RFA Argus and HMS Medway are in the region to support British Overseas Territories in the Caribbean during hurricane season and to carry out counter-narcotics operations, say the Royal Navy.

“The two ships met up in the seas near the Cayman Islands ahead of HMS Medway going on demanding exercise to practise getting humanitarian relief to island communities in the wake of a natural disaster. Troops were transferred over to Offshore Patrol Vessel Medway from support ship/helicopter carrier Argus, making sure the two ships can work seamlessly if a natural disaster were to strike.”

It is also understood that the UK Task Group includes a number of other military units that are working together ready to respond to any need as it arises.

undefined

HMS Medway provides a permanent presence in the Caribbean to support British Overseas Territories as part of the Royal Navy’s Forward Presence programme, basing ships in regions key to the UK’s security and prosperity around the globe for several years at a time. The vessels crew rotates in and out of the region while the vessel stays put.

Argus has been in the region since early April to provide additional support, say the Royal Navy.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

45 COMMENTS

  1. Hopefully this is the MoD waving a big flashy sign up to the Treasury that Argus NEEDS replacing, not just scrapping

    • Whilst I agree that Argus needs replacing I suspect that the Treasury is NEEDS blind!

      This type of flexible design are hugely useful in a wide range of scenarios and can earn the UK considerable influence around the world. What many fail to understand is that friendships have to be worked at if they are to survive the march of time – so more flexible RFA’s would be a huge asset for a Global Britian post Brexit.

      • A role that Argus was commissioned to undertake. I suspect though she will be cut as soon as the QE’s are fully functional.

        • She was partially rebuilt as a helicopter training vessel for the Invincible class, but was then designated a casualty reception vessel, but started to fall into disrepair with a number of aviation items no longer working. After a refit she’s back as she should be, acting as a makeshift helicopter carrier in recent exercises. Once she’s gone, we’ll be in trouble In that area.

  3. Good to see 2 ship on task at Caribbean ocean. I guess,
    – 1 River B2 in winter (~40 crew)
    – 1 River B2 (~40 crew) and 1 RFA in summer (100+ crew)
    has less (or not much different) “operational burden” than
    – 1 RFA tanker in winter (100+ crew)
    – 1 RFA LSD in summer (100+ crew)

    By the way, the River B1 deployment was not that successful, as I remember. She (Severn?) did many good-will visits, but not much on other tasks (just a rumor though). Anyway, based on her experience, the River B2 deployment must have been planned.

    What is the lessons learned and what counter measure, or additional capability has been taken? Anybody knows?

    • Yes, slight over egging there!! While ARGUS should be replaced, ecomically we are looking at the worst crisis since the early 30’s, and we haven’t begun to face the fallout from Brexit. Boris has made a lot of promises which he will need to make good on. It all costs money of course and whatever we feel about it cuts must be made.
      The F35 program must take the brunt of any cuts. Not the Navy, not the army which is now virtually a SDF.
      We don’t need 138 F35’s ‘over the life of the program’. 90 seems perfectly sufficient to main 2 FAA and RAF frontline sqds with a 16 ship reserve and one OCU.
      The airframes will be good until 2035 with most of them not needing a MLU.
      The current delivery schedule is crazy with months since we received a single aircraft! If we were to field 6 FL sqns operational within 5 years, a full purchase would be more desirable. But we are not. Everyone is excited that we will have 24 planes on the QE next year. Whoppee. Half will be USMC. POW will NEVER operate alongside the QE except in VR portrayals. Cut the cloth now to protect the surface fleet; we might even get the minimum 23 escorts we desperately need if the T31 can demostrate VFM. 90 of these monstrously expensive aircraft will do, and we can keep if needed the RAF/FAA interchangebility. Is that a word?!!

  5. Well thought through package – Argus stores, hospital, Merlin vertrep, evacuation, Wildcat reconaissance. Medway as tender for jetty offload, medical, rhibs.

  6. Argus is a fine looking ship with a commanding presence. The batch 2 OPV’s are also nice looking ships, a big improvement over the Batch 1’s in every respect. As a matter of interest, what was the purpose of the sharply angled cut-off line on the bow sides of the Batch one’s? An unusual look that one would presume had functionality-can any of yous Naval types explain? Even if it did have functionality it could not have been all that important as radically changed on the Batch 2 giving a much better looking vessel

    • I think the Batch 2s are a great utility ship, not insignificant in size and are inline with the streamlined manning levels in the leaner RN. We all know that they were only built to keep BAE’s yards open due to the glacially slow progress of the T26 and then T26&T31 mixed offering. We also know that they lack any realistic offensive capability and are so poorer for not having even a collapsible hanger, meaning no ability to have a native vertical offering. However, they are great constabulary vessels manned by excellently trained officers and crew. Intelligent rotating of crews avoids transit times, maximising operational capability. They work excellently with other ships who do possess native vertical aviation facilities (like Argus, Albion/Bulwark, the Bays or the Frigate/Destroyer vessels). Great like ships.

        • It would be interesting to know if the MOD have a plan for that, although we will never know. Its possible that they have on paper a plan for up-arming them if needed in a war situation, as some bolt on weapons could in theory make them way more fighty. After all it happened in the Falklands, we just don’t know if it was a panicked decision raced through or part of a more organised pre-defined plan.

          • I would like to think that if the “cack hit the fan”, there is a plan of up-armouring the Batch 2s. The problem is, the Fleet’s inventory is pretty thin.

            The obvious quick and cheap option would be the Martlet add-on to the DS30 mount. It’s not ’til the 40 and 57 guns and Seas Venom comes in service where more options can be added to the Batch 2s. The Fleet has also trialled the Schiebel S100 UAV. Which I personally think would be a massive boost to the ship’s capabilities, especially as an ISO can be quickly installed to the side of the crane which could house two S100s.

            The Thai HTMS Krabi version of the River class is a good example of what can be achieved for a modest up-gunning.

          • I totally agree that the Schiebel S100 is an excellent option for the RN to purchase a significant number of to work on the Rivers & T31. They will help significantly with constabulary duties. It is deployable from a cargo container. Run should also continue its innovation of its use of UAV, USV & MAS resources. We need to invest to do more with less but much more technical and autonomous.

            The QE class have shown our US colleagues that you do not need many thousands of crew to run a carrier. Excellent use of autonomous and automated weapons and stores handling. Much more cost-effective.

          • We have multiple uk based military manufacturers and even more available via allies, in theory we could rush buy items should it be needed. I am sure BAe have multiple options we could buy, assuming the US allows them to build.

            There are also loads of prototypes available from MBDA designed around brimestone.

          • I agree, but I was trying to keep the Visa bill down. If the items are GFE, it would be far quicker, easier and cheaper to fit.

            The HTMS Krabi rather than the Brazilian Amazonas shows what can be done with a River. For us I’d like to think we would do something similar. Such as, replace the forward DS30 with a 57 or 76 mount. Place a DS30 either side of the bridge. Add the Martlet/Starstreak modification to the DS30 mount and include a pack of a containerized Brimestone or Sea Venom This would put the Batch 2s in the Corvette league, especially if you add some S100s armed with Martlet or surveillance gear. I think this is a quick doable option, that generates quite a punchy ship.

          • I don’t get the fascination with sticking more bangsticks on these things. In principle I’m not against them being better armed but at the moment we have nothing between 30mil and a 4.5. It would be costly to introduce a brand new weapon system (76 mil seems to be popular) for a vessel that isn’t really designed as a warship. Its just a hoofing big OPV. Just because other countries are using them as warships with a better armament doesn’t mean we should. The UK is building the type 31’s and if they are going to have the Bofors 57mil then aye, whatever, if there’s some slack in the budget at the end of the financial year then stick a spare 57 mil on the front of them if its deemed necessary but these vessels were designed as a cheap (and large giving better sea keeping and duration) Constabulary vessel rather than a warship. Fishermen and smugglers don’t tend to carry anything that will out range the 30 mil on the pointy end.

            I don’t care if they’re bigger than a destroyer of 80 years ago (an argument that has been put forward in the past), they’re not built as destroyers, a proper hanger would be of more use than extra bangsticks and wee missiles.

            Just my tuppence worth (again).

          • They have not been build as non-war ships either, money was put into making them more defensive such as armoured ammo storage etc, stuff that isn’t needed for policing roles.

          • If its got ammunition storage, you’d like to think it was protected. Personally that logic doesn’t mean it should be used as a warship, at least for me. Its got a helo pad too, it doesn’t make it an ASW vessel.

          • Can’t really compare the crew numbers between the 2 carriers though as the US carriers have significantly more jets on board and corresponding air crews etc, plus have full set of their own defensive weapons which require crew and no nuclear power plant.

    • Probably one for the naval architects. My guess is it gives optimum sea keeping qualities in local waters at the cruising speed for the 80m hull length.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here