UK Defence Forum

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?

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.

dmereifield wrote:All of these discussions assume that the carriers will always be escorted by 2 T45s. Is that realistic,

More than likely its not what you will see in peacetime unless operating in the Gulf or other hotspots.

Re- the Babcock news... which design would they be building if they get the contract?

Arrowhead 140 was their last offering

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.

Thanks. But, my point is, why ONLY the 2 Carriers are free from your "need 3 to make 1 ready"?

In short, if I borrow your comment (sorry), To maintain 1 CVF at very high readiness/deployed and 1 CVF at medium/high readiness requires 3 CVF in total.

But, RN has only 2 CVs.

I understand this means,
A: 1 CV(TF) will be in high-readiness/deployed for 2/3 of a year
B: another 1 CV (TF) will be in medium/high readiness for 2/3 of a year
C: remaining 1 (= 0.5+0.5 added) CV (TF) will be in low readiness/maintenance for 2/3 of a year
And by arranging A and B, keep 1 CV (TF) at high readiness throughout a year?

This is why I said 4 T45 and 4 T26 is enough. I might be wrong, but I cannot understand why CVF's availability can be so high compared to escorts. It is hugely complex, maintenance and training-heavy asset, I guess...

With the type 31e frigate the concerns seem to be of the ship in where it is built than on any capabilities and capacities the winning tenderer may have in the winning design .
I could easily envisage the admiralty wanting one design and politicians another

For me with all that has been said above I think what is needed now is 6 A-140 Type 31's with 4 being deployed East of Suez at the new base in Bahrain allowing one ship to be deployed into the Indo-Pacific 9 month of the year these could be joined by 1 x Bay 1 x Wave and 4 MCM . For me A-140 offers the best option due to its size it will be able to offer very good leaves of comfort to the crew with its fight deck and Hangar it can land on all allied helicopter types up to Chinook and hangar 80% of them it could have a very good weapons fit as seen on the walkthrough video it could be fitted with 1 x 76mm , 2 x 40mm , 2 x Phalanx , 24 CAMM and 8 x NSM/RBS-15 if money allowed

Edit : this could allow the 2 Carriers , 6 type 45 , 8 type 23/26 , 2 type 31 , 8 OPVs and the Amphib group to operate in the Atlantic and Med

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.

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

Tempest414 wrote:
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

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

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.

We mustn't confuse wartime escort strength to that of peacetime. The nature of the opposition also is a factor, a Carrier Group supporting operations against Afghanistan for example would not face a major naval threat. But what do we plan for and train for? Fine we could operate with one T-26 and one T-45 day to day, but how close would additional escorts be in a crisis. Our Carrier Group is a major NATO asset, but it is also the UKs most visible and high value assets, one which requires substantial permanent protection. The French do operate with only two escorts in peacetime, but would increase this in wartime. They also seem to operate their carrier Group in the Med or nearby, and would rapidly reinforce it. We are intent on a global presence where our Carrier Group could be on the other side of the world. Where can we be certain to obtain additional escorts from? Only Australia has high end AAW platforms, Japan being limited by what it can do and when.

As I said earlier, we can spread out naval assets further but at the expense of core needs and the Carrier Group is the central need for the RN moving forward. In wartime we will put our naval assets in harms way, and whilst we can afford to lose a number of escorts, barely, we cannot afford to lose a Carrier. Other nations can cover standing NATO commitments, NATO would prefer to have the RN contribute an effective Carrier Group anyway, AS for global presence, well I have made my feeling on that subject clear.

I suspose if the carrier group sails east of suez with a normal peacetime escort of T45 + T23/26 then the forward based T23/26 could also meat up aswell, recently wasn't there talk ( or just spin? ) of basing a T31 in the indian area aswell?

presumably the RN would prioritize having a Astute close by aswell, but more perminant escorts would be better but as always requires money....

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

It clear that there are time when allies brake ranks and some can be trusted more than others. I can't think of a time when the Danish or Norwegian navy have let anyone down so if we could get a escort from each of them we would be in good form. also Australia and Canada have been steed fast. I have always liked the idea of a Commonwealth carrier group made up of

1 carrier
1 x T-45
3 x T-26 one from Australia , Canada , UK
and maybe a escort from another Commonwealth country like NZ , India or Singapore

Maybe HMAS Canberra as well ! as you say maybe a dutch or Norwegian for the north atlantic

I would also expect if its par for the course to have a USMC F35 ( & Ospreys ) squadron on the QEC then a USN escort as well ?

Lord Jim wrote: We mustn't confuse wartime escort strength to that of peacetime. .

Well, during a peacetime, you don't really need any escort. OK, don't need is a big word, but one destroyer and one frigate is enough. As you said, bombing Afghanistan or some similar shithole also don't requires big escort and Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Norway etc. could be counted on to send a ship to join escort. But, if things go to hell and CSG needs to sail in harms way ( let's say this last situation with Iran or maybe one day China or say agaisnt Russia ), I don't think that many such good allies will be found.

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.

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.

Lord Jim wrote: Ideally the Carrier should have a minimum of four but escorts are limited in number

I don't think the need to "have all four sides" covered needs super-douper missile escorts (though one should certainly fall into that category) as the threats are many and simply having an asset manoeuvreing - if needed - on all four sides can help to avoid having the carrier being drydocked for a lengthy period:
"Cyber Probes to be Part of All Future Navy Mishap ...
http://www.maritimeherald.com/2017/cybe ... .collision

15/09/2017 · As part of the investigation into McCain’s collision, a team from the Navy’s U.S. 10th Fleet cyber arm traveled to Singapore to see if a reported steering failure of the destroyer was a result of cyber tampering, USNI News reported last month."

Haven't seen any conclusive reports on the above, but hacking a commercial ship/ tanker at a pinch point where the carrier is also passing would be equally effective... and a whole lot easier.

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.

Stupid question maybe, but would the CEPP CSG ever deploy without a CVF but perhaps be focused around a LPD? This would mean a task group being deployed 100% of the time but also doing the “break off regional” tasks you mention?

for me I would like to see two commands

1 ) Home fleet command made up of

2 x Carriers , 1 x LPD/ LPH , 6 x T-45 , 8 x T-23/26 , 2 x T-31 , 7 x OPVs , 6 x MCM , 4 x Survey ships , 4 x Tide class , 2 x SSS , 2 x Bay class , 3 x Points

Main effort of operations Atlantic , Med , Baltic. Aim to have 1 Carrier deployed 8 months of the year and support SNMG 1/2 , TAPS , FRE

2 ) East of Suez Command made up of

4 x T-31 , 4 x MCM , 1 x Bay , 2 x Wave , 1 x Point

Main effort of operations Gulf and Indo-Pacific. Aim to have a T-31 in the Indo-Pacific for 9 months of the year and a Wave class the rest of the time

The following article came up again on Twitter in the past 24hrs, some inaccuracies, but the question is correct: what role should the UK play EoS based on what it can afford.

https://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/online-ar ... -east-suez

From the previous list of surface commitments the RN has:
9) Kipion (MCM and forward based Escort)
10) Operation Atalanta / CTF150 / CTF151
11) Globe trotting survey and Diplomacy
Plus the ambition for:
12) Forward based Escort, in Singapore?

I understand the need for the RN to be involved in insuring that the Gulf remains “mine free” and UK flagged shipping goes unmolested (#9), which is currently normally a FF/DD (now 3), 4 MCMs and a Bay acting as a mothership. In the future MCM will be performed using unmanned drones, so what mix is right going forwards? This is where I maintain the view a MHPC style T31 could and probably should be the answer.

I also see the power and influence gained by routinely exercising our CSG with regional allies.

However for the others, what are we trying to achieve apart from being globally visible?

Tempest414 wrote:2 ) East of Suez Command made up of

4 x T-31 , 4 x MCM , 1 x Bay , 2 x Wave , 1 x Point

No ASW capability EoS?

I do see another problem ahead for the Royal Nay's escort force. If we break the 3:1 rule and work the ships harder, are we not going to put ourselves in the position the USN is now in where it has a bow wave of ship requiring deep maintenance, and number available for operations is dropping as a result. Surely it would hit us harder as we have fewer berths to carry out such work.

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.

Well, maybe not two days sailing, that's too hard to insure, but ready to sail within say 2-3 days and be there within say 10 days. Good thing about CVBG is that she can be retreated back into a safe(r) area until reinforcements arrive.

abc123 wrote:Good thing about CVBG is that she can be retreated back into a safe(r) area until reinforcements arrive.

Err, to paraphrase: fire engine arrives on the scene in good time, but then pulls back, for the waterpump to be delivered, on a separate vehicle... in due course?