Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United Kingdom Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: If w had to make an opposed landing......
Monksta    4/12/2008 2:52:44 AM
Much has been commented upon regarding the degredation of the Royal navy in recent years and this led me to wondering what we are actually currently capable of. If the UK was presented with a senario similar to the Falklands, where an opposed landing of the better part of our land forces had to be made against a well prepared and reasonably rersourced foe, what could we throw at it? Accounting for the safe transportation of troops and controling the imeadiate sea/air around the landing zone. What sort of carrier and troop convoy could we muster? Let's assume we had 4 weeks to prepare prior to fleet launch and we could hand our Iraq / A'stan duties over to other NATO nations. This mission would be UK only however. Thoughts?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4   NEXT
flamingknives       4/12/2008 4:33:16 AM
Well, we've got HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark as dedicated LPDs,  which could carry about a battalion each plus a bit of armoured support, and HMS Ocean can carry another battalion, delivered by helicopter.

Plus there's the four Bay class landing ships that can each carry a further, slightly smaller unit, but I think that they can carry more vehicles.

Air control would be the two through-deck cruisers with whatever Harriers they could scrape together.

Sea control would be the SSN.

State of readiness would be harder to gauge - HMS Ocean is in refit at the moment and the Harrier force needed to cover the fleet is in heavy use in existing theatres
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       4/12/2008 6:06:29 AM
I don't know if it's just while Ocean is in refit, however I believe HMS Ark Royal is currently tasked in the role of LPH (no harriers).

So basically we could drop off two brigades tops?


 
Quote    Reply

Monksta       4/12/2008 11:09:06 PM
The Harriers currently deployed are ground attack aircraft though.  Without air defence (FA2) aircraft, how would we even get the troops there?  Could they be converted back to a2a?  How many do we have anyway?
 
Escort ships are few and far between as well.  Air defence is a real worry.
 
SSN's could definitely handle any surface / sub surface though.
 
Quote    Reply

interestedamateur       4/13/2008 8:49:45 AM
We have 27 operational G7/9's in 1 and 4 Sqns plus the Naval Strike Wing (800 Sqn). It might be possible to convert them to A2A (after all ther USMC, Italians and Spanish have), but as there is absolutely no money it's a pointless suggestion.
 
Fleet air defence currently lies with the eight 30 year old Type 42 destroyer's.
 
Quote    Reply

interestedamateur       4/13/2008 9:04:54 AM

I don't know if it's just while Ocean is in refit, however I believe HMS Ark Royal is currently tasked in the role of LPH (no harriers).

So basically we could drop off two brigades tops?



We could probably manage 2 brigades with the assistance of STUFT. In all fairness, the gov't have done good work in renewing our amphibious shipping.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       4/13/2008 9:15:23 AM
The Harriers can not be turned back to the air-air role.  I read on another forum (could be rubbish) that BAE were asked to run a cost analyses and decided it would cost in excess of a billion pounds.  The American Harrier II+ aircraft with their radars also have issues, such as the removal of the bomb aimer and limited vision of the IR sensor.

The whole joint force harrier thing to me is now pointless that the FA2 has been removed from service.  At first it provided the FAA with mixed air wings of air defence aircraft and strike aircraft - however now with the unit only operating the strike aircraft - this advantage is gone.  What is more, the airframes are being tasked on what I would consider RAF missions such as in Afghanistan, leaving us unable to equip our carrier with fast jets.  Some may argue the fast jets are wasted floating around the oceans on a carrier - however the operational carrier offers significant deterrence and rapid reaction capabilities.

The Harrier GR.7/9's can be used in the air-air role of course.  They can be directed to the enemy threat the old fashioned way, through ground control, and also through the Sea King air-search radar.  Once in visual range they employ sidewinder  - just as they did so successfully during the Falklands conflict of 1982.  The air-air radars of the FA1 was hardly spectacular.  Of course, if the enemy has super-sonic fast-jets with large air-air radars and beyond visual range air-air missiles such as the old Su 27 Flanker equipped with AA-10 Alamo (hardly a new pairing being around since I believe the early 80's) - the Harrier is in trouble.

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       4/13/2008 9:41:49 AM

The Harriers can not be turned back to the air-air role.  I read on another forum (could be rubbish) that BAE were asked to run a cost analyses and decided it would cost in excess of a billion pounds.  The American Harrier II+ aircraft with their radars also have issues, such as the removal of the bomb aimer and limited vision of the IR sensor.

The whole joint force harrier thing to me is now pointless that the FA2 has been removed from service.  At first it provided the FAA with mixed air wings of air defence aircraft and strike aircraft - however now with the unit only operating the strike aircraft - this advantage is gone.  What is more, the airframes are being tasked on what I would consider RAF missions such as in Afghanistan, leaving us unable to equip our carrier with fast jets.  Some may argue the fast jets are wasted floating around the oceans on a carrier - however the operational carrier offers significant deterrence and rapid reaction capabilities.

The Harrier GR.7/9's can be used in the air-air role of course.  They can be directed to the enemy threat the old fashioned way, through ground control, and also through the Sea King air-search radar.  Once in visual range they employ sidewinder  - just as they did so successfully during the Falklands conflict of 1982.  The air-air radars of the FA1 was hardly spectacular.  Of course, if the enemy has super-sonic fast-jets with large air-air radars and beyond visual range air-air missiles such as the old Su 27 Flanker equipped with AA-10 Alamo (hardly a new pairing being around since I believe the early 80's) - the Harrier is in trouble.

You do what Britain has always done. You take what your tech is, and you stretch it to the breaking point.

In this case you DON'T try to back-fit the Blue Vixen into a GR-7/9. Instead you interface, wire, and rail the bird to handle AMRAAM or Skyflash , and install a telemetry receiver that allows the Harrier to data share from a SAMPSON or a SMART L or and you point the Harrier at the inbound and let the AMRAAM or Skyflash  do its job as your AEW {Still using the Sea Kings with that clever upside down Searchwater radar?] off platform radar telemeters  to the rocket  or missile involved.

Take you about three to five months..........maybe, to fix up a squadron of eight to ten GR-7/9s.

What would it cost? No idea.It wouldn't be cheap.  How good are your government electronics establishments at breadboarding and testing a hand-built jerry-rigged proof of concept telemetry interface, ten times?

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

interestedamateur       4/13/2008 10:52:28 AM



The whole joint force harrier thing to me is now pointless that the FA2 has been removed from service.  At first it provided the FAA with mixed air wings of air defence aircraft and strike aircraft - however now with the unit only operating the strike aircraft - this advantage is gone.  What is more, the airframes are being tasked on what I would consider RAF missions such as in Afghanistan, leaving us unable to equip our carrier with fast jets.  Some may argue the fast jets are wasted floating around the oceans on a carrier - however the operational carrier offers significant deterrence and rapid reaction capabilities.


Another big issue with JFH is the deterioration of the Fleet Air Arm since it has been set up. I think it's one of the big mistakes of recent years - FAA pilots simply didn't want to join JFH and left even after they were offered £50k retention bonuses. The name Naval Strike Wing hides the fact that 801 Sqn does not exist, and I'd be suprised if we could muster more than 8 - 10 fully trained FAA pilots.
 
 
Quote    Reply

interestedamateur       4/13/2008 11:03:55 AM


You do what Britain has always done. You take what your tech is, and you stretch it to the breaking point.

In this case you DON'T try to back-fit the Blue Vixen into a GR-7/9. Instead you interface, wire, and rail the bird to handle AMRAAM or Skyflash , and install a telemetry receiver that allows the Harrier to data share from a SAMPSON or a SMART L or and you point the Harrier at the inbound and let the AMRAAM or Skyflash  do its job as your AEW {Still using the Sea Kings with that clever upside down Searchwater radar?] off platform radar telemeters  to the rocket  or missile involved.

Take you about three to five months..........maybe, to fix up a squadron of eight to ten GR-7/9s.

What would it cost? No idea.It wouldn't be cheap.  How good are your government electronics establishments at breadboarding and testing a hand-built jerry-rigged proof of concept telemetry interface, ten times?

Herald

I'm sure we could do it, but it sounds a bit "sticky tape and string" built even for us Brits! There seems to be no desire to replace our naval A2A capability in the short / medium term (JSF is currently scheduled to arrive in 2018), so let's hope that we don't need a fleet action against another country in the interim.
 
Seaking ASAC7 is a pretty good AEW&C platform btw but its range is limited to approx 150 miles radius. In a fantasy world I'd prefer the forthcoming Hawkeye 2000 with its 300 mile plus range. 
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       4/13/2008 11:39:16 AM
Herald, I believe the Harrier GR.7/9 already has a data-link as part of its standard equipment, and can even provide ground forces with images of what the aircraft is seeing.  However I expect fitting them with AMRAAM capability would be hugely costly on its own - and of debatable merit when the platform has to rely on a separate asset to guide its weapons.  I know it has been successful for ground attack aircraft to designate targets for laser guided bombs from separate aircraft - however I have my doubts it would be affective in the air-air dynamic.

Best we can really aim to do now is get the new carriers in service as soon as possible - and with aircraft ready to operate from them the day they are commissioned.  We won't get the F35 in time, so to be honest I would sooner we fitted the carriers for conventional aircraft and bought Rafale or Super Hornets - it doesn't really matter which, but I expect the Rafale would be more politically suitable what with the French buying a 3rd of our carriers.

What is an important aspect which seems to be overlooked however, is the ability for the FAA to break away from this joint venture from the RAF and drastically expand.  The FAA now only has 800 squadron I believe in the fast jet role, and while each of the two new carriers will operate I assume at least 24 fast jets each at a minimum - when both are operational that means at least four FAA fast jet squadrons.  I forget at which date we are due to have HMS Queen Elizabeth enter service, however the FAA squadrons should be operational, having finished work-up training with their new aircraft, before this date.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics