The British military.
First from Think Defense on how some wish it to be...
Thank you everyone who commented, requested clarification and helped, I’m resubmitting with explanations, detail and the pound of flesh Jed demanded JRead the rest and especially the comments. Its quite entertaining.
So here goes
I’d start, with the “war fleet”, of which we would have two, each one “active” for 6 months of the year, or 8 months, or 4 months, or whatever else makes everyone happy.
Active would be “ready to at short notice go and beat some unfortunate foreigners to a bloody pulp”.
Inactive would be everything else, overhaul, training, diplomacy, exercises ect.
First Fleet Purchase Cost Operating Cost Carrier QE Class 24 Fast Air Rafale 6 Infantry landing ships Juan Carlos 24 Heavy Lift Chinook 6 Armour Landing Ship Bay Class 6 AAW Destroyers T 45 Daring Class 6 Light Helicopter Lynx 6 ASW Frigates T46 6 ASW Helicopter Merlin 3 Guided Missile Cruiser T47 5 SSGN / Deterrent Astute+
The Carrier and fast air is I hope fairly self explanatory, shoot down enemy aircraft, possibly bomb enemy targets, provide close air support and reconnaissance.
It’s the QE class, because that’s what we have, and the Rafale, because I believe thatFranceandGermanyare about to have a massive falling out, and we’ll buy it hoping to influence French opinion in our favour.
I assume some sort of ISTAR platform will also arrive, hopefully not that silly Sea King, but have no real idea whether we will end up with the Hawkeye, something funky based on the V22 or something else entirely.
This will also function as the flag ship, to what extent that means anything anymore
The Amphibs, the reasoning behind numbers simply being so that the entire force could be landed in a single group. Well, obviously not quite, a single group, each ships group of four Chinook would need to make 5 trips to offload the ship “battalion” and even with 4 LCUs it would take 13 trips to deposit the 50 warriors of an armoured infantry battalion. But we’re talking 11 hours rather than the 11 days Sutton took, or so I hope. To my none military mind, that sounds like a smashing capability. I’m wedded to neither Bay nor Carlos, feel free to suggest better ships, or just assume they are better. I’d much prefer something with a much greater cargo handling capacity, but am open to a third heavy landing ship specifically to vomit ISO boxes onto a beach.
Why Chinook? Again, its that realism (lol) bit, I’d prefer a bigger lift, I’m sure that there is something bigger than the CH53-k planned in the long term, but we have Chinooks.
Now the British military as it really is from CDR. Salamander...
The 1,000 ship Navy that CDR. Salamander is talking about is the plan that the Western Navy's of the world could combine (in times of intense crisis) to form a 1,000 ship fleet.In any event - the Brits are walking a rather thin line methinks ....Royal Navy officers said HMS Westminster was “dangerously under-defended” when it was called on to patrol close to the Libyan port city of Benghazi in March.
The warship can carry 32 Seawolf and eight Harpoon missiles but it is understood that military cutbacks left the Westminster and its crew of 190 with only a fraction of that capability.As Seawolf missiles — which are used to intercept incoming missiles — are fired in pairs, sources said the Westminster had just two rounds to defend against missile attacks from Col Muammar Gaddafi’s forces.A hollow Navy defined. Nice E-Ticket part of the 1,000-ship Navy we have there.
Reality is far different from the wishful thinking that is posted on TD's website. From my view of things the Royal Navy will be lucky to equal our Coast Guard in size and firepower in a couple of years.
UPDATE & CLARIFICATION:
I need to make a couple of things clear.
1. Think Defense has guest writers on his blog and the views expressed in that article are from one of them.
2. The US is clearly on the same trajectory as Europe and the failed bipartisan committee illustrates the trouble that we are in.
In relation to UK AEW capability, they are already migrating the SeaKing based AEW onto the Merlin helicopter and upgrading the radar to an AESA model.
ReplyDeleteThat's what the UK will have for maritime AEW. As limited as it might be, it's still better than the AEW capability of Italy, Spain, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Greece, Turkey and so on...
The Royal Navy is still a strong force. But it needs to be realised and accepted that it's a shadow of it's former self. Nothing could make that clearer than the sale of the Harrier GR9/A capability to the USMC.
Still how many nations operate nuclear armed and powered subs? How many have standoff conventional strike capability beyond 1600 miles, as the UK just demonstrated several days ago it does?
How many nations are buying 6 Destroyers as capable as the T45's?
These things need to be put into perspective. UK is now just a middle power. A very strong middle power...
The sooner everyone stops considering it to be a super power the better.
Naval AEW capability of those countries, I meant to add.
ReplyDeleteI totally disagree.
ReplyDeletehow many tomahawks did they fire? 6. a total of 6 during the entire war.
AEW capability for Italy and Spain is to be accomplished with the sensor fusion that is suppose to be part of the F-35. but even if thats not good enough then they can reasonably expect to be covered by E-3's operated by NATO (not the US, but NATO)....additionally the UK is about to operate full sized carriers. its quite telling that instead of following the French lead and having E-2's aboard they're having to operate the short ranged and unsatisfactory Merlin. lets be real here. a destroyer picket will be just as effective and operates in blue water just as far out.
the T45 appears to be quite capable but if you're honest then the German offering seems quite strong, the Netherlands has a capable Burke light as do the Italians, Spanish and French.
the other nations on your list never really claimed to be in the UK's class. i think Australia can claim to be as strong or stronger...Canada isn't far off...Japan is probably stronger now and S. Korea is rapidly catching up.
i think realistically the UK is no longer a super power and only a middle middle power.
and to be honest that sucks.
That's a tad harsh. UK is definitely not a super power, but it's capability is certainly far beyond a middle power and far greater than Australia.
ReplyDeleteThey may have only fired 6 Tomahawks during Libya, but they've fired plenty during Kosovo, OIF and OEF. They've ordered more than 130 missiles over the years, that are publicly known about...
All of their 13 current or planned nuclear powered "hunter killer" subs are TacTom and Tomahawk Block III capable, the only other nation in the world besides USA to be so. (Australia has 6 non-nuclear subs, none of which are Tomahawk armed).
They also maintain 4 Trident D5 armed nuclear ballistic missile subs. (Australia has none).
Today they've got a Frigate and Destroyer force of 19 vessels. (Australia has 12 frigates today. Reducing to 11 Destroyers and Frigates when Air Warfare Destroyers come online replacing FFG's).
They maintain 4 large amphibious ships (HMS Albion, Bulwark, Ocean and Illustrious). (Australia presently has none, but will grow to 2 LHD's).
They maintain 3x Bay class auxillary amphibious vessels. (Australia has 1 that will be our frontline amphibious vessel to 2-3 years at least).
They maintain two classes of offshore patrol vessels. Australia has one and so on.
They are a far more capable naval force than the RAN and better than virtually any other Navy in Europe, with only France being arguably stronger and that only thanks to the CDG which isn't the most reliable vessel and a handful of additional light surveillance frigates that means the French navy has about 4 more escorts than the current RN. The French however have some of these surveillance frigates permanently deployed in the Pacific and Indian oceans. In terms of combat capability available in Europe, the advantage goes slightly towards the UK but there is nothing in it.
In surface fleet capabilities available both navies are fairly comparable but the UK has a much stronger submarine and amphibious capability, as well as a stronger long range strike capability than any force in the world, except the USA.
Surely that has to put them above the average middle power in Naval terms...