The Royal Navy's New Mission...

[abc123]

Originally Posted by corditeman

...Far too slow! The drug runners use aircraft, semi-submersibles and high-speed launches. The River class has been too slow to catch illegal trawlers. Better off with a fast patrol boat - maybe buy some of the Greek hydrofoils or convert something like the HSC 'Manannan'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSC_Manannan which for part of its life was the USS Joint Venture.

That's the reason why BAM class is better, BAM carries a helicopter, and there's no HS launch that is quicker than helicopter.

[abc123]

To fully explain what I meant with my proposal, I will now say wich aircrafts should have enlarged FAA ( maybe renamed for Naval Air Force ):

Sea Typhoon ( obviously no land based Typoon for Britain ITTL )

E-2 Hawkeye ( for carrier AEW ) ( I'm not sure does UK ITTL needs land based AEW aircrafts like Sentry )

Sentinel R1 ( land based, obviously, but since his main mission is to send datas to FAA Sea Typhoons, I put him in FAA )

Merlin ( for SAR/CSAR in aircraft carriers, and maybe also for SAR in UK- if not offsourced to private contractor )

C-2 Greyhound ( for COD )

Merlins for ASW ( I would love to have all-Merlin ASW fleet on destroyers and frigates )

For OPVs I would use AW.109 or 149

For air landing of Royal Marines I would use Merlins and AW.149.

All training aircrafts would be in FAA ( Tutor, Tucano, Sea Hawk/Goosehawk ) and FAA would conduct fixed-wing training for both Services


OTOH in Army Air Corps I would put:

All current Merlins, Lynx, Chinook, Pumas that serve for tactical transport of Army units

All UAVs, from Hermes to Reaper

All transport aircrafts like C-130, Globemaster, KC-330, because their main duty is to transport land forces

And finaly, all training helicopters ( so FAA would conduct helicopter training for both Services ).

[corditeman]

...Compass Rose, Love in a Mist - Read up on 'The Cruel Sea' by Monsarrat.

Imagine being on 'HMS Poppy', 'HMS Sweet Pea' or 'HMS Lady's Slipper'. Being aboard 'HMS Daffodil' or 'HMS Rose' would be bad enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...lass_corvettes for the reality. 'HMS Primrose' and 'HMS Wallflower' must have been a trial for the crews on shore leave.

I suggest you think of the light frigates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_class_frigate could do with being revived with gas-turbine or fast diesel engines.

Two carrier task forces and submarine deterrent force with an expanded RNAS plus a rump RAF is OK, so is a three-tier Army of an armoured brigade, a Royal Marine RDF and an expanded and better-armed Home Service Territorial Army Reserve. If the French are daft enough to agree to an improved Army and their Navy reduced to compensate, that's up to them.

And I do like abc123's Post # 82... Take one nomination for a CMII. Four to go.

[Peg Leg Pom]

On the other hand HMS Snap Dragon doesn't sound too bad, or better yet HMS Deadly Night Shade. For a Dutch version HNLMS Hemp.

[Russell]

Originally Posted by abc123

OTOH in Army Air Corps I would put:

All current Merlins, Lynx, Chinook, Pumas that serve for tactical transport of Army units

All UAVs, from Hermes to Reaper

All transport aircrafts like C-130, Globemaster, KC-330, because their main duty is to transport land forces

And finaly, all training helicopters ( so FAA would conduct helicopter training for both Services ).

If you're going to disband the RAF, why not just merge the non-combat elements into something life the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, or even better just merge it into a single combined RFA command responsible for support of both the navy and army globally? Make it semi-civilianized and help keep the costs down, as well as make it easier to task the forces to non-combat roles?

Russell

[Peg Leg Pom]

The Royal Armed Forces Auxillary Service. Thats not a bad Idea though you'd still need some military transport and tanker aircraft units for use in theater.

[abc123]

Originally Posted by Russell

If you're going to disband the RAF, why not just merge the non-combat elements into something life the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, or even better just merge it into a single combined RFA command responsible for support of both the navy and army globally? Make it semi-civilianized and help keep the costs down, as well as make it easier to task the forces to non-combat roles?

Russell

Well, it make's sence, but on the other hand, can we expect from civilians to go into combat situations with say C-130?

Something like this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...tation_Command

[Russell]

Originally Posted by Peg Leg Pom

The Royal Armed Forces Auxillary Service. Thats not a bad Idea though you'd still need some military transport and tanker aircraft units for use in theater.

Well, it make's sence, but on the other hand, can we expect from civilians to go into combat situations with say C-130?

Something like this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...tation_Command

Both valid points. Such a division would have to be between strategic (i.e. long range transport, tankers) used for pre-positioning and support, and tactical, in theatre flights (short ranged combat aircraft). However, sometimes the line between the two gets blurred.

Russell

[Peg Leg Pom]

The initial and intermediate flight training units should be merged into a single organisation as well, with the flight trainees then being sent on to operational training units.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Peg Leg Pom

For the sake of the discussion I'm going to issue a very general spec for the future patrol ship. I use the term Corvette as I see it as a successor to the WWII Flower and Castle Classes.

Requirements for Future Corvette.

1000 to 2000 tonnes.
Speed of 20 - 25 knots
Crew 60 - 80
Endurance 21 days
Hellipad and hanger for Lynx
Automatic 76mm Gun
CIWS X 2
2 High Speed Launches with Minigun
Disaster relief stores

Looking at the characteristics,

Displacement: 1,227 tonnes (full load)
Speed: 20 knots (37 km/h) (diesel engines) / 33 knots (61 km/h) (gas turbine)
Complement: 64 officers and crewmen / 10 aircrew
Aviation facilities: Helipad and helicopter hangar
Armament: 8 RGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles / 64 Barak 1 surface-to-air missiles / Phalanx CIWS / 6 Mark 32 torpedo tubes (Mark 46 torpedoes)

basically what you've specified is a Sa'ar 5 with an extra CIWS gun, swapping out the Harpoon and Barak missiles for a 76mm gun, dropping the torpedo tubes, and adding the ability to launch and recover a couple of lauches. Not knowing what their sea keeping characteristics are like though another alternative is the US Coast Guard's National Security Cutters all though they're a bit physically larger than you asked for and would need to add the CIWS and enlarge the 57mm gun but that shouldn't be too problematic. Their ability to carry both the Short Range Prosecutor and Long Range Interceptor RHIBs are a bonus. There was even talk of a modified military version being offered to US Navy IIRC which might help if they were built to military standards rather than civilian.

[abc123]

Originally Posted by Peg Leg Pom

The initial and intermediate flight training units should be merged into a single organisation as well, with the flight trainees then being sent on to operational training units.

I agree.

[abc123]

Originally Posted by Russell

Both valid points. Such a division would have to be between strategic (i.e. long range transport, tankers) used for pre-positioning and support, and tactical, in theatre flights (short ranged combat aircraft). However, sometimes the line between the two gets blurred.

Russell

I know. That's why it would maybe be good to use military personell for flying those aircrafts and civilian personell for maintaining them. After all, how often do aircraft technicians see combat?

[Russell]

Originally Posted by abc123

I know. That's why it would maybe be good to use military personell for flying those aircrafts and civilian personell for maintaining them. After all, how often do aircraft technicians see combat?

Depends where you are, but in recent wars RAF airfields have often come under attack from mortars and even suicide bombers. and even now civy technicians are frequently involved in their maintainence back in the UK.

Russell

[abc123]

Originally Posted by Russell

Depends where you are, but in recent wars RAF airfields have often come under attack from mortars and even suicide bombers. and even now civy technicians are frequently involved in their maintainence back in the UK.

Russell

Well, there's no perfect safety, such terrorist attacks doesn't really count as war danger, because large number of civillian personell are anyway in that region ( diplomatic personell, relief workers etc. ).

[Simon]

Originally Posted by abc123

I know. That's why it would maybe be good to use military personell for flying those aircrafts and civilian personell for maintaining them. After all, how often do aircraft technicians see combat?

That's generally what the RAF Regiment, aka. the Short Range Desert Group, is meant to be for.

[abc123]

Originally Posted by Simon

That's generally what the RAF Regiment, aka. the Short Range Desert Group, is meant to be for.

I know that, but sincerely, when was the last time that somebody attacked some British airfield?

[Peg Leg Pom]

Originally Posted by abc123

I know that, but sincerely, when was the last time that somebody attacked some British airfield?

If you take away the Rock Apes then the Air Fields become even more vulnerable than they already are. I don't just mean in places like Afganistan either. Don't forget that Britain endured 30 years of terrorist attacks by Irish Repuplicans. If the airfields hadn't been properly guarded they would have been hit. The thought of the P.I.R.A getting into one of Strike Commands bomb dumps doesn't bare thinking about. The RAF Regiment is one of those units who's successes can't be measured as there is no way to know if their presance detered attacks or not.

[abc123]

Originally Posted by Peg Leg Pom

If you take away the Rock Apes then the Air Fields become even more vulnerable than they already are. I don't just mean in places like Afganistan either. Don't forget that Britain endured 30 years of terrorist attacks by Irish Repuplicans. If the airfields hadn't been properly guarded they would have been hit. The thought of the P.I.R.A getting into one of Strike Commands bomb dumps doesn't bare thinking about. The RAF Regiment is one of those units who's successes can't be measured as there is no way to know if their presance detered attacks or not.

Why Rock Apes?

I never said anything against RAF Regiment, I do realise their importance, and their existence was never in question, in this or some other form..

[Russell]

Originally Posted by abc123

Why Rock Apes?

In the 1950's two RAf Regiment officers went hunting for Rock Apes (a species of ape native to Arabia) offbase in Aden. In the gloom, one officer accidentaly shot his friend (although he survived). When questioned as to why he shot him, the officers claimed it was because "he looked like a Rock Ape." And loe, the legend was born.

Russell

[Peace_Monger]

Originally Posted by Russell

In the 1950's two RAf Regiment officers went hunting for Rock Apes (a species of ape native to Arabia) offbase in Aden. In the gloom, one officer accidentaly shot his friend (although he survived). When questioned as to why he shot him, the officers claimed it was because "he looked like a Rock Ape." And loe, the legend was born.

Russell

LMAO AHAHAHAHA DAMN RAF always blue on blue themselves no badgers there XD LMAO