General UK Defence Discussion

For everything else UK defence-related that doesn't fit into any of the sections above.
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Allied CSG's have 6 escorts and a SSN as a norm yes the UK sent 4 on its first deployment however the French norm is to send 2 and the rest of the group is made up of Allied escorts. At this time it is the norm to have a US DDG for BMD so if we Deployed POW with 1 T-45 and 1 T-23 plus a US DDG , 1 Dutch and 1 Danish escort this would be a good group and if POW had 10 US and 4 UK F-35s plus 2 Crowsnest , 4 Chinooks , 6 Apache & 6 MV-22 she would be in good shape

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tempest414 wrote: 12 Jul 2022, 09:36 and if POW had 10 US and 4 UK F-35s plus 2 Crowsnest , 4 Chinooks , 6 Apache & 6 MV-22 she would be in good shape
I was wondering if us buying enough F-35s for two carrier air wings was a god trade (for them lending us ABM cover while at sea)
... fair enough, but then I rn into the MV-22s at the end of the text. What is the rationale for them? HMS Ocean had a US CSAR team onboard while off Libya; again a sensible loan of specialised assets) but this time there is no underlying rationale attached
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)

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: 12 Jul 2022, 14:01
Tempest414 wrote: 12 Jul 2022, 09:36 and if POW had 10 US and 4 UK F-35s plus 2 Crowsnest , 4 Chinooks , 6 Apache & 6 MV-22 she would be in good shape
I was wondering if us buying enough F-35s for two carrier air wings was a god trade (for them lending us ABM cover while at sea)
... fair enough, but then I rn into the MV-22s at the end of the text. What is the rationale for them? HMS Ocean had a US CSAR team onboard while off Libya; again a sensible loan of specialised assets) but this time there is no underlying rationale attached
What I have laid out is when POW is acting as a NATO asset with the airwing above this would allow POW to put ashore a RM force and give them all the cover they need in effect she would be a LHA the MV-22's would allow her to stand off more

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Too valuable to use as an LHA, as I think has now been widely accepted, compared with the earlier mistaken impression that she should be used as one. As an LHA, she would not have F35’s either. :mrgreen:

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Scimitar54 wrote: 12 Jul 2022, 20:48 As an LHA, she would not have F35’s either.
The original JC will have them and the modified (Ozzie) editions cannot accommodate them
... in their two, different geopolitical zones, I think both are 'right'

And we don't need to have that discussion; but will soon be short of assets with which to put any meaningful number of troops & their support across the shoreline. Curious as to 'how' the LHA role for the n:o 2 got dropped so quietly.

Well, have we not been promised a 30-yr shipbuilding plan??
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)

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: 12 Jul 2022, 21:29
Scimitar54 wrote: 12 Jul 2022, 20:48 As an LHA, she would not have F35’s either.
The original JC will have them and the modified (Ozzie) editions cannot accommodate them
... in their two, different geopolitical zones, I think both are 'right'

And we don't need to have that discussion; but will soon be short of assets with which to put any meaningful number of troops & their support across the shoreline. Curious as to 'how' the LHA role for the n:o 2 got dropped so quietly.

Well, have we not been promised a 30-yr shipbuilding plan??
Yes - we will be in a land of milk and honey in the 2030's.
Of course in 5-6 years time we can quietly postpone that until the 2040's.....
Jam tomorrow, never today

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by R686 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: 12 Jul 2022, 21:29
Scimitar54 wrote: 12 Jul 2022, 20:48 As an LHA, she would not have F35’s either.
The original JC will have them and the modified (Ozzie) editions cannot accommodate them
... in their two, different geopolitical zones, I think both are 'right'

And we don't need to have that discussion; but will soon be short of assets with which to put any meaningful number of troops & their support across the shoreline. Curious as to 'how' the LHA role for the n:o 2 got dropped so quietly.

Well, have we not been promised a 30-yr shipbuilding plan??
Well actually they could as everything below the flight deck is the same as the JC1, the modifications were primarily the island structure to best accommodate C&C for an amphibious task force.

in that respect they are not optimized for fast jet operations. its my personal opinion if the GOTD wanted the capability and have a fair bit of commonality with the current LHD i believe it would be better to build 2 enlarged version with a hull plug of between 15-20m

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Scimitar54 wrote: 12 Jul 2022, 20:48 Too valuable to use as an LHA, as I think has now been widely accepted, compared with the earlier mistaken impression that she should be used as one. As an LHA, she would not have F35’s either. :mrgreen:
I think you are wrong I think that she is far to valuable to be floating around with fuck all on her decks carrying 14 F-35 plus helicopters for assault is not a bad fit for the short term the reason for wanting MV-22's is there speed and range allow her to stand off further away and I am sure if USS America can operate F-35 along side rotors POW can

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Yes, however USS America is not a “Strike Carrier” and did not cost £3.5bn, either! A “Littoral Manoeuvre” package would also preclude space being available for “Carrier Strike” assets and Personnel.
A brave proposal? Perhaps, but the line between being COURAGEOUS and foolhardy, when operating in Norwegian waters is (at least historically) a very fine one. Remember, we only have
TWO “QEC Carriers”. Even if we had Three, It would not be acceptable to risk using (and potentially losing) one in such a fashion.

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by SW1 »

https://wavellroom.com/2022/07/13/ukrai ... ign=buffer

The Telegraph recently ran one of the more bizarre analyses to have arisen from the war in Ukraine. In it, Gareth Corfield, supported by a long list of RAF Officers speaking about airpower lessons on the record, argued that ‘…post-Ukraine, the future of air combat is set to look very different to what was expected, teaching nations of the dangers of relying solely on technology…’. A pre-war focus on drones, autonomous systems tech and AI ‘…almost to the exclusion of everything else’ had been overturned. It was clear now that:

‘… that losses of expensive, complex aircraft are hard to quickly replace. Losses of skilled personnel in wartime are even more difficult to cope with, however. Technology can only substitute for lack of critical mass up to a certain point, and no matter how advanced the aircraft, current air combat technology still requires a highly trained human sitting in a cockpit.’

It is almost impossible to see how this is a lesson from Ukraine. And indeed the article presents no evidence in support of this argument. Instead it departs on a narrative description of (piloted) Russian aircraft losses, the effectiveness of Ukraine’s surface-to-air weapons, lack of training in the Russian Air Force, and how current RAF operations are working in 2022.

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Scimitar54 wrote: 13 Jul 2022, 09:01 Yes, however USS America is not a “Strike Carrier” and did not cost £3.5bn, either! A “Littoral Manoeuvre” package would also preclude space being available for “Carrier Strike” assets and Personnel.
A brave proposal? Perhaps, but the line between being COURAGEOUS and foolhardy, when operating in Norwegian waters is (at least historically) a very fine one. Remember, we only have
TWO “QEC Carriers”. Even if we had Three, It would not be acceptable to risk using (and potentially losing) one in such a fashion.
it was Glorious lost off Norway by a piss poor captain not using his air-wing to scout and if you are not happy to use her in this way then 14 jets and Crowsnest , ASW Merlin's is still a good strike wing

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by mr.fred »

SW1 wrote: 13 Jul 2022, 10:11
It is almost impossible to see how this is a lesson from Ukraine. And indeed the article presents no evidence in support of this argument. Instead it departs on a narrative description of (piloted) Russian aircraft losses, the effectiveness of Ukraine’s surface-to-air weapons, lack of training in the Russian Air Force, and how current RAF operations are working in 2022.
It sounds like a lesson gleaned from Top Gun - Maverick

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by jedibeeftrix »

Re: "Britain is to commit a carrier to the defence of NATO borders. The Defence Secretary said "we are going to dedicate one of the carrier groups to it"."

We have two with a ~67% availablility each, so an overlap of four months of the year when both are 'available' - ignoring the work-up > deploy > recharge cycle each must go through indivually.
i.e. only really a third of a year were [a] british carrier is deployed.

Do we suspect the 'estonian' carrier is the work-up one?

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Right now we have a re-enforced Armoured Battalion battle group out there of 30 CH-2 , 60 Warrior plus some Bulldogs , AS-90's with logistics support the fact is as things stand to maintain this long term will take most of 3rd division

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Tempest414
HMS Glorious (when sunk) was in fact a “COURAGEOUS CLASS” Aircraft Carrier. If you had paid sufficient attention to my post, you would have realised that at no point did I state HMS Courageous.

Yes, I would dearly like to see the RN have a Second CSG, but:-
We do not currently have sufficient operational Destroyers, Frigates, SSN’s and every type of carrier-borne Air asset to be able to form a second CSG, more’s the pity. We would also need a Third (Preferably QEC) Carrier to be able to sustain a “Two Deployable CSG” Navy.
We don’t even have a full (617) squadron (of 12) “Frontline” F35’s at present ! Even they cannot be on both of the carriers at the same time. 2.5% by 2030 ???? …….. 3% would be a
more appropriate figure (over the same period).

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

And if you had taken the time you have noted that at all points I have been stating that POW should be acting as a NATO carrier with POW 1 x T45 , 1 x T-23 , 1 x US DDG + 2 other Allied escorts and her air-wing should be a mostly US that this time with 10 USMC F-35 and maybe a US ASW unit with the UK supplying 4 F-35 and Crowsnest

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by SW1 »

I would appear things are deteriorating in the balkans again


inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by inch »

Think things are deteriorating everywhere , reading different things from Russia satellites for Iran ,drones for Russia ,north Korea offering Russia 100k troops in Ukraine ,for oil food etc ,China Taiwan erupting , Balkans erupting etc etc ,the West economy getting weaker by the second , nevermind 3 % increase defence budget by 2030 truss says if get elected pm , it's too late ,way too late by the way things are heading ,soft weak west leadership has failed and think we all going to pay for that b,big style .not one of them is upto a real crisis ,if it kicks off UK forces can't defend the country longer than hrs ,we just don't have numbers trained , equipped,etc ,all I can say it's a total shit show on the UK qoverment and MOD side for yrs whichever party , just a total crock of ability by successive leadership and have no doubt whoever gets in next will be a total useless failure for the defence of the country

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by SW1 »


inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by inch »

Yep think we screwed SW1 ,v doubtful we could defend our own country if it really came to it nevermind any European countries ,we are all bluff and show,great lads lasses lead by useless government and leadership to even get programs done and delivered ,hell we don't really have a proper missile defense for the country unlike just about every other countries in the world , absolute bollox

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by SW1 »

inch wrote: 06 Aug 2022, 00:01 Yep think we screwed SW1 ,v doubtful we could defend our own country if it really came to it nevermind any European countries ,we are all bluff and show,great lads lasses lead by useless government and leadership to even get programs done and delivered ,hell we don't really have a proper missile defense for the country unlike just about every other countries in the world , absolute bollox
I actually think we could defend this country, I think Ukraine has shown how hard it is for attackers when invading a hostile country not like we needed to relearn that lesson.

I think it’s also shown the capability to do it is not necessarily what the big arms manufacturers and there supports push, it’s not the exquisite that matters.

I think blaming politicians is too easy they have blame but it’s around not understanding their brief and not pushing back around equipment purchases and being to easily lead by other agendas of “ethical” foreign policy intervention.

The blame for the state of forces today lies with the senior leadership in uniform since the end of the Cold War. They didn’t make a clear case for spending on actual defensive systems and defence as a viable strategy. It was all exotic expeditionary intervention point end stuff the political establishment was happy to lap up.

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by R686 »

SW1 wrote: 06 Aug 2022, 09:06
inch wrote: 06 Aug 2022, 00:01 Yep think we screwed SW1 ,v doubtful we could defend our own country if it really came to it nevermind any European countries ,we are all bluff and show,great lads lasses lead by useless government and leadership to even get programs done and delivered ,hell we don't really have a proper missile defense for the country unlike just about every other countries in the world , absolute bollox
I actually think we could defend this country, I think Ukraine has shown how hard it is for attackers when invading a hostile country not like we needed to relearn that lesson.

I think it’s also shown the capability to do it is not necessarily what the big arms manufacturers and there supports push, it’s not the exquisite that matters.

I think blaming politicians is too easy they have blame but it’s around not understanding their brief and not pushing back around equipment purchases and being to easily lead by other agendas of “ethical” foreign policy intervention.

The blame for the state of forces today lies with the senior leadership in uniform since the end of the Cold War. They didn’t make a clear case for spending on actual defensive systems and defence as a viable strategy. It was all exotic expeditionary intervention point end stuff the political establishment was happy to lap up.
Sorry to say this but the Ukraine is not a good example because nations need the war stocks to keep going. if it wasn't for the west supplying arms ammo and replacement combat systems then I think they would have folded a while ago.

Have nations across Europe heeded the lessons of Libya in 2011 when stockpiles were used up and the US had to intervene

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by SW1 »

R686 wrote: 06 Aug 2022, 09:25
SW1 wrote: 06 Aug 2022, 09:06
inch wrote: 06 Aug 2022, 00:01 Yep think we screwed SW1 ,v doubtful we could defend our own country if it really came to it nevermind any European countries ,we are all bluff and show,great lads lasses lead by useless government and leadership to even get programs done and delivered ,hell we don't really have a proper missile defense for the country unlike just about every other countries in the world , absolute bollox
I actually think we could defend this country, I think Ukraine has shown how hard it is for attackers when invading a hostile country not like we needed to relearn that lesson.

I think it’s also shown the capability to do it is not necessarily what the big arms manufacturers and there supports push, it’s not the exquisite that matters.

I think blaming politicians is too easy they have blame but it’s around not understanding their brief and not pushing back around equipment purchases and being to easily lead by other agendas of “ethical” foreign policy intervention.

The blame for the state of forces today lies with the senior leadership in uniform since the end of the Cold War. They didn’t make a clear case for spending on actual defensive systems and defence as a viable strategy. It was all exotic expeditionary intervention point end stuff the political establishment was happy to lap up.
Sorry to say this but the Ukraine is not a good example because nations need the war stocks to keep going. if it wasn't for the west supplying arms ammo and replacement combat systems then I think they would have folded a while ago.

Have nations across Europe heeded the lessons of Libya in 2011 when stockpiles were used up and the US had to intervene
We are supplying those weapons from factories in this U.K. and from weapon stocks in the U.K. so we can ramp it up as we did with brimstone during Libya. we could continue to ramp up supply of expendables.

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by inch »

Nope R686,not a chance they will learn anything , a change of government/ politicians and military leadership and all lessons forgotten and have to be learnt again in a crisis ,and so the circle turns again

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

If defence of the UK is paramount, finding money for the establishment of a viable ABM capability on land and at sea should be very near the top of the pile
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post (total 2):
Caribbeanserge750

Post Reply