dmereifield wrote:All of these discussions assume that the carriers will always be escorted by 2 T45s. Is that realistic, given that they will mostly be deployed in peace time, when there will either be allied escorts in the group or in the region, in addition to additional UK assets usually in the region?
dmereifield wrote:All of these discussions assume that the carriers will always be escorted by 2 T45s. Is that realistic,
Thanks. But, my point is, why ONLY the 2 Carriers are free from your "need 3 to make 1 ready"?Aethulwulf wrote:It is quite simple understand...
One carrier group (inc. 2 T45 & 2 T26/23) is either deployed or at very high readiness for 12 month period (probably inc. ~6 month deployment).
2nd carrier group (inc. 2 T45 & 2 T26/23) is at medium-to-high readiness for 12 months, and then swaps to very high readiness group.
To maintain 2 T45 at very high readiness/deployed and 2 T45 at medium/high readiness requires 6 T45 in total.
To maintain 2 T26/23asw at very high readiness/deployed and 2 T26/23asw at medium/high readiness requires 6 T26/23asw in total.
The other 2 T26/23asw will be required to ensure 100% availability of TAPS.
Holding ships at medium/high readiness (i.e. 20 to 30 days notice) consumes resources and means these ships are not available for other tasking. For example, it means these ships have either undertaken FOST, or are fully trained up so that they could undertake and pass FOST in <20-30 days.
serge750 wrote:Ref to the escorts needed for a carrier group,
I think the minimum in peacetime would be 1 x T45 & 1 xT26/23, so why not assign a dedicated T45=T26/23 to each carrier? i.e. HMS Duncan + HMS Cardiff to HMS QE, make sure they have the same training + refit cycles etc and then do the same for HMS Dragon + HMS Belfast to HMS POW. if the crap hits the fan I am sure all other units will be diverted as needed, then you still have 4 X T45 and 6 X T23 for all other posting when available outside of their training/refit cycles.
This would only work for me as long as the our Carrier and two escorts were joined by three allied escorts to form say NATO Carrier group 1
Jake1992 wrote:This is a good point are we hoping too much for a USN CSG style set up ( myself included ) when we should be thinking more of a french style CSG set up.
abc123 wrote:I think that we had the opportunity to see what's the worth of such allied escorts a month or so ago, when that Spanish frigate turned back before reaching Hormuz. You can't really rely on anybody else. Even the US, remember what Pompeo said: It's your duty to protect your ships. #fair-weather-allies
Lord Jim wrote:We mustn't confuse wartime escort strength to that of peacetime. .
Lord Jim wrote: Ideally the Carrier should have a minimum of four but escorts are limited in number
SW1 wrote:But is it not that you have the group work up and deploy as a task group, the escorts don’t all stay with the group along the way some break off do other things and the group only reforms for passage thru high treat areas or for major exercises or operations. You choose a region to deploy to.
If the high end escort force has to chance hows it manned and supported to fall into line with the carriers cycle then that’s a choice that should be made if singleton deployments are to be replaced with a carrier group deployment.
Lord Jim wrote:Having Escorts work with a Carrier is a skill the Royal Navy is also having to relearn today. Having a Carrier damaged, be it by a AShM or a trawler with a drunk Captain will be totally unacceptable at a political level let alone a military one. We cannot only use them in benign areas, and will have to send them into harms way so when needed they must be effectively protected. A minimum of two escorts must accompany the carrier at all times (1x T-26, 1x T-45) but at least one more of each must be within a maximum of two days sailing of the Carrier at all times in case a situation arises. Ideally the Carrier should have a minimum of four but escorts are limited in number, so the choice lies with the Government as to where its priorities are and it will bear the responsibility of any repercussions if things go bad.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests