British strike group arrives in Gibraltar

Sorry but this is BS. I’ve worked with American companies a lot and have many friends in Boston for many years. They love the UK. The only ones you’ll have issues with are the ones that claim they’re Irish even though their previous 3 generations were born in Boston.

To claim that a lot of Americans hold the revolution against us still is the most absurd thing I’ve ever heard.

Although that said I still live in the UK and watch the news so… Maybe not the most absurd thing I’ve heard.

I would suggest your experience of Americans is rather limited. White Republican americans find UK too liberal and not conservative enough whilst most african americans will associate UK with imperialism and slavery. Latin americans won’t really care either way. They do like the EPL, Brit music and some TV though. But really, beyond a small minority, most don’t give two hoots. Even the Democrat press look down on us!

I’ve met many Americans online who despise our “communist” healthcare system… On the other hand I’ve met plenty that would prefer universal healthcare so… swings and roundabouts

And that’s why America is divided into states, even back in the 1700’s it was diverse enough that generalising “Americans” was pretty damn hard.

But having to storm is irrelevant, surely, as these assets are just as useful on an uncontested coast.

There could be no port available.
There might be undefended coastline.
We have a ship with the means to transfer men and equipment to the shore.
Bay’s carry 1 Landing Craft.
Albions carry 8.
Remove Albion’s your men cannot go ashore unless in small boats.

People keep equating a LPD with combat, there might be none.

No LPD means no landing whether it is contested or not.

Were the San Carlos landings opposed like on D Day? As in Landng craft under fire as they came in?
I’m not sure, but I don’t believe so.

I was going to say WW2, but i think if you look at the falklands war, whilst non-contested, the defenders knew the task forces was coming and so the attackers worked around that using a number of tactics to ensure that the landing was non-contested. In that scenario, you have a relatively small area to defend and the defenders knowing the attack was coming.

I however think a fully contested landing would be suicide in 2020. Guided ant-tank missiles etc would make light work of any attackers well before they got near the beach.

Agree. I still suggest an LPD or similar is required, even for non contested landings.

If the LPD is too vulnerable as people point out something needs to replace it.

Not always will there be a port.
Or we simply give up on this type of deployment.
Considering most of the world’s populations are near the coast, I’d have thought a combination of sea air delivery is ideal.

Agreed, there needs to be a way to land heavy gear on a beach, where we can’t rely on helicopters.

Oh I think I overlooked the northern flank observation.

Certainly, for me that’s the high level priority for capability/deterrence, however unlikely it might be in practice that Russia moves into Northern Norway or Svalbard. But I don’t consider the ships limited to that as it would be too niche. To quote, “USNI News understands that something like a SLV would combine a surface ship’s ability to have great enough endurance and range to be operationally useful to commanders and a landing craft’s ability to beach itself to offload larger equipment.”

Good reply as always GHF. You know your stuff. Thanks.

I never really got the northern flank argument, surely if we are going to be reinforcing NATO then we would be landing on territory still held by allies. If Russia had already taken Norway etc, then the northern flank is too late and we would surely be better landing in France.

Saboteurs may have scuttled ships at the ports making conventional port landings impossible?

The territory may still be in allied hands but ports are known, fixed locations and a ship entering the harbour or alongside will be very vulnerable. That’s why using Point class into Norwegian harbours isn’t the solution, we need to be able to land material and vehicles onto a beach and we need to be able to do it disembark rapidly. Why so vulnerable? Because of what the threat looks like tomorrow with stealth, supersonic and new hypersonic weapons.

We might hope or even expect to successfully defend against stealth and supersonic weapons, but we don’t have a good answer against the new generation of hypersonic weapons yet, i.e. the boost-glide and scramjet weapons that are maneuverable and do not follow ballistic trajectories. These weapons aren’t typically considered practical threats today against moving targets. But they are certainly threats against fixed targets and its only a matter of time before they become so against the moving targets, particularly slow or still amphibious vessels.

Look at the topography of Norway and it becomes apparent that a capability to put men and stores ashore, away from a port/dock is essential. For an enemy to move through Norway would be slow, and their SF/airborne/amphibious forces would also expected to be involved. We would be reinforcing a still in the fight Norway not an occupied one mate.

I think he was posting with sarcasm over the perceived lack of close in air defence coverage, that the RN resorts to GPMGs and small arms like it did in Bomb Alley against the Argentinean A4s.

Thanks, I presumed it might be a dig at QE defences. The problem is the elephant in the room that seems to be ignored when discussing the topic. We might add Sea Ceptor to QE but what is that going to do against tomorrows threats? The US and French are in no better position with their current carrier weapons against these future threats.

We can’t ignore where weapons are going and the most likely threat to a carrier will be maneuverable non-ballistic trajectory hypersonic missiles. The Russians, Chinese, Japanese and Americans are all developing them. To defend against those (at least from the Russians and Chinese) we are likely to need full blown AAW destroyer assets with top of the line sensors focused on the task, armed with very high performance missiles capable of destroying such maneuverable hypersonic targets and/or armed with other as yet unproven energy weapons.

Is there a UK or European follow on to Sea Viper in the works to deal with these? I keep reading the hypersonic threat is overblown insofar as they need to actually find a target first, and the carrier has plenty of sea to hide in.

The threat is a timeline and technology issue. A threat today – probably not, a threat in 10 years – more likely, 20 years – perhaps a certainty. Hence why whatever we plan for our future fleets should take into account this threat. I’ve tried to provide a balanced perspective in the following.

An example, the Chinese have DF-21D and DF-26 today. Both are thought to be anti-ship missiles and also thought to have a maneuverable warhead. However, the challenge is to be able to accurately target a ship with them.

Targeting requires a kill chain that can accurately pin point the exact location of a ship and get a missile to the ship’s location fast enough that the ship hasn’t moved out of the missile’s ability to detect it, unless the surveillance system can keep the ship within regard and update the missile on its location. Even if the missile sees the ship it still has to be able to accurately control its direction at hypersonic speeds to either hit or be close to the ship when it hits the water if coming in close to vertical, unless of course its nuclear armed. And the ship is likely to be moving at 25-30 knots, unless its an amphib. offloading men and equipment. All of this is partly why anti-ship ballistic missiles have been considered a paper tiger threat up to this point. Also the US has SM-6 and SM-3 to counter ballistic trajectory threats. However, their efficacy against non-ballistic trajectory maneuvering hypersonic threats is not public and may not even be known. The USMC in particular are well aware of the threat, given their amphibious focus with large, slow moving ships close to shore. Hence some of the public statements in the last year or so.

As to accuracy, ballistic missiles are generally discussed in terms of their CEP, or circular error probability. The DF-21D has an estimated CEP of 20 metres, probably in the context of a static target, which means 50% chance of hitting within 20m of an average impact point. However, ships are still a narrow moving target for a missile with a high angle of attack, but a large missile hitting the sea at hypersonic speed relatively close to a ship is going to give it a massive shock that could still disable it or worse. We should assume accuracy against moving targets will improve.

What changes over the next 10-20 years IMV is the capability for pervasive surveillance with low latency, aka LEO satellite networks. While its possible to target ships today using air or sub-sea assets, a CSG is likely to keep these well away. Current surveillance satellites have latency and persistency issues, so LEO satellite networks is what changes IMV. These may be able to retain almost continuous surveillance of a ship due to their numbers, so its no longer an issue of having to find it in the first place. It then comes down to updating the missile on its target location, the missile being able to accurately locate that position (GPS may not be available) and find the ship with its own sensors.

The good news is that networked LEO satellites will also provide the means to track hypersonic weapons, regardless of possible radar stealth characteristics, by tracking the thermal signature, at least while the missiles are operating in the atmosphere or are powered. We then have to develop systems to counter them. The Aster 30 Block 1NT covers the entire SRBM (Short Range Ballistic Missile) threat domain and the entry of the MRBM (Medium Range) domain up to 1,500 km range, including separable warheads. IIRC it should be deployed for land defence systems in the next five years or so, not sure on naval deployment timeline. I haven’t seen mention of it having a capability against maneuvering missiles. Aster 30 Block 2 BMD is being developed to address 3,000 km-range including maneuvering missiles, no timeline on when this is targeted for deployment.

Are you Gunbuster or Davey in disguise?! Call me educated! Thanks GHF.