Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[abc123]

A heretical idea:

What if we cancel last two T26 (so only 6), and instead use the money (1,5 bln.) to:

A) build 2 more T31 (so 7)

B) better equip T31, with CAMM and NSM/Harpoon,

C) maybe even add ASROC on T26 or CAPTAS on T31?

Ok, I agree, that's spending of future money, but its the same budget ...

[Tempest414]

M-CUBE is a specialist MCM CMS as far as I understand. There is no case to have multiple CMSs for warships.

TACTICOS could end up being cheaper as upgrades to the system are covered by 20 navies where BAE/CMS is all UK we don't know we are just applying a idea that adding a new system will add cost it may not be the case

[donald_of_tokyo]

Where do the cut exist?

Because 1,25 bln. will be spent on 5 T31 during next few years, while the same money will be spent on T26 No9 15 years from now, if ever.

Uhm, reasonable point. But what if you buy 5 more F35B (for 750M GBP) in 2020-2025 and do not buy 5 in 2030-35?

# The other 750M GBP will be spent almost immediately.

[abc123]

Where do the cut exist?

Because 1,25 bln. will be spent on 5 T31 during next few years, while the same money will be spent on T26 No9 15 years from now, if ever.

Uhm, reasonable point. But what if you buy 5 more F35B (for 750M GBP) in 2020-2025 and do not buy 5 in 2030-35?

# The other 750M GBP will be spent almost immediately.

So, 3 big OPVs ( with hanger ) for 450 mil. pounds ) and 300 mil. for equipment of T45/26, plus 5 additional F-35B from 2020-25?
Well, maybe, it make's some sense.

What equipment?

[abc123]

We just have to hope that Mr Javid is a bit more generous than Mr Hammond. Time will tell.

Mr Javid will be as generous as Mr Johnson orders him to be.

[Caribbean]

Hi, not my quote. You'll have to sort out the html tags to get it to quote correctly, or delete the post and re-post it

[Jake1992]

I really do think the RN is missing a trick when it comes to vessel design. We’ve currently got 2 designs that have been very successful in export and are widely seen as up there with the best in class in the T26 and RB2.

IMO what should be done is to develop families of vessels based on these designs.

The combatant family based on the T26 design -
1 - T26 it’s self as the frigate base
2 - a lengthened T26 design for the base of a destroyer class
3 - a smaller version of the T26 design for the light frigate class

The patrol and none combatant role family based on the RB2 design -
1 - EEZ patrol vessel the RB2 it’s self
2 - multi mission sloop for mcm etc based on a slightly wider and longer RB2 with cranes and dividends
3 - long range patrol vessel ( Floréal class type ) similar to the RB3

Not only would this give the RN a lot of commonality across the fleet which is always a bonus, but export wise it gives options. If a nation likes the T26 but it’s too much for them the light frigate design is there that is based on what they like. The same can be said with the RB2 for nations like Brazil the RB3 could be a nice addition for there patrol.

I just feel due to the T31 being so rushed with such limited funding we are missing out on something that would be of much greater benefit for the RN and UK as a whole. I believe something like this is what the RN should be putting forward to HMG in 2020

[Poiuytrewq]

Our new PM in the Commons has just stated in reply to an excellent question from Dr Julian Lewis MP (Chair Defence Select Committee) that he has a "strong desire" to raise defence spending and in particular increase UK shipbuilding.

Make of that what you will but it's got to be positive news.

[abc123]

Hi, not my quote. You'll have to sort out the html tags to get it to quote correctly, or delete the post and re-post it

Sorry, my bad.

[SKB]

[Tempest414]

I really do think the RN is missing a trick when it comes to vessel design. We’ve currently got 2 designs that have been very successful in export and are widely seen as up there with the best in class in the T26 and RB2.

IMO what should be done is to develop families of vessels based on these designs.

The combatant family based on the T26 design -
1 - T26 it’s self as the frigate base
2 - a lengthened T26 design for the base of a destroyer class
3 - a smaller version of the T26 design for the light frigate class

The patrol and none combatant role family based on the RB2 design -
1 - EEZ patrol vessel the RB2 it’s self
2 - multi mission sloop for mcm etc based on a slightly wider and longer RB2 with cranes and dividends
3 - long range patrol vessel ( Floréal class type ) similar to the RB3

In part I would agree that multi use designs are the way forward however for me this needs to be planned for late 2020s and I would go for something like this if extra money comes along

Build 6 x A-140s fitted with HMS , 1 x 76mm , 2 x 57mm , 24 CAMM , FFBNW 2 x Phalanx & Harphoon 11+ this would allow these ships to patrol where they liked and add to the carrier group or escort the Amphib group

Moving on to where multi design would come in for me

Take Type 26 add one to make the order 9 ships and then adapted the design for the type 45 replacement with the aim to build 9 ships to give the fleet 18 tier 1 escorts next move to building a family of Venari designs something like 8 x 85 meter basic ships & 8 x 95 meter Multi mission sloops. I would also go down the Enforcer road as common design for the amphib fleet with 3 x 200 meter LPDs for the RFA and 2 x LHDs for the RN.

this would allow the fleet to look like

6 x Type 45 to be replaced by 6 new say type 48 ships
8 x type 23 to be replaced by 9 Type 26
6 x type 31 to be replaced by 3 type 48 and 3 Venari 95
5 x River class to be replaced by 5 Venari 95
MCM and Echos to be replaced by 10 Venari 85

[Jake1992]

I really do think the RN is missing a trick when it comes to vessel design. We’ve currently got 2 designs that have been very successful in export and are widely seen as up there with the best in class in the T26 and RB2.

IMO what should be done is to develop families of vessels based on these designs.

The combatant family based on the T26 design -
1 - T26 it’s self as the frigate base
2 - a lengthened T26 design for the base of a destroyer class
3 - a smaller version of the T26 design for the light frigate class

The patrol and none combatant role family based on the RB2 design -
1 - EEZ patrol vessel the RB2 it’s self
2 - multi mission sloop for mcm etc based on a slightly wider and longer RB2 with cranes and dividends
3 - long range patrol vessel ( Floréal class type ) similar to the RB3

In part I would agree that multi use designs are the way forward however for me this needs to be planned for late 2020s and I would go for something like this if extra money comes along

Build 6 x A-140s fitted with HMS , 1 x 76mm , 2 x 57mm , 24 CAMM , FFBNW 2 x Phalanx & Harphoon 11+ this would allow these ships to patrol where they liked and add to the carrier group or escort the Amphib group

Moving on to where multi design would come in for me

Take Type 26 add one to make the order 9 ships and then adapted the design for the type 45 replacement with the aim to build 9 ships to give the fleet 18 tier 1 escorts next move to building a family of Venari designs something like 8 x 85 meter basic ships & 8 x 95 meter Multi mission sloops. I would also go down the Enforcer road as common design for the amphib fleet with 3 x 200 meter LPDs for the RFA and 2 x LHDs for the RN.

this would allow the fleet to look like

6 x Type 45 to be replaced by 6 new say type 48 ships
8 x type 23 to be replaced by 9 Type 26
6 x type 31 to be replaced by 3 type 48 and 3 Venari 95
5 x River class to be replaced by 5 Venari 95
MCM and Echos to be replaced by 10 Venari 85

I agree it’d all depend on extra money being forth coming which hopefully it will be, but IMO the plan needs to be put forward for the 2020 review for it to get bedded in. Remember yes the mcm wont be replaced until the late 20s and T45s until the mid 30s but the design work would take a number of years and early planning would prevent another rush job mess like we’ve got with the T31.

One thing I would do is fund the design of a tier 2 escort based on the T26 family even if the RN doesn’t end up purchasing it, this would still give the UK a viable tier 2 design to put forward for the likes of NZ, Brazil and the like, even though I would like this tier 2 design to replace the current T31 thinking.

I like the look of the idea you’ve put forward there but why design a whole new family of Venari vessels ( even though I do like them ) when the RB2 design could be turned in that style family ? The RB2 family would give use greater commonality and be a better chance at export as it’s based on a proven design and proven export success.

[Tempest414]

I really do think the RN is missing a trick when it comes to vessel design. We’ve currently got 2 designs that have been very successful in export and are widely seen as up there with the best in class in the T26 and RB2.

IMO what should be done is to develop families of vessels based on these designs.

The combatant family based on the T26 design -
1 - T26 it’s self as the frigate base
2 - a lengthened T26 design for the base of a destroyer class
3 - a smaller version of the T26 design for the light frigate class

The patrol and none combatant role family based on the RB2 design -
1 - EEZ patrol vessel the RB2 it’s self
2 - multi mission sloop for mcm etc based on a slightly wider and longer RB2 with cranes and dividends
3 - long range patrol vessel ( Floréal class type ) similar to the RB3

In part I would agree that multi use designs are the way forward however for me this needs to be planned for late 2020s and I would go for something like this if extra money comes along

Build 6 x A-140s fitted with HMS , 1 x 76mm , 2 x 57mm , 24 CAMM , FFBNW 2 x Phalanx & Harphoon 11+ this would allow these ships to patrol where they liked and add to the carrier group or escort the Amphib group

Moving on to where multi design would come in for me

Take Type 26 add one to make the order 9 ships and then adapted the design for the type 45 replacement with the aim to build 9 ships to give the fleet 18 tier 1 escorts next move to building a family of Venari designs something like 8 x 85 meter basic ships & 8 x 95 meter Multi mission sloops. I would also go down the Enforcer road as common design for the amphib fleet with 3 x 200 meter LPDs for the RFA and 2 x LHDs for the RN.

this would allow the fleet to look like

6 x Type 45 to be replaced by 6 new say type 48 ships
8 x type 23 to be replaced by 9 Type 26
6 x type 31 to be replaced by 3 type 48 and 3 Venari 95
5 x River class to be replaced by 5 Venari 95
MCM and Echos to be replaced by 10 Venari 85

I agree it’d all depend on extra money being forth coming which hopefully it will be, but IMO the plan needs to be put forward for the 2020 review for it to get bedded in. Remember yes the mcm wont be replaced until the late 20s and T45s until the mid 30s but the design work would take a number of years and early planning would prevent another rush job mess like we’ve got with the T31.

One thing I would do is fund the design of a tier 2 escort based on the T26 family even if the RN doesn’t end up purchasing it, this would still give the UK a viable tier 2 design to put forward for the likes of NZ, Brazil and the like, even though I would like this tier 2 design to replace the current T31 thinking.

I like the look of the idea you’ve put forward there but why design a whole new family of Venari vessels ( even though I do like them ) when the RB2 design could be turned in that style family ? The RB2 family would give use greater commonality and be a better chance at export as it’s based on a proven design and proven export success.

As much as I like the B2 River design I just feel a clean sheet design would allow more flexibility going forward

[Jake1992]

I really do think the RN is missing a trick when it comes to vessel design. We’ve currently got 2 designs that have been very successful in export and are widely seen as up there with the best in class in the T26 and RB2.

IMO what should be done is to develop families of vessels based on these designs.

The combatant family based on the T26 design -
1 - T26 it’s self as the frigate base
2 - a lengthened T26 design for the base of a destroyer class
3 - a smaller version of the T26 design for the light frigate class

The patrol and none combatant role family based on the RB2 design -
1 - EEZ patrol vessel the RB2 it’s self
2 - multi mission sloop for mcm etc based on a slightly wider and longer RB2 with cranes and dividends
3 - long range patrol vessel ( Floréal class type ) similar to the RB3

In part I would agree that multi use designs are the way forward however for me this needs to be planned for late 2020s and I would go for something like this if extra money comes along

Build 6 x A-140s fitted with HMS , 1 x 76mm , 2 x 57mm , 24 CAMM , FFBNW 2 x Phalanx & Harphoon 11+ this would allow these ships to patrol where they liked and add to the carrier group or escort the Amphib group

Moving on to where multi design would come in for me

Take Type 26 add one to make the order 9 ships and then adapted the design for the type 45 replacement with the aim to build 9 ships to give the fleet 18 tier 1 escorts next move to building a family of Venari designs something like 8 x 85 meter basic ships & 8 x 95 meter Multi mission sloops. I would also go down the Enforcer road as common design for the amphib fleet with 3 x 200 meter LPDs for the RFA and 2 x LHDs for the RN.

this would allow the fleet to look like

6 x Type 45 to be replaced by 6 new say type 48 ships
8 x type 23 to be replaced by 9 Type 26
6 x type 31 to be replaced by 3 type 48 and 3 Venari 95
5 x River class to be replaced by 5 Venari 95
MCM and Echos to be replaced by 10 Venari 85

I agree it’d all depend on extra money being forth coming which hopefully it will be, but IMO the plan needs to be put forward for the 2020 review for it to get bedded in. Remember yes the mcm wont be replaced until the late 20s and T45s until the mid 30s but the design work would take a number of years and early planning would prevent another rush job mess like we’ve got with the T31.

One thing I would do is fund the design of a tier 2 escort based on the T26 family even if the RN doesn’t end up purchasing it, this would still give the UK a viable tier 2 design to put forward for the likes of NZ, Brazil and the like, even though I would like this tier 2 design to replace the current T31 thinking.

I like the look of the idea you’ve put forward there but why design a whole new family of Venari vessels ( even though I do like them ) when the RB2 design could be turned in that style family ? The RB2 family would give use greater commonality and be a better chance at export as it’s based on a proven design and proven export success.

As much as I like the B2 River design I just feel a clean sheet design would allow more flexibility going forward

I do agree in part and understand your reasoning but for me if you took the RB2 design widened it by 1.5m and lengthened it by 10-15m it’s give you a lot to work with.

You could get something like this
15m by 100-105m
3000-3500t
Same as an RB2 up to the funnel
Wildcat hanger behind the funnel with 2 enclosed dividends either side of the funnel
Wildcat flight deck
15M odd open work deck with 16t crane and dividends
57mm, 30mm with LLM, phalanx / SeaRam mount

With regard to your amphibious proposal I’d go with the BAE SSS design we’ve seen for year if it is chosen and if not then yes a next gen enforcer design would be good.

[Poiuytrewq]

Interesting overview here with some illuminating quotes. Worth a read. https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/ ... r-friends/

Luckily our new PM is very keen on building more ships for the Royal Navy. Here is how the Sun reported what Boris said in the Commons on Thursday. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9586978/b ... an-atacks/

In my opinion this mini crisis in the Gulf has vindicated the T31 to some extent and increases the likelihood of a second batch to follow-on. Unfortunately it also makes any further T26's even less likely which is a great shame.

It could also be argued that it clearly exposes the vulnerabilities of OPV'S in similar maritime security scenarios against state actors. Not necessarily OPV sized vessels but vessels built to an OPV standard.

I think it's fair to say that the next SDSR can't come soon enough but our new PM seems to be in a big hurry. Maybe a decision will be fast tracked to help with his new regional prosperity and regeneration agenda. Hopefully the dither and delay of recent years is now firmly a thing of the past.

[Repulse]

In my opinion this mini crisis in the Gulf has vindicated the T31 to some extent and increases the likelihood of a second batch to follow-on. Unfortunately it also makes any further T26's even less likely which is a great shame.

It could also be argued that it clearly exposes the vulnerabilities of OPV'S in similar maritime security scenarios against state actors. Not necessarily OPV sized vessels but vessels built to an OPV standard.

Some big statements here, can you explain how the current situation backs this up?

[Caribbean]

In my opinion this mini crisis in the Gulf has vindicated the T31 to some extent and increases the likelihood of a second batch to follow-on. Unfortunately it also makes any further T26's even less likely which is a great shame.

I would agree with that. The sort of escort duty required in the Gulf is exactly what the T31 is intended for (more things need escorting than aircraft carriers and deterring violence can be far more effective than indulging in it). All the statements that I have seen so far have indicated that the Government is thinking of more T31 and more OPVs, rather than more T26 (which wouldn't arrive until the late 2030s anyway). I would agree with the T31s (A140, for my money) but I have some reservations about building more OPVs (I would prefer a new patrol frigate class - maybe Avenger? Maybe even a small gunboat, like the Super-Vita class, designed for dealing with FIACs and the like). Maybe the Omanis or Qataris could rent us a few of theirs for a while

In the meantime, maybe we should pick two of the seven T23s in maintenance and concentrate resources on getting them ready for sea as fast as possible, as well as moving a Wildcat and a Typhoon flight into the region. Otherwise, I think we will be limited to small boats, with a Bay mothership supporting them (and/ or Argus in the Aviation Support role, hosting RM rapid-response units).

[Jake1992]

What I’m worried about is with the rush to get more vessels in the water ( most likely as cheap as we can ) we when end up with a hash job rushed fleet of tier 2 frigates and OPVs instead of a well balanced fleet for the global role we intend to play.

IMO what we need at the minimum in a surface combatant fleet is something like the following -

18-20 tier 1 escorts ( T26/T45 and replacement )
6-8 multi role tier 2 escorts ( maybe 5 A140s and 3 Absalon style vessels )
10-12 multi mission sloops ( Venari 95 / black swan style )
8 OPVs ( RB2s fitted with LLM for UK waters, Gib and Falklands )
Add to this 10 fast attack boats like the Mk6 patrol boat or similar to operate from ports or the bays

The above would take time to achieve and would take long term planing but is a better over out come than a rush job.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Do we really need T31e at Hormuz Strait? If yes, with what kind of equipments?
Actually, what type of tasks are foreseen and what types of capabilities do RN need there? Are there good consensus?

For example, do we need;

1: ASW capability?
2: CAMM/SeaCeptor ?
3: 57/76 mm cannons ?
4: Wildcat ?
5: escort-standard damage control hull?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although not sure, my current opinion is as follows.

Overall, I think this is still a peace-time game. More visible, short-distance, nearly direct war fight is the rule of the game. You need to fight in a theater many merchant vessels and fishery boats are steaming around.

1: SSK is hidden in the water, it can just sink something or not, and not capable to "stop". No, SSK will not be used.
2: I guess NO CAMM is needed. Iranian anti-ship missile is as simple as Harpoon, as I understand. Cannot select the aim, and likely result in sinking other merchant vessels, which may include those of Russia and China. I think there is no need for ASM defense.
3: Fast-boat swarm is a big threat to current escorts and OPVs, and it can also be used in "gray" situations. In these circumstances, 56/76 mm gun will be very useful. (*A)
4: Air cover is needed, but it need not to be Wildcat. In any situation a Wildcat can survive, I guess a land-based patrol aircraft can also survive. Why not "up-arm" (self defense decoys) G22 Defenders and send them there. Much efficient, much cheap, and nearly as capable.
5: "Good" damage control is needed. Probability of getting hit is very high in such as "close-in" warfare. For me, this is the only reason RN needs escort there. (*B)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A: with ALaMo (and MAD-FIRES) to come in a few years, 57mm gun will become very powerful against fast-boat swarm. Actually, a swarm of 20 or 30 boats will just be easy games for a ship armed with 57 mm gun with ALaMo. It will be one-sided game.
B: Damage control level can differ. For example, it could be possible that an OPV hull with reinforced damage control crew is "good enough". Not sure.

[Repulse]

end up with a hash job rushed fleet of tier 2 frigates and OPVs instead of a well balanced fleet for the global role we intend to play.

Spot on.

donald_of_tokyo, agree with a lot of what you say - the B2 River has a high level of damage control for an OPV. If HMS Clyde was purchased and kept for FIGS, then in the very near future (with some minor upgrades), the RN could have a fleet of 5 B2s for surging to cover similar situations as is in the Gulf. Longer term build a new MHPC class to fulfil this duty, the OPV role and be part of the MCM replacement, perhaps 12-15 ships.

We seemed to be destined to base our defence planning on the last conflict / latest drama, rather than properly understanding our longer strategic objective.

What really worries me, isn’t the current situation, it is what if the situation got hotter or turned into a full scale conflict. Above half arsed frigates what IMO we need is to be able to operate 3 Carrier Groups - 1 deployed, 1 training / in reserve and 1 in refit. That is the real deterrence to stop a nation like Iran shooting off missiles.

If each CSG had 2 T45 + 3 T26 escorts, plus 3 for FRE/TAPS this would mean 12 T26s.

[Repulse]

On a slightly (but linked) tack, the US Coast Guard is being used to beef up low level presence in the Far East - https://www.janes.com/article/90097/us- ... behaviours

This low level global presence is what the RN should be doing more of and what the B2s (and B3s) would be perfect for - backed up by the CSG / SSN big sticks of course.

[Jake1992]

end up with a hash job rushed fleet of tier 2 frigates and OPVs instead of a well balanced fleet for the global role we intend to play.

Spot on.

donald_of_tokyo, agree with a lot of what you say - the B2 River has a high level of damage control for an OPV. If HMS Clyde was purchased and kept for FIGS, then in the very near future (with some minor upgrades), the RN could have a fleet of 5 B2s for surging to cover similar situations as is in the Gulf. Longer term build a new MHPC class to fulfil this duty, the OPV role and be part of the MCM replacement, perhaps 12-15 ships.

We seemed to be destined to base our defence planning on the last conflict / latest drama, rather than properly understanding our longer strategic objective.

What really worries me, isn’t the current situation, it is what if the situation got hotter or turned into a full scale conflict. Above half arsed frigates what IMO we need is to be able to operate 3 Carrier Groups - 1 deployed, 1 training / in reserve and 1 in refit. That is the real deterrence to stop a nation like Iran shooting off missiles.

If each CSG had 2 T45 + 3 T26 escorts, plus 3 for FRE/TAPS this would mean 12 T26s.

For me the RB2s are spot on for UK waters, Gib and the Falklands just add LLM and there you have it all that is needed is as and when replace the RB1s with 3 more RB2s for 6 in the UK and 1 forward based at each of the other 2. The MCHP replacement would be over kill for EEZ work as I’d see them as such
100-105m by 15m odd
Wildcat flight deck and hanger
Open work deck with cranes and dividends
57mm
2 x 30mm
Phalanx / SeaRam mount
Coming in at around £150m each, this is just over kill in replacing the rivers but would be spot on for doing patrols in the med, gulf and around Africa along with doing mcm and survey work and maybe costal ASW. 12 odd of these are needed.

With regard to a 3rd CSG as much as I’d love it IMO the money would be better spend on build 2 ARG similar to USC expeditionary groups. 1 of each active all the time would put off most nations out there.

ARG made up of -
1 x LHD similar to Italy’s new one
1 x LPD based on either the SSS or a modern 200m+ enforcer design
1 x LSD similar to the above but built to lower standards and greater focus on logistics.
2 x T26
2 x T45 / replacement

[Repulse]

Jake1992, I flip flop between two ARGs and have 3 Carrier Task Groups, but I am settled on the latter as I think availability of a core deterrent group of mixed assets is affordable and realistic, and having one ready to deploy to problem areas will prevent conflict.

I know this will be controversial, but this means purchasing a 40k tonne LHD which is capable of operating F35Bs as well as keeping the two Albion’s. Therefore, each group would have either a CVF+LPD or a LHD. The LPDs/LHD hosting RMs plus kit such as unmanned MCM/ASW drones.

It would require a significant uplift in RN manning, but all things being the same and assuming £1.5bn for the LHD (and cancelling the T31) the net increase in equipment budget would be @£3bn over 5-10 years.

With the purchase of HMS Clyde and freeing up of the B2s for global forward roles the future MHPC could be delayed. I though have no problem with a 100+m MHPC design as in the future I would expect Fisheries duties to be performed more using drones.

[SW1]

4 speed boats and 8 guys in a helicopter seize a ship which contributes nothing to our trade or gdp and suddenly it’s a crisis that demands a double of the fleet or more! God forbid we actual face something resembling a frigate or we’ll need to reinstate the grand fleet.

Who knew all needed to keep those pesky Russians out of the channel was a handful of sunseekers with machine guns up front.

[Jake1992]

Jake1992, I flip flop between two ARGs and have 3 Carrier Task Groups, but I am settled on the latter as I think availability of a core deterrent group of mixed assets is affordable and realistic, and having one ready to deploy to problem areas will prevent conflict.

I know this will be controversial, but this means purchasing a 40k tonne LHD which is capable of operating F35Bs as well as keeping the two Albion’s. Therefore, each group would have either a CVF+LPD or a LHD. The LPDs/LHD hosting RMs plus kit such as unmanned MCM/ASW drones.

It would require a significant uplift in RN manning, but all things being the same and assuming £1.5bn for the LHD (and cancelling the T31) the net increase in equipment budget would be @£3bn over 5-10 years.

With the purchase of HMS Clyde and freeing up of the B2s for global forward roles the future MHPC could be delayed. I though have no problem with a 100+m MHPC design as in the future I would expect Fisheries duties to be performed more using drones.

For me I’d like to get away from this idea of using the QEs as the aircraft compliment for any ARG or over all combat group. IMO it limits both the aircraft for the RM along with the strike aircraft, 2 separate groups that can come together if the sh**t hits the fan is not only more flexible but gives more of a punch.

I’d like to see 2 x 30,000t odd LHDs with the option for them to be F35B capable ( if money and political will is there ) along with 5-6 200m+ enforcer based / SSS based LPD / LSD. I think this would be more politically achievable over a third carrier group as well.

How the fishery work be done by drones, the boarding and detaining ?
What about all the other EEZ work ?