What capabilities does the Royal Navy need?

Watch
william walker
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standin...vy_deployments

What extra capabilities or ships do people think the Royal Navy needs to continue to meet it's current and possible future requirements?

3 carriers
2 LHD
2 ASW fast helicopter destroyers
2 LPD
4 LSD
2 Mobile artillery ships
6 AAW cruisers
6 AAW destroyers
6 Multi-purpose destroyers
16 ASW frigates
12 Multi-role modular corvettes
10 SSN
10 SSK
4 SSBN
6 Fast at sea replenishment ships
4 Solid supply ships
2 tankers
2 Icebreakers
4 Off-shore patrol ships
6 Missile boats
20 In-shore patrol boats
16 minesweepers
1 ship repair vessel
2 hospital ships
8 Sea lift cargo ships
2 Multi-purpose survey vessels
2 Ocean survey ships
1 Coastal survey ship
F-35B 80
AEW Osprey 10
V-22 Osprey 6
CH-35K 40
Merlin 76
Lynx Wildcat 72
Sea King SAR 12
Viper 20

This is what I think the Royal Navy needs to sustain it's current operational requirements and possible future operations.

Possible future requirements are any probable operations the Royal Navy might have in it's current area of operations. Which is basically everywhere apart from the North Pacific and Chinese sea's. The key areas are the North sea, North Atlantic, Mediterranean, South Atlantic and the Gulf of Arabia. So anything you can see happening on all those parts of the world would be a possible future requirement beyond the current requirements in those areas.

For instance I think a possible defensive war with Russia in the North sea is likely, so I have increased the number of submarines to 20 overall, 12 operational or on standby, 2 Fast ASW helicopter destroyers for submarine hunting, 16 new ASW frigates and 16 new minesweepers. Plus the reserve fleet which would be useful against the Russians. Then I think it is probable, but less likely that the Royal Navy will need a amphibious assult capability, still I think it is probable so I have the 2 new Mobile Artillery ships and 2 new LHD's, along with the CH-35K and Viper helicopters. Then I think it is possible, but not very likely at all that the Royal Navy will need to launch a pre-emptive and sustained nuclear ballistic missile strike, so I have 4 SSBN's.

So I am not sure what the future requirements will be, however you can grade the threats according to probablity and build your armed forces around those probabilities to cover as many as possible.

I would also setup a reserve fleet of HMS Ocean, 3 Trafalgar class submarines, 6 Type 23's, 4 Sandown class minesweepers and 1 Wave class replenishment ship.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
(Original post by william walker)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standin...vy_deployments

What extra capabilities or ships do people think the Royal Navy needs to continue to meet it's current and possible future requirements?

3 carriers
2 LHD
2 ASW fast helicopter destroyers
2 LPD
4 LSD
2 Mobile artillery ships
6 AAW cruisers
6 AAW destroyers
6 Multi-purpose destroyers
16 ASW frigates
12 Multi-role modular corvettes
10 SSN
10 SSK
4 SSBN
6 Fast at sea replenishment ships
4 Solid supply ships
2 tankers
2 Icebreakers
4 Off-shore patrol ships
6 Missile boats
20 In-shore patrol boats
16 minesweepers
1 ship repair vessel
2 hospital ships
8 Sea lift cargo ships
2 Multi-purpose survey vessels
2 Ocean survey ships
1 Coastal survey ship
F-35B 80
AEW Osprey 10
V-22 Osprey 6
CH-35K 40
Merlin 76
Lynx Wildcat 72
Sea King SAR 12
Viper 20

This is what I think the Royal Navy needs to sustain it's current operational requirements and possible future operations.

Possible future requirements are any probable operations the Royal Navy might have in it's current area of operations. Which is basically everywhere apart from the North Pacific and Chinese sea's. The key areas are the North sea, North Atlantic, Mediterranean, South Atlantic and the Gulf of Arabia. So anything you can see happening on all those parts of the world would be a possible future requirement beyond the current requirements in those areas.

For instance I think a possible defensive war with Russia in the North sea is likely, so I have increased the number of submarines to 20 overall, 12 operational or on standby, 2 Fast ASW helicopter destroyers for submarine hunting, 16 new ASW frigates and 16 new minesweepers. Plus the reserve fleet which would be useful against the Russians. Then I think it is probable, but less likely that the Royal Navy will need a amphibious assult capability, still I think it is probable so I have the 2 new Mobile Artillery ships and 2 new LHD's, along with the CH-35K and Viper helicopters. Then I think it is possible, but not very likely at all that the Royal Navy will need to launch a pre-emptive and sustained nuclear ballistic missile strike, so I have 4 SSBN's.

So I am not sure what the future requirements will be, however you can grade the threats according to probablity and build your armed forces around those probabilities to cover as many as possible.

I would also setup a reserve fleet of HMS Ocean, 3 Trafalgar class submarines, 6 Type 23's, 4 Sandown class minesweepers and 1 Wave class replenishment ship.
Too expensive.

Try reading the defence blog, the thin pinstriped line.
0
reply
william walker
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#3
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Too expensive.

Try reading the defence blog, the thin pinstriped line.
Just forget about the fleet I want. Tell me what you think the future strategic threats will be?

I will look at that blog.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
(Original post by william walker)
Just forget about the fleet I want. Tell me what you think the future strategic threats will be?

I will look at that blog.
Potentials of tensions with china, resurgent Russia, mass civil war in Africa, collapse of the Middle East, Indonesia goes crazy and re does the Borneo conflict, numerous civil wars with huge civilian casualties.

I generally tend to find that if you look at the battle honours for any old infantry regiment, the same places keep poping up.


Does the fleet need increasing? Yes.

It would cost though.
1
reply
Observatory
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 6 years ago
#5
Ability to destroy the entire world.

12 SSBN
0
reply
william walker
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#6
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Potentials of tensions with china, resurgent Russia, mass civil war in Africa, collapse of the Middle East, Indonesia goes crazy and re does the Borneo conflict, numerous civil wars with huge civilian casualties.

I generally tend to find that if you look at the battle honours for any old infantry regiment, the same places keep poping up.


Does the fleet need increasing? Yes.

It would cost though.
Yeah I agree, currently and into the future those are threats and the same places do seem to keep poping up.

One thing that isn't talked about, that I see as a long-term future threat is Brazil. They a regional power, are improving capabilities and have a larger economy than we do. If we want to keep our South Atlantic and Antarctic territories, it could mean problems with Brazil, which will want to assert its influence in the region. Look at China now, they had very few territorial claims, now because their military is stronger they have atleast a dozen. I see the same sort of thing happening with Brazil. There is also a growing piracy and kidnapping problem in the Gulf of Guinea, which I think will become more apparent in the next few years and will need to be taken on. I don't feel we really have the numbers to be taking on more operations.

It would be very helpful to me if you could give me more of an idea as to what ships and capabilities you think the Navy needs?

It is my view that for the UK to just sustain it's current position in the world in terms of military capabilities compared to others, we would need to increase defence spending to £70 billion a year by 2020. With the massive Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Brazilian, Indian, Turkish, Indonesian planned increases and the decreasing budgets of our allies.
0
reply
william walker
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#7
(Original post by Observatory)
Ability to destroy the entire world.

12 SSBN
Of those 12 SSBN's we could have 8 operational at any one time, so that is 8 boats each with 16 Trident missiles, that is 128 missiles.

I don't think we could destroy the entire world with 128 nuclear missiles.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#8
Report 6 years ago
#8
(Original post by william walker)
Yeah I agree, currently and into the future those are threats and the same places do seem to keep poping up.

One thing that isn't talked about, that I see as a long-term future threat is Brazil. They a regional power, are improving capabilities and have a larger economy than we do. If we want to keep our South Atlantic and Antarctic territories, it could mean problems with Brazil, which will want to assert its influence in the region. Look at China now, they had very few territorial claims, now because their military is stronger they have atleast a dozen. I see the same sort of thing happening with Brazil. There is also a growing piracy and kidnapping problem in the Gulf of Guinea, which I think will become more apparent in the next few years and will need to be taken on. I don't feel we really have the numbers to be taking on more operations.

It would be very helpful to me if you could give me more of an idea as to what ships and capabilities you think the Navy needs?

It is my view that for the UK to just sustain it's current position in the world in terms of military capabilities compared to others, we would need to increase defence spending to £70 billion a year by 2020. With the massive Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Brazilian, Indian, Turkish, Indonesian planned increases and the decreasing budgets of our allies.
Brazil is a close ally of the UK. Its not a threat and unlikely to be in the foreseeable future. There's no historical disputes between the UK and Brazil and we work closely with them.
0
reply
Observatory
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 6 years ago
#9
(Original post by william walker)
Of those 12 SSBN's we could have 8 operational at any one time, so that is 8 boats each with 16 Trident missiles, that is 128 missiles.

I don't think we could destroy the entire world with 128 nuclear missiles.
Each missile carries 14 warheads, so that is 1,792 warheads in total.
0
reply
Observatory
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 6 years ago
#10
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Brazil is a close ally of the UK.
Is it? I can't see any circumstances in which either country would go to war for the sake of the other.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#11
Report 6 years ago
#11
(Original post by Observatory)
Is it? I can't see any circumstances in which either country would go to war for the sake of the other.
Very close ally. An ally in WW2. We also train and equip their armed forces. ( nothing like Argentina before you try and make a comparison) there's no major geo political flashpoints in South America that would create a situation whereby Brazil would become embroiled and create tension.
0
reply
william walker
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#12
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Brazil is a close ally of the UK. Its not a threat and unlikely to be in the foreseeable future. There's no historical disputes between the UK and Brazil and we work closely with them.
So do you disagree with me that countries like Brazil can change and become more regionally assertive as their economic choices increase?
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#13
Report 6 years ago
#13
(Original post by william walker)
So do you disagree with me that countries like Brazil can change and become more regionally assertive as their economic choices increase?
not at all. Countries can and do change, but to say brazil would be a problem is like saying Japan would do a u turn.

The world is more interconnected now through trade, commerce and industry than ever before. Those that follow free trade, like brazil tend to put a hand of friendship out.
0
reply
william walker
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#14
(Original post by Observatory)
Each missile carries 14 warheads, so that is 1,792 warheads in total.
So we can destroy Russia, great. That still isn't the whole world and no countries nuclear capability was ever built to destroy the whole world, just another country.
0
reply
william walker
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#15
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
not at all. Countries can and do change, but to say brazil would be a problem is like saying Japan would do a u turn.

The world is more interconnected now through trade, commerce and industry than ever before. Those that follow free trade, like brazil tend to put a hand of friendship out.
Japan is doing a U turn to counter the threat from China and increasing it's capabilities. Well Brazil in the Falklands forced one of our Vulcan bombers to land in Brazil and took it's armaments and we did for a short time have an island dispute with Brazil, however we gave the island to them and resolved it.

The world maybe more interconnected, but that doesn't mean the UK and Brazil are compared to say 100 years ago. I actually think that we will be the ones starting the war with Brazil, they will try and make a deal, but we will refuse over what ever the problem is and it will cause a short war and Brazil to increase it's defence spending futher. Since we are the ones already as the South Atlantic power with interests to defend and they are a rising power, we can be very protectionist sometimes aswell.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#16
Report 6 years ago
#16
(Original post by william walker)
Japan is doing a U turn to counter the threat from China and increasing it's capabilities. Well Brazil in the Falklands forced one of our Vulcan bombers to land in Brazil and took it's armaments and we did for a short time have an island dispute with Brazil, however we gave the island to them and resolved it.

The world maybe more interconnected, but that doesn't mean the UK and Brazil are compared to say 100 years ago. I actually think that we will be the ones starting the war with Brazil, they will try and make a deal, but we will refuse over what ever the problem is and it will cause a short war and Brazil to increase it's defence spending futher. Since we are the ones already as the South Atlantic power with interests to defend and they are a rising power, we can be very protectionist sometimes aswell.
Japan is adjusting to a perceived increase threat from china.

Brazil didn't force one of our Vulcan bombers to land in brazil during the Falklands war. A Vulcan bomber returning from a black buck raid damaged its air to air refuelling probe so it couldn't in flight refuel back to ascension. The crew diverted to brazil and were interned, as is normal. The crew were well looked after and the aircraft was returned once hostilities needed.

why would we declare war on brazil? The Falkland Islands is if no interest to brazil. Argentina wants it. Not brazil.
0
reply
Observatory
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report 6 years ago
#17
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Very close ally.
Under the terms of what treaty is Brazil allied to Britain?

An ally in WW2.
It sent a single division to fight in Italy in 1944.

We also train and equip their armed forces. ( nothing like Argentina before you try and make a comparison) there's no major geo political flashpoints in South America that would create a situation whereby Brazil would become embroiled and create tension.
Except it kind of is exactly the same as that. I don't think Brazil will attack us - why would they? - but nor do I think they would help us or particularly care about us at all.
0
reply
Observatory
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 6 years ago
#18
(Original post by william walker)
So we can destroy Russia, great. That still isn't the whole world and no countries nuclear capability was ever built to destroy the whole world, just another country.
How many cities are there in the world with more than, say, 200,000 inhabitants? I doubt we'd create total human extinction, but we could destroy most of the industrial centres of all the major powers.
0
reply
Cannotbelieveit
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#19
Report 6 years ago
#19
Bring back the WW2-era battleships!
0
reply
william walker
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#20
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Japan is adjusting to a perceived increase threat from china.

Brazil didn't force one of our Vulcan bombers to land in brazil during the Falklands war. A Vulcan bomber returning from a black buck raid damaged its air to air refuelling probe so it couldn't in flight refuel back to ascension. The crew diverted to brazil and were interned, as is normal. The crew were well looked after and the aircraft was returned once hostilities needed.

why would we declare war on brazil? The Falkland Islands is if no interest to brazil. Argentina wants it. Not brazil.
No, the threat from China, it isn't perceived. They also have to worry about the Russians, North Koreans aswell.

They look the bombers armaments, did they not?

I don't know why we would go to war with Brazil, but when interests of nations clash, it normally end in a war. My best guess would be that Brazil is a growing military power and we want to sustain our current position in the South Atlantic, so we hit them before they are capable enough to hit us. It will just be about power and perceived interests. By this time I expect the Falklands oil and gas fields to be making the British government a lot of money and there will be Brazilian interest in the Antarctic aswell, if they can cut us off then that will be a threat. Again please understand, this isn't a current threat. It is a long term threat.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Should there be a new university admissions system that ditches predicted grades?

No, I think predicted grades should still be used to make offers (732)
33.84%
Yes, I like the idea of applying to uni after I received my grades (PQA) (925)
42.76%
Yes, I like the idea of receiving offers only after I receive my grades (PQO) (411)
19%
I think there is a better option than the ones suggested (let us know in the thread!) (95)
4.39%

Watched Threads

View All