HMS Ocean deckspace

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Lawman RE:HMS Ocean deckspace 5/31/2005 7:03:55 PM

Sorry, did not spot your second reply. The link: link The page is a little basic, since the vessel is only a design, not built. I am not so sure that it would be stretching it too far to buy that many, on the simple basis that the ships are relatively cheap to build, due to the commercial shipbuilding standards used, as with Ocean. The idea was to build in flexibility overall, with enough ships to allow for many roles to be filled. The design is simple, and should be big enough to be capable, but not too expensive to build, especially if bought in large numbers. As the number bought goes up, the unit cost goes down, quite dramatically, hence my support for buying 24 Type 45s. If the UK were to buy the numbers of ships I mentioned, I suspect the shipbuilding industry would be very happy, but also, the Navy would finally have a genuine fleet to be proud of! Perhaps for the 210th anniversary of Trafalgar, we could actually send more than a rowing boat with a shotgun...

Quote Reply

ShinyTop RE:HMS Ocean deckspace 5/31/2005 9:41:28 PM

With regards to the size of the island on the Invincibles, it was largely due to the choice of powerplant. The jet engine turbines require a huge amount of trunking for both intake and exhaust, thus the size of the island.

Quote Reply

Lawman RE:HMS Ocean deckspace 6/1/2005 1:19:03 PM

I see the point, but it is not truly necessary to have the island as large as it is on the Invincible. I think the future could be quite bright for the Royal Navy, but not as long as we have a string of governments who resent the military. Over and over again, the UK has had governments that seem to grudge any military spending at all, and I am not even just talking of Labour governments. I would like to see the UK rebuild the force numbers to at least the levels of the '91 SDR's Options for Change. I do think there is mileage in the idea of peacekeeping missions being handled by a separate force, preferably under NATO, if only to avoid needing to use the army for the job. It would be cheaper than the expensive private security forces in Iraq!

Quote Reply

Iano RE:Future naval forces 6/1/2005 1:23:27 PM

Multiples of three would be best as you point out, but can we really expect 3 LPHs? 6 LPDs? 3 JCTS when we have managed with one (which was also aviation training support primarily) for so long (so flexible it was used as a commando carrier off Sierra Leone)? Dont get me wrong, it would be great to see those available. But I dont think we can really expect it. Not from the Treasury. Especially whilst the War on Terror is primarily an Army (and even within that service primarily an Infantry) task. And also, I feel sure we would not have enough sailors to man all those ships. That either means we put to sea with incomplete and not-fully-trained crews, or we cant put to sea. Or we lower the standards to get in, and to get through training. And to make the money stretch to cover the increased number of sailors, pay and conditions will have to be slashed. All of this would hurt our manpower quality - the RNs greatest asset. Perhaps it might be worked up to, but I think if you intend this sort of expansion, it must be done graduated, in stages, and consolidated, rather than one big leap and overreach ourselves. I think nuclear power is the way forward in capital ships. Its very odd that we employ nuclear reactors on vessels of 5000 tons, yet we do not plan to on vessels of 60 000 tons! Especially considering they would need much less logistical support in fuel and water - you would have more space (read endurance and new capabilities) in both the CVF and the RFAs then, in aviation fuel, air ordnance, food, other supplies, whatever! There is a Russian naval fighter, a Sukhoi perhaps, I was told about a while back, but I forget, that can dispense sonobuoys, trail a MAD, and drop torpedoes. I think we should investigate all possible additions to our capability, however unconventional. This particular one could have its uses, given the MPA procurement is being cut, and you cant always rely on them far from home anyway. I agree UAVs are definitely useful though. Short of a weapons-carrying one, consider a sensor picket UAV, with sonobuoys, MAD, IR systems and cameras, air and surface search radar, and the ability to update missile guidance mid-course for OTH engagements. It could keep an eye on targets, with its long long endurance, then the helo (or even fast jet) could be directed in for the actual attack. Storm Shadow, even Scalp Naval, will still be for land attack, even when mounted on JSF or on ships or submarines. The guidance would have to be re-jigged. I wonder why we pursue this route when Tomahawk Anti Ship Missile has already been developed, and would probably take much less time effort and money to improve?

Quote Reply

perfectgeneral RE:Future naval forces 6/1/2005 1:53:28 PM

I like the Schelde Enforcer 30000(tons). Three of those would do nicely. They really should come equipped with an LCAC(2?)though. This would increase the coastline that you can use. Light hovercraft minehunters/transports (instead of 4 LCAV) would be handy in this context (on davits). 6 Merlin + 14 Apache Three CVF 65000t is a must for me too. Conventional (electric) power to 32 knots cruising at 15 for up to 9000nm. CTOL deck with four lifts and four EM catapaults. Each one should hold 48 F-35c plus Hawkeye AEW and UAVs. If you can't move it abroad then the army is too big or the navy too small. Three Albion class (LCAC not LCU) 2-3 Merlin Six Bay class with Chinook or a new 'EH202' Two RFA (Enforcer 30000) air/repair/casualty ships Nine double hulled Fort class supply/oiler ships Three smaller double hulled supply/oilers 12 SSN(+G/B) (4 Astute SSN, 4 Astute SSGN, 4 Astute SSBN) 12 Daring DDG 24 OPV(helo) 18 Sandown MH This must assume a larger budget, well spent. I don't think any more than 2.75% is needed though.

Quote Reply

Lawman RE:Future naval forces 6/1/2005 3:38:15 PM

Hmm, I disagree about the EH-202 idea, the UK has a horrible experience with trying to design a new aircraft to compete with existing ones. I think either the CH-47 or CH-53X is the right way to go, adapted for shipboard use if the Chinook. I like the LCAC, the ability to carry troops in quickly from a safe distance is very useful. I think the idea of a smaller hovercraft acting as a minehunter is great, notably since it is the kind of project that the UK is quite good at. I would ideally want an AMCM (airborne mine countermeasures) version of the EH-101, as sold to the JMSDF, would be a very good choice, if a little expensive. I disagree about manning, I think a lot of the current problems with recruiting are less to do with an unwillingness to serve, and more to do with the perception of the armed forces as neglected. I think a re-invigorated armed forces would probably have an easier time recruiting the top-class people it needs. I agree, 2.75% would be sufficient, especially if the military were allowed more freedom to buy equipment. I would like to see the RAF, Army and Navy having their own procurement agency, rather than it being the MoD, i.e. helping prevent the political patronage that currently happens. It might also help if the UK bought more of its equipment actually in the UK, rather than constantly putting it to tender in Europe...

Quote Reply

Iano RE:Future naval forces 6/1/2005 5:03:04 PM

Manning is not neccessarily down to an unwillingness to serve, but the navy is competing with the civilian economy and other public sector jobs. And no-one really gets rich from the armed forces, so the theory goes that the best people will go where they can get rich. Even if you had your armed forces recruiting renaissance, you would be competing for people against the larger (and more committed to current-war-on-terror) airforce and army (and the civilian MoD services as well). Conversely, if I had a ship, and I knew your sole (or even main) motivation for taking the job was the money, then I wouldnt really want you on that ship. I think why people serve is all about quite a bit more than that!! The idea of the MoD DPA is that its joint, tri-service, so that you do not do things like buy your CH53s for your LHDs! Compatibility and less duplication of effort... Why not utility transport Merlins for compatibility with the rest of the Fleet Air Arm and Royal Airforce, and Chinooks for heavy-lift, keeps you compatible with the RAF, hell they can even be RAF assets. Thats how we have aircraft on our ships being flown not just by RN pilots, but RM, Army and RAF crews as well. Although I do agree with you, although I dont know extensively how the DPA is run, I imagine if it had more servicemembers & tacticians & technologists, and less bureaucrats & politicians it could hardly be a bad thing! Could you explain how the AMCM concept works? Is it locating mines by dipping sonar then dropping out a diver to defuse/explode it? Ian

Quote Reply

Lawman RE:Future naval forces 6/1/2005 5:54:41 PM

"Is it locating mines by dipping sonar then dropping out a diver to defuse/explode it?" I hope not for the poor divers sake! It actually tows a detector, and when a mine is detected, the helicopter tows a line, fitted with small explosive cutters. Once the mine's mooring line has been cut, it comes to the surface, and can simply be shot, nowadays using a Mk44 30mm cannon. I disagree with the idea of having Army equipment routinely carried by the Navy, I think the UK should have a larger Marine force. In terms of personnel, the number of crew required for the ships I listed is not that much greater than the existing ships, due to the increased automation. A destroyer now can be fully crewed with under 200 crew, where it used to take nearly 300, and a frigate only needs around 120 to be fully manned, including an aviation detachment. I would love to see the defence budget increase to 2.75% of GDP, especially given the benefit it would give to the economy, which of course, increases GDP, thus pushing up the budget... I think the important thing would be to reduce the demands of peacekeeping on the regular forces, making more forces available for combat, and training. It is one of the very very few areas of the EUs plans I agree with, although I think they should actually be NATO units.

Quote Reply

Iano RE:Future naval forces 6/2/2005 5:28:53 AM

How are we going to reduce peacekeeping commitments whilst retaining our place in world affairs? If you want to be a significant power, then responsibilities come with that. Also I should think that deployments to these situations are not a bad way of more gradually introducing people to the business of war, a bit of on-the-job training if you like. You were talking about creating another force specifically for peacekeeping? Where would all the manpower, and the expertise of the armed forces established, come from? It would be like wiping the slate clean and having to start from scratch, and I think there would be many painful lessons to be unnecessarily re-learnt. And if you would rather conduct peacekeeping under a NATO flag, get ready for all sorts of accusations. Remember NATO isnt multilateral like the UN, NATO is actually a warlike organisation crafted ready for a fight. It would be great to have the support of our NATO co-members in peacekeeping deployments, but they should do this under the banner of the UN since they are also members of this organisation, and there is more justification and less connotations. I dont really think the RMs should be expanded, I think the requirement of one Marine brigade is a good one, a "kick-in-the-door" force to enable the army to get ashore, as well as providing Britains amphibious, commando, and rapid-reaction forces, and other maritime capabilities (FPG, SBS, Assault sqns etc). Looking at 40, 42 and 45 Commandos as de-facto Marine Infantry Regiments, and 29 Commando as a de-facto Marine Artillery Regiment, I think the best changes would be to re-organise and expand the armoured support currently provided by a squadron of the Household Cav into a full-strength Marine Cavalry Regiment run by RMs. Also to expand 59 Ind Cdo Sqn RE into a full Marine Combat-Engineer Regiment. The Commando Logistic Regiment should be re-organised into the Commando Support Regiment to provide engineering (the non-combat-engineer unit support), medical, signals, logistic, and administrative & specialist support. This would all be just a re-jigging of the RM/Cdo structure, if I was going to expand the RMs actual fighting strength, I would look into establishing another commando unit such as 40, 42, 45, for use as an additional pool of well trained men for commando, amphibious, rapid reaction and other requirements - not neccessarily to deploy with the brigade, although they would do that if needed, or supply replacements or whole units to rotate with RM units in the line. Although I suppose this is what we already really have with the FPG RM. I do NOT want to see the RM becoming a second army like the USMC, that would just be an utter confusion of roles, and would make for some pretty nasty and pigheaded interservice politics. As they are, they complement each other - they shouldnt be competing with each other. Overall, tri-service jointness is a good thing.

Quote Reply

Lawman RE:Future naval forces 6/2/2005 9:38:23 AM

I was thinking more in terms of having the peacekeeping forces being separate only in terms of within the Army. I was not advocating a second Army, dedicated to peacekeeping, but merely having a number of soldiers assigned it as their primary role. The main idea is to get the peacekeeping duties paid for by something more like the International Development department, (the one formerly headed by the dog-faced Clare Short). It is really just a way of increasing defence spending, without making it unpalatable... I agree in principle with your position on the Royal Marines, I simply would like to see the Marines becoming more robust. I would agree to having the Commando battalions becoming the lead unit in a Brigade, supplemented by two Army battalions (becoming Royal Marine ones though). The idea is simple: nowadays, more and more operations are overseas, and I think that they should be led by either Airborne or Marine units, depending on the geography. I am not seeking to dilute the Marines, just add a little extra punch!

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT