What the 2020 future royal navy should be.

The current future royal navy 2020.

Future of the Royal Navy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Future_of_the_Royal_Navy
I would increase spending on the military to 2.7% of GDP, from 2.2% of GDP. Which would put military spending up by £11 billion, which I would spend 100% on the navy.

I would have 4 aircraft carriers, 2 QE class carriers, 2 more 35,000-40,000 ton carriers, which would carrier up to 28 aircraft. Giving the UK navy the ability to projection up to 100 jets and 36 helicopters and other aircraft of the carriers.

4 landing ships, 2 Albion class landing docks and 2 Ocean class Assault ship/Helicopter carriers. I would build another 1.

12 type 45 destoryers, 6 air defence, 3 anti submarine warfare and 3 multirole. I would also keep on HMS York and HSM Edinburgh both batch 3 type 42 destoryers.

20 Frigates, 5 type 23's and 15 15 type 26's which I would speed up the building of by 3 years. The other 8 Type 23's would go out of service as the first 8 type 26's are built.

15 Stealth corvettes, 1,000 tons multirole stealth corvettes, with S.A.M missiles, torpedo's, mine, depth charges, anti-ahip missiles and a heavy gun than can go inside the ship when not in use, plus a helicopter pad, without a hanger. So the perfect mid range ship armed to the teeth.

8 River off shore patrol ships, 5 with with bigger guns like HMS Clyde.

10 Astute class submarines.

10 new minesweepers, as the old onces go out of service, and have 15 in total.

18 fast inshore patrol boats, 14 new onces as the older onces go out of service.

6 servey vessels, 3 now onces built.

3 Ice breakers, 2 that are in service and 1 most built in the UK.

14 new supply ship, tankers

I would also keep HMS victory and HMS Bristol.

What do you think the 2020 future royal navy should look like?

 

I would cut to 3 carriers.

5 SSBNs

8 SSNs

12 SSks

No corvettes.

8 destroyers

10 frigates

aside from the above I would pretty much agree with you.

 

Are you basing these numbers of any kind of assessment of need or are they just plucked from the sky? Where do you think the extra 0.5% of GDP funding would come from? Have you confirmed that money would cover all of the extra resources you're looking to see (both build costs and ongoing)?

 

The money is there....it would just be a case of reallocating funds from other goverment depts....i mean 0.5% of total GDP, not that hard to get.
The problem is political, taking money from health and education, even if minute is seemed as political suicide these days.

Shame.........anyway, based on the current class builds and known future ones it would be more ideal if the RN in 2020 could have.......

3 QE class carriers (with armour plating and self defence systems)......hence allowing one to always be at sea.

12 Type 45 Destroyers (which was originally intended), and fully armed from the outset with Harpoons, Tomahawks and CIWS.

10 'Astute' Nuclear Attack Hunter Killer Subs.

13 Type 23 Frigates (kept and fully updated)..........NOTE: to be replaced by lets say 16 Type 26 Combat ships between 2020-2030.

and increased numbers in the Amphibious, Minehunter and Patrol forces.

If anyone has read the 'UKIP' defence policy, if ever they came into power would boost the Navy substancially.

 

If anyone here has been to the 'savetheroyalnavy' website, they will see that its more than likely that the RN will consist only of 1 Rowing boat, named' HMS Indefensible'...in a couple of decades time!

LINK:-

http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/wordpress/a-vision-of-the-future

 

I logged out of my account, and it wouldn't let me log back in, so I am mynoon, just have a different name.

I would have 2 QE carrier, and 2 35,000-40,000 tons carrier, for medium range operations like Libya, plus a tours would be 6 months, for each. Then the smaller carriers would be exported.

Would you keep 3 type 42's or are they now out of date. I would bring the building of 26's forward and then cut the 23's.

I think the UK has more than enough minesweepers and small patrol boats, and not enough large patrol boats and I would also have corvettes for stealth mission and their added firepower.

 

The OP said where he would get the money from cutting foreign aid.

I don't rate the QE class carriers, they are 30,000 tons more than the French carrier, yet can fly about the same number of plans, and even then only one carrier is being fitted with catapults. This has pushed the cost above £7 billion. Plus crews and unkeep in the carriers will cost over 10 billion, not including planes and fitting the other ship with catapults, this whole building program has been a huge cockup, by this and the last government. So I can see why the OP would just start again with new carriers, on a smaller level, saving money, but still being able to fly about the same number of aircraft. And for each ship to do a 6 month tour the OP is right to say build two, and they would cost at most 3 billion each.

I disagree with the OP when he says build another HMS Ocean, as it's not that simple, things have changed since Ocean was built. However I do agree with building or buying a new helicopter carrier.

I think we all agree 6 destroyers isn't enough and they need to by able to do more than 1 role, so I agree we need 12 and some made for different missions. I am not sure about keep on any type 42's as those ships are out of date, but for numbers and use in east Africa and the Caribbean, I think they will be good enough, giving the RN 15 destoryers by 2020, I would be very happy with that.

I don't think the UK need 10 Astute class subs, at most 9, and that is if the costs come down, but I think 7 is enough. That government delays are not helping costs or the outputt of the world leading submarines, plus we will still have 4 nuclear submarines, so that's 11 in total, but it all depends on cost.

The type 23 is a very good frigate, I myself don't see why we need to spend billion on building a new class of frigate. But the government for some reason is pushing it, we need at least 10 frgates at all times, the current plan means at 3 different point we could have a few as 7, so we need to bring forward the building of the type 26's by 3 years to 2018, then start cutting the type 23's after that, meaning the UK always has 10 and ends up with 18, 15 type 26's and 3 type 23's. by 2025 and the ending of the type 26 building program.

The UK has enough minesweepers and fast patrol boats, just many of them will be 40 years old by 2020, so we will need to build more, but I see not need to have more ships for those jobs, unless we start empire building again, we can but hope. I must agree with the OP on building stealth corvettes, they will mean the UK can do missions very very few nations could do, and be able to back up the large patrol boats and Frigates, giving all round firepower for any mission. I also think the UK needs 2 more large patrol boats, but not 5 as we could be building corvettes better for the job, and I would also build 12-15 corvettes.

All the other ship I agree with.

 

Basically the RN needs more surface ships, as the ones we've got are sailing all round the world trying to do too much, as asked of them.

It was tragic that we had to lose the 4 Type 22 (Batch 3) Frigates, as they were excellent ships, well armed and still in top shape.
I was aboard one of these ships at Navy days 2010, it was very impressive, and with a very comprehensive weapons fit.

I never understood why 'Labour' sold 3 relatively new Type 23 Frigates to Chile......what a waste. If anything, they should of carried out building more of these ships between 2000-2010, to keep sufficient numbers of surface combatants in the fleet, and as they had been built previously in largish numbers they were relativley cheap, i think somewhere around £100 mil+.

The reasons why the carriers are so expensive, apart from the changes to catapults etc, is because the build of these carriers has been slowed down, as there is not enough money in any particular year from the defence budget to pay for the costs.........needless to say, it saves a bit of money in the short term, but overall makes the carrier programme very expensive, and there had already been things cut out of the carrier build to save money a few years ago, such as the omission of the proposed armour plating to the ships hull in places, and also no provision for a SAM system.

I cant get my head round why recent goverments decomission perfectly good ships, with years life left in them, and then sell them for a pittance...........only to then spend a fortune designing a new class of ship, but building the new class in less numbers than the previous class.

If this trend continues, then in a few decades time the RN will consist of probably just a couple of highly advanced warships at a staggering cost!

The Type 26 Frigate needs to be a decent size class.

Yes, i would like to see the Type 42 Destroyers kept on as long as possible, their systems are still pretty effective.

I'am sick of some of these politicians who say we dont need so many ships..................what we dont need are these flippin useless politicians, who are making our country weak, because they think they will lose their jobs if they spend more on defence, which is misguidedly regarded as voter unfriendly!

 

By the way I am Mynoon, the OP of this thread, I logged out for the first time and couldn't log back in, so I then tryed to make a new account Harlech man and the same thing happened again, so this account seems to be working.

I must say I 100% agree. The skimping on the navy, weakens the UK, at it's core, which has always been the navy. Most of the world population doesn't understand, what the RN means, what it has done and can do, and the politicians are the worsted, they take about how great the UK is, how wonderful the NHS is, yet it's crap where I live, and it losing so much money they are having to privaties huge parts of it, I mean the NHS is so bad they have a £4 billion pot of money from people who sue the NHS for being crap. Then you have useless people like Cameron, I mean guess what 1 budget it going up in this Parliament, FOREIGN AID, it's going up by 2 billion, it's a disgrace. And they wonder why we have no money, I mean I would run the country better than them. I may get a lot of stick from Americans for seeing things from a UK point of view, but I don't care because I am right.

The reason why foreign aid is so high it because of the British empire, not for economic reason. People say we must give those countries money, my question is why? Do people not understand they the UK has given more money than the UK in the last 200 years, then we just keep giving and giving until there is nothing left. I am a Conservative and so I my dad, he is a live long vote, I am only 18 and haven't voted yet, but I am really thinking of setting up my own party.

Long Live The British Empire.

 

Grerat Britian can never match the industrial output of the superpowers but their history of being clever and resourceful is legandary. My advice would be to scrap all but one carrier group and go with submarines (attack and boomer) and stealth cruisers with drones with an advanced missle defense system. Whatever troop delivery and insertion boats needed for surgical strikes and coastal protection. Keep it small but highly trained and viscious.

 

So you want the UK military, to be marines, with other elite forces.

No other navy in the world, apart from the US and Russia, use crusiers, and the RN needs numbers not a few very good ship. We need lots of very good ships, that would could afford if we wanted to.

 

Surface ships are a thing of the past, missle technology will render thm useless. Only large amounts of ships can maintain a carrier fleet, otherwise, they are just battleships. Britian also cannot afford to develope 5th generation Fighters in the manner of the superpowers. So how can she project her power? She will never be able to fight more than one conflict so only a single carrier group is needed, drones will replace all fighters eventually, might as well start early, stealth ships and subs will be the only things safe in the water, everything else will be sitting ducks. I would suggest a similar path for America.

 

The UK is getting the F35 for it's carrier, so it can have more than 1, plus the Eurofighter is the best conventional jet in the world.

 

Some might argue the F-22. I agree the F-35 is a game changer, but drones are already flying off the deck of US carriers, it's just a matter of time before they replace most uses for manned aircraft at a much lower cost. Maintaining a carrier group for projection in peacetime or a smaller conflict againsed a third world nation is a good option. There is no way Britian could afford to adequitely protect more than one group in a major conflict. Submarines and stealth ships could make the price of attacking Britian too costly and result in the outcome desired.

 

I don't know whether to cry or to laugh. The posts on this thread seem like disembodied voices from Britain's glorious past. You guys know as well as I do that you are never going to have the funding for any thing beyond a few SSNs and SSBNs.

As a direct result Britain will have no expeditionary capability. Britain will only have a second strike nuclear capability. I take no pleasure in speaking the truth.

 

The UK will have atleast 11 nuclear submarines, in 2020, 4 missile and 7 attack.

The things is you Americans don't understand the UK budget and how much waste there is, 11.9 billion a year in foreign aid and 43 billion in taxes hiden from the government, that addes up to 54 billion a year, more the UK could spend on the military, I only think the UK would need 11 billion to have a navy as big and as good as the one I want. And please understand that 11 billion over 8 years is 88 billion, plus the carrier, submarines and destroyers are already in the budget, so there is enough money.

The UK will never reach the hights of WW1 and would agree with that. But would must always have the best navy in Europe, that includes Russia and Turkey, the army isn't as important.

Plus you Americans like to underrate the UK military, saying we are small and not good enough in Iraq and Afghanistan, but when push comes to shove we are the first onces you call. Not the French.

 

Do you know how much the F22 would cost, like £500 million each.

Drones will be able to fly from the large UK carriers aswell, and I agree they are becoming more important, but they can't carry the pay load of a Jet, or pick change there target. Drones cost more than almost every jet, but the F22, they are not cost effective at the moment. I say again look at the UK budget and the money we just give away.

 

TARP? GM? Any number of entitlement handout programs for illegal aliens? Four hundred dollar hammers bought by the Pentagon? Believe me, left or right side of the fence, we all know quite a bit about government waste and taxes over here.

The UK is not the empire she once was. The resources just are not there. To look for her to regain the heights of naval power she once had you would have long for a return of that colonial empire. That's not going to set well with many of the former colonies, least of all us.

I don't know who you've been following on line or what you've read, so I'll assume you say this from ignorance. I, personally, have worked directly with RAF personnel in both current AORs, Serbia and in Bosnia. I do not 'underrate' them, nor would I advise anyone else to do the same.

And, frankly, Europe in general abandoned their world impacting militaries with the end of World War Two. I think the entire world was does with empires and colonies after than. True, the UK was a powerhouse at the end of the war, but she was drawing heavily on an already fractured empire. With the collapse of the empire, so fell the resource base to maintain the military and the need to maintain it in the first place.

I agree the Royal Navy could use a couple of updated CBGs and an amphib group or two--the Falklands taught you this, and few could argue against the need. The navy you propose, though, is not only horrendously expensive, it's also unnecessary. Two CBGs allows for one to be in refurb / replenishment while the other is deployed, the amphib groups give you the option to retake the Falklands should the Argentinians start feeling froggy again. But four full-up American-style CBGs? Why would you need that kind of power projection? What threat are you staring down that you need that much more military power available?

 

This navy will be for attack and taking other nations, not defence, for making other nations around the world fear the UK.

The carriers the UK is building now are rubbish and have been skimpped on, I would be 2 more from scratchto save money on building a 3rd large carrier, And the UK really needs 3 carriers 2 for fighting 1 for replenishment, I would build 4. and use the other ship to defence the territories the UK takes.

Who care if you are hated, if your feared.

 

Ah the wisdom of 18 years old and having never voted.

 

You're giving him / her / it more credit that he / she / it deserves.

 

Not really- just remembering myself at 18 and how sure I was that I knew all the answers- sort of like that old axiom about "my parents were really stupid when I was a teenager, and then as I got older they got smarter".

 

I am not looking for credit, and I am sure the other person was being sracatic.

What's wrong with saying I would rather build another destroyers than give that money to India, so they can build destroyers.

Another thing wisdom doesn't come with age and I do listen to my Dad, mainly because he's right.

 

No insult intended to my friends that serve with the Royal Navy and Marines. I just find it hard to take this seriously.

 

Yes, you are.

And you can't use your account because you have been banned for some reason.