Secretary of the U.S. Navy Carlos Del Toro announced this week that a forthcoming America-class amphibious assault ship will bear the name USS Helmand Province.

This decision by Secretary Del Toro serves as a tribute to the numerous U.S. Marine Corps operations conducted in Afghanistan’s Helmand Province as part of Operation Enduring Freedom.

The tradition of naming amphibious assault ships after U.S. Marine Corps battles, early U.S. sailing vessels, or previous carrier names from World War II continues with the selection of the name Helmand Province.

It’s worth noting that Secretary Del Toro previously named LHA 9 as the future USS Fallujah back in 2022.

“In line with the naval tradition of christening our Navy’s amphibious assault vessels after significant U.S. Marine Corps engagements, I am pleased to declare today that the future LHA-10 will carry the distinguished name USS Helmand Province,” stated Secretary Del Toro.

“This naming honours the courage and sacrifice of our Marines and Sailors who dedicated nearly two decades to the mountains of Afghanistan.”

The 45,000-ton ship will be the third Flight I America-class ship following Bougainville and Fallujah.

Read more on this from the U.S. Navy here.

Avatar photo
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
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

126 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Stephanie
Stephanie (@guest_815895)
25 days ago

I don’t think they needed the word Province.

Brom
Brom (@guest_815900)
25 days ago

Two of those would be nice……….

Ron
Ron (@guest_815925)
25 days ago
Reply to  Brom

Agreed but not without a well deck.

Jim
Jim (@guest_815929)
25 days ago
Reply to  Ron

I’m pretty sure they all have a well deck now, it was just the America that didn’t.

Marcus FARRINGTON
Marcus FARRINGTON (@guest_815933)
25 days ago
Reply to  Ron

First 2 Flight 0 America and Tripoli No well deck,Then Flight 1 Bougainville,Fallujah etc have a well deck.

Paul
Paul (@guest_816062)
24 days ago
Reply to  Ron

As others have said, only the Flight 0 ships USS America (LHA 6) and USS Tripoli (LHA 7) omitted the well deck on favor of greater aviation capabilities. LHA 8, 9 and 10 have/will have well decks. Interestingly, through dramatically shrinking the footprint of the island and adding a large sponson forward of the island, the Flight 1 ships will have a much better deck layout than the Flight 0 ships and won’t lose anything in sortie generation. The Flight 1 ships will also have 1 fewer ESSM launcher and 1 fewer Phalanx, which I suspect might be to add… Read more »

Ex-RoyalMarine
Ex-RoyalMarine (@guest_816698)
20 days ago
Reply to  Paul

Do they fly F35A, or F35B’s off that? I can see how much more useful these are compared to a full-size tub.

Paul
Paul (@guest_816747)
20 days ago
Reply to  Ex-RoyalMarine

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.

Dern
Dern (@guest_816976)
19 days ago
Reply to  Ex-RoyalMarine

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?)

Dern
Dern (@guest_816978)
19 days ago
Reply to  Paul

Flight 1 will have fewer ESSM etc launchers because of the redesign of the island. The area where the Sponson is being added had a weird elevated deck portion/island extension that had a small battery of CIWS/SAM systems on it.

Paul
Paul (@guest_817041)
19 days ago
Reply to  Dern

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… Read more »

John
John (@guest_815901)
25 days ago

Can’t wait for USS “Biden out of Kabul” 😂

FieldLander
FieldLander (@guest_815912)
25 days ago
Reply to  John

Or USS ‘Trump Inside’.

Phil Chadwick
Phil Chadwick (@guest_815938)
25 days ago
Reply to  John

More like USS Trump signed the deal!

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_816073)
24 days ago
Reply to  John

If Trump gets back in, rather than in jail where he belongs, probably USS Putin.

Netking
Netking (@guest_816084)
24 days ago
Reply to  Frank62

😂
You win the internet for today.

Simon
Simon (@guest_815913)
25 days ago

Tribute to those who were lost or served.

Zach
Zach (@guest_815922)
25 days ago

Is this a…May fools?

Jim
Jim (@guest_815928)
25 days ago

America builds the greatest warships in the world but has the worst naming conventions.

Micki
Micki (@guest_815934)
25 days ago

In the mean time Britain without LPD,s, no LPD,s or LHD,s and with just 3 LSD,s , thanks.
Yes, there are 2 Carriers but one if them in repairs and the other have to be completed with american fighters.
It,s pathetic the situation

Chris
Chris (@guest_815965)
24 days ago
Reply to  Micki

Great political leadership sold off the UK military for bits. It’s almost a sport now. Other nations are still operating Harrier, Tornado, C130J.. The UK sells brand new ships and aircraft to buy less of even more expensive gear. Oh, and we must contract out recruitment to an inept private agency for the first time in 1,000 years. A never ending cycle of ‘the shrink to profitability’.

Tomartyr
Tomartyr (@guest_815981)
24 days ago
Reply to  Chris

“shrink to profitability” Tory economic policy in a nutshell

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_816021)
24 days ago
Reply to  Chris

Tornado and Harrier are all going out of service before 2030.

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_816022)
24 days ago
Reply to  Micki

Are you comparing us to the largest super power in the world? Where exactly did you get the idea we can compete with the US.

Marcus Murraymus Maximus
Marcus Murraymus Maximus (@guest_816107)
24 days ago
Reply to  Hugo

It’s nice to have some perspective.
Father Ted: “Dougal, these ones here are small; those ones there are far away” 😄

Mark
Mark (@guest_816166)
24 days ago
Reply to  Hugo

A bit of perspective….
Father Ted: Dougal, these here are small. Those over there are far away.

Challenger
Challenger (@guest_815937)
25 days ago

Find it strange to name a ship after what was ultimately a failure.

DB
DB (@guest_815940)
25 days ago
Reply to  Challenger

Not of spirit, tenacity and endurance.

Battle Honours on drums / guns etc are not always ones where we kicked arrse.

James
James (@guest_816003)
24 days ago
Reply to  DB

Well said.

John Clark
John Clark (@guest_815945)
25 days ago
Reply to  Challenger

Same here, named after an utterly lost campaign.

Let’s be honest here, the West, with its vast military capability, numbers and sophistication, was defeated by an unstoppable and unrelenting insurgency. Again!!! Cough, cough Vietnam…

We blinking first and the Taliban won….

Why the hell would you name a ship after that bloody disaster!!!

Chris
Chris (@guest_815967)
24 days ago
Reply to  John Clark

The west won’t fight on the same brutal terms as these groups, or even Russia for that matter. Our “rules of engagement” assume another, proper, moral enemy.

Steve
Steve (@guest_815972)
24 days ago
Reply to  John Clark

US Navy Ticonderoga class CG-66 was named Hue City after the battle to retake that city after the Tet Offensive in 1968: USS Hué City – Wikipedia so there was a precedent for naming US warships for battles in lost wars.

BobA
BobA (@guest_816148)
24 days ago
Reply to  John Clark

This narrative grinds my F-ing gears John. I fought there twice in my career. Not one tactical operation was defeated by the Taleban. This relentless “oh we were defeated by a bunch of tribesmen!” Bull is just so wrong. What happened was a strategic mistake in the very first place – you cannot fight a successful counter/insurgency in someone else’s country because just by being there, you delegitimise the host nation government. If they cannot provide security without an external army – they are not a legitimate government. The only way to really do it is to use covert SF… Read more »

John Clark
John Clark (@guest_816151)
24 days ago
Reply to  BobA

I certainly meant no insult Bob, absolutely none, British and coalition forces fought with bravery against a ruthless opposition. the Taliban ‘effectively’ won because they simply waited it out, they knew the West would eventually tire of the whole thing and look for an exit strategy, we of course did in the end… If you have a determined insurgency that’s fueled by a religious extremism, that has an inexhaustible supply of ‘volunteers’ you simply can’t win. They will recruit 4 for every one killed in a firefight from their brother’s, cousins and friends, it’s a viscous eternal meat grinder. As… Read more »

DB
DB (@guest_815939)
25 days ago

Dream on ROYAL.

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_816024)
24 days ago
Reply to  DB

What?

DB
DB (@guest_816068)
24 days ago
Reply to  Hugo

ROYAL getting an assault back, let alone one named after their blood, sweat and tears.

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_816077)
24 days ago
Reply to  DB

The only reason we don’t have one rn is due to crewing and retention, issues. Weird jab though.

DB
DB (@guest_816080)
24 days ago
Reply to  Hugo

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.

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_816085)
24 days ago
Reply to  DB

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.

TonyB
TonyB (@guest_815944)
25 days ago

The War Zone has an in-depth article on this from 2 May, which nicely complements George’s article above.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_815961)
24 days ago

Interesting the US naming a ship after the Province where the UK was the lead nation. It points to ‘the Obama surge’ in the Province in 2009 required as British politicos under-resourced our own effort.

Chris
Chris (@guest_815968)
24 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

It was a hot Province. The Germans and other continental European nations refused to be assigned any of the high combat areas. It left the US/UK/CAN to deal disproportionately with the hotter zones.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_816008)
24 days ago
Reply to  Chris

I remember my time in Helmand well – I ran Camp Bastion for a full Col (Comd Bastion) for 6 months (Nov 08-May 09). I had no idea that member states had lobbied NATO as to which Provinces they would or would not deploy into. Is that a proven fact? I heard that we Brits wanted to be in Kandahar province but were assigned Helmand by NATO. We needed an Inf Div there but politicos only allowed a Brigade Group – no wonder we struggled at times, until the Obama surge gave us more troops – USMC guys (and gals)… Read more »

Dern
Dern (@guest_816016)
24 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Morning mate, as far as I know we didn’t lobby for Helmand or anything like that (and anyway other “continental” nations ended up there as well, Danes, Dutch, Estonians, and Czechs for sure served in Helmand in combat roles). When we went into Helmand it wasn’t exactly clear it would be one of the most intense combat zones (and depending on how charitable you want to be to 16AA you can either say they went in underestimating how violent it would turn, or you could say they where medal hunting).

DB
DB (@guest_816074)
24 days ago
Reply to  Dern

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_816288)
23 days ago
Reply to  DB

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.

David Barry
David Barry (@guest_816433)
22 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_816180)
23 days ago
Reply to  Dern

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.… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_816286)
23 days ago
Reply to  Dern

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.… Read more »

Dern
Dern (@guest_816322)
22 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_816366)
22 days ago
Reply to  Dern

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… Read more »

David Barry
David Barry (@guest_816436)
22 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_816541)
21 days ago
Reply to  David Barry

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… Read more »

Tomartyr
Tomartyr (@guest_815980)
24 days ago

USS Helmand has a nice ring to it, USS Helmand Province just sounds odd

Ron
Ron (@guest_815986)
24 days ago

I have said and will continue to argue that the Royal Navy needs four LHDs of 30-40,000 tons size. However this type of ship in the RN would not be used for the Royal Marines but for dedicated forces from the British Army. We could call them the Sea Assault Brigade. Reinforced Battalion sized Battlegroups based on either armoured or boxer battlegroup concepts with there own air support. Able to land from the LHD in a fighting formation. Yes costs but lets look at the possibilities.The best return for cost would be the RANs HMAS Canberra type but even then… Read more »

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_815990)
24 days ago
Reply to  Ron

I don’t see the point. A force this size could not take in non state actor like Hamas ou Houthis even less a state.

Paul.P
Paul.P (@guest_815992)
24 days ago
Reply to  Ron

No pun intended but I think the UK 40,000 ton LHD ship has sailed. We spent the money on QE. Our expeditionary will be based on a combination of MRSS and T32 – the so called LRG. Agree that, politics notwithstanding politics RM and LPDs might morph somehow into Sea Assault Brigade. Good luck with that idea. I don’t see we can afford the full set of ships you describe: MRSS might have to do both the LHD and Ellida roles unless we resurrect the idea of replacing Ocean and a sister ship. Argus continues to be the gift that… Read more »

Paul
Paul (@guest_815997)
24 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

The RN could do a lot worse than to pick up a couple of container ships and create a couple of new Argus type ships. Absolutely the type of ship that fits the UKs foreign policy, type of operations and budget. Argus has been one of the best purchases/conversions for the Navy and has been arguably its most important , effective and influential vessel for the last 30 odd years. I would argue it is a more important and useful ship to UK foreign aims and influence than the carriers. And with a comparatively tiny crew it is perfect in… Read more »

Paul.P
Paul.P (@guest_816007)
24 days ago
Reply to  Paul

Agree. Seems to me that global presence, expeditionary ambitions / tradition, national shipbuilding strategy , future joint operations with the Netherlands and budget thinking that ‘standard’ single type is the answer…are all jostling to influence the decisions on MRSS (and T32).
I’m all for the argument that standards reduce costs but not at the expense of excessive compromise on capability.
If you drop the notion that the answer must be a osingle type why not go with 2 x Argus ( or Oceans) and 4 new Damen Bays plus maybe a crossover design for T32?

Paul
Paul (@guest_816015)
24 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

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.… Read more »

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_816027)
24 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

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.

Last edited 24 days ago by Hugo
Paul.P
Paul.P (@guest_816045)
24 days ago
Reply to  Hugo

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.

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_816051)
24 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

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.

Paul.P
Paul.P (@guest_816058)
24 days ago
Reply to  Hugo

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

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_816059)
24 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

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.

Paul.P
Paul.P (@guest_816064)
24 days ago
Reply to  Hugo

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 😏

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_816065)
24 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

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

Last edited 24 days ago by Hugo
Hugo
Hugo (@guest_816026)
24 days ago
Reply to  Paul

They want to keep the shipbuilding industry going though, seriously doubt they’ll go for more conversions.

Paul
Paul (@guest_816034)
24 days ago
Reply to  Hugo

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… Read more »

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_816038)
24 days ago
Reply to  Paul

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

Paul
Paul (@guest_816078)
24 days ago
Reply to  Hugo

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… Read more »

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_816086)
24 days ago
Reply to  Paul

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.… Read more »

Last edited 24 days ago by Hugo
Paul
Paul (@guest_816133)
24 days ago
Reply to  Hugo

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… Read more »

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_816138)
24 days ago
Reply to  Paul

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.

Paul
Paul (@guest_816207)
23 days ago
Reply to  Hugo

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… Read more »

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_816211)
23 days ago
Reply to  Paul

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.

Last edited 23 days ago by Hugo
Paul
Paul (@guest_816219)
23 days ago
Reply to  Hugo

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… Read more »

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_816220)
23 days ago
Reply to  Paul

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.

Paul
Paul (@guest_816224)
23 days ago
Reply to  Hugo

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… Read more »

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_816226)
23 days ago
Reply to  Paul

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.

Paul
Paul (@guest_816229)
23 days ago
Reply to  Hugo

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… Read more »

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_816231)
23 days ago
Reply to  Paul

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.

Paul
Paul (@guest_816233)
23 days ago
Reply to  Hugo

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.

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_816240)
23 days ago
Reply to  Paul

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.

Last edited 23 days ago by Hugo
Paul
Paul (@guest_816253)
23 days ago
Reply to  Hugo

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… Read more »

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_816254)
23 days ago
Reply to  Paul

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”… Read more »

Last edited 23 days ago by Hugo
Hugo
Hugo (@guest_816029)
24 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

I don’t think there will be a replacement for Argus’ specifc role. The focus is very much on waterborne raiding.
Also Damen crossover? Why would that happen at this point.

Paul.P
Paul.P (@guest_816056)
24 days ago
Reply to  Hugo

There might not be a replacement for the current Argus role (aviation training, casualty ) but the ship itself – 28,000 tons – has been modified for its new role, LRG assault ship. Seems to me that we are really recognizing that LRG shpuld have Ocean type capability. How does Ocean’s 18 helos and 10 landing spots work with 2 spot Enforcers?

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_816061)
24 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

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.

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_816031)
24 days ago
Reply to  Ron

Sounds nice, but I don’t need to say the obvious.

Paul
Paul (@guest_815996)
24 days ago

Oh oh oh! We could absolutely get on board with this in the UK. Ì suggest we name the Type 32s the ‘Fall’ class. HMS Fall of Singapore as lead ship, followed by Fall of Tobruk, Fall of Crete, Fall of Kabul F1842, and Fall of Yorktown that could have a US exchange officer…

Tommo
Tommo (@guest_816042)
24 days ago
Reply to  Paul

Autumn of Yorktown ?

Paul
Paul (@guest_816222)
23 days ago
Reply to  Tommo

Nice

Tommo
Tommo (@guest_816234)
23 days ago
Reply to  Paul

👍

Chris
Chris (@guest_816117)
24 days ago
Reply to  Paul

HMS Hong Kong

Paul
Paul (@guest_816221)
23 days ago
Reply to  Chris

Forgot that one! Move for a sixth ship!

Tommo
Tommo (@guest_816235)
23 days ago
Reply to  Chris

We have Tamar as a sideline , something too remind us of Hong Kong

DeeBee
DeeBee (@guest_816013)
24 days ago

Can USMC F35BS take off from these ships with a full payload, considering no ‘ski ramp’?

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_816023)
24 days ago
Reply to  DeeBee

LHDs like this don’t have a ski Ramp so they can maximise space for Helo operations. Having a ramp allows us to take off in a shorter distance and with more payload.

DeeBee
DeeBee (@guest_816081)
24 days ago
Reply to  Hugo

Ok thanks for the info

Tommo
Tommo (@guest_816237)
23 days ago
Reply to  Hugo

The old Invincible class had a forward centerline lift meaning no cats and Traps could be fitted a ramp was later fitted and the lift never used the Ramp was then used on the QE class word through thGrapeyine Cats and Traps could be itted during their next refit

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_816239)
23 days ago
Reply to  Tommo

The invincible class was never big enough for cats and traps anyway, it was going to just be an ASW Helo carrier before harriers were brought on.
I seriously doubt Qnlz will gets cats anytime soon, we don’t have any appropriate aircraft to launch off them.

Last edited 23 days ago by Hugo
Tommo
Tommo (@guest_816256)
23 days ago
Reply to  Hugo

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

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_816257)
23 days ago
Reply to  Tommo

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.

Tommo
Tommo (@guest_816258)
23 days ago
Reply to  Hugo

Let’s go Mag save on wires

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_816260)
23 days ago
Reply to  Tommo

What?

Tommo
Tommo (@guest_816369)
22 days ago
Reply to  Hugo

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

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_816371)
22 days ago
Reply to  Tommo

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

Tommo
Tommo (@guest_816396)
22 days ago
Reply to  Hugo

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

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_816403)
22 days ago
Reply to  Tommo

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

Tommo
Tommo (@guest_816420)
22 days ago
Reply to  Hugo

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

Chris
Chris (@guest_816796)
20 days ago
Reply to  Tommo

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

Tommo
Tommo (@guest_816930)
19 days ago
Reply to  Chris

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 .

Paul
Paul (@guest_816033)
24 days ago
Reply to  DeeBee

Yes absolutely, they just use a longer take-off run.

DeeBee
DeeBee (@guest_816082)
24 days ago
Reply to  Paul

Ok thanks 👍

DanielMorgan
DanielMorgan (@guest_816049)
24 days ago
Reply to  DeeBee
Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_816071)
24 days ago

Strange choice of name considering Biden pulled out & we handed the Taliban victory, condemning millions of Afghans to death & oppresion.
You don’t hear RN ships named after major defeats. For asll we acheived there, in the end we cut & ran with virtually no preperation & continue to ignore those Afghans who put their lives & families at risk aiding us.

Markam
Markam (@guest_816091)
24 days ago

Dream world where we had 2 of these types of ships instead of the second QE carrier, upgraded the 1st QE into a proper carrier (EMALS, no ski-ramp) and use F35Bs on the smaller carriers and something like the Gripen (over 30% UK made!) or F-18 on the QE mixed with F35Cs. 2 smaller carriers with amphibious capabilities like the Albions. actually crewable because we don’t have to crew the 2nd QE. Much better overall capabilities.

Maybe It’s still not too late… Anyone in the market for a 2nd hand STOVL carrier, hardly used?

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_816113)
24 days ago
Reply to  Markam

I’d go for keeping the 2 QEs but add Sea Ceptor & 40mm bofors, replace Albions with 2 LHDs, make at least 60 of our F35Bs soley FAA under RN control & raise escort numbers to at least 30 asap, in my dream world. Plus standardise the 5″ as the main/medium gun across the escort fleet.

Andrew D
Andrew D (@guest_816123)
24 days ago
Reply to  Markam

USS Marines might be interested 🇺🇸

Markam
Markam (@guest_816129)
24 days ago
Reply to  Andrew D

If you pardon the pun, I think the ship has sailed on, selling the PoW to pay for upgrades to the QE and buy 2x LHD/light carriers. A LHD costs about $1 billion and EMALS for CATOBAR goes for another $1 billion so if we could get $3 billion for it! Hahah. Who would buy it, really? Turkey recently announced they are making a carrier, South Korea have been planning their own domestic one for ages, India is trying to get Nuclear powered carriers with help from France. That leaves… Australia? Japan? Kind of a long shot! Maybe the US… Read more »

Andrew D
Andrew D (@guest_816144)
24 days ago
Reply to  Markam

Hopfuly we keep both Carriers 🙏 and at some point with full AIR groups. For the Australia idea let’s hope HMG don’t think of that one ,a new LHD that would be nice but we both know never going to happen 👍

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_816242)
23 days ago
Reply to  Andrew D

Not really. Plus it’s the US Navy who shuttles them around, and they already have better carriers.

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_816241)
23 days ago
Reply to  Markam

It’s way too late. Ships are already years old and built specifically for the Royal Navy, there is little potential to sell them and it would be foolish to expect a large sum in return.
We have them now, we should make best use of them

Last edited 23 days ago by Hugo
Andrew D
Andrew D (@guest_816125)
24 days ago

With out doubt fine ship ,wish RN could have one 😞 🇬🇧