UK Defence Forum

Rule of thirds. Whatever you need for a specific operation X 3. For ops, redundancy/replacement and deep maintenance no?

For me when it comes to the carrier group we know now that the carrier group when it deploys in 2021 will do so with

1 x carrier , 2 x type 45 , 2 x type 23 , 1 x tide , 1 x Fort plus allied escorts will come and go as the deployment goes on

So we have a idea what the Navy has in mind given this I feel the carrier groups should get 4 escorts each as I say they would deploy together and be in maintenance together. This as I say would leave the remaining 6 tier 1 escorts and the 5 T-31s = 11 escorts for me forward deploy 3 T-31s EoS and keep the remaining 8 in the home fleet allowing us to cover 3 tasks all year round this could be

1) TAPS = 2 x type 23's
2) SNMG-1/2 = 3 ships
3) AP-N/S

Roders96 wrote:Rule of thirds. Whatever you need for a specific operation X 3. For ops, redundancy/replacement and deep maintenance no?

Yes, that's being discussed and it's relevance to carrier ops.

My assertion is twofold. Firstly, it's a peace time rule so doesn't apply to war. Secondly, carrier deployments are known so far in advance, the thirds rule can be planned around. In other words, the thirds rule is an average: for a planned CVG deployment, more than a third could be scheduled to be available followed by a period when less were available after the carrier returns. Hope this makes sense.

Tempest414 wrote:For me when it comes to the carrier group we know now that the carrier group when it deploys in 2021 will do so with

1 x carrier , 2 x type 45 , 2 x type 23 , 1 x tide , 1 x Fort plus allied escorts will come and go as the deployment goes on

So we have a idea what the Navy has in mind given this I feel the carrier groups should get 4 escorts each as I say they would deploy together and be in maintenance together. This as I say would leave the remaining 6 tier 1 escorts and the 5 T-31s = 11 escorts for me forward deploy 3 T-31s EoS and keep the remaining 8 in the home fleet allowing us to cover 3 tasks all year round this could be

1) TAPS = 2 x type 23's
2) SNMG-1/2 = 3 ships
3) AP-N/S

It will be 1 T45, not 2

dmereifield wrote:It will be 1 T45, not 2

Agree. In the ideal world it would be 2, but counting from 2018 power upgrades will take place on all six ships in the next five to seven years.
- assume the first one is done and dusted (as planned) during 2021
- one a year (and away from service) from there on would make 2025 look tight... will it be several, at times, "in the works' concurrently?

Pic shows the new Fincantieri PPA with its wave piercing bow design, 32 knots, 143 x 16.5m ~6,000t vessel

dmereifield wrote:It will be 1 T45, not 2

In October this year Commodore Utley is reported to have said the 2021 CSG deployment will be made up of

1 carrier , 2 x Type 45 , 2 x Type 23 , 1 x SSN , 1 x Tide & Fort Victoria

Has this been changed in any statements I have missed ?

However I will say that it has been said that this may not always be the case

NickC wrote: new Fincantieri PPA

So much for 'beautiful Italian design'

Tempest414 wrote:

dmereifield wrote:It will be 1 T45, not 2

In October this year Commodore Utley is reported to have said the 2021 CSG deployment will be made up of

1 carrier , 2 x Type 45 , 2 x Type 23 , 1 x SSN , 1 x Tide & Fort Victoria

Has this been changed in any statements I have missed ?

However I will say that it has been said that this may not always be the case

Interestingly I haven't heard any mention of the Dutch sending a De Zeven Provinciën-class frigate to be part of the task group for a while.

In previous reports (which I typically can't find right now) I could have sworn the wording mentioned 2x FFG and 2x DDG without specifying which class. Wasn't sure if the Dutch contribution was included in this, or for that matter what one of their AA escorts would even be counted as: frigate or destroyer...

Jensy wrote:Wasn't sure if the Dutch contribution was included in this, or for that matter what one of their AA escorts would even be counted as: frigate or destroyer...

25 Oct, 2018:
"The Netherlands became the first UK ally to announce it would send a warship to join the Royal Navy aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth on her first operational deployment in 2021.

The announcement was made on October 24 during the visit of the King and Queen of the Netherlands to Downing Street.

The exact type of ship to join was not specified but the Royal Navy said the Dutch Navy ship would be part of the carrier strike group."

Tempest414 wrote:

dmereifield wrote:It will be 1 T45, not 2

In October this year Commodore Utley is reported to have said the 2021 CSG deployment will be made up of

1 carrier , 2 x Type 45 , 2 x Type 23 , 1 x SSN , 1 x Tide & Fort Victoria

Has this been changed in any statements I have missed ?

However I will say that it has been said that this may not always be the case

I certainly don't claim to know better than the Commodore, so if that's what he says then I'll buy it. But I would bet that this will be an exception rather than routine. I imagine they'd allocate greater resources for her maiden deployment and I wouldn't be surprised if one of those T45s was detached from the group to undertake other commitments/deployments in the Middle East/EoS as the carrier group passes through

Ron5 wrote:

Roders96 wrote:Rule of thirds. Whatever you need for a specific operation X 3. For ops, redundancy/replacement and deep maintenance no?

Yes, that's being discussed and it's relevance to carrier ops.

My assertion is twofold. Firstly, it's a peace time rule so doesn't apply to war. Secondly, carrier deployments are known so far in advance, the thirds rule can be planned around. In other words, the thirds rule is an average: for a planned CVG deployment, more than a third could be scheduled to be available followed by a period when less were available after the carrier returns. Hope this makes sense.

Maybe this is a load of balloney but I've always been told the peacetime rule of thirds was to ensure the Navy was prepared adequately for war.

War is about supply and logistics afterall. You can't built a fleet overnight.

dmereifield wrote:But I would bet that this will be an exception rather than routine. I imagine they'd allocate greater resources for her maiden deployment and I wouldn't be surprised if one of those T45s was detached from the group to undertake other commitments/deployments in the Middle East/EoS as the carrier group passes through

What has been said is this deployment is as much a exercise in what we can do more than what we might do so you could be right. With this in mind as I have said before I would like to see the type 45 upgraded to quad pack 16 of the 48 A-50 cells with CAMM allowing a missile load out of 96 = 64 CAMM & 32 Aster 30. on top of this I would like to 11 sets of NSM allowing for five sets for Type 23 and three sets each for Type 31 and 45

Yesterday BreakingNews has write up the May live fire Formidable Shield exercise off Scotland with task force of thirteen NATO ships to test defence against medium range ballistic missile attack from Russia eg Iskander fired from the Kaliningrad enclave and the Kola Peninsula, testing the new NATO network single command structure, Commander Task Group 64 based in Naples, Italy.

Mentions French frigate used of an Aster 15 and RCN frigate with an ESSM, semi-active seeker, targeted supersonic AQM-37s successfully.

USAF Europe F-16s launched the old 1960s design AQM-37 supersonic target drones, ~14'; 620 lbs; range 100nm; max speed Mach 4, if remember correctly UK bought several hundred AQM-37 many years ago.

From <https://breakingdefense.com/2019/11/in- ... -missiles/>

breakingdefense.com/2019/11/in-first-nato-ships-share-target-data-knock-down-ballistic-missiles/>

"a first" is used in the headline, but much the same was said in 2017 (perhaps they only did, like, one launch?):
"The U.S. Department of Defense said this was the first time NATO’s “smart defense” concept was demonstrated with some ships providing protection to other vessels targeting ballistic missiles.

The Formidable Shield exercise began on Sept. 24 and is scheduled to conclude on Wednesday, Oct.18 [2017]"

ArmChairCivvy wrote:The Formidable Shield exercise began on Sept. 24 and is scheduled to conclude on Wednesday, Oct.18 [2017]"

Thanks for correction of dates

Nick, I didn't mean the dates so much but the fact that "the first" has already been claimed, two years back
- normal headline practice, though, to make them more interesting

I read the "times" article, referred in the tweet.

One CV is in danger to be lost (or mothballed), or escorts are in danger for cut (relying allies for CVTF escorting tasks), look like. I do not share to optimistic growing UK defense, sometimes discussed here, and this article looks more reflecting the real situation.

For example, I am not sure ordering 5 T31 was a good decision. It puts only "the remaining 5 T26" or "mothballing a CV" or "disbanding both LPD" as viable options (at least to me), when Navy cannot win the game. RAF has purchased 9 P-8As, so I'm afraid 5 T26 is in more danger now. CV's capability is much more oriented to expenditure war, and not so good at anti-Russia. So, collusion will depend on which threat to be considered to be larger.

Type 23 Crew = 185
Type 26 = 157
Type 31 = 100

T Boat = 130
A Boat = 98

Means a crew saving of roughly 700. As new replaces old. Enough to fully crew PW.

Roders96 wrote:Enough to fully crew PW.

And the beauty of jointness: embark the airwing and the numbers on top of the quoted, as and when needed, from their usual land base

Roders96 wrote:Type 23 Crew = 185
Type 26 = 157
Type 31 = 100

T Boat = 130
A Boat = 98

Means a crew saving of roughly 700. As new replaces old. Enough to fully crew PW.

Small correction. PoW and QE needs 800 crew. The "670" or "700" is an old value. However, this does not affect your conclusion, I agree.

donald_of_tokyo wrote:I read the "times" article, referred in the tweet.

One CV is in danger to be lost (or mothballed), or escorts are in danger for cut (relying allies for CVTF escorting tasks), look like. I do not share to optimistic growing UK defense, sometimes discussed here, and this article looks more reflecting the real situation.

For example, I am not sure ordering 5 T31 was a good decision. It puts only "the remaining 5 T26" or "mothballing a CV" or "disbanding both LPD" as viable options (at least to me), when Navy cannot win the game. RAF has purchased 9 P-8As, so I'm afraid 5 T26 is in more danger now. CV's capability is much more oriented to expenditure war, and not so good at anti-Russia. So, collusion will depend on which threat to be considered to be larger.

This sounds to me like the MOD making a case for a peace of the money tree that both main parties have found. there has always been in fighting and always will be in fighting I am sure the Navy could put forward a case for the army to get rid of all its MBT,s as they are just rusting away

Roders96 wrote:Type 23 Crew = 185
Type 26 = 157
Type 31 = 100

T Boat = 130
A Boat = 98

Means a crew saving of roughly 700. As new replaces old. Enough to fully crew PW.

How do you square that calculation if the issue is in 2020 rather than 2030 when those changes will have taken place.

As has been said many times we only have aircraft for a single carrier air group and a small one at that.

donald_of_tokyo wrote:I read the "times" article, referred in the tweet.

One CV is in danger to be lost (or mothballed), or escorts are in danger for cut (relying allies for CVTF escorting tasks), look like. I do not share to optimistic growing UK defense, sometimes discussed here, and this article looks more reflecting the real situation.

For example, I am not sure ordering 5 T31 was a good decision. It puts only "the remaining 5 T26" or "mothballing a CV" or "disbanding both LPD" as viable options (at least to me), when Navy cannot win the game. RAF has purchased 9 P-8As, so I'm afraid 5 T26 is in more danger now. CV's capability is much more oriented to expenditure war, and not so good at anti-Russia. So, collusion will depend on which threat to be considered to be larger.

This sounds to me like the MOD making a case for a peace of the money tree that both main parties have found. there has always been in fighting and always will be in fighting I am sure the Navy could put forward a case for the army to get rid of all its MBT,s as they are just rusting away

SW1 wrote:How do you square that calculation if the issue is in 2020 rather than 2030 when those changes will have taken place.

The carrier's will be knocking about for 50 years. They're big ticket items and different to the rest. If one goes into mothballs it'll never come out. Better to have a few escorts in extended readiness for 10 years than CdG in perpetuity.

Both carriers being active creates demand for the escorts to come out of mothballs, tempest to be designed carrier capable. The same is not true in reverse.

SW1 wrote:As has been said many times we only have aircraft for a single carrier air group and a small one at that.

Yes we don't currently have the aircraft for both carriers, but in the short term we've got surge from USMC, medium term tempest. Drones to come too. Even if we don't immediately have the aircraft for both of them, for the reason stated above, it is irrational not to keep both active.