Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

CVF and Carrier Strike thread

I was largely discussing possession; as in Reefs/Island, the Crimea, Baltic states in the future. No amount of navy/air posturing is ever going to get the Chinese off those newly made air bases or any other unoccupied lump they choose to get too before us.

Agreed. The Chinese are playing the long game and have been very clever in taking a series of tiny steps - each time weathering the temporary diplomatic complaints - which have collectively added up to what everyone agrees is an illegal partial annexation of the SCS (quite aside from the colossal environmental damage caused).

Evicting them from those man-made islands would result in war but there is a far wider piece going on as Beijing looks to dominate to the inner and then outer island chains to push the US back across the Pacific. The primary 'boots on the ground' aspect to that would be if China seized any of the disputed Japanese islands such as the Senkakus.

In terms of the Baltic States, Russian artillery and mass would make short work of any NATO forces on the ground, just as they would have done in Berlin during the Cold War. I've always viewed the nations as a step too far for NATO. I just hope that they don't lead to a wider conflagration.

Regards,
MM
 
I remember that there was a bit of a crisis between the People's Republic of China and Taiwan in 1996 (or was in 1997?), and one of the things was helped calm things down was the United States deploying two carrier groups. I am sure I remember seeing a F/A-18 Hornet driver being interviewed post flight.

Presence is a naval role.
 
Returning to the question of can we generate a task group, with everyone thinking a carrier needs umpteen escorts that exist only to defend the carrier and cannot be detached for other tasks, and the usual idiots claiming that someone in a rowing boat with a shotgun can sink a carrier....

HMS Queen Elizabeth was escorted by the Type 23 Monmouth during her trials, and supported by the tanker RFA Tidespring. At the same time RN ships were committed to Exercise Trident Juncture - two Type 23s providing ASW for the USS Iwo Jima, which had Royal Marines aboard, and a force of four MCMV and a Survey ship as their command platform. There was probably a SSN there as well.

At the same time Albion (LPD) and RFA Mounts Bay (LSD(A)) were committed to Saif Sareea 3 with a large part of 3 Cdo Bde. There was a Type 45 taking part in SS3, although she was doing it was part of a routine deployment - there was another Type 45 deployed in the Eastern Med at the same time.

Thinking of Sun Tzu/Clauswitz and 'concentration of force', what if this had been a fully worked up task group, with a fully worked up carrier and air group?

1 x carrier (with up to 24 x F-35B, 9 x Merlin HM2, plus Crowsnest and Junglies)
1 x LPD (with bootnecks)
1 X LSD(A) (with more bootnecks)
1 or 2 x Type 45
3 x Type 23
4 x MCMV, plus SVHO (Survey vessel) as command platform
Multiple RFA tankers/stores ships
1 x SSN (at least)

What if we were able to do things like the Auriga 2010 deployment, but with Queen Elizabeth and F-35B instead of Ark Royal (V) and Harrier GR9, and Type 45 instead of Type 42?

Guess what? The RN WILL be doing that very soon.
 
Last edited:
...Thinking of Sun Tzu/Clauswitz and 'concentration of force', what if this has been a fully worked up task group, with a fully worked up carrier and air group?

1 x carrier (with up to 24 x F-45B, 9 x Merlin HM2, plus Crowsnest and Junglies)
1 x LPD (with bootnecks)
1 X LSD(A) (with more bootnecks)
1 or 2 x Type 45
3 x Type 23
4 x MCMV, plus SVHO (Survey vessel) as command platform
Multiple RFA tankers/stores ships
1 x SSN (at least)

I’ve never doubted that we could generate a UK only carrier TG formed along the lines you highlight above (although I suspect the AAW types would consider 2 T45s a minimum against a peer threat).

However, the point is what this does to the rest of your force. For instance, if this TG is in the Med, who’s protecting CASD if the Russians surge? Recent experience has demonstrated you can’t rely on allies to cover the gaps.

That’s why the recent simultaneous SS3 and TJ deployments somewhat ignored reality. If we want to play with peers, the politicians and the military need to be realistic that threats are more than just cyber.

Regards,
MM
 
I’ve never doubted that we could generate a UK only carrier TG formed along the lines you highlight above (although I suspect the AAW types would consider 2 T45s a minimum against a peer threat).

However, the point is what this does to the rest of your force. For instance, if this TG is in the Med, who’s protecting CASD if the Russians surge? Recent experience has demonstrated you can’t rely on allies to cover the gaps.

That’s why the recent simultaneous SS3 and TJ deployments somewhat ignored reality. If we want to play with peers, the politicians and the military need to be realistic that threats are more than just cyber.

Regards,
MM

Why would we need to have a UK only task group within the NATO theatre? I was simply pointing out ships were deployed in various places at the same time, but if they were concentrated in one task group then that provides real capability.

I wonder if Saif Sareea 3 had such a strong amphibious aspect because Albion was passing on her return from the Far East? If she had been in UK or European waters surely sending her to take part in Trident Juncture would have been more useful?

I think (hope anyway) that during the period I mentioned, things such as CASD and TAPS (and FRE) were covered.
 
Really? I’d contend we’d struggle to robustly achieve that and other DTs in a shooting war.

Regards,
MM
This, "shooting war" against a " near-peer adversary", even if it did happen, is still going to leave TAPS and the other assets which provide the first A in ACASD available for this task, unless the government make changes to our Military Tasking.
 
Why would we need to have a UK only task group within the NATO theatre? I was simply pointing out ships were deployed in various places at the same time, but if they were concentrated in one task group then that provides real capability...

Because:

1. Not all activity in the NATO theatre concerns NATO; Falklands Task Force is a good example.
2. Recent experience has reminded us that allies cannot necessarily be relied on to drop everything and come to our aid; if the French bomber is threatened, do you really think their FFGs will hang around defending a UK TG?
3. Not all UK activity is in the NATO Theatre.

The point is that we used to be able to assemble such a TG in one location AND maintain broader activity around the World. If you look past the hyperbole, TJ and SS3 shows how thin we’re spread.

...I think (hope anyway) that during the period I mentioned, things such as CASD and TAPS (and FRE) were covered.

I’m not especially talking about that specific period.

The RN remains one of the very few navies capable of true global projection. However, go and think about the depth of our capabilities (not just RN) and consider the implications.

This, "shooting war" against a " near-peer adversary", even if it did happen, is still going to leave TAPS and the other assets which provide the first A in ACASD available for this task, unless the government make changes to our Military Tasking.

I hope you’re correct. However, I remain unconvinced.

Regards,
MM
 
I agree with your concerns @Magic_Mushroom, but as has been said before the limiting factor for the RN is not so much lack of ships or lack of other material resources as it is lack of people. 5000 personnel cut as part of SDSR 10, then we expected 1500+ more bods as part of SDSR 15, which I understand the Naval Staff made a solid case for, only for CMD to let policy be defined by weasel words he said to appease his backbenchers.

Integrity, attention to detail, and learning from experience are not seen as important to the political class.
 
So Japan has now confirmed additional F35 buys, including 18 F35Bs, will also modify their "helicopter carriers" for the F35Bs...

Japan to buy more U.S.-made stealth jets, radar to counter China, Russia | Reuters

After Trump urging, Japan announces plan to bolster defense with purchase of 147 F-35s
The Japanese were evaluating whether to design and build their own new fighter (possibly in partnership with other countries), or whether to buy a foreign design (i.e. the F-35) off the shelf.

However, the time required to get their own design complete and into production was moving further and further out, while their existing fleet of jets was getting older and more obsolete. One of the solutions being considered was to upgrade their older jets to extend their life and so buy time, but that had limited scope and it was questionable whether the upgrade would tide them over long enough before the replacement was ready.

One of the other options being offered to the Japanese was a cross between the F-35 and the F-22 being pushed at the Japanese by LM. I haven't seen any recent news reports other than your links, but I would take a guess that this hybrid project has been rejected. The plan instead seems to be to buy off the shelf, probably on the basis of being cheaper than an F35/F22 hybrid and less risky than a major upgrade to their existing and increasingly elderly jets.

This deal has been in the works for some time now, as defence budget pressures also meant that buying off the shelf was looking more attractive than designing and building their own, unless they could pull enough launch partners into the project.

It would be interesting to know how this affects their plans for developing their own jet, and whether the timeline for that has been postponed or the whole project cancelled.
 
So Japan has now confirmed additional F35 buys, including 18 F35Bs, will also modify their "helicopter carriers" for the F35Bs...

Japan to buy more U.S.-made stealth jets, radar to counter China, Russia | Reuters

After Trump urging, Japan announces plan to bolster defense with purchase of 147 F-35s

You heard it hear first 4 years ago! :cool:

...several key allies see F-35B as a means of getting back into the fixed wing carrier business in future years. The Australian Canberra Class LHD and the Japanese Hyuga Class 'DDH' are obvious examples...

Regards,
MM
 
I wonder if anyone's asking them if they want to licence build a large STOVl carrier or 2

They already have them (Hyuga in the foreground with the USS George Washington behind), albeit not as well tailored to the role as the QEC.
1024px-JS_Hy%C5%ABga_%28DDH-181%29_in_formation_with_USS_George_Washington_in_the_East_China_Sea_after_Keen_Sword_2013%2C_-16_Nov._2012_a.jpg

Regards,
MM
 
Last edited:

New posts

Top