EdLawOne thing to remember is that a RN task force would be able to call on other ships too, so it is not simply limited to the T-45s. If the UK can get 16 Type 45s and 16 other patrol ships, then it would be enough to adequately defend four battlegroups. For proper defence of a carrier, you really only need four escorts. The UK practice has been to include a ‘goalkeeper’ frigate next to the carrier, but this was due to the fact that the carriers lacked adequate self defence capabilities (by carrying Sea Dart, not Sea Wolf missiles). In the future, any carrier could carry missiles like the RIM-116 RAM, which would be enough to protect the carrier, thus dispensing with the need for the goalkeeper frigate. Four T-45s would simply be the UK equivalent of the US assigning Arleigh Burkes and Ticonderogas.
EdLawGenerally anything Russian will be cheap to buy, expensive to run. This is simply because the Russians always were able to rely on a massive supply of spares, and thus didn’t mind things wearing out quickly. This was fine when they were in service, since there was a plentiful supply of spares, but now that they are not in service, the supply has dried up to an extent.
The best bet would probably be the L-39 if you just want an ex-military jet. The other good option would be a Hawker Hunter, which are reasonably well supported still, and there are good quality ex-Swiss ones around. If you want an American jet, then T-33s or F-86s are probably the best game in town…
EdLawTo be honest, the Anglo-French relationship is a very healthy love-hate relationship! The best deal for the carriers would arguably be to have all of them built as the French CTOL version, with the hulls all built together in the UK or France, then have them all completed with a mix of British and French systems, which is what will happen anyway, due to Thales involvement. It is arguable that the best deal would be to simply give BAE the contract to build three bare carrier hulls, and then hand them over to Thales to be fitted out!
EdLawIf I ask nicely, would they wash my car that thoroughly? :diablo:
EdLawThe reasoning behind the requirement for two docks is due to assault tempo. The LSDs are not intended to be brought forward for the assault phase, they are only intended to bring in the combat supplies for the second phase. Two docks is essential for the assault phase to allow a sufficient first wave, since the second wave cannot come in fast enough. The RN has consistently held the view that it needs two docks to conduct a full amphibious landing.
In terms of Ark and Ocean, they are fine for the moment, but it is in the longer phase that they need replacement. Ark will be needing replacement in ten years or so, and Ocean will be needing replacement a few years further down the line. The replacement program would not see new ships in service for a good few years, but the Navy have not been all that happy with some of Ocean’s limitations. A design like the Spanish BPE makes much more sense, and would not be much more expensive than another Ocean type LPH. The Navy needs three main things – docks, helo space, and vehicle storage. The LHD satisfies all three to an extent, but just buying an LPH only satisfies one.
In addition, it would be useful for the UK to have an LCAC capability, to allow light armour to be landed, even where there are mines. In Op Telic, the RM lacked light armour, since the conventional landing craft could not be used due to the mine risk. Since the US was unwilling to risk its own LCACs to help the UK, the Marines had to go without. One LHD carrying two LCACs, and a light armoured company, along with some special forces would make a much more useful contribution than just an LPH only capable of carrying helos and a few troops.
EdLawActually, an LHD would not cost much more than an LPH, since they are pretty similar in design terms, the only difference being the addition of a dock. If built to commercial specs, then an LHD like the Spanish BPE would not be much more expensive than a new LPH (which would not be another Ocean class!). The problem is actually that the Navy view that two LPD type docks are essential for an amphibious operation – this means that having two amphibious groups would necessitate two LPHs, four LPDs, and four LSDs OR two LHDs, two LPDs and four LSDs. This means that you either need to buy two new LHDs, or two LPHs and two more LPDs! That is why it is the obvious choice – two new ships, or four new ships!
EdLawThe advantages of CTOL outweigh the possible safety disadvantages, which are less noticable on a 65,000 ton carrier.
In terms of amphibious shipping, the obvious solution could be to buy a pair of new LHD/LHAs, which would combine the aviation capabilities (and exceed them) of the Ocean class, and the amphibious capabilities of the Albion class. A pair of such ships, combined with Albion and Bulwark, and ideally a larger batch of Bay class ships, would make for two powerful amphibious battlegroups. If the UK could field two amphibious groups, and two carrier battlegroups, then that would make a much more capable force!
EdLawThe Collins would be a good starting point, since it is already a good size. A Collins size sub with Astute based systems would be a very good contender, and would potentially help the Aussie Collins replacement program (in a few years), since they could simply fit out the bare hulls under license. The main disadvantage they have is in transit speed, but if the UK could forward station them where they are needed, this would not be very relevant! It’s not as good as having a nuclear sub, but they could take a lot of pressure off the SSN fleet. Eight Astutes and eight Collins, or twelve Astutes, either way it is good, but just eight Astutes by themselves is not enough!
I would be sorely tempted to look at using one of the Japanese mini-reactors, which would be small enough to fit into a Collins sized submarine. They typically use liquid sodium or lead bismuth coolant, which is purely natural circulation (i.e. almost silent), and they could be made to fit a 3-4,000 ton sub. This would potentially yield a nuclear sub (not full SSN spec, since it would not have as much power), at close to diesel sub price!
EdLawA UK battle group with a CVF, four T-45s, and four T-23s would be more than adequate, especially with a pair of Astutes. With the current plan of two CVFs, this would require eight T-45s, eight T-23s, and four Astutes to be assigned. Obviously you would need to add all the other escort missions, but eight patrol frigates, and eight patrol ships would just about suffice for that, along with another four to eight Astutes.
Basically, if the UK sticks with two CVFs, then it can field proper battlegroups, and an increase to three or (dream on!) four would obviously increase the demands. I would focus on fielding more Type 45s, hopefully supplemented by a large (cheap) type, along the lines of the Absalon, with more basic weapons fits. The Absalons would be more suitable for operations like the Cornwall has been doing in the Gulf. A batch of 16 T-45s and 16 Absalons would be an excellent mix.
In terms of the subs, it was always one of the attractions of the diesel subs – they were cheap enough that you could afford to keep the submarine industry in business between nuclear sub contracts. If the submarine building industry was building subs at a rate of at least one sub per year, i.e. one nuclear and one diesel every two years, then it would be much healthier. Since the diesels were eliminated, then it is not likely to be more than one nuclear boat every two years or so. There could be an argument in favour of bringing back the diesel fleet in the event that there are no more than eight Astutes built. I would hope to see either 12 SSNs, or eight SSNs and eight diesel subs. The diesels would be forward stationed, perhaps with two down in the Falklands, two in Gibraltar, two in Diego Garcia, and the remaining two in refit?
EdLawI agree, though I am beginning to come round to the idea of buying more A-400Ms to serve as tankers, as well as their role as transports. It would seem that the A-400M is similar in tanker capability to the VC-10, so increasing the orders to ~64 would make a lot of sense. In particular, that would hopefully allow the C-130Js to be re-rolled as intra-theatre transports, and possibly even have some converted to gunships. A fleet of 16 A-330s, 64 A-400Ms, 8 C-17s, 16 C-130Js and 8 AC-130Js would be ideal!
It might be smart to simply do a deal with British Airways (or similar) to buy either A-330s or 777s as part of their fleet renewal – they simply negotiate a larger purchase. This would have the advantage of getting a lower unit cost, and also brings the possibility that they could provide support as well. Since BA or other airlines often will be buying 40+ A-330s or 777s, simply adding 15-20 more would allow a much more attractive unit cost. Once the airframes are bought, they can simply be sent over to Marshalls to be tanker converted.
In terms of the VIP type, an A321 would be similar in size to Air Force Two, i.e. the C-32 (757), and the pre-747 Air Force One. It would easily accomodate enough people, and have enough presence. The amusing thing is when there is a meeting of the G-8 or similar, and everyone else flies in in a government owned widebody, France with A-340s, the US with VC-25s, Canada with A-310s, etc, and then Britain sends its delegation on a British Airways flight… “Sorry Mr Prime Minister, we were delayed offloading the 1330 from Malaga…” :diablo:
EdLawPerhaps they ought to switch the A-330 MRTT deal to a purchase, and then try to get an A-321 VVIP thrown in as offsets? It is not uncommon for a larger purchase to involve an offset in the form of a smaller aircraft thrown in free – look at the Greek Erieye purchase from Embraer, where they got a Legacy thrown in! With a proper order for ~16 A-330s, as an outright purchase, then Airbus should throw in one or two A-321s, and perhaps a pair of Dassault Falcon 900s?
EdLawThe UCAVs are yet to prove themselves, but they are not far off now. At the very least, they can be used as reusable cruise missiles, using Small Diameter Bombs – send a dozen out, each with a dozen weapons, and cross 144 targets off the list… They can also be used as extra hardpoints for manned types, i.e. an F-35C would fly out with a pair of UCAVs, and then the pilot simply designates targets, and tells the UCAV to drop a weapon.
The other reason for going for UCAVs is that they are one of the few opportunities for the UK to genuinely produce an indigenous combat aircraft, not as a partner. They can carry out recon, strike, and most importantly, have the potential to be affordable!
EdLawWith 4% GDP, you could probably afford:
4 CVF (with two acting as commando carriers when needed)
16 Type 45
16 Type 23 (to be replaced by a general purpose Type 45 derivative)
4 Albion class LPD
8 Bay class LSD
12 Astute class SSN
150 F-35C for use on the carriers
RAF:
150 F-35C
150 Typhoon
300 Taranis-type UCAV (but carrier capable)
plus huge numbers of Warrior and Reaper UAVs, built in the UK. For the tanker and transport force, I would buy some A-330 MRTTs outright, but buy a lot of A-400Ms to use as dual role tanker transport. A total fleet of 16 A-330s and 64 A-400Ms would make a lot of sense.
Army:
Increase size up to around 125,000, formed into battlegroups and brigades.
Scrap the FRES project, and instead actually buy equipment, starting with CV90s or similar to replace Warrior, and wheeled APCs to replace most of the wheeled types. Improve the personal equipment levels, perhaps even switch to the HK 416 or Diemaco C8, or the G-36. Bin the whole Bowman project, and instead just buy one of the existing systems off the shelf.
General:
Build much better accomodations, and give tax incentives, such as tax free combat pay (the entire wage would be tax free, not just the combat pay supplement, which would make a massive difference). Recruit more Ghurkas, and actually pay them a full pension, and give them citizenship!
EdLawGoing a bit further back, I would have binned the UK emphasis on VSTOL, and focussed instead on building a high-low mix of fighters. Having suffered the ’57 defence review, the UK would need to buy American (or equivalent) for the ‘high’, probably the Phantom, but could go for a UK project for the ‘low’. I would look at building the Jaguar as a fighter, to be a cheap low end fighter, to bulk out the force. The RAF would get c.400 Phantoms, and c.400 Jaguars, and another c.200 Phantoms for the Royal Navy.
I would have built up the UK carrier force in the ’60s, buying a suitable 50,000 ton carrier, and a larger number of subs. I would buy large numbers of VC-10s, to serve as tankers and transports, keeping the project on track, perhaps as many as 20 a year, and the same with a UK production line for Hercules perhaps. I would can the whole Nimrod project, and just do what Canada did, and build a heavily modified version of the Orion (i.e. buy the Orion airframe, but fitted with Nimrod type systems). A total of c.80 VC-10s, c.80 C-130s and c.80 Orions would be a good start. I would also buy a lot more helicopters, possibly building the Lynx as an enlarged Huey, more akin to the Bell 214ST, but with the advanced four bladed rotor.
For the bomber force, I would heavily upgrade the Vulcans, with new standoff missiles, ideally the Skybolt, since a lot of the problems were almost sorted by the time it was cancelled. Ideally, they would be replaced by a purchase of FB-111s, once the problems were sorted, though not ideal bombers, they would be good enough. In the late ’60s, the UK would focus on designing a multi-role fighter, similar to the Tornado, but with more powerful engines, as a genuine fighter. Ideally, they would be able to replace all the Phantoms and Jaguars with one common type, operated by both RAF and Navy.
EdLawI second that: the best defence against the Zlins (and anything else of that type for that matter) would be an armed turboprop. You actually need a three tier defence though:
– ZSU-23-4 to defend the bases, they should be easily affordable, and very capable.
– AT-6 or ALX to actually shoot down the aircraft in air to air, since they are more than fast enough, and have an excellent endurance. They can also carry out close support, helo escort etc…
– Mig-29 or any other fast jet, with PGMs, to actually destroy the Tigers’ bases, once they are found. i.e. wait until they launch, watch where they launch from, shoot down their aircraft, and then destroy their launch base!
Sign In
