• Sunday, May 31, 2020

Royal Navy in the 2020s

Discussion in 'Europe & Russia' started by UKBengali, Nov 19, 2018.

  1. UKBengali

    UKBengali ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    16,213
    Joined:
    May 29, 2011
    Ratings:
    +10 / 19,615 / -2
    Country:
    Bangladesh
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Looks like after the fiasco of the Falklands in 1982, UK governments have learned their lesson(well Tories did try to scrap the new carriers but could not because of cost lol) and planned to build a Navy based around 2 huge carriers.

    Already the first of these two monster ships, Queen Elizabeth, is in service and will be operational by 2021. It's sister ship, Prince of Wales is scheduled to be in service by 2020 and operational soon after.

    This really is a total game changer and will make the Royal Navy the 3rd most powerful Navy next decade with US 1st and then a large gap to China 2nd.


    Let us look at what these ships are:

    upload_2018-11-18_22-23-51.png


    Each ship will come in at 70,000 tonnes - around 1/3rd smaller than US carriers but 50% larger than the French Charles De Gaulle.

    In a war setting the ships could easily hold at least 50 aircraft with around 40 F-35Bs. 2 carriers would be able to take 80 F-35Bs.

    With their Type-45 destroyer, Type-23/26 frigate and Astute SSN escorts, a task force comprised of these carriers will be able to take on any medium-range power(say Brazil) half-way round the world and expect to win.

    Did the UK make the right decision or whether the money could have been better spent elsewhere?

    @waz
    @Vergennes
    @jhungary
     

    Attached Files:

    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  2. Blue Marlin

    Blue Marlin SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    6,741
    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2015
    Ratings:
    +6 / 6,819 / -0
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    you missed
    the dreadnought ssbn's
    type 31e frigates
    type 26 frigates
    boeing p8's asw's
    and the beast the astute subs
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  3. jhungary

    jhungary MILITARY PROFESSIONAL

    Messages:
    10,358
    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Ratings:
    +324 / 10,467 / -5
    Country:
    China
    Location:
    Australia
    While I have always say how much ship you need is based on the situation you are in. Which mean China or US can have a big fleet, but that is their business, a country should be focusing on your own need.

    But even considering that, Royal Navy is weak in strength.

    Consider this, with 2 Carrier Support Group, mostly both based in England, which a long sail to British Territories overseas, it would be about 20 days to a months just to sail to the South Atlantic and support Falklands, how about British Indian Oceans territories? It would make them months just to get there from England had any things happened.

    Traditionally, UK, with its deployment situation, would need 4 Carrier Group to secure their own interest overseas, 1 based in England (either Portsmouth, Devonport or Scotland ), one based in Gibraltar and one based in British Indian Ocean Territories (Diego Garcia), and 1 Reserve. That way, all the British interest within mainland and oversea could be well covered. Otherwise, with today pace of warfare, you may not be able to get in time to solve the problem if you have to sail all the way from England all the time. I mean UK have those base for a reason, why not use it?

    On the other hand, I know it is a lot easier to say then done. 4 Carrier group would cost a lot of money, and whether or not would anyone attack British interest today is another issue altogether, but still, if you are looking at the number and the big picture, Royal Navy would need 4 Carrier Group, which actually needed to defend the British Interest.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  4. T-123456

    T-123456 ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    11,366
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2012
    Ratings:
    +11 / 17,484 / -0
    Country:
    Turkey
    Location:
    Netherlands
    Why the need for four carrier groups if you have the Anglosphere,Five Eyes,UASCANNZUKUS,ABCANZ Armies etc?
    All corners covered.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  5. UKBengali

    UKBengali ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    16,213
    Joined:
    May 29, 2011
    Ratings:
    +10 / 19,615 / -2
    Country:
    Bangladesh
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Yes, 4 carriers would be ideal but the UK just does not have the money for it.

    It would require a substantial increase in defence spending and the UK public would see this as an attempt to go back to the days of the British Empire which would have little support.

    There are two reasons for these two large carriers:

    1. Make sure that countries like Argentina do not dare even think about taking British overseas territories like the Falklands ever- totally support this.

    2. Take part as a bigger partner with the US in military strikes in ME and other region- not sure on the wisdom on some of these actions as the UK could be seen as an aggressor and not acting in self-defence.

    Like it or not, most of the ships in the Royal Navy will now be acting as escorts for these two carriers and that will be a major change to the way it has been structured for a very long time.
     
  6. jhungary

    jhungary MILITARY PROFESSIONAL

    Messages:
    10,358
    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Ratings:
    +324 / 10,467 / -5
    Country:
    China
    Location:
    Australia
    I don't really understand your point....

    Anyway, UK weren't in any Military pact beside EU and NATO, UK is leaving EU so I supposed they would probably disengage from EU Battlegroup duty.

    Anyway, there are not much Global Reach with NATO, NATO did not help militarily when Argentina invaded Falklands, so for all those alliance and unless the UK can do something about it, all these alliance could and would just sit and watch as the whole thing exploded...
     
  7. jhungary

    jhungary MILITARY PROFESSIONAL

    Messages:
    10,358
    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Ratings:
    +324 / 10,467 / -5
    Country:
    China
    Location:
    Australia
    Well, that's the point, money is always the issue here.

    On the other hand, if UK cannot get money from these colony, traditional wisdom will suggest that they should cut these territories lose, while I do understand the reason behind these territories, but doing so with limited resource would mean UK will have to stretch their deployment very thin.

    Best way is to progressively increase military spending, or participate in more regional alliance. That will offset defence gap present with the current British Military.