F35 - Money well spent.

Big lesson coming out of the Ukraine is the role Arty, battery & counter battery fire and digging deep.

I expect quite a few exercises on Salisbury Plain to have a theme tune of groans as squaddies hear the motivational order to Dig to Stage 3
Oh heavenly joy. 18 hours digging, 4 hours stag, 2 hours kip, fill it in. Rinse and repeat over next 5 days.
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Oh heavenly joy. 18 hours digging, 4 hours stag, 2 hours kip, fill it in. Rinse and repeat over next 5 days.
I can imagine you wincing as soon as you read that.
 
We need to be a little careful before using such evangelistic language. It doesn't matter how many F-35Bs your LHA has embarked; it still won't have organic Air C2ISR or several other enablers (which even a CVN often has to look elsewhere for).

Regards,

MM

Actually if you look at what the Marine Corps embarks for its own ISR, they have capabilities that the CVN can only dream of possessing. For example the RQ-21A Blackjack is replacing the Shadow with MEUs. The other aspect to consider of USN ops is that they are comfortable with the provision of surface based Air C2, albeit with well-known limitations (but then so does Air based C2, just different).

The biggest issue about an all F-35 embarkation on an LPH is that the USN does not have enough lift for what we are supposed to have available for Marine Corps operations. Just not enough ships. So waxing on about light aircraft carriers sounds great but if you take one of the big decks out of play then that is a lot of Marine operations that you can’t do. I know that people refer to the use of USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6) during the Second Gulf War as an AV-8B carrier. She was, but there was no plan for an amphibious assault, the coalition had total air superiority, and (most important) there was a need to have extra CAS capability without increasing the footprint in Kuwait to support the MEF. Standard flight was launch from the ship, hit your targets, land at a FOB, hit your targets (repeat as necessary), return to the boat for maintenance and refuel and rearm. Repeat. When looking at some other scenarios, the provision of Marines and their organic lift becomes more important than a couple extra F-35s with no organic tanking capability.

Going back to the ASW question, it is a little confusing about what is embarked on a USN CVN these days. Embarked totally on the CVN is one Helicopter Sea Combat (HSC) Squadron of eight MH-60S Seahawks. Its missions include vertical replenishment, medical evacuation, combat search and rescue, anti-surface warfare, maritime interdiction, close air support, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and special warfare support. Notice the lack of ASW in its mission set, although Mk-1 eyeballs have been used to notice things like periscopes. Embarked partially on the CVN and also spread around the CGs and DDGs is a Helicopter Maritime Strike (HSM) Squadron of eleven MH-60R Seahawks. They are optimized for ASW with sensors that include the Aircraft Survival Equipment (ASE) package, MTS-FLIR, the AN/APS-147 multi-mode radar/IFF interrogator, an advanced airborne fleet data link, and a more advanced airborne active low frequency sonar (ALFS). Normally only about 3-4 MH-60R ride on the CVN.
 
Actually if you look at what the Marine Corps embarks for its own ISR, they have capabilities that the CVN can only dream of possessing. For example the RQ-21A Blackjack is replacing the Shadow with MEUs. The other aspect to consider of USN ops is that they are comfortable with the provision of surface based Air C2, albeit with well-known limitations (but then so does Air based C2, just different).
I’d hardly call an RQ-21 ‘1st day strike’ ISR which is what @Resasi was referring to. Likewise, under such scenarios, I’d be concerned at ships closing sufficiently close to a peer adversary’s coastline to provide surface Air C2, even if ops were happening right on the most convenient beach.

Hence I’d expect the MEU’s to quite correctly rely on USN and land-based assets for such elements, as well as tanking and wide area ISR as opposed to the drinking straw offered by a Blackjack. It was the apparent suggestion that the LHAs are in some way a ‘1st day’ silver bullet just because they have F-35Bs embarked that I wished to temper.

...Normally only about 3-4 MH-60R ride on the CVN.
Indeed. It’s a huge shame that the S-3 is no longer around; a hugely underrated type in my view.

Regards,
MM
 
Last edited:
Big lesson coming out of the Ukraine is the role Arty, battery & counter battery fire and digging deep.

I expect quite a few exercises on Salisbury Plain to have a theme tune of groans as squaddies hear the motivational order to Dig to Stage 3
I would be investing heavily in counter drone tech and long range precision fires.
 
That's not always possible, theres only so much to go around even on big carriers, and the log chains can get really involved, plus there's limits to what you can deploy. look at the Tet offensive and the attempts to retake ground.
You could have turned B52's loose, but at what cost ? The US is going to have do stuff leaner and smarter than ever before, that why they are looking around and wondering how they can defeat tier one or lower without deploying half the damn corps and the US X fleet to restore joy to Shittistan.
The premise is to hit the enemy with as much as possible as early as possible and start the attrition process.

Nobody ever says no to more firepower.
 
The three HQ’s was a good idea. Using the old field telephones ain’t to bad either, if you have the time to lay wire.

That being said anti drone tech needs to be on order ASAP. The Russians are in love with them now.

Anybody know if the RM got to bring any of their own guns with them?
 
The premise is to hit the enemy with as much as possible as early as possible and start the attrition process.

Nobody ever says no to more firepower.
It's all about tactical firepower, not more firepower.

Just look back at all the battles we fought and still lost even with overwhelming firepower and superiority.
 
Actually if you look at what the Marine Corps embarks for its own ISR, they have capabilities that the CVN can only dream of possessing. For example the RQ-21A Blackjack is replacing the Shadow with MEUs. The other aspect to consider of USN ops is that they are comfortable with the provision of surface based Air C2, albeit with well-known limitations (but then so does Air based C2, just different).

The biggest issue about an all F-35 embarkation on an LPH is that the USN does not have enough lift for what we are supposed to have available for Marine Corps operations. Just not enough ships. So waxing on about light aircraft carriers sounds great but if you take one of the big decks out of play then that is a lot of Marine operations that you can’t do. I know that people refer to the use of USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6) during the Second Gulf War as an AV-8B carrier. She was, but there was no plan for an amphibious assault, the coalition had total air superiority, and (most important) there was a need to have extra CAS capability without increasing the footprint in Kuwait to support the MEF. Standard flight was launch from the ship, hit your targets, land at a FOB, hit your targets (repeat as necessary), return to the boat for maintenance and refuel and rearm. Repeat. When looking at some other scenarios, the provision of Marines and their organic lift becomes more important than a couple extra F-35s with no organic tanking capability.
Agree - and I have been wary of describing the Wasp/America class as light carriers. However, a large deck and hangar give you options, as does V/STOL. The difference between a LPH (LHD if you have a well dock as well) and a STOVL carrier is limited. Italy now operates the Garibaldi as a helicopter carrier, having moved the jets to the Cavour. Hopefully pointing this out is not taking the biscuit.

Did USMC AV-8Bs operate from ships during Desert Shield/Storm?

Going back to the ASW question, it is a little confusing about what is embarked on a USN CVN these days. Embarked totally on the CVN is one Helicopter Sea Combat (HSC) Squadron of eight MH-60S Seahawks. Its missions include vertical replenishment, medical evacuation, combat search and rescue, anti-surface warfare, maritime interdiction, close air support, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and special warfare support. Notice the lack of ASW in its mission set, although Mk-1 eyeballs have been used to notice things like periscopes. Embarked partially on the CVN and also spread around the CGs and DDGs is a Helicopter Maritime Strike (HSM) Squadron of eleven MH-60R Seahawks. They are optimized for ASW with sensors that include the Aircraft Survival Equipment (ASE) package, MTS-FLIR, the AN/APS-147 multi-mode radar/IFF interrogator, an advanced airborne fleet data link, and a more advanced airborne active low frequency sonar (ALFS). Normally only about 3-4 MH-60R ride on the CVN.
Oh. I think I got confused about this on the CVF and Carrier Strike thread in the Royal Navy forum - here.

Having reflected and applied some common sense - each US carrier air wing has two rotary wing squadrons, one of MH-60R (with dipping sonar) which I think stays aboard the carrier, and one of MH60S which has no sonar but can carry and launch torpedoes, in the same way Wildcat HMA2 can.

So the CVW can do the 24/7 dipping thing, and have plenty of helicopters for weapon delivery etc.

Before I wrote this, I did check the websites of a couple of CVWs to see what they had embarked. One of them made the point they had a squadron of eight MH-60Rs. I also found this on the net:

The Rotorcraft, the Carrier and Training for Strike Integration - Second Line of Defense

If only four Mh-60R are routinely embarked aboard the CVN:

1. Can this number be increased if the situation demands?
2. If four Hawkeyes can maintain one on station at all times, can four Seahawks do the same?
3. Can the MH-60S deliver a homing torpedo if directed to the target?

Sea Control and free use of the sea, for commerce, moving things in response to a crisis, or exerting power via naval fires, shipborne aviation, or amphibious capability are key to the West.

Indeed. It’s a huge shame that the S-3 is no longer around in my view. A hugely underrated type in my view.

Regards,
MM
I naively thought that was why the rotary component of the carrier wings had increased in size.

One last thought: Report warns Russia would be able to 'overrun vulnerable areas of NATO territory'

HSC Senior Fellow and author of the report, Dr Rowan Allport, said:

“The recent Exercise Trident Juncture 2018, the US Navy’s decision to reform its Second Fleet to coordinate North Atlantic operations, and a parallel effort by NATO to set up its own Joint Force Command for the Atlantic, are all encouraging signs that the Alliance is taking the northern maritime realm seriously after a near exclusive focus on Eastern Europe in the wake of Russia’s actions against Ukraine.

However, much more remains to be done. Russia represents at threat to NATO’s sea lines of communication through the use of advanced submarines, is capable of targeting the alliance with a growing arsenal of conventional strategic weapons such as the Kalibr and Kh-101 cruise missiles, and continues to build-up its facilities in the Arctic. A firm commitment is now required by the Alliance to rediscover the forward maritime strategy that helped contribute to winning the Cold War.”

Other key recommendations outlined in the report include:
  • The UK’s Royal Navy should take the lead in any early effort to counter offensive Russian submarine operations via a multi-national task group centred upon one of the new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers.
  • NATO requires a pro-active strategy to degrade and defend against Moscow’s ship, submarine, air and ground-launched cruise and ballistic missile capability based in and staging out of the Arctic region – a campaign that would require a wartime multi-carrier deployment by the US Navy and the basing of substantial forces in Iceland, the UK and Norway.
 
It's all about tactical firepower, not more firepower.

Just look back at all the battles we fought and still lost even with overwhelming firepower and superiority.
It is a combined arms effort. If you have access to arty and cas, you use them.

Besides I wonder how the RM would have handled a shake and bake fire mission.
 
It is a combined arms effort. If you have access to arty and cas, you use them.

Besides I wonder how the RM would have handled a shake and bake fire mission.
How many combined arms effort we had?

Just off the top my head:
- Vietnam with the Aussies
-Afghan with basically everyone against the Soviets, in collab with the Talibs
-Iraq with again basically everyone, with a key mention to the UK?

How many more do you want?
 
How many combined arms effort we had?

Just off the top my head:
- Vietnam with the Aussies
-Afghan with basically everyone against the Soviets, in collab with the Talibs
-Iraq with again basically everyone, with a key mention to the UK?

How many more do you want?
Remember 7-8??

Everything from CAS and Arty to individual weapon systems to schwack the enemy as quickly and efficiently as possible.

As a leader you would or should plan to use all assets at your disposal to make it as one sided a fight as possible.
 
The three HQ’s was a good idea. Using the old field telephones ain’t to bad either, if you have the time to lay wire.

That being said anti drone tech needs to be on order ASAP. The Russians are in love with them now.

Anybody know if the RM got to bring any of their own guns with them?
Force On Force
45 Commando
ITX 2-19
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
old_bloke MoD News 3
2/51 The Intelligence Cell 49
schwarzie Tanks, planes & ships 46

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top