A guest post from Dom J
In the Spirit of Ixions recent threads, I thought I would write down my thoughts on what the UKshould do. These are my current thoughts, although I claim no ownership of them, and have stolen most of them from others anyway and I am happy to adjust my thinking.
I’ve suggested functions and ship classes, based on what we already own, whats already out there, and what we might conceivably end up with, fell free to make suggestions
I’ve guestimated purchase costs from wikipedia and a few other sources, and operating costs from the 08/09 Mod Accounts.
I’m not wedded to any of these numbers, and will not take it as a personal insult if anyone wishes to suggest better numbers, however I’d rather people didn’t just shout “that’s ****”.
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.
| War Fleet Compostion | Purchase Cost | Operating Cost | |
| Carrier | QE Class |
3,700,000,000 |
400,000,000 |
| 24 Fast Air | Rafale |
1,680,000,000 |
288,000,000 |
| Assault Ship | Juan Carlos |
490,000,000 |
100,000,000 |
| Assault Ship | Juan Carlos |
490,000,000 |
100,000,000 |
| Assault Ship | Juan Carlos |
490,000,000 |
100,000,000 |
| Assault Ship | Juan Carlos |
490,000,000 |
100,000,000 |
| Assault Ship | Juan Carlos |
490,000,000 |
100,000,000 |
| Assault Ship | Juan Carlos |
490,000,000 |
100,000,000 |
| 24 Heavy Lift | Chinook |
720,000,000 |
192,000,000 |
| Landing Ship | Bay Class |
228,000,000 |
100,000,000 |
| Landing Ship | Bay Class |
228,000,000 |
100,000,000 |
| Landing Ship | Bay Class |
228,000,000 |
100,000,000 |
| Landing Ship | Bay Class |
228,000,000 |
100,000,000 |
| Landing Ship | Bay Class |
228,000,000 |
100,000,000 |
| Landing Ship | Bay Class |
228,000,000 |
100,000,000 |
| Destroyers | T 45 Daring Class |
650,000,000 |
70,000,000 |
| Destroyers | T 45 Daring Class |
650,000,000 |
70,000,000 |
| Destroyers | T 45 Daring Class |
650,000,000 |
70,000,000 |
| Destroyers | T 45 Daring Class |
650,000,000 |
70,000,000 |
| Destroyers | T 45 Daring Class |
650,000,000 |
70,000,000 |
| Destroyers | T 45 Daring Class |
650,000,000 |
70,000,000 |
| 6 Light Helicopter | Lynx |
180,000,000 |
24,000,000 |
| Frigates | T46 |
750,000,000 |
70,000,000 |
| Frigates | T46 |
750,000,000 |
70,000,000 |
| Frigates | T46 |
750,000,000 |
70,000,000 |
| Frigates | T46 |
750,000,000 |
70,000,000 |
| Frigates | T46 |
750,000,000 |
70,000,000 |
| Frigates | T46 |
750,000,000 |
70,000,000 |
| 6 ASW Helicopter | Merlin |
180,000,000 |
48,000,000 |
| Guided Missile Cruiser | T47 |
1,000,000,000 |
70,000,000 |
| Guided Missile Cruiser | T47 |
1,000,000,000 |
70,000,000 |
| Guided Missile Cruiser | T47 |
1,000,000,000 |
70,000,000 |
| SSGN/ Deterrent | Astute+ |
3,000,000,000 |
180,000,000 |
| SSGN/ Deterrent | Astute+ |
3,000,000,000 |
180,000,000 |
| SSGN/ Deterrent | Astute+ |
3,000,000,000 |
180,000,000 |
| SSGN/ Deterrent | Astute+ |
3,000,000,000 |
180,000,000 |
Purchase Cost for the Two Fleets is £34,168,000,000 and operating costs £3,922,000,000
These would kick the doors in, deploy a pocket division and support it in theatre, as part of a coalition, great, or alone if required.
Said Pocket Divison, I know even less about, but I would put manpower somewhere around 5000, and would hope it contained some heavy armour, some IFV and a rather large light infantry component.
The original suggestion was 10 “Battalions”,
A dedicated Armour Battalion,
2 Armoured Infantry Battalions,
An Artilery Battalion
4 Light infantry battalions (possibly one Para and one RM special forces lite)
An Engineer Battalion
And a “Headquarters” Battalion
Its interesting to note the entire Royal Marines budget in 08/09 was £620mn, I assume that includes Warthog/Viking ect. 6 Royal Marine Brigades of over 8,000 men would come in at a mere 3bn. Unless the Army funds any RM work Do the RM have any sort of organic engineer capability?
Added to this, I’d want TD’s precious presence squadrons, however, I’d give them serious teeth.
| Third Fleet | Cost | Operating Costs | |
| Patrol Ship | ClydeClass |
47,000,000 |
10,000,000 |
| Patrol Ship | ClydeClass |
47,000,000 |
10,000,000 |
| Patrol Ship | ClydeClass |
47,000,000 |
10,000,000 |
| Patrol Ship | ClydeClass |
47,000,000 |
10,000,000 |
| Patrol Ship | ClydeClass |
47,000,000 |
10,000,000 |
| Patrol Ship | ClydeClass |
47,000,000 |
10,000,000 |
| Patrol Ship | ClydeClass |
47,000,000 |
10,000,000 |
| Patrol Ship | ClydeClass |
47,000,000 |
10,000,000 |
| Mine Hunter | Absalon Class |
269,000,000 |
30,000,000 |
| Mine Hunter | Absalon Class |
269,000,000 |
30,000,000 |
| Mine Hunter | Absalon Class |
269,000,000 |
30,000,000 |
| Mine Hunter | Absalon Class |
269,000,000 |
30,000,000 |
| Mine Hunter | Absalon Class |
269,000,000 |
30,000,000 |
| Mine Hunter | Absalon Class |
269,000,000 |
30,000,000 |
| Mine Hunter | Absalon Class |
269,000,000 |
30,000,000 |
| Mine Hunter | Absalon Class |
269,000,000 |
30,000,000 |
| SSN | Astute |
2,410,000,000 |
180,000,000 |
| SSN | Astute |
2,410,000,000 |
180,000,000 |
| SSN | Astute |
2,410,000,000 |
180,000,000 |
Base one fleet in theUK, one on Diego Garcia, and just to ensure there are no ‘misunderstandings’, one on theFalklands.
As above, these are just suggestions rather than absolutes, I’d be open to mixing some Bays in there, or something else? TheUKfleet would probably want more mine hunters than the Diego Fleet and so on. The SSNs are there to ensure any warship picking a fight with aClydedoesn’t make it home afterwards. And of course, why not?
I haven’t covered the RAF, at all, and the army in very little detail, but, I have limits.
Feel free to make suggestions and I’ll try and write it up.
If my costings are within reason, and we accept the 6x Royal Marines in place of the army, then the suggestion clocks in at around £14bn per year, compared with the current budget of £17bn.
@ Dom J,
from an ex-Army perspective (and I ran 1(UK) Armd Div’s current ops in Bosnia in the mid 90s), I think your pocket Division is way too small. Typically a Division will be about 16-18,000 soldiers, so it’s a pretty small pocket. The Army like to have force ratios at around 3:1 for serious war fighting, so 5,000 men is going to be too small to kick anything like a Brigade out. 5,000 is about what we had in MND(SW) in Bosnia in IFOR days, and that was OK for peace enforcement, but we couldn’t have done much more.
Logistics, stores, POL, maintenance and transportation assets? Army marches on its’ stomach and all that. 5,000 men will need roughly 500 tonnes food, fuel, ammunition and water for 1 day of combat operations, and there would need to be an easily accessible pool of spares for the vehicles that could easily be another another 5,000 tonnes stored in containers close by. Organic aviation? Organic ISTAR? Medical assets? Strategic and tactical comms? And it’ll need some pipes and drums and a band
You need to budget for about 10,000 linear metres of shipping to move a Division around on the briny, as well. I can’t remember the ALEST figures (which I only ever understood imperfectly anyway, due to not being able to concentrate on anything other than my hatred of RAF movers).
I noted that in addition to the sainted Absalon, from outside of the RN types also Juan Carlos makes a notable appearance. This piece http://infodefensa.com/wp-content/uploads/JCI_en_v2.pdf provides some nice detail about how to get your pocket division + their kit to where ever they are needed.
A good observation about some of the RM support units (which I presume come out of army budget). Then again, RM needs quite a lot of specialised kit which they have to buy (in small quantities).
- my observation or belief has always been that it is a very cost effective force, but we’ll find out more when TD gets to the RM/SF/16 AAB piece as part of the overall army thread
would that be the same raf movers that made us not onlyremove all clasp knives from personnal kit before flying (on a herc) but then made us chuck away all metal KFS from webbing post 9/11!! therefore only racing spoons left for the exercise.
James
Thanks for your response, its great.
Really its a Brigade, but at the time of “fixing” on the idea, I’d been trying to reconcile 4 battalions = Brigade to manpower of about 5000 in a Brigade.
I’m happy to go back to Brigade as the name.
But “Pocket” came from “Pocket Battleship”, which I thought was a reasonable, name.
I fully accept its a very small force, but, its a highly specialised one, and to a point, I believe that does counter the numbers problem.
We might like 3:1 to be the odds, but we rarely get them in theatre. We might have had 2:1 in Iraq in 91. If anything, we were outnumbered in the Falklands.
we can however, ensure we have 3:1 on a specific battlefield, and I believe the above force should be able to manage that, by denying the enemy serious mobility (by bombing anything that moves) and maintaining it for itself (by denying the enemy airpower) and if it really comes down to it, by over use of firepower.
Military logistics is not an area I can claim to be even remotely familiar with, however.
I have budgeted 24 Chinook helicopters to be in theatre, along with 6 LCUs to get things on to the beach. A single bay could carry 150 trucks. Even if each only moves 10tonnes per day, thats 1500 tonnes, 3x your requirement.
Or is your arguement a for “the war” issue?
I’ve just spotted the Bay only seems to actualy carry 200t of cargo (I assume thats in addition to vehicles, so a “pure” cargo version would cary more like 400t.
Ok, we’re still down quite a lot, so we need some proper sea lift, 15,000 tonnes per month?
5,000 tonnes of spare vehicle parts is 80 Challengers. Cant we just fix the vehicles before we go and carry a few spare vehicles?
Organic Aviation
No.
The 24 Chinooks are navy assets, but would operationaly be under command of the ground forces, if that makes sense? They’re for moving cargo from ship to shore, or soldiers around the battlefield.
I did consider including the AAC Lynxs Apaches within the Brigade/PD (still might) but have not the foggiest about the manpower requirements to operate 8 of them.
Organic ISTAR
I was going to suggest the usual E2D/EV22 operating off the carrier, but couldnt find any costs, I suppose I should have put it on.
Medical Assets?
First Aid is pretty much everyones job, helicopter comes in for evacuation, off onto the ship, we need a hospital ship.
Comms
I figure that just gets done as part and parcel, but thats mostly ignorance on my part.
The Force is never going to charge on Moscow, or even Tehran on its own, its not supposed to.
The thinking is, fighting on its own, it would be doing so in a “Falklands” type operation, a serious, but small war. The navy cruise missile capability isolates the theatre and our asmall force is enough to win in it.
As part of a coaltion, its prupose would to be the first in and secure a port or some other landing site for everyone else, who would then provide numbers.
The argument being, yes, we’d have an extremely small land componant in any coalition, however, we’d be the only people except the US who could actualy go in first and seize landing zones anmd provide “shock and awe” decaptiation capability.
I’d be thrilled if you were to provide any adjustments.
PaulG
I seriously do wonder if the AAC should operate the transport jets (and chinook) but lose Apache, leaving the RAF to concentrate on Air Dominance, Strike and ISTAR rather than being the armys taxi.
ACC
Woohoo, weekend reading
Dom, I take it that this is “just for fun”. IMO it would make a more interesting post if it was in some way realistic based on what we have now and what we are likely to have in the next 10 years. Otherwise you might want to put a fleet of sharks with frikkin laser beams
Yes agreed. Perhaps a fantasy thread because when fantasy and reality meet its like matter versus anti matter. People could debate this but it’s not a serious discussion really. Without wanting to be rude.
Pab
Its semi serious.
The concepts I think are a goer, the actual structure, I’m happy to admit is not
If you accept that the UK’s defence policy is only describable with words like broken, ineffective and unfit for purpose, then the only logical follow on, is to wonder what we could do differently to create a defence policy that is effective, fit for purpose and, given we arent about to head into the sunlit uplands of milk and honey, affordable.
Mine is, unless anyone presents evidence to the contrary, effective, fit for purpose, and affordable.
It may not be desireable, I’d love three nuclear carrier battle groups, 6 armoured divisions and 50 intercontinental stealth bombers.
But thats unrealistic.
Mine may not be politicalty likely, but its better than we have and its affordable.
Phil
I know you think the army should get 90% of the budget and afghanistan is our finest hour, but I did say constructive criticism.
Its only unrealistic because vested interests who would lose out dismiss it.
I don’t mind really what others post that is TD’s prerogative.
What I do mind is others telling or even suggesting how this place should be run other than TD.
Without wanting to be rude Phil wind your neck in. Your supercilious tone is offensive. If you don’t like DonJ’s thread don’t comment.
No opportunity lost for a dig hey x.
That’s why it’s a suggestion. Because fantasy vs reality debates generate more heat than light. I was seconding a view already made. I haven’t commented on the content.
And I’m sure x, TD doesn’t need you on your high horse defending him. Get over yourself.
Dom I never commented on your post except like Paul to point out its not a serious proposition. And you misrepresent my views. I think nothing of the sort about the Army.
Phil
Define “serious propostion”
Because based on what you usualy say, its little more than what we did last year scaled down by 10%.
If you feel I misrepresent your views, please, clarify them, put them out in the open for dicussion, rather than sitting on the side spewing bile at everything that does adhere to your lunatic views that the British Army is achieving something in Afghanistan, wasnt ordered out of Iraq at gun point and serves a purpose.
Or at least provide a counterpoint.
I’ll give a fair reading.
My views are represented in numerous threads. I don’t have the time to write a volume on them. In a nutshell we need a balanced force and an army with mass and campaign endurance. I don’t believe that using the navy to fire the Army like a bullet has any worth based on historical evidence, which is vast and well documented. That does not mean the Army gets over-emphasised, it sits within a balanced force. Call me revolutionary like.
Your proposition is unrealistic to say the least. You can debate the army structure, and we have, but the Navy has gone into fantasy land. It’s la la land Dom.
Phil
“In a nutshell we need a balanced force”
A River Class, a Light infantry company and a Lynx is a “balanced” force.
Its also bloody useless.
The UK has gone beyond the point where balance makes sense.
James pointed put that actualy, my fleet lacks transport assets, yet its three times that which we have in reality.
If my force isnt big enough, and needs 4x transport assets we currently have, then our current transport assets are pointless.
We either need more, or we need to scrap whats left.
You say we need an army with mass and campaign endurance, but we dont have that *now*. So your arguement IS that we should have a bigger army.
If you want campaign endurance, we need a 6 or 7 division army, but thats proper divisons, 20,000 men, which means we need a 120-140,000 strong army.
I’d argue we need to deploy more like 2 divisions, so we are looking at a 250,000 strong army.
Thats possible of course, even on our current budget, but its pretty much eliminates the other two services.
It certainly doesnt leave them “balanced”.
The only way the UK canh have a “balanced” force is if all three are equaly shit.
I fully agree thats the most likely outcome, but I refuse to say its the best.
DomJ
Nice try, not going to criticise, just perhaps next time flesh it out with a bit more detail so we get a chance to understand what your tryig to achieve with your “out of the box” thinking
Nice to see James join the conversation with a comment that will warm TD’s heart – It’s all about the logistics baby !!
Phil
I would like to see you write a good piece on why we need a “balanced” force, and what exactly you mean by that term, in detail; understanding of course that you may not have the time nor the desire, but I think it would be interesting and would be sure to provoke discussion
Jed
It was somwething of a rough draft, just putting down some thoughts, I’ll read ACCs link over the weekend and flesh it out next week.
So if anyone, Phil included, wants to make any suggestions, I’m perfectly happy to take them on board.
I’ll flesh out the role as well.
Hi DJ,
What you use for getting “things” over the beach line on Day 1 is not the same as your transport assets (they are at least in three tiers) RE “James pointed put that actualy, my fleet lacks transport assets, yet its three times that which we have in reality.”
Somehow the starting premise here “The only way the UK canh have a “balanced” force is if all three are equaly shit” is that one already is – which is not the case
Pocket division is a good catch word – because the truth is that between theater troops and brigade-level formations (whether they are called that or something else) there is nothing really, except deployable HQ(s) which were put in the spotlight quite rightly – especially the ones not(!) deployable
… it is just that the concept needs another go, or we just settle for “bdes”
Dom.
It’s all in the context of coalition and alliance. Nope, we’d need WWII levels of mobilisation to do what I think we need to do, but that’s why there are alliances and coalitions. This balanced force operates as part of a coalition except in the smallest of interventions. This has been true since the year dot. That’s not going to change.
Your Navy is la la land because there are ships on that list that don’t even exist. Or exist off of the Internet, perhaps your mind. What is a T47? An Astute+?! Wouldn’t a T46 be better than a T47? And anyway you don’t need that many T47s as they requires less maintenance and can run up faster. You get the picture.
Jed.
I’d like to. Time is the rub. But I’ve reduced a commitment for a while so might be able to rustle it up before Xmas. Many here wouldn’t like it. Nothing radical or sexy about it.
It does come across a bit Fantasy Fleet but I am interested in your proposal.
Why 24 Rafale and why not F18, F35B/C or the mythical Naval Typhoon. What effect would this have on the RAF fast jet make up? Is 48 (24 x 2) enough aircraft to keep 24 operational at Sea? Type 46 and 47, what are these? What happened to Type 26, the one we’ll actually be getting? Absalon for mine hunting? Even with modular mine hunting kit, is a Danish Destroyer not a bit over kill? Would a SIMMS type concept not be better for the Clyde class and mine hunter replacement? That’s an awful lot of Juan Carlos and Bays. What likely threats are we facing where we would need such a large amphib force? we have very few overseas territories where we may need to land a large force from the Sea?
Even if your costs are accurate, it’s not the item price that is expensive, it’s the cock-ups in procurement and decision making that waste the most money. Defence procurement is not cheap and easy for a country wishing to stay at the top of the technology arms race. With so many vessels, would we have enough crew for them all? This is the expensive bit!
ACC
I d be very grateful if you could expand…
“What you use for getting “things” over the beach line on Day 1 is not the same as your transport assets (they are at least in three tiers)”
“Somehow the starting premise here “The only way the UK can have a “balanced” force is if all three are equaly shit” is that one already is – which is not the case”
I disagree, “shit”, might be pushing it, but none of them are “good”
Phil
“It’s all in the context of coalition and alliance.”
Which leaves us entirely at the mercy of our coalition partners, and entirely without any expert partners. Your most useful complaint about my “pocket division” was that the colonel might have spent his career in a tank, and be put in command of an amphibious assault, or the other way round.
Yet your argeument here is every nation should have basicaly the same soldier/fighter/destroyer ratios.
It makes little sense for the Czechs to have a Navy at all and about as much for the UK to maintain a grand army.
“Your Navy is la la land because there are ships on that list that don’t even exist. Or exist off of the Internet, perhaps your mind. What is a T47? An Astute+?! Wouldn’t a T46 be better than a T47? And anyway you don’t need that many T47s as they requires less maintenance and can run up faster. You get the picture.”
Ahah!
Questions at last!
Not just as assumption that I’m a slightly better informed version of Sharkey!
A T47 is a T45 hull without PAAMs carrying large numbers of cruise missiles, for an early “decapitation” strike, or just general fire support. (Can VLS’s be reloaded at sea? Do ships carry reloads?)
Astute Plus would be a stretched Astute fitted with 4-6 Trident replacement tubes, which could also handily carry some cruise missiles or under water knife fighters.
I have no idea why a 46 would be “better” than a 47, it would be different, but both would share the same basic hull design, one would hunt submarines and the other would crater airfields.
At the mercy of our coalition partners. Yup. That’s the real world. It must be accepted. And it has been in Government circles since the 1920s. If we want to achieve anything profound in the world then we cannot avoid this structural limitation. We stay useful to them, and they are useful to us.
Pab
Why Rafale?
Because thats what we’re going to get, basicaly.
I’ve tried to be “realistic” as far as it goes.
Starting with a blank piece of paper, I would do a lot differently, but like it or not, we dont ever get to start with blank pieces of paper, even if we want to.
I believe the RAF will be left with just the Typhoon fleet.
“Absalon for mine hunting? Even with modular mine hunting kit, is a Danish Destroyer not a bit over kill? ”
Almost certainly, its just from stuff we’ve discussed preiously, I have no attachement to it.
“That’s an awful lot of Juan Carlos and Bays. What likely threats are we facing where we would need such a large amphib force? we have very few overseas territories where we may need to land a large force from the Sea?”
The amphib fleet was simply sized to land and support the ground force.
You can have soldiers sail to the general area on a cruise liner, and then use the landing ships as a ferry between the two, but its not ideal. Given the pretty minor costs of something like a bay, why compromise? I believed the military effect of landing the entire ground force and a good chunk of supplies in hours rather than days was worth the expenditure. I believe it took 11 days in the Falklands war to get everyone ashore. Your in trouble if the enemy is mobile and can attack you in that period.
Again, I’m not wedded to the idea, but it certainly seems reasonable.
Its also not really for defence of the overseas territories, as I said, I’d militarise the Falklands, it simply gives us an options, we dont have to rely on a local host for basing rights, and, in the event of a crisis, we can rock up ready to roll out.
I’m told, that after we decided to intervene in Yugoslavia, we(everyone) struggled to get forces in place, no one had transport assets. We would, instantly, be able to transport our own forces and deploy, a small, but not irrelevent force, and then go and pick up the Italians, and the French, and the Spanish, and anyone else who’s managed to get themselves half way.
Given that the French have utterly failed to sell Rafale to anyone for the last decade plus, you have to wonder why the hell we should buy it. F/A-18E/F is a far better option from the point of view of both costs and capabilities
Hi DJ,
I will answer the question specifically directed at me under a different heading, for now!
Ahah! I was waiting for the arsenal ship to pop up:
“without PAAMs carrying large numbers of cruise missiles, for an early “decapitation” strike, or just general fire support. (Can VLS’s be reloaded at sea? Do ships carry reloads?)”
- the current VLSs can’t be reloaded at sea – a huge negative
RE
“Astute Plus would be a stretched Astute fitted with 4-6 Trident replacement tubes, which could also handily carry some cruise missiles or under water knife fighters”
- I think I wrote something about this and am very much in keeping with the idea
- Common Launch Compartment takes 4 cruise missiles, so not that many required
- the Ohio conversions were on 17 kt hulls so much more space than on ours (even if and when stretched in the next batch)
Hi DJ,
RE ” I d be very grateful if you could expand…
“What you use for getting “things” over the beach line on Day 1 is not the same as your transport assets (they are at least in three tiers)””
1. what you use to get the invading force a shore (includes LCP, LCU, hovercrafts, helos… anything that has been boarded)
- believe it or not, the OTH/ vertical insertation capacity that the French have is higher than ours… but the story does not stop there (who else to compare with? I won’t try USMC)
2. The reason I said *at least* three tiers is that in this context I separate the Points out – no one else in Europe has a comparable capability
3 & 4 The rest of the RFA (not forgetting replenishing the ships on station, not just what is onshore) and the taking over of applicable commercial shipping (under a preagreed framework, cfr. Falklands)
Your Astute + already exists, it’s called Astute. The point of having a deterrant is that it is undetectable, if it’s launching TLAMS off the coast of Lybia then it can be easily detected. If I was a Russian Sub Commander, i’d be sitting in the Med keeping an eye and ear on what’s going on. You don’t want your SSBNs being tracked.
Your T47 without PAAMS would need a permanent escort to protect against airbourne threats, how about just more T45s or T46s with a mix of PAAMS and TLAM/Naval Storm Shadow to suit the mission.
You’ve spec’s 8 mine hunters, I think the RN currently have about 15. Are we to back away from our mine hunting commitments?
You say that you are not wedded to the idea and that you take no ownership. Why not have a proper think about it and put your point accross and stand behind it with more conviction. It doesn’t come accross as if you’ve put a lot of thought into it TBH, i’m sure you have though.
Are you folling this up woth other posts to fill in the gaps?
P
Doctrine first, TO&E later.
Official doctrine demands official TO&Es or something similar, so what’s the (different) doctrine for the ‘pocket division’?
“Can VLS’s be reloaded at sea? Do ships carry reloads?”
On paper they can. The US Mk41 VLS even had a stowable crane, but in reality it’s not very practical. That crane has been removed and the missile cell reloaded with warshots.
Missile reloads are carried by dedicated ammunitions ships (AE) but again, reloading at sea (alongside) is usually not practiced.
I also miss the Ro/Ro transports which are very usefull for ops other than war (exercises, show of force, humanitarian assistance etc), and usually not as ‘threatening’ as a full LHD.
If you want a real “Pocket Division” of 5K troops you should concentrate on ISTAR – let this P-Div/Bde consist mostly of sensors and shooters and let stand-off missiles (by air, by sea) and CAS (carrier) aircraft be the ‘hammer’.
Still, interesting piece
Dom
You are forgetting that lovely ship called troop transport/commandeered merchant vessel. but nice post.
you wouldn’t have 4 Light infantry battalions and only have 1 support battalion more like 25:75 on fighters to supports, eg one or 2 bats infantry the rest support. armoured & arty would be one bat. this gives 2k front line and 3k support.
I imagine each of those navel boats will have some marines so you already have commandos you just add a PLT of either SAS/SBS.
I’d like to see some SIMMS in there and less destroyers and frigates and more Guided Missile Cruisers as there more useful.
Otherwise very nice.
DomJ
I dont personally see why this should be so big. Would it not be more manageable for the UK to think about establishing groups with similar combat capacity to a US Marine Exp Unit grouping about 2200 personel. This in reality will be the level of commitment the UK will do most. You could them use the MEU as the building block of a more flexible brigade or divisional structure, as these ops will most likely be far less frequent.
update is in progress, ground force suggestions especialy wanted.
I think that it would be necessary to buy two E-2D Hawkeye for your aircraft carrier, right ?
and now for something completely different
In the Short term threat assessment(1minute long)agentina is the only enemy we have to face alone. therefore the force we need will have to travel 12734.49km. this must include all necessary munitions. this requires a VBS, like a tanker or two. plus two frigates for protection. most important weapons in the conflict would be CVF and SSBN other ships would just be local area defence as you would have aircraft from cvf doing everything else. in this example the greatest asset would be an ally in southern africa or south america were we can store supplies (get them delivered there etc)
- one nuclear attack submarines
- two anti-submarine frigates
- one or two anti-air destroyers
- one frigate in forward patrol
- one supply ship
This is the French organisation.
frenchie
i was thinking more like 6 hawkeyes!
Yes, we have three Hawkeye for a single aircraft carrier.
I think SSBN tubes come in fours, so you can have 4,8,12,16, 20 or 24. Dont think you can have 6 off the shelf.
Tanker/Stores ships needed. What of that new Rolls Royce design for fast,economical merchant ships (licensed to China) ? Could that be adapted?
Global economic chaos will lead to trouble. Politicians may not want to spend on defence now, but they may be forced to change by events soon.
@DJ, You would need a Seaheawk too for SAR.
Hi JH,
In fours, per silo, as for these “submunitions”. And only in the future, as they have been designed to take the next-gen nuclear ballistic missile (supposedly bigger than the current one).
At risk of being called a “cold warrior”, I think our stretched Astutes need 8 tubes , 5 warheads per missile x 4 boats = 160 warheads to be credible.
Plus 20 10 kt tactical warheads & 20 1 megaton UK B83 clone strategic deterrent = 200 warheads, the minimum worked out in 1950s austerity Britain.
@dom j 8hrs later ref apache to RAF, nah! not because i’m ex green, the thing with apache it’s a battlefield asset which is why everything connected eith it is designed to be done in the field. from resupply to repair Thee’s been a false undestanding due to the fact that in the last 10 years it’s been based at bastion with everything else. AAC pilots be it young officers go on attachment with inf to understand how the battlefield works NCO pilots come from the lines.
Apart from the fact the RAF will not recruit nco’s (their loss) they just don’t do the roughty toughty stuff. Some people dig in, some people check in!
ps “ordered out of iraq at gunpoint” bit harsh mate, i left of my own accord (twice)
@ Dom J,
Organic ISTAR for the Land Component means just that: organic. It also consists of a lot more complexity than simply being some E-3 and a few other sensors. The number one fundamental is to keep sensors on the Commander’s critical intelligence targets 24/7, and in crap flying weather that means land-based sensors, often people. In addition you need to cover a few specialist needs: route reconnaissance, flank guards, obstacle reconnaissance, deep fires observation, route marking, CBRN survey, counter-fires observation and reporting. I have tremendous respect for the RAF (apart from the movers), but they can’t do all of that from an E-3, particularly if there’s a bit of cloud cover or the moon is in Sagitarrius or they are out of crew hours, or whatever excuse is currently in vogue for not flying. ISTAR is a layered and Joint concept, with contributors from all services and which covers the EM spectrum, but the Brigade Commander needs his own assets on near instant call whatever the weather and 24/7 to inform critical decisions. To help you in your calculations, a Brigade-sized force is going to need a wheeled (ideally) or tracked Squadron of about 20 vehicles including REME and C2, and in addition the Artillery Regiment will need an equivalent sized Battery of something like COBRA and AGS, along with a UAV Troop and ground station. Ideally, you’d group those two units along with a light infantry company with Patrols and OP training, and a shore party for Naval Gunfire Support. That’s about 300 men all up, including the ISTAR HQ which would probably co-locate with Brigade HQ.
You also appear to have left off your list the Hereford Hooligans, who probably want a Squadron along.
@james off thread, but you mentioned lcpl evans last week, same capbadge, same town good to see he’s remembered
@ paul g,
I didn’t know him very well, but he was a good guy. We’d just rousted out a force of Iraqi T-59s on Objective Lead – about 10 I recall, and were taking them out with Swingfire. One of them got away, and drove off. He and Sgt Dowling were caught out in their M548 tracked carrier, and hit with 12.7mm MG. Those two and Lt Eddie Whitehead were the only ones I directly served with who paid the price in battle, so every year I place 3 of the RBL crosses on my village war memorial for them.
Regarding the subs and launching cruise missiles from ex-Trident tubes, watch this (I think it’s been posted here before);
7 “shots” per tube.
@ James B
If you have operational knowledge of using Swingfire and working with CVRT etc, might I be able to persuade you to put down your thoughts in a post?
The issue of FRES SV has been very heated at times on this site, as has the wider issue of recce vehicles etc. I’m sure TD would appreciate the post.
@ Chris B,
thanks for your thoughts. I’m certainly happy to contribute with comments, I’ll see if I have time for a post. It’s also 8 years since I last took the Queen’s shilling, so I’m probably out of date.
Nevertheless, my last posting was running the C4ISTAR Capability Development desk at HQ LAND, and among the issues in my in-tray then were the draft set of URs for FRES SV. That was I think in 2001 and it should have been in service now, and if we’d done what most people in formation recce – myself included – wanted we’d have bought either Stryker* or an updated CFV Bradley TOW and a mix of light strike vehicles, perhaps 2 Squadrons of each in a formation recce Regiment. I quite like the look of Jackal. Anyway, some pointy heads in Shrivenham at the doctrine centre got hold of the idea and all of a sudden FRES SV became some super-system of systems with all sorts of unrealistic aspirations for moving about by C-130, having the punch of Chally 2, etc. Insane.
* Stryker was in early development then, touted for 2006 in service in the US, so it was definitely in the ball park for the UK in 2009.
You know you want to James…
Do it James! Please………..
So were you HCR???