Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

[Repulse]

So following that direction of travel results in what exactly? An army specialising in small groups of elite troops and SF?

Outside of NATO yes, in the Nordics then a forward based brigade, and home a trained and scalable land army to defend the UK and it’s BOTs.

A British Army focused on training other nations armies?

Perhaps it’s now the role of the British Army to turn up in the nick of time and command other nations armies? How long will it be before other nations start to say “no thanks”?

Who would say “no thanks” if what you are doing is helping to train, equip and provide specialist tier one capabilities. It’s not about commanding other nations, see Ukraine, it’s working with nations that are aligned to your interests.

If you are looking to impose your will by the use of force you are in the wrong century, that’s what we are fighting against.

None of that a serious strategy for a country spending over £50bn per annum on defence?

No what’s not a strategy is pretending you can do things you cannot and failing spectacularly causing death and further death - I reference Afghanistan and Iraq as recent examples but there are plenty more throughout history.

What is it carriers or amphibious forces or a middle sized continental land force.

It’s sounds more like a strategy that prioritises all the sexy bits and leaves others to do the heavy lifting.

It’s unsustainable post Feb22.

It’s the opposite, it’s not about the number of tanks, battalions, aircraft and frigates it’s about qualitative enablers, it’s as much about boring things such as airlift, intelligence, reconnaissance, logistics, air defence, BMD, long range strike, technology and people. Without these everything else is cannon fodder.

Edit: my apologies I completely misunderstood / misread your last comment, I’ve updated my text.

[Repulse]

So that scale for the 500 would be what about half the size of the aviation support provided to a us marine expeditionary unit as a frame of reference?

It is on a regular basis, yes. In surge scenario it would be double that, and if we focus on a third flattop there is a possibility to surge three times in an extreme case.

If you’re not interested in brigade or medium scale operations outside of nato then it covers all services they don’t exist in isolation to be done properly.

I am a very big supporter of more “purple” structures and capabilities. If this was a limited company the waste and conflict between elements of the organisation would not be allowed. There are enormous gains to be made for a more joined up approach utilising synergies without spending a penny - we need to move beyond nostalgia and lazy politics.

Let’s start with merging expeditionary elements of the Paras and RMs being supported by an Army operated helicopter force into a force that is capable to be launched as easily from a carrier as a land base.

Moving a fwd deployed brigade across Scandinavia from northern Norway by land would be extremely challenging and slow. With limited fighting resources you retain maximum flexibility by deploying to where is appropriate from the uk not scaling back your strategic deployment logistics capabilities.

Disagree, deploying a large force from the UK is relatively slow, exposed, expensive and ultimately limited by what you can transport in a meaningful timeframe. Better to invest in land logistics.

It is also unlikely that the Russians would only attack in one place, the north of Norway would always be a strategic point, especially in the defence of the UK itself. If the UK so wishes it would be better to have a second “Camp Viking” in the south of Finland.

[Tempest414]

I would say the LHA mode would be a natural default configuration for a CVF. This for me is something in the region of a sqd of 8-12 F35s, 6 AEW/ASW Merlins, 8 Commando Merlins, 3 Chinooks and 4 Wildcats, plus two companies of RMs.

The problem you have with this default position is other than the chinook that is probably very close for the rest of being the entire fleet available for deployment so it would be difficult to rotate it using a second ship or sending it again quite quickly after it came back particularly the Merlin’s.

I should have put AH1 Wildcats, but you are spot on with the Merlin’s. I guess a more realistic number to be regularly deployed would be 3 AEW Merlins and 4 CHF Merlins, relying on the T23/T26 ASW Merlins, unless the focus of the CSG is sea control where a surge of ASW Merlins would be possible.

What it highlights is that there are not enough to spread to the four winds (across multiple LRGs) and the need to bring into service new unmanned platforms for ASW / AEW roles, plus a new CHF platform. I think not tying the Puma replacement to this is a mistake - we should be looking for a future platform (possibly tilt-rotor) that can operate for land or sea. I will not be popular, but why not an Army owned common pool that can be allocated to the RMs & carriers (like the F35b)?

There is not enough helicopters to go round multiple groups nor is there capacity to operate two carriers simultaneously. The problem gets worse if the carrier is separate as there is a csar requirement that draws on the same limited helicopter pool.

The problem with tiltrotor is the numbers will go down so they will be in and out not a sustained deployment.


If you look at how the marines are going to 12 man teams, then deploying them as dismounted 12 man team is a Puma esq helicopter role, deploying them as 12 man team with light tactical vehicles is a chinook job. They currently have neither.


There “new” role is best utilised in conjunction with a brigade with long range fires. I don’t see where the uk brigade comes from that supports them in the north and artic because the terrain demands a amphibious style brigade, nor in east of suez operations so I assume it’s an allied country’s formation. But what happens if there is a national requirement as 3 command brigade was that national brigade which is now gone.

1 Merlin can move 2 x dismounted teams or 2 Merlins can move 2 teams plus 3 MRZR so 1 mounted and 1 dismounted I don't see the problem

Also as said before the RN are getting NSM and 127mm both can do deep fires but as also said before if this is a need then 29 Cdo-RA needs a battery of M270A2

We also come back to the needed for NMH to have a folding rotor head

[Poiuytrewq]

….in the Nordics then a forward based brigade, and home a trained and scalable land army to defend the UK and it’s BOTs.

Devils in the detail.

IMO a proportionate and sustainable posture would be a permanently deployed British Army Artic/Mountain Brigade at Bardufoss and 3x Battlegroups split between Norway and Estonia.

What follows to reinforce, how it gets there and how it can be sustained, even for a modest period is highly debatable.

Who would say “no thanks” if what you are doing is helping to train, equip and provide specialist tier one capabilities. It’s not about commanding other nations, see Ukraine, it’s working with nations that are aligned to your interests.

With that mindset how long will it be before those allied nations have more Tier1 capabilities than the British?

To be Tier1 you can’t cherry pick, you have to be able to do it all. In a large scale conflict those that can do it all are in command. Those than can only bring niche capabilities to the party will inevitably be commanded by others.

What is it carriers or amphibious forces or a middle sized continental land force.

How long are you planning for? If it’s for the long term it’s needs to be the broadest approach that’s affordable.

In the simplest of terms.

• The Army needs to be able to deploy 3 independent Divisions (not simultaneously) which are Rapid Expeditionary ( 3 Cdo, 16AAB, Gurkha Bde), Mechanised (Wheeled) and Armoured (Tracked). Old fashioned and expensive but also proven to work when required. Invest heavily in deep fires, highly mobile artillery and GBAD.

• The Army should concentrate on the JEF region and relieve RM of the Bardufoss commitment. Form an Arctic/Mountain Brigade and move in permanently. Rotate the entire British Army through Bardufoss regularly to ensure high levels of Arctic training. Ensure all Army kit passes rigorous Arctic testing.

• Forward base 2x Battlegroups in Norway with a 3rd in Estonia.

• By relieving RM from the fixed Norway commitment RN has a highly capable expeditionary force, the bulk of which can be deployed primarily outside of NATO. Much more capable than a couple of companies.

• 16AAB would primarily become the Army’s rapid reaction force within Euro NATO, the Gurkha Bde and the Rangers would be the Army’s rapid reaction forces outside of NATO and 3Cdo would be RN’s rapid reaction force anywhere in the world.

• Aim for one high readiness CSG plus a high readiness UK based ARG to support 2 modest LRGs. Stop at 22x fully optimised escorts and concentrate on increasing SSN numbers asap.

• Stop at 72x F35b and (in time) transfer to FAA to allow RAF to concentrate on Tempest. Invest heavily in MALE STOL drones.

• Transfer AH1 Wildcats to RN and integrate LMM/Brimstone and 20mm. Increase NMH order to compensate. Add folding rotors to Chinook and maximise Merlin numbers by introducing drone based AEW asap.

• Tempest numbers TBC but A400M, E-7 and P8 really need to double. The RAF is just too small when a clash with a peer is a rising possibility.

• Before any of that the absolute priority must be the personnel with improved terms, better conditions, new accommodation, higher retention and a total reboot of the recruitment process.

3% of GDP is a lot of money but without a clear illustration of what could and should be achieved the decline will inevitably continue.

[wargame_insomniac]

….in the Nordics then a forward based brigade, and home a trained and scalable land army to defend the UK and it’s BOTs.

Devils in the detail.

IMO a proportionate and sustainable posture would be a permanently deployed British Army Artic/Mountain Brigade at Bardufoss and 3x Battlegroups split between Norway and Estonia.

What follows to reinforce, how it gets there and how it can be sustained, even for a modest period is highly debatable.

Who would say “no thanks” if what you are doing is helping to train, equip and provide specialist tier one capabilities. It’s not about commanding other nations, see Ukraine, it’s working with nations that are aligned to your interests.

With that mindset how long will it be before those allied nations have more Tier1 capabilities than the British?

To be Tier1 you can’t cherry pick, you have to be able to do it all. In a large scale conflict those that can do it all are in command. Those than can only bring niche capabilities to the party will inevitably be commanded by others.

What is it carriers or amphibious forces or a middle sized continental land force.

How long are you planning for? If it’s for the long term it’s needs to be the broadest approach that’s affordable.

In the simplest of terms.

• The Army needs to be able to deploy 3 independent Divisions (not simultaneously) which are Rapid Expeditionary ( 3 Cdo, 16AAB, Gurkha Bde), Mechanised (Wheeled) and Armoured (Tracked). Old fashioned and expensive but also proven to work when required. Invest heavily in deep fires, highly mobile artillery and GBAD.

• The Army should concentrate on the JEF region and relieve RM of the Bardufoss commitment. Form an Arctic/Mountain Brigade and move in permanently. Rotate the entire British Army through Bardufoss regularly to ensure high levels of Arctic training. Ensure all Army kit passes rigorous Arctic testing.

• Forward base 2x Battlegroups in Norway with a 3rd in Estonia.

• By relieving RM from the fixed Norway commitment RN has a highly capable expeditionary force, the bulk of which can be deployed primarily outside of NATO. Much more capable than a couple of companies.

• 16AAB would primarily become the Army’s rapid reaction force within Euro NATO, the Gurkha Bde and the Rangers would be the Army’s rapid reaction forces outside of NATO and 3Cdo would be RN’s rapid reaction force anywhere in the world.

• Aim for one high readiness CSG plus a high readiness UK based ARG to support 2 modest LRGs. Stop at 22x fully optimised escorts and concentrate on increasing SSN numbers asap.

• Stop at 72x F35b and (in time) transfer to FAA to allow RAF to concentrate on Tempest. Invest heavily in MALE STOL drones.

• Transfer AH1 Wildcats to RN and integrate LMM/Brimstone and 20mm. Increase NMH order to compensate. Add folding rotors to Chinook and maximise Merlin numbers by introducing drone based AEW asap.

• Tempest numbers TBC but A400M, E-7 and P8 really need to double. The RAF is just too small when a clash with a peer is a rising possibility.

• Before any of that the absolute priority must be the personnel with improved terms, better conditions, new accommodation, higher retention and a total reboot of the recruitment process.

3% of GDP is a lot of money but without a clear illustration of what could and should be achieved the decline will inevitably continue.

I might quibble on some details but agree with overall plan if and only if we had the resources to do so. The difficulty is that how far / close to such a budget increase we can hope for.

It why is it so hard to comment at the moment. With budget funds so tight it going to require a whole sequence of hard decisions of either / or to be made.

[Poiuytrewq]

I might quibble on some details but agree with overall plan if and only if we had the resources to do so. The difficulty is that how far / close to such a budget increase we can hope for.

It why is it so hard to comment at the moment. With budget funds so tight it going to require a whole sequence of hard decisions of either / or to be made.

Opinions vary but this is mine.

The next departmental spending settlement is due in the autumn which is why defence received no funding boost in the spring budget. The election will likely delay the spending review until after the inevitable SDSR25 commissioned by the incoming administration.

Therefore the newly established requirements post Feb22 need to be formalised within the next 12 months to make the case for increased funding.

There are two main options open to the incoming administration.

• Concentrate fully on Euro NATO and narrow the broad spectrum approach to fund a small number of top priorities properly. This approach would allow funding to remain at current levels. Due to continuing global instability it’s a strategy that is doomed to fail and will result in major capability gaps and create vacuums across the world that will be filled by others.

• The second approach involves committing to spending 2.5% to enable current planning and sort out the recruitment, retention and infrastructure issues. A commitment to gradually scale up to 3% by the end of the next parliament (around 2030) would then be needed to build back pre2010 levels of mass.

Clearly HMT would prefer the first option but will events dictate that the second option is now inevitable? Time will tell.

[Repulse]

What follows to reinforce, how it gets there and how it can be sustained, even for a modest period is highly debatable.

Nothing follows, without a period of buildup. A traditional amoured division is insignificant in the power play of Europe, even if you had another one to throw into a conflict it is also insignificant but will soak up the funds for things that are significant and are needed to defend the UK.

With that mindset how long will it be before those allied nations have more Tier1 capabilities than the British?

To be Tier1 you can’t cherry pick, you have to be able to do it all. In a large scale conflict those that can do it all are in command. Those than can only bring niche capabilities to the party will inevitably be commanded by others.

Sorry, but no you do not need to do it all. Tier 1 capabilities is about having kit / abilities that are as good if not better in than the superpowers. A T45 is tier one for AAW because it is as good if not better than anything the USN has, same as the T26. What you are referring to is a full spectrum tier one force - we aren’t a superpower and are highly unlikely to be one again. Any pretence is just dangerous as Afghanistan and Iraq both showed. However, by grouping together nations with tier one capabilities they are able to collectively compete with super powers.

How long are you planning for? If it’s for the long term it’s needs to be the broadest approach that’s affordable.

In the simplest of terms.

• The Army needs to be able to deploy 3 independent Divisions (not simultaneously) which are Rapid Expeditionary ( 3 Cdo, 16AAB, Gurkha Bde), Mechanised (Wheeled) and Armoured (Tracked). Old fashioned and expensive but also proven to work when required. Invest heavily in deep fires, highly mobile artillery and GBAD.

• The Army should concentrate on the JEF region and relieve RM of the Bardufoss commitment. Form an Arctic/Mountain Brigade and move in permanently. Rotate the entire British Army through Bardufoss regularly to ensure high levels of Arctic training. Ensure all Army kit passes rigorous Arctic testing.

• Forward base 2x Battlegroups in Norway with a 3rd in Estonia.

• By relieving RM from the fixed Norway commitment RN has a highly capable expeditionary force, the bulk of which can be deployed primarily outside of NATO. Much more capable than a couple of companies.

• 16AAB would primarily become the Army’s rapid reaction force within Euro NATO, the Gurkha Bde and the Rangers would be the Army’s rapid reaction forces outside of NATO and 3Cdo would be RN’s rapid reaction force anywhere in the world.

• Aim for one high readiness CSG plus a high readiness UK based ARG to support 2 modest LRGs. Stop at 22x fully optimised escorts and concentrate on increasing SSN numbers asap.

• Stop at 72x F35b and (in time) transfer to FAA to allow RAF to concentrate on Tempest. Invest heavily in MALE STOL drones.

• Transfer AH1 Wildcats to RN and integrate LMM/Brimstone and 20mm. Increase NMH order to compensate. Add folding rotors to Chinook and maximise Merlin numbers by introducing drone based AEW asap.

• Tempest numbers TBC but A400M, E-7 and P8 really need to double. The RAF is just too small when a clash with a peer is a rising possibility.

• Before any of that the absolute priority must be the personnel with improved terms, better conditions, new accommodation, higher retention and a total reboot of the recruitment process.

3% of GDP is a lot of money but without a clear illustration of what could and should be achieved the decline will inevitably continue.

3% will not give you this, and even if it did investing in a large expeditionary land force is completely the wrong approach IMO.

[Poiuytrewq]

….it is also insignificant but will soak up the funds for things that are significant and are needed to defend the UK.

Such as…?

Sorry, but no you do not need to do it all. Tier 1 capabilities is about having kit / abilities that are as good if not better in than the superpowers.

Britain hasn’t been a superpower for over 70 years. No one is trying to bring that back.

Nothing I have proposed is approaching superpower levels of capability. It’s simply a well balanced force designed to provide deterrence to adversaries.

3% will not give you this, and even if it did investing in a large expeditionary land force is completely the wrong approach IMO.

Moving to 2.5% will produce almost £60bn per annum for defence. Moving up to 3% would produce closer to £75bn. Thats a huge increase and clearly shows what has been removed. This is the foundational reason for all of the problems that U.K. defence is suffering now.

Where would you propose spending the increase if investing in the Army is not a priority?

[SW1]

[quote=Poiuytrewq post_id=165613
Moving to 2.5% will produce almost £60bn per annum for defence. Moving up to 3% would produce closer to £75bn. Thats a huge increase and clearly shows what has been removed. This is the foundational reason for all of the problems that U.K. defence is suffering now.
[/quote]

No it really isn’t. I do not get why people think more money is the answer all you get is the same issue’s amplified.

[Poiuytrewq]

No it really isn’t. I do not get why people think more money is the answer all you get is the same issue’s amplified.

What’s the solution without spending more money?

[SW1]

No it really isn’t. I do not get why people think more money is the answer all you get is the same issue’s amplified.

What’s the solution without spending more money?

Much tighter priorities, fully resourced areas of competency more focus on defence. Many many others do it on much less than we do.

[tomuk]

No it really isn’t. I do not get why people think more money is the answer all you get is the same issue’s amplified.

What’s the solution without spending more money?

Spending it more wisely. For example.
Do we need all the Ajax without an tracked AFV and a proper level of tanks to go with them in the armoured divisions.
Do we need all the numbers of turretless Boxers for the mechanised divisions would some patria or similar be better for supporting roles.

[Clive F]

….it is also insignificant but will soak up the funds for things that are significant and are needed to defend the UK.

Such as…?

A2/AD missiles including BMD, Space and anti-space weapons, increased air defence fighters, increased MPAs, a real MCM capability and more sea control (SSN/T26) ASW assets. All of these are woefully lacking.

On top of that I would also be spending additional funds on sovereign food and energy resilience.

Sorry, but no you do not need to do it all. Tier 1 capabilities is about having kit / abilities that are as good if not better in than the superpowers.

Britain hasn’t been a superpower for over 70 years. No one is trying to bring that back.

Nothing I have proposed is approaching superpower levels of capability. It’s simply a well balanced force designed to provide deterrence to adversaries.

What it all smells of is the a hark back to BAOR and also wanting the UK to be a world mini policeman.

With the exception of brigade level operations in the Nordics, which is purely out of self interest to secure the Norway, I see no national reason to deploy large formations of ground troops outside of the UK.

3% will not give you this, and even if it did investing in a large expeditionary land force is completely the wrong approach IMO.

Moving to 2.5% will produce almost £60bn per annum for defence. Moving up to 3% would produce closer to £75bn. Thats a huge increase and clearly shows what has been removed. This is the foundational reason for all of the problems that U.K. defence is suffering now.

Where would you propose spending the increase if investing in the Army is not a priority?

We are all guessing at numbers, but your expansion of the Army and investment into kit is in the order of doubling its CAPEX for the next 10 years (@£3bn pa) and probably adding 25% to its OPEX (@£3bn pa) - this plus inflation will soak up any increase.

What’s the priority? The items I’ve listed above and I am also keen we look at some nuclear tipped cruise missiles.

[Poiuytrewq]

Much tighter priorities, fully resourced areas of competency more focus on defence. Many many others do it on much less than we do.

Of course this is important but it won’t solve all of the problems in isolation.

Blaming foreign exchange rates isn’t the only answer either. The SSNs, SSBNs and Tempest will all be majority UK manufactured but still hugely expensive. Major investment is needed in these programs now. Where is the funding coming from?

Billions needs to be spent to improve terms and conditions and the housing infrastructure needs rapid improvement or replacement. This needs a cash injection now not after efficiency savings have been implemented later.

Doing things better and more efficiently is vital but more cash is also part of the conundrum.

[Poiuytrewq]

Spending it more wisely. For example.
Do we need all the Ajax without an tracked AFV and a proper level of tanks to go with them in the armoured divisions.
Do we need all the numbers of turretless Boxers for the mechanised divisions would some patria or similar be better for supporting roles.

Completely agree here.

Moving 1st Division to a mix of Boxers and Patria 6x6 would be ideal. Especially with the Patrias limited amphibious capabilities which would be invaluable in Norway, Sweden and Finland etc.

Reconfiguring 3rd Division to a mix of CH3, Ajax and CV90 would give the British some real offensive potential once again.

However IMO reorganising the Rapid Reaction Expeditionary Bridgades is the most important of all. Serious investment is needed here with the SupaCat HMT providing the universal chassis to provide the supporting enablers. Major investment should be directed to this immediately while 1st and 3rd Division rebuild incrementally.

Just my opinion.

[SW1]

Much tighter priorities, fully resourced areas of competency more focus on defence. Many many others do it on much less than we do.

Of course this is important but it won’t solve all of the problems in isolation.

Blaming foreign exchange rates isn’t the only answer either. The SSNs, SSBNs and Tempest will all be majority UK manufactured but still hugely expensive. Major investment is needed in these programs now. Where is the funding coming from?

Billions needs to be spent to improve terms and conditions and the housing infrastructure needs rapid improvement or replacement. This needs a cash injection now not after efficiency savings have been implemented later.

Doing things better and more efficiently is vital but more cash is also part of the conundrum.

What may last post means is less tasks, less programs to free cash to invest in specialists areas.

It’s not related to foreign exchange or being more efficient.

[Markam]

Talking about the LHD discussion from a page or two back. I understand we are talking about Helicopter Landing Docks, but one other option to consider for Albion/Bulwark replacements is a light carrier like the Izumo class Japan uses, though it would require quite a shake up and some hard decisions elsewhere.

The Izumo class cost about 900 million GBP in 2010 (113.9 billion yen in 2010), and it seems they have cost another 220 million GBP to refit to allow them to carry F35B, so the 1 billion number suggested to build an LHD (even with F35B capabilities) seems reasonable. Though this is confused a lot by the exchange rate, the 113.9 billion figure in 2024 is actually 600 million as the value of the yen has fallen considerably.

Costing aside, the Japanese navy these carriers can have "12 or more" F35B operating, which is not as much as the QE but not terrible considering the size and cost. They seem to need over 500 crew which seems like a lot to me, especially when you look at QE crew efficiency wise.

I am a bit of a maverick when it comes to my ideas, so just take what I say as a bit of brainstorming nonsense just for consideration,
but one way forward perhaps is to;
・Sell or lease the Prince of Wales to Australia (sale better for gaining funds, leasing better politically/diplomatically) as part of AUKUS,
・Replace Albion/Bulwark with an Izumo style light carrier x2, for 1 billion per ship,
・Convert the QE into a CATOBAR carrier (let Australia ask the US to help them do the same to POW as they already have F-18s),
・Cancel remaining F35B purchases, purchase a number of F35C and F-18 Super Hornets instead,
・Use existing F-35B for the light carriers,
・Replace the x3 Bay and RFA Argus with the Enforcer or similar MPSS design x4,
・Optionally retire Batch 1 River class OPV (x3) and purchase smaller Enforcer/MPSS x2 (Batch 1 river was made around the same time as the Bay class).

Costing all this is obviously going to be a difficult task due to the drastic nature of the changes, but having 3 carriers, 1 large, 2 small instead of 2 large will give more flexibility and the QE can be kept closer to home while the lighter carriers, cheaper to run, can do more of the heavy lifting. The only reason I suggest replacing 2 OPVs with 2 more MPSS is because the Dutch are doing it for their larger OPVs (recently comments from the Dutch is they will likely buy 6 Enforcers replacing also their Holland class OPV) and if we were to have 2 light carriers instead of LPD we would lose overall moving capacity. The smaller MPSS (9,000 tn) seem like they could deploy small patrol boats and do decently in some of our current deployments, especially the Caribbean, as an MPSS could also deliver a lot of relief in hurricane season.

Do be kind, I am only riffing some thoughts I had.

[Jake1992]

Talking about the LHD discussion from a page or two back. I understand we are talking about Helicopter Landing Docks, but one other option to consider for Albion/Bulwark replacements is a light carrier like the Izumo class Japan uses, though it would require quite a shake up and some hard decisions elsewhere.

The Izumo class cost about 900 million GBP in 2010 (113.9 billion yen in 2010), and it seems they have cost another 220 million GBP to refit to allow them to carry F35B, so the 1 billion number suggested to build an LHD (even with F35B capabilities) seems reasonable. Though this is confused a lot by the exchange rate, the 113.9 billion figure in 2024 is actually 600 million as the value of the yen has fallen considerably.

Costing aside, the Japanese navy these carriers can have "12 or more" F35B operating, which is not as much as the QE but not terrible considering the size and cost. They seem to need over 500 crew which seems like a lot to me, especially when you look at QE crew efficiency wise.

I am a bit of a maverick when it comes to my ideas, so just take what I say as a bit of brainstorming nonsense just for consideration,
but one way forward perhaps is to;
・Sell or lease the Prince of Wales to Australia (sale better for gaining funds, leasing better politically/diplomatically) as part of AUKUS,
・Replace Albion/Bulwark with an Izumo style light carrier x2, for 1 billion per ship,
・Convert the QE into a CATOBAR carrier (let Australia ask the US to help them do the same to POW as they already have F-18s),
・Cancel remaining F35B purchases, purchase a number of F35C and F-18 Super Hornets instead,
・Use existing F-35B for the light carriers,
・Replace the x3 Bay and RFA Argus with the Enforcer or similar MPSS design x4,
・Optionally retire Batch 1 River class OPV (x3) and purchase smaller Enforcer/MPSS x2 (Batch 1 river was made around the same time as the Bay class).

Costing all this is obviously going to be a difficult task due to the drastic nature of the changes, but having 3 carriers, 1 large, 2 small instead of 2 large will give more flexibility and the QE can be kept closer to home while the lighter carriers, cheaper to run, can do more of the heavy lifting. The only reason I suggest replacing 2 OPVs with 2 more MPSS is because the Dutch are doing it for their larger OPVs (recently comments from the Dutch is they will likely buy 6 Enforcers replacing also their Holland class OPV) and if we were to have 2 light carriers instead of LPD we would lose overall moving capacity. The smaller MPSS (9,000 tn) seem like they could deploy small patrol boats and do decently in some of our current deployments, especially the Caribbean, as an MPSS could also deliver a lot of relief in hurricane season.

Do be kind, I am only riffing some thoughts I had.

There’s a few issues I see here -

1 - you don’t seem to take in to account inflation nor the greater efficiency of the Japanese ship build industry when figuring the build cost of Izumo.

2 - where is Austrian getting the money from to buy and convert PoW let alone the aircraft and training, they also haven't shown any interest in such.

3 - we would need extra escorts for the now 3 CSGs along with the extra crew and RAS fleet. We currently have no real plan on escorting our amphibs to any real leave like a carrier would require.

4 - we would need to work up a whole new training line for CATBAR carrier ops with all the costs involved.

5 - what will replace the F35B in RAF service if we cancel the raining orders and replace with F35C

While I like out of the box thinking as it can give us a new way forward that can in the end be better there is just to much been over looked in costs, extra needs and effects to other areas here.

[Markam]

Thanks for the reply! My thoughts on your thoughts.

1 - you don’t seem to take in to account inflation nor the greater efficiency of the Japanese ship build industry when figuring the build cost of Izumo.

・Certainly, and it is quite hard to appropriately cost it accurately with inflation, exchange rates, and just how much more efficient the Japanese industry is. However, it would seem that 1b-1.5b range is within reason, and it would be good value for money.

2 - where is Austrian getting the money from to buy and convert PoW let alone the aircraft and training, they also haven't shown any interest in such.

・I mentioned Australia owing to their ownership of F-18s and the current AUKUS set up, but yeah of course there may not be any will for a carrier, an option would be to lease it which would be less costly and we get the benefit of reducing our overheads at the least, the conversion may involve some US investment as strategically it would benefit the US a lot. I have heard rumours of Turkey also wanting to build a carrier and South Korea may also be interested, but it may be difficult to secure a sale.

3 - we would need extra escorts for the now 3 CSGs along with the extra crew and RAS fleet. We currently have no real plan on escorting our amphibs to any real leave like a carrier would require.

・We need more escorts as is, so yes it's a problem, but I assume we will have to deploy our carriers with allies or only deploy them sparingly (1 at a time).

4 - we would need to work up a whole new training line for CATBAR carrier ops with all the costs involved.

・The arguments against/for CATOBAR is complicated, upgrading the carriers was a big issue in 2010 with a lot of smoke and mirrors, but the biggest benefit I think is being able to operate lower cost per hour jets, as it is pointed out the F35 alone is very expensive to run.

5 - what will replace the F35B in RAF service if we cancel the raining orders and replace with F35C

・We may have to take on some more F35B in the meantime depending on the schedule but with the current numbers it is better we decide before we end up at the stated 138 number and are stuck with them, reducing the incentive to go CATOBAR and flying expensive jets only.

[Poiuytrewq]

What may last post means is less tasks, less programs to free cash to invest in specialists areas.

So based on current planning what are you proposing to cut?

[SW1]

What may last post means is less tasks, less programs to free cash to invest in specialists areas.

So based on current planning what are you proposing to cut?

As I have mentioned before my choice is national requirements around air defence, maritime security and counter terrorism/eod. Beyond that our contributions to coalitions would be around submarines, strategic transport, aar, airborne ISR and special forces (under which I included the RM and paras). All the rest up for discussion based on how much budget is left.

You have generally responded this means isolationism to which I have disagreed.

[Poiuytrewq]

As I have mentioned before my choice is national requirements around air defence, maritime security and counter terrorism/eod. Beyond that our contributions to coalitions would be around submarines, strategic transport, aar, airborne ISR and special forces (under which I included the RM and paras). All the rest up for discussion based on how much budget is left.

You have generally responded this means isolationism to which I have disagreed.

I am not sure we are entirely in disagreement, simply that I would propose an extra 0.3% rising to 0.8% of GDP to create a balanced force. Effectively your rough outline plus the more conventional structures.

Perhaps the other difference is that I have less confidence in NATO working in the way it’s envisioned if truly tested. Therefore offloading critical elements of U.K. security to other nations is unwise. If the US really starts to walk away the U.K. will have to do much much more.

IMO the rise to 2.5% GDP is inevitable, it’s just a case of how fast it happens and what it is spent on. Current planning certainly needs some realigned priorities in the next SDSR.

[serge750]

Perhaps the RN could swap a QEC carrier & both Albion + bulwark for both the Oz JC class LHD ....potentialy the RN could have a rotation of 1 x strike carrier & LHD with a LHD in maintance, or when the QEC is in refit use a JC LHD (with updates) as a mini F35 carrier ....bit of a tongue in cheek idea

[SW1]

As I have mentioned before my choice is national requirements around air defence, maritime security and counter terrorism/eod. Beyond that our contributions to coalitions would be around submarines, strategic transport, aar, airborne ISR and special forces (under which I included the RM and paras). All the rest up for discussion based on how much budget is left.

You have generally responded this means isolationism to which I have disagreed.

I am not sure we are entirely in disagreement, simply that I would propose an extra 0.3% rising to 0.8% of GDP to create a balanced force. Effectively your rough outline plus the more conventional structures.

Perhaps the other difference is that I have less confidence in NATO working in the way it’s envisioned if truly tested. Therefore offloading critical elements of U.K. security to other nations is unwise. If the US really starts to walk away the U.K. will have to do much much more.

IMO the rise to 2.5% GDP is inevitable, it’s just a case of how fast it happens and what it is spent on. Current planning certainly needs some realigned priorities in the next SDSR.

The ultimate guarantor of nato is the nuclear umbrella and that will remain. The response to nibbles or testing along its border more interesting and why Baltic states in particular are extremely nervous. It’s the political leadership and command elements most missing without the US you saw that in the Libya campaign


For the uk we survive regardless short of total nuclear war Russia isn’t invading and the forces described ensure that.


Defence needs to sort itself out within its current budget until it does that things will not improve.

[Repulse]

What may last post means is less tasks, less programs to free cash to invest in specialists areas.

So based on current planning what are you proposing to cut?

As I have mentioned before my choice is national requirements around air defence, maritime security and counter terrorism/eod. Beyond that our contributions to coalitions would be around submarines, strategic transport, aar, airborne ISR and special forces (under which I included the RM and paras). All the rest up for discussion based on how much budget is left.

You have generally responded this means isolationism to which I have disagreed.

I agree with everything here. What I can’t understand is why you don’t also agree that the carriers are key operating platforms for SFs and also a crucial part of ensuring sea control in the North Atlantic alongside SSN/T26/MPA assets.