New American assault ship named USS Helmand Province

The USMC flies F-35Bs and a smaller number of F-35Cs. They definitely fly Bs from LHA/LHDs, though they are currently also still flying Harriers from east coast based LHDs until the f-35 transition is complete. The US Marines fly their F-35Cs from the big nuclear powered carriers. The USN only operates F-35Cs. The USAF uses F-35As exclusively and they only operate from airfields and can’t operate from ships.

Just to add to what Paul said, the LHA’s actually have a pretty small fixed airwing by default, their normal compliment being 6, and at max capacity (and sacrificing their rotary airwing) they carry 20 ish (listed as 20 Harriers or F-35s’ but F-35s are bigger than harriers so maybe 15ish F-35s?)

The ship’s model is confusing, I’ve seen it in person a few times now at various conferences. It has an ESSM launcher, Phalanx, and one RAM launcher on top front of the island, leaving the sponson clear for deck parking. The model also shows the other Phalanx and ESSM launcher on the stern, but the model also has the wrong radar, it will actually have the new SPY-6(V)2. The budget documents only have one ESSM launcher and one Phalanx, but 2 RAM launchers and 3 MK 38 gun mounts. It’s all a jumble due to that model, but I always go with the budget documents because that is what was paid for. I guess we will see the actual configuration as the ship is completed, hopefully she will deliver in October of 2025. Wish we could attach photos and links.

I’ve never made a jab at ROYAL, and they’ve been screwed by the RN on PIDs and now their platforms and equipment; personally, it applying how such an elite organisation with singular talents has been gutted.

The Royal navy is required to do alot of tasks that they already don’t have the funding for. It’s not wonder RM gets the short end of the stick.

When the Brig has to fall on his sword for the disastrous approach…

And yet, after that approach, each subsequent Brig comes with their own approach rather than a long term coordinated approach, you have to wonder why the seniors were not asked to walk the plank.

DB, you might have to explain your post! Do you think Brig Ed Butler had to ‘fall on his sword’ for his ‘disastrous approach’ in Helmand? Not sure I follow that.

His ink blot approach left blokes in the lurch and he left the Army shortly after.

Of course, if he’d been able to put a proper Div into theatre – ie, a lot more fighting troops he might have got a different outcome.

Youtube has some real American soul searching going on over Afghanistan and there is this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHff7tWU9Xw which I’ve just started watching.

Any lobbying would have been done very sensitively and well away from the media – I just heard it somewhere ‘on the grapevine’ that we wanted to be lead nation in Kandahar province for ‘historical’ reasons that were rather unconvincing to me.

Very true that other nations served in Helmand. When I was there (2008/9) we had USMC, Estonians, UAE, Danes – all of whom I worked with in Bastion, as they were based out of there. I don’t remember the Dutch and Czechs – they were either there at a different time to me, or were remote from Bastion.

I knew 16AA very well – I was COS Colchester Garrison for 3 years (2006-9), and was detached from that job to do my Bastion tour (COS Camp Bastion).

I’m not surprised that 16AA may have thought it would be an easy tour when they first went in – thats what the politicians had led them to believe at a time of relatively light and ineffective Taliban military activity. From The Guardian 23/4/12: “The former Labour defence secretary, John Reid, is chiefly remembered by the public for something he never quite said – that he hoped British troops could go into Helmand “without a shot being fired”. What he actually said on a visit to Kabul in April 2006 was: “We would be perfectly happy to leave in three years time without firing one shot.” Not quite the same thing, but the myth does nonetheless encapsulate a deeper truth about the blithe optimism with which the Blair government sent the first deployment of 3,000 soldiers into Helmand in early 2006, just as the Taliban was beginning its resurgence”.

Any lobbying would have been done very sensitively and well away from the media – I just heard it somewhere ‘on the grapevine’ that we wanted to be lead nation in Kandahar province for ‘historical’ reasons that were rather unconvincing to me.

Very true that other nations served in Helmand. When I was there (2008/9) we had USMC, Estonians, UAE, Danes – all of whom I worked with in Bastion, as they were based out of there. I don’t remember the Dutch and Czechs – they were either there at a different time to me, or were remote from Bastion.

I knew 16AA very well – I was COS Colchester Garrison for 3 years (2006-9), and was detached from that job to do my Bastion tour (COS Camp Bastion).

I’m not surprised that 16AA may have thought it would be an easy tour when they first went in – thats what the politicians had led them to believe at a time of relatively light and ineffective Taliban military activity. From The Guardian 23/4/12: “The former Labour defence secretary, John Reid, is chiefly remembered by the public for something he never quite said – that he hoped British troops could go into Helmand “without a shot being fired”. What he actually said on a visit to Kabul in April 2006 was: “We would be perfectly happy to leave in three years time without firing one shot.” Not quite the same thing, but the myth does nonetheless encapsulate a deeper truth about the blithe optimism with which the Blair government sent the first deployment of 3,000 soldiers into Helmand in early 2006, just as the Taliban was beginning its resurgence”.

I know Simon Akam accused 16AA of deliberately biting off more than they could chew when they first moved into Helmand because they where chasing DSO’s, but frankly his book is pretty terrible and up it’s own arse so I don’t set a huge amount of stock in his narrative, but for what it’s worth that is one interpretation of the events that exists.

Yes, I read Akam’s book a while ago – it was well researched and quite academic but his analysis certainly was not balanced.

The task in Helmand was far too big for the numbers deployed, and the Threat turned out to be more aggresive than politicos envisaged.

I always considered that Helmand province needed an Inf Div (not saying we had a spare one!) given the mission, land area and threat, yet, as you know, Task Force Helmand comprised just 3,300 personnel, its core being 550 troops from 3PARA.

TFH’s mission was not envisaged to be intense warfighting against Terry Taliban. SofS John Reid said:

“Their job will be to form a Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) to help Afghanistan, assisted by other British Government departments, including the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development, to develop the country’s infrastructure and the capability to govern itself.

It is hoped that, in turn, this will bring about long-term stability and security. The military’s specific role is to help maintain and create a framework of security on which legitimate Afghan institutions can grow and thrive”.

Lt Col Tootal, CO 3PARA said before deployment :

“We are the main infantry element of the soldiers deploying to Afghanistan. We will be undertaking a range of roles from force protection of the reconstruction teams, which will be rebuilding infrastructure such as roads, schools and hospitals, to providing security to the Afghan National Army as they seek to tackle the country’s drug problem”.

Clearly numbers on HERRICK did later increase but 3PARA BG had a very tough task given the size of the ground, the Threat and the numbers they had.

But Akam did not stress mission creep or inadequate resourcing enough in his book – he favours blaming senior officers for poor leadership and failing to understand their mission. Maybe some officers were chasing DSOs; others were just trying their best in near-impossible conditions and trying to keep as many of their men alive as possible.

I’ve written several times.

Please describe Northern Ireland to me.
Same language
Similar culture
Some friendly populace
Upwards of SEVENTY thousand security force personnel involved.

Now compare that to Helmand; road to hell.

Now add in Braid chasing gongs and honours and what a clusterfuck it turned out.

David,

Problems in Helmand at the start (Op HERRICK 4, 2006) included: unrealistic Mission given the Threat, very low British troop numbers and inappropriate kit.

Happy to give you ‘my take’ on 2008/9, HERRICK 9, when I was there, if you want it.

What is this stuff about braid chasing gongs? It’s possible, but where is the evidence? To take one tour….Brig Ed Butler, who I knew very well in Colchester, had nothing to prove – he had been SAS and commanded 22 SAS (SAS guys are not medal seekers). He had got a MID while on active service in NI in 1991 and twice received the QCVS (for his service in FRY in 1997 and again for his service in Sierra Leone in 2000). He had already got the DSO for his previous actions in Afghanistan as CO 22 SAS during 2001 and 2002. He did not need or seek another DSO in 2006.
The fighting for that tour was incredibly intense – all awards were thoroughly deserved. 3 PARA BG distinguished themselves.

..or are you talking about other later Op HERRICKs when you mention gong-chasing and clusterfucks. Which ones?

A very sensible approach. I would argue that if you look at UK operations since 1990 it is an Argus type vessel that has been required in pretty much all of them. Be it transporting kit, being an aviation platform, disaster relief, hospital, mothership, evacuation.. it is absolutely the right vessel for UK foreign policy and budget. I literally think it is our most important vessel. It isn’t sexy or fighty but it achieves more than almost anything else the RN had access to. In the game of defence diplomacy and military utility I think it is an unparalleled ship. There is a reason it is still in service when the original Hull hit the water in 1980!

They’re clearly not interested in the flat top route for amphibs, so they’re not going to get a new Argus or Ocean type. Besides some LPD/LSD designs can carry a fair few helos.

And we already know they’re going to do 2 batches of 3 of 1 ship class so it’s basically settled already.

Per your version 1 email, I’m not saying its cheaper. Just that it might be a better capability for the same price or fit to UK shipbuilding etc. If its already settled ( 2 spot Damen Enforcers?) then there’s nothing to discuss.

No I get what you’re saying, a mix of designs would provide more capability overall. But with the current budget constraints already making how many MRSS we get questionable, I’m not sure they’ll be looking expand the scope or scale of the program.

Reason I assume it won’t be a flat top design is because for one, the personnel crisis makes it pretty unlikely, generally need alot more crew to manage an aviation heavy vessel, and the lack of Aviation discussion in future commando deployments.

I accept the crewing argument. But of that can be managed I think we ought to go for a stronger capability.

Problem is currently there is zero movement on the crewing issue. No pay rises, no improvement in retention. It would be a very risky proposal to build a ship you literally can’t staff.

So what the folks in charge need to do is to decide what we need.Then you address the issues to make it happen e.g. crewing. Depends how badly you want it 😏

I’d Argue they want it, but they can’t do anything about it. 2.5 percent is a farcical suggestion by the losing government in an attempt to win votes. Won’t be any new funding for 2 years even if the plan goes through

But there is no capacity or budget. If the RN wants new support ships and T32s and 83s where is the dockyard capacity for these magic unbudgeted raiding ships? They are an ambition and probably a pipedream. Focus the budget and capacity on getting frigates destroyers and supply vessels and look to what Argus has achieved since 1988 for a simple conversion and a tiny budget. Cut the cloth to fit the budget and you might be surprised what you get. And as I said what has actually been the ship of choice for UK government foreign policy engagement in the last 40 years…Argus.

Argus is only around because its the only “LPH” we have left. It’s hardly an ideal vessel for anything. I like it but it’s not something they plan to carry forward. And as we already heads last month there will be announcements about MRSS soon so they’re not going to change their minds now. T32 is the most likely to be cut out of any of the upcoming programs, because its an additional ship program not a replacement ship program

Oh I don’t disagree why Argus is still around, it shouldn’t be. But the UKs problem is constantly gunning for the top tier gold plated version, we aim at perfection and usually end up with nothing or a small brilliant capability that is late or ends up cut. We have LPDs that are too expensive to run and crew for instance. Carriers that are (let’s face it) going to spend the vast majority of their time tied up juggling crew, parts and aircraft. Both great classes of ship, arguably not what the Navy needs or can deal with on current budgets (and they are never going up significantly).

We need to see what works and go for that. No Argus is not ideal, but for the inital cost of a frigate the Navy has a ship that has been ridiculously useful and could always have done with two of them. Multirole, cheap to crew and run, you get a large percentage of the capability at a fraction of the cost. We could save the cash to plough into warships and upgrades by picking up a couple of Argus Mk2s and have them much sooner.

Just to be blunt. Isn’t going to happen, they don’t want jank refits like Argus.
And you’re saying we should aim for 2nd class equipment that can’t do the jobs theyre expected to do? All that will result in is dead sailors.
And none of us here know what the navy actually needs because we’re not the ones running it.
So yes we do need proper carriers and proper LPDs, not tin can ASW carriers like the invincibles which were hardly capable of a real naval fight. Or multi role good at nothing in particular platforms like Bays and KD. The government sets a policy, the navy has to fulfil to the best of their ability and budget.

Fact remains the LPDs are now expensive uncrewed buoys and the carriers will look shiny and new for a very long time due to under use. I mean you’re right this top notch gold plated kit will indeed kill less sailors. Meanwhile the ‘jank’ Argus and Bays are at sea getting the job done as they have done for years. Sometimes the cloth has to be cut. The RN is currently an old bloke who owns an expensive sports car he keeps in the garage and runs on occasional Sundays while he does all the important work with a beat up Ford Focus.

LRG S deployment is hardly a demonstration of fighting and expeditionary capability. Put them in an actual warzone and they’ll be woefully unprepared and incapable.
Yes, are large 1st line vessels don’t deploy often, because when they do its for a reason, and in a manner that they could deploy to a conflict zone.

I think a) you don’t understand what LRGs are for and b) are making a pretty poor excuse for the high end kit languish in port.

The LRG is absolutely about the Mahan principle, inexpensive lighter forces at distance that give presence, prevent conflict and act as deterrent. The LRG is designed to act at the threshold below war, the idea that being there will achieve more than being in port 8000 miles away. They are also for reacting to small crisis, SF ops, disaster relief, civil evacuation etc They are not meant for a hot war zone.

As for ships in port, what’s the point? The LPDs are fantastic gold tier warships. They will never be used again. They will sit and deteriorate, institutional knowledge of them and crew skills will atrophy and come a big war there will be a mad scramble to source parts, find crew and weeks after they were needed a cobbled together capability will sail. They still exist because every time a politician suggests binning them everyone loses their mind. So they will sit rusting absorbing defence money for no reason than the illusion that we can afford that capability and ape the Americans rather than ploughing our own furrow.

So if LRGs aren’t meant for a hot warzone, what is? Or are you saying we should relegate ourselves to only being capable of peace time duties.
And Frankly the LRGs are of little to no deterrence to an actually threatening nation.

Threatening what nation? Literally not the role of the UK military or the aim of UK foreign policy, we don’t threaten nations with anything. We support allies, help train friendly forces, and provide deterence by presence. It’s all about preventing war not threatening war, we leave that to rogue states. You can only do that by being there

If you look at the LRG plans and policy they are to be combined and massively reinforced for a hot war – Literally the Mahan principle. Light forces deployed globally to react, diffuse and prevent while your capital forces are sailing and training in home region waters to reinforce. Literally been the underpinning of western Naval doctrine for over a century.

No, I said Detternece TO a threatening nation. Iran or China or Russia does not care about a pair of ships they could blow out of the water in 5 mins.

But the LRGs aren’t aimed at these nations directly. That would be ridiculous, even a large top tier amphib force could never really be useful against these states, I mean even 3 cdo bde at the height of its strength and shipping numbers 20 years ago would never be used that way, the days of a large amphib ops are over, even the US has realised that.

LRGs are about conflict prevention and influence with the smaller nations that are caught in the middle. The race for influence in the indo-pacific region. Rocking up today with a small force that can train and work with a potential ally, brining a hospital capable ship to do big time hearts and minds etc works better than turning up later with a bigger force that has to sail past a new Chinese Naval base…

Be there now with Argus and a Bay or be there in the future with a ship still on the drawing board.

Yeh, I get that. But with how few ships we have, better to have a ship that can do more than a diplomatic cruise. Cause I guarantee you another Argus is not what’s on the drawing board.

But my point would be firstly better a diplomatic cruise now than war tomorrow. Secondly we can wait for a very capable ship in something like 15 years time or something cheaper (and yes less capable) within 4-5 years. If you want to prevent conflict, support UK plc abroad, swing other nations to your way of thinking you need to be there now not the back end of the 2030s however lovely the ships will be.

You look at the big success deployments like the Ebola crisis, West Side Boys, supporting deployed mcm in the gulf, transporting the RM to various gigs its been Argus and Bays that have achieved that. He UK can tick a lot of foreign policy boxes with ships that aren’t top tier vessels, like what is being achieved with the River class.

Issue with that is all the current pressure round needing equipment is the potential for a conflict in the latest 20s. In regards to new amphib role vessels it doesn’t really matter what spec they’ll be. No plans to replace them for near a decade.

I really don’t think top tier conflict is likely anytime soon really. Smaller regional flare ups certainly.

But that would be my point re ships. LPDs are all but out of service – they will not sail again in all likeliness, Bays are over worked, Argus was commissioned by moses. We could up our capability and in the near term with two new conversions, especially Argus styley that provide medical facilities and a platform for ASW, drones, etc as well as LRG.

I’ve got no time for fantasy fleets, so you know how unlikely it is that will happen. Sure there’s some credence to the idea, there’s also no sailors to staff such ships, or funds for them for that matter.

No fantasy fleets is thinking the RN will buy new expensive LPHs/LPDs and expand the escort force. This is just a sensible suggestion. The crews would come from Argus, the now defunct LPDs, the smaller crew on the Type 26/31s. The beauty of Argus is the crew is tiny. Less than half a frigate crew.

None of this is wishful BS. We’ve literally just bought two ex civilian ships and a new build civilian ship, all for light conversion to fill in three roles and in all likeliness will buy more. This was the serious possibility for the Litorial Strike Ships. The RN has a centuries long tradition of taking Ships up from trade and using them well going back to the Armada, they often prove to be the most useful and used vessels.

And where have i suggested new LHDs or 1st line LPDs, the RN are the ones pursuing more escorts and new purpose built amphibs.
And as has been shown multiple times we are not going to see Split RFA/RN crews barring specialist personnel. Also there is hardly any LPD crew left clearly.

And the reason i call it fantasy fleet is because there is zero suggestion from official channels that this will be the case.
Also, unlikely more vessels like Stirling castle will be bought as theyre looking to build mine hunting motherships now.

You noted yourself that it “was” a possibility, it is no longer a possibility.

I’d argue we aren’t exploiting Argus’ full capability at all. It’s only deploy with 3 Helos rn when it could carry double or more than that. The reason its still around is its the only ampib with a permanent hangar for storage and maintenance. So arguably they could downsize to a non flat top type vessel with a large 3-6 Helo hangar and still get what they want out of it.

Yep too get round funding for the Invincible class they were called through deck cruisers, if they hadn’t put the Ramp Harriers would of had too Vert up to take off using more fuel and less payload it worked then but QE is twice the size If the FAA gets full Squadrons not USMC or RAF cats and Traps may happen if theirs anyone left from the days of the Ark Royal not invisible, Ark Royal class who remembers how too work them can’t keep asking the Yanks .We invented them

The FAA getting more F35Bs is irrelevant because F35Bs cant use catapults. Also, we will have to completely relearn Cat operations as well as purchasing US Emals if we want to get Catobar ability back. Steam catapults like we used to use are not an option on the QE class.

Let’s go Mag save on wires

What?

Electromagnetic slot the Americans are looking into it the Chinese claim too have fitted it the only draw back is the amount of electricity required would drain a conventional powered Aircraft carrier

There are certainly limitations, but if we want Cats its the only option on a non Boiler propelled conventional carrier.

I was only kidding about the Mag fitted on the QE unless total strip down and Reactors fitted like the yanks and French those could in theory run a Mag loop form of catapult but conventional turbine just wouldn’t cut it as claims that the Chinese have got round the power input should be treated as skeptical

Perhaps, but it was a genuinely considered option for the QE class. In some, possibly scaled down form it could be feasible.

I’ll say one thing that did get the Americans thinking was that the Chinese have developed a Mag loop train Linear induction so there may be on to something have too wait and see if they have successfully turned it into a feasible concept

The Chinese didn’t develop it. The conned the germans into building one in China, then stole all the intellectual property associated with it.

Yes I did know that intellectual and industrial theft is how China has gained her status in the world but us suckers in the west keep enabling them .