Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Repulse
Donator
Posts: 3189
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 138 times
Been liked: 190 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 15 Jul 2022, 20:55
ArmChairCivvy wrote: 15 Jul 2022, 20:46
SW1 wrote: 15 Jul 2022, 20:32 the geographical areas we are interested in I would say logistics!
As we have become accustomed to buying from remanufacture/ special edition limited-run queues (Apache/ Chinook SF), so why don't we tap into a "nearly new, but to be decommissioned" plans, likewise... at a good price!
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... thing-else
Well maybe but I was thinking using a few tankers like the waves or perhaps ordering a few ships along the lines of hnoms maud rather than what we are doing with opvs
Agree with using what we have (the Waves) before buying more. Whilst I agree with the comment on logistics, it’s needs to be a balanced fleet and the OPVs have already proved themselves worthy of being part of that fleet.
”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

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 503
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Has liked: 726 times
Been liked: 84 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Repulse wrote: 15 Jul 2022, 20:57
SW1 wrote: 15 Jul 2022, 20:32 For what we should be allocated (frozen) to the geographical areas we are interested in I would say logistics!

Having a tanker/stores vessel (most are weak in these areas) in situ to me offers many options from low level support to allies (and the carriage of some containerised capabilities for security roles in the region thru to task group support and allows the more expensive and fighting ships to deploy rapidly from the U.K. when required.
This is why I’m thinking the Bays should be manned by the Navy to free up the crew to ensure that all the Tankers we have can be manned, and any future FSSs likewise.

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 503
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Has liked: 726 times
Been liked: 84 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Repulse wrote: 15 Jul 2022, 20:57
SW1 wrote: 15 Jul 2022, 20:32 For what we should be allocated (frozen) to the geographical areas we are interested in I would say logistics!

Having a tanker/stores vessel (most are weak in these areas) in situ to me offers many options from low level support to allies (and the carriage of some containerised capabilities for security roles in the region thru to task group support and allows the more expensive and fighting ships to deploy rapidly from the U.K. when required.
This is why I’m thinking the Bays should be manned by the Navy to free up the crew to ensure that all the Tankers we have can be manned, and any future FSSs likewise.
Well we are short of crew whether RN or RFA. So depends on which would be easier to recruit for. Given thar RN early retired 1 Frigate (Monmouth),2 subs and Echo, with another precious Frigate to be retired next year, I would be nervous about RN crewing 3 Bays.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 3189
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 138 times
Been liked: 190 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 15 Jul 2022, 21:45 Well we are short of crew whether RN or RFA. So depends on which would be easier to recruit for. Given thar RN early retired 1 Frigate (Monmouth),2 subs and Echo, with another precious Frigate to be retired next year, I would be nervous about RN crewing 3 Bays.
Both the RN & RFA, and there aren’t any easy answers. My point was to scrap the Albions (or mothball) and move the Bays to the RN which will actually free up RN crew for other ships (hopefully stemming the dumping of useful platforms early). Also, with some minor modifications to improve self defence systems, with a RN crew putting the Bays in higher (not high) threat environments is possible.

Is it ideal, no; it also accepts a gap whereby the UK will not be able to perform high end amphibious operations without partners. However, that seems to be already accepted. An Argus + Bay combination for LRG(S), and 2 Bays allocated to JEF (alongside the Dutch LPDs) is still a credible interim capability.

What should come next IMO is a focus on replacements - instead of 6 MRSSs, I would go for 3 new RN LPDs (designed in partnership with the Dutch) and 2 RFA JSBLs (both with Aviation Support capabilities).
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
wargame_insomniac
”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
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16310
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 77 times
Been liked: 73 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Repulse wrote: 16 Jul 2022, 08:50 An Argus + Bay combination for LRG(S), and 2 Bays allocated to JEF (alongside the Dutch LPDs) is still a credible interim capability.
Interim as a synonym for going down in capability does not chime nicely in my ears: so the vehicle'ed parts of the remaining Cdos would be delivered from UK (RN+RFA) ships and the rest will have sub-rentals onboard of the Dutch ones (there is already a German medical company and an unspecified number of Belgian Paracommandos on them - paying towards the the upkeep of the ships on a 'joint basis').
... all of this sounds sort of OK. Until you come to JEF as a rapid response capability. UK & NL members, but Germany and Belgium not.
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)

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 3189
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 138 times
Been liked: 190 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

It’s not ideal I agree, but a CVF plus two Bays could deliver a single Cdo OTH with vehicles / logical follow up.

I’ve argued for the two LPDs in the past, but am at the point something big is going to have to give to move forwards. Longer term, three RN LPDs with less manning requirements than the Albions is the right answer, just need to get there.
”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
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16310
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 77 times
Been liked: 73 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Repulse wrote: 16 Jul 2022, 18:19 three RN LPDs with less manning requirements than the Albions is the right answer, just need to get there.
Devil's Advocate answers: one with the carrier on northern duty; the carrier having the early, recce elements onboard (one of the good things with the Merlins is the range - not so much the lift).

One in the dock (the rule of 1 in 3?).

One down in the Gulf... how do we take it from there?
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)

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 3189
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 138 times
Been liked: 190 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: 16 Jul 2022, 18:25 One down in the Gulf... how do we take it from there?
LPDs/LSDs cannot be used as the primary substitutes for proper USV/UUV MCM and Survey motherships.

My view on that is that MRSS should be the initial phase of a total fleet of 6 similar motherships with a secondary Patrol Ship role, ultimately replacing Scott, Echos and the 3 B1 Rivers. One of these can then be them forward based in the Gulf for 2-3 years at a time.
”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: 3705
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 46 times
Been liked: 202 times
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote: 16 Jul 2022, 18:38
ArmChairCivvy wrote: 16 Jul 2022, 18:25 One down in the Gulf... how do we take it from there?
LPDs/LSDs cannot be used as the primary substitutes for proper USV/UUV MCM and Survey motherships.

My view on that is that MRSS should be the initial phase of a total fleet of 6 similar motherships with a secondary Patrol Ship role, ultimately replacing Scott, Echos and the 3 B1 Rivers. One of these can then be them forward based in the Gulf for 2-3 years at a time.
Anything that replaces the Echo's and B1,s will be to small for MRSS plus given what we are seeing at this time I would say if we could build 4 new 110m x 16m MHPC's to take over from Scott , Echo's & B1's we would be doing well these would be stationed 2 each side of Suez allowing 2 B2's to return to replace the B1's

MRSS needs to replace the LPD's , LSD's and Argus and for me I feel we should be looking at six 200 x 32 meter flattop LPD's each one capable of carrying 2 Caimen 90's plus 10 aircraft 5 below deck plus 400 troops & supporting staff long term

Plus I think all 10 ships should be fitted with 40mm guns 2 on the MHPC's and 4 on the MRSS's

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 3189
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 138 times
Been liked: 190 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote: 17 Jul 2022, 09:54 Anything that replaces the Echo's and B1,s will be to small for MRSS
Sorry, my mistake (I blame it on auto correct :D) I meant MRoSS not MRSS (which as outlined should be cancelled and replaced with 3 LPDs and 2 JBLSs).

MRoSS is likely to be @80-90m a similar size as HMS Protector or SD Northern River. They should have similar sensor / weapon capabilities as the current B2s.

They should be positioned in strategic ocean / littoral areas (especially choke points). I said a class of six vessels (as other platforms can play a secondary mothership role).

If they are to replace the B1s and Survey ships I would argue the following peacetime positioning:

- 2 UK waters
- 1 Northern Atlantic
- 1 Gibraltar & Mediterranean
- 1 Gulf (replacing the Bay)
- 1 Refit / Reserve
”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: 3705
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 46 times
Been liked: 202 times
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote: 17 Jul 2022, 11:12
Tempest414 wrote: 17 Jul 2022, 09:54 Anything that replaces the Echo's and B1,s will be to small for MRSS
Sorry, my mistake (I blame it on auto correct :D) I meant MRoSS not MRSS (which as outlined should be cancelled and replaced with 3 LPDs and 2 JBLSs).

MRoSS is likely to be @80-90m a similar size as HMS Protector or SD Northern River. They should have similar sensor / weapon capabilities as the current B2s.

They should be positioned in strategic ocean / littoral areas (especially choke points). I said a class of six vessels (as other platforms can play a secondary mothership role).

If they are to replace the B1s and Survey ships I would argue the following peacetime positioning:

- 2 UK waters
- 1 Northern Atlantic
- 1 Gibraltar & Mediterranean
- 1 Gulf (replacing the Bay)
- 1 Refit / Reserve
For me 80 to 90 meters is to small to conduct this role now and in the future as said they need to be 110 meters with a good 3D radar and 2 x 40mm this would allow them to defend them self's against most things up to a 1st gen ASM. For me they need to be 105 meters plus as they will need a 25 meter covered working deck plus a 25 meter open working deck it should also have a hangar up to SH-60 and a speed of 22 knots

I am more than happy to have 3 Flattop LPD's and 2 JBLS's

UK waters should be left to the River B2's as could operate MCM and Survey kit in Home waters meaning that 4 110 meter MHPC or MROSS could be deployed 2 each side of Suez supported by 2 RB2's in Home waters , 1 in the Falklands , 1 in the Med and 1 EoS

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4569
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 185 times
Been liked: 196 times
Japan

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Can we simply
- rip off all the LCVP and RHIBs davits from port-side
- add a 3 Merlin capable long hangar,
Width is not enough. But, we can make it wider, at least out to the "cat-walk's" width (which looks like ~1.5m wider than the main hull), or even more? (More overhanging can be done. We know how CVF's port-side are overhung.)

This will give us a LPD with
- up to 4 LCUs in the well-deck
- 2 LCVPs and 1 RHIBs starboad-side
- 3 Merlin HM4 in the hanger at the port-side.
Not too bad?

Image

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 3189
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 138 times
Been liked: 190 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 19 Jul 2022, 15:27 Can we simply…
We could, but the reality is that a converted Albion will never be as effective as RFA Argus in the Aviation Support role so why incur the cost?

The argument that there isn’t enough RFA personnel isn’t a good one when the Albions already require the crew of two frigates. Better as I say, move the 3 LSDs to the RN operating as LPDs (albeit limited), ditch the Albions and accept the gap & spend the money saved on accelerating what comes next.
”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
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16310
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 77 times
Been liked: 73 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 19 Jul 2022, 15:27 This will give us a LPD with
- up to 4 LCUs in the well-deck
- 2 LCVPs and 1 RHIBs starboad-side
- 3 Merlin HM4 in the hanger at the port-side.
Not too bad?
Not bad at all, but in a LRG role the LCUs are too slow. @ Donald can surely say whether either version of the Caymen would fit (and one in the four should be a force protection boat): 3 helos, three fast connectors and 2 LCVPs... even a few vehicles (ambulance, command post, recce, mortar carrier with a meaningful load of bombs with it).
Repulse wrote: 19 Jul 2022, 18:40 a converted Albion will never be as effective as RFA Argus in the Aviation Support role
True, but you have to start somewhere (and Argus can be part of the early journey, helping to 'mature' the concept).
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)

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 3189
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 138 times
Been liked: 190 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: 19 Jul 2022, 19:35 True, but you have to start somewhere (and Argus can be part of the early journey, helping to 'mature' the concept).
Perhaps, but what is clear is that something needs to give, especially in the area of crewing. It’s not ideal, but cutting now and focusing everything on getting the future capabilities in place has to be better than a slow drawn out spiral of delays and reduction of future budgets to pay for today.
”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

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4569
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 185 times
Been liked: 196 times
Japan

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Repulse wrote: 19 Jul 2022, 18:40We could, but the reality is that a converted Albion will never be as effective as RFA Argus in the Aviation Support role so why incur the cost?
Reasonable point, I agree.

But, the reason "Albions already require the crew of two frigates" is (as I understand) she has better damage control and a commanding facility. By adding a hangar to Albion, she will be able to do "company-level" assault by her own. Bays and Argus are not designed to be stationed in the frontline (damage control surely less than Albion), and lacks commanding facility.

Then, "Albion + Argus" will be one solution: commanding, LCUs, and Merlins. It can do much better than a single Albion+Hangar, but needs two vessels.

Argus and Bay in singleton, will be able to do some "company-level" assault. But, it will be limited because of lack of helicopter hangar/or/LCU and need for dedicated independent commanding facility (or can only do simpler tasks, which do NOT need big commanding facility). And, in both cases, they are less capable in damage control than Albions.

So, it all depends on what is the aim. Also, your proposal to disband two Albions and send three Bays to RN lacks commanding capability. Adding "command" on Bay will require certain amount of resources and larger crew, or "out sourced".

BUT, I agree "out-sourcing" could be possible, i.e. commanding the amphibious operation from White Hall or from CVFs. But I think this idea must be verified (under high-level of jamming condition).
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
ArmChairCivvy

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 3189
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 138 times
Been liked: 190 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 20 Jul 2022, 04:03 So, it all depends on what is the aim. Also, your proposal to disband two Albions and send three Bays to RN lacks commanding capability. Adding "command" on Bay will require certain amount of resources and larger crew, or "out sourced".

BUT, I agree "out-sourcing" could be possible, i.e. commanding the amphibious operation from White Hall or from CVFs. But I think this idea must be verified (under high-level of jamming condition).
Thanks - I think the aim should be the following:

- Allocate two RN LSDs and a CVF to JEF (and NATO) with a RM Cdo as part of a combined war fighting task force.
- Deploy a RN LSD and an Aviation Support Ship in the form of RFA Argus to the Gulf/Indo Pacific region with a RM Cdo for HADR, training and SF operations.

In parallel, accelerate the purchase of 3 new RN LPDs (with similar crewing requirements to the Bay Class) and 2 JSBLs.

The price and gap is clear - no independent “war level” amphibious operations outside of the JEF structure until the new balanced and affordable force is in place.

In terms of C&C, I’d see an appropriate level of capability also being added to RFA Argus. Both the CVF and Argus will need to operate with the respective task groups.
”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: 3705
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 46 times
Been liked: 202 times
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

We should note that all other Enforcer classes have a crew of between 140 & 190 and that a Bay class when on operations has a mixed RFA & RN crew of 150+ and the RAN Bay has a crew of 158 this dose not include a command team

Also simply moving the command team to another ship will not help manpower problems it just moves the burden to said ship

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3705
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 46 times
Been liked: 202 times
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

All so by 2007 we were able to have two groups of

Group 1 ) 1 x Light carrier , 1 x LPH , 1 x LPD , 2 x LSD's & 3 x Point class escorted by 4 x Type-42 , 4 Type 23 & 2 x Type 22

Group 2 ) 1 x Light carrier , Argus , 1 x LPD , 2 x LSD's & 3 x Point class escorted by 4 x type 42 , 4 x type 23 & 2 x Type 22

this would leave 5 type 23's for other duties

oh how we have been hollowed out by 12 years of Tory government

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4569
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 185 times
Been liked: 196 times
Japan

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Tempest414 wrote: 20 Jul 2022, 11:11 All so by 2007 we were able to have two groups of

Group 1 ) 1 x Light carrier , 1 x LPH , 1 x LPD , 2 x LSD's & 3 x Point class escorted by 4 x Type-42 , 4 Type 23 & 2 x Type 22

Group 2 ) 1 x Light carrier , Argus , 1 x LPD , 2 x LSD's & 3 x Point class escorted by 4 x type 42 , 4 x type 23 & 2 x Type 22

this would leave 5 type 23's for other duties

oh how we have been hollowed out by 12 years of Tory government
I understand your point, but I do NOT think so much "hollowed out".

- "3 light carrier (only 2 active) and 1 LPH" compared to 2 large CVF. Clearly the latter has much more capability. (although the number has shrunk to a half).
- 8 Type-42 is not impressive as AAW asset. 4 T45 is much more capable. (not saying T45 is super, but saying T42 was not that much a high grade AAW asset)
- ASW frigates has decreased, 1 LSD sold, and 2 Points sold, there are true.

Just my feeling... In short, CVF and T45 are both quantum leap compared to their predecessors.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1483
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Has liked: 108 times
Been liked: 109 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

But can only be in one location at a time!

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 503
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Has liked: 726 times
Been liked: 84 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Tempest414 wrote: 20 Jul 2022, 11:11 All so by 2007 we were able to have two groups of

Group 1 ) 1 x Light carrier , 1 x LPH , 1 x LPD , 2 x LSD's & 3 x Point class escorted by 4 x Type-42 , 4 Type 23 & 2 x Type 22

Group 2 ) 1 x Light carrier , Argus , 1 x LPD , 2 x LSD's & 3 x Point class escorted by 4 x type 42 , 4 x type 23 & 2 x Type 22

this would leave 5 type 23's for other duties

oh how we have been hollowed out by 12 years of Tory government
Or that reflects the impact of 2008 Financial Crash and following years of excess spending by Labour governments......

Or that we should leave overt political comments to the Political sub-forum!
😀😀

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 3189
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 138 times
Been liked: 190 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote: 20 Jul 2022, 10:33 We should note that all other Enforcer classes have a crew of between 140 & 190 and that a Bay class when on operations has a mixed RFA & RN crew of 150+ and the RAN Bay has a crew of 158 this dose not include a command team

Also simply moving the command team to another ship will not help manpower problems it just moves the burden to said ship
Both Albions (one active + one in reserve) already require @350 crew (325 for the active one plus a crew for maintenance etc for the one in reserve). You are right that the command team will need to be replicated, but seeing that LRG(S) is at company level then it should be a fraction. The CVF C&C facilities will need to be expanded but they are (AFAIK) already designed to take a Task Group command role.

Like the reductions in crewing we’ve seen in frigates (T26 vs T23), any new ships must have similar automation/ efficiency gains.
”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: 3189
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 138 times
Been liked: 190 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

These users liked the author Repulse for the post (total 2):
ArmChairCivvydonald_of_tokyo
”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: 3705
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 46 times
Been liked: 202 times
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 20 Jul 2022, 13:21
Tempest414 wrote: 20 Jul 2022, 11:11 All so by 2007 we were able to have two groups of

Group 1 ) 1 x Light carrier , 1 x LPH , 1 x LPD , 2 x LSD's & 3 x Point class escorted by 4 x Type-42 , 4 Type 23 & 2 x Type 22

Group 2 ) 1 x Light carrier , Argus , 1 x LPD , 2 x LSD's & 3 x Point class escorted by 4 x type 42 , 4 x type 23 & 2 x Type 22

this would leave 5 type 23's for other duties

oh how we have been hollowed out by 12 years of Tory government
I understand your point, but I do NOT think so much "hollowed out".

- "3 light carrier (only 2 active) and 1 LPH" compared to 2 large CVF. Clearly the latter has much more capability. (although the number has shrunk to a half).
- 8 Type-42 is not impressive as AAW asset. 4 T45 is much more capable. (not saying T45 is super, but saying T42 was not that much a high grade AAW asset)
- ASW frigates has decreased, 1 LSD sold, and 2 Points sold, there are true.

Just my feeling... In short, CVF and T45 are both quantum leap compared to their predecessors.
All of the above could be true however the carriers lack air-wings the Type 45 only 3 are capable of going to sea at any one time and when they do we hold our breath in case they brake down on top of this the 2010 cuts that saw people spares and ammo slashed cross all 3 services

and as for Labour leaving no money after the 2008 crash guess what this Tory government will leave no money ether

No it is clear there has been a mass hollowing out from 2010 on and we all know it

Post Reply