Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5554
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

shark bait wrote:This is fixing the problem that doesn't exist. The Royal Navy is in the midst of an escort availability crisis, and at the same time it has more aviation capacity than it has had in decades.
I do agree however as I said I would still like to see a LHA / LPH allowing 2 flattops at all times 1 Strike and 1 LPH

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

Yeah a HMS Ocean 2 would be brilliant, but that's lala land for at lest the next decade.

If the Navy is lucky, they may get some form of LSS, but a proper helicopter assault platform is off the cards. There is a little bit of a budget for auxiliaries to play with, everything else is committed for the decade.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5554
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

shark bait wrote:Yeah a HMS Ocean 2 would be brilliant, but that's lala land for at lest the next decade.

If the Navy is lucky, they may get some form of LSS, but a proper helicopter assault platform is off the cards.
Again I agree we would not see a LPH until 2035 and for me right now getting both LPD's going along with the Bays would be a good start add to these 10 Caimen 90's in place of the current LCU's and few CB-90 and we would be in a good place

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

Even that's lala land. It'll be a huge effort getting two carriers operational, with little left over for the LPD's. May as well write them off now.
@LandSharkUK

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

It wouldn't save a lot of money but I would try to sell one of the Albions now, maybe a T23, "look penny pinching bean counters, we are trying to get our budget together" sooner or later something else is going, or delayed again, perhaps they will try to sell the T31 well cheap after a couple of yrs

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4584
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote:
shark bait wrote:This is fixing the problem that doesn't exist. The Royal Navy is in the midst of an escort availability crisis, and at the same time it has more aviation capacity than it has had in decades.
I do agree however as I said I would still like to see a LHA / LPH allowing 2 flattops at all times 1 Strike and 1 LPH
The Escort problem is a different one now that we are CEPP focused and with the exception of the Gulf will not be focusing on solo Frigate deployments. Forward presence will be the B2 Rivers, RFAs, MCMs and Survey ships, until the T31s arrive.

The two CVFs in rotation on CEPP will be kept busy - having an additional Aviation Support Ship (or two) is purely to ensure the best use of other platforms and will support forward deployments such as the current operation in the Caribbean.

Lastly for me, for CEPP, having the two LPDs operational are more critical than GP escorts.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5554
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

shark bait wrote:Even that's lala land. It'll be a huge effort getting two carriers operational, with little left over for the LPD's. May as well write them off now.
I don't think so yes it will be a push to get the second LPD going but the Caimen-90 and CB-90 should pushed ahead to make the LPD /LSD's more effective. I still like the idea of Commonwealth task groups in the Pacific i.e a British lead carrier group or a Australian lead Amphib group and a Canberra class together with a Albion and Bay would make a good force along with other Commonwealth escorts.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

We have to reign in our aspirations for the time being until we get the Carriers and the rest of the components for CEPP up and running. Even our deployment in the Gulf needs to be carefully examined. Pressure needs to be put on other nations such as France and Italy to contribute ships to protect international shipping. Our Mine Clearance force should also have its workload reduced by the contribution of assets from other European nations.

We do not have a large enough navy to meet our Governments global aspirations with anything but token forces. WE need to get our core commitments covered with the correct level of assets before looking further afield.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

So that Government MUST provide the funds that are needed! We are at the point now where We cannot reduce our aspirations !!! any further, without very causing very serious damage to our “defence“ capability. By the way does not that age old truism “The best means of Defence is Offence” ring any bells? A cut in offensive capability, however small brings a potential connflict closer to the “Home Base”. Let us not kid ourselves, the “Home Base” here means the UK! :mrgreen:

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/0 ... t-threats/

UK's Future Commando Force: a radical and 'lethal' new unit to fight threats across the globe
Two new Littoral Response Groups - one east of Suez, one in the High North - will hold hundreds of Commandos at immediate notice to move

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Not good news if true.

If the LCU's go surely the LPD's are next.....

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... ar-leaked/

Text:

Royal Marines and 20,000 troops cut to make way for space and cyber war in leaked spending review plans
Lord West, former First Sea Lord, warned cyber war is not 'a cheap way of doing things'


The Royal Marines, which have just been given a new uniform, face cuts to their artillery capability
Defence chiefs have drawn up plans to cut 20,000 troops from the military and reduce the size of the Royal Marines, replacing the MoD’s firepower with cyber warfare and space technology.

Mandarins have suggested the scrapping of RAF air bases and a fleet of Hercules planes and Puma helicopters in a bid to save money, The Sunday Times reported.

The Treasury has asked departments to make savings of 5 per cent or more as part of a wider review of Government spending, while Boris Johnson has appointed a history professor to personally oversee any cuts to UK defence capability.

Draft plans suggest a significant chunk of the Royal Marines’ capability could be axed, including its artillery, engineers and landing craft.

Money would instead be invested in new cyber and space warfare technology.

Downing Street said it did not recognise the plans when they emerged on Sunday and the Ministry of Defence said it would not comment on the detail of the leak, but pointed to a Government commitment to increase defence spending each year above the rate of inflation.


“The MoD is progressing its contribution to the Integrated Review by planning how best to meet tomorrow’s threats within that increasing budget,” a spokeswoman said.

The Government has also promised NATO that it will continue to spend more than 2 per cent of GDP on defence.

But both spending pledges are pegged to national economic output, which has fallen dramatically during the coronavirus crisis.

Defence bosses will therefore be able to shrink the budget in real terms without breaking a manifesto pledge.

The leaked plans are understood to be a draft, and no final decisions have yet been taken.

Lord West of Spithead, a former First Sea Lord and security advisor to Downing Street, suggested that the plans could have been drawn up to gauge Westminster’s reaction to dramatic changes to the UK’s armed forces.

“I imagine that all sorts of things are being talked about,” he said.

“They’ll be floating them, and quite often, let’s face it, people have floated ideas to see what the reaction is from members of parliament, peers, the media and everything.

“That could be what is going on.”


Lord West also suggested replacing hard defence capability with space, cyber and robotic technology could only go so far to aid the UK in fighting conventional wars.

“The Treasury always think of cyber and AI and space as a nice cheap way of doing things,” he said.

“I don’t think this is necessarily the way to win a war. In the final analysis, wars end up killing people and you need kinetic killing capability.

“I’m quite happy to face someone down in a field if I’ve got a machine gun and he’s got a laptop.

“It all sounds wonderful but you still need that kinetic capability.”

The review of the armed forces will assess “Britain’s place in the world”, including its role in aid, development and counter-terrorism, in the biggest shake-up of its kind since the Cold War.

It will also look at how the UK can "better use technology and data to adjust to the changing nature of threats we face, from countering hostile state activity to strengthening our Armed Forces".

Mr Johnson has hired a King’s College London historian, John Bew, to conduct the review from Downing Street.

Dominic Cummings, the Prime Minister’s chief advisor, is said to have taken a personal interest in restructuring defence capability.

In a blog post last March, Mr Cummings described the military procurement process as a "farce".


He accused the military of having "continued to squander billions of pounds, enriching some of the worst corporate looters and corrupting public life via the revolving door of officials/lobbyists"

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

What happened to Boris’ little speech last week if we are not going back to austerity, we’ve had 10 years of it a different approach is needed ?

Cuts of 5% plus across the board seem very much more of the same not a change of path.

User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jensy »

Jake1992 wrote:What happened to Boris’ little speech last week if we are not going back to austerity, we’ve had 10 years of it a different approach is needed ?

Cuts of 5% plus across the board seem very much more of the same not a change of path.
He's also going to have to face questions about spending all that (c.£1m) money painting his personal plane, whilst making thousands of servicemen redundant and scrapping national assets.

Of course the reality is more complex than that but the optics are still pretty awful for him. Either he simply doesn't care (which I find hard to believe for such a grandstanding peacock of a man) or else the cuts will be substantially less than expected.

Handing £1.5bn to the (subsidised, tax-exempt) performing arts yesterday suggests the piggy bank is not quite as sickly as some would suggest.

Unfortunately whatever cuts are to be made to the Royal Navy specifically, the amphibious capabilities are now the juiciest (most expensive) of the low hanging fruit.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Jensy wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:What happened to Boris’ little speech last week if we are not going back to austerity, we’ve had 10 years of it a different approach is needed ?

Cuts of 5% plus across the board seem very much more of the same not a change of path.
He's also going to have to face questions about spending all that (c.£1m) money painting his personal plane, whilst making thousands of servicemen redundant and scrapping national assets.

Of course the reality is more complex than that but the optics are still pretty awful for him. Either he simply doesn't care (which I find hard to believe for such a grandstanding peacock of a man) or else the cuts will be substantially less than expected.

Handing £1.5bn to the (subsidised, tax-exempt) performing arts yesterday suggests the piggy bank is not quite as sickly as some would suggest.

Unfortunately whatever cuts are to be made to the Royal Navy specifically, the amphibious capabilities are now the juiciest (most expensive) of the low hanging fruit.
Jensy wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:What happened to Boris’ little speech last week if we are not going back to austerity, we’ve had 10 years of it a different approach is needed ?

Cuts of 5% plus across the board seem very much more of the same not a change of path.
He's also going to have to face questions about spending all that (c.£1m) money painting his personal plane, whilst making thousands of servicemen redundant and scrapping national assets.

Of course the reality is more complex than that but the optics are still pretty awful for him. Either he simply doesn't care (which I find hard to believe for such a grandstanding peacock of a man) or else the cuts will be substantially less than expected.

Handing £1.5bn to the (subsidised, tax-exempt) performing arts yesterday suggests the piggy bank is not quite as sickly as some would suggest.

Unfortunately whatever cuts are to be made to the Royal Navy specifically, the amphibious capabilities are now the juiciest (most expensive) of the low hanging fruit.
The £1m wasn’t just for a paint job though was it, it was for a full service and electronics upgrade which was already planned for to keep it air worthy. The media do like to spin things to get the usual out range mob going.


As for cuts as Iv just mentioned on another thread if the talk of HMG wanting to spend their way out of this down turn is to be serious then cuts to defence flies in the face of this as increased spending on defence gives a boost to UK manufacturing while giving the added benefit of building a strong front in the worsening world.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by abc123 »

Come on, 1 million is peanuts for the state. Even the MoD spends so much in a few minutes...
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5554
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Jake1992 wrote:The £1m wasn’t just for a paint job though was it, it was for a full service and electronics upgrade which was already planned for to keep it air worthy. The media do like to spin things to get the usual out range mob going.
The Aircraft was in for a D check which is the Heavy Maintenance visit which takes part every 6 or so years and needs the paint to be removed as part of the check so it needed painting anyway no matter what

User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jensy »

Jake1992 wrote: The £1m wasn’t just for a paint job though was it, it was for a full service and electronics upgrade which was already planned for to keep it air worthy. The media do like to spin things to get the usual out range mob going.
abc123 wrote:Come on, 1 million is peanuts for the state. Even the MoD spends so much in a few minutes...
I know that, you guys know that but it doesn't really change how it has/will be reported.
Jake1992 wrote:As for cuts as Iv just mentioned on another thread if the talk of HMG wanting to spend their way out of this down turn is to be serious then cuts to defence flies in the face of this as increased spending on defence gives a boost to UK manufacturing while giving the added benefit of building a strong front in the worsening world.
It seems that as always 'we' (as a country) know better than everyone else. Looking back to 2010, the difference between how we addressed the economic downturn with massive defence cuts and France or Italy, who went on a spending spree for French or Italian-built gear, says a lot about how willing any British government is to support British industry compared to our European cousins.

Instead we seemed determined to only buy small quantities of foreign-made products, mainly from America, with little if any UK input.

Apologies for straying off topic.

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by jonas »

Parliamentary written answers 16th Jul :-

Asked by The Earl of Shrewsbury
Asked on: 07 July 2020
Ministry of Defence
Marines
HL6580
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have for the future of the 3 Commando Brigade of the Royal Marines.
A
Answered by: Baroness Goldie
Answered on: 15 July 2020

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made clear during Defence oral questions in the House of Commons on Monday 6 July 2020, the size and shape of our Armed Forces should be dictated by the threat we face as a nation and our global ambition. The Integrated Review is not about cutting defence and I can assure you that this country will continue to have the world class Armed Forces that it needs and deserves.

The Littoral Strike programme, announced by the Secretary of State for Defence in February 2019, is a complete transformation of the UK's amphibious force. The programme identifies 3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines as the central fighting formation used to deliver Littoral Strike and the Future Commando Force. It is driven by the requirement to counter the threats we will face in the future and forms a pillar to the Royal Navy's Integrated Review offer.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Yes he mentions 3 Commando Brigade but does not elaborate on how it will function. Given recent reports I doubt it will operate as a unified force in future but as a number of independent units with various roles including that of spearhead for follow on forces, naval force protection and so on. The Individual Commandoes with be specialised in different roles as we are already seeing.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

jonas wrote:As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made clear during Defence oral questions in the House of Commons on Monday 6 July 2020, the size and shape of our Armed Forces should be dictated by the threat we face as a nation and our global ambition. The Integrated Review is not about cutting defence and I can assure you that this country will continue to have the world class Armed Forces that it needs and deserves.
Read this 10 minutes ago and I'm still laughing my ass off. How TF do the UK executive get away with such brazen BS????

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

Ron5 wrote:
jonas wrote:As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made clear during Defence oral questions in the House of Commons on Monday 6 July 2020, the size and shape of our Armed Forces should be dictated by the threat we face as a nation and our global ambition. The Integrated Review is not about cutting defence and I can assure you that this country will continue to have the world class Armed Forces that it needs and deserves.
Read this 10 minutes ago and I'm still laughing my ass off. How TF do the UK executive get away with such brazen BS????
Years of practice.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5554
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

jonas wrote:the size and shape of our Armed Forces should be dictated by the threat we face as a nation and our global ambition.
Of course if we were to take this statement as it is laid out.With China, Russia and Turkey becoming more and more aggressive and willing to use there armed forces we should see a increase in defence spending to 3% GDP and growth in our armed forces

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

We should see a rise in Defence spending all right. As the GDP varies year by year. It is not an adequate way of measuring essential spending. Defence spending must cover what is required and the % of GDP should vary as circumstances dictate around that. Any attempt to unrealistically constrain Defence expenditure to fit within what is in effect an arbitrary figure, is:-
* A waste of time and money deciding in which way it should be done. This takes funding from the teeth and adds it
to the tail
* An unsafe and unsound Defence Posture.
Sorry, off-topic. Just responding to previous post!

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote:Of course if we were to take this statement as it is laid out.With China, Russia and Turkey becoming more and more aggressive and willing to use there armed forces we should see a increase in defence spending to 3% GDP and growth in our armed forces
That would be the sensible approach but I'm starting to fear another SDSR 2010.

Hope I'm wrong.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

I thought we would of learned lessons about calling for arbitrary gdp numbers to be spent on defence. The large numbers of people have very selective memories those jumping up and dwn years ago demanding 2% are now changing tune.

Turkey is still a NATO nation and partner. Then of course we have Russia and China. What sort of threat are they to the Uk it’s certainly not the same as before. Espionage and moderns forms of it along with disinformation for destabilising effect, conventional forces used to prod boundaries Russia much more so than China from a uk perspective.

Post Reply