UK Defence Forum

serge750 wrote:Maybe a smaller LHD like the mistral could be pushed past the bean counters

LHD's are dumb.

It's well accepted that aircraft carriers don't belong close to a hostile coast.
At the same time its well accepted landing craft don't work over the horizon.

Roders96 wrote:On a side note - are there any historic threads in this forum discussing what kind of capabilities would be required to counter Iran's speedboat flotilla?

Look at the Battle of Bubiyan. TLDR; get a Helicopter!

NickC wrote: new Fincantieri PPA

So much for 'beautiful Italian design'

Scimitar54 wrote:had enough frigates/destroyers

Meaningless statement until someone can quantify 'enough', and with the fleet sat in port 20% of the time it hard to claim there aren't 'enough'.

Nowhere near enough Enough for what? There will be enough T26 to post two with each carrier and 1 in the north sea There will be enough T31 to post two frigates abroad permenantly There will be enough Rivers to post two patrol boats abroad permanently That would put the RN at a greater standing tha...

Poiuytrewq wrote:If the UK wants to operate a CSG and the CASD concurrently then 8 Tier1 Frigates simply isn't enough.

Why isn't is? Giving each carrier two frigates leaves four available for duties elsewhere.

Or just maybe get the ships working first, then start buggering about adding capability once they're in service. This is the only part of the T31 folly that is commendable, there is a focus on delivering a simple fixed price product, and they should not diverge from that. The MOD need more of this b...

Keep it simple stupid.

The guy says he wants to lift 120 commandos, the solution is 4-6 Merlin.

then surely the answer is more Merlin rather than inventing a new Chinook.

Why on earth would a thing like that happen? Spend lots of money to fix something that isn't a problem!

Also its clearly Merlin or Chinook in the above quote. Don't need both to move 120 Marines.

Repulse wrote: Not sure where all these people have come from though.... anyone have anymore info?

Scrapped mine-sweepers?

Also, I’ve read a rumour Cdr Parkin wants to get both LPDs active, Sounds massively unlikely. If the Marines transform into a big special operations group, and get two new sea bases, I'm willing to wager both LPD's will be sold. In general that express article sets out an exciting direction, soundi...

yeah it's certainly not a priority today, but as the RN start to mature the capability it should become a more pressing issue.

Lord Jim wrote:actively supports the NSS

What strategy? The one started in 2015 has already been trashed.

The USN are also developing a tanker to keep the carriers outside China's bubble. Tankers wont just be for bolters, they will be absolutely necessary if a carrier air wing is ever pitted against modern ground based aircraft. If the UK doesn't follow suite they risk having a carrier that cant make it...

cockneyjock1974 wrote:Remember buddy buddy refueling in the USN, is primarily to get bolters back on deck

And now they're moving past that, specifically developing a tanker for extended range operations against an opponent that can deny a carrier access.

"as they always have done"? How many harriers were refuelled in 82?

They cant guarantee tankers will always be available, especially in a peer conflict. If they could, there would be no point in carriers at all.

A V22 tanker has potential to add 200 miles to the radius of a pair of F35, which is neither insignificant or incredible.

The Navy has pretty much zero purchasing power here, it will all depend what the USMC want.

Probs, but the only option might be the V22, which is a very expensive way to deliver not much fuel.

Kinda difficult to fit a voyager onboard.

The case for tanks ought to be huge, the Range of an F35 is not enough to keep the carriers safe when striking a peer opponent.

Bigger is better, a reactor 20% smaller may produce 50% less energy, so the cost per unit electricity sky rockets. Very basic economies of scale at play here. Rolls Royce are the ones building the reactors, and unless the government start handing over highly enriched uranium to civil industry their ...

60 day endurance and excess of 20knts Important distinction here; 60 day endurance OR 20knts Only a nuke boat can do both at the same time. An SSK can creep around a 3knts for weeks, or it can do 20knts for a few hours befor surfacing to recharge. That massively effects operational concepts, and I'...

The next generation sub programs and technology coming out of Sweden, Japan and France/Australia is really changing the narrative in the ssk/ssn debate. Is it? I don't see anything on the horizon that will bring SSK near parity with nuke boats. Japan's battery sub developments looks real interestin...

The Gulf, really? Does anyone deploy SSK's half way round the world?

It's a bit like comparing Apache to Typhoon, they're not the same thing. However in the open ocean role the Brits demand from their subs I do agree with Ron; 1 SSN = 20 SSKs.