Future ASW
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Future ASW
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
_- 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
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: Future ASW
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
- Member
- Posts: 775
- Joined: 20 Dec 2015, 13:45
- Contact:
Re: Future ASW
Planning to only fight failed states with no submarine capability whatsoever seems a bit... shortsighted.marktigger wrote: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.
Blog: http://engagingstrategy.blogspot.co.uk
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
- Engaging Strategy
- Member
- Posts: 775
- Joined: 20 Dec 2015, 13:45
- Contact:
Re: Future ASW
The world has changed a lot since the '90s.marktigger wrote:its worked since 1999
Blog: http://engagingstrategy.blogspot.co.uk
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1
Re: Future ASW
And not for the better I'd addEngaging Strategy wrote:The world has changed a lot since the '90s.marktigger wrote:its worked since 1999
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: Future ASW
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.
Re: Future ASW
That was the 1966 policy that lead to the cancellation of CVA carrier programme, I do not beleive it is still policy post Falklands.Ron5 wrote: UK defense strategy says no opposed landings. I think a submarine infested littoral would qualify as such.
- Engaging Strategy
- Member
- Posts: 775
- Joined: 20 Dec 2015, 13:45
- Contact:
Re: Future ASW
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.Old RN wrote:That was the 1966 policy that lead to the cancellation of CVA carrier programme, I do not beleive it is still policy post Falklands.
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.
Blog: http://engagingstrategy.blogspot.co.uk
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1
Re: Future ASW
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
- Member
- Posts: 775
- Joined: 20 Dec 2015, 13:45
- Contact:
Re: Future ASW
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.Old RN wrote: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!
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.
Blog: http://engagingstrategy.blogspot.co.uk
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1
Re: Future ASW
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.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: Future ASW
Engaging Strategy wrote: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.Old RN wrote: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!
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
- Member
- Posts: 775
- Joined: 20 Dec 2015, 13:45
- Contact:
Re: Future ASW
Your favourite topic! That's why all our escorts need a gun capable of firing a decent HE shell.marktigger wrote:Part of that Neutralisation was the use of NGFS & 4.5 inch naval guns!
Blog: http://engagingstrategy.blogspot.co.uk
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: Future ASW
Ex gunner mate therefore I see the necessity for support of land forcesEngaging Strategy wrote:Your favourite topic! That's why all our escorts need a gun capable of firing a decent HE shell.marktigger wrote:Part of that Neutralisation was the use of NGFS & 4.5 inch naval guns!
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: Future ASW
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!
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!
-
- Member
- Posts: 217
- Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 11:12
-
- Member
- Posts: 217
- Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 11:12
Re: Future ASW
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 .
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: Future ASW
canberra / Juan Carlos I class LPH would make excellent ocean/Albion/Bulwark replacements
-
- Member
- Posts: 217
- Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 11:12
Re: Future ASW
With the portential to also operate a small number of F35b's as well.marktigger wrote:canberra / Juan Carlos I class LPH would make excellent ocean/Albion/Bulwark replacements
Would something like the Johan de Witt be a suitable basis for an Argus replacement (with potential ASW capabilities)?
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Future ASW
Indeed it would, and I suppose they could work as ASW carriers as the invincibles did or as the Japanese do now.marktigger wrote:canberra / Juan Carlos I class LPH would make excellent ocean/Albion/Bulwark replacements
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.PAUL MARSAY wrote:All this enhanced Asw capability needs one more thing , a further buy of Merlin .
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?
@LandSharkUK
-
- Member
- Posts: 217
- Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 11:12
Re: Future ASW
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
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1351
- Joined: 12 May 2015, 14:17
Re: Future ASW
I believe the plans are that there will be 14 Merlins assigned to the carrier, of which 9 are ASW and 5 AEW.shark bait wrote:
I forget, is it 8 or 9 merlin required by the carrier's to give a continuous ASW capability?
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: Future ASW
Caribbean wrote:With the portential to also operate a small number of F35b's as well.marktigger wrote:canberra / Juan Carlos I class LPH would make excellent ocean/Albion/Bulwark replacements
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