SW1 wrote:How do pacific nations do intelligence gathering in the Atlantic or European area?
There are no nation like UK in Asia. UK historically has interests world wide. Asian nation does not. Just it.
I think thinpinstripedline argument is very thin.
Disagree, sorry.
Poiuytrewq wrote:What can an RB2 achieve that a Bay or a Wave cannot?
Two River B2 with 110 crew in total, in x1.5 rotation can achieve 600 sea-going days. A Bay or Wave with 110 crew can achieve, 180-200 days at most? More than 3 times difference. Major difference.
Of course, River B2 cannot do HADR better than Bay. Cannot replenish other ship as Waves does. So what? Bays and Waves are doing it in the other theater. Are you proposing that the Tide-class with QE CVTF shall be replaced with two River B2s?
Or, you think these River B2 shall be disbanded to re-active the Wave (not manned) to provide oiler support at Asia? It will be one idea. But, the region has many LSDs (better for HADR) and does not need so many oiler (Not many blue water navies, and RAN and RNZN have their own oilers). At least, I see no strong merit of a Wave which can be at sea only 180-200 days a year, over the two River B2 providing 600 sea-going days a year. What is it?
If RN cannot spare any T23's for the deployment then surely the same will apply for the T31's as they decommission /commission like for like. In which case the RB2's will be forward based in Singapore until at least 2030 when the T32's start to arrive.
As it is very unlikely the RB1's will remain in service until 2030 what is going to fill the gap when the RB1's decommission?
I think differently.
- T31 is new = needs less maintenance than old T23.
- T31 is simpler (thanks to "no sonar", "only 12 CAMM", "no Mk.41 VLS" and "no big gun") = needs even less maintenance than complex T23.
So, replacing 5 T23GPs with 5 T31 will enable additional assets to be sent forward. 15-20 years later, when T31 gets old, it is another srtory.
If the T23 ASW's/T26's are going to cover the CVF's and TAPs primarily then five T31's will have to both both LSG's, FRE and APT(S) plus NATO commitments. Planning to forward base two out of five T31's in Singapore before the T32's arrive appears very unlikely.
Maybe or may be not. I guess the 5 T31 will be
- 0.5-1 for FRE (sometimes shared with TAPs T26 and/or EEZ-Fishery River B2, as is now done).
- 1 for LSG-west, sometimes with NATO fleet
- 1 for LSG-east, sometimes as FPDA obligation
- 1 for Persian Gulf (Kipion),
- and 1-1.5 in maintenance.
Personally I think there are better options.
Interested to listen to your option, actually. I agree there can be better way. I am just saying "2 River B2 in Indo-Pacific" looks like
NOT a bad idea for me. Never saying it is the best idea.
SW1 wrote:So the question of what are we achieving with two rivers or intend to do militarily has not been really been set out. There is plenty of security tasks we could undertaking much closer to home. I repeat the statement from the Integrated review Russia is seen as the direct threat to UK.
That's surely one idea. Retreat from east, concentrate on west, and become a regional power, not a global power. It is reasonable, I agree.
If the idea is for intelligence gathering then should not it more realistically be space based, or should it perhaps be long range airborne unmanned systems with intel sensors, or even the use of HMS Enterprise with the data shared with allies in the 5 powers and 5 years arena as it undoubtedly already is. Have the rivers had surveillance systems added and enhanced data or communications systems if not they seem an odd choice.
No big objection, but intelligence gathering with sending River B2s has different aspect to those done by long range airborne unmanned systems. I think you are comparing very different tasks as the same one. UAV (or satellite) will tell you "what" is going there. River B2 showing flag and making many friends in the region will tell you "why" it is happening, or what will happen in future. Surely BOTH is needed, not only one.