Royal Navy Carrier Battle Group composition

JohnT

New Member
Since the first of the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers are only a few years away from entering service, it might be worth discussing what a future RN carrier group will look like. My guess is that it will have roughly the following composition:

1 QE class carrier
1 type 45 Destroyer
1-2 type 23/26 frigates equipped with towed array sonar
1 Astute class SSN
1 Tide class tanker/supply ship

Any thoughts?
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
Pretty much that's right for peacetime, but make it two escorts than a destroyer and frigate. We've seen the RFTG deploy for the last 3 years (I think) with a pair of frigates without a Type 45 in site.

That's not to say I think there shouldn't be one, there absolutely *must* be one at least.

In a RFTG configuration, add in an LPD, LSD & RoRo. Also there's no guarantee that any of the accompanying frigates will have a towed sonar array, statistically it's favourable 8/5, but there could easily be only one.

The Queen Elizabeth class seemingly has an aim to be able to throw up a comprehensive ASW screen by herself alone.

Oh, also learnt that the Army Air Corps now has a requirement to keep one regiment of Apaches at high readiness consisting of two squadrons; one to support 16 Air Assault Brigade and another to support the Queen Elizabeth class. A current AAC squadron consists of 8 aircraft, considering availability that probably results in 6 Apaches ready to go.

I like Apache, incorporating them into the air group keeps the F-35B from *needing* to do CAS for a good chunk of scenarios. They'd need to be stowed in the hangar.

That's a thing, considering how mixed these carriers are supposed to be, I hope the RN gets used to keeping marinised aircraft on the deck unless maintenance is required.
 

H-D

New Member
I like the Apache too. In fact I like the whole concept of the Apache. I'm surprised that consideration hadn't been given earlier to further utlising it in the maritime role. Now that the Queen Elizabeth is in the pipeline, I'd like to see at least half a dozen Apaches on board. I know the Apache is not as fast as a Harrier or F35, but fitted with the appropriate weaponry, it should give possible aggressors sometime to think about while an F35 is warming it's engines. :)

Regarding the escorts; I would have thought that during peacetime, one Type 45 is mandatory. Given the anti submarine capability of the Queen Elizabeth, perhaps the addition of a frigate is a nice to have rather than a need to have. This requirement would be considerably upgarded if the Queen Elizabeth were to sail into harm's way.

P.S. Hey! I just thought of something. If we're short of escorts, perhaps we could use one of the new OPVs as a substitue for one of the frigates... :eek:nfloorl:
 

Riga

New Member
Since the first of the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers are only a few years away from entering service, it might be worth discussing what a future RN carrier group will look like. My guess is that it will have roughly the following composition:

1 QE class carrier
1 type 45 Destroyer
1-2 type 23/26 frigates equipped with towed array sonar
1 Astute class SSN
1 Tide class tanker/supply ship

Any thoughts?
Compared to what the US Navy think is needed to protect one of its carriers...!?

Perhaps this thread should be merged with the general RN thread.

As I understand it, availability of platforms is around 25%. So from 6 T45, maybe two might actually be at sea. Ditto the T23 / 26 and Astutes. Do the maths - just not enough platforms for all the tasks - the QEC has hollowed the RN.
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
100% agree about Type 45, there should effectively always be one tagged as 'carrier ready escort' like there is one called 'Fleet ready escort' drawn from the escort pool.

As to the Type 26 definitely bring them along. Another set of sensors to contribute to the tactical picture, another set of 48 missiles for air defence and they're far more available. You won't see a battle group deploy without a frigate.
 

kev 99

Member
I like the Apache too. In fact I like the whole concept of the Apache. I'm surprised that consideration hadn't been given earlier to further utlising it in the maritime role. Now that the Queen Elizabeth is in the pipeline, I'd like to see at least half a dozen Apaches on board.
The WAH64 was built with folding rotor blades unlike the Boeing originals so in that respect I believe there was always an intention from the MOD to use them from amphibious assault ships, maybe it was just the case that Libya was the first real opportunity for this sort of diployment?
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
I'm a big fan too, as a platform it's very good at what it does & with the new updates in Block III the upgraded Longbow radar now has an oversea capability meaning it can now target smaller ships. Although this potentially creates a lot of overlap with the job of the Wildcat, it's not so bad that more platforms can do the job too.

Not bad considering Brimstone has been test fired against FAC and they went well. Plus the British Army wants AH-64Es to replace the current models, rebuilds using useful parts from the current fleet, which will shrink despite Government assurances IIRC.

Some US Army AH-64E got their deck qualifications on USS Peleliu (Tarawa class LHA) earlier in the month, so hopefully the quest for further marinisation for naval use will meet support in those areas.

A UK battle group will be very flexible that's for sure.
 

JohnT

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #8
Compared to what the US Navy think is needed to protect one of its carriers...!?

Perhaps this thread should be merged with the general RN thread.

As I understand it, availability of platforms is around 25%. So from 6 T45, maybe two might actually be at sea. Ditto the T23 / 26 and Astutes. Do the maths - just not enough platforms for all the tasks - the QEC has hollowed the RN.
I don't know what the exact figures are but 25% platform availability seems very pessimistic. For example, during the Falklands War Britain operated both of its carriers simultaneously. Subsequently it also routinely deployed two of the three Invincible class carriers at the same time, or even all three on rare occasions. I would have thought that availability would be at least 50%, so at any one time there would be about 3 Type 45s, 6-7 Type 23/26s, and 3-4 Astutes available. Given that only one carrier group is going to be routinely deployed at a time having one of each assigned to it seems do-able. However, this may just be me being wildly optimistic. ;)
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
People like taking snapshots of ships locations/deployments etc and take the ones which are sat in port doing nothing to be the available escorts. This is a stupid assumption.

Any ship doing training or work up would be pulled up to form a super task group in the event of a state-on-state conflict. That's a fact. In '82, Lustys work up was the voyage to the South Atlantic as an example. As is the idea of say a Type 45 patrolling the Gulf and something flares up, that extra Type 45 - effectively - becomes part of the task group as any major conflict in the Gulf takes precedent over piracy patrols. One is far more destabilising than the other.

If the Gulf got hot, the assets in place in the Gulf would become part of any RN involvement including destroyers, frigates, tankers etc. They would not jam their fingers in their ears and not contribute.

As such, any composition in a hot war scenario is debatable because it'd be dependent on the situation at the time. E.g five frigates participated in Joint Warrior exercises last year IIRC, if they would have been needed, those 5 could have formed the task group.

For peacetime/excursions like Libya or Syria, when combined with RAF assets it will more than adequate. Situations where it would be a purely RN affair and have no input from the RAF are extremely limited - 1.

Peacetime reqs are more stringent than wartime reqs.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
Compared to what the US Navy think is needed to protect one of its carriers...!?

Perhaps this thread should be merged with the general RN thread.

As I understand it, availability of platforms is around 25%. So from 6 T45, maybe two might actually be at sea. Ditto the T23 / 26 and Astutes. Do the maths - just not enough platforms for all the tasks - the QEC has hollowed the RN.
Ah no the actual carrier has not, but the politics has most certantly hollowed out the RN
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
If you want to see a program which will tear the guts out of the RN procurement budget it'll be the SSBNs.

It's a case of declining budgets in real terms.
 

JohnT

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #12
If you want to see a program which will tear the guts out of the RN procurement budget it'll be the SSBNs.

It's a case of declining budgets in real terms.
The only way it's going to happen is if the government finds the money elsewhere, either from the general budget or the defense budget, because there's no way the RN will be able to stomach another £10-20B project on top of the Type 26 program.
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
Which is why it's imperative that the Type 26 costs come in as advertised which isn't as crazy as it sounds because the design isn't such a developmental risk that the Type 45 was.

One way of putting it was that for the Type 45, it was an 80/20 split between developmental content/existing content & how that number is flipped for the Type 26.

Also, I'm curious how well creative accounting comes into it. Some systems from the Type 23's will be pulled through, so *technically* they're purchased under the Type 23 CSP rather than the Type 26 program.
 

Riga

New Member
People like taking snapshots of ships locations/deployments etc and take the ones which are sat in port doing nothing to be the available escorts. This is a stupid assumption.

Any ship doing training or work up would be pulled up to form a super task group in the event of a state-on-state conflict. That's a fact. In '82, Lustys work up was the voyage to the South Atlantic as an example. As is the idea of say a Type 45 patrolling the Gulf and something flares up, that extra Type 45 - effectively - becomes part of the task group as any major conflict in the Gulf takes precedent over piracy patrols. One is far more destabilising than the other.

If the Gulf got hot, the assets in place in the Gulf would become part of any RN involvement including destroyers, frigates, tankers etc. They would not jam their fingers in their ears and not contribute.

As such, any composition in a hot war scenario is debatable because it'd be dependent on the situation at the time. E.g five frigates participated in Joint Warrior exercises last year IIRC, if they would have been needed, those 5 could have formed the task group.

For peacetime/excursions like Libya or Syria, when combined with RAF assets it will more than adequate. Situations where it would be a purely RN affair and have no input from the RAF are extremely limited - 1.

Peacetime reqs are more stringent than wartime reqs.
Thanks for the put down.

Sallying your fleet in wartime is one thing.

However, in everyday operations the guts are being torn out of the Royal Navy. From other threads I understand that a manpower crisis is upon the Navy.

Ships are alongside for maintenance. Coming back off deployment or working up - FOST training etc.

Now how many assets do you have to protect the carrier AND carrier out the other commitments of the RN across the world?

In wartime, how long could you maintain the carrier group over time with the given that they will probably take losses.

So your reply really does not sit well and sounds like fingers in ears la la land.

Investment in the Navy will take time should you really wish to have sufficient manning and platforms. The commitment of the Tories to 2% spending in the life time of this Parliament are woefully inadequate for the defence of the United Kingdom and her interests.
 
Top