Future ASW

[ArmChairCivvy]

If you can't sanitise the stretch of littoral (of, say, SSKs) that you have chosen to approach, then the landings will be pretty much restricted to establishing protective zones to carry out evacuations
_- my reading of "opposed" has been about crossing the beach (the answer being STOM... which is both doctrinal and - to some degree -aspirational. But let's see what is coming out from fitting the QEs (at least one?) to be better suited for supporting such ops in general, and STOM in particular

[marktigger]

that's if you littoral plan means taking on SSk's or nations with SSK's Somalia doesn't and allot of "Failed" states won't have the expertese they hope to keep an SSK fleet going.

[Engaging Strategy]

that's if you littoral plan means taking on SSk's or nations with SSK's Somalia doesn't and allot of "Failed" states won't have the expertese they hope to keep an SSK fleet going.

Planning to only fight failed states with no submarine capability whatsoever seems a bit... shortsighted.

[marktigger]

its worked since 1999

[Engaging Strategy]

its worked since 1999

The world has changed a lot since the '90s.

[R686]

its worked since 1999

The world has changed a lot since the '90s.

And not for the better I'd add

[marktigger]

yeap but that strategy has worked and totally agree. We'll continue to fight the last naval, Land and Air operation till we're found wanting.....which could be sooner than later.

[Old RN]

UK defense strategy says no opposed landings. I think a submarine infested littoral would qualify as such.

That was the 1966 policy that lead to the cancellation of CVA carrier programme, I do not beleive it is still policy post Falklands.

[Engaging Strategy]

That was the 1966 policy that lead to the cancellation of CVA carrier programme, I do not beleive it is still policy post Falklands.

Obviously it's more a broad principle than a hard and fast rule. The level of opposition would matter a great deal. Technically the San Carlos landings were "opposed" by a few tiny Argentine observation detatchments that were eliminated by Specal Forces just as the first landings went in.

I'd say it's more a statement that amphibious forces should use their inherent mobility to go ashore in a place that isn't well defended. Nobody in their right mind wants to recreate D-Day.

[Old RN]

I think that landing on a beach 8000nm from our nearest naval facility (4000nm from our nearest airfield) against an enemy who outnumbered us by over 3:1 in ground troops, over 10:1 in combat a/c counts as an opposed landing!

[Engaging Strategy]

I think that landing on a beach 8000nm from our nearest naval facility (4000nm from our nearest airfield) against an enemy who outnumbered us by over 3:1 in ground troops, over 10:1 in combat a/c counts as an opposed landing!

You misunderstand, an "opposed landing" means putting troops over a beach that's defended by enemy ground forces. While there were a lot of Argentine forces on the Falkland islands, there were hardly any stationed in and around San Carlos Water. The marines that landed there were essentially unopposed, with SF units neutralising a few small Argentine observation posts with naval gunfire.

Obviously in the ensuing days the Argentine air force "opposed" the landing with persistent air attacks, but that's not really what's meant by the term.

[Old RN]

The carrier is required to provide the aircover for all this. The fact that we chose to land at San Carlos, rather than directly at Stanley as the Argentinians expected is good tactics, but does not change the forces required. The need for the opposed landing was the only issue that could not be discounted in the RAF attempt to stop the RN CVA programme in the 1960s and therefore needed a policy of "no opposed landing". The Falkland campaign would not have been possible without some form of CV.

[marktigger]

I think that landing on a beach 8000nm from our nearest naval facility (4000nm from our nearest airfield) against an enemy who outnumbered us by over 3:1 in ground troops, over 10:1 in combat a/c counts as an opposed landing!

You misunderstand, an "opposed landing" means putting troops over a beach that's defended by enemy ground forces. While there were a lot of Argentine forces on the Falkland islands, there were hardly any stationed in and around San Carlos Water. The marines that landed there were essentially unopposed, with SF units neutralising a few small Argentine observation posts with naval gunfire.

Obviously in the ensuing days the Argentine air force "opposed" the landing with persistent air attacks, but that's not really what's meant by the term.

Part of that Neutralisation was the use of NGFS & 4.5 inch naval guns!

[Engaging Strategy]

Part of that Neutralisation was the use of NGFS & 4.5 inch naval guns!

Your favourite topic! That's why all our escorts need a gun capable of firing a decent HE shell.

[marktigger]

Part of that Neutralisation was the use of NGFS & 4.5 inch naval guns!

Your favourite topic! That's why all our escorts need a gun capable of firing a decent HE shell.

Ex gunner mate therefore I see the necessity for support of land forces

[marktigger]

doing an opposed landing like Normandy now would be suicide. Picking your bridgehead carefully saves lives in the long run.

I agree with the concept of a couple of "ASW" carriers but do think Arapaho concept could cover those or the LPD's being replaced with LPH that could fill the role if one of the carriers wasn't available. or some of the larger RFA's being designed with enhanced Avation facilities with hanger capicity for 5 Merlins or perhaps Argus replaced with a ship of similar capability!

[PAUL MARSAY]

All this enhanced Asw capability needs one more thing , a further buy of Merlin .

[PAUL MARSAY]

I do think we need a helicopter carrier to follow on from Prince of Wales , covering both Asw and Amphib roles. In fantasy fleet land I would like 3 to replace invincible , ocean and argus roles .

[marktigger]

canberra / Juan Carlos I class LPH would make excellent ocean/Albion/Bulwark replacements

[PAUL MARSAY]

Agreed, I can also see them as an Argus replacement and as a ASW carrier.

[Caribbean]

canberra / Juan Carlos I class LPH would make excellent ocean/Albion/Bulwark replacements

With the portential to also operate a small number of F35b's as well.

Would something like the Johan de Witt be a suitable basis for an Argus replacement (with potential ASW capabilities)?

[shark bait]

canberra / Juan Carlos I class LPH would make excellent ocean/Albion/Bulwark replacements

Indeed it would, and I suppose they could work as ASW carriers as the invincibles did or as the Japanese do now.

All this enhanced Asw capability needs one more thing , a further buy of Merlin .

A further buy of merlin isn't necessary, there are eight awaiting upgrade, which must be right up the list of priorities for the Navy.

That would be enough to equip all our escorts or another ASW carrier.

I forget, is it 8 or 9 merlin required by the carrier's to give a continuous ASW capability?

[PAUL MARSAY]

I have heard that it takes 9 to keep 3 in the air continuously . I have also heard that they are all going to be AEW capable .

[GibMariner]

I forget, is it 8 or 9 merlin required by the carrier's to give a continuous ASW capability?

I believe the plans are that there will be 14 Merlins assigned to the carrier, of which 9 are ASW and 5 AEW.

[marktigger]

canberra / Juan Carlos I class LPH would make excellent ocean/Albion/Bulwark replacements

With the portential to also operate a small number of F35b's as well.

Would something like the Johan de Witt be a suitable basis for an Argus replacement (with potential ASW capabilities)?

As an Argus replacement yes upgrade the medical facilities to include Imaging, Intensive care and ward space.

but yes it could have ability to contribute to ASW capability as the ASW kit could be stripped out to make way for stretchers if the decision is made to deploy as PCRS