A Turkish naval task group led by the amphibious assault ship TCG Anadolu has deployed under the NATO Allied Reaction Force to take part in exercise STEADFAST DART 2026.
According to NATO Allied Joint Force Command Brunssum, the Anadolu Turkish Maritime Task Group sailed earlier this month and is expected to arrive in Rota, Spain on 29 January in support of the alliance’s largest exercise of the year. The deployment marks Türkiye’s contribution to the first large-scale peacetime employment of NATO’s new Allied Reaction Force.
The task group comprises the landing helicopter dock TCG Anadolu, logistics support ship TCG Derya, I-class frigate TCG İstanbul, and Barbaros-class frigate TCG Oruçreis. Together, the formation provides a self-contained national maritime force capable of sustained operations at sea.
TCG Anadolu, often described as a drone-capable carrier following Türkiye’s integration of unmanned aerial systems, forms the centrepiece of the deployment. The ship is designed to support amphibious operations, rotary-wing aviation, and unmanned platforms, alongside command-and-control functions for joint operations. NATO said STEADFAST DART 2026 is intended to test the deployability, readiness and interoperability of the Allied Reaction Force across multiple domains, reinforcing the alliance’s deterrence and defence posture amid a more contested security environment.
In addition to surface combatants, the Turkish task group brings amphibious assault vehicles, embarked aviation assets and unmanned systems, enabling joint maritime and littoral operations alongside allied forces. The deployment also coincides with Türkiye holding key NATO command roles. Turkish Naval Forces assumed responsibility for Commander Amphibious Task Force and Commander Landing Force duties from July 2025 through June 2026, marking the first time Türkiye has undertaken both roles within the alliance.
Between January and April 2026, the task group is scheduled to operate across a wide maritime area, including the Mediterranean, Bay of Biscay, English Channel, North Sea, Baltic Sea and Adriatic Sea, while participating in several NATO activities centred on STEADFAST DART. NATO have described the deployment as a demonstration of allied cohesion and the ability to rapidly assemble and project credible maritime forces under the new Allied Reaction Force framework.
So will we witness drones actually operating from this ship, and of course which sort. Might be informative, might not.
TB3s have been deployed operationally before and I’d expect them to be carried. Hopefully we’ll get footage. I’d guess Kizilelma won’t be ready for test for quite some time, although I might be wrong. The Hurjet won’t be ready for testing either. There should be manned attack and maybe ASW helicopters forming the bulk of the aerial capability. An outside possibility is the Talay sea skimmer, which is more likely to be tested toward the end of the year, but it could be more advanced than I think.
I just searched and the Talay is unlikely to be around in this deployemnt. The sales director was interviewed only last week at DIMDEX. He said it was at TRL7 right now and upgrades to the software would take it to third quarter. He expected it to be commercially ready around the end of the year. It will be very interesting to see a ground effect drone, which might be why my subconscious came up with it more in hope than anything else.
impressive, if only the uk could deploy a group like this or even support defence like Turkey has
Im sorry you mean deploy a handful of dinky drones on an LHD, are we calling this impressive?
Amphibious task force? UK not anymore.
Spare frigates handy? Not in the UK
No it’s not impressive it’s just more than we can do at the moment
Its their only task force. Not in addition to a carrier group.
No this is their major and significant push.. this is their version of our pacific carrier battle group
Turkey has
8 30-45 year old basic 3000ton GP frigates ( think a bit more modern than a type 21).
8 25 year old basic 45000 ton GP frigates ( think the GP verson of the T23 but not modernised)
1 news multi role 3000 to. Gp frigate ( think a cut down t31)
It’s flag ship is a 26,000 ton amphibious assault ship
That is it.. no high end ASW frigates no AAW destroyer or even AAW frigate.. the RNs 7-8 T23s may be old but they are still just about the best ASW ships on the planet and they have modern radar and AAW missiles.. even if their hulls are beyond what the RN considers acceptable.. and the 6 Type 45s are top end AAW platforms.. the best AAW missile Turkey has is the SM1.
People only looking at numbers again, not capability.
Yep numbers are huge.. but it has to have the capability to serve its purpose.. and the Turkish frigates are not escorts they are brown water patrol frigates.. good for their purpose.. but not comparable to the RN surface combatants that are exquisite ASW or AAW escorts for carriers.
The problem is you need both.. exquisite specific capabilities for some tasks and then a mass of day patrol frigates, patrol boats etc for attacking and defending maritime assets across the ogin near and far.
The great navies always understood this.. the clash of the great battle fleets at key inflection points was always accompanied by the daily grinding down of a nation’s ability to wage war through the actions of the little ships.. destroying the very substance of a nation..
The funny thing is people always think it’s the big set battles that win or loss wars.. but it’s not really, a nation can loss big set naval engagements.. but it’s the long slow grind of the little ships that matter..
It’s why I have always been a bit casual about how well armed vessels are.. HMS massive is a national trap.. a ship only needs the capabilities it needs for its role..so for me the RN has the types spot on T45,T23/26 perfect and we only need the required number of these for robust key surface group escorts.. ( the capability to generate 2 of each per CBG and amphibious group as well as ASW to guard the deterrent).. but we then need a mass of:
1) Good blue water patrol frigates ( the RN has just remembered this with T31)
2) brown water patrol vessels ( but not just constabulary/fisheries vessels like the present rivers… )
So it’s a case of just adequate exquisite where you must and mass everywhere.. that’s how the RN dominated the world.
Yes, i agree. I’ve long called for a balance of quality vs quantity, meaning a two tier navy.
More T31 and RB3 as well.
I worry the obsession with “toy boats” as I call them ( of course they’re not and they have their uses ) will derail us getting back to minimum 24 Escorts.
HMG is only interested in a headline, such as gucci future tech rather than the now.
All moot, I’ve no belief this government will lift a finger, they’re all show.
Yes I think the RNs obsession with drones is a way to get it out of a hole that is just going to dig it into a further hole.. it’s in its way as damaging as the USN obsession with HMS massive.
As you know for me min numbers are essentially close to what the 97 defence review suggested but with slightly changes.
AAW 6 high end.. I think we can get away with that because our GP ships now have good AAW.
ASW 9 because we also need ASW escorts for the deterrent so more than the exquisite AAW
GP frigate 12 of these because you can now make a modest but good sized GP frigate very good .. CAMM, NSM and a light thin line towed array with a couple of medium sized rotor drones.
15+ light optionally crewed warships that can have a small crew to be the RB3 role or be unmanned and act as a drone companion ship.
We’re getting 5 GP frigates with no ASW
At present yes… now is not the future Hugo.. you do not run a marathon in 1 step.. and just because you have only taken one step does not mean you will not run the whole marathon.
I think your outlined force is a well balanced option. I can’t see the MOD funding that though. We’ll be fortunate to get back to 24 surface warships (pre the Cameroin 2010 cuts).
They really need to crack on with the Type 32 frigates – just build the things!
There is no T32 frigate to build
I think it depends how things go.. if we do end up up in a 3 pole world ( US,China and EU) with the UK as an independent power having Russia eying us up and great powers eying our south Atlantic territories I can see is significant expansion continuing……. If it settles down and NATO rebuilds..Russia is put in its place and the U.S. and china find some accord then I think the present 19 will be it and quite frankly if that did happen I would be happy as a pig in shit.. but I think it’s going the way of option one and we will be heading for a 30 escort navy into the 2040s.
I’m not sure how effective the current form of the Type 31 will be. No sonar and poor armament. The Red Sea crisis has shown just how many missiles can be fired at ships by even a non state actor and 12 CAMM very simply put is suicidal in any combat. 32 Mk41 is a minimum for a ship to survive if solo deployed these days, CAMM-ER and CAMM-MR would make them very capable, and if possible a integration of Aster 30 to carry a few just to give some BMD capability, though the majority of cells to be filled with CAMM variants.
Once the Type 31 is given a sonar and 32 Mk.41 however it will be a brilliant low cost ship. and hull sonar isn’t that expensive, and neither is Mk.41. Type 2150 from what I can find is only £6m to integrate, and an 8 cell Mk.41 module will fall somewhere between £4.4m and £10.275m including spare parts and support, prices coming from DDG 121, 123, 125 deal and Danish purchase respectively. Under a worst case scenario £40m per ship £360 if purchasing a new ship to this spec) is still a great deal to allow them to survive anything short of a full on fleet battle. A different option for sonar would be containerised towed sonars, that would allow fewer to be purchased as not all ships will be in the water at once and fitting a TEU would take only a couple hours. Containerised solutions already exist with multiple price and ability options.
I just can’t see how the old concept of a lightly armed patrol frigate can work anymore when terrorist groups are capable of exhausting ships magazines within a few days. It falls in-between OPV and proper frigates, being too expensive if you only need to show a flag, patrol fisheries and drug bust, yet too under equipped to survive any combat.
Moving on to the other points however, I like the sound of most of it, Just wonder what these minimally crewed ships would look like in your vision
Hi the reality is those low end drones that can be fired at mass have profound limitations.. which means you don’t engage them with high end low numbers capabilities.. because 12 or 99 CAMMs become a bit irrelevant if your being swamped by 200 one way attack drones.. but one way attack drones are shite really, they are very slow and very low g manovering… which mean you need a low end high output weapon system to destroy them.. essentially missiles are not the weapons to counter drones..guns are… specifically rapid fire medium cal guns with good proximity fused blast fragmentation and air bust rounds.. so the best anti drone platform will have a lot of guns in the 40 to 76 mm range.. and the T31 has in spades..also we have to remember 12 CAMM is what they have now.. it’s not going to be a big job to put in 36… but the key to the T31 is actually the fact it has 3 medium cal guns that can all fire proximity fuse air bust.. what we forget is that the RN gave industry a target set of performance and parameters and the 40/40/57mm gave them the best results for the target set given.
It’s true that the new Istanbul class frigates are small by modern standards at a little over 3000 tons, but they are more than a corvette and more than a patrol frigate too. Perhaps closer to something like the Mogamis than a cut-down T31. With a hull-mounted sonar and an ASW helicopter, they aren’t without ASW capability. With 16 VLS and a choice of SAMs they aren’t without AAW. It’s just that they are kind of second tier. All for a second tier price. That’s a choice and with a build of 8 planned plus exports (2 sold already), perhaps that’s a pretty sensible one for a fleet which wants to be regional rather than global. They have also started construction of 8 planned destroyers, similar size to a T45 with 96 VLS. And an aircraft carrier of similar size to the QE class.
Their best SAM isn’t an SM1. Turkey is building its own, with the Siper blk 2 being not as good as the SM2. But there’s a Siper blk 3 under development which very well might be. It’s not about where they are, it’s about where they are going.
Turkey is expanding its ambitions. If we were too, I’d say you were right. Are we?
Well we will have 6 modern 7000 ton AWW destroyers 8 modern 6500 ton ASW frigates and 5 7000 ton GP frigates
Turkey started with zero blue water capacity so yes they will expand.. the UK just needs to settle on what is appropriate for the UK… and pretending the Turkish navy is nothing close to the RN as a blue water navy is just silly… in 20 years maybe it will be a closer peer as a blue water navy, but turkey is a large nation so why would it not have blue water ambitions… but presently it’s a green water navy with one modern small escort and a lot of very old small escorts.. to compare it to the RN or say the RN had less capabilities ( as the poster did) is just silly.
That is true Daniele. I wish the MOD would just crack on with the Type 32 Frigase – just order them ( 5 ish). Plan for the lead in time on construction; its cheaper to do this today then it will be tomorrow.
On a side note (but relevant)- I’ve been pondering the retirement of the Type 23 frigates. Why is the Chilean Navy still managing to operate their 3 when the RN is retiring theirs? Seems odd – I might ask “Gunbuster” the question when I see his next post.
Hi Chris.
I’ve always had the impression other navies operate ships at far lower safety standards to the RN, and don’t use them in the rough seas of the Oceans.
Forts Austin and Rosalie, slow, dated, but now with Egypt.
T23s as you say with Chile.
Ocean was falling to bits but now with Brazil.
And our dear LPDs, in such a state that, according to our PATHETIC government, she’d never put to sea again. Now sold to Brazil.
Have you seen the great big RN carrier battlegroups that deploy globally.. I just knew someone was going to have to say it. The ability of the British people to constantly put Britain down is unbelievable sometimes.
Yes we can debate about what is not optimal and what is a risk .. but to state that the UK could not put together a group far powerful than this is just refusing to acknowledge reality in the search of the profound negative..
How many of the 19 frigates and destroyers do we have working and crewed?
In return for now 12 biggest defence budget in NATO?
The UK isn’t rubbish but to say we used to be the 2 or 3 largest spender in NATO what capabilities we have are a joke.
No they are not a joke.. the are reduced they are not a joke.. no navy on the planet would consider a full push RN carrier battle group as pathetic.. an Elizabeth, 2 squadrons of f35, 2 type 45s 2 type 23s and an astute is more than almost any other navy on the planet could manage.
well said Sir!
It does need to be mentioned the F-35 are currently extremely handicapped in the strike role with only freefall bombs.
That’s not completely accurate.. laser guided glide bombs are pretty effective and the RN could order AGM-154 JSOW with a range of about 130km, terminal guidance and the same warhead as storm shadow or small diameter bombs with a 100km range.. these would be cheap immediate orders…
We do not yet possess the glide bombs so currently the F-35’s only have free fall bombs
Now is only one Jacob.. tomorrow is a different day.
Ive been saying this for a while but MRSS needs to be through deck
Hardly gonna make it more affordable.
Depends really a full length deck on its own would neither increase or Decrease costs.
Ok sure putting a flat plate on top of a ship wouldnt, what about the hangars, and facilities and additional storage and extra personnel.
Just look at existing designs and you will see that you are wrong
Like what exactly. Plus you have to factor in the cost of building it in the UK.
Juan Carlos, Mistral.
The French Mistral is more expensive than the Juan Carlos despite being slightly inferior in most ways, but did have a slightly botched development involving things like relocating lifts which is a very costly endeavor and still gives far more capability per pound than the Albions.
UKDJ did an article a few years ago comparing them all
You’re acting like they were alternative options at the time, when both were built years after the Albions
Not that long afterwards really. We could have made our own versions.
Most importantly however if we can compare prices. That article lists all prices in 2018 USD to allow for fair comparison.
That helps for us when looking at options going forward.
Why would we have done that when we still had ocean and the invincibles supporting amphibious operations
Well if you are running the same aviation there is no increase in crew, you just get better utility, space is cheap and in reality there would not be any extra space as you are not talking a larger ship.. just look at the Italians they produce a very modest costed full deck 8,0000 ton amphibious transport dock..just gives it a 3 spot deck and the main deck can either be aviation or vehicle lane sea lift depending on your needs..
We want a hangar for the next amphibs as thats what the albions are missing. But not an LHD because thats beyond our budget.
To be honest Hugo I’m not sure they know what they want for MRSS.. it could be anything from a large frigate with a stern ramp and expanded rear flight deck, to a small LHD ( 8-15 tons ) to a full fat 20,000 ton LHD… we will have to wait and see.
The San Georgio’s are great little ships. I believe most of them have now had a modification to give a fourth landing spot.
They have built another one last year for another navy.. this one was even turned into an air defence version.. with high end long range volume search radar.. Astar 30 missiles as well as being a helicopter carrier and assault ship..
That’s hardly a good thing, that’s a navy with too many roles to cover with too few ships
It’s the Qatar navy, they don’t have enough personnel to manage multiple different ship classes.
Plus, missiles defending carriers and assault ships is very common. Trieste, US carriers, Mistral, CDG, Chinese carriers, Japanese assault ships.
We are the odd ones out with only Phalanx.
Yes missiles are common, but not BMD setups
For Qatar right? Same model as the Algerian one.
A pretty popular ship.
I dont think the relative cost increase would be comparable to the dramatic increase in capabilities. Drones operating off them will actually increase survivability as will helos, should anything happen to one of the carriers the option of having a distributed platform for the f35 makes a massive difference as well
Juan Carlos is $500m 2018, and the Albions were $493m 2018.
Almost no difference in price, but the Juan Carlos can carry 25 fighters/Merlin equivalent compared to 2 Merlin (no hangar), fits 913 troops compared to 405 (710 overload), 88 vehicles or 46 tanks compared to 67 vehicles or 24 tanks. The only thing in the Albions favour is the well deck which can fit 6 LCM against 4 LCM of the Juan Carlos.
A single Juan Carlos is has 12.5 times the aircraft capacity, 1.4-2 times the troops capacity, and more vehicle capacity and only a little less landing craft. All for just 1.4% more of the price.
LPDs are completely outclassed by LHD.
Apart from missing key feature like the extensive command and control capabilities on the Albions or the larger LCU landing craft and additional LCVP, build a Juan carlos in the Uk and then look at the price.
LPDs are not completely outclassed by LHDs because the latter has to compromise all of its capabilities to fit them on one ship, small hangars for a flat top, smaller hospital facilities, smaller well docks and so on, very much eggs in one basket without the full benefits of any of those capabilities, why do you think the Americans still use LPDs.
No but an LPD is about putting a heavy reenforced battalion on the beach and that is it..an LPD can put a slightly lighter battalion on the beach.. but it’s got better airborne raiding or lift capability and you can also turn it into a sea control ship..
The one thing that may just allow the US to keep the edge a future pacific war ( if they get their escort and SSN building back in line ) is the fact they can turn 10 amphibious vessels into sea control ships..
The Juan Carlos has command and control facilities. It doesn’t have as good radar but carries aircraft so has a better early warning system anyway.
Smaller well deck no actual as the LCVP are lowered from the side of the Albion The LCM carrier more troops than the LCU, 170 against 120, both carry one tank, it’s also faster. It does have a disadvantage in that it is shorter range but how many people were actually spending 600 miles in LCU particularly as no landing craft have great sea keeping. All in all with 4 LCU and 4 LCVP the Albion can land 760 troops. The Juan Carlos can do 680 with landing craft, not as much of the difference as you are making me out to be. But it can land up to an additional 500 troops from helicopters bringing the total landing force to a 1180.
There are situations where helicopters will be better and there are situations where landing craft will be better. The LHD allows you the option of selecting the best for your situation whereas the LPD doesn’t.
The Juan Carlos has 26 beds against 20 of the Albions, both have 2 theatres and both have X-ray and CT, etc. The Mistral goes even further and has a 69 bed hospital.
Smaller well dock, no actually as the LCVP of the Albion do not go into the well dock, instead being lowered from the side of the ship. And as discussed an LHD even with a smaller well dock is still capable of landing more troops simultaneously but give options whereas an LPD forces a specific approach.
The US have LPD for the 2nd wave, their Wasp/America class will perform initial landings and then the LPD sticks a load of soldiers in the area after the initial bit has already been cleared. The UK and most other countries do not have the luxury of running a system like that which is why LHD are far more popular for any country that can afford the slight increase in price. France, Australia, Spain, Italy all use LHD over LPD even when 2 of them already operate carriers.
LHD that can carry fixed wing will also be a benefit to allow for some fighters to be on a carrier in the Norwegian Sea whenever the CCG is off on a deployment elsewhere. And can be used as a massive ASW asset if we stuck Merlin Mk.2 on it, filling in the role of the ASW carrier. With a ramp you also be able to launch MQ-9B Sea Guardian and make use of fixed wing ASW capability.
Ultimately as we would purchase multiple we don’t need a LHD quite the size of the Juan Carlos, we could drop some size by decreasing to 18/20 aircraft and 650-750 troops. Some of that decrease would also allow for more hospital facilities mostly in the form of more beds.
Plus the current LPD MRSS ideas require independent deployment capability which would require a minimum of frigate level radar and 32 MK.41 VLS which would end up making it cost more than a simple LHD anyway.
For 6 MRSS we could easily afford 3 LHD and have a couple billion spare for some more properly equipped Type 31. Maybe split leftover money between type 31 and some auxiliaries like another FSS instead of purely on frigates.
3 LHD will have superior amphibious capability than 6 MRSS, for the same price as 6 MRSS we could get 3-4 LHD and still have some spare for more frigates. But the LHD is a far more versatile platform than what the MRSS will be if made as an LPD.
3 LHD are not simultaneously deployable, 6 MRSS will get you 2 or more able to be deployed.
Also half your ideas about the use for LHDs such as using fixed wing aircraft would undermine the carriers besides the lack of jets for them in the first place.
So no I see zero chance of the UK going for an crew costly and expensive LHD design
Rule of 1 in 3. 3 LHD does allow for a constant presence.
There is currently a lack of jets but that will be rectified by the point that a LHD enters water. Besides, they will not be filled completely with fast jets. A typical deployment would see 6-12 jets, leaning towards the former. It seems quite likely we will end up with 72 F-35 and the QEC won’t be filled completely with jets either, AWACS, EW aircraft and heli all still needed. Combined with the aim of drone fighters wed probably see only 36-48 F-35 on a QEC when it’s at maximum capacity and 24 at lower capacity. That easily allows for a few to be on a LHD at the same time.
With only 2 QEC a constant presence can’t quite be managed so using an LHD as a carrier fills in that gap and for that duration would be able to fit all slots with fighters.
Besides the majority of aircraft on a LHD would be helicopters, be it transport, attack or ASW.
Crew of an LHD is no higher than a LPD, there will be more aircrew onboard but not that many are required for only 20 aircraft and it gives far more versatility.
For the last time, LHD hardly cost any more per ship than LPD and cost less per capacity than LPD. It’s not an expensive costly ship.
You can easily afford three LHD and some frigates or 4 LHD for the price of 6 MRSS, the LHD options providing more amphibious capability, more versatility, and better sea control.
We have more than 1 location that needs an amphib, in fact we need more than 1 amphib deployable in the same location.
We’re not getting 72 F35B, that’s been cut to 60. So no there won’t be any lying around for your precious LHD.
You realise 60 jets only gets us 3 squadrons of 12, and not all of those will be deployed at the same time.
The treasury will not buy LHDs that can sub as carriers as they will call them uneeded or they will say we have to get rid of QEC.
The overall crew is higher, Juan Carlos requires 170 aircrew, where the hell are we finding those.
Again, you are comparing France and Spains prices to ours. An LHD would absolutely cost more than theirs if made in the UK. It’s absolutely an expensive investment as it’s not only a higher value target but has more expensive kit stationed on it.
Easily you say? They may not even pay for 3 MRSS and you want to easily buy 3 LHD?
How many locations are you planning on conducting simultaneous landings? You rave about the 1 Ocean, 2 Albion combo yet that only had 1 location at anytime.
Even if we have no spare jets, which I highly doubt, you can still put helicopters on the deck and in the hangar allowing for assault and ASW, neither of which an LPD can do or just use a drone-heli combination.
If we present it as an amphibious assault ship that can help with ASW they will allow it, and once already given the go ahead just take the fast jet capability as a bonus.
The beauty about having space for 25 aircraft is that nobody forces you to fit all the spaces. The current state of the RN is poor and has few trained crews, but recruitment is increasing and once sailors actually get to sail again with enough ships and the barracks are fixed, both are being done, then retainment will increase. The Juan Carlos is crew intensive compared to the Mistral, a British LHD would be able to reduce crew. Versatility, something a LHD has far more of than an LPD.
France has got very similar build prices to us, and the Mistral still completely outclasses any similar tonnage LPD, even the San Antonio which is larger. For actual warships Spain isn’t that much cheaper, it’s certainly no South Korea.
MRSS won’t be a normal LPD, they want extra storage space, and VLS with a radar to go with it if its an LPD. and LHD has more storage than an LPD inherently and you can stick TEU on the deck if needed for no extra cost. VLS and fancy radar won’t be needed as aircraft can cover those roles. An MRSS LPD will be more expensive than an LPD while if we go with an LHD that will be the conventional price of an LHD.
And if you truly believe that a normal LHD is too expensive than a mini version similar to a San Giorgio is still better than LPD’s of vaguely similar price and tonnage.
I did not rave about Albions and Ocean but the fact is we had them so why would we have even considered LHDs.
You highly doubt well have spare jets? you mean like now where we have to steal from the training squadron just to get 24 to sea?
Why would they allow it, they wont expand our ASW Frigate fleet or let us buy more Merlins which would be required to make these LHDs into an ASW platform.
Versatility either requires more personnel to fulfill the different classes or to overwork a smaller crew, the latter is more likely and worse for retention.
The Mistral doesnt outclass the San Antonio, dont make me laugh.
Again. Were not putting any F35s on this mythical LHD because we wont have enough to do that, nor do they provide self defense for the ship.
And you realise the San gorgio is an LPD right…. just one with a full length flight deck.
I mean when we were deciding what to get. The Albion’s haven’t existed since the dawn of time.
We are still having F-35 delivered so numbers would increase even if no more orders are placed at all. Additionally the government says it expects to receive the 75th jet by 2033. 72 jets allows 36 to be on a QEC and another squadron on an LHD, though I’m not even saying a full squadron required. No LHD or LPD will be finished by then so the current number of jets doesn’t matter, we should look for the 2035 numbers. An F-35 does provide defence, even with the AMRAAM its still capable, with Meteor it will be highly capable for defence.
We don’t currently have enough ships to put any additional helicopters on so why would they allow a purchase that can’t actually be made useful. Having ship that can carry helicopters would make a purchase useful.
Versatility requires more crew per ship but less crew for an equal capability. 3-4 LHD is equal in capability to 6-7 LPD and is cheaper and less crew intensive.
Mistral carries 16 medium lift helicopters against 2, has larger hospital facilities, 2000nm more range. The San Antonio can deploy 654-694 troops from its well deck, the Mistral can deploy 800 from the well deck. San Antonio can deploy 80 troops by air for a total of 774 troops deployed simultaneously. The Mistral can deploy 320 troops buy air for a total of 1120. Mistral has a 28,500 sq ft vehicle hangar against 25,000 sq ft of the San Antonio allowing the Mistral to also carry more vehicles. The San Antonio hospital is bigger, 124 beds against 69 being its only real advantage along with slightly better defences though neither ship can survive solo. And to top it off the San Antonio costs a LOT more. As of 2018 the San Antonio costs $1.753b and the Mistral costs $582m allowing three Mistral to be purchased for just one San Antonio, and only 1.5 times the crew required for three mistral compared to 1 San Antonio.
So yes, the Mistral does outclass the San Antonio, providing more capability in most cases, indisputably more versatility, all for a third the price.
San Giorgio is officially an LPD but the new modified versions have a hangar making them an LHD in real terms and I proposed a new equivalent, not an old one.
How many times do i have to explain that we are no longer getting 72 F35Bs, we are getting 60 + a handful of F35A.
Air defense is different from ship defense, youre not intercepting an ashm with an F35.
Ah yes lets pay for a more expensive ship AND more helicopters, the treaury loves that.
3-4 LHD DOES NOT equal double the number of LPDs, those platforms can be distributed far wider and you are vastly overestimating carrying capacties.
The mistral cannot deploy 800 from its well deck now youre just lying out of your ass.
And you keep acting like helicopters are part of the first wave, clue, theyre not, they only assist in troop llanding after a beachhead has been secured.
Yeh, a SA costs more because its MADE IN AMERICA, just like how a mistral would cost more being made in the UK.
Oh goodie a single hangar makes the San gorgio into an LHD somehow…
I’d kill for 19 escorts at the moment. It’s more like 12 or 13 as the poor old T23s are literally dropping like flies way beyondservice extension hopes.We need new escorts asap, preferably 2-3 years ago, plus many more being ordered to push us back to c30. New LPDs & a LPH also needed.
Push us back? We’re miles off 30, I doubt we’ll ever have that many again
That’s where I think we need to be to begin to be the nation that is capable of all the basics in a cold/warm/near hot world war situation as a minimum. We had c60 during the Falklands in 1982 when proposed cuts directly triggered the invasion. It’s where we should be right now, preferably back in 2022(when Putin saw we weren’t serious about defence/detterent) to be playing our proper part as a significant NATO ally & permanent menber of the UN security council. Back in 1982 we were still paying off the USA for loans for WW2. But of course the billionaire offshoreing of wealth wasn’t so extreme back then & wealth inequality has supercharged since.
Plus today there’s a not insignificant possibility we could be fighting the USA if Trump invades Greenland or Canada. Elect a madman to lead the most powerful nation on Earth & perverse, awful things follow. Even more likely China could kick off if Trump causes civil war to tie up US forces.
No one is going to fight the USA over greenland, would be literal suicide.
Not suicide, insanity, betrayal by the USA of the NATO alliance, criminal annexation of an allies teritory. That would mark the USA out as another failing authoratarian state that could no longer be trusted. Every legitimate concern the USA has over Greeenland is already ompletely covered by existing NATO etc arrangements. If the USA wants to knife allies in the back then they will be leaving NATO as a rogue, criminally sick player. We’re not going to appease or submit to that. If Trump is that stupid he will not be humoured any further by colluding with madness.
You seriously think we have any chance of opposing the US, be realistic, we do not.
If we don’t we’ll be siding with evil & ripping up democracy, rule of law, every decent western value our forefathers fought to preserve in WW2 & since. We don’t believe MAGA lies, we see the rise of Facism under Trump & it is not welcome. If the USA can’t sort itself out it will be on her own. There’s no appetite here to either tolarate MAGA antics or cravenly be bullied into being accomplices, as any of our leaders doing so will soon find out.
There is a bit of unreality in some of the comments here.
It will take ten years minimum to grow the escort fleet back to 19 ships. There is not the budget to do more. We are optimistically trying to build 13 frigates in ten years, which will stretch the budget to breaking point. There is no chance at all of getting to 25 escorts for decades.
We are ordering 62 F-35bs. There will not be more, because thereafter the combat air budget will have to go to fund the F’35As, the 40 Typhoon upgrades and above all Tempest.
Having 62 F-35Bs means having 30 operational front line or 3 squadrons of 10. The naval-gazers here wilfully overlook that the F-35b has two roles, not one – they have to provide close air support for the land forces AS WELL AS adorn the carrier deck. I.e. they are not all being bought for the exclusive use of the RN. There will thus be none, not one, available for any future LPHD.
All that said, if the core defence budget edges up to 3.5% by 2035, and a lot of the Osbotne padding in it is taken out and put in this planned 1.5% supplementary security budget, there might be the cash for more escorts and, if the production.line is still open, a few more F-35bs. However , it is equally likely that any additional money will have to go to fund the big batch.of transformational goodies the RN now aspires to, for which there is currently no budget allocation at all as far as I can see.