Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Repulse wrote: 09 May 2023, 22:14 ….regarding the Waves unless they are modified perhaps to act as mobile offshore bases.
What do you see as a mobile offshore base?

The main difficulty is lack of crew and when the 3 FSS show up it’s going to get a lot worse. Also as the MCMVs decommission, they will be replaced by RFA crewed PSVs and/or OCVs. In simple terms, to activate everything that is either in the water, being purchased or being built the RFA needs to effectively double in size. There is no sign of any turbo charged recruitment and retention policy being implemented for the RFA. This needs to change ASAP.

The 3x FSS and 4X Tide setup looks great for the CSG and LRG(N) but EoS RN is going to be completely reliant on partners to provide replenishment at sea without the Waves. It’s simply not credible to operate a meaningful force EoS without one or two RFAs providing support. Forward basing does not solve this simple logistical necessity.

The Waves are now 20 years old, have not been worked hard and with plenty of hull life remaining a modest conversion to provide two more balanced logistics support ships would seem sensible. Something similar to what the RCN are doing with their new Protecteur Class.
E2EFD330-C479-4959-ADB4-1B2A5045A6B1.jpeg
HNoMS Maud is another great example.
7F6DB7BF-73B2-487B-9E4E-ADF907A2C8D3.jpeg
151ECE00-A03B-4B40-A6D9-82C09F7879E6.jpeg
However MV Asterix is probably closest to what the converted Waves could and should become.


The Waves are dimensionally larger than all of the vessels detailed above making them perfectly suited for conversion to Joint Support Ships.

As Argus is likely to decommission at the end of the decade the PCRS role could be split between the two Waves and with an OSD around 2040 any replacements only need to be considered after the Amphib replacement program in the 2030s is complete.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
wargame_insomniac

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

new guy wrote: 09 May 2023, 20:33
Tempest414 wrote: 09 May 2023, 17:41
abc123 wrote: 09 May 2023, 17:01
Tempest414 wrote: 09 May 2023, 16:47

As for Type 32 this will be a Type 31 Batch 2
And we probably will never see it. :?
Maybe we will have to see
I know one of you has £2.5bn stashed away somewhere, hand it back.

How I got to a total of £2.5bn
£2bn: £350m per ship +£50m for T31 upgrades, 5 hulls
£500m: Additional programme costs, I believe it is the same on T31

See what I did there? Turned a joke about funds into a fantasy fleet, the ultimate obsession!
That aside, I believe that T32 will just be
A. delayed until funds arrive, so 5-8 years
B. Delayed till there is no hope for it and it is discarded
C. Initial concept of what it is but out soon, but slight delay of competition, or pull a FSS / T31 / I-SSGW.
The 2.5 billion figure is only if we go with T-31 batch 2 if it is a clean sheet design it will be more like 4 billion
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post (total 2):
donald_of_tokyonew guy

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 09 May 2023, 13:41
Ron5 wrote: 09 May 2023, 13:24
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 08 May 2023, 14:09
Ron5 wrote: 08 May 2023, 13:56 CAAM has a system limit of 48 cells. To go to 72 cells requires either expensive development and/or expensive duplication.
Isn't it the channel number of datalink? If so, if you do not fire "more than 48 missiles" at once, there is no problem. Also, having x1.5 more missiles will negate the need for reload. Even if there are some limits, I do not think it is a big limit. (Just "disable" 12 of the 36 at any moment, and after firing 12, then shift the disabled channels to the already fired ones.)
No it is not.
Thanks. Then, modification is relatively easy, because it is all about the systems integration of wired connection of CMS, SeaCeptor software and the LMS boxes (radio channel modification costs a lot). Not for free, but not so much costy, I guess, from my experience on a bit complex electrics systems integration.

At least, as a tentative measure, my proposal for "disabling 24 launchers (2 LMS boxes) out of 72 to have 48 launcher available at any time" and "switching them later (which is equivalent to "launcher reload"), does not look so difficult. (but not for free, I agree).
Talking from ignorance usually leads to mistaken conclusions.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Phil Sayers wrote: 09 May 2023, 13:50
Poiuytrewq wrote: 09 May 2023, 13:31 Just CGI or a sign of things to come?
https://des.mod.uk/type-31-contract-mis ... -facility/
The wording of the final paragraph is interesting / a little concerning. Maybe nothing is meant by it but what leapt off the page for me is that there is no mention of a war-fighting role, carrier escort role or anything of the sort. The last sentence does though imply that they could be easily upgraded for that.
The newest of the Royal Navy’s frigate fleet will undertake a variety of roles on operations including interception and disruption of illegal activity at sea, intelligence gathering, Defence engagement and providing humanitarian support
Totally consistent with the Type 31's often stated purpose of flag waving & constabulary duties. A purpose that some on this board delight in vehemently denying.

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Ron5 wrote: 10 May 2023, 14:03
Phil Sayers wrote: 09 May 2023, 13:50
Poiuytrewq wrote: 09 May 2023, 13:31 Just CGI or a sign of things to come?
https://des.mod.uk/type-31-contract-mis ... -facility/
The wording of the final paragraph is interesting / a little concerning. Maybe nothing is meant by it but what leapt off the page for me is that there is no mention of a war-fighting role, carrier escort role or anything of the sort. The last sentence does though imply that they could be easily upgraded for that.
The newest of the Royal Navy’s frigate fleet will undertake a variety of roles on operations including interception and disruption of illegal activity at sea, intelligence gathering, Defence engagement and providing humanitarian support
Totally consistent with the Type 31's often stated purpose of flag waving & constabulary duties. A purpose that some on this board delight in vehemently denying.
Not to mention a purpose for which T23 GP have excellently fulfilled over their long and varied service career. Yet the T23 GP are rarely criticized.

Hence why I have consistently commented that the T31's, as a minimum, need uparming and upgrading sensors and Sonar, to the same level as T23 GP's.

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1183
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by new guy »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 10 May 2023, 20:16
Ron5 wrote: 10 May 2023, 14:03
Phil Sayers wrote: 09 May 2023, 13:50
Poiuytrewq wrote: 09 May 2023, 13:31 Just CGI or a sign of things to come?
https://des.mod.uk/type-31-contract-mis ... -facility/
The wording of the final paragraph is interesting / a little concerning. Maybe nothing is meant by it but what leapt off the page for me is that there is no mention of a war-fighting role, carrier escort role or anything of the sort. The last sentence does though imply that they could be easily upgraded for that.
The newest of the Royal Navy’s frigate fleet will undertake a variety of roles on operations including interception and disruption of illegal activity at sea, intelligence gathering, Defence engagement and providing humanitarian support
Totally consistent with the Type 31's often stated purpose of flag waving & constabulary duties. A purpose that some on this board delight in vehemently denying.
Not to mention a purpose for which T23 GP have excellently fulfilled over their long and varied service career. Yet the T23 GP are rarely criticized.

Hence why I have consistently commented that the T31's, as a minimum, need uparming and upgrading sensors and Sonar, to the same level as T23 GP's.
What sensors other than sonar does T31 lack in?

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

new guy wrote: 10 May 2023, 20:30
wargame_insomniac wrote: 10 May 2023, 20:16
Ron5 wrote: 10 May 2023, 14:03
Phil Sayers wrote: 09 May 2023, 13:50
Poiuytrewq wrote: 09 May 2023, 13:31 Just CGI or a sign of things to come?
https://des.mod.uk/type-31-contract-mis ... -facility/
The wording of the final paragraph is interesting / a little concerning. Maybe nothing is meant by it but what leapt off the page for me is that there is no mention of a war-fighting role, carrier escort role or anything of the sort. The last sentence does though imply that they could be easily upgraded for that.
The newest of the Royal Navy’s frigate fleet will undertake a variety of roles on operations including interception and disruption of illegal activity at sea, intelligence gathering, Defence engagement and providing humanitarian support
Totally consistent with the Type 31's often stated purpose of flag waving & constabulary duties. A purpose that some on this board delight in vehemently denying.
Not to mention a purpose for which T23 GP have excellently fulfilled over their long and varied service career. Yet the T23 GP are rarely criticized.

Hence why I have consistently commented that the T31's, as a minimum, need uparming and upgrading sensors and Sonar, to the same level as T23 GP's.
What sensors other than sonar does T31 lack in?
The only thing I would add would be a high freq Fire control radar for the guns to complement the EO/IR directors. T23s don't have one either.
These users liked the author tomuk for the post:
new guy

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Moved across.
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 10 May 2023, 15:35 - 3 LSVs are RN-manned.
Thanks, I thought they were going to be RN manned also.
….even without T32. No problem.
Simple questions.

1. What will the T32 be able to do that the current fleet can’t handle?

2. Where is the rationale to suggest the T32 is so essential?

3. Is it appropriate to reduce damage control parameters on an escort to add a multitude of off board systems?

It’s fair to say that no current escort can operate the number and size of unmanned systems that the T32 should be able to do. However RN already has vessels that can handle anything the T32 will reasonably be asked to operate.

- If extra aviation is required the Bays could be converted to a LSS specification with a fixed 1000m2 hanger capable of embarking up to 6 Merlin sized helos.

- If XLUUVs and large 15m craft need to be operated then any of the Amphibs/Auxiliaries can handle that. Bulwark for example could have 2x LCU and 8x CB90s in the well dock alone plus the 4x LCVP craft on davits. A fantastic capability tied up doing nothing.

- If additional Mk41 cells and/or the Mk45 is required simply fit them to the T31s.

- If a more persistent HADR response is required the two Waves could be converted to logistics oriented JSS specifications to allow the LPDs and LSPs to concentrate on the FCF.

The BAE ASF and MRCV are very impressive but they are also crew intensive and very expensive. What do they offer that RN currently is unable to achieve?

Even with the most optimistic timeframe the first T32 will not commission within 10 years. That suggests the most must be made of what is in the water today. That includes the second Albion and the two Waves.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 10 May 2023, 20:16 Not to mention a purpose for which T23 GP have excellently fulfilled over their long and varied service career.
Any warship can do these tasks from CVF through T45 & T26, so what? Problem is that it's the only thing a T31 can do.
These users liked the author Ron5 for the post:
Repulse

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

new guy wrote: 10 May 2023, 20:30
wargame_insomniac wrote: 10 May 2023, 20:16
Ron5 wrote: 10 May 2023, 14:03
Phil Sayers wrote: 09 May 2023, 13:50
Poiuytrewq wrote: 09 May 2023, 13:31 Just CGI or a sign of things to come?
https://des.mod.uk/type-31-contract-mis ... -facility/
The wording of the final paragraph is interesting / a little concerning. Maybe nothing is meant by it but what leapt off the page for me is that there is no mention of a war-fighting role, carrier escort role or anything of the sort. The last sentence does though imply that they could be easily upgraded for that.
The newest of the Royal Navy’s frigate fleet will undertake a variety of roles on operations including interception and disruption of illegal activity at sea, intelligence gathering, Defence engagement and providing humanitarian support
Totally consistent with the Type 31's often stated purpose of flag waving & constabulary duties. A purpose that some on this board delight in vehemently denying.
Not to mention a purpose for which T23 GP have excellently fulfilled over their long and varied service career. Yet the T23 GP are rarely criticized.

Hence why I have consistently commented that the T31's, as a minimum, need uparming and upgrading sensors and Sonar, to the same level as T23 GP's.
What sensors other than sonar does T31 lack in?
For me personally sonar was the big gap in T31 AS CURRENTLY EQUIPPED. And hence why my previous comments that I would rather cancel T32 and use the funds to:
1) Improve RN & RFA crew retention & recruitment
2) increase stocks of exisiting missiles and other munitions
3) Uparm the existing RN escorts as discussed many times previously i.e. adding NSM, increased CAMM etc.

I don't expect the T31 to contribute as much to fleet ASW as the T26 fleet ASW specialist. But I do expect that T31 should be able to contribute to ASW as much as the T23 GP and/or the T45.

But others have talked about specific radar improvements to allow T31 to better cope with variety of circumstances including swarmed drone attacks. i don't know enough about radars so I'll leave that detailed discussion on possible radar improvements to those that do.
These users liked the author wargame_insomniac for the post:
donald_of_tokyo

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1183
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by new guy »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 11 May 2023, 19:54
new guy wrote: 10 May 2023, 20:30
wargame_insomniac wrote: 10 May 2023, 20:16
Ron5 wrote: 10 May 2023, 14:03
Phil Sayers wrote: 09 May 2023, 13:50
Poiuytrewq wrote: 09 May 2023, 13:31 Just CGI or a sign of things to come?
https://des.mod.uk/type-31-contract-mis ... -facility/
The wording of the final paragraph is interesting / a little concerning. Maybe nothing is meant by it but what leapt off the page for me is that there is no mention of a war-fighting role, carrier escort role or anything of the sort. The last sentence does though imply that they could be easily upgraded for that.
The newest of the Royal Navy’s frigate fleet will undertake a variety of roles on operations including interception and disruption of illegal activity at sea, intelligence gathering, Defence engagement and providing humanitarian support
Totally consistent with the Type 31's often stated purpose of flag waving & constabulary duties. A purpose that some on this board delight in vehemently denying.
Not to mention a purpose for which T23 GP have excellently fulfilled over their long and varied service career. Yet the T23 GP are rarely criticized.

Hence why I have consistently commented that the T31's, as a minimum, need uparming and upgrading sensors and Sonar, to the same level as T23 GP's.
What sensors other than sonar does T31 lack in?
For me personally sonar was the big gap in T31 AS CURRENTLY EQUIPPED. And hence why my previous comments that I would rather cancel T32 and use the funds to:
1) Improve RN & RFA crew retention & recruitment
2) increase stocks of exisiting missiles and other munitions
3) Uparm the existing RN escorts as discussed many times previously i.e. adding NSM, increased CAMM etc.

I don't expect the T31 to contribute as much to fleet ASW as the T26 fleet ASW specialist. But I do expect that T31 should be able to contribute to ASW as much as the T23 GP and/or the T45.

But others have talked about specific radar improvements to allow T31 to better cope with variety of circumstances including swarmed drone attacks. i don't know enough about radars so I'll leave that detailed discussion on possible radar improvements to those that do.
I believe we would have to be unlucky for NSM not to be fitted on T31. Radar as far as I know Is fine, maybe better than artisan but that is out of my depths. The guns on T31, and the T31 in general, have kind of been created around the strait of Hormuz; a.k.a, Iran, which specialises in swarms of all kinds.

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 »

Ron5 wrote: 10 May 2023, 13:59 Talking from ignorance usually leads to mistaken conclusions.
Maybe, may be not. It all depends on my professional background.

By the way, do anyone know the max number of missiles which could be fired with [edit] SeaViper system? Both, UK, French and Italian system used 48-cells VLS. In other words, are there hope to increase T45's Aster 30 load out?

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 12 May 2023, 08:56
Ron5 wrote: 10 May 2023, 13:59 Talking from ignorance usually leads to mistaken conclusions.
Maybe, may be not. It all depends on my professional background.

By the way, do anyone know the max number of missiles which could be fired with SeaVenom/FLAAD system? Both, UK, French and Italian system used 48-cells VLS. In other words, are there hope to increase T45's Aster 30 load out?
Do you mean PAAMS/Sea Viper?

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 »

Ron5 wrote: 12 May 2023, 14:05
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 12 May 2023, 08:56
Ron5 wrote: 10 May 2023, 13:59 Talking from ignorance usually leads to mistaken conclusions.
Maybe, may be not. It all depends on my professional background.

By the way, do anyone know the max number of missiles which could be fired with SeaVenom/FLAAD system? Both, UK, French and Italian system used 48-cells VLS. In other words, are there hope to increase T45's Aster 30 load out?
Do you mean PAAMS/Sea Viper?
Yes. SeaViper!!

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 12 May 2023, 15:13
Ron5 wrote: 12 May 2023, 14:05
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 12 May 2023, 08:56
Ron5 wrote: 10 May 2023, 13:59 Talking from ignorance usually leads to mistaken conclusions.
Maybe, may be not. It all depends on my professional background.

By the way, do anyone know the max number of missiles which could be fired with SeaVenom/FLAAD system? Both, UK, French and Italian system used 48-cells VLS. In other words, are there hope to increase T45's Aster 30 load out?
Do you mean PAAMS/Sea Viper?
Yes. SeaViper!!
I haven't found any authoritative source, it is probably classified but the numbers doing the rounds of the internet are 8 missiles launched in 10 seconds and a capability to control 16 missiles in the air simultaneously.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 10 May 2023, 09:39
Repulse wrote: 09 May 2023, 22:14...Focusing on Bulwark, if it’s a choice I’d would personally drop a T31/T32 or two to get it back in service.
But, from crew-wise, 1 Bulwark needs 325 souls = 3 T31 equivalent.
Yes there is a house keeping crew on Bulwark, but I guess it is 20-50? AND, a T31's crew, even though states as "about 100", will surely increase to 110 or so (excluding flight). So, it is NOT a T31, it is three T31.
I’ve been trying to do some research on the Albion Class crew requirements and how the 325 is broken down. Information is very limited, but the number does include LCU/LCVP crews and also possibly staff for a brigade level operation. I’ve also got a book that states the core crew is actually 205 not 325 - does anybody have any other sources?

What I do believe though is that an Albion LPD operating a Cdo OTH integrated as part of a ESG (CSG + LPD) with logistical support from a FSS would not need a crew of 325; especially if it’s dock is being used for unmanned kit also.
”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: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

But if the dock is being used for unmanned kit this will need crew will it not plus once you have an embarked Cdo they will need there command & Logistics Sqn's would they not

So maybe the Core crew could be 205 but it can't support operations

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote: 13 May 2023, 09:15 But if the dock is being used for unmanned kit this will need crew will it not plus once you have an embarked Cdo they will need there command & Logistics Sqn's would they not

So maybe the Core crew could be 205 but it can't support operations
Yes, they will need operators for the unmanned kit but that is the case regardless of the platform, so it’s not right IMO to include in crew numbers. If unmanned ASuW, MCM, ASW etc capabilities are required as part of the CSG/ESG tool kit (which they will be), then by adding a LPD is a logical game changer.

I would see overall operations being led from the CVF, and it will definitely not be brigade level.
”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: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote: 13 May 2023, 09:26
Tempest414 wrote: 13 May 2023, 09:15 But if the dock is being used for unmanned kit this will need crew will it not plus once you have an embarked Cdo they will need there command & Logistics Sqn's would they not

So maybe the Core crew could be 205 but it can't support operations
Yes, they will need operators for the unmanned kit but that is the case regardless of the platform, so it’s not right IMO to include in crew numbers. If unmanned ASuW, MCM, ASW etc capabilities are required as part of the CSG/ESG tool kit (which they will be), then by adding a LPD is a logical game changer.

I would see overall operations being led from the CVF, and it will definitely not be brigade level.
it could not be a Brigade level op this would need both LPD's all 3 Bays and a Point class if you went in over load on one LPD and one Bay you might squeeze in a Battalion Battle group which need a Cdo logistics Sqn with or without LCU's or LCVP's

It is maybe better to say that a LPD has a core crew of 205 + 100 Cdo Logistics Sqn but without the Logs Sqn the BBG is going nowhere

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote: 13 May 2023, 09:48 it could not be a Brigade level op this would need both LPD's all 3 Bays and a Point class if you went in over load on one LPD and one Bay you might squeeze in a Battalion Battle group which need a Cdo logistics Sqn with or without LCU's or LCVP's

It is maybe better to say that a LPD has a core crew of 205 + 100 Cdo Logistics Sqn but without the Logs Sqn the BBG is going nowhere
Absolutely - I think we are actually aligned. I’m talking upto a Cdo level operation operating from the LPD, CVF and other warships/RFAs in the CSG deployed and supported OTH.
”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

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

CSG2025 in the Indo Pacific?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... ion-china/

The fourth UK-Japan joint ‘Vigilant Isles’ military exercises, taking place in Japan later this year, will be the biggest yet with around 170 UK personnel taking part, including from the 1 Royal Gurkha Rifles and 16 Air Assault Brigade.

The UK will also confirm that its Carrier Strike Group will return to the Indo-Pacific in 2025, following its maiden voyage to the region in 2021. The fleet, comprised of an aircraft carrier, her escorts and her aircraft, will work alongside the Japanese Self Defence Forces and other regional partners to help defend peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 2):
serge750wargame_insomniac

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

12 uk F35 & 12 us marine atleast.... pow this time ?????

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

serge750 wrote: 18 May 2023, 20:43 12 uk F35 & 12 us marine atleast.... pow this time ?????
Surely by 2025 the target must 24x UK F35s? That would be quite a sight if it could be done.

What is the plan for CSG2024?
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
serge750

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 18 May 2023, 20:53
serge750 wrote: 18 May 2023, 20:43 12 uk F35 & 12 us marine atleast.... pow this time ?????
Surely by 2025 the target must 24x UK F35s? That would be quite a sight if it could be done.

What is the plan for CSG2024?
That's mine and Ron's target...not sure it's the MoDs....
These users liked the author dmereifield for the post (total 2):
PoiuytrewqRon5

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1183
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by new guy »

dmereifield wrote: 18 May 2023, 21:09
Poiuytrewq wrote: 18 May 2023, 20:53
serge750 wrote: 18 May 2023, 20:43 12 uk F35 & 12 us marine atleast.... pow this time ?????
Surely by 2025 the target must 24x UK F35s? That would be quite a sight if it could be done.

What is the plan for CSG2024?
That's mine and Ron's target...not sure it's the MoDs....
All F-35B to be delivered by 2025. 48. -1 crashed, -3 for training. So If the RAF is able to deploy more than 50% of the fleet on a posting that long, yes. In that scenario it's more of a re-basing vs a short term deployment. Need some more, eh? The latest US order came in at an average of £50m per jet. for £75m x £5bn per jet we could comfortably gain a fleet of +100 aircraft, with ~100 typhoons.
On a side note, that's not how i believe procurement should be conducted, but whatever.
What I would prefer to see over 24 jets (soon) is 18 being used flexibly. That means giving those pilots and thus navy and RAF skills and Capabilities. Instead of in 2025 seeing 24 fixed on the carrier I would prefer to see stuff like cross-flights with Spain and their carrier, their harriers on QEC and our F-35s on theirs. Same for Italy. do some austere strips work like in CSG21. Re-live the counter daesh 2018 Cyprus jobs and the same as done in CSG21. Meet up with a US LHD lightning carrier and do the same. than Japan. Hell, chuck a US CSG in and do some B ops of that. Finish it off with some indo Pacific island hopping with USMC.

Post Reply