Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

[Poiuytrewq]

If the defence gets 2.5% of gdp is simply funds the current program nothing more.

Again this is another throwaway comment that is regularly regurgitated by the commentariat. If that is true then 20% savings need to be found from the defence budget per annum from next year. It’s not remotely credible.

A yearly £2bn increase would keep the equipment budget on track. Where is the other £7bn going every year? These are huge sums of taxpayers money that are apparently needed for unquantifiable things.

It is true that programs such as the T32 are predicated on extra funding but that program would complete around 2036/2037 by which defence would have received more than £150bn in extra funding. Even if the T32 program came in at £500m unit that only amounts to less than 2% of the increase over that time period.

Where is the rest going?

[Tempest414]

Given that early thinking on MRSS was for 200 by 30 meter ship and adding this to the fast pace of drone tec and the way the FCF could be heading means for me we need to going for something like a 200 by 35 meter Osumi design with a merlin capable lift to the vehicle deck allowing the ship to act in Light LPH or Aviation logistics support. Add to this a dock for 2 x fast LCU's and davits for 4 x CIC

Add to this 6 x new Point class capable of operating in sealift or as a Logistics sea base alongside a MRSS

Also we need NMH to be capable of operating from the MRSS alongside Merlin and Apache Chinook would have to be based on the Carriers but would operate from the MRSS. For me we should be looking at 60 NMH split into 2 x joint RAF/CHF units and 2 x AAC units

Also I would be changing 29 RA/Cdo to have 4 batteries 1) HIMARS , 2) Light gun , 3) Viking based Brimstone OW , 4) Artillery spotting UAV

[SW1]

If the defence gets 2.5% of gdp is simply funds the current program nothing more.

Again this is another throwaway comment that is regularly regurgitated by the commentariat. If that is true then 20% savings need to be found from the defence budget per annum from next year. It’s not remotely credible.

A yearly £2bn increase would keep the equipment budget on track. Where is the other £7bn going every year? These are huge sums of taxpayers money that are apparently needed for unquantifiable things.

It is true that programs such as the T32 are predicated on extra funding but that program would complete around 2036/2037 by which defence would have received more than £150bn in extra funding. Even if the T32 program came in at £500m unit that only amounts to less than 2% of the increase over that time period.

Where is the rest going?

The current planned structure is based on finding efficiency saving. Most of the rest of the structure has a plethora of holes in it creating a paper structure and people are walking out the door fastener than their coming in.

[serge750]

So what will this extra funding provide?

Not withstanding SW1s comment that 2.5% will allow for the current force to be properly funded and resourced, which I completely agree with, then I would want to think about what are the priorities for any new funding.

Assuming NATO remains solid, there is no priority for the UK to offer more IMO - if the US wobbles then we would need to help step in a cover the tier one capabilities we spoke about.

So for me it would be being capable of doing this and having a larger global effect again through providing top table capabilities.

Fantasy, but if the MOD budget went to 3% I would do the following for the RN:

- Add a third task group based around a LHA and four new T26s along with another squadron of F35B and buy some tilt rotor a/c. This would allow for a more frequent presence EoS. @£8bn upfront and 20% uplift in RN running costs.
- Add four SSNs to make 11, allowing one again to be permanently EoS. @£6bn plus another 10% in RN running costs.

[Poiuytrewq]

The current planned structure is based on finding efficiency saving.

It isn’t based on finding £10bn of annual savings from a £50bn budget. Be serious.

A raise to 2.5 GDP is an increase of around ~£100bn over the next decade. That amounts to 4 years of Australias entire defense budget added to the UK's defense budget over the next decade.

A raise to 3% GDP would be an increase of £250bn over the next decade. That’s equivalent to 5 years of extra defense spending added to current budget over the next decade.

These are huge amounts of money and they at least deserve discussion as to where it would all be spent and what the U.K. could actually hope to achieve in 2030 or 2035 that cannot be achieved now.

[SW1]

The current planned structure is based on finding efficiency saving.

It isn’t based on finding £10bn of annual savings from a £50bn budget. Be serious.

A raise to 2.5 GDP is an increase of around ~£100bn over the next decade. That amounts to 4 years of Australias entire defense budget added to the UK's defense budget over the next decade.

A raise to 3% GDP would be an increase of £250bn over the next decade. That’s equivalent to 5 years of extra defense spending added to current budget over the next decade.

These are huge amounts of money and they at least deserve discussion as to where it would all be spent and what the U.K. could actually hope to achieve in 2030 or 2035 that cannot be achieved now.

I didn’t give a figure on what the efficiency saving were but they are part of the list. Considering the Secretary of State recently said we’re spending 2.3% of gdp on defence then I think you may find your figures optimistic.

Most of any budget uplift will go in pay, fuel, accommodation/infastructure and additional training needs.


You can certainly speculate, I go with submarines , strategic logistics, ISR, ew hardening, communication, special forces and ground based air defence.

[Repulse]

Most of any budget uplift will go in pay, fuel, accommodation/infastructure and additional training needs.

And pensions…

You can certainly speculate, I go with submarines , strategic logistics, ISR, ew hardening, communication, special forces and ground based air defence.

One thing that perhaps needs to be considered is an increase in the number of nuclear warheads and tactical nukes. Not an issue currently with the US tightly tied to NATO, but when that changes who is going to fill that gap. Having a credible deterrence against Russia above all else is key.

[Poiuytrewq]

You can certainly speculate, I go with submarines , strategic logistics, ISR, ew hardening, communication, special forces and ground based air defence.

My main point is:

• What does the UK actually need to be able to do better?

• What is the U.K. not doing now that an increase in funding would facilitate?

• What has the U.K. achieved before that cannot be achieved now.

• If the US starts to retreat from Europe either abruptly or gradually, what will the U.K. need to contribute to Euro NATO to fill the gap?

• What is an appropriate contribution to any coalition in the Indo Pacific?

• What threats is the U.K. likely to face in the next 10-15 years that have not been present in the previous 10-15 years?

The answer to these questions need to be answered before the allocation of additional funds can be considered and the outline of the next-gen Amphibious fleet can be solidified.

[Poiuytrewq]

Assuming NATO remains solid, there is no priority for the UK to offer more IMO - if the US wobbles then we would need to help step in a cover the tier one capabilities we spoke about.

So for me it would be being capable of doing this and having a larger global effect again through providing top table capabilities.

Why not be proactive and start to replace the US in Europe now by encouraging or shaming other Euro NATO countries to increase defence spending to 2.5% or 3% GDP. Lead by example.

For example:

• Propose that all MPAs and/or or SIGNIT aircraft covering the Euro borders, GIUK, North Sea, Mediterranean and the Black Sea will be provided on a routine basis by Euro NATO countries.

• Ensure the entire Euro NATO area is patrolled and secured by Euro NATO aircraft with little or no input routinely required by the USAF.

• All land forces in continental Europe/Nordics could be provided by Euro NATO. The US could reduce to a modest presence with a clear plan to rapidly scale up if required.

• Agree to split foreign military aid to countries under direct threat on the European continent 50/50 with the US.

• Combine much more effectively with Canada to ensure a constant and persistent presence in the High North and invest in the ships and kit to make sure it’s both credible and sustainable.

Lots can be achieved and improved but the debate at present appears more reactive than proactive.

[Repulse]

Why not be proactive and start to replace the US in Europe now by encouraging or shaming other Euro NATO countries to increase defence spending to 2.5% or 3% GDP. Lead by example.

Why should we spend even more to get other European counties to spend more? If all European countries paid their way then the would be even less reason for the UK to spend more on NATO.

Everything we do should be aligned to our interests, sounds harsh maybe, but why should we be subsidising rich countries in their own defence?

Our interests are the North Atlantic and our BOTs - everything else is a choice. We need to be strong and capable enough to be able to defend these interests without over reliance on the US or EU.

I didn’t cover the RAF but my wish list would definitely include more MPAs and also a new medium ranged bomber.

Now, what I would say is that it is in our interests to be an enabler, supporting other countries in their fight with tier one capabilities either directly or indirectly. Ukraine is a good example of this.

[Poiuytrewq]

Why should we spend even more to get other European counties to spend more?

If you want a leadership role then you have to have more mass and capability than the others.

The U.K. must retain its 2nd place in the NATO structure perhaps even contributing more to European security in certain areas than the US.

If all European countries paid their way then the would be even less reason for the UK to spend more on NATO.

Poland is spending twice as much as the U.K. now in terms of GDP and Germany is catching up. France is the outlier.

The U.K. must show leadership here.

Everything we do should be aligned to our interests, sounds harsh maybe, but why should we be subsidising rich countries in their own defence?

The US taxpayers are asking themselves that very same question.

Our interests are the North Atlantic and our BOTs - everything else is a choice. We need to be strong and capable enough to be able to defend these interests without over reliance on the US or EU.

Absolutely.

The U.K. needs to leave the land army mass to our continental partners but the U.K. should still retain 3 deployable Divisions. Outside of that it’s RN, RAF and SF that should get the bulk of the extra funding.

I didn’t cover the RAF but my wish list would definitely include more MPAs…..

This should been addressed as part of AUKUS.

Forward basing a SSN in Australia is a massive commitment without filling the gap around the U.K.

Another 5x P8 would have been a good idea to offset the loss.

One thing that should be considered is if more utility can be had from the SSBNs. Especially as four tubes are now to remain empty or contain TLAM on patrol. Could an extra SSBN and a revised operating model give the U.K. 2x SSGN with lots of redundancy for the 3x active SSBN?

Now, what I would say is that it is in our interests to be an enabler, supporting other countries in their fight with tier one capabilities either directly or indirectly. Ukraine is a good example of this.

Totally agree.

Carving out Britains role in Euro NATO if the US starts to withdraw is vital long before discussions on percentage of GDP deliberations.

[Caribbean]

One thing that perhaps needs to be considered is an increase in the number of nuclear warheads and tactical nukes. Not an issue currently with the US tightly tied to NATO, but when that changes who is going to fill that gap. Having a credible deterrence against Russia above all else is key.

I seem to remember that Boris authorised an increase in deployable warheads from 180 to 260, sufficient for 32 Trident D5 missiles loaded with 8 warheads each.
I can't realistically see us getting all 3 SSBNs to sea with a full load, but we are said to have around 280 warheads in total, so perhaps bring all up to deployable status. If we really had to go for it, then we would probably need another SSBN and a total of 384 warheads for 3 full loads.If France was to do something similar, then we would have a pretty solid nuclear deterrent
Assuming we don't suddenly decide to build 5 SSBNs, the only other real options I can see are to put gravity bombs on F35B - which I assume we would have to develop ourselves, or to develop an air-launched missile (maybe an update to ASMP-A with the French). Again, we would probably need to develop our own warheads (perhaps the same as would be used in the F35 gravity bombs)

[serge750]

Assuming we don't suddenly decide to build 5 SSBNs, the only other real options I can see are to put gravity bombs on F35B - which I assume we would have to develop ourselves, or to develop an air-launched missile (maybe an update to ASMP-A with the French). Again, we would probably need to develop our own warheads (perhaps the same as would be used in the F35 gravity bombs)

We should have a nuclear version of storm shadow - everyone else has tactical nukes, we need them too.

[Clive F]

If you want a leadership role then you have to have more mass and capability than the others.

Capability yes, mass no. The UK doesn’t need the biggest Army nor either Navy / Airforce, it just needs one that is enough to protect the UK / it’s interests and the ability to enable a coalition.

[SW1]

You can certainly speculate, I go with submarines , strategic logistics, ISR, ew hardening, communication, special forces and ground based air defence.

My main point is:

• What does the UK actually need to be able to do better?

• What is the U.K. not doing now that an increase in funding would facilitate?

• What has the U.K. achieved before that cannot be achieved now.

• If the US starts to retreat from Europe either abruptly or gradually, what will the U.K. need to contribute to Euro NATO to fill the gap?

• What is an appropriate contribution to any coalition in the Indo Pacific?

• What threats is the U.K. likely to face in the next 10-15 years that have not been present in the previous 10-15 years?

The answer to these questions need to be answered before the allocation of additional funds can be considered and the outline of the next-gen Amphibious fleet can be solidified.

If the US retreats from euro nato then the UK taking on a leadership role and help fill the gap with investing the areas I mentioned above (I include the paras and Royal Marines in the special forces area just for clarity).

It would also help reinforce our deployable capabilities.

We could hold more things for contingency and conduct more training in the very high end conflict situations.

What can we do in the pacific? ensure we get Australia up to speed with nuclear submarines by contributing a ssn.

[Tempest414]

You can certainly speculate, I go with submarines , strategic logistics, ISR, ew hardening, communication, special forces and ground based air defence.

My main point is:

• What does the UK actually need to be able to do better?

• What is the U.K. not doing now that an increase in funding would facilitate?

• What has the U.K. achieved before that cannot be achieved now.

• If the US starts to retreat from Europe either abruptly or gradually, what will the U.K. need to contribute to Euro NATO to fill the gap?

• What is an appropriate contribution to any coalition in the Indo Pacific?

• What threats is the U.K. likely to face in the next 10-15 years that have not been present in the previous 10-15 years?

The answer to these questions need to be answered before the allocation of additional funds can be considered and the outline of the next-gen Amphibious fleet can be solidified.

If the US retreats from euro nato then the UK taking on a leadership role and help fill the gap with investing the areas I mentioned above (I include the paras and Royal Marines in the special forces area just for clarity).

It would also help reinforce our deployable capabilities.

We could hold more things for contingency and conduct more training in the very high end conflict situations.

What can we do in the pacific? ensure we get Australia up to speed with nuclear submarines by contributing a ssn.

For me the Army needs to get itself into 8 Brigades 1 x DFR , 2 x Armoured , 3 x Light mech , 1 x AA & 1 x Special Operations plus 2 x Reserve brigades

As part of this 4 current infantry units would need to move to combat Logistics units plus I would look to increase the Gurkha's by 2 Logistics battalions

As far as global ops go we should really be pushing CANZUK looking to deploy a Carrier battle group into the Pacific every 3 years and have a SSN there when the Carrier is not. Also in none carrier years we should be looking at a CANZUK SMG of 1 x Holbart , 1 x Halifax , 1 x T-31 , 1 x Anzac

[SW1]

You can certainly speculate, I go with submarines , strategic logistics, ISR, ew hardening, communication, special forces and ground based air defence.

My main point is:

• What does the UK actually need to be able to do better?

• What is the U.K. not doing now that an increase in funding would facilitate?

• What has the U.K. achieved before that cannot be achieved now.

• If the US starts to retreat from Europe either abruptly or gradually, what will the U.K. need to contribute to Euro NATO to fill the gap?

• What is an appropriate contribution to any coalition in the Indo Pacific?

• What threats is the U.K. likely to face in the next 10-15 years that have not been present in the previous 10-15 years?

The answer to these questions need to be answered before the allocation of additional funds can be considered and the outline of the next-gen Amphibious fleet can be solidified.

If the US retreats from euro nato then the UK taking on a leadership role and help fill the gap with investing the areas I mentioned above (I include the paras and Royal Marines in the special forces area just for clarity).

It would also help reinforce our deployable capabilities.

We could hold more things for contingency and conduct more training in the very high end conflict situations.

What can we do in the pacific? ensure we get Australia up to speed with nuclear submarines by contributing a ssn.

For me the Army needs to get itself into 8 Brigades 1 x DFR , 2 x Armoured , 3 x Light mech , 1 x AA & 1 x Special Operations plus 2 x Reserve brigades

As part of this 4 current infantry units would need to move to combat Logistics units plus I would look to increase the Gurkha's by 2 Logistics battalions

As far as global ops go we should really be pushing CANZUK looking to deploy a Carrier battle group into the Pacific every 3 years and have a SSN there when the Carrier is not. Also in none carrier years we should be looking at a CANZUK SMG of 1 x Holbart , 1 x Halifax , 1 x T-31 , 1 x Anzac

I don’t think the army does need to look like that and I don’t think we add anything with a carrier in the pacific.

[new guy]

.. I don’t think we add anything with a carrier in the pacific

Or anywhere else, right??

[new guy]

.. I don’t think we add anything with a carrier in the pacific

Or anywhere else, right??

Certainly the opinion he always repeats.

[Tempest414]

You can certainly speculate, I go with submarines , strategic logistics, ISR, ew hardening, communication, special forces and ground based air defence.

My main point is:

• What does the UK actually need to be able to do better?

• What is the U.K. not doing now that an increase in funding would facilitate?

• What has the U.K. achieved before that cannot be achieved now.

• If the US starts to retreat from Europe either abruptly or gradually, what will the U.K. need to contribute to Euro NATO to fill the gap?

• What is an appropriate contribution to any coalition in the Indo Pacific?

• What threats is the U.K. likely to face in the next 10-15 years that have not been present in the previous 10-15 years?

The answer to these questions need to be answered before the allocation of additional funds can be considered and the outline of the next-gen Amphibious fleet can be solidified.

If the US retreats from euro nato then the UK taking on a leadership role and help fill the gap with investing the areas I mentioned above (I include the paras and Royal Marines in the special forces area just for clarity).

It would also help reinforce our deployable capabilities.

We could hold more things for contingency and conduct more training in the very high end conflict situations.

What can we do in the pacific? ensure we get Australia up to speed with nuclear submarines by contributing a ssn.

For me the Army needs to get itself into 8 Brigades 1 x DFR , 2 x Armoured , 3 x Light mech , 1 x AA & 1 x Special Operations plus 2 x Reserve brigades

As part of this 4 current infantry units would need to move to combat Logistics units plus I would look to increase the Gurkha's by 2 Logistics battalions

As far as global ops go we should really be pushing CANZUK looking to deploy a Carrier battle group into the Pacific every 3 years and have a SSN there when the Carrier is not. Also in none carrier years we should be looking at a CANZUK SMG of 1 x Holbart , 1 x Halifax , 1 x T-31 , 1 x Anzac

I don’t think the army does need to look like that and I don’t think we add anything with a carrier in the pacific.

So by having 8 Brigades each with 1 x battle group at high readiness plus the HQ-ARRC with its Logistics and Signals Brigades this would allow the UK to rapidly deploy a re-enforced Brigade under HQ-ARRC with the remaining units falling in under 3rd UK Div as a follow on Force

And also you don't think that working up a CANZUK naval battle group which could have in it

1 x Carrier , 1 x LHD , 2 x Bay class 1 x SNN , 3 x SSK , 3 x Destroyers , 7 x Frigates , 4 x Tankers , 2 x SSS

Would be of any use in the Pacific

[SW1]

You can certainly speculate, I go with submarines , strategic logistics, ISR, ew hardening, communication, special forces and ground based air defence.

My main point is:

• What does the UK actually need to be able to do better?

• What is the U.K. not doing now that an increase in funding would facilitate?

• What has the U.K. achieved before that cannot be achieved now.

• If the US starts to retreat from Europe either abruptly or gradually, what will the U.K. need to contribute to Euro NATO to fill the gap?

• What is an appropriate contribution to any coalition in the Indo Pacific?

• What threats is the U.K. likely to face in the next 10-15 years that have not been present in the previous 10-15 years?

The answer to these questions need to be answered before the allocation of additional funds can be considered and the outline of the next-gen Amphibious fleet can be solidified.

If the US retreats from euro nato then the UK taking on a leadership role and help fill the gap with investing the areas I mentioned above (I include the paras and Royal Marines in the special forces area just for clarity).

It would also help reinforce our deployable capabilities.

We could hold more things for contingency and conduct more training in the very high end conflict situations.

What can we do in the pacific? ensure we get Australia up to speed with nuclear submarines by contributing a ssn.

For me the Army needs to get itself into 8 Brigades 1 x DFR , 2 x Armoured , 3 x Light mech , 1 x AA & 1 x Special Operations plus 2 x Reserve brigades

As part of this 4 current infantry units would need to move to combat Logistics units plus I would look to increase the Gurkha's by 2 Logistics battalions

As far as global ops go we should really be pushing CANZUK looking to deploy a Carrier battle group into the Pacific every 3 years and have a SSN there when the Carrier is not. Also in none carrier years we should be looking at a CANZUK SMG of 1 x Holbart , 1 x Halifax , 1 x T-31 , 1 x Anzac

I don’t think the army does need to look like that and I don’t think we add anything with a carrier in the pacific.

So by having 8 Brigades each with 1 x battle group at high readiness plus the HQ-ARRC with its Logistics and Signals Brigades this would allow the UK to rapidly deploy a re-enforced Brigade under HQ-ARRC with the remaining units falling in under 3rd UK Div as a follow on Force

And also you don't think that working up a CANZUK naval battle group which could have in it

1 x Carrier , 1 x LHD , 2 x Bay class 1 x SNN , 3 x SSK , 3 x Destroyers , 7 x Frigates , 4 x Tankers , 2 x SSS

Would be of any use in the Pacific

Should the army be able to form the arrc hq well yeah if you to support a c4i role.

But that doesn’t need an army structure of “1 x DFR , 2 x Armoured , 3 x Light mech , 1 x AA & 1 x Special Operations plus 2 x Reserve brigades ”
Which you first quoted.

Does the uk sending a dozen fast jets and similar number of helicopter on a ship add much that isn’t already in the pacific 10 fold? Or does sending things like ballistic missile defence, nuclear submarines and say solid stores tankers (if your looking from a purely naval perspective) that allies in the region have very few offer more?

[Tempest414]

You can certainly speculate, I go with submarines , strategic logistics, ISR, ew hardening, communication, special forces and ground based air defence.

My main point is:

• What does the UK actually need to be able to do better?

• What is the U.K. not doing now that an increase in funding would facilitate?

• What has the U.K. achieved before that cannot be achieved now.

• If the US starts to retreat from Europe either abruptly or gradually, what will the U.K. need to contribute to Euro NATO to fill the gap?

• What is an appropriate contribution to any coalition in the Indo Pacific?

• What threats is the U.K. likely to face in the next 10-15 years that have not been present in the previous 10-15 years?

The answer to these questions need to be answered before the allocation of additional funds can be considered and the outline of the next-gen Amphibious fleet can be solidified.

If the US retreats from euro nato then the UK taking on a leadership role and help fill the gap with investing the areas I mentioned above (I include the paras and Royal Marines in the special forces area just for clarity).

It would also help reinforce our deployable capabilities.

We could hold more things for contingency and conduct more training in the very high end conflict situations.

What can we do in the pacific? ensure we get Australia up to speed with nuclear submarines by contributing a ssn.

For me the Army needs to get itself into 8 Brigades 1 x DFR , 2 x Armoured , 3 x Light mech , 1 x AA & 1 x Special Operations plus 2 x Reserve brigades

As part of this 4 current infantry units would need to move to combat Logistics units plus I would look to increase the Gurkha's by 2 Logistics battalions

As far as global ops go we should really be pushing CANZUK looking to deploy a Carrier battle group into the Pacific every 3 years and have a SSN there when the Carrier is not. Also in none carrier years we should be looking at a CANZUK SMG of 1 x Holbart , 1 x Halifax , 1 x T-31 , 1 x Anzac

I don’t think the army does need to look like that and I don’t think we add anything with a carrier in the pacific.

So by having 8 Brigades each with 1 x battle group at high readiness plus the HQ-ARRC with its Logistics and Signals Brigades this would allow the UK to rapidly deploy a re-enforced Brigade under HQ-ARRC with the remaining units falling in under 3rd UK Div as a follow on Force

And also you don't think that working up a CANZUK naval battle group which could have in it

1 x Carrier , 1 x LHD , 2 x Bay class 1 x SNN , 3 x SSK , 3 x Destroyers , 7 x Frigates , 4 x Tankers , 2 x SSS

Would be of any use in the Pacific

Should the army be able to form the arrc hq well yeah if you to support a c4i role.

But that doesn’t need an army structure of “1 x DFR , 2 x Armoured , 3 x Light mech , 1 x AA & 1 x Special Operations plus 2 x Reserve brigades ”
Which you first quoted.

Does the uk sending a dozen fast jets and similar number of helicopter on a ship add much that isn’t already in the pacific 10 fold? Or does sending things like ballistic missile defence, nuclear submarines and say solid stores tankers (if your looking from a purely naval perspective) that allies in the region have very few offer more?

Firstly under CANZUK I would be looking at Canada and Australia to form an F-35b unit of 20 jets meaning that that the carrier would carry between 24 and 30 5th Gen jets however I know you don't think so but most including the USN would think a CANZUK battle group operating as the Southern battle group allowing the USN to form 4 other Battle groups along with Japan and South Korea in the centre and on the Northern flank would be a useful thing

As for the Army first of all it needs to sort its self out into working Brigades

[SW1]

[quote=Tempest414 post_id=165091
Firstly under CANZUK I would be looking at Canada and Australia to form an F-35b unit of 20 jets meaning that that the carrier would carry between 24 and 30 5th Gen jets however I know you don't think so but most including the USN would think a CANZUK battle group operating as the Southern battle group allowing the USN to form 4 other Battle groups along with Japan and South Korea in the centre and on the Northern flank would be a useful thing

As for the Army first of all it needs to sort its self out into working Brigades
[/quote]

Canada and Australia aren’t buying f35b. You are now basing a plan on other countries changing there’s to suit yours when we are a very minor player militarily in the region simply not going to happen.


There has been much talk of euro nato taking more responsibility and taking over what America currently has in Europe that we don’t. Well we don’t need to send another armoured brigade or the like there’s plenty of them in Poland Germany ect. Say the army contrition was a corp HQ and a Multi domain task force equivalent for example.

[Tempest414]

[quote=Tempest414 post_id=165091
Firstly under CANZUK I would be looking at Canada and Australia to form an F-35b unit of 20 jets meaning that that the carrier would carry between 24 and 30 5th Gen jets however I know you don't think so but most including the USN would think a CANZUK battle group operating as the Southern battle group allowing the USN to form 4 other Battle groups along with Japan and South Korea in the centre and on the Northern flank would be a useful thing

As for the Army first of all it needs to sort its self out into working Brigades

Canada and Australia aren’t buying f35b. You are now basing a plan on other countries changing there’s to suit yours when we are a very minor player militarily in the region simply not going to happen.


There has been much talk of euro nato taking more responsibility and taking over what America currently has in Europe that we don’t. Well we don’t need to send another armoured brigade or the like there’s plenty of them in Poland Germany ect. Say the army contrition was a corp HQ and a Multi domain task force equivalent for example.
[/quote]

Flesh it out for me

[Poiuytrewq]

…a CANZUK naval battle group….

I am not sure about a CANZUK naval battle group but how about an AUKUS alternative?