UK defence issues and the odd container or two

Defence for 2015 and Beyond – Part 6 An Eastern and Northern Threat

A series of guest posts from AndyC

A far more potentially challenging threat could come from a resurgent Russia.

How prepared and effective are British and European NATO forces to counter such a possibility?

In the north, Norway shares a land border with Russia and this area is the main home of the Russian Navy.

The UK could initially deploy the Royal Marines Commandos with the support of a naval amphibious group made up of two amphibious transport docks, three landing ships and three destroyers/frigates together with one Wildcat attack helicopter Squadron and three Merlin transport helicopter Squadrons to support Norwegian ground forces.

This could be further backed up with one Armoured Infantry Brigade from the Reaction Force including 56 Challenger 2 main battle tanks.  Finally, if the situation should deteriorate further additional forces consisting of two Light Cavalry Regiments and ten Light Infantry Battalions from the Adaptable Force could be deployed to form 2nd (UK) Division.  Air support would come from at least one and preferably two Typhoon swing-role fighter Squadrons and the equivalent of two ISTAR Squadrons.

UK Naval Defence 640x489 Defence for 2015 and Beyond   Part 6 An Eastern and Northern Threat
UK Naval Defence – the white area can be covered by Maritime Patrol Aircraft operating from RAF Aldergrove, the yellow area is covered by anti-shipping Typhoons also based at RAF Aldergrove, the blue is covered by two RN carrier groups, the green by a French naval carrier group and the orange by anti-submarine patrols made up of destroyers, frigates and patrol ships with helicopters

At sea the Royal Navy would send a carrier group to the Norwegian Sea consisting of three F-35B Squadrons (one Naval Air Squadron in the fleet air defence/anti-shipping role and two RAF Squadrons primarily supporting land forces), maritime/AEW helicopters and three destroyers/frigates.  This group would work with the Royal Marines amphibious group and be joined by a French carrier group and amphibious group.  Patrolling between Norway and Greenland this NATO naval task force would provide air support to ground forces in Norway, plus surface vessels from other NATO countries.

In the Western Approaches the RN would deploy a second carrier group supported by maritime/AEW helicopters and three destroyers/frigates.  If this was led by a QE class aircraft carrier it would operate one F-35B Naval Air Squadron for fleet air defence/anti-shipping together with maritime/AEW helicopters.  If this group was led by HMS Ocean instead it would just operate the helicopters and so would need nearby air support.

All remaining destroyers, frigates and patrol ships, their helicopters and attack submarines would patrol the areas not covered by the carrier groups with the highest priority going to the approaches to Faslane.

Air defence of the UK would be provided by two Typhoon Squadrons based at RAF Lossiemouth to defend the north and two Squadrons (including the majority of the OCU) based at RAF Coningsby to defend the east.  These would be backed up by Hawk T2 aircraft and CAMM-L SAMs.

Even with the full deployment of NATO naval forces there would still be plenty of areas of the Atlantic not covered by maritime defences.  If the second carrier group was led by HMS Ocean the RAF would deploy an anti-shipping/air defence Flight from the Typhoon OCU and Maritime Patrol Squadron to provide close support from RNAS Culdrose.  If the second carrier group were led by a QE class carrier then the RAF could locate this maritime group to RAF Aldergrove.

To provide a minimum effective defence of the area around Norway and the UK would require:

  • 1 Commando Brigade
  • the formation of 2nd (UK) Division made up of 1 Armoured Infantry Brigade including 56 Challenger 2 main battle tanks plus 2 Light Cavalry Regiments and 10 Infantry Battalions
  • 1 Wildcat Marines AH Squadron
  • 3 Merlin HC Squadrons
  • 6 or 7 Typhoon units – 4 air defence Squadrons, 1 or 2 swing-role Squadrons plus 1 anti-shipping Flight
  • 1 E-3 Sentry AWACS Squadron
  • 2 ISTAR Squadrons
  • 1 A330 Voyager aerial tanker Squadron
  • remaining Hawk T1s to be replaced by Meteor capable Hawk T2s
  • Rapier surface-to-air missiles to be replaced by CAMM-L
  • 1 Maritime Patrol Squadron
  • 2 aircraft carriers – either two QE aircraft carriers or one QE and one helicopter carrier
  • 4 F-35B Squadrons – 2 fleet air defence/anti-shipping and 2 CAS/SEAD/land strike
  • up to 19 destroyers/frigates and 4 patrol ships
  • 3 Merlin HM/AEW Squadrons and
  • 2 Wildcat HMA Squadrons.

Regular training with Norwegian forces and French aircraft carrier and amphibious groups to aid effectiveness, co-operation and inter-operability should be a high priority.

The main battlefield would, however, be in Eastern Europe.  In a period of heightened tension NATO would particularly want to be able to move forces quickly to Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic.  It is vital that all of these countries maintain enough surplus air bases in good quality condition where air and ground forces could be deployed.

For the UK, initial deployment would come from Special Forces and the Air Assault Brigade including two Apache and one Wildcat attack helicopter Regiments.  These would be backed up by two Armoured Infantry Brigades from the Reaction Force.  Together with a reserve tank Regiment this would form 3rd (UK) Division including 168 Challenger 2 main battle tanks.

Further support would come from the deployment of the majority of the Adaptable Force consisting of four Light Cavalry Regiments and twenty Light Infantry Battalions.  These would form 1st (UK) Division.

Additional combat capability for 1st (UK) Division could be found by assigning 144 Challenger 2 tanks, held in storage, to the Light Cavalry Regiments in periods of heightened tension.  Eight Sabre Squadrons would receive basic tank training during peacetime with additional training being supplied by armoured units of the Reaction Force should the international situation deteriorate.

The Challengers would be held in storage at Monchengladbach in Germany with crews being flown there for deployment only when the need arose.  This would convert them to Heavy Cavalry Regiments.

challenger 2 640x426 Defence for 2015 and Beyond   Part 6 An Eastern and Northern Threat
Challenger 2

Air support would be provided by at least three and preferably four swing-role fighter Squadrons, the equivalent of three ISTAR Squadrons and five helicopter transport Squadrons.

To provide a minimum effective defence in Eastern Europe would require:

  • Special Forces plus 1st and 3rd (UK) Divisions consisting of 1 Air Assault Brigade and 2 Armoured Infantry Brigades plus 4 Heavy Cavalry Regiments and 20 Infantry Battalions respectively with a total of 312 Challenger 2 main battle tanks
  • 2 Apache AH and 1 Wildcat AH Regiments
  • 3 Chinook HC Squadrons
  • 2 Puma HC Squadrons
  • 3 or 4 swing-role fighter Squadrons and
  • 3 ISTAR Squadrons.

Regular training with local ground and air forces is absolutely essential to aid effectiveness, co-operation and inter-operability especially with newer NATO members.

As Poland still operates 30 older Su-22 fighters we should work with the German government to provide them with a financing deal that would enable the Polish Air Force to replace these aircraft with Eurofighter Typhoons.

However, the major question is: are these forces really strong and capable enough to provide an adequate defence?

This can best be assessed by comparing the current armed balance between Russia and the European NATO members to see if there are any particular deficiencies which need to be addressed.

Similarly to the Cold War, Russia has a marked advantage in the number of main battle tanks.  At present they have 2,500 in active service, but over 12,500 in reserve!  This compares to only about 6,000 between the European NATO members even including reserves.  That gives Russia a 2.5:1 advantage.  However, most of their tanks are older and less effective.  This is why we need to retain all of our formidable and still serviceable Challenger 2 tanks.

RAF Regiment Soldiers Firing Javelin Anti Tank Guided Missile 640x427 Defence for 2015 and Beyond   Part 6 An Eastern and Northern Threat
RAF Regiment Soldiers Firing Javelin Anti Tank Guided Missile

Russia also has an advantage in the number of infantry fighting vehicles and armoured personnel carriers.  They have 6,000 in active service and 21,500 in reserve.  European NATO has a total of about 22,000 so the advantage is only 1.25:1.  Altogether Russia can field 45,000 armoured vehicles (including 2,500 units of self-propelled artillery).

The number of attack helicopters is very similar with both Russia and European NATO operating about 500.  However, Russia relies very heavily on the older Mi-25 whereas NATO has the more capable Apache and Eurocopter Tiger.

European NATO air forces are numerically superior to Russia’s with around 2,200 combat aircraft compared to about 1,700 Russian aircraft.  NATO also has an advantage with over 320 stealth fighters currently on order compared to Russia’s 60 and 650 advanced Typhoons and Rafales largely in service compared to just 370 of the latest Su-30/33/34/35s and MiG-35s mostly on order.  40% of Russia’s air force relies on 1970’s technology whereas except for Greece, Poland, Bulgaria and Romania there is very little that old in NATO.

apache helicopter Defence for 2015 and Beyond   Part 6 An Eastern and Northern Threat
An Apache helicopter from 4 Regiment, 656 Squadron Army Air Corps, during live firing training at Otterburn Ranges in Northumberland.

European NATO naval power is numerically superior to Russia’s.  NATO has five aircraft carriers either currently in service or on order compared to Russia’s one.  Russia is also outnumbered in the rest of its surface fleet.  While it has five cruisers and NATO has none, it has only 17 destroyers/frigates and even if you add in the 74 smaller corvettes that only makes 96 surface warships.  In contrast European NATO countries have 121 destroyers and frigates.  Under the water Russia has six cruise missile and 33 attack submarines compared to NATO’s 58 attack submarines.

type 45 destroyer royal navy 640x334 Defence for 2015 and Beyond   Part 6 An Eastern and Northern Threat
Type 45 Destroyer Royal Navy – European NATO forces have a clear numerical advantage at sea.

In conclusion, European NATO members have a clear numerical advantage over Russia both at sea and in the air but Russia has the advantage on the ground.

What messages does this analysis have for our armed forces in the new SDSR:

  1. we should retain an option to reactivate currently surplus Challenger 2 main battle tanks by maintaining a store of at least 144 of them in good condition in Germany
  2. even with numerical superiority at sea there aren’t enough ships to cover our side of the Atlantic so the RAF should set up 1 Maritime Patrol Squadron and 1 anti-shipping Flight
  3. there is at most only a questionable case for operating a second QE class aircraft carrier in any of these scenarios.  HMS Ocean would be adequate to cover the Western Approaches with support from land based maritime aircraft.

 

 

 

The rest of the series

Part 1 – Introduction

Part 2 – Defence of the United Kingdom

Part 3 – Other Sovereign Territories

Part 4 – NATO

Part 5 – A Southern or Middle Eastern Threat

Part 6 – An Eastern and Northern Threat

Part 7 – Global Intervention

Part 8 – British Army 2025

Part 9 – Royal Navy 2025

Part 10 – Royal Air Force 2025

Part 11 – Conclusion

 

 

 

About The Author

Think Defence hopes to start sensible conversations about UK defence issues, no agenda or no campaign but there might be one or two posts on containers, bridges and mexeflotes!

9 Comments

  1. Tenor

    I do have to ask, why does the French Carrier Group have such a massive coverage bubble compared to the QE using F-35B’s which have a longer range than a Rafale? (All estimates are its internal fuel only and it’s already comparable, with the drop tanks added it will exceed the drop tank values we have for Rafale quite noticably)

  2. Martin

    I have to ask why do all your comparisons only include European NATO. Will the USA not be coming to our aid or Canada. By removing North American NATO you remove nearly 2/3rds of the force. Factoring in the all of NATO we have an embarrassment of riches compared to Russia.

    If any part of NATO would not be fighting a European invasion its likely to be the European elements of NATO.

    Russia may have 12000 tanks but a single Tornado or Typhoon armed with Brimstone can take out 16 in one pass, not to mention the likes of F15E and F16 armed with sensor fused bombs.

    Without air superiority the Russian ‘s would get their arses handed to them by NATO airforces even if they could muster 12,000 tanks which they can’t.

    about the only think I agree with is providing financing for Poland to buy Typhoon.

  3. AndyC

    The MoD has said that the F-35Bs would operate in ‘stealth mode’ in a conflict situation so no external tanks. Also their longest range internal weapon is the Joint Strike Missile with a modest range. The French Rafales would not have these restraints and would have both under wing fuel tanks and longer range Storm Shadow cruise missiles.

    As I’ve said in my Introduction I have deliberately not included US (or Canadian) forces on two grounds. 1. We don’t know what their forces will look like after sequestration and the switch to the Pacific. 2. If we look solely at the NATO European members it gives a better idea of our local strengths and weaknesses compared to Russia. Otherwise you could just conclude that with the US fully committed NATO has a major superiority in everything and therefore we might as well have a further savage cut in the defence budget and just rely on our partners! I suppose that is a legitimate view but it’s not one I share.

  4. The Other Chris

    “We’ll of course operate in ‘Stealth Mode’ when in a conflict situation” (stated with proper media-trained elocution) has always smacked of a political counter to the “Yeah mate, but the F-35′s can’t do stealth with external stores!” belief. Quoted (of course) in a Black Cabbie vernacular as part of an imagined critical military capability debate occurring somewhere on the M25 between Domestic Arrivals at Gatwick and Terminal 5 at Heathrow in an exchange between said Cabbie and his middle-manager passenger.

    I can imagine in this tabloid tableau that we’re creating in our minds eye that there’s a “Stealth Mode” button located alongside the EU mandated “Eco Mode” button, and Jeremy Clarkson inspired “Silly Mode” button in the vicinity of the handbrake in the cockpit!

    Putting my glass of pre-Final Glenmorangie to one side for a moment (single malt fuelled ramblings contain no ill feeling intended, apologies if that’s how this comes across), mission planning would take a gradiated approach to using the F-35′s capabilities.

    “Stealth Mode” is always given in all situations, the question is how extreme you take it and this would depend on each mission. Even a fully loaded F-35 is reputedly harder to spot than a fully loaded Super Hornet.

    If they’re ever completed, the external tanks for the F-35 are designed to be LO in themselves (the LO qualities of the pylons for all external stores on the F-35 have been discussed on the site previously). Separation as well as AAR can be planned for in appropriate locations.

    It’s probably safe to use the smaller ranges for the initial capability when we reach the UK in-service date, with the knowledge that these are the minimums and can be extended through planning, design (equipment purchase) and that oft-used trait: Sheer British Lunacy.

  5. All Politicians are the Same

    @TOC

    Did they not say that it would typically carry a load out that allowed LO ops during the first 48 hours of ops vs an IADS? personally I think you have to mix it up and use the capabilities you have. So my CAP may mix a couple of f35 carrying a max AA load out including external pylons and also an active EMCON policy but have a couple of F35 airborne with a full intern AA load and sucking in the data from the AEW and active CAP. The inbound raid or MPA is never 100% certain the “ambush” is not out there.

    Likewise offensively let the IADS see the storm shadow carrying force and then time the arrival of the storm shadow to keep them busy whilst your internal carriage only flight launches a precision attack.

    Show the enemy one thing whilst doing another has been basic doctrine since some Greek dude built a big wooden horse :)

  6. The Other Chris

    @APATS

    Absolutely! Mix it all up! Unless the first 48 hours takes place in such an extreme environment that all aircraft have to be clean and under tight EMCON it’ll never be as straight forward as a “clean vs external stores” choice.

    So many options available in a single fleet. Personally looking forward to Blocks 3c and 5. Those are the multi-ship interaction (sensor fusion between aircraft) and the maritime capabilities (Inverse SAR, JSM) respectively.

  7. Kent

    Again, a remanufactured LM S-3″C” Viking could prove invaluable, even land-based. Since new “innards” will be required, no sense in not giving them the most effective anti-ship/anti-submarine capabilities available.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


7 − seven =

↓