Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

CVF and Carrier Strike thread

We aren't going to the Med? But we were in the Med this summer?

it’s not the RNs future main operational area - the Med just gets a forward deployed OPV and some patrol boats.

The Yanks intended to pull their carrier out of the Gulf to go annoy the Chinese, So it’s back to the East of Suez future for Jack.
See the new bases east of Suez, the desire to forward base ships in Singapore, and porting rights for the carrier in Duqm
 
Last edited:
it’s not the RNs future main operational area - the Med just gets a forward deplored OPV and some patrol boats . . .
Your Predictive Text, is at it again . . . ;) !!
 
it’s not the RNs future main operational area - the Med just gets a forward deployed OPV and some patrol boats.

The Yanks intended to pull their carrier out of the Gulf to go annoy the Chinese, So it’s back to the East of Suez future for Jack.
See the new bases east of Suez, the desire to forward base ships in Singapore, and porting rights for the carrier in Duqm
Maybe but we had a pretty big Task group in LRG(X) tootling around the Med. While it may not be a main focus it will still be a major area due to general security concerns, looking after major assets in Gib/Cyprus and generally supporting NATO there.
 

Yokel

LE
Are you sure that the NATO theatre will not continue to be the main operating area for the RN - along with the Gulf? Only one geographical area got mentioned as the of the Future Navy thing - the North Atlantic. Carrier Strike, the Amphibious capability, and even CASD tie in with NATO, and the transatlantic sea lines of communication

SLOC protection was a major carrier role during the Cold War, and is discussed on this thread.

To quote former USN Naval Flight Officer @ECMO1 - the primary mission for the CV/CVN in the North Atlantic was not ASW (it was an additional role) but rather AAW to prevent the Backfire/Bears from attacking the convoys. The A-6/A-7s were the organic tankers to push the F-4/F-14 CAP stations out to a range to shoot the archer, not the arrows. Obviously, those roles swapped a bit when you started facing a surface threat or got close enough to land to start contemplating strikes against those Soviet Naval Air Arm airfields.

As to today, and an American view of where we would contribute most, try this:

New British carriers can transform Europe's NATO naval Capabilities

It is entirely understandable that the first mission for Britain’s first ever carrier strike group be a wholly sovereign endeavor, but going forward pride should take a back seat to capability and effectiveness in NATO. Indeed it must, since the Royal Navy does not have enough billets, ships, or fighter aircraft to continually operate a carrier strike group. Naval cooperation between the United States and UK is a step in the right direction, not just because the RN faces budget constraints, but also because the US Navy’s own plan for 435 ships is a pipe dream, especially in the wake of COVID-19. Cooperation with Europe is also necessary and it is here that the UK can resume its highly valuable role as a bridge between the continent and the United States. Using the British carriers as the center of a British-led, but European-supported, task force would add a serious pillar of capability to NATO. Such a move should be compatible with the Government’s strategic goals in the coming decade as outlined by Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

As Brexit negotiations began, then Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson argued that although Britain was leaving the European Union, it was not leaving Europe. Brexit was not, according to Johnson, “any kind of mandate for the country to turn in on itself, to haul up the drawbridge, to detach itself from the international community.” The UK has also stated repeatedly, over many decades, that NATO is the preferred forum for European security and defense issues. Establishing a carrier strike group that is truly European would be a major leap forward for the Alliance. It would allow the United States to reposition forces and would give Britain and her European NATO allies truly global reach.

Creating a UK-led NATO-Europe Strike Group would be functionally relatively easy and builds on training exercises such as Brilliant Mariner, Poseidon, Joint Warrior, Dynamic Mongoose, and Formidable Shield. Furthermore, the British and the French have been ramping up military cooperation since signing the 2010 Lancaster Treaties. The naval side of Combined Joint Expeditionary Force is a model for cooperation.

Collectively, the navies of Europe possess an immense amount of resources. When participating in NATO exercises, it is hard to ignore the robustness of European naval capabilities. The challenge is, however, overcoming the friction between national and multinational commitments—a problem that will only worsen in an era of constrained national budgets following the coronavirus pandemic. It would behoove all involved to accept the reality that working together is the best way forward. Furthermore, no European navy is going to launch a unilateral naval campaign, and really, most likely, no European naval campaign would be launched without the blessing (and most likely support, at least in terms of Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance—C4ISR) from the United States. Forming a European carrier strike group deployed globally, therefore, is a major way to advance collective action within NATO, demonstrate solidarity on defense capabilities to Washington, and to utilize resources most effectively. Such solidarity is necessary in a world where China will outstrip the US Navy in coming decades. Europe allies cannot simple depend on the United States—they must contribute actively to global security.


The final paragraph is noteworthy:

The reality of NATO in the 21st century is that the United States will not be able to match emergent peer competitors alone. Strong European capabilities are necessary both to ensure stability, but also to stave off isolationist tendencies in the Washington where a sentiment reigns that the United States carries too much of the burden of European defense. Importantly, a UK-led NATO Europe carrier strike group would not just be a potent fighting force, but it would also deal a serious blow to those who argue that Europe fails to substantially contribute to NATO capabilities. The UK-led NATO European carrier strike group would serve as an example that could also be applied carrier strike groups built around the French carrier Charles de Gaulle and the Italian carrier Giuseppe Garibaldi. Such integration would be a serious step forward for allied defense integration in NATO.

We have declared that we will provide a carrier capability to NATO. Likewise CASD and the amphibious capability are valuable in the NATO theatre.
 
Last edited:
Maybe but we had a pretty big Task group in LRG(X) tootling around the Med. While it may not be a main focus it will still be a major area due to general security concerns, looking after major assets in Gib/Cyprus and generally supporting NATO there.

LRG(X) was a proof of concept exercise. The Med was a convient proving ground, but it’s not intended to base one there full time.

In the near term, you will have a permanently forward based T31 in the Med along with OPV/patrol boats. There really isn’t any purpose to the RN duplicating the large French/Italian presence. A LSG will be sent if something sporty of concern to the UK kicks off, but an RN all arms TF swanning around the Med as a matter of course isn’t the future.

And then there is the composition of a future LSG. I cant see the current RFA manning model sitting with the use of LSDs and the prospective Litorral Strike Ships as de facto warships. The militarisation of the RFA is not something I’d bet against.
 
Are you sure that the NATO theatre will not continue to be the main operating area for the RN -along with the Gulf? Only one geographical area got mentioned as the of the Future Navy thing - the North Atlantic. Carrier Strike, the Amphibious capability, and even CASD tie in with NATO, and the transatlantic sea lines of communication

The North Atlantic is not our primary SLOC.

Its U.K./Gib/Suez/Gulf/Singapore.

Thats were most of our cargo and gas come along.
And rather conveniently, we have bases in Gib, Cyprus, the Gulf and soon Singapore.

Russians cutting about in the far north fir the cameras are annoying, but they are not a strategic threat to U.K. trade.
 
Last edited:

Mattb

LE
If nothing else, we already have a thingy in the Med for launching and recovering aircraft, it’s called Cyprus.
 
LRG(X) was a proof of concept exercise. The Med was a convient proving ground, but it’s not intended to base one there full time.

In the near term, you will have a permanently forward based T31 in the Med along with OPV/patrol boats. There really isn’t any purpose to the RN duplicating the large French/Italian presence. A LSG will be sent if something sporty of concern to the UK kicks off, but an RN all arms TF swanning around the Med as a matter of course isn’t the future.

And then there is the composition of a future LSG. I cant see the current RFA manning model sitting with the use of LSDs and the prospective Litorral Strike Ships as de facto warships. The militarisation of the RFA is not something I’d bet against.
But we will still go to the Med and have a stake in there is my point. Its hardly surrendering it to others influence.
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Could these operate from our carriers?


No, getting them off the QEs would not be insurmountable but landing them would be awkward. The cost of modifying the carriers to utilise them would be ridiculous.

If we had gone for a conventional Carrier, we would have bought some, but as we are optimised for STOVL it's absolutely 100% not worth it.

We have Crowsnest as a solution, and there may be a case a long time in the future to examine a tiltrotor solution. But that's £££££
 
But we will still go to the Med and have a stake in there is my point. Its hardly surrendering it to others influence.

no one said anything about surrendering anything.
If we have a national interest, we can send a full Carrier Strike Group to the Med and completely dominate whoever's got on our naughty list In days.
But its not on HMGs must keep a significant RN naval strike presence in list. Air power can and will remain deployable from NATO and UK sovereign bases in the Med.
 

Mattb

LE
Go compare the cost of an EH-101 an Osprey

There’s a reason the RN hasn’t bought a single one other than the launch order they had no option over.

And yes, Ospreys are very much on the to do list.
There’s a difference between the unit price on Wikipedia and the cost of running a unique (to FAA) fleet of, say, six airframes compared to six units of a fleet of dozens.

But then this has all been explained to you many times before.
 
There’s a difference between the unit price on Wikipedia and the cost of running a unique (to FAA) fleet of, say, six airframes compared to six units of a fleet of dozens.

But then this has all been explained to you many times before.
Also the differrence between not buying a load more because its crap vs not buying a load more because the cold war ended - Russian Subs went away and funding evaporated.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top