Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Aethulwulf »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Repulse wrote:I thought the LPH RM mods to POW never really happened as expected and the money is more focused on extending things such as helo spots on both CVFs?
Interesting; have seen very little detail... is it somewhere to be found?

When Adm. Z was still around, he was talking about an OR study to establish the feasibility of operating 10 helo spots (for simultaneous/ near simultaneous launch of a "wave")
- even that one has not been reported on; but would seem - according to the above - to be happening
The OA study reported years ago. The changes to PoW considered were mainly:
•new deck layout for 10 helo spots
•upgraded comms needed for links to forces ashore
•review of unallocated compartments on PoW with a view to increasing PAX capacity and related storage.

If you count up the number of people required for:

9 Merlin Mk2
5 Crowsnest
12 Merlin Mk4
3 Chinook
8 Apache
6 Wildcat
2 RM Coys
1 LF HQ

The total number is more than the current ~900 PAX capacity.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

26 merlins on one ship in one deployment whao!! That’s pretty much the deployment of the entire operational merlin force.

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Aethulwulf »

It is 48% of the Merlin Mk4s and 46% of the Merlin Mk2s. But, that is worst case...

The 12 Merlin Mk4 and 3 Chinook is what you would need to carry 1 RM Coy in one wave in hot conditions, and includes some reserve aircraft. If you are flying in cold conditions, the number of aircraft required almost halves.

The 9 Merlin Mk2 are for ASW; if there is no submarine threat then they are not needed. And of course the number of Crowsnest, Apache and Wildcat are also threat dependant.

For high intensity flight operations from a flat top, you need around 20 crew/maintainers per helicopter. That's around 860 personnel for this particular TAG. Then on top of that are the 2 RM Coy (at least 120 each), plus the Landing Force HQ.

Of course, when Ocean was the LPH there was no way that 43 helicopters could be carried and so the size of the TAG was much smaller. Now with PoW, the limiting factor will be the number of PAX space available, not the space for helicopters.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Aethulwulf wrote:Now with PoW, the limiting factor will be the number of PAX space available, not the space for helicopters.
Is that then the biggest drawback of using PoW in the LPH role?

Lilly padding from the Albions and Bays will take a fair amount of time to assemble a large force with the limited number of landing spots?

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 507
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by jimthelad »

The passageways are plenty wide enough for troops in full kit including the LAW80 in horizontal carry. The only sticking point may be the ladders in some of the smaller areas but all of the main throughfares are much shallower than any other ship I`ve been on. They might need to expand the personnel weapons storage if you are carrying 800 marines full time though.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

I would guess in practice more Chinooks and less Merlin. Chinook are better sh*t haulers and there's more of them.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Think in practise I’d take 8 chinooks and keep the merlins at home. I think the original plan was re-role commando helicopter force from sea king to 12 chinookswhich is what probably should of happened

Merlin has not had a particularly good serviceablity record mainly due to insufficient spares holdings but it will be stretch to get even half that number deployed to the same location.

I think the discussion going fwd for the RM in a new world is against what sort opposition do we think we will deploy what is essentially a light infantry battle group. It maybe better to spend money to get better equipment for 1 assualt group to conduct riverine and costal security, along with enhanced capability of fleet protection group and 42 commando in its new martime security role and return the Corp to its more commando origins than going for a us marine Corp lite role.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote:Think in practise I’d take 8 chinooks and keep the merlins at home. I think the original plan was re-role commando helicopter force from sea king to 12 chinookswhich is what probably should of happened
Happy with that - 25 more ASW Merlins :)
SW1 wrote:new world is against what sort opposition do we think we will deploy what is essentially a light infantry battle group. It maybe better to spend money to get better equipment for 1 assualt group to conduct riverine and costal security, along with enhanced capability of fleet protection group and 42 commando in its new martime security role and return the Corp to its more commando origins than going for a us marine Corp lite role.
Agree completely with re-roling the entire 3 Cdo.
”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 »

I agree with the reorganisation and tasking of 3 Commando, though many who have a rose tinted view of the formation and believe it can conduct large scale amphibious operations may argue the point. However the Brigade is able to load up and ship out far faster than any Army Brigade and it trained in getting from ship to shore better than the Army, so if you want to move a formation by sea lift rapidly it is the go to formation. This is however not the same as storming the beaches but transporting a formation to fight when it gets there after landing through a port however austere.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Repulse

That’s pretty much what I would do.


Lordjim

You can of course load up and ship out a light brigade pretty quickly I’m sure the Paras would say the same thing the question for either brigade is to fight against whom and against what level of threat. It’s a huge resource strain if you not going to use them against much more that a serria leone type opposition. If you start to head toward a more sophisticated enemy is the minimum level of protection for moving overt formations anything below mastiff or boxer level like Afghanistan? At which point your probably better off ensuring the swift transport of an army wheeled strike brigade battlegroup as your regular overt go to intervention force.

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 »

The big difference between the Para's and 3 Commando is that they come equipped with there own vehicle protected and not so, and integral helicopter support. 16 Air assault used the RAF Chinooks but these have many other tasks where as the Merlin HC4 are primarily there to support 3 Commando. As for opposition, well they are superb Mountain troops and are ideal for use up north, Norway that is not Newcastle.

However deploying the whole of 3 Commando will probably never happen again and the restructuring suggested by others and myself is probably more relevant for the future employment of the RM. You mention swift transport of a "Strike " Brigade and that it what I am really advocation, with both the Albions being sold off and sufficient sea lift being brought into the RFA to transport such a formation with all its support units and logistics in one lift and unloading it at even an austere port being the capability to be met.

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 »

Lord Jim wrote:deploying the whole of 3 Commando will probably never happen again and the restructuring suggested by others and myself is probably more relevant for the future employment of the RM. You mention swift transport of a "Strike " Brigade
As we will be deploying a "strike bde equivalent" to Norway (on exercises) this year, we will soon get to see what role (if any) has been designated to the RM
- noteworthy that the first mentioned bde will be deployed on wheels, not shipped (err, the Chunnel might come into play; I hear the reservist train transportation unit has gained a new life... of course getting a bde on wheels onto a train and off again in no time at all is no mean feat). And on what wheels? As no metal has been cut yet for the British Boxers

Ref:

Trident Juncture 18

• Where: The exercise will take place in central and eastern Norway and the surrounding areas of the North Atlantic and the Baltic Sea, including Iceland and the airspace of Finland and Sweden.

• When: The live training will be conducted from 25 October to 7 November 2018. A command post exercise (CPX) will be held 14–23 November 2018.

• What: Air, land, maritime, special operation forces and amphibious forces will participate. Around 130 aircraft, 70 vessels and up to 10,000 vehicles will be used during the exercise.

• Who: More than 40,000 participants from some 30 NATO and partner countries are expected to take part.

Specifically: "The core of the exercise is the NATO Response Force. The exercise will serve to qualify the force as combat ready"
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)

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Gabriele »

They are sending a bunch of Jackals to Norway. With trailers, apparently. Trailers being the most innovative strike thing they could come up with.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

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 »

central and eastern Norway ...to 7 November 2018.
Gabriele wrote: a bunch of Jackals to Norway. With trailers
Lucky for those travelling in them that N. Norway is not included: the pax would freeze in open-top vehicles.
- RM would arrive more suitably kitted out
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)

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5557
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Lord Jim wrote:16 Air assault used the RAF Chinooks but these have many other tasks where as the Merlin HC4 are primarily there to support 3 Commando.
As I have said in the past this is why the RAF Puma replacement will be so important and should be focused on the needs of 16 Air Assault leaving the Chinooks to get on with heavy support

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

LJ

All the support helicopters are operated by joint helicopter command and are assigned as required. Merlins while better at sea would quickly be replaced with chinook any hot and or high.

As for vehicles while viking offers environmental protection there’s not much difference between jackal 2 and Viking which each use they’re both lightly armoured.


Tempest

Puma was retained mainly because its easier to rapidly deploy and better for urban operations. Also after it’s upgrade can probably lift more than merlin hot and high. What’s really needed is a common platform to replace merlin, puma and wildcat at a minimum.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5557
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote:Puma was retained mainly because its easier to rapidly deploy and better for urban operations. Also after it’s upgrade can probably lift more than merlin hot and high. What’s really needed is a common platform to replace merlin, puma and wildcat at a minimum.
Again that is why the Puma replacement is so important I am fully aware of the use of Puma and its capabilities and how JHC works as I had them on speed dial and knew the team form my time as a RAF Officer

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Tempest

This being a private forum and not knowing who u are was simply adding context from being in the industry side not attempting to teach u how to suck eggs.

Would agree it is important it’s replaced and should of been prioritised when it was meant to be. Ultimately a common replacement helicopter will be smaller than merlin and preferrably not tilt rotor due to cost but can see much inter service rivalry.

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 »

SW1 wrote:LJ

All the support helicopters are operated by joint helicopter command and are assigned as required. Merlins while better at sea would quickly be replaced with chinook any hot and or high.

As for vehicles while viking offers environmental protection there’s not much difference between jackal 2 and Viking which each use they’re both lightly armoured.


Tempest

Puma was retained mainly because its easier to rapidly deploy and better for urban operations. Also after it’s upgrade can probably lift more than merlin hot and high. What’s really needed is a common platform to replace merlin, puma and wildcat at a minimum.
I admit the Viking is lightly armoured but the Jackal is armoured in name only with a number of ballistic plates scattered over the body and is far less suitable for operations in Norway or similar areas. I know that the Merlins, Chinooks and Pumas all come under JHC, but he Merlins are first choice for any operations involving sea borne operations, and they are tasked differently since their transfer from the RAF to FAA. Once established in theatre then the Chinooks would gain a greater role, but their operations from naval vessels is still really an ad hoc affair.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

LJ

It is and that’s what I mean by environmental considerations.
As for helicopters if that’s what there expecting to do with helicopters great I would however suspect once a amphib deployment is exercised properly from the carrier especially if somewhere warm there will be more chinooks on deck than mk4s second time round.

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 »

I think we are basically agreeing and on the same page here. The UK having sufficient sea lift is my prime objective, whether is is moving troops, vehicles, supplies or helicopter. We need to be able to get a Brigade into theatre ready to go quickly. Now where that might be I have no real idea though my get say it is going to be a lot colder this time.

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 »

Just been watching the Defence Sub Committee's briefing on Arctic Warfare, with regards to operations in the North Atlantic and Norway and the Norwegian expert was adamant that the Royal Marines were a vital part of his country's defence and was very keen that they should both train more with Norwegian units and fight as part of an integrated force. The fact that they are probably the premier Arctic Warfare formation besides Norway within NATO means that he saw Norway as their priority area of operations. This was also seen as the most important area in which the UK's new Carriers should operate as the availability of US carriers was of concern, and the lack of UK SSNs was seen as a problem both in their small number and their availability through manpower and maintenance issues.

All of this makes perfect sense to me. Yes power projection is a worthy aspiration but operations east of Suez should only be looked upon as a secondary task as we lack sufficient assets. We can afford to conduct serious operations in one area at a time period. NATO is beginning to conduct large scale joint exercises once more and an exercise in northern Norway. with over 30k troops, 200 a/c and 70 warships, is due to get underway at the end of this month beginning of October. NATO is also looking to re establish a command covering the Atlantic and northern flank with the reactivation of the USN's 2nd fleet a key part. NATO and the UK needs to relearn how to conduct operations at a level that an Article 5 situation would require and with ASW and Sea Lift operations this can only be done in large joint exercises, something NATO has not done since the early 1990s.

The talk of deploying a second carrier escorted by allies nations and operating allied aircraft is purely aspirational now and in the foreseeable future. If the RN sends a Carrier group east then it deprives NATO of a key asset. This is something a possible opponent will see and take advantage of. AS the experts in the discussions pointed out with regards to Russia. In the Cold War it was Russian quantity verses NATO quality. With the draw down of both sides and the now rapid re-capitalisation of the Russian Navy, it will very much be a meted of quality verses quality.

So we need to be able to get 3 Commando and possibly another formations into northern Norway rapidly if a situation develops but before the balloon goes up. We need to be able to maintain the supply lanes to northern Norway and take the initiative by posing a threat to Russian naval forces around the Kola to force them to come out and engage. The time for the UK looking to global power projection has ended, and we lack the resources to meet this aspirations. Re focusing on NATO and especially NATO's northern flank is a far more achievable aspiration and one we have carried out historically.

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 »

Lord Jim wrote: the now rapid re-capitalisation of the Russian Navy
Thanks for the excellent piece. I think that recapitalisation has come to an end, the number of blue water surface ships is shrinking (whether Adm Nakhimov will come out of dock in time for the navy not to be deprived of the only battle cruiser is an open question) and the fate of naval aviation is hanging by a thread (next carrier in the mid-30s?).
- as ever, for the context we are discussing it is the subs force that is critical; even that one is heavily dependent on refurbing existing units (the condition of which is highly variable) as for maintaining its strength
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)

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5557
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Lord Jim wrote:The talk of deploying a second carrier escorted by allies nations and operating allied aircraft is purely aspirational now and in the foreseeable future. If the RN sends a Carrier group east then it deprives NATO of a key asset.

Aspirational it maybe however we all know that the RN/UK will not be able to support two carriers unless they are at sea together and even then will not have enough aircraft for this until the late 2020s or early 2030s. So if the the carriers are so important ( which they are ) then I see it as a priority that NATO works up a carrier group around POW i.e a second carrier escorted by and operating allied aircraft which would give NATO 3 European carrier groups plus any US carrier groups in the Atlantic.

Now this is why it is so important to me that the UK replaces the Albion's and Bays with at least one LPH/LHD and 4 batch 2 Bays focused on the task of Norway this would free up the two carriers to undertake there primary role.

As for RN sending a carrier east it will happen from time to time but for me this should only happen when the second carrier with its NATO group and the French carrier are able to cover the Atlantic

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 »

Tempest414 wrote:the RN/UK will not be able to support two carriers unless they are at sea together and even then will not have enough aircraft for this until the late 2020s or early 2030s. So if the the carriers are so important ( which they are ) then I see it as a priority that NATO works up a carrier group around POW i.e a second carrier escorted by and operating allied aircraft
+
Tempest414 wrote: RN sending a carrier east it will happen from time to time but for me this should only happen when the second carrier with its NATO group and the French carrier are able to cover the Atlantic
Quite. The USMC bde (with forward positioned kit in Norway) will surely come with a handful (or two) of F-3Bs. And NATO-Europe is not short of escorts (albeit of pretty much everything else, as a result of the wide-spread "armed pensions" policy since the '90s).
-prior to Trump ratcheting up the heat on Iran, it was a clear priority for the USN to pull more carriers from the 5th Fleet deployments to augment their availability in the Pacific. Hence the unreserved support for the UK/ French stop-gaps: seeing to the energy security in the (wider) Gulf Region with their - from time to time - visits
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)

Post Reply