Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 10 Jul 2022, 10:21 We dont have two “carrier strike groups”, there is only one.
We have the ability to prioritise assets to form two and that is my view on what we should do.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 10 Jul 2022, 10:41
SW1 wrote: 10 Jul 2022, 10:21 We dont have two “carrier strike groups”, there is only one.
We have the ability to prioritise assets to form two and that is my view on what we should do.
We don’t, two ships to allow 1 to be available. Insufficient helicopters, fixed wing and support ships to configure a single group let alone 2.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Ok, perhaps we are saying different things but the basis is the same.

Neither commitment would be permanent - there is little difference in my book from having two CSGs 50/50 than one always available. Ring fencing 6 T45s and 6 T23s is possible, as our allocating the 4 Tides between the two. The limiting factor is RFA Victoria which given both of these CSGs would be operating primarily in NATO waters with nearby sovereign or allied ports it’s not a massive issue.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

For me the short term way forward is for QE to have 2 T-45 & 2 T-23's ring fenced these would joined by NATO or other Allies as was seen in CSG21 POW should get 1 T-45 & 1 T-23 and form the base of a NATO Carrier group with other escorts and Support ships being pledged 12 months ahead of deployment

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

SW1 wrote: 10 Jul 2022, 10:51
Repulse wrote: 10 Jul 2022, 10:41
SW1 wrote: 10 Jul 2022, 10:21 We dont have two “carrier strike groups”, there is only one.
We have the ability to prioritise assets to form two and that is my view on what we should do.
We don’t, two ships to allow 1 to be available. Insufficient helicopters, fixed wing and support ships to configure a single group let alone 2.
Really? “Only 1 carrier” went out with the Cameron administration. We have two commissioned carriers and neither is in extended readiness.

F35B first batch deliveries will be complete by 2024/5 which will have allow carrier 1 to operate in strike mode - 24 F35 and carrier 2 in LPH+ mode - 12F35 + Helicopters (+drones?), not counting USMC deployments. Carrier 2 is still probably as powerful as anything outside the USN

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

SW1 wrote: 10 Jul 2022, 10:21 We dont have two “carrier strike groups”, there is only one.
Repulse wrote: 10 Jul 2022, 10:41We have the ability to prioritise assets to form two and that is my view on what we should do.
SW1 wrote: 10 Jul 2022, 10:51We don’t, two ships to allow 1 to be available. Insufficient helicopters, fixed wing and support ships to configure a single group let alone 2.
SD67 wrote: 10 Jul 2022, 13:16Really? “Only 1 carrier” went out with the Cameron administration. We have two commissioned carriers and neither is in extended readiness.

F35B first batch deliveries will be complete by 2024/5 which will have allow carrier 1 to operate in strike mode - 24 F35 and carrier 2 in LPH+ mode - 12F35 + Helicopters (+drones?), not counting USMC deployments. Carrier 2 is still probably as powerful as anything outside the USN
RN has only one carrier strike group. This is why they need additional F35B, say, up to 72 or so. This is why PoW was "fully active" as an LPH this spring (it was NOT a carrier strike group without fixed wing. Just LPH. Note PoW is officially Ocean replacement.)

Eventually, the LPH version of PoW or QNLZ will be added with 9-12 F-35B. But I think it will NOT be called a carrier strike group.

RN can change the situation by increasing F35B number to 72 or so. But that is nearly a decade away. So, for now, RN has only one carrier strike group.
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
wargame_insomniac

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Would say a complement of 12 F35Bs + 6 AEW/ASW HM2 Merlins + 3 HCA Merlins + 3 Wildcats for each carrier would be a strong peace-time baseline for each carrier. This can then be complemented by additional RAF, USMC or other allied assets depending on the need.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 10 Jul 2022, 13:56 Eventually, the LPH version of PoW or QNLZ will be added with 9-12 F-35B. But I think it will NOT be called a carrier strike group.

RN can change the situation by increasing F35B number to 72 or so. But that is nearly a decade away. So, for now, RN has only one carrier strike group.
Sorry disagree, just as my last post states 12 F35Bs on each carrier is a good peacetime complement which can be scaled as needed.

Also, when we talk about Strike we need to be clear what we mean, perhaps CTG (Carrier Task Group) would be better. There is highly unlikely to be a CVF assigned to carrier strike and another as a LPH. They should be used as the flexible platforms they were designed to be, which can be scaled / adapted to the mission in hand.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

I would of thought the deployed aircraft numbers of the past couple of years, rotary and fixed would have put paid to these fantasy air groups but clearly not.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Repulse wrote: 10 Jul 2022, 14:03
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 10 Jul 2022, 13:56 Eventually, the LPH version of PoW or QNLZ will be added with 9-12 F-35B. But I think it will NOT be called a carrier strike group.

RN can change the situation by increasing F35B number to 72 or so. But that is nearly a decade away. So, for now, RN has only one carrier strike group.
Sorry disagree, just as my last post states 12 F35Bs on each carrier is a good peacetime complement which can be scaled as needed.

Also, when we talk about Strike we need to be clear what we mean, perhaps CTG (Carrier Task Group) would be better. There is highly unlikely to be a CVF assigned to carrier strike and another as a LPH. They should be used as the flexible platforms they were designed to be, which can be scaled / adapted to the mission in hand.
Having two CVF is necessary to always keep one available. Good. And, 47 F35B now already ordered will provide one strike air-wing if 24 F35Bs must be there. If you are happy to call "12 F35B air-wing" as a strike air-wing, yes, two can be there.

It is not me nor you, who define "what is a carrier strike group". I understand RN clearly stated there will be only one such group in the 48 F35B plan. (cannot find the reference... sorry.)

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

SW1 wrote: 10 Jul 2022, 14:14 I would of thought the deployed aircraft numbers of the past couple of years, rotary and fixed would have put paid to these fantasy air groups but clearly not.
How so? CSG21 sailed with 18xF35b and 10 x Merlin. Given that she was arguably still working up and another 30 F35s are scheduled for delivery over the subsequent 3 years I do struggle to understand the regular talking down of UK power projection capabilities.
If I were cynical I’d suggest there’s some strategic management of expectations going on at an official level.
Batch 1 F35 deliveries will be complete by 2025 and batch 2 likely by 2028. That’s only 5 years away. As a taxpayer i’ll be a tiny bit disappointed if i’m still being told in five years time that it’s unrealistic for more than a dozen or so to be at sea.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

SD67 wrote: 10 Jul 2022, 15:06
SW1 wrote: 10 Jul 2022, 14:14 I would of thought the deployed aircraft numbers of the past couple of years, rotary and fixed would have put paid to these fantasy air groups but clearly not.
How so? CSG21 sailed with 18xF35b and 10 x Merlin. Given that she was arguably still working up and another 30 F35s are scheduled for delivery over the subsequent 3 years I do struggle to understand the regular talking down of UK power projection capabilities.
If I were cynical I’d suggest there’s some strategic management of expectations going on at an official level.
Batch 1 F35 deliveries will be complete by 2025 and batch 2 likely by 2028. That’s only 5 years away. As a taxpayer i’ll be a tiny bit disappointed if i’m still being told in five years time that it’s unrealistic for more than a dozen or so to be at sea.
We sent 8 f35 and 7 asw/aew Merlin let’s see how long it is before we send a similar number again let alone 3 times the number of fastjets. When pilots, spares, engineers and high end training in the states are all in v short supply. The other problem being when you send them there unavailable for other tasks the balance between readiness and deployed has been rammed home this year in spades.

The problem with expectation management and high level pontifications for politic purposes is usually that reality bites. The expectation when the carriers where ordered and built was 6 fixed wing aircraft to be embarked hence the phrase up to 12 they often used.

“Power projection”. Is all about logistics and we have done nothing but cut that including the last review. We retain a small scale capability that can be surged to medium for a limited time in a very limited location. It’s not just the USAs 300 c17 and c5 a/c that give it power projection but the 450 aar aircraft and 150 ships of sea lift command.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

Some good news...


SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

SW1 wrote: 10 Jul 2022, 15:32
SD67 wrote: 10 Jul 2022, 15:06
SW1 wrote: 10 Jul 2022, 14:14 I would of thought the deployed aircraft numbers of the past couple of years, rotary and fixed would have put paid to these fantasy air groups but clearly not.
How so? CSG21 sailed with 18xF35b and 10 x Merlin. Given that she was arguably still working up and another 30 F35s are scheduled for delivery over the subsequent 3 years I do struggle to understand the regular talking down of UK power projection capabilities.
If I were cynical I’d suggest there’s some strategic management of expectations going on at an official level.
Batch 1 F35 deliveries will be complete by 2025 and batch 2 likely by 2028. That’s only 5 years away. As a taxpayer i’ll be a tiny bit disappointed if i’m still being told in five years time that it’s unrealistic for more than a dozen or so to be at sea.
We sent 8 f35 and 7 asw/aew Merlin let’s see how long it is before we send a similar number again let alone 3 times the number of fastjets. When pilots, spares, engineers and high end training in the states are all in v short supply. The other problem being when you send them there unavailable for other tasks the balance between readiness and deployed has been rammed home this year in spades.

The problem with expectation management and high level pontifications for politic purposes is usually that reality bites. The expectation when the carriers where ordered and built was 6 fixed wing aircraft to be embarked hence the phrase up to 12 they often used.

“Power projection”. Is all about logistics and we have done nothing but cut that including the last review. We retain a small scale capability that can be surged to medium for a limited time in a very limited location. It’s not just the USAs 300 c17 and c5 a/c that give it power projection but the 450 aar aircraft and 150 ships of sea lift command.
“We’re not as big as the US therefore we should stick to home defence”. I’ve Never understood that logic.
The French send CdeG all around the world with basically zero logistical support. They have no C17s or Chinooks. Doesn’t stop them playing and defending their interests. The Russian task force that made such a mess of Syria was what - three ships? One of which broke down.
The fact is we will very soon have 40 fully operational F35Bs. Where do you think they will have the greater deterrent value - at sea or at RAF Marham?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Also, the deck of a CVF melts at a higher temperature than any RAF airfield 😀
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
serge750
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

SD67 wrote: 19 Jul 2022, 13:21
SW1 wrote: 10 Jul 2022, 15:32
SD67 wrote: 10 Jul 2022, 15:06
SW1 wrote: 10 Jul 2022, 14:14 I would of thought the deployed aircraft numbers of the past couple of years, rotary and fixed would have put paid to these fantasy air groups but clearly not.
How so? CSG21 sailed with 18xF35b and 10 x Merlin. Given that she was arguably still working up and another 30 F35s are scheduled for delivery over the subsequent 3 years I do struggle to understand the regular talking down of UK power projection capabilities.
If I were cynical I’d suggest there’s some strategic management of expectations going on at an official level.
Batch 1 F35 deliveries will be complete by 2025 and batch 2 likely by 2028. That’s only 5 years away. As a taxpayer i’ll be a tiny bit disappointed if i’m still being told in five years time that it’s unrealistic for more than a dozen or so to be at sea.
We sent 8 f35 and 7 asw/aew Merlin let’s see how long it is before we send a similar number again let alone 3 times the number of fastjets. When pilots, spares, engineers and high end training in the states are all in v short supply. The other problem being when you send them there unavailable for other tasks the balance between readiness and deployed has been rammed home this year in spades.

The problem with expectation management and high level pontifications for politic purposes is usually that reality bites. The expectation when the carriers where ordered and built was 6 fixed wing aircraft to be embarked hence the phrase up to 12 they often used.

“Power projection”. Is all about logistics and we have done nothing but cut that including the last review. We retain a small scale capability that can be surged to medium for a limited time in a very limited location. It’s not just the USAs 300 c17 and c5 a/c that give it power projection but the 450 aar aircraft and 150 ships of sea lift command.
“We’re not as big as the US therefore we should stick to home defence”. I’ve Never understood that logic.
The French send CdeG all around the world with basically zero logistical support. They have no C17s or Chinooks. Doesn’t stop them playing and defending their interests. The Russian task force that made such a mess of Syria was what - three ships? One of which broke down.
The fact is we will very soon have 40 fully operational F35Bs. Where do you think they will have the greater deterrent value - at sea or at RAF Marham?
Which missed the point! It’s about scale and locations! It’s defence of U.K. territory and by extension nato! Those areas are solely in the euro Atlantic area. It’s a small scale capability in a couple of areas or a medium one in one location.

Do the French really? They sail it around the med and occasionally short visit to the Indian Ocean. Don’t recall then fighting a sustained air campaign from it. The other thing is the French have a large overseas national territory with sizeable populations in the Asia and Africa that are garrisoned we don’t in those areas.

They don’t have chinook or c17 but they do have some either in service or on order 50 a400m and 16 a330 mrtt along with a sizeable puma/super puma and caracel fleet not to mention 160 a160 helicopters on order.

We don’t have 40 operational f35, we will have a fleet of 40 aircraft with an operational sqn.

They have deterrent value when they are available hence readiness, they don’t have to deploy to be a deterrent. when they deploy that could be to a ship or to Eastern Europe or wherever they are needed. You need to be careful deploying them because once u use them you can’t use them again for a bit.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

New Zealand navy, ANZAC frigate Te Kaha after upgrade. Very impressive movie.

- In view of RN escort, Sea Sentor torpedo defence system's towed array (around 1:51-) is very interesting. (Te Kaha also has decoy launcher of the system, which is not shown here).
- CMS330, from 1:21- can be clearly seen as typical modern CMS, with multi-purpose consoles aligned. If differs from BAE CMS, nor TACTICOS CMS, but all looks very similar in its appearance.
- MASS anti-missile soft-kill decoy is 1:27- is rapidly becoming very popular among many navies in the globe. RN can also adopt it?

Anyway, as a typical GP frigate, with long endurance/range and good sensor kits with modest armament, and as a partner in Pacific for RN, it is worth looking at.


donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Scimitar54 wrote: 23 Jul 2022, 05:35 Dobbo Wrote:-
I agree on numbers - but if the fleet is to expand I think the number of T83 and SSN(R) needs to exceed the numbers of T45 and Astute.
It would need to be a c. 70% increase in numbers of both for me! :mrgreen:
Guys, lets move to escort thread. It is nothing to do with T83 news....

I am personally NOT a fan of making T83 a cruiser. I agree it will be larger than T45's 8500t FLD, may be of 10,000t size, like A. Burk and Kongo/Atago/Maya classes. But, that will be the max. If RN make it more capable and large, there will be more than 50% probability the number will be significantly reduced to 3 or 2. This is simply because the detailed design cost amounts to typically 2 or 3 unit cost.
(See French FREMM. In the T45-case, its unit cost was said to be £0.65 each. Multiplied by 6, it was only ~£4Bn. Another (more than) £2Bn was used for development/design.)

If you build 4 capable/expensive ships, the money you need is 6-7 unit-cost. I think 6-8 units must be built. And to make this happen, T83 shall aim at high-end.

If a decade of "peaceful" but "bad-economy" hit right at the build phase of T83, I'm not surprised to see only 2 or 3 T83 built. In this case, UK will almost lose the high-end escort build capability, causing the problem on T26-replacements. Alternative will be selling a CVF, and/or further reducing SSNs. Which is better?

If the T83 build-phase is on "near-war" period with "good-economy", then yes, there will be 6 high-end T83s. But, this probability is only 50%. What a gamble. I do not think gambling national defence is the right idea.

So, a 10,000t FLD T83, what do I think of?
- 96-cells of Mk.41 VLS, with 32 hyper-sonic/ballistic-missle defence SAMs, normal 48 anti-cruise-(including super-sonic) defence SAMs, and 64 CAMMs (or alike) quad-packed within 16-cells. If you want to add hyper-sonic, super-sonic, or stealthy-agile-subsonic SSMs, just cut the number of the above missiles. No problem.
- carry two 57 mm guns with guided AAW and ASuW munitions, to be used against small-drones-swarm and fast-boat-swarm.
- two Merlin capable hanger, but filled with a Wildcat (or its replacement) and 3 or 4 rotary-wing UAVs.

ASW will be more and more drones/USV/UAVs oriented by the time. Attack is what the CVF must be specialist at (and T83 is there to defend CVF). Days of NGFS will be ending by the time of T83.

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

SW1 wrote: 19 Jul 2022, 17:09
SD67 wrote: 19 Jul 2022, 13:21
SW1 wrote: 10 Jul 2022, 15:32
SD67 wrote: 10 Jul 2022, 15:06
SW1 wrote: 10 Jul 2022, 14:14 I would of thought the deployed aircraft numbers of the past couple of years, rotary and fixed would have put paid to these fantasy air groups but clearly not.
How so? CSG21 sailed with 18xF35b and 10 x Merlin. Given that she was arguably still working up and another 30 F35s are scheduled for delivery over the subsequent 3 years I do struggle to understand the regular talking down of UK power projection capabilities.
If I were cynical I’d suggest there’s some strategic management of expectations going on at an official level.
Batch 1 F35 deliveries will be complete by 2025 and batch 2 likely by 2028. That’s only 5 years away. As a taxpayer i’ll be a tiny bit disappointed if i’m still being told in five years time that it’s unrealistic for more than a dozen or so to be at sea.
We sent 8 f35 and 7 asw/aew Merlin let’s see how long it is before we send a similar number again let alone 3 times the number of fastjets. When pilots, spares, engineers and high end training in the states are all in v short supply. The other problem being when you send them there unavailable for other tasks the balance between readiness and deployed has been rammed home this year in spades.

The problem with expectation management and high level pontifications for politic purposes is usually that reality bites. The expectation when the carriers where ordered and built was 6 fixed wing aircraft to be embarked hence the phrase up to 12 they often used.

“Power projection”. Is all about logistics and we have done nothing but cut that including the last review. We retain a small scale capability that can be surged to medium for a limited time in a very limited location. It’s not just the USAs 300 c17 and c5 a/c that give it power projection but the 450 aar aircraft and 150 ships of sea lift command.
“We’re not as big as the US therefore we should stick to home defence”. I’ve Never understood that logic.
The French send CdeG all around the world with basically zero logistical support. They have no C17s or Chinooks. Doesn’t stop them playing and defending their interests. The Russian task force that made such a mess of Syria was what - three ships? One of which broke down.
The fact is we will very soon have 40 fully operational F35Bs. Where do you think they will have the greater deterrent value - at sea or at RAF Marham?
Which missed the point! It’s about scale and locations! It’s defence of U.K. territory and by extension nato! Those areas are solely in the euro Atlantic area. It’s a small scale capability in a couple of areas or a medium one in one location.
Well I suppose if you disregard AUKUS, the FPDA, the Tempest partnership with Japan, the CPTPP which we're committed to joining, the 2 million UK citizens in Australia alone and our historical obligations to the people of Hong Kong then yes there's nothing really of interest in that part of the world, let's just sail the carriers in circles around the North Sea....

SomeoneAh
Member
Posts: 19
Joined: 11 Jul 2022, 21:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SomeoneAh »

SD67 wrote: 23 Jul 2022, 07:58 Well I suppose if you disregard AUKUS, the FPDA, the Tempest partnership with Japan, the CPTPP which we're committed to joining, the 2 million UK citizens in Australia alone and our historical obligations to the people of Hong Kong then yes there's nothing really of interest in that part of the world, let's just sail the carriers in circles around the North Sea....
Well said mate, moreover if UK influence are not present in the Asia region, then why japan will team up will uk on the tempest program and AUKUS will not be a thing either.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

SD67 wrote: 23 Jul 2022, 07:58
SW1 wrote: 19 Jul 2022, 17:09
SD67 wrote: 19 Jul 2022, 13:21
SW1 wrote: 10 Jul 2022, 15:32
SD67 wrote: 10 Jul 2022, 15:06
SW1 wrote: 10 Jul 2022, 14:14 I would of thought the deployed aircraft numbers of the past couple of years, rotary and fixed would have put paid to these fantasy air groups but clearly not.
How so? CSG21 sailed with 18xF35b and 10 x Merlin. Given that she was arguably still working up and another 30 F35s are scheduled for delivery over the subsequent 3 years I do struggle to understand the regular talking down of UK power projection capabilities.
If I were cynical I’d suggest there’s some strategic management of expectations going on at an official level.
Batch 1 F35 deliveries will be complete by 2025 and batch 2 likely by 2028. That’s only 5 years away. As a taxpayer i’ll be a tiny bit disappointed if i’m still being told in five years time that it’s unrealistic for more than a dozen or so to be at sea.
We sent 8 f35 and 7 asw/aew Merlin let’s see how long it is before we send a similar number again let alone 3 times the number of fastjets. When pilots, spares, engineers and high end training in the states are all in v short supply. The other problem being when you send them there unavailable for other tasks the balance between readiness and deployed has been rammed home this year in spades.

The problem with expectation management and high level pontifications for politic purposes is usually that reality bites. The expectation when the carriers where ordered and built was 6 fixed wing aircraft to be embarked hence the phrase up to 12 they often used.

“Power projection”. Is all about logistics and we have done nothing but cut that including the last review. We retain a small scale capability that can be surged to medium for a limited time in a very limited location. It’s not just the USAs 300 c17 and c5 a/c that give it power projection but the 450 aar aircraft and 150 ships of sea lift command.
“We’re not as big as the US therefore we should stick to home defence”. I’ve Never understood that logic.
The French send CdeG all around the world with basically zero logistical support. They have no C17s or Chinooks. Doesn’t stop them playing and defending their interests. The Russian task force that made such a mess of Syria was what - three ships? One of which broke down.
The fact is we will very soon have 40 fully operational F35Bs. Where do you think they will have the greater deterrent value - at sea or at RAF Marham?
Which missed the point! It’s about scale and locations! It’s defence of U.K. territory and by extension nato! Those areas are solely in the euro Atlantic area. It’s a small scale capability in a couple of areas or a medium one in one location.
Well I suppose if you disregard AUKUS, the FPDA, the Tempest partnership with Japan, the CPTPP which we're committed to joining, the 2 million UK citizens in Australia alone and our historical obligations to the people of Hong Kong then yes there's nothing really of interest in that part of the world, let's just sail the carriers in circles around the North Sea....
Technology sharing is not putting armed forces on the ground! Nor is it the same as sovereign U.K. territory being there. The countries u mention are capable of defending themselves we are sharing tech to enhance that, there forces are larger than ours in japans case!

What exactly do u think we are gonna do in Hong Kong beyond saying u can come and live here. We not going to ensure they can still live in Hong Kong and throw China out!

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

what we the UK need to be able to do in the Indo -Pacific is form a CANZUK Battle group of

1 x Carrier (UK)
1 x LHD (A)
1 x PCRS (Argus UK )
2 x LSD's (A & UK
4 x Destroyers (A & UK
10 x Frigates ( A , C , NZ , UK ) this could be in time 9 Type 26 + 1 Type 31
1 x SSN (UK)
4 x SSK (A & C )
5 x Tankers (A , C , NZ , UK )
2 x SSS ( UK )
2000 Troops ( A , C , NZ , UK )

And for me we should look to exercise this group by RIMPAC 2026 or 2028 The whole Idea being this group would be the Southern Battle group with 2 x Central battle groups made up of US , Japan + other small navies and 1 Northern battle group made up of US & SK navies

For me this is well within the CANZUK capability and for the UK once we have LRG (S) in place it is a case of it being joined by the CSG. The whole battle group should join up in the Indian Ocean and move into the Pacific past Singapore but not head into the South China Sea China will see it and note it but there is no need to poke them the fact that this group is in the Pacific would be enough

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Rimpac 22 is currently on what of the above list from the U.K. is taking part?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 23 Jul 2022, 10:11 Rimpac 22 is currently on what of the above list from the U.K. is taking part?
Zilch, though I’m surprised HMS Tamar hasn’t gone.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
SW1
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote: 23 Jul 2022, 10:11 Rimpac 22 is currently on what of the above list from the U.K. is taking part?
What the UK has at RIMPAC 22 is not the point. The UK's day to day work in the Indo-Pacific would be done by the 2 x B2's and the LRG(S) with the above CANZUK battle group coming together every 4 years around RIMPAC or not

As said from the UK point of view we would already have the LRG and a Bay class EoS so this would be joined by a CSG plus an extra tanker every 4 years and then this core group would be joined by

Australia = 1 x LHD ,2 x Destroyers , 3 x Frigates , 2 x SSK , 1 x Bay , 1 x Tanker
Canada = 3 x Frigates , 2 x SSK , 1 x Tanker
New Zealand = 1 x Frigate , 1 x Tanker & HMNZS Canterbury

For me this is all very doable in 4 years and then every 4 year after that

I would even say this group should be under RAN command

Post Reply