Good move to mount Typhoons. Only thing I’d say is go for KBA (or the like) instead of a .50cal.
The crew served .50cals are more symbolic than anything else. Don’t even have a shield.
Remember that within 10 years these ships will either be in reserve or been turned into razor blades. 😉
Let’s not forget the CVNs are designed for airwings of around 90 planes so that could bump above what you’ve got listed there.
Yes, but they did say based on the current situation, and i didn’t want to hurt their feelings too much.
Fast forward to 2014 and i’d have to say:
CVF > Kutzenov
2 x T45 > Kirov
4x T23 > 4 x Russian Destroyers
2 x Astute > 2 x Oscar/Akula etc
Not to mention that the RN would be able to field 2 Carrier groups like this by 2016, with a third group based around a pair of LPH’s (Ocean plus Ark Royal if it is retained)
Let stay in the present days. A carrier group formed by the Kuznetsov, the Peter the Great, 2 Sovremenny class destroyers, 2 Udaloy class destroyer, an Oscar II SSGN and an Akula SS can be matched by a single USN carrier Group? I don’t think so. The problem for Russia is that can build just one Group of such a composition. Nevertheless, this group should rule the sea from Kola to Greenland.
Ok.
1 CVN (48 F18’s, lets say half a dozen of each S-3 and E-6B, 12 choppers and 4 E2C)
2 Tico Cruisers with up to up to 122 SM2ER’s each, or a combination of those and the up to 488 ESSM’s they can carry each. Plus a pair of Sea Hawk ASW Choppers
2 Burke Class with up to 96 SM2 or 384 ESSM (or a combination of each), two ASW birds.
2 subs of either Las Angeles or Virginia class.
CVN > Kutzenov
2 x Tico > Kirov
2 x Burke > 4x Russian Destroyers
2 x Virginia > Oscar & Akula
Arguably the Absalon wouldn’t necessarily be a bad option for basing it on. Take the Absalon and:
– put on the the Thales S1850M radar
– install a pair of 8-cell Sylver A43 launchers, quad packed with CAMM
– switch to the British main gun, i.e. either the 4.5in Mk8, or the new 155mm
– install Sonar 2087, as used on the T-23 (and probably C-1 in future)
– put in a full Flag command facilityAll of this should combine to produce a pretty good command ship, at a relatively modest cost. Granted, it lacks the AAW and land attack capabilities of the originally proposed ship, but it would probably end up costing less than a T45-based C-1 (since it is basically much the same kit, plus the S1850M and command facilities; but all on a cheaper hull). In practice, you would probably use the Danish patrol frigate derivative, i.e. basically an Absalon, minus the vehicle deck, and with four instead of two diesels. This would make it capable of keeping up with the normal fleet, and capable of acting as an ASW taskforce leader (though ideally for that, I would want a bit more than just CAMM…). Four or so of these might be a good way to round out the fleet, e.g. eight each of T-45 and C-1, plus four of these for the ‘high’ end of the fleet.
For that matter, the Danish patrol frigate concept might not be an insane basis for the C-2 and C-3, albeit probably scaled down a bit. The idea of a cheap, spacious hull could be worthwhile, providing ample space for a load of MCM and maritime interdiction/patrol gear. A long production run of these ships would then allow a common C-2/-3 line, potentially using the previously mooted modular weapons/systems fit. I know these Danish ships are a lot bigger than we had discussed, but it should be possible to go scale them down a bit. A 4,000 ton scaled down version, with a pair of Wartsila 16V38 (11kW each, i.e about 15,000hp each) diesels, as used on the CVF, should be pretty darned capable.
Between the two CVF’s, two Albions and 6 T45’s the RN have 10 ships with command ships either in service or on order. Compared to the 2 Albions, two LPDs and 4 T22’s that they currently have, their command facilities will be improved, ironic considering that the fleet is decreasing in size.
Rouge? Subs with face powder? :confused:
But back to topic – what about (I know, it won’t happen – but the idea appeals to me) a private anti-pirate flotilla? Financed by a levy on merchant shipping, under the auspices of the EU or UN or a right-minded country, but with a charter exempting it from day to day political control. Remit & rules of engagement clearly laid down, authorised to recruit ex-naval personnel & serving naval crewmen on temporary transfers. Base it in Djibouti, & ask the Omanis for berthing rights at Salalah, & the Kenyans for the use of their nearest suitable port.
It would need some suitable ships – OPVs or corvettes, with a helicopter deck, at least. Plus a support vessel able to provide supplies, helicopter maintenance etc. I think three OPVs would be enough, & by an amazing stroke of luck, there are just that number of new vessels currently sitting, unwanted, in port. 😀 The rejected Brunei Nakhoda Ragam class.
Call them the White Raja-class, I think, & name the ships Sir James Brooke, Charles Brooke, & Vyner Brooke – the numbers fit so well. :diablo: But not until the ships are transferred, or Brunei would scream blue murder.
Lose the torpedo tubes: waste of weight & space for this role. But what helicopters to buy? And what support vessel? A modified merchant ship would seem best, & cheapest. Slap on a helicopter deck, hangar & RAS facilities, & you’re away.
Arent there a couple of RFA replenishment ships in extended readiness? One of the fort class IIRC. Those can carry 3 Sea Kings, so give them a couple of Lynx’s and give them their “wartime” weapons fitout.
I have this certain hunch that Brazil’s next naval fighter is gonna be the Rafale.
Paid for…….how?
Five Words
Fitted For But Not With
For me, a nuclear powered Kuznetsov type carrier is the best option. To place the Kirov reactor on a second Kuznetsov in order to maximize commonality with previous vessels looks fine. Then place 30 “Naval PAK-FA” on each one of the two carries.
Place one in the Arthic and one in the Pacific. Add to each carrier a respective Kirov :diablo: and their respective Oscar II, destroyers and SSN as escorts. Nothing in the Earth will be able to confront such groups.
A Royal Navy Group with 36+ F35’s on a CVF along with Astute, T45 and C1 could match that Group.
Similarly, a USN carrier Group with 48+ F-18E/F and F35C could match it.
Now:
(Re)define what the Navy should be doing!
(Re)define what the Navy should be doing!
(Re)define what the Navy should be doing!Scrap the CVF programme, with the probable knock-on of scrapping JSF for the RAF as well. Accept the lack of organic air-power and consequential affect on range of operations.
Withdraw CVL’s – JFH effectively becomes RAF only.
Cut frigate numbers (to 12?) – with the reduction in escort, downsize the amphib fleet?
Keep Astute programme to at least 7 hullsFuture:
Aim to have a a core of 18-20 surface (escort) warships = 6xT45 and 12x”C1″
C1 ASW-orientated version of T45 – no landattack, no mcm?.
Scrap C2/C3 and have a single class requirement of one of the following:
- C2 – light frigate with modular MCM/survey/relief options slated for C3. Try and keep the ability to operate independently and accept that some would have to take on the C3 postings.
- C3 – much as currently envisaged perhaps slightly enlarged/enhanced but cheaper than the alternative C2 option and more hulls.
Use Astute as basis for V-class replacement.
Off the shelf solution for MARS programme.
Scrap MASC
Its a 15% reduction, not an 80% reduction.
I would do some things around the edges. You may be aware but the UK keeps a register of militarily useful civilian ships on the British register that runs to quite a few vessels. I would advocate a ‘super list’ for ships that as part of their original design are fitted for but not with weapons and naval equipment that could be useful if the balloon went up.
These would all be civilian vessels and vessels owned by the numerous government agencies that operate vessels up to 80 m or so. Typical features would be strengthened decks for gun mountings large flat decked sterns that could take a helicopter, tankers that are rigged for at sea ship to ship transfers of fuel (Some already have this but the Navy don’t say which ones). Typical vessels that might qualify are oil field service vessels, large trawlers, small offshore RoRo ferries like Calmac operate in Scotland. This lot wouldn’t be perfect but it would at least mean that there might be something to fall back on if needed. It woulnd’t necessarily cost that much either.
The RN should then invest in containerised weapons sytems so that a ship could be converted from a civilian role to something more warlike in the space of a week or so.
In return for this the government would pay a small amount towards the vessels purchase to reflect the modifications and some sort of retainer or tax breaks would be put in place for the inconvenience caused to the owners
Its an Armed Merchant Cruiser 😮
Novorossiysk, I think.
Technically, both Hong Kong island & Kowloon, on the mainland, were ceded in perpetuity. But most of the mainland territory, & the other islands (the “New Territories”) were leased, & it wasn’t practical to separate them. The land border between ceded & leased land had been ignored when building, so water, electricity, sewage etc. systems criss-crossed it. I think even buildings straddled it. Handing back some, but not all, of the ceded land, to get round that, would have led to the Chinese saying “Why not the rest?”, since it would have made clear that there was no matter of principle guiding the decision.
Most of the water & electricity came from the leased areas, & if they were handed back, the rest could only really be held with Chinese acquiescence – and they wouldn’t acquiesce.
Also, Hong Kong was indefensible. Too much border & coast to guard, too many Chinese on the other side of it.
Yup, you’d only be able to hold Hong Kong island itself, and you’d probably need most of the British Army and a fair portion of the Airforce and Navy to do it.
Following on from the recent thread on expanding the fleet – what if the reverse is true? A depressing scenario, perhaps, but probably more in keeping with the (grim)times: Assume a need to reduce Annual Government expenditure across the Board by… say 15% 😮
What should the Royal Navy lay up or dispose in order to meet this target? In other words, where should the cuts fall and what is the hold at all costs element?
6 T45, 12 Direct T23 replacements for a total of 18 escorts.
Cuts to the MCM fleet.
Ark Royal not retained as an LPH, Ocean replaced, Argus not replaced.
Cuts to the rest of the RFA fleet.
Cuts to the number of days spent at sea.
It will be interesting to see what happens when their lease runs out for their naval base in the Black Sea?
Is this not exactly the same scenario as it was for the UK in HK province.
I wonder if they will leave as graciously as the UK did and at the prescribed time?Bomberboy
They are building a new naval base in one of their black sea ports, forget the name right now.
The interesting thing about Hong Kong is, Hong Kong Island itself was not leased, it was only the mainland portion of Hong Kong. The Island was permanently ceded to the UK during one of the wars in the late 19th century.
I vote for……………..Send in the SBS !
Storm the cargo ship, seize the pirates, evacuate the crew then sink the vessel (the last thing Africa needs is more military hardware being pumped into it). Job done!
Yes, I do live in an over simplistic world….but someone has to!:)
Park HMS Ocean Down there, fill it up with Merlins and the Gunship version of lynx along with a bunch of Para’s or Royal Marine’s to back up SAS and SBS units. use UAV’s to track suspect boats, the SAS and SBS to keep an eye on the place, and then send in the cavalry via Mr Merlin with Mr Lynx taking out anything looking remotely fortified.
Just for you star49, here is my source for what i found abotu the russian government budget, enjoy.
http://www.economy.gov.ru/wps/wcm/connect/economylib/mert/welcome_eng/pressservice/monitoring/