations, you have to take several things into consideration. For one the size, you need to maximize room both on deck and in the hanger bay. Then you have to allow for modifications to the engines and other parts because of the salt water and corrosion associated with it. Finally, you need to have much heavier landing gear, because the landing aboard a carrier are so much rougher then those on land. All of these would add considerable weight and cost to a land based aircraft, if they can even be done.

As for the WIldcats, what are you going to use those for? They can only carry a squad or so of individuals, and only have minimal weapons capabilities. A handfull might be usefull for SAR and minimal transport between ships, but that is about it.

For some of those roles, you should also consider the V-22 Osprey. This is because one aircraft you have forgotten is resupply carriers. For almost 50 years the Navy has used the C-2 Greyhound, and is considering replacing them with the Osprey. This would give them a large advantage, because they could also land on the smaller amphibious warfare ships (negating the need to land supplies on a carrier, then put them on another ship before transfering them to the amphib). They could also be used in everything from SAR and personnel transport from ship to shore to landing Marines.

And there has even been research done to convert the V-22 into tankers, as well as an AEW aircraft (AWACS).

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/masc.htm

Personally, I would seriously reconsider about half of your choices. If you are going to make a "dream list" of military equipment, then dump a lot of the old items like the E-2, and go for more GP like the Osprey. Dump the Army versions of aircraft and look at the already existing Naval versions.

 

There is already a naval variant of the Apache in service with the RN. I would rather have the helicopter with better performance and killing power, which is why I would choose the Apache over the Cobra. Why have the Marines got the Viper?

There are only civilian versions of the CH-46 Sea Knight in production; it would cost too much to reopen the production line for a military version for the RN. So that is why I choose the Chinook and not the Sea Knight. If there would be large enough export market for it then it is a much better choice than the Chinook, but I doubt the US companies and government would let the UK do that.

The Wildcat is for the destroyers, frigates, anti-piracy corvettes, large off-shore patrol ships, ice breakers and Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships. It’s a utility helicopter, with the main role of anti-surface warfare.

You are right about the V-22; I would say 20 for AEW, 20 for transport and 20 for refuelling at a cost of £70 million each would be £4.2 billion. Then I cut the Hawkeye's. That would cut the arament budget down to £6.9 billion over 12 years.

 

The AH-1Z Viper is just another upgraded AH-1W SuperCobra. And it is designed specifically for the needs of the Marines.

http://www.bellhelicopter.com/MungoBlobs/68/132/EN_AH-1Z_PocketGuide.pdf

http://www.bellhelicopter.com/MungoBlobs/68/132/EN_AH-1Z_PocketGuide.pdf

Remember, we are talking about Boeing here. When Canada said they wanted a version of the Sea Knight to float so they could land directly on the water, they did it.

The Osprey is often overlooked, because people only think of them being used for landing Marines.



Way back in 1990, Dale Brown wrote a book called "Hammerheads", which was over a decade ahead of it's time. It envisioned a kind of "Border Patrol on Steroids", based on abandoned oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico, operating with armed Ospreys. I always thought the idea was interesting, and in his book he to the OV-22 to places it has never been even today (fully armed ground support fighter).

And it always made me wonder why the Osprey development never really went any further then it has. Many of us know of the problems Helicopters have been having in the high mountains of Afghanistan. This is a problem the Osprey really does not suffer from.

Tankers, ground attack fighter, AEW platform (EV-22), ASW platform (SV-22, imagine a P-3 that could actually hover over the target sub), there is a lot of potential that has yet to be fully tested in this bird.

 

I like the Viper more than the Apache, it's greater speed and range.

It's not about Boeing building it, it's about boeing letting a British company build it and export it. The UK isn't allowed to export it's variant of the Apache.

The reason people don't like the Osprey it's size, they would rather use Merlin's for AEW and F-35's to refuel other F-35's. People also don't care about having a carrier borne transport aircraft, infact I only know about the Greyhound from planning my dream personal navy around the USS Kitty Hawk and USS J.F.K. I would have thought the V-22 engines could interfear with the radar on AEW missions.

Would building a V-22 tanker increase it's range?

 

The Viper is just a Cobra on steroids.

And I bet the main reason for the ban is because of the weaponry, sensors, and targeting equipment on the Apache. After all, it is an attack aircraft.

The Sea Knight is just a flying bus, nothing sensitive there. And way back in 1965 they licensed Kawasaki to build them for the JDF.

Well, generally making any aircraft a "tanker" does nothing to it's range. Generally the fuel for flying is seperate then the fuel used for fueling other aircraft. And I would not use it for refueling jets, as much as refueling the other aircraft that make up the fleet (Helicopters for example).

As for the size, who cares? When talking about operations, the biggest issue is really how small does it store. And the OV-22 does some neat tricks when folding itself for storage on a carrier or Amphib.



That is roughly the size of a CH-53 when it is in storage configuration.

And why would the engines interfere with a RADAR? Does the engines of an E-2 or Helicopter interfere with it's RADAR?

The biggest problem with helicopter based AEW is range. They do not fly very far, they do not fly very fast, and they can not climb very high. For example, the Merlin can only reach around 15,000 feet. The ceiling of the OV-22 is 25,000 feet - and that is only because it's hull is not pressurized. Pressurize the AEW version, and it would probably have the same 35,000 as the E-2. And that extra 20,000 feet of altitude would greatly extend the range that the RADAR reaches.

Add to that the greater amount of space, and you could probably launch one with 2 crews and keep them flying almost indefinately with mid-air refueling. Plus they could even be added to the amphib ships, greatly increasing both their protection radius, and make them possible strike platforms as well.

I am a big believer in diversification when possible. I see no reason why Amphib platforms can't also serve double duty as small carriers, hosting around 2 dozen fighters in addition to their troops in berthing. And anything to make that force more effective is something to be considered.

 

It's also because the Westland Apache is better, and that could hurt exports in the US.

Sea Knight it's is then, I would say it would cost about £1 billion to set up the production line for 40 aircraft at cost of £55 million each would be £2.2 billion. Then hope you sell enough of them to oil rich countries to make up the £1 billion investment. It also adds another £200 million to the armament budget, making it £7.1 billion. What do you think of the US replacing the Sea Knight with the Sea Hawk?

I do find it telling that when I talk to people who are current or former military they say Merlin AEW is crap, where as people who were never in the military say it's fine.

Is there anything else about the fleet you would change, apart from having cruisers?

 

Different helicopter, different mission.

The SH-60 is a light cargo helicopter. Can carry 5 passengers, and only 3 tons of cargo (normally slung underside).

The CH-46 is a medium lift helicopter. It can carry 25 passengers, 4 tons of cargo (with the ability to carry it internally and ejected through the rear ramp).

The 46 can do pretty much anything the 60 can, but there is a lot of things the 46 can do that the 60 can not.

Like dropping a platoon of Marines in 1 trip.

 

That being the case why did the US stop building the 46? Or build a newer version. Do you agree with other people in this thread that the UK doesn't need 6 carriers?

 

Because much of the mission was taken over by the CH-53, a Heavy Lift helicopter. Normally the helicopter used is determined by what or how many people need to be moved. When we operated in Platoon sized elements, we normally took the 46. When in Company or Battalion sized operations, we normally took the 53.

In the Marines, the 46 is still heavily used. But the mission ultimately decides which helicopter is to be used. If you need to crop off 4 tons of food and water, take the 46 loaded with pallets, land, roll them out the door, and you are off again. If you need to drop off a HMMWV, 4 Marines, heavy weapons and enough supplies to last them 5 days, use the 53.

The 46 is favored for fast "drop and go" missions, because of the rear ramp and internal cargo. You can put in palatized cargo, and dump it out really fast. More conventional birds like the 60 or 53 are slower to unload because everything must be unloaded by hand out the side doorways.

 

Something I just learned about you may want to think about here.

Last month the first Ground Test unit of the new CH-53K was delivered. This is going to be a 21st Century Rendition of the venerable CH-53, and will be miles apart from the old ones.

Same troop capacity (40-55), greater range (1,000km, as opposed to 841km), completely modern fly-by-wire and on screen HUD displays, and a giant increase in payload capacity (15,500 kg as opposed to 12,200 kg). And it will even be large enough to be able to carry an HMMWV inside of it (instead of slinging it underside), in addition to the capacity to carry 2 standard Air Force pallets.

Currently the Marines are planning on buying 277 of these, and if the past is any indication, expect the other 3 services to jump on the bandwagon once the Marines get all the bugs worked out (the Navy, Air Force and Army all jumped on the original CH-53A, as well as every other version made).

 

I have made some changes to the battle fleet.

3: Queen Elizabeth class carriers.
6: Guided missile air defence cruisers.
12: Type 45 destroyers.
16: Type 26 multipurpose anti-submarine warfare frigates.
10: Astute class submarines.
10: Diesel electric submarines.
2: Anti-submarine warfare helicopter carriers.
2: Landing helicopter dock amphibious assault ships.
2: Landing platform dock amphibious assault ships.
2: Mobile artillery ships.
12: Black Swan multi-purpose Corvettes.
4: Trident ballistic missile submarines.
15: Mine counter measures vessels.

 

It's not what happened in the past you need to be worried about. It's what happens in the future.

And the UK has a history of reducing its armed forces because it thinks there is no threat and then suddenly a major war comes about (such as happened in the 1930s and the early 1980s).

This history shows that we are playing a dangerous game in reducing our armed forces because we think there is no immediate threat to us. By making military cuts, the Coalition government has not heeded these warnings.

 

Okay- that is reasonable.

What actions in the future do you think would warrant 6 carrier groups? You mention the Falklands- that is the last major naval action that Great Britain has been involved in- and it certainly didn't need 6 carrier groups?

Every nation has to determine what it is willing and able to afford in the way of a military.

Great Britain certainly doesn't need 6 carrier groups to defend Great Britain itself- so what do you think Great Britain needs in the way of a military - and what can it afford?

 

As I said before you have 6 carriers, but only 3-4 will be operations, then one in refit and one or two in training.

I think my revised ideal Royal Navy I posted a few days ago is more what the UK needs. With a allround capability and greater hull numbers, which is becoming the main problem for the Royal Navy.