Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United Kingdom Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Fan-boy list of ideal UK Forces - you have been warned
perfectgeneral    11/12/2007 12:39:52 AM
I estimate that MoD spending might increase to as much as 3% or even 3.5% of GDP if defence funding is given the priority that it warrants. For the UK: Space Programme Contribute 10% to ESA programme plus military satellites for intel, comms and navigation Defence research and Trident replacement Allocate 0.5% of GDP for defence research and nuclear deterrent on top of defence spending Air Force Personnel 45,000 Fixed Wing (48 F-22 Raptor - If congress allows) 232 Typhoon to tranche 3 standard (upgrade to 'tranche 4') 138 F-35b 96 F-35c 12 C17 Globemaster 50 A400m 24 A330 tanker/transports 12 E3d Sentry 12 Sentinel 24 Nimrod MR (A330 airframe?) 9 Nimrod R (A330 airframe?) 9 Dominie T1 75 Grob 115E Tutor 25 Firefly T67 M260 25 Beech King Air B200 50 Tucano T1 50 Hawk 128 50 Hawk T1A 132 Grob G103A Twin II Acro Viking T1 132 Grob 109B Vigilant T1 Executive transport Six BAe 125 executive jets (Series 700), two BAe 146s, two Islander BN2T CC Mk2 maintainence and training budget set to ensure maximum readiness Begin development of a carrier based F-22 style fighter with USN Navy Personnel 45,000 Ships 3 CVF STOVL 65,000t(Queen Elizabeth class) one every four years: 2014,2018,2022 COGASE power plant 30 knots peak, 20 knots cruise, 10 knots loiter.. refit to CTOL 72,000t, COGAS-E power plant 32 knots peak, 18 knots cruise, 8 knots loiter by 2038, 2042 and 2046 respectively. 3 LPH (New 40,000t class) one every three years: 2025,2028,2031 3 LPD (Albion class replacement 20,000 tons) one every two years: 2033,2035,2037 4+2 LSD (Bay class) - aux One escort every 12 months: (stable state of 24 over 24 years) 12 AAW Destroyers (Daring class) 12 ASW Frigates (Duke class replacements 12 x 6000t) One cruiser every three years: (stable state of 8 over 24 years) 8 Light Cruisers: 9000t-10000t 155mm main gun, 96 cell Sylver launcher for Aster15/30, Storm Shadow and CAMM quad packs, 2-4x CB90 patrol boats plus helo (2Merlin/3Slynx) hanger and two spot deck, 0-4 STANIFLEX modules. COGAS-E power plant 30 knots peak, 20 knots cruise, 10 knots loiter.. 2 Multi-role survey vessels (Echo class) 1 Antartic patrol ship (HMS Endurance) 1 Ocean survey vessel 20 Mission module corvettes/light frigates: (one every 15 months - replacing other vessels of these types) 3750t, 76mm/56mm/30mm CISW main gun, 0-1 + 0-2 STANIFLEX modules (Slynx deck and hanger/mine hunting/coastal survey/patrol/UUV or SuUV mothership/SF deployment). COGAS-E power plant 30 knots peak, 20 knots cruise, 10 knots loiter. MARS (6 fast oiler+supply 30knots peak, 20knots cruise, 14 others, 22knots peak, 12knots cruise?) - aux 6 Ro-ro transports - aux Submarines 7 SSN (Astute class) 0+4 SSBN (Vanguard class replacement) 0+4 SSN (Trafalgar class replacement batch 1) A nuclear submarine built every 22 months (minimum) Aircraft 36 V-22 Osprey 24 EH101Merlin/V-22Osprey - AEW 44 EH101 Merlin ASW 67 Super Lynx 24 EH101 Cormorant search and rescue 39 Squirrel HT1 Fast boats 20 Training (Archer class replacements) 4 Patrol (Sabre class replacements) Royal Marines 3 Commando (1+3 bn + 1 of reservists) + Marine Artillery + Corps units Executive transport Four EH101 Merlin HC3 helicopters maintainence and training budget set to ensure maximum readiness 1st bn Rifles would become the core of an army 2 Commando along with the army elements of 3 Commando (these would be replaced by RM engineers, logistics and artillery to form an all RM 3 Commando). 40 commando would attach to special forces, like 1 Para. Army Personnel 120,000 2 Commando (3 bn + 1 TA) + 1 RA + Corps units 1st Parachute Regt (5 bn + 2 TA) + 2 RA + Corps units Royal Gurkha Regt (3 bn + 1 in Nepal & 1 in Brunei) + 1 RA + Corps units Guards Division (5 bn foot, 3 bn cav) + 2 RA + Corps units 6 regional regiments: Scots (5 bn + 2 TA) + 2 RA + Corps units Rifles (sw)(5 bn + 2 TA) + 2 RA + Corps units King's (n)(5 bn + 2 TA) + 2 RA + Corps units Prince of Wales (5 bn + 2 TA) + 2 RA + Corps units Queen's (se)(5 bn + 2 TA) + 2 RA + Corps units Irish (5 bn + 2 TA) + 2 RA + Corps units Brigades 101,102,103 & 104 Logistic bdes 2 & 3 Commando bdes (3 commando is RM unit) 19 & 52 Light bdes 16 & 8 Air Assault bdes 1, 4 & 12 Mechanised bdes 7 & 20 Armoured bdes Armour 350 Challenger 2 136 Sabre* 48 Striker (with Swingfire ATGW)* 320 Scimitar* 1,492 FV 432/430* 793 MCV 80 Warrior 478 Spartan* 622 Saxon* 108 Mastiff* 11 Fuchs (NBC recce vehicles) *=some or all possibly replaced by 3000 FRES variants Artillery & Mortars 146 AS 90 155mm SP Gun 63 227mm MLRS 48 FH 70 155mm towed howitzer 136 105mm Light Gun 48 155mm Light Gun (M777) 450 81mm mortar (including 110 x self-propelled) 2093 51mm Light Mortar Aircraft 6 BN-2 Islander 67 Apache Longbow (UK version) 100 EH101 Merlin HC3 36 CH-46d Chinook HC3 67 Super Lynx A
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5   NEXT
NATO OF-2 RN       11/12/2007 12:12:34 PM
Dude, I appreciate the thought (and the warning!) but:

a)  I'll eat my uniform cap if spending is increased by that much
b)  That level increase in spending would really struggle to pay for what you suggest
c)  We don't have the industry to build it and the government won't consider buying abroad
d)  Your manning figures are way, way too low.  We struggle to man what we have with little fewer people.  Actually, we struggle to keep people in and manpower levels what they are.

e)  In an ideal world I'd want USN supercarriers, not CVF, ABs, not T45!

 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       11/12/2007 1:40:37 PM
A few points:
Nimrod is a specific airframe. A maritime recce aircraft on a different airframe would be a different aircraft.

Cormorant is the Canadian version of the EH101. Buying new, it would make more sense to acquire the AW101 - an upengined "International" version of the EH101.

Sabre is out of service, Striker is out of service, Swingfire is out of service, Saxon is all but out of service, FH70 is out of service, 51mm is all but out of service (being replaced with 60mm, according to some sources).

Mastiff is a different capability to FRES, and as such would not be replaced by it.


Questions:

No LIMAWS(R)? I'm hurt.

F22. Why? We already have a large number of air superiority fighters we don't really need. Throwing money at the wall for four dozen more seems like folly.

Comments

If we want better capability, we should develop it ourselves rather than subsidise other people. That said, if foriegn companies have a systems that is good, then we can also consider license-building. Dishing the cash out to the US is nearly as bad as ceding all our tech to the French.

V22 - I would suggest that composite rotor concepts or rotordynes would be better options than an expensive first-off tilt-rotor.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234       11/12/2007 2:09:49 PM

I estimate that MoD spending might increase to as much as 3% or even 3.5% of GDP if defence funding is given the priority that it warrants.
Aim for 2.7%, realistically.
For the UK:

Space Programme
Contribute 10% to ESA programme plus military satellites for intel, comms and navigation
Look elsewhere. If there is a fubared space agency worse than NASA, and NASA is terrible, its ESA.  
Defence research and Trident replacement
Allocate 0.5% of GDP for defence research and nuclear deterrent on top of defence spending
New land attack cruise missile and improved D-5. Buy into the US fusion warhead program. Classified devices are  coming that will be truly terrifying. I suspect this has already happened as the UK has been working in thatn direction itself.
Air Force

Personnel
45,000

Fixed Wing
(48 F-22 Raptor - If congress allows)   Will never happen before 2020.
232 Typhoon to tranche 3 standard (upgrade to 'tranche 4')  Absolutely. The Typhoon is the best of the Eurocanards.
138 F-35b You will probably have to buy it because of the QEII class as designed but why? Why not CATOBAR from the start and get an all C force?
96 F-35c   See above.
12 C17 Globemaster  A good plane, better hurry before production goes away. 
50 A400m  I like the A400. If anything I'm dissapointed that the barrel isn't fatter to take wider loads..
24 A330 tanker/transports Competitive. I am ticked off at Boeing.
12 E3d Sentry  Is there anything else before Sentry Hawk takes wing?
12 Sentinel  Since its working end is RAYTHEON; I am biased.GOOD CHOICE!
24 Nimrod MR (A330 airframe?)  I wouldn't want to do the conversion work on that unsuitable airframe. Its not MPA material.
9 Nimrod R (A330 airframe?)  Ibid. This is one time you buy Boeing.
9 Dominie T1  Getting old, but it gets the training job done.
75 Grob 115E Tutor. New.  Ditto.
25 Firefly T67 M260   New but ditto.
25 Beech King Air B200  Ditto.
50 Tucano T1  Ditto.
50 Hawk 128  Good choice.
50 Hawk T1A  Passable but OLD.
132 Grob G103A Twin II Acro Viking T1  Got a thing for sailplanes? Handle this through civilian flight school.
132 Grob 109B Vigilant T1 Same objection. Powered gliders don't cut the training dollars mustard.

Executive transport
Six BAe 125 executive jets (Series 700), two BAe 146s, two Islander BN2T CC Mk2 Maybe.

maintainence and training budget set to ensure maximum readiness The RAF seriously needs to rationalize its training base.

Begin development of a carrier based F-22 style fighter with USN  Don't hire Lockmart.

Navy

Personnel
45,000

Ships

3 CVF STOVL 65,000t(Queen Elizabeth class) one every four years: 2014,2018,2022 COGASE power plant 30 knots peak, 20 knots cruise, 10 knots loiter..
refit to CTOL 72,000t, COGAS-E power plant 32 knots peak, 18 knots cruise, 8 knots loiter by 2038, 2042 and 2046 respectively.
Catobar straight off. Agree with three.
3 LPH (New 40,000t class) one every three years: 2025,2028,2031 Sounds too much like USN LHA[R] program. Think that one through hard. You might come up with a better idea with a smaller LHA around 27,000 tonnes.
3 LPD (Albion class replacement 20,000 tons) one every two years: 2033,2035,2037 Why?
4+2 LSD (Bay class) - aux Why?

One escort every 12 months: (stable state of 24 over 24 years) 
12 AAW Destroyers (Daring class) Settle for 6+2.
12 ASW Frigates (Duke class replacements 12 x 6000t) You need 18 frigates and 12 OPVs.

One cruiser every three years: (stable state of 8 over 24 years) What cruiser? There is no such thing.
8 Light Cruisers: 9000t-10000t 155mm main gun, 96 cell Sylver launcher for Aster15/30, Storm Shadow and CAMM quad packs,
2-4x CB90 patrol boats plus helo (2Merlin/3Slynx) hanger and two spot deck, 0-4 STANIFLEX modules. COGAS-E power plant 30 knots peak, 20 knots cruise, 10 knots loiter..
After the US LCS/DDX disa
 
Quote    Reply

Armchair Private       11/12/2007 2:23:37 PM

Dude, I appreciate the thought (and the warning!) but:

a)  I'll eat my uniform cap if spending is increased by that much
b)  That level increase in spending would really struggle to pay for what you suggest
More like 4-5% GDP at a guess.
c)  We don't have the industry to build it and the government won't consider buying abroad
We don't have the industry, cos we don't build it..... hang on, are we in a circle here?
d)  Your manning figures are way, way too low.  We struggle to man what we have with little fewer people.  Actually, we struggle to keep people in and manpower levels what they are.

e)  In an ideal world I'd want USN supercarriers, not CVF, ABs, not T45!
Is AB better then the growth potential of T45?



 
Quote    Reply

Armchair Private       11/12/2007 2:32:19 PM

A few points:
Nimrod is a specific airframe. A maritime recce aircraft on a different airframe would be a different aircraft.

Cormorant is the Canadian version of the EH101. Buying new, it would make more sense to acquire the AW101 - an upengined "International" version of the EH101.

Sabre is out of service, Striker is out of service, Swingfire is out of service, Saxon is all but out of service, FH70 is out of service, 51mm is all but out of service (being replaced with 60mm, according to some sources).

Mastiff is a different capability to FRES, and as such would not be replaced by it.


Questions:

No LIMAWS(R)? I'm hurt.

F22. Why? We already have a large number of air superiority fighters we don't really need. Throwing money at the wall for four dozen more seems like folly.

If that new Russian/Indian thingey is any good then we may need these. Or wish we had them. Heseltine's fault, Typhoon is not as bad as some people think but for the money spent we could have had better, 10 years ago too. And now be looking to partner on a new one.

Comments

If we want better capability, we should develop it ourselves rather than subsidise other people. That said, if foriegn companies have a systems that is good, then we can also consider license-building. Dishing the cash out to the US is nearly as bad as ceding all our tech to the French.

V22 - I would suggest that composite rotor concepts or rotordynes would be better options than an expensive first-off tilt-rotor.
If V22 has an engine out then from the sounds of it you're dead. Thats not true in a trad helicopter.

 
Quote    Reply

Armchair Private       11/12/2007 2:39:49 PM
...but I liked your post PG.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234       11/12/2007 3:07:09 PM

Dude, I appreciate the thought (and the warning!) but:

a)  I'll eat my uniform cap if spending is increased by that much
b)  That level increase in spending would really struggle to pay for what you suggest
More like 4-5% GDP at a guess.
c)  We don't have the industry to build it and the government won't consider buying abroad
We don't have the industry, cos we don't build it..... hang on, are we in a circle here?
d)  Your manning figures are way, way too low.  We struggle to man what we have with little fewer people.  Actually, we struggle to keep people in and manpower levels what they are.

e)  In an ideal world I'd want USN supercarriers, not CVF, ABs, not T45!
Is AB better then the growth potential of T45?

a. You'll be lucky to get 2.5%.
b. As laid out in the opening post, more like 7% of GDP.
c. Nobody  has the industry to build that dream listm in that time frame.
d. Manning levels-especially for the logistics base arte 60% of what would be required.
e. In an ideal world the QEIIs would be replaced by the improved Bush class. The AB and the T-45 are roughly comparable. Get rid of the crappy Aster though; and build your own better S2A rockets to go with your very good radars and EW systems.  

One correction though; the Osprey can fly with one engine out, as it uses a linked through transmission, so that both propellors can drive off one engine, if the other fails. I just think that bird still has a lot of design issues that make it a very high risk platform. 
 
I'm not a fan of it at all.
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       11/12/2007 3:19:48 PM
Herald;

Don't buy into the US for anything like atomics. Nothing personal, but history indicates that the only time the US lets the UK buy any strategic capability is when the UK can do it themselves and the US wishes to stall future capability.

Spot on with ESA though, or "Give all of your capability to the French, Space Agency".

The US LCS shenanigans isn't a problem inherent with the concept, AFAICT, but a problem with how the USN deals with its vendors.

Why the dislike of the Lynx? Super Lynx should be a different kettle of fish to the 1980's bird.

Sabre and Scimitar - Obsolescent, I'm afraid. Short-term, Stormer 30 with BGTI would be about right. Longer term, perhaps FRES. Striker replacement  with something like NETFIRES wouldn't be a bad plan, as long as you have some kind of UAV recce capability to complement your AT capacity. AIUI the loitering netfire muniton had been canceled.

FV430 goes to Bulldog, then perhaps FRES. Warrior NEEDS updating. Warrior 2000 wouldn't have been a bad buy. WLIP would get you a similar capacity for less, CV90 is great, but huge.

FRES is already a debacle, but it isn't like FCS. The weight limit  is much higher and the role is lighter. All we need is for the UK MoD to get off its arse and order something.

Delete the 105mm? Why? Artillery isn't necessarily about destructive fires (in fact, these rarely work - something we seem to have to keep re-learning) 105s have a smaller logistics footprint, in terms of prime movers, ammunition and required crew. The 105 is a really good gun, the shells can be handled by one man to get a good RoF, What's not to like? To consider the FH70 (Looooong out of service) but dismiss the L118 is foolish, IMHO.
While on the subject of Artillery - lets have more lightweight MLRS (or even some). Heli-portable systems would seem to be something you want. M270 is nice, but it's freaking huge...
Mortars - 120mm is nice in turreted vehicles, where you can use it in a DF role, otherwise there's that distinction between suppressive and destructive fires. 
You definately want a light mortar. Rockets have a big launch signature, can't do indirect trajectories, can't fire smoke or illum rounds and tend to be heavier for the same range (show me a rocket launcher - not a guided missile - that is effective out to 800m)

Comanche? No. Don't resurrect a foreign programme without a VERY good reason.
Merlins: Yes, though not necessarily HC.3s Uprated versions are now available - more powerful engines and better rotors for better hot-and-high. Mk3a's are now being brought into service

The Gazelles are going out the window (no offensive and very little defensive capacity) and, AIUI, being replaced by the Future Lynx  (new build - not the same as the current Lynx save size and name, and a few airframe components)

Merlin is a bit excessive for executive transport, isn't it? 

Other points:

V22, AIUI has cross-linked engines, so one engine out isn't a show-stopper. 
Not ideal for operating off a carrier though - too wide and too difficult to stow. Composite or rotodyne.

If the Russkis develop something that Typhoon/Meteor can't deal with, then let's go for the next step - UCAVs and perhaps a stealthified Tyffie to go with, if possible. Better would be a two-seat, stealthy fighter-class with a bunch of networked, semi-autonomous UCAVs to act as little buddies. DEW research to counter long-range missiles or hostile UCAVs.


 
Quote    Reply

Armchair Private       11/12/2007 3:37:11 PM



Dude, I appreciate the thought (and the warning!) but:

a)  I'll eat my uniform cap if spending is increased by that much
b)  That level increase in spending would really struggle to pay for what you suggest
More like 4-5% GDP at a guess.
c)  We don't have the industry to build it and the government won't consider buying abroad
We don't have the industry, cos we don't build it..... hang on, are we in a circle here?
d)  Your manning figures are way, way too low.  We struggle to man what we have with little fewer people.  Actually, we struggle to keep people in and manpower levels what they are.

e)  In an ideal world I'd want USN supercarriers, not CVF, ABs, not T45!
Is AB better then the growth potential of T45?


a. You'll be lucky to get 2.5%.
True, I'd be happy with 3.0%, 2.5% would be nice these days...
b. As laid out in the opening post, more like 7% of GDP.
  UKs currently at 2%. Perfect's list doesn't look like 350% current expense to me.
c. Nobody  has the industry to build that dream listm in that time frame.

d. Manning levels-especially for the logistics base arte 60% of what would be required.

e. In an ideal world the QEIIs would be replaced by the improved Bush class. The AB and the T-45 are roughly comparable. Get rid of the crappy Aster though; and build your own better S2A rockets to go with your very good radars and EW systems.  


One correction though; the Osprey can fly with one engine out, as it uses a linked through transmission, so that both propellors can drive off one engine, if the other fails. I just think that bird still has a lot of design issues that make it a very high risk platform. 

my bad.

I'm not a fan of it at all.

 

Herald



 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234       11/12/2007 3:56:44 PM

Herald;

Don't buy into the US for anything like atomics. Nothing personal, but history indicates that the only time the US lets the UK buy any strategic capability is when the UK can do it themselves and the US wishes to stall future capability.
Pure fusion warheads.

Spot on with ESA though, or "Give all of your capability to the French, Space Agency".
The French aren't bad with rockets, its just that they can't manage anything properly without being dishonest or attempting to commandeer it; or both.
The US LCS shenanigans isn't a problem inherent with the concept, AFAICT, but a problem with how the USN deals with its vendors.
No the CONCEPT is fatally flawed, as in that whoever thought up the mission requirement screwed it up royally.
Why the dislike of the Lynx? Super Lynx should be a different kettle of fish to the 1980's bird.
I'm not a fan. Let's just say I doubt its aero-hell with good reasons.
Sabre and Scimitar - Obsolescent, I'm afraid. Short-term, Stormer 30 with BGTI would be about right. Longer term, perhaps FRES. Striker replacement  with something like NETFIRES wouldn't be a bad plan, as long as you have some kind of UAV recce capability to complement your AT capacity. AIUI the loitering netfire munition had been canceled.
Agreed. The cancellation was a mistake. 
FV430 goes to Bulldog, then perhaps FRES. Warrior NEEDS updating. Warrior 2000 wouldn't have been a bad buy. WLIP would get you a similar capacity for less, CV90 is great, but huge.
No comment beyond I see a hi-lo tracked/wheeled mix for a mechforce to be the proper route here.
FRES is already a debacle, but it isn't like FCS. The weight limit  is much higher and the role is lighter. All we need is for the UK MoD to get off its arse and order something.
FRES is a debacle for the same reason FCS is; too much is being asked of a common platform family without the necessary technology actually being in place to guarantee that a common platform can do it.
Delete the 105mm? Why? Artillery isn't necessarily about destructive fires (in fact, these rarely work - something we seem to have to keep re-learning) 105s have a smaller logistics footprint, in terms of prime movers, ammunition and required crew. The 105 is a really good gun, the shells can be handled by one man to get a good RoF, What's not to like? To consider the FH70 (Looooong out of service) but dismiss the L118 is foolish, IMHO.
I don't like mixed logistics. Common artillery shells and common barrels; 80% of your fire missions are 155 rated. If you want lighter throw weight and less SMASH, use a mortar. 
While on the subject of Artillery - lets have more lightweight MLRS (or even some). Heli-portable systems would seem to be something you want. M270 is nice, but it's freaking huge.
Buy or build HIMARS.
Mortars - 120mm is nice in turreted vehicles, where you can use it in a DF role, otherwise there's that distinction between suppressive and destructive fires. 
120s are for indirect SMASH on the move with your armored forces. I believe in SMASH.
You definitely want a light mortar. Rockets have a big launch signature, can't do indirect trajectories, can't fire smoke or illum rounds and tend to be heavier for the same range (show me a rocket launcher - not a guided missile - that is effective out to 800m)
That is why you have the 81s. The 51s don't fit right in my view in that a rocket launcher is more useful in MOUT. Some US rocket launchers under development will be useful to maximum MG range  Besides if you are mortaring in that short, then you should be looking at a crew served auto-grenade launcher.
Comanche? No. Don't resurrect a foreign programme without a VERY good reason.
Comanche worked and was a better tank killer than Apache. Apache Longbow was the fallback; if Comanche went tango uniform.
Merlins: Yes, though not necessarily HC.3s Uprated
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4 5   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics