Top Heavy RN?

I love the top heavy RN idea. 2 CTOL CVF and 12 Daring class. Great. I'd go for 2 F-35b CVF carriers instead of the LPHs. That's four in total, any of which can carry an LPH worth (more) of helicoptors and troops. Better make that sixteen Daring class, at least eight of which will need an ASW capability. CVF will need larger escorts (than the rest of europe have) to keep up with them in rough sea states.

We are operating from a 5% of GDP budget, right? Eight Astute class SSN then eight to a new design after the SSBNs are built. For general 'police' work we could use 12 lengthened OPV(H) (as illustrated so well) and twelve 2500t Triton style corvettes (keep those design studios working). I've seen some posts on other boards that suggest modular configuration for the OPV equipment. Sometimes MCM and UUWVs, then ASW towed array or back to helo pad and hanger, depending on the mission.

These are all just numbers plucked out of mid air without much thought to mission requirements (carrier groups have political missions outside of the existing RN committments).

perfectgeneral said:

I love the top heavy RN idea. 2 CTOL CVF and 12 Daring class. Great. I'd go for 2 F-35b CVF carriers instead of the LPHs. That's four in total, any of which can carry an LPH worth (more) of helicoptors and troops. Better make that sixteen Daring class, at least eight of which will need an ASW capability. CVF will need larger escorts (than the rest of europe have) to keep up with them in rough sea states.

We are operating from a 5% of GDP budget, right? Eight Astute class SSN then eight to a new design after the SSBNs are built. For general 'police' work we could use 12 lengthened OPV(H) (as illustrated so well) and twelve 2500t Triton style corvettes (keep those design studios working). I've seen some posts on other boards that suggest modular configuration for the OPV equipment. Sometimes MCM and UUWVs, then ASW towed array or back to helo pad and hanger, depending on the mission.

These are all just numbers plucked out of mid air without much thought to mission requirements (carrier groups have political missions outside of the existing RN committments).

Click to expand...

I would stil go with three CTOL CVFs at the top end of the fleet, as this guarantees one deployed/deployable at all times. I also called for two LPHs to spearhead the ARG, but didn't specify the type. If a variant of the CVF hull is used the economies of scale must surely help bring down individual unit costs (as the class would now be six units, 3 CTOL, 2 LPH and 1 French PA) although I wouldn't for a moment suggest the savings would be huge by any means, they would be significant.

Eight + Eight SSNs is fine by me, I merely said the SSN force is too small at just eight units + 3 or 4 SSBNs. 12 SSNs is my minimum requirement, 16 replaces the Frigates ASW coverage nicely and more effectively. The Darings all have an inherent ASW capability now by virtue of the Helo(s) carried, and installing a Hull mounted sonar/towed array (take your pick) along with triple 12.75inch torpedo tubes on the deck would not add greatly to their cost (I thought they would have these items anyway, someone will correct me soon enough). Twelve is my minimum requirement again, 16 would be very nice (remember we are trading in frigates for these and the corvette force) and the main purpose of the excercise is to restore sufficient numbers of useful ships to the RN to allow it to meet it's current and future commitments, something it clearly cannot do under current and future plans.:nono:

Ultimately I'd argue that we are probably spending the right amount of money on defence now (more is always welcome of course), we just aren't spending it in the right places (Too many Typhoons, not enough carriers and escorts) and this thread's purpose is to give voice to alternatives.

Of what just came to my mind is that If you look at european ASW assets, the best two desings, Type22 and Type23 have been from Britain. Other major frigate producers, Netherlands (which have now retired the Kortaeners and moved on to AAW) vessels, France, Germany and Italy....they havent produced a par desing to those two superior cold war era subhunters.

Also most of all new european large surface ships have been AAW vessels as the Soviet submarine thread was gone (for awhile). But wouldn't this speculation has to assume that european fleets would still keep up good ASW capacity? If there is any convetional thread to Europe, it would be rising Russia and Russians know that if they are about to rerise into martime power, they propaply start with the same logic that did in the 20's and that was to concentrate on submarines. So one could assume that there still will be days that the main 'opponent' of western europe uses submarines as its main platforms.
So would be bit premature to the leading country in ASW devolpment to cut this expertiece and knowhow that it has gained (after many painfull sacrifices) during the cold war years?

Hmm... if I were purchasing Frigates, I'd probably opt for something similar to Singapore's Formidable class with TAS and towed decoy. Also, instead of 8 x Harpoons, I'd replace it with 1-2 x 4-cel Mk.57 VLS (or 1 x 8-cel Mk.48 VLS) equipped with VL-ASROC.

The ship would be smaller and cheaper than the FREMM "frigate" but more expensive than enlarged Corvette concepts. IMO these days the chance of ship-to-ship combat with SSM's is pretty low, but I wouldn't want to depend on 1 helicopter as my sole ASW asset.

Gollevainen said:

Of what just came to my mind is that If you look at european ASW assets, the best two desings, Type22 and Type23 have been from Britain. Other major frigate producers, Netherlands (which have now retired the Kortaeners and moved on to AAW) vessels, France, Germany and Italy....they havent produced a par desing to those two superior cold war era subhunters.

Also most of all new european large surface ships have been AAW vessels as the Soviet submarine thread was gone (for awhile). But wouldn't this speculation has to assume that european fleets would still keep up good ASW capacity? If there is any convetional thread to Europe, it would be rising Russia and Russians know that if they are about to rerise into martime power, they propaply start with the same logic that did in the 20's and that was to concentrate on submarines. So one could assume that there still will be days that the main 'opponent' of western europe uses submarines as its main platforms.
So would be bit premature to the leading country in ASW devolpment to cut this expertiece and knowhow that it has gained (after many painfull sacrifices) during the cold war years?

Click to expand...

Absolutely. I don't really want to get rid of the 22s/23s if possible, but they could be passed to other european Navies (slim hope I know) and I have already catered for the ASW role by increasing the SSN force. SSNs (and SSKs, come back Upholder class, all is forgiven!) are the best ASW weapons of all (as I said previously, my brother served aboard Some of them so there is a little second hand experience seeping through here) and the Merlin force would be increased also to compensate. The Type 45s will also have a degree of ASW capability (as do their predecessors, the Type 42s) and any future RN CSG will have a couple of SSNs attached just as the USN does now.

well the Type22/23 are begin to be old...but they are results of good tradition in RN frigates and simply passing them on to another user would mean that their capacities will still be avialable...but the issue comes in hand when the next generation of ASW surface vessels are needed.

Gollevainen said:

well the Type22/23 are begin to be old...but they are results of good tradition in RN frigates and simply passing them on to another user would mean that their capacities will still be avialable...but the issue comes in hand when the next generation of ASW surface vessels are needed.

Click to expand...

My point is that unless/until the submarine threat resurfaces (pardon the pun) the surface fleet should not be biased towards what has become a secondary or even tertiary role. Expeditionary warfare and Littoral warfare are the current and future arenas, and ASW must become subsidiary to these roles. The capability and expertise should certainly be retained as much as possible, but as the recent crisis has shown, a large ASW Frigate designed for hunting Soviet subs in the North Atlantic was less than ideal for policing the northern (shallow) end of the Persian Gulf. There is no reason why a large hulled warship like a Type 45 should not be equipped with the most advanced ASW sensors and weapons (that is the primary reason for the helo, a Merlin in these ships, which is primarily an ASW asset) despite being officially biased towards AAW. Even the older type 42s were as capable in the ASW role as many of the contemporary ASW dedicated frigates. In the RN since the sixties, the distinction between Destroyer and Frigate has evolved to mean the latter was an ASW ship with limited air defences and anti ship capability whilst the former was AAW ship with the same ASW/ASuW capability as the frigate primarily for task force defence. The type 45s follow this tradition and are not single role (ie AAW) ships but multi role escorts, albeit afflicted with the dreaded 'fitted for but not with' disease inflicted by the teasury.

It all boils down to a quality versus quantity argument, you can have the best Frigates in the world but if you can only afford a couple of them and one will always be in port/dock then they aren't much use. A minimum number of escorts are needed to be useful and fulfill worldwide commitments, and with modern technology/automation/weapons/sensors/communications a larger number of smaller ships becomes a more viable option for the 'world policing' role. Added to this an increased 'Battle Fleet' (CVs, DDGs and SSNs) able to concentrate firepower when it is required and we have a fleet that is able to do what is asked of it, rather than the overstretched under resourced ill equipped for the task fleet we have now.

Great concept Obi Wan Russell. As bdpopeye said:

"Too bad Obi wan is not in charge of the RN.

Click to expand...

My only initial hesitation was a worry about a Falklands type situation but as I read further posts it became obvious that your fleet would more than cover such a scenario. Much better in fact than the fleet of 1982!

It is refreshing to see someone who can 'think outside the square' and come up with some realistic and workable alternatives rather than just preserving the same ideas in an ever shrinking fleet. It reminds me a bit of what 'Jackie' Fisher did when he revolutionised the RN in the years leading up to WW1. He swept away old, slow, middle sized ships and pushed the development of powerful battlehips and battlecruisers, fast light cruisers (equivalent in size to today's frigates), destroyers (equivalent in size to today's corvettes) and submarines.

Cheers

Jackie Fisher has always been an inspiration to me, even though some of his ideas were flawed he dared to think them in the first place and carry them through to completion. If only he had been around another twenty to thirty years (he died in 1920) one can only imagine how different the RN would have been at the start of WW2.

Obi Wan Russell said:

Jackie Fisher has always been an inspiration to me, even though some of his ideas were flawed he dared to think them in the first place and carry them through to completion. If only he had been around another twenty to thirty years (he died in 1920) one can only imagine how different the RN would have been at the start of WW2.

Click to expand...

I agree. After his death the RN reverted to much more conservative designs for their ships. I think a navy led by Fisher may have had (within the bounds of the Washington and London Naval Treaties) fewer but more modern and more powerful ships.

Cheers