RN CSG situation

[storittolack]

My query is threefold:

1. What constitutes to an effective CSG (American terminology - but we'll likely be joining one of theirs) for Britain against a peer nation i.e. number of destroyers, submarines, frigates, supply ships etc..?

2. Assuming that the British Royal Navy cannot cobble a CSG together then is it likely the QE or PoW would join an American CSG, which I understand can actually be protocol i.e. more than one aircraft carrier may be included in the CSG protection envelope, and is that just as safe ?

3. If this is the case, then could both the QE and PoW not be part of a single CSG (which I understand is not optimal) for the Royal Navy ?

[Colin Wood]

What is a CSG??

[john walker]

Carrier Strike Group

[Ivan Cloherty]

CSG's in a major conflict may be irrelevant, alright for local disturbances e.g. Iran, Iraq, but when up against the big boys, then your strike capability is probably going to governed by you submarine capacity in the area.

[john walker]

Ivan I am glad to see that somebody understands the post as most of what has been written is in a jargon that is beyond me.

[Lewis McColl]

When I first sailed with BP and was on the ships Health & Safety committee they used all these abbreviated terms for this and that. Have the time you could not understand what they were talking about. More often than not I would get up and say sorry when you decide to talk English I will be back. Never heard so much crap in all my life. A bit like #1, is Bengy back?

[storittolack]

When I first sailed with BP and was on the ships Health & Safety committee they used all these abbreviated terms for this and that. Have the time you could not understand what they were talking about. More often than not I would get up and say sorry when you decide to talk English I will be back. Never heard so much crap in all my life. A bit like #1, is Bengy back?

Apologies, I didn't meant to turn this into mumsnet, I just picked all this up from Navy Lookout. But I too cannot stand abbreviations, so I'll keep it in mind.

H&S has its place more than I would expect, particularly with manually operated guns on deck (not that they're manual any longer) as folk would be blast in the face with gasses, and left deafened on home leave.

[storittolack]

CSG's in a major conflict may be irrelevant, alright for local disturbances e.g. Iran, Iraq, but when up against the big boys, then your strike capability is probably going to governed by you submarine capacity in the area.

Interesting that you mention that as the water's quite shallow in the Gulf, so not much scope for submarine activity there. However, during some naval wargames an American carrier was torpedoed by a Swedish submarine (and they got away). There was something mentioned in the Integrated Review that there should be at least one submarine shadowing a carrier (the Americans decree a minimum of two), so you could be right, especially as the newer Russian submarines are very quiet, and the Chinese will soon adapt.

That could also encompass the Type 26 as it is designed as a submarine hunter (although the best way to hunt a submarine is with another submarine), but what of a carrier strike group encompassing more than one carrier?

[j.sabourn]

#8 Remember a friend telling me he buried someone in the Gulf and the water not being deep the body kept coming back to the surface, was very embarrassing in the finish had. To put a boat hook through the canvas to let in water to get the extra weight required . JS
PS Maybe the engineers had sold too much of the scrap and wasn’t enough to weigh it down properly. As to fleets of ships or armadas , although Britain couldn’t muster the ships ,no doubt she could contribute the Admirals , of Old a fleet of warships had 3 admirals the admiral of the fleet lead the procession. The vice admiral stayed on the flank ready to take over as admiral if he cupped his lot, if the same happened to him then the rear admiral came up from the rear where he was being kept in reserve and took over , if he failed then was time to pack your ditty box and go home . No shortage of admirals in those days, often wonder if the navy dispensed with a lot of them when reduced manning became fashionable in the MN. Cheers JS

[cappy]

My query is threefold:

1. What constitutes to an effective CSG (American terminology - but we'll likely be joining one of theirs) for Britain against a peer nation i.e. number of destroyers, submarines, frigates, supply ships etc..?

2. Assuming that the British Royal Navy cannot cobble a CSG together then is it likely the QE or PoW would join an American CSG, which I understand can actually be protocol i.e. more than one aircraft carrier may be included in the CSG protection envelope, and is that just as safe ?

3. If this is the case, then could both the QE and PoW not be part of a single CSG (which I understand is not optimal) for the Royal Navy ?

suppose we should all FO THEN