Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

At the moment!

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote:I thought we would of learned lessons about calling for arbitrary gdp numbers to be spent on defence.
True, but a minimum amount is better than nothing (even though there are no rules to stop things like pensions being included).
Tempest414 wrote: Turkey becoming more and more aggressive
Interesting one, obviously concerning around the demise of democracy in the country, but given the neighbourhood it resides in, then hardly surprising it feels it needs to fight its corner.
”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

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

In terms of China, I’m yet to think of a scenario where the UK would be involved in an amphibious operation against them. Perhaps a rescue or covert mission, but nothing beyond SFs.
”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

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote:True, but a minimum amount is better than nothing (even though there are no rules to stop things like pensions being included).
I believe there is NATO guidance to what can be included and I think the US also includes pensions

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Not really so important, as they don’t slavishly adhere to an unacceptably low GDP figure! :mrgreen:

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Repulse wrote:In terms of China, I’m yet to think of a scenario where the UK would be involved in an amphibious operation against them. Perhaps a rescue or covert mission, but nothing beyond SFs.
Maybe the new "islands" in the SCS? In support of our regional allies
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by jedibeeftrix »

Or the old islands that regional neighbours are in dispute with China over sovereignty.

i.e. a deterrence posture - yes, you can push Malaysia around, but 'options' are available if swallow reef is heading toward trouble.

n.b. the State listed above is claiment and a FPDA member, but other non-claiment allies in the region take the position that they hope China will obey international laws. presumably that position must have 'teeth' at the end of the day...

n.b. #2 next November will be the 50th anniversary of the FPDA being signed. shall we just say that the 'optics' alone would make some kind of RN presence rather auspicious.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

But is defending an island an amphibious operation? I assume the most we would do is deterrence before any incursion rather than fight to remove China from one - if we want to do that we need a completely different force.
”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

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Jedibeeftrix Wrote “Or the old islands that regional neighbours are in dispute with China over sovereignty.”

Surely you do not mean Hong Kong!!! :mrgreen:

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by jedibeeftrix »

Repulse wrote:But is defending an island an amphibious operation? I assume the most we would do is deterrence before any incursion rather than fight to remove China from one - if we want to do that we need a completely different force.
This is where the Rusi paper becomes interesting, as they're almost envisioning the Marines as an adjunct to long range Fires, as part of flipping the A2/AD bubble back against the defender in threatening the adjacent defensive elements.

In the context of the struggle to establish the First Island Chain as the perimeter of a safe chinese pond that seems highly apposite... and the same might be said of China using the Second Island Chain to turn safe Allied waters into contested space.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

The way China is currently behaving, then sooner or later it will need it’s wings clipped SEVERELY. The problem is, we do not know where, when or how. We can only speculate, but the obvious choices are the “island Chains” artificially created or otherwise. Maybe not even those that are currently “occupied”. That makes planning for what are unknown measures rather difficult. Belt and Braces is the best answer here. :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.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-l ... ke-company

A select group of commandos will form a new Vanguard Strike Company to shape how the Royal Marines Commandos of the future will operate around the globe.

These trailblazers will have access to game-changing technology and weaponry as they head on their first deployment next year.

The Royal Marines are currently undergoing a bold modernisation project – known as the Future Commando Force programme – which will overhaul how the world-famous green berets operate.

As part of this restructuring, more than 150 Royal Marines and Army Commandos will come together this autumn to form the Vanguard Strike Company.

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by jedibeeftrix »

does this speak to the ~200 ambition of the 2020 LRG vs the ~400 ambition of the 2019 LSG?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

jedibeeftrix, also tied to this is the fate of the Amphibious Strike Group, which was stated at around 400 RMs.
”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

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 »

Well considering the plan is to form several of these "Vanguard Companies" and have them spread all over the place I would assume this is the size of force for the future. This in turn puts the large LPDs in the crosshairs, especially if the RN wants to obtain a number of Littoral support vessels for the Companies to embark upon.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Lord Jim, Is that the only plan though - it’s unclear to me if these Vanguard Companies are the only game in town or will/could be coupled with a larger role Amphibious Strike Groups of 2-3 RM Companies. Either way, my view is that the LPDs are essential- we seem to be talking ourselves into using Logistic Ships (LSDs) for roles that are unsuited - even thinking about unmanned or LCVP sized ships, a LPD can carry 20 whereas a LSD would struggle with 6.
”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

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 »

From what I have read, these "Vanguard Companies" are the way forward for the Royal Marines, to be forward deployed to various locations, and remember we are talking about the 40 and 45 Commando as 42 has now been assigned the role of Maritime Operations Specialists. So yes it is feasible for a number of these new style companies to operate together, but they are going to need a new class of Littoral Assault Ship that can approach a coastline stealthily, launch a force up to company strength, re embark the force and retire, whilst being able to defend itself if engaged by hostile forces. The LPDs are really too big for this role and lack aviation facilities hence why I am starting to believe they could be in the crosshairs, but can the RN afford to replace them with new ships or will they use one of the Bays as a test bed to work out what capabilities these new platforms will need as an interim option. Again I do worry the Armed Forces are starting to concentrate too far into the future and are taking their eye off the short to medium term where there are a multitude of urgent issues that need solving.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

If an Albion class is too large then so is a Bay class, they are very similar in size. The only difference is that one is built to commercial standards, optimised for logistics and lightly manned by the RFA - if anything is better going close to shore is the LPDs with their ability to deploy a large number of craft (probably 5x that of a Bay).

As RUSI pointed out aviation facilities would be of limited use operating close to shore, though a limited UAV capability would be useful. This is why a third large (6+ helicopter) aviation ship is needed (or even two) to support OTH.
”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

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by jedibeeftrix »

Repulse wrote:Lord Jim, Is that the only plan though - it’s unclear to me if these Vanguard Companies are the only game in town or will/could be coupled with a larger role Amphibious Strike Groups of 2-3 RM Companies. Either way, my view is that the LPDs are essential- we seem to be talking ourselves into using Logistic Ships (LSDs) for roles that are unsuited - even thinking about unmanned or LCVP sized ships, a LPD can carry 20 whereas a LSD would struggle with 6.
Yes, this is where I am coming from.
And really is a question of what remains in the smoking ruin of 3Cdo brigade when the dust settles.

Right now we have three and a half Commandos:
1. Special Duties
2. 42 - Maritime Operations Specialists
3. 40/45 - Full scale Commandos capable of being the core of a 'battlegroup'

Under the old 2019 ambition of two LSG's of ~400 Marines you might make the case that 40/45 will each be shrunk from ~600 to ~400, and then stripped of the mobility and CS/CSS as they would only be operating in Company sized groups on short-duration static raids from the shore.

With the new 2020 ambition of two(?) LRG's of ~200 Marines you might question whether that is a task to be divvied up among just one Commando, particularly if this Vanguard company of 150 is the template for the LRG.

In which case, we might be looking at:
1. Special Duties
2. 42 - Maritime Operations Specialists
3. 40 - 4x Vanguard companies
4. 45 - Full scale Commando capable of being the core of a 'battlegroup'

Looking at the RUSI paper where they optimistically describe; "multiple companies" of Marines running around protecting multiple batteries of long-range Fires, which of the above is most suitable fulfill that role?
Colour me skeptical, but multiple companies with multiple batteries sounds like a battlegroup, and will need multiple supporting assets to make it mobile, supportable, and sustainable. Otherwise known as CS/CSS...
https://jedibeeftrix.wordpress.com/2019 ... ew-future/

Of course, under the fully bombed-out scenario 3Cdo might be whittled down to:
1. Special Duties
2. 42 - Maritime Operations Specialists
3. 40 - 3x Vanguard companies
4. 45 - 3x Vanguard companies
Let's hope not, because I think that would be a criminal deriliction!

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 »

Repulse wrote: large (6+ helicopter) aviation ship is needed (or even two) to support
Like the plan from the 90's, the one that's too expensive now and is never going to happen?
@LandSharkUK

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by jedibeeftrix »

shark bait wrote:
Repulse wrote: large (6+ helicopter) aviation ship is needed (or even two) to support
Like the plan from the 90's, the one that's too expensive now and is never going to happen?
isn't this a role that the LSS/LRS ships could provide?

i.e. they run around independantly with a deployed Vanguard group in day to day, but in a contingency they bunch up with an LPD and Bay...

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 that would be great, however that's a cost adder at at time when the Marines really need to be cheaper. That's what this whole thing is about right? The Marines need to be cheaper to use.
@LandSharkUK

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

shark bait wrote: Like the plan from the 90's, the one that's too expensive now and is never going to happen?
Like for two Ocean type LPHs - no.

Like Argus - yes.

A possibility is a HNLMS Karel Doorman type vessel to fulfil part of the FSS role and act as an Aviation Support Ship.
”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

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

shark bait wrote:The Marines need to be cheaper to use
Part of that is ships but mostly it’s the overheads and manpower required to make them into a fighting brigade. If we want to save money the last thing should be to throw away what you have that works and only halfway through their useful lifespan.
”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

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

jedibeeftrix wrote:3Cdo might be whittled down to:
1. Special Duties
2. 42 - Maritime Operations Specialists
3. 40 - 3x Vanguard companies
4. 45 - 3x Vanguard companies
Think this maybe is what’s most needed in the future

Post Reply