Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
james k
Member
Posts: 358
Joined: 31 Aug 2017, 16:51
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by james k »

An LPD like Albion can launch four LCU hundreds of miles away from the targets. Each of those LCU's provides a mobile yet concealed base, working in conjunction with smaller craft. Potentially eight LCU mother craft with their mobility and support craft can dominate an entire coastline the length of Norway, but you can't do that if the extensive command and control, support and source of replenishment (human and material) provided by the LPD's are missing. Those Commando's cant stay in the LCU bases indefinitely but the LPD can provide a trickle system of returning exhausted troops back to the ship and replacing them with fresh ones. The LPD can maintain the LCU bases on station, act as a repair station for them if necessary and if they are discovered then reinforcements can be sent to cover withdrawal.

Only two ships provide that Albion and Bulwark and only one corps can do that job, The Royal Marines. No alternatives, none whatsoever.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Interesting read of the 1SL speech to RUSI, my interpretation is that the LPDs will go sooner or later and “in the longer term we may opt for multi-role platforms which can provide amphibious capabilities, but can also serve as an afloat forward base for a range of enduring maritime security tasks.”

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ ... cture-2017

Also interesting mention of the T31e carrying RMs. I found the following also an interesting read...

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedi ... ral-access
”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

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by marktigger »

the 26 can also carry marines

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

marktigger wrote:the 26 can also carry marines
Yep, though unless they can be freed up from the CSG role it will not be of much use in amphibious ops (maritime security for sure however).
”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

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by marktigger »

and neither ships carry enough to mount any "serious" amphibious operation. and certainly couldn't support nor sustain one

james k
Member
Posts: 358
Joined: 31 Aug 2017, 16:51
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by james k »

If you have a company size unit deployed on two or three "frigates" where does the pre-landing briefing take place? The company does not split down into three equal size sub units, does the larger one, a platoon with Coy HQ and support elements, get crammed into one vessel with insufficient space?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

No, out of the three, the command elements of the other two get helicoptered around... so you can easily lose them
... and there goes your op :eh: :problem: before you even got started
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

james k
Member
Posts: 358
Joined: 31 Aug 2017, 16:51
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by james k »

I genuinely hope it's a non starter, as naff ideas go that hits new levels of naffness
ArmChairCivvy wrote:No, out of the three, the command elements of the other two get helicoptered around... so you can easily lose them
... and there goes your op :eh: :problem: before you even got started

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by marktigger »

and what happens if Helicopters can't fly due to wheather, sea conditions, mehcanical failure, operational necessity I could go on. Or if the Helicopter ploughs in to the sea with the command element?
the loss of 1 sea king in the falklands lost a large number of SAS. the loss of a chinook on the mull of kintyre killed a large number of anti terrorists.
there is a risk in operatng helicopters at sea its not like hoping on a bus in the high street.

splitting forces into penny packets goes against military logic

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by inch »

Well looks like a green light for the guv to have an excuses to cut our amphibious ships now ! The ft paper saying that the French military is offering to let out troops have access to their ships if the guv cuts (when the guv cuts now ) can't read because behind pay wall but ,the French have lots of capacity when we are going to have non .my own view is that its kind of clever on the French part ie make it more likely this guv have an excuse to cut saying allies are going to help and we only brexit but not leaving Europe ,and it further deminishes our usefulness in the eyes of EU/USA ,promotes France higher and helps their goal to have a EU integrated army .v clever France ,pity our guv can't see that

james k
Member
Posts: 358
Joined: 31 Aug 2017, 16:51
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by james k »

Only an idiot trusts the French or any other eu nation. If we put our trust in anyone it should be an English speaking Commonwealth nation or the USA and even then we should retain independent naval and military capability
inch wrote:Well looks like a green light for the guv to have an excuses to cut our amphibious ships now ! The ft paper saying that the French military is offering to let out troops have access to their ships if the guv cuts (when the guv cuts now ) can't read because behind pay wall but ,the French have lots of capacity when we are going to have non .my own view is that its kind of clever on the French part ie make it more likely this guv have an excuse to cut saying allies are going to help and we only brexit but not leaving Europe ,and it further deminishes our usefulness in the eyes of EU/USA ,promotes France higher and helps their goal to have a EU integrated army .v clever France ,pity our guv can't see that

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by abc123 »

It's good to have such good neighbours like French. :clap:
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…

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by abc123 »

marktigger wrote:and what happens if Helicopters can't fly due to wheather, sea conditions, mehcanical failure, operational necessity I could go on. Or if the Helicopter ploughs in to the sea with the command element?
Then you beach the frigates and damn the rocks. :lol: 8-)
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…

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by inch »

mmh just had a thought ,I do think that this guv is going to scrap albion/bulwalk but maybe say jam tomorrow of possibility of building a cheap ocean type either lhd or lph not sure? replacement but the rub is that this would replace albion and bulwalk , ocean and rfa argus that's the kind of thinking that they try to go for scrap 4 give back 1 .any merit in this or is this just crazy thinking ?ie they just scrap and go running to the french

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

inch wrote:mmh just had a thought ,I do think that this guv is going to scrap albion/bulwalk but maybe say jam tomorrow of possibility of building a cheap ocean type either lhd or lph not sure? replacement but the rub is that this would replace albion and bulwalk , ocean and rfa argus that's the kind of thinking that they try to go for scrap 4 give back 1 .any merit in this or is this just crazy thinking ?ie they just scrap and go running to the french
I could see something like this happening but 2 for the 4 and they'd have to be LHDs, you simply can't replace LPDs with LPHs ( no heavy lift from LPH )
I wouldn't be shocked if this government said we could do the whole rely on the French thing like they've tried passing off with harpoon.

If we do just get 2 LHDs for the 4 they'd have to be big, something similar to what the Italians are building instead of the minstrels.

2 x large LHD and 4 x Morden Bay with hanger and larger well dock wouldn't be to bad in the long run. But I don't want to see another 10 year capability gap like we did with the carriers.

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 »

Scrapping four and getting two has been done many times in the past in all three services. Look how many Jaguar and Tornado F3 squadrons were replaced by just five Typhoon units (sorry seven) and so on. Unfortunately unless the Defence Secretary can head off all the cuts being investigated, and actually get extra money, getting two will be quite a battle to fight and win for the Navy. I can actually see three to four modified Bays being purchased for the RFA than new LHDs for the RN. The money could possibly come from another department as they are civilian manned and build to commercial standards plus they are go to units for disaster relief missions. If the MoD is cunning it could get some very capable vessels paid for by someone else, and a design that could appeal to other countries looking to expand their capabilities without going down the full warship route.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Lord Jim wrote:Scrapping four and getting two has been done many times in the past in all three services. Look how many Jaguar and Tornado F3 squadrons were replaced by just five Typhoon units (sorry seven) and so on. Unfortunately unless the Defence Secretary can head off all the cuts being investigated, and actually get extra money, getting two will be quite a battle to fight and win for the Navy. I can actually see three to four modified Bays being purchased for the RFA than new LHDs for the RN. The money could possibly come from another department as they are civilian manned and build to commercial standards plus they are go to units for disaster relief missions. If the MoD is cunning it could get some very capable vessels paid for by someone else, and a design that could appeal to other countries looking to expand their capabilities without going down the full warship route.
When I was think about the 2 large LHDs and 4 modern bays I was thinking they wouldng come till 2030 odd
That's why I said I wouldng like to see a 10 year capability gap again

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by inch »

I just can't see them going for 2 ships of any sort somehow ,just my own personal view think they will only build 1 ship at most if any ,for the manning issues if nothing else ,with poss the 3 or maybe just 2 now mars sss ,that's how bad it going I think and the 3 bays ,again maybe only 2 after review ?

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 »

marktigger wrote:and what happens if Helicopters can't fly due to wheather, sea conditions, mehcanical failure, operational necessity I could go on. Or if the Helicopter ploughs in to the sea with the command element?
Exact same arguments exist for any other mode of transport.
@LandSharkUK

james k
Member
Posts: 358
Joined: 31 Aug 2017, 16:51
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by james k »

Landing craft sink less often than helicopters crash
shark bait wrote:
marktigger wrote:and what happens if Helicopters can't fly due to wheather, sea conditions, mehcanical failure, operational necessity I could go on. Or if the Helicopter ploughs in to the sea with the command element?
Exact same arguments exist for any other mode of transport.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by marktigger »

by splitting a landing force into troop sized elements on different ships you loose "Economy of effort"

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

james k wrote:If you have a company size unit deployed on two or three "frigates" where does the pre-landing briefing take place? The company does not split down into three equal size sub units, does the larger one, a platoon with Coy HQ and support elements, get crammed into one vessel with insufficient space?
Why not do the pre-landing briefing on a OTH RFA before transporting the troops to the T31s to be taken to the shore? Why is this a different challenge to landing by hells / LCVPs / ORCs?
”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

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by R686 »

marktigger wrote:by splitting a landing force into troop sized elements on different ships you loose "Economy of effort"

Correct one only has to look at the ADF operation Morris Dance and the risks involved members of the ADF, with and company group spread over numerous shipping and numerous helicopters going down to unserviceable

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

R686 wrote:ADF operation Morris Dance
These "how not to do it" cases are interesting
- do you have a link?

BTW: has the Rgmnt that trains with/ on the Canberras been designated "Marines" (and is it planned, at all)?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by marktigger »

Repulse wrote:
james k wrote:If you have a company size unit deployed on two or three "frigates" where does the pre-landing briefing take place? The company does not split down into three equal size sub units, does the larger one, a platoon with Coy HQ and support elements, get crammed into one vessel with insufficient space?
Why not do the pre-landing briefing on a OTH RFA before transporting the troops to the T31s to be taken to the shore? Why is this a different challenge to landing by hells / LCVPs / ORCs?
You ever been on any staff courses?

Probably not!

last one I was on told us to forget "No plan survives first contact with the enemy" and think more along the lines of "No plan survives crossing the line of departure" or Better still "No plan Survives the Briefing"

Military situations and operations are very fluid and plans and briefings have to be changed very quickly to reflect changing situations so the idea of brief, cross deck then land with original briefing is totally unrealistic. BTW has a Type 31 Frigate got the resources to support troops ashore in terms of C3I, Medical and Logistics?

Post Reply