Increase in RN size ?

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
ashley	Increase in RN size ?	Lead	[-]
Posts: 73 (18-Mar-2008 15:09:07) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Since I left the RN in 1981, I've seen the overall size of the fleet diminish with each successive government ( apart from the Amphibs). Can anyone foresee any situation that would make the government of the day increase the size of the fleet ( particularly the escorts)? Having given it some thought the only way I can see is if someone gives the RN a good kicking and we lose ( I know that's not very unlikely), but short of France invading the Isle of Wight, Spain invading Gib, or Guatemala invading Belize, or Lusty sinking after hitting a mine or something, I can't see any reason why the RN would increase in size, (unless there is a visible real maritime threat to these islands or one of our overseas territories). I get the feeling that any government would just say "OK, we give up.. You can keep the isle of wight ( or whatever) and we'll just keep to fishery protection . its to expensive or to difficult to do otherwise...." I saw the movie clip recently about our brave boys & girls in their inflatables going back to inspecting merchantman off Iran - because we don't feel the need to equip them properly for the task - they were escorted by USN fast patrol craft ! Can anyone see a valid reason ( That a government would understand) to increase the size of the RN? I'm getting to be a pessimist! Ashley
Obi Wan Russell		#1	[-]
Posts: 146 (18-Mar-2008 16:16:37) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I'll vote for anyone who promises to stop the rot and return the RN to a viable size! Of course no politician would make such a promise and certainly wouldn't keep it if they did! The only thing that will help is the 'right' kind of war that embarasses the government and shames them into doing the right thing. If that means losing a war then so be it, no gain without pain (but sadly this will also mean lives lost, then again we are losing lives now...).
jock		#2	[-]
Posts: 940 (18-Mar-2008 18:10:29) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Obi as it isn't a vote winner we both know you wont have to cast your vote on the basis that a party makes promises re- force sizes. Out of interest what would your "viable size" be for the RN in 2008?
Obi Wan Russell		#3	[-]
Posts: 147 (18-Mar-2008 19:56:26) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The short answer to how big the RN would have to be in order to be 'viable' is bigger than it is now! My own shopping list includes 3 carriers (minimum), 8 DDGS (minimum) but would prefer 12, 16-20 Frigates, 2 LPH, 2LPD, 4 LSD, 10-12 SSN and an all dark blue FAA with minimum 5 F-35 sqns (4 frontline and one HQ), sufficient for two peacetime air groups, MASC, ASW helos... Of course what we will end up with is a couple of rowing boats on the serpentine armed with one shotgun which they have to share between them (no ammo, too expensive of course). The RN has only ever had one serious enemy, and thats the Government of the day. Bring on the Revolution...
pymes75		#4	[-]
Posts: 1078 (19-Mar-2008 11:39:02) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I'm not sure if I can 'foresee' a situation, but I've been thinking about what circumstances would be required to reverse the downsizing of the RN... Firstly, we do not currently face an immedeate strategic threat as we did during the Cold War. Therefore, apart from maintaining a small strategic nuclear capability, there is no longer a single driving influence on defence policy & planning. The SDR sought to address this, and largely did a good job. However, with out the obvious strategic threat, no UK government (Tory or Labour) is going to increase defence spending to truly achieve the vision set out in 1998. Secondly, expeditionary/power projection (and therefore global influence) is completely dominated by the US, and we (including Europe and the other NATO countries) appear to be happy to allow the US to effectively set western policy. Of course, this is all sweet for everyone whilst ever the US effectively provides us with a strategic umbrella to shield us from any threats/opposition that may emerge. Now, for the UK government to decide to rebuild the Royal Navy and justify the cost to the voting public, it would seem to me that one or both of those factors needs to change dramatically.
Zen9		#5	[-]
Posts: 3390 (19-Mar-2008 14:17:12) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Hmmmm...... Well we could certainly see things get out of hand in several locations around the world, and it would put undue pressure on our ability to do anything. We could hit our limits for the budget provided and that would be a very public and humiliating event. Russia's return so to speak would not drive CVF forward as far as I can see it. But events elsewhere might well provide the impetus to expand the RN once more. Problem is I can see Brown and a vast coterie of forces would use us hitting the buffers as the excuse they need to retract the UK from being involved at all. I think we have yet to reach our nadir in terms of the RN.
dmilford		#6	[-]
Posts: 1962 (19-Mar-2008 14:22:50) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	It's increasingly unlikely that we will be able to pay for current plans, never mind some form of expansion to the RN. It would take a major, clear cut, European based, conventional (as opposed to terrorist) naval threat to stop the rot. Your Text Signature ...
pymes75		#7	[-]
Posts: 1079 (19-Mar-2008 14:38:48) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	It would take a major, clear cut, European based, conventional (as opposed to terrorist) naval threat to stop the rot. I'm not sure even this would reverse the reductions in anything other than the SSN fleet. As we know, submarines (in particular SSNs) are the tool of choice to achieve Sea Control. If Europe faced a conventional naval threat to it's SLOCs, then the RN would have to build up it's attack submarine force to protect them. This would almost certainly be at the expense of the CVFs and amphibs...
pymes75		#8	[-]
Posts: 1080 (19-Mar-2008 16:47:49) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Okay, now for what I'd like to happen.... Since the start of 2000, we've already seen the RN respond to four crisis in Africa (Sierra Leone, 2000), Middle East (Lebenon, 2006) and Indian Ocean (Afghanistan, 2001 & Tsunami, 2004). Many of these were fulfilled by naval groups which happened to be deployed on exercises and/or standing tasks already, and whilst they were able to provide assistance in each case, I believe the RN could have achieved more if they had the resources available. Therefore, I would like to see the UK adopt a greater forward presence around the world which would increase Britain's rapid reaction capability. Whilst many of current standing tasks could continue to be fulfilled by a suitably sized surface combatant fleet, I would like the RN to permanently deploy either a Carrier Task Group and/or an Amhibious Task Group somewhere between the Eastern Med and the Indian Ocean. Such groups would provide an initial rapid reaction capability, whilst the overall fleet required to enable such a continuous presence would also offer British forces the ability to scale our military response from a single Task Group right up to a theatre-wide capability (sea control, 24hr strike and division-level amphibious assault). Central to such a capability would be a naval fleet based around three cores: 1. Carrier Air Power - preferably based around 3x CVFs. It would then be a fundamental requirement for almost all future RAF aircraft (Fighters, ISTAR, UAVs & UCAVs) to be carrier capable to ensure they can be regularly deployed on the CVFs as the primary means of globally deploying UK air power. 2. 3x Amphibious Task Groups which would allow for an amphib operation to be scaled from a Battle Group (Cdo plus Artillery Bty, Engineer Troop, etc) upto a (2x Brigade) Division. I would like to see the RM amphib capability further enhanced by the addition of LCACs (yes, I know they're expensive but they would offer a step change in amphibious capablility for both humanitarian as well as combat ops) combined with the eventual replacement of the three current assault vessels (Ocean, Albion and Bulwark) with 3x LHDs (based on the Navantia BPE design & not the 40,000t Wasp-class!) to utilise the LCACs at the same time as further increasing the RN's air assault/VertRep capacity. 3. a JSBL capability which can act as a Sea Base for land operations from amphib/air assaults up to a full armoured brigade. Obviously, these would have to be supported by a suitable surface combatant and SSN force. But, I think the idea of combining Patrol & MCMV/Survey requirements in a C3 vessel could offer the RN the flexibility it needs to achieve this at a reasonably cost whilst retaining the full warfighting capability in a smaller number of high-cost vessels (12x Type 45s and 12x C1s). *
Zen9		#9	[-]
Posts: 3391 (20-Mar-2008 02:10:48) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Hmmmm...... Russia is rising. Kossov is becoming a problem...again. Aguements over undersea territory are rising. Potential flashpoint in South America currently. Quite what Brazil wants as it rises is another question? Iran...need I say more? Pakistan...another big issue. Ache may yet errupt again, Irian Jaya, who knows maybe the Dyaks will go on more than just a rampage in Kalimantan in Borneo, Indonesia is just one great mass of trouble. Burma may yet have more troubles, Arakan independance perhaps? Thialand has issues with the muslim south, but their handling it. Malaysia has just had elections, could be tricky there. Tibet may raise tensions between China, and India as well as with the west. Potential here for the UK to give aid and assurances to India. Bangladesh is just one constant source of woe from Hurricanes and burst rivers every year. Sudan may cause more trouble. Eritrea and Ethiopia may not merely go to war they may suck in Somalia, possibly the Yemen and Kenya too. Kenyas 'deal' may break down into civil war. Zimbabwe may have a civil war over the effort to move Mugabe. Expect knock on effects destablising the region further. NI is'nt over until everyone is dead from old age who's involved, and their childeren are very old and their childerens childeren are forgetting the whole damn thing. Shortages of food supply may cause further issues, SLOC may become a key issue to ensure access to supplies, you can't outsource feeding people.
stanger69		#10	[-]
Posts: 11 (20-Mar-2008 04:36:54) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	How about hoards of Chinese subs running amuck in the Atlantic?

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Increase in RN size ?

Increase in RN size ?

Quick Reply