The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[1805]

The Royal Navy has released the confirmed roster for Exercise Cougar 13

Cougar 13 | Royal Navy

• HMS Illustrious (LPH)
• HMS Bulwark (LPD - Flag)
• HMS Montrose (T23)
• HMS Westminster (T23)
• RFA Mounts Bay (LSD)
• RFA Lyme Bay (LSD)
• RFA Fort Austin (SSS)
• RFA Fort Victoria (AOR)*
• RFA Cardigan Bay (LSD)*
• RFA Diligence (Fleet repair ship)*

* these ships are currently deployed in the Gulf region, they are not sailing with the task group.

Sadly the same deficiencies from Cougar 12 are here; no AWD and no organic tanker support. RFA Fort Austin doesn't have the capability to carry wet stores, so it can't supply the task force with fuels and the like. It's a step up from last year, IIRC Cougar 12 didn't even have that.

I suppose the lack of an AWD isn't unreasonable, I expected that considering HMS Dragon is in the area she would exercise with the task force. But in the end, she's getting much more useful experience as an AWD as part of a large task force with US CVN's.

No word on any sub deployments, but that's to be expected. Besides which there's a standing deployment East of Suez, so i'd be surprised if she doesn't turn up for ASW operations.

Interesting to see both Bay's stationed in the UK being deployed plus that in the Gulf.

Still a very impressive amphibious fleet. I would like to see the development of a standing formation alongside the RFTG or maybe as part of it, similar to 16 AAB, but complementing with the heavy assets (Challenger/Warrior/AS90 & MLRS). This could also help shape thinking around the eventual replacement of the current fleet of LPH/LPD/LSDs.

 

[RobWilliams]

Yup, in terms of our amphibious fleet that's probably as big as it's gunna be, apart from a few Point class Ro/Ros though.

An armoured Army formation does exist, part of the reaction force with one brigade att high readiness. IIRC the numbers are something like one armoured battlegroup ready to go at the drop of a hat and the whole brigade ready to move in 3 months.

Each brigade consisting of

• 1 x Armoured Cavalry Regiment (CVR(T)) - 3 Sqdns of 16 + C&C/support Sqdn
• 1 x Armoured Regiment (CR2) - 3 Sqdns of 18 CR2 +C&C/support Sqdn
• 3 x Armoured Infantry Batts. 3 Coys with 14 Warrier per Coy + Support Coy
• 1 x "Heavily Protected Mobile Inf Batt". 3 Coys with 14 Mastiff per Coy + Support Coy
• 101 Logistical Support Brigade
• 3 x AS90 batteries (6 guns per battery IIRC) + 1 x GMLRS battery (6 launchers)

It's roughly the same as 16AAB I think, they've got an airbourne battlegroup at VHR with the rest to follow.

 

[1805]

Yup, in terms of our amphibious fleet that's probably as big as it's gunna be, apart from a few Point class Ro/Ros though.

An armoured Army formation does exist, part of the reaction force with one brigade att high readiness. IIRC the numbers are something like one armoured battlegroup ready to go at the drop of a hat and the whole brigade ready to move in 3 months.

Each brigade consisting of

• 1 x Armoured Cavalry Regiment (CVR(T)) - 3 Sqdns of 16 + C&C/support Sqdn
• 1 x Armoured Regiment (CR2) - 3 Sqdns of 18 CR2 +C&C/support Sqdn
• 3 x Armoured Infantry Batts. 3 Coys with 14 Warrier per Coy + Support Coy
• 1 x "Heavily Protected Mobile Inf Batt". 3 Coys with 14 Mastiff per Coy + Support Coy
• 101 Logistical Support Brigade
• 3 x AS90 batteries (6 guns per battery IIRC) + 1 x GMLRS battery (6 launchers)

It's roughly the same as 16AAB I think, they've got an airbourne battlegroup at VHR with the rest to follow.

I was thinking a slightly cut down version, pretty much aligned to the RFTG. Maybe a composite Armoured Regt 3 Sqdns of CR2 + 1 CVR(T) & C&C Support, 2 Armoured Inf Batts (as there would also be RM), RA battery - 12 AS90 + 6 GMLRS + support and an AAC complement of Apache. It would be good to size it for the RFTG and then have a few goes at landing it on a beach somewhere!

 

[FormerDirtDart]

An armoured Army formation does exist, part of the reaction force with one brigade att high readiness. IIRC the numbers are something like one armoured battlegroup ready to go at the drop of a hat and the whole brigade ready to move in 3 months.

Each brigade consisting of

• 1 x Armoured Cavalry Regiment (CVR(T)) - 3 Sqdns of 16 + C&C/support Sqdn
• 1 x Armoured Regiment (CR2) - 3 Sqdns of 18 CR2 +C&C/support Sqdn
• 3 x Armoured Infantry Batts. 3 Coys with 14 Warrier per Coy + Support Coy
• 1 x "Heavily Protected Mobile Inf Batt". 3 Coys with 14 Mastiff per Coy + Support Coy
• 101 Logistical Support Brigade
• 3 x AS90 batteries (6 guns per battery IIRC) + 1 x GMLRS battery (6 launchers)

Rob, a little typo/cut & paste error I assume
Only 2 Armoured Infantry Battalions in each brigade. And, the 101 Logistical Support Brigade is an element of the Reaction Force, which one would assume means the elements of the 101 LSB are available, but not the thing at the drop of a hat.

And, have the 3 AIBs of the Reaction Force been formed yet, or is it still a ways down the road?

 

[RobWilliams]

We have something along those lines, every brigade - when it rotates into the lead brigade - it in turn will have a lead armoured battlegroup held at very high readiness, same as what 16AAB has & I think the same as what the Royal Marines have.

It's currently not clear exactly what those forces contain, we know the airbourne battlegroup is based around a battalion of parachute infantry so i'd have a guess and say that the armoured battlegroup is based around a battalion of armoured infantry and the Commando battlegroup around a commando battalion.

So at a stab, if there's one armoured infantry battalion then maybe a squadron of CR2 + a squadron of CVR(T) if we split it down into 1/3rds.

That battlegroup would be deployable in one RoRo [in terms of vehicles] , i'd be willing to bet that all battlegroups could be deployable from the RN's amphibious fleet. I'll crunch the numbers at some point later today.

EDIT: I'll go check my numbers, I thought they were accurate. You're right, my bad

I never said 101 was deployable at the drop of a hat, I said the battlegroup would be. All I said was 101 loggie brigade was part of the armoured brigade, not the battlegroup. A reasonable amount of elements would probably be available. Technically they're for the entire reaction force, rather than for any specific brigade

AFAIK they're currently not formed, and this is turning into more Army discussion than Navy so

 

[1805]

We have something along those lines, every brigade - when it rotates into the lead brigade - it in turn will have a lead armoured battlegroup held at very high readiness, same as what 16AAB has & I think the same as what the Royal Marines have.

It's currently not clear exactly what those forces contain, we know the airbourne battlegroup is based around a battalion of parachute infantry so i'd have a guess and say that the armoured battlegroup is based around a battalion of armoured infantry and the Commando battlegroup around a commando battalion.

So at a stab, if there's one armoured infantry battalion then maybe a squadron of CR2 + a squadron of CVR(T) if we split it down into 1/3rds.

That battlegroup would be deployable in one RoRo [in terms of vehicles] , i'd be willing to bet that all battlegroups could be deployable from the RN's amphibious fleet. I'll crunch the numbers at some point later today.

EDIT: I'll go check my numbers, I thought they were accurate. You're right, my bad

I never said 101 was deployable at the drop of a hat, I said the battlegroup would be. All I said was 101 loggie brigade was part of the armoured brigade, not the battlegroup. A reasonable amount of elements would probably be available. Technically they're for the entire reaction force, rather than for any specific brigade

AFAIK they're currently not formed, and this is turning into more Army discussion than Navy so

I think the Armour Regts have gone down to 3 sqdns of 14 CR2. I do think a composite heavy rapid reaction brigade with AAC element it is relevant to the RFTG, this should not become just a RM domain. With a more compact military as much as possible needs to be shared assets. I find this the lack of tank drills with the LPD/LSD a bit disappointing, it was discussed a while back and someone dug out a piece from about 4-5 years before, but its not ideal. I would think this needs to be at least annual for the benefit of ships & tank.....we wouldn't do fire drill in our offices every 5 years!

I think its important to build/maintain the relationship with the Army. If they think they only ever travel in C17s and the RM use the RFTG assets it will not help when ordering replacements.

 

[RobWilliams]

No, 3 squadrons of 18, that's what the info from the Army i've got says anyway.

I agree, it's something which needs to be exercised more often. But the flipside (and i'm speaking with no knowledge about it) is that are the skills particularly key to retain? I mean, basically it's just driving the tank into the ship, driving the tank onto a landing craft and driving from the landing craft to the beach, the same as any vehicle has to do. Can't imagine any of those tasks would provide a particularly taxing challenge to a competent tank driver. But i'd like to be set straight on that one.

According to NavyNews, RFA Wave Knight (tanker) and MV Hurst Point (RoRo) are deploying for Cougar 13 too. Definitely the most complete task force put to sea in a while, imagine in the future when we get an AWD + QEC to come along.

https://navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/8525

 

[1805]

No, 3 squadrons of 18, that's what the info from the Army i've got says anyway.

I agree, it's something which needs to be exercised more often. But the flipside (and i'm speaking with no knowledge about it) is that are the skills particularly key to retain? I mean, basically it's just driving the tank into the ship, driving the tank onto a landing craft and driving from the landing craft to the beach, the same as any vehicle has to do. Can't imagine any of those tasks would provide a particularly taxing challenge to a competent tank driver. But i'd like to be set straight on that one.

According to NavyNews, RFA Wave Knight (tanker) and MV Hurst Point (RoRo) are deploying for Cougar 13 too. Definitely the most complete task force put to sea in a while, imagine in the future when we get an AWD + QEC to come along.

https://navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/8525

You are right, the Army is moving to only 3 Heavy Armoured regiments,3 x 18 (56 CR2) From the old 4 or 3 x 14 Sqns 58 or 44 CR2.

I think the armoured formations have suffered from the same Iraq & Afghan effect as the RN. They need to find a new role and the RN could help. As for the training, I think it would benefit more than the tank crews, planning, logistic, inter service cooperation...just think of Dieppe.

 

[RobWilliams]

Dieppe was a SNAFU for a whole host of other reasons (sloppy recce, bad judgements, poor communication & NGFS/CAS, stuff like that) other than landing and supporting armour ashore (as far as logistics I mean) IIRC.

I get what you mean about Afghan, Iraq not so much because CR2 did actually serve there. Interesting point is that supposedly when the Danes left Afghan not that long ago, their Leo 2's stay at our request.

Just thought, Vanguard successors are going to be such a drain on the MOD budget when they crank up, the carriers are coming up to what, £5bn for the pair? The next gen SSBN's are projected to be something close to £15-20bn for the lot.

 

[StobieWan]

It's likely you only need so many tanks in the country and if the Danes and the Canadians already have them on tap, why would the UK bring more ? We're bringing a lot of other stuff that the participating countries either don't have or don't have enough of (helicopter transport, gunships etc))

 

[RobWilliams]

I was more thinking towards about how the MOD in the past has said that MBT deployments to Afghanistan weren't neccesary, yet when an ally in the region is about to leave you ask that they stay to support UK operations :

 

[1805]

Dieppe was a SNAFU for a whole host of other reasons (sloppy recce, bad judgements, poor communication & NGFS/CAS, stuff like that) other than landing and supporting armour ashore (as far as logistics I mean) IIRC.

I get what you mean about Afghan, Iraq not so much because CR2 did actually serve there. Interesting point is that supposedly when the Danes left Afghan not that long ago, their Leo 2's stay at our request.

Sorry for the late response I have been away.

I think the points you raise for Dieppe are valid and could also have been used to describe Gallipoli 30 years before, I would still say they are symptomatic of a lack of experience/training/practice.

Despite the debate about the value of MBTs, the Afghan/Iraq experience seems to have supported the existing trend in other armies for heavier IFVs, as the duty of care for our troops has become an issue of far more public debate. This does provide an opportunity for the RFTG, as the C17 is not a tactical transport.

 

[Fast Mover]

The BBC is reporting this morning that:

"The US has bolstered its navy presence in the eastern Mediterranean as President Barack Obama weighs up his options over the conflict in Syria. US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel said the Pentagon was "positioning our forces" ahead of "whatever options the president might choose"."

The Royal Navy's RFTG is - as we all know - embarked on its deployment to the Gulf and is currently (I believe) docked in Spain or recently departed from there and is somewhere in the Med. Bear in mind that this formation is today's RN's most powerful group - the formation that would deploy in response to a crisis. Fortuitous then, that it should be in the neighborhood as the situation in Syria seems to be ramping up even further.

My question is - if US forces launch an air campaign against Syria, what contribution could the RFTG make? Assuming action is limited to airstrikes and not a full blown invasion - does the RFTG have much capability? If an SSN is part of the RFTG then it can lob a handful of Tomahawks into the mix - but is that all the RFTG can offer?

 

[RobWilliams]

If we weigh up what we can do, the offensive power of our task group comes in the form of TLAM (if there is one deployed with the group), 4.5in NGFS or Apache strikes [Harpoon not mentioned as ours aren't capable of surface strikes] , if Apaches are embarked on Illustrious. Basically similar capabilities to what they offered for Op Ellamy in Libya.

Not looking great is it, we could provide humanitarian aid or try extricate British civilians from the cluster I guess. But, the Royal Navy of the future will be much more offensive in the future, with surface launched cruise missiles & aircraft carriers. What we've got now - basically - is an ARG, not great for front line power projection which is what the QEC/T26/Astute will give us in the future.

If we're talking about a proper intervention in Syria, then we have RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus for the RAF to do their thing with Typhoon/Tornados and all their nice AEW, AAR & ISTAR kit.

Cue all the reports about the wasteful RAF deployments with fuel & how stupid the Harrier/Ark Royal decision was. Not that I neccesarily disagreed with them, but i'm sick to death of reading it all over and over again.

 

[swerve]

Cyprus is much closer to Syria than any NATO air base is to Libya.

 

[RobWilliams]

Yeah, but I was thinking about the reports about how wasteful it was tanking the aircraft there in the first place let alone the tanking for Storm Shadow strikes (typically from the pro-carrier sect about how great the Harriers were) & how Cyprus is much further from the UK than Italy.

That doesn't bother me though, what's the point of having bases abroad if you're gunna complain if you actually have to send jets there.

 

[swerve]

As I recall, the complaints were about the cost of bombing Libya with Tornadoes flying to & from the UK, & the cost of putting RAF personnel in expensive Italian hotels. The former is a serious point, not so much because of the cost (it might be cheaper than operating a carrier) but because it's a very inefficient use of aircraft. Long-distance raids produce a lot of dead time: aircraft & crews flying back & forth just to get to where the action is, when they could be in action, our small tanker fleet all tied up getting a handful of aircraft over target, etc.

Basing in Cyprus would probably enable each aircraft to do as much as five or six flying from the UK to Libya. That's a very, very, big advantage. The ferry flight out there would cost much less than one UK-Libya raid (one tanker accompanies one flight of aircraft all the way), & once done, needn't be repeated until they come home when it's all over.

Vastly more efficient.

It's 70% further from the nearest NATO airbase to Tripoli than from Akrotiri to Damascus. Since Libya is much larger than Syria, other distances are proportionately even greater. Aleppo is also closer to Akrotiri than anywhere in Libya is to any NATO base.

 

[RobWilliams]

That was definitely the brunt of it yes, but there was a reasonable amount of grumbling about how much fuel and how expensive it was to tank aircraft to Italian air bases, mainly put about by people who were pro-carrier to demonstrate the benefits of carrier strike.

I don't really get your point is, my comment about Libya was very much meant to be by-the-by because it's nothing to do with what the Navy would be doing. If I knew it would become such an OT deviation I wouldn't have posted it.

EDIT: Apologies for the very snappy tone, wasn't in the greatest of moods. You are correct about the tactical advantages that Cyprus does offer.

 

[Seaforth]

Ark Royal cross section

Posting this not to create a hullabaloo about the scrapping, but because it is a point of like-for-like comparison versus the QEC cross sections we've become used to seeing. Eg The Ark's hangar is tiny and the aircraft lifts take up so much internal space.

HMS Ark Royal: British Navy aircraft carrier smashed in Turkish scrapyard | Mail Online

 

[1805]

I do hope we don't get involved in Syria, key to a successful intervention in knowing who the good guys are. I worry about the West trying to impose its value system on an region that is just not up for it.

Even degrading Assad's forces will not end the war, just prolong ordinary peoples suffering. The West is silent in Egypt as the generals backed by the Saudi's (interestingly they are backing the other side in Syria!) act, but in reality its too important to fall to our enemies, we can't afford a return to the 1970s....sometimes the "whiff of grapeshot" is unpleasant but necessary. If the Iranian generals had done so in 1979, how different things might have been?

There was an interesting piece in the Times in the week, comparing current events in the Middle East to the Summer of 1914, a bit overdramatic but it does look more unstable than usual...the last thing we want is the USN/RN loosing off a few cruise missiles.

The Russian probably have good reason to fear another unstable country near their border.