10 150,000 ton nuclear powered CATOBAR aircraft carriers. Cost £20 billion for the first ship, £15 billion for the second, £12 billion for the third, £11 billion for the fourth, £10 for the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth. Total £118,000,000,000. 40 18,000 ton nuclear powered cruisers. They would use AEGIS and have 300 silos for anti-air missiles, 4 CIWS's, long range anti-ship missiles, anti-submarine missiles and land attack missiles, plus 16 Harpoon missile launchers and 8 torpedo tubes. The first ship would cost £4 billion, second £3.9, third £3.8, forth £3.7 billion, fifth £3.6, sixth £3.5, seventh £3.4 billion, eighth £3.3 billion, ninth £3.2 billion, tenth £3.1 billion, ships eleven through to forty would cost £3 billion. Total cost £125,500,000,000 80 13,000 ton nuclear powered destroyers. They would use AEGIS and have 200 silos for anti-air missiles, 8 CIWS's, long range anti-ship missiles, anti-submarines missiles and land attack missiles, plus 24 Harpoon launchers and 12 torpedo tubes. The first ship would cost £3 billion, second £2.9, third £2.8, forth £2.7 billion, fifth £2.6, sixth £2.5, seventh £2.4 billion, eighth £2.3 billion, ninth £2.2 billion, tenth £2.1 billion, ships eleven through to eighty would cost £2 billion. Total cost £165,500,000,000. 40 9,000 ton nuclear powered hunter-killer submarines. They would use the best submarine systems and have space for 20 TASM and TLAM missiles and 30 Spearfish torpedos. The first submarine would cost £4 billion, second £3.9, third £3.9, forth £3.8 billion, fifth £3.8, sixth £3.7, seventh £3.7 billion, eighth £3.6 billion, ninth £3.6 billion, tenth £3.5 billion, eleventh £3.5 billion, twelfth £3.4 billion, thirteenth £3.4 billion, fourteenth £3.3 billion, fifteenth £3.3 billion, sixteenth £3.2 billion, seventeenth £3.2 billion, eighteenth £3.1 billion, nineteen £3.1, ships twenty through to forty would cost £3 billion. Total cost £130,000,000,000 40 1,000 ton mine countermeasures ships. They would destroy mines. They would have plastic hulls, 40 under water vehicles and the best systems. Two ships would be carried on board the replenishment ship. Each ship would cost £400 million, total cost 16,000,000,000. 20 60,000 ton nuclear powered replenishment ships. Capable of carrying 2 1,000 ton mine countermeasures ships. Each ship would cost £2.5 billion total cost £50,000,000,000. 1,000 F/A 1 twine engine Needle tails. It would cost £50 billion for R&D for the program and £150 million per jet including armament and pilot training, total cost £200,000,000,000. 100 E/A 1 twine engine Owl. These jets would be the electronic warfare version of the Needle Tail. It would cost £5 billion for R&D for the program and £150 million per jet including armament and pilot training, total cost £20,000,000,000. 80 E-2 Hawkeye, cost including crew training £130 million per aircraft, total cost £10,400,000,000. 100 S-3 Viking, new build cost including crew training and armament £60 million per aircraft, total cost £6,000,000,000. 40 C-2 Greyhound, cost including crew training £45 million per aircraft, total cost £1,800,000,000. 100 CH-53K Super Stallion, cost including crew training £90 million per aircraft, total cost £9,000,000,000. 100 CH-46 Sea Knight, new build cost including crew training £55 million per aircraft, total cost £5,500,000,000. 200 AW101 Merlin, cost including crew training and armament £30 million per aircraft, total cost £6,000,000,000. 200 AW159 Wildcat, cost including crew training and armament £40 million per aircraft, total cost £8,000,000,000. So please pass your judgement and let me what mistakes I have made.
I think the first step should be establishing what your goal is- and then determine the forces necessary to achieve that goal. What is the goal of this navy?
My goal is to have the most powerful navy in the world and defend the interests of my allies the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
Why? Why do you want the most powerful navy in the world? I mean other than being like the guy who wants the biggest truck on the block- what is the purpose of this navy?
Power and prestige are the main reasons. I would use the fleet to defend UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand and their interests at sea. So if some needs an extra ship or needs a CBG for an operation I would help them.
The UK for the carriers, submarines, cruisers, destroyers and replenishment ships. They are all nuclear powered and the only country out of my 4 allies with the capability to build and refuel is the UK, the mine countermeasures vessels would be built in Canada. The aircraft would be built by which ever company build's them, but the Needle tails and Owls would be designed and built in the UK. I would either get the money from the oil rich countries or corporations, I would blackmail the oil rich countries and steal it from the corporations. That is the only way to get this much money without being the leader of 300 million people and have a GDP of $15 trillion.
So all I would need for my 'dream navy' would be to take yours and double it? I mean this is fine- but to me this is like having a fantasy football team but without having any teams that your team would be facing. Anyway- have fun with it.
Interesting Navy concept. And we have talked about similar things in the past. But there are some things you have not factored in that would be of huge importance. For one, bases. The UK does not have either enough bases for all of these ships, nor large enough bases. So a gigantic base building-expansion program would have to be undertaken. Better factor that into your budget. Plus the shipyards. Do you have anywhere near enough, or large enough dry docks for this expansion? Then the size of the Navy. I think you would have to implement a draft just to get enough sailors for all those ships. Why so many CVNs? Are you expecting to go to war with the US? I would suggest if you do want that many "carriers", stick with 4 or 5. Then for the rest use a blueprint something like the America class LHA. Capable of operating as a "baby carrier", an Amphibious Warfare ship, or a combination of the two. Because nowhere did I see any kind of Amphibious capabilities (amphibs, RoRo's, etc). And without the ability to drop Marines on the beach somewhere, this force is of little use other then taking out ships of other countries. And ironic as it sounds, this force could not even take back the Falklands since it provides zero capabilities of dropping strong men with weak brains on the beach to fire small guns at other men with small guns. And I think that building such a force and insisting on other nations of the Commonwealth to pay for it might actually cause some of them to seriously consider withdrawing from the Commonwealth. This would clearly be an offensive force, and many would suspect that it would really be used to force them to do things they may not want to do. Politically it would be quagmire, and would drive nations like New Zealand and Canada from rethinking seperating from the Crown altogether. Interesting concept, workable build, almost. But if you are going to then add amphibious capabilities to this Navy, better increase the numbers of all support ships (to include Destroyers and Cruisers) by a factor of .5.
Now if I was to suggest an expansion of the Royal Navy,it would both be smaller, and more flexible. After all, the concern should not be to have the largest and most Powerfull Navy in the world, but one which could meet any reasonable threat. And the largest Navy at this time is the US. Both a staunch Ally, but a nation that the UK has not had to fight in 200 years. So that leaves other potential enemies. Russia, China, and India. So the Navy only has to be more powerfull then those. But I would also look at being able to cover multiple fronts and threats at once. So I would build it around the following core. 2-3 Supercarriers. Along the lines of the Nimitz class. As for the aircraft, I admit I have no idea what an "F/A-1 Needle Tail" is, and could not find any reference to an aircraft with that designation. I would probably go with the F/A-18 since it is a well tested and proven aircraft, as well as the F-35C, since the UK is already involved in the production. Why re-invent the wheel twice? Then I would add in 2-3 "Baby Flattops", along the lines of the USS America class LHA. This is a flexible platform, that could operate as a carrier with 20 F-35Bs, or a Brigade of Royal Marines (henceforth simply called "Marines"), or a combination of the two (remembering that to carry Marines, you will have less aircraft to exchange for the helicopters or other transport aircraft). I would also throw in 1-3 LSD type transports, to carry the heavier equipment. For Cruisers, I would have 2-3 Missile Cruisers for each of the Carriers, and 1-2 for each of the LHAs. This would provide long-range missile strike capabilities, as well as long range air defense for each of the groups. Something along the lines of the Ticonderoga class. For Destroyers, another 3-5 for each group. Along the lines of the Arleigh Burke, powerfull short to medium range air defense, and protection against any small craft that slip past the Cruisers. I would then add 4-5 Frigates, primarily for screening and ASW. I would also remake a modernization for the LHA groups. If you notice, I gave them 1 less cruiser. I would replace it with an updated version of a ship along the lines of the HMS Vanguard. Yes, a nuclear powered Battleship/Super-Heavy Cruiser, with 8 15" guns, and modern air defense and cruise missile capability. If you have to drop your Marines on some hostile shore, their best friend is an all-weather gun platform that is not only unsinkable to modern missiles, but can literally fire in all weather, day or night. For each group, 2-3 attack submarines, both for forward scouting (make sure nobody with torpedoes is hiding in front), as well as rear guard (to make sure nobody is sneaking up your tail pipe). If you notice I am only concerned with fleets, any others would be up to the Admiralty's tactics. Minesweepers, no more then 1 or 2 per fleet. Mines are not a major consideration in modern warfare, their effectiveness has been questionable at best. The helicopters used for ASW would of course also be doing mine detection and removal duties, so why overcomplicate things? For the other aircraft, I would not try to work with such old airframes as the Greyhound, Hawkeye, and some of the others you listed. I would instead choose the Osprey. One of the main reasons is that this aircraft can not only support and supply the Carriers, but also the LHAs. And with only one main platform, service-maintenance and logistics would be greatly simplified. Why stock spare parts for 3 or 4 different aircraft (and technicians to support each), when one airframe could serve all 3 functions (and work with either the carrier or amphibious platform)? To me, this is more about flexability and ease of logistics. And I would definately have at least 1 on each of the ships in a mid-air refueling capability. The 46 is a nice platform, but I would probably cut that in half, and increase the CH-53s. These are not only great ASW platforms, but can also carry more Marines, as well as more of their equipment to land on a hostile shore (the future CH-53K is going to be a monster, able to drop large loads of equipment to Marines on a hostile shore, even up to a HMMWV carried internally). Why the Merlin and Wildcat in addition, I have no idea. The idea is to simplify your logistics, not complicate them by having multiple platforms doing the same task. You could replace the 46 with one of those, but I see no reason to have 2 or 3 medium-lift platforms essentially doing the same task. And you do not have a dedicated CAS helicopter platform. I would definately add in some AH-1Z Vipers. These could be part of the CAP while at sail, and also support the Marines when they have to land someplace nasty. ***** With this type of fleet configuration, a Navy could do many different roles. For standard patrols, the LHAs could operate as carriers close in to friendly territory, but also rapidly change to an Amphibious force simply by landing some of the aircraft and putting on some Marines. They could travel to a war zone with a carrier making a very frightening fleet, then seperate off when it is time to send them ashore. And a Super-heavy Cruiser or Light battleship would give both a serious pounding to shore facilities and superb artillery support to those Marines. In addition it would outgun anything else on the seas, so any PT type ships would not stand much of a chance if it tried to make a run at it. And with thick enough armour to defeat any missiles currently in use, it is pretty much unsinkable since no other nations have the guns or boms that would be needed to sink her. And if the mission is more interdiction, that LHA and large gun boat would make pretty much any group of Somali Pirates want to crawk back where they came from. And being all-weather, it could still do a lot of damage when the fighters can't take off due to weather or other conditions. And you still have several powerfull Carrier Task Forces, to do the patrols in the Atlantic and Pacific. Call it one in the Atlantic, one in the Pacific, and the third at Diego Garcia. LHAs similarly stationed, so they could take turns doing patrols, or combine to make a really impressive single fleet as it steams to where it would be needed. But still be capable of seperating into 2 very powerfull strike groups at the destination. Just one of those combined groups could probably put paid to most of the PLAN in one stroke. Or any of the Russian Fleets. And the combined Indian Fleet would probably just roll over and sue for peace. And I am not putting down the Indian Navy, I just think they would be smart enough not to fight this group and instead hold back and choose to fight another day. Unlike the other nations I mentioned, I think they would be much more logical about such a conflict and not let their egos get in the way.
My ideal Royal Navy is put forward in the threat I did about it was stupid, far to large. If I was the head of the RN in the early 2000's I would have built 3 45,000 ton CATOBAR carriers based on Charles De Gaulle but conventionally powered, so cheaper to run. I would have bought the 4 Mark 26's and given them a overhaul and refit to the Mark 41, if that that was possible, I would also order another 8 new build's. If that wasn't possible to change the Mark 26's I would just have to new build all 12. It wouldn't be classed as a cruiser in the RN, but a destroyer. Then I would have looked into improving the Type 23 with new system and armament keeping the same hull and saving billions over the planned Type 26, which I think is a waste of money when the UK could just built more Type 23's, I would build 21 new build Type 23's. I wouldn't have built the Astute class at all, I would have built 10 new build Trafalgar class submarines. I would increase the number of Tide class replenishment ships from 4 to 6, plus 2 Wave class. I would add a second Ocean class helicopter carrier. This is all the RN needs to do it's job.
I would build a naval base at South Georgia for the a replenishment point and another at the Pitcairn Islands. The UK can build anything it wants at Belfast, Clyde, Barrow and Portsmouth. The problem comes when refueling the carriers, their isn't I think atleast a dry dock large enough in the UK to hold the 150,000 ton carriers, which would be atleast 400 metres long. A couple new dry docks would need to be built, which I am sure the private sector and UK government would pay for, so it wouldn't add that much cost on my part. I also think the French have a dry dock large enough at Brest and the US also where they build their carriers? I think I would need 300,000 people for the navy. So I would need to build the main base near a population centre, so that would mean I couldn't just base it a Scapa Flow, Portsmouth is to small for the development needed, so I would need to pick a place and build it from scratch, along with a submarine base. The CVN's arw what my navy is base around so that's why I have 10, to rival the USN, to have the best navy in the world I need it to be better than the USN. Australia would most likely be against helping me, New Zealand would follow Australia and Canada would do what the US told it to do. So that leaves the UK and if that happened then the UK would have the most power battle fleet in history and Australia, Canada and New Zealand wouldn't. I like Australia, Canada and New Zealand I would want to help them with investment improving their military capabilities and alliance as a join force with each other and the UK, but if they don't want to then fine. Also all the submarines, Cruisers, Destroyer, Replenishment ships and Mine countermeasures ships, would be based on defending the carrier. They would be much less use in an amphibious assault, I would have to build new Battle Cruisers, Cruisers, Destroyers and so on for the amphibious assaults and Marines.
Any nation is a threat it's not so much about wars, but having independent capabilities. The UK may never go to war with the US, but we still can't fight a war on our own without your help. That's what threatens the UK, that the US could do another Suez. I want that threat to be there no longer, so I would build my jet in the UK. Of course the UK government could keep the F-35 for its carriers, but I would build my own jet. As for "Baby Flattops" I would build 12 60,000 LHA's, capable of operating up to 32 STOVL jets or transporting 2,500 marines. The UK's QE class carriers will be able to do a job as a helicopter carrier as well as a carrier, I think why didn't we just build 65,000 amphibious assault ships. I would call my navy the Merchant Fleet, so my marines would be called the Merchant Marines, or since I am a Norman whose family is from Sicily, I would call it the Norman Navy and Norman Marines. As for LSD's what capabilities would they have and what size would they be? I would have 12 LSD's about the same capabilities and size as the Bay class. As for Cruisers and Destroyers I would build ships for the role with stealth, larger naval guns and I would change their missile defence system from AEGIS to PAAMS, which is ment to be better at shorter ranges. For ASW I would use fast stealth corvettes, like the littoral combat ships. I love the 4 nuclear powered Vanguard's. I was thinking a class of 12 25,000 ton battle cruisers with 4 13 inch guns and missile defence and land attack missiles. But your idea is much better. For submarines I would have a mix of attack submarines like the Virginia class for intel gathering and the Sea Wolf for killing other submarines. The Astute class would be if I only wanted one class of submarine for both jobs. I would say 2 minesweepers per fleet. They are more effective than using helicopters acording to people I have spoken to on RN minesweepers. I don't see why my navy couldn't use the old aircraft like Hawkeye and Greyhound, then my marines use the Osprey for these roles. Well the Merlin and Lynx are very different, I may not seem like it but they are. Lynx is main used for light attack or search and rescue, where are Merlin is used for medium lift and ASW, yes they could both do all 4 role but they wouldn't be as effective. Viper YES. My view on India is they would think our Russian aircraft are going to be so agile and fast that your missiles couldn't catch them so we will go to war attack one of you fleet and get destroyed then sue for peace, I find many Indians are rather impetulant. So long as you don't get to close to the shore so the Chinese attack boats can't get in on the act, it would crush the Chinese navy.
Wow, you had better plan on a massive expansion of all the armed services then. The Royal Marines has less then 10,000 people, so just 4LHAs could bring the entire Corps anywhere in the world. And with that many LHAs, you could transport over 30,000 soldiers and Marines, that is just insane. Add al o your amphibious ships together, tha is probably about equal to all of he other nations combined, or about half of your current Army, and all of your Marines at once. That is insane, and would start a serious "arms race", since you would be a serious threat to almost every other nation on the planet. And those Commowelath nations would probably fight it, since they would see that a a serious threat to their independence. Think of the US in 1776. Other Commonwealth nations like Australia, Canada and Australia would then get worried that this would be aimed at them to try and keep them in "compliance".
Make the Marine Corps a separate branch with its own ships ready to put Marines at any hot spot as quick as possible. First to Fight.
Seriously? South Georgia would be a miserable piece of rock for a full time naval base but at least its big enough- but Pitcairn Islands? I don't think the Islands are capable of supporting a naval base- for many reasons including having enough water.
I could transport a whole division anywhere in the world just about, with 12 LHA's 30,000 troops, 12 LSD's for the supplies and heavy equipment and the 12 LPD's with another 5,000 troops and or heavy equipment. The UK is ment to be able to support a deployment of 30,000 troops, I would have the capability to do that in one go. Hahahaha, arms race. It wouldn't be an arms race it would be my navy out building my challenger at a rate of 3-1, like the British Empire did against the German Empire. Yes they would see me as a threat, but I would do what the British empire did, have allies through defence treaties, with Australia and New Zealand, and any other country that wants it for that matter. The price would be giving be replenishment access to their ports and joining me in a war if I am attacked. I wouldn't be like the US wanting to build naval bases and house marines their. I know that many people in Australia, New Zealand and Canada would support what I am would like to do. The only country it threatens is the US domination, I would hope they wouldn't try and interfere to much. I wouldn't even kick the US out of Ascension or the British India Ocean territory, but continue to share it like good allies do.
South Georgia already has a ice breaker based their, it moves between the Falklands and South Georgia. The Falklands were be much better for some sort of a naval base, but I wouldn't want to anoy Argentina or go against what the Falklanders may want. I couldn't do much at Pitcairn, other than light replenishment if needed, it would really be a base. - - - Updated - - - That's the idea.
And it is not just Argentina. Doing such will make every nation in South America and Africa nervous as well. And trust me, this would tart another "arms race", like the Battleship race of the early 20th century. That big of a fleet could not help but make many nations nervous, especially those with a colonial past. And in a great many areas, the UK and Brutal Colonialism go hand in hand.
So what would the south Americans do? Start wasting money trying to match my fleet, rather than investing in a better army and large air force. Seems to me that trying to go toe to toe with a navy that powerful is stupid, rather make sure it can't take your country. The South Americans seems to be more upset about the years of British banking control than British colonialism, other than Argentina. The UK is allied with Chile so they wouldn't feel threatened, of course until Argentina and Brazil start increasing their navy, army and air force, which would mean billions of pounds in UK military exports. African armsrace I am not so sure unless India or China were backing it, South Africa may strengthen, but that's about it. I have thought as some UK governments have about a intervention in Zimbabwe, but it would mean help from France and Mozambique, and South African support, which isn't going to happen with the ANC.
Since this is all hypothetical- any hypothetical enemy could hypothetically be able to afford a bigger navy than your dream navy. This is why this speculation is not even in the league of fantasy football- you have chosen what you think would be necessary to be dominant totally outside the issue of money or what your potential adversaries would be doing.
Well, in this you both have to look at historical precidence, like the Naval Arms Race after World War I. After that war, England had the largest fleet in the world, and this started off an arms race. The US President proposed an expansion that would have expanded the US Navy to 50 Battleships if it had actually been built. Japan was already engaged in it's Hachihachi Kantai fleet expansion (8 new Battleships and Heavy Cruisers, based upon a US fleet of 25 Battleships), which would have doubled again. A lot of people saw this with alarm, and then created the Washington Naval Treaty to slow down and limit this growth. And one of the consequences of this was the rapid growth of Naval Air Power. Since the new Aircraft Carrier was not a Battleship, these treaties did not affect them. So by the time Japan pulled out of the League of Nations and the Washington Naval Treaty, they had the largest carrier fleet in the world. No, I do not see South America investing in large surface fleets, it is neither needed nor cost effective to do so. However, you once again are thinking conventionaly. I see them however banding together to form a NATO type alliance and use less conventional means of defense. Naval mines, strike aircraft and lots of missiles. And Africa could do the same thing. One thing about missiles is that it is very inexpensive, and easy to do for smaller nations. Yes, Argentina would not have been able to build an HMS Sheffield, but that did not mean it could not sink it with a cheap off-the-shelf missile. So I do not see South America and Africa building a large nvy to compete. But I see it vastly increasing it's numbers of Corvettes, Frigates, and forementioned Fighers and Missiles. And a lot of ths business would indeed go to China, since they have recently created lots of new missile systems that they claim would defeat modern Aircraft Carriers. And finally, there are a lot of ships available to the right buyers. While over the last 5 years the US Reserve Fleets have taken a major hit (most being scrapped), but there are still some great ships available there. Inluding 3 Kitty Hawk class carriers, the USS Ticonderoga, and several Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates. And more Ticonderoga class cruisers are expeted to becme available for sale in the next decade, as well as Arleigh Burke class destroyers. Think of this as "Trickle-Down Economics" when it comes to navies. The US is not going to enlarge it's fleet, but it would likey replace most of it's Regan era fleet with more modern ships, making those older ones available for sale. Could you imagine Brazil, Argentina and Peru with Arleigh Burke and Ticonderoga class ships? Or even a first Generation Supercarrier or 1960's era Baby Flattop?
