So how big/capable should the RN be?

F169

War Hero
Karma said:
I'd disagree that MCMs around home waters should be RNR manned, in part the legislative issues around watchkeepers but also because it needs to be a 24/7 capability and because it allows flexibility around the deployable force.

I've been thinking about this one. I did suggest that there also be an RN-manned deployable MCM force.....

I have never been in the RNR although I've spent some time in EAGLET in the days they used to own Tons and in those days RN rules were sufficient to allow RNR officers to command and keep watches in their own warships.
Legislation can be changed and in crisis/TTW the RNR would be called up for 24/7 in any case.

I do not mean to denigrate the RNR role in the present system but can see many advantages of having local assets at designated key ports controlled by locally based RNR personnel. Among those advantages are: force and unit identity and increased morale; increased opportunites for flexible sea time; local community support and identification with the RNR/RN including recruitment; local employment opportunities - especially if helicopter assets are involved; local specialist knowledge for NCS / swept routes, etc.

Also, if the mothballed fleet I referred to was allocated to RNR units around the UK the expertise of maintaining larger vessels and developing system knowledge plus opportunities for local employment would occur. In both repects the RNR would have an essential role, training and preparing in peace to defend the UK in war.
 

OSLO

War Hero
If we're to stay operating in the littoral, and in places like the Gulf where shallow waters prevail, SSKs are a must. THey're cheap to build and cheap to run and, if built with AIP, have legs. Plus they're more fun!

Agree with the carriers idea, although the idea of having TLAM/UK cruise capable DD/FFs is a must nowadays. The RFAs ought to be defended with some form of CIWS. As for the number of DD/FFs (do we still need that distinction?), that will depend on where we want to retain a presence.

Certainly need to keep a tupperware navy (MCMV) of some sort - we're the best in NATO at that!
 

Karma

War Hero
rod-gearing said:
Perhaps we ought to adopt the Israli style defence force and just concentrate of defending our own shores better from the increasing terrorist threat. Just a thought.

That's all very well when only about 40 percent of your border is maritime, and you don't have extra-territorial commitments such as FI etc.

Israel also has the useful fallback of the global policeman at the short trail.

If the foreign policy is isolationist and hoping that the rest of the world will leave you alone then emphasising local border control is a valid approach, but defence isn't only about the CT role, there are other threats to UK national interests around.
 

Karma

War Hero
F169 said:
Karma said:
I'd disagree that MCMs around home waters should be RNR manned, in part the legislative issues around watchkeepers but also because it needs to be a 24/7 capability and because it allows flexibility around the deployable force.

I've been thinking about this one. I did suggest that there also be an RN-manned deployable MCM force.....

Sorry, I should have been clearer, the whole force, deployable and local is a requirement. I wouldn't make a platform or manning distinction though, you can cycle platforms from the deployable to the local and that allows for a degree of harmony for personnel etc.

I have never been in the RNR although I've spent some time in EAGLET in the days they used to own Tons and in those days RN rules were sufficient to allow RNR officers to command and keep watches in their own warships.
Legislation can be changed and in crisis/TTW the RNR would be called up for 24/7 in any case.

Compliance with the internaitonal legislation has a lot of advantages, from a personnel prespective it increases employability outside as tickets become transferrable, that increases our own flexibility around personnel as they can move in an out of uniform more easily. Legal compliance also provides a degree of protection for people in the even of navigation incidents etc. I'd hesitate to advocate withdrawing from the legislation compliance just to have RNR bridge-watchkeepers.

Add to that the increased technology of MCM activities, not something that can be maintained on a standeasy and weekend basis.

Notwithstanding all of that a local profile for the service would be extremely useful, and being seen to provide some form of local support would be a Good Thing(tm). I'm just not convinced that harking back to the days of MCM10 actually does it.
 
One of the over riding considerations will always be cost, the only times we have ever had a bigger navy than was actually needed has been at the end of a war at all other times there have been shortages.

If we are to mainatin an ability to exert some for of global influence then at least one carrier available at all times is probably a must, that of course will need the ability to indulge in opposed landings with marines and the fleet train in terms of both escort and logistics that such ships demand. Add to this the need to have the ability to have acouple of other battle groups based on escort vessels you probably have the sort of force level of 2 carriers, 3/4 LPD/LPH, 25-30 escorts. For submarines one has the deterent squadron plus 2 mixed SSN/SSK squadrons like the old SM3. For homeland defence one then needs to add a mix of MCMV, OPV and fast attack craft, part ofwhich would be operated etc by an enhanced RNR which was doneback in the days of MS10 which operated 10 Ton class and was able to crew at least another ten out of reserve.
 

janner

MIA
Book Reviewer
Would not having their own small ships boost the RNR recruiting figs?
I would also suggest a small body of regulars on each of the RNR ships so that they can assist with regular training and maintainace.
The three sweepers mentioned in another thread would be far better deployed in this way than rotting away in the dockyard. If deployed they could do regular coastal patrols to ac as an anti illegals and smuggling
deterrant
 

jockgolly

Lantern Swinger
With terrorism and asymmetrical warfare being the main threats these days, I don't think there's a real need for large DD/FF numbers, but for large numbers of Corvette-sized ships, i.e. one FF out in the Gulf could be replaced by about 5 of these to patrol multiple areas and for better coverage.

1x "Super Carrier" for large force deployments
2x smaller "strike" carriers for smaller deployments
3x LHDs for increased amphibious capability
8-12x Generic surface ships (DD/FF) based on the Type 22 with ASW, AAW and ASuW capabilities, capable of carrying 2x helos and fitted with CESM equipment. Could be used as command vessels. Possible TLAM or similar fit.
30-40x Multi-role Corvettes or "Mini-Frigates" with interchangeable weapon and sensor fits, armed to the teeth with smaller weapons i.e. miniguns, 30mm, 20mm, GPMG etc for defence in "swarm" attacks, ASMs for ships deployed to threat regions, deployable CESM assets for int gathering ops but CTs not permanenty onboard, capable of carrying 1x helo
10-15x OPVs for integrity of UK waters, fishery protection and Falkands patrols
10-15x Multi-role MCMV/Survey vessels
3x SSBNs (1 refit, 1 standby, 1 deployed)
14-18x SSN/Ks
 

Latest Threads

New Posts

Top