Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

[serge750]

I’m afraid this is fast moving to fantasy land. Any notion of LHDs and the like disappeared when the Rn committed to two 60k tonne aircraft carriers. It had a choice and it made it. Repeated announcements have underscored the tasks the RN have committed to, that is to deploy a carrier strike group and maintain a continuous at sea deterrent. The navy will fundamentally change its deployment schedule centred on a carrier group.

Any future amphibious capability will launch from their decks. Instead of worrying about future LHDs we need to worry about how we will crew and support the vessels we already have and how to get as many aircraft and helicopters on there decks because by any historical uk aircraft deployability measure the numbers we will generate from any current or projected future force structure the numbers will be small.

So you don't think they will replace the Albion's in the 2030's then?

[jedibeeftrix]

Solution to that problem is build a helicopter carrier that is not F35 capable.

As soon as the fast jet requirement is added the cost doubles, so keep things simple and build another HMS Ocean. (Also simpler = greater chance of getting two)

The solution to this is a vision for the amphibious fleet (LSD/LPD/LPH), that has enough LCP docks to accomodate ~8 Caiman90 and can thus support 3Cdo operations at the level of a combined arms battle group. Let's say 1900 bodies.

To quote someone else:

1. Lead Commando Landing Force A lead Cdo (e.g 40 Cdo or 45 Cdo) plus attachments A Logistics Task Group from Commando Logistics Regiment 1 battery plus coord centre from 29 Cdo RA 1 eng sqn plus planning cell from 24 Cdo RE Approx Totals: 1200 personnel & 500 vehicles

2. Lead Commando Group (LCG)
As above but with full support personnel.
Approx Totals: 1900 personnel & 800 vehicles

3. LCG Plus (or Cdo Brigade Minus)
LCG plus 2nd Cdo unit (e.g. 40 Cdo & 45 Cdo), and extra artillery and engineering support
Approx Totals: 2700 Personnel & 1200 vehicles

At the moment, a full Cdo Brigade using three Cdo units does not feature in UK planning. 1 and 2 are based on a single battlegroup. 3 is based on 2 battlegroups. Most people are surprised by the number of personnel and vehicles that even a single battlegroup requires.

[Lord Jim]

Remember how long we kept Fearless and Intrepid in service to varying degrees. If we even keep the Albions that long, expeditionary warfare makes little sense to the UK at its current funding levels and we have higher priorities both in the equipment programme and in the tasks we should undertake. We are not going to be landing major formations over the beach, but more likely conducting littoral warfare operations for which there is a substantial role for the RM but acting in smaller units. They also have a role on NATO's northern flank if they can regain their artic warfare expertise which has been allowed to atrophy over the past decade or so except for a small cadre. The Albions would make good stand in Motherships for the littoral operations but are really too big and not well enough protected. They also need a better assault craft along the lines of the CB-90. To move them or another Brigade in its entirety we need improved sea lift as I have repeatedly mentioned which could be achieved by a combination of improved Bays and Point classes, both being brought under RFA control. If we need to secure or protect a point of entry then airlifting a force from a carrier is an option, using the Paras to drop is another or a combination of both.

[Poiuytrewq]

Solution to that problem is build a helicopter carrier that is not F35 capable.

As soon as the fast jet requirement is added the cost doubles, so keep things simple and build another HMS Ocean. (Also simpler = greater chance of getting two)

If an F35 capable LPH/LHD is to be built new additional funding will be required. Personally I think that scenario is highly unlikely but not impossible.

If the UK in the medium term builds 1 or 2 Ocean style LPH's, they will end up being direct replacements for the Albion's. There is simply no money for new programmes.

Where are the well docks and the LCU's going to go?

Are the next generation of Bays going to become the LPD's with 2 LCU's each?

If so, that's 1 or 2 Ocean's plus 4 enhanced Bays if 8 LCU's are required.

Are the C&C facilities going into the Oceans or the Bays?

That 5 or 6 vessel replacement program is likely to cost somewhere in the region of £2bn to 2.5bn.

Personally I don't think that would be the cheapest or best option.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Albions would make good stand in Motherships for the littoral operations but are really too big and not well enough protected.

So what should be used, instead?

The point you are making is a good one, in n. Norway mobility is everything - there is a reason for only 1 bde being permanently up there.
- will be interesting to see where the new F-35 base will be built, as Tromso has been judged too vulnerable

Where are the well docks and the LCU's going to go?

Are the next generation of Bays going to become the LPD's with 2 LCU's each?

If so, that's 1 or 2 Ocean's plus 4 enhanced Bays if 8 LCU's are required.

Are the C&C facilities going into the Oceans or the Bays?

Excellent list of questions. The whole build prgrm should be approached from the ship-to-shore connectors POV (and Jointness, as in the C&C to start with... a key Falklands lesson)
- in the mid-30s we will get to see "the right answer"

[PAUL MARSAY]

we need to decide what we want the marines to be before we invest in the kit , is it a brigade or a raiding force ?

[Tempest414]

This is what I feel is needed a new larger Ocean type LHP ( I would like HMS Glorious or Courageous) with a flight deck 230 meters by 38 meters beam 28,000 to 30,000 tons able to support 30 aircraft and 900 Marines. Add to this 4 new 200 meter long Batch 2 Bays able to deploy 450 Marines 2 Helicopters , 2 LCU and 2 LCVP and 5 new Point class to form the core of the Amphib group

When I put this forward I was looking at this being a early to mid 2030s program which would be funded from the new 2027-2037 budget. What I see as the budget for this program is set out as so.

1 x Larger Ocean type LHP 30,000 tons 230 meters long 38 meter beam able to support up to 30 aircraft + 900 marines + 4 landing craft and C&C budget 1.2 billion Crew transfered from the Albion class

4 x Larger 200 meter Batch 2 Bay Class fitted with a full width hangar for 2 Merlin also able to support 2 LCU + 2 LCVP or replacements and 450 Marines Budget 250 million per ship = 1 billion 3 crews transfered from current Bay class one new crew generated

5 x New Point class sea lift Budget 600 million

Budget for core Amphib group ships 3 billion

Add to this the up keep and replacement of mexeflotes to maintain 80 units

I beleave that this would allow us to move 1900 fighting men plus kit and supporting staff to Norway and off load them anywhere we needed

Also the RAFs Puma fleet replacement should be seem as the first step in a common platform replacement for Puma , Merlin and Wildcat with all being able to operate from UK and allied flattops and escorts

[Lord Jim]

Albions would make good stand in Motherships for the littoral operations but are really too big and not well enough protected.

So what should be used, instead?

The point you are making is a good one, in n. Norway mobility is everything - there is a reason for only 1 bde being permanently up there.
- will be interesting to see where the new F-35 base will be built, as Tromso has been judged too vulnerable

Where are the well docks and the LCU's going to go?

Are the next generation of Bays going to become the LPD's with 2 LCU's each?

If so, that's 1 or 2 Ocean's plus 4 enhanced Bays if 8 LCU's are required.

Are the C&C facilities going into the Oceans or the Bays?

Excellent list of questions. The whole build prgrm should be approached from the ship-to-shore connectors POV (and Jointness, as in the C&C to start with... a key Falklands lesson)
- in the mid-30s we will get to see "the right answer"

The idea would be what was discussed in the Future Escorts threat regarding the money for the T-31e programme and how this would be used to purchase three or four "Hybrid" platforms able to carry say four CB-90s plus a have C&C facilities and greater self defence capabilities. In addition they would be able to house and operate two Merlins. These would be able to secure a point of entry with their embarked forces allowing the remainder of the Brigade to be unloaded or operate independently as Motherships for a raiding/littoral warfare forces. A but of fantasy I know but thinking out of the box is going to be more and more important when working out how the UK is going to meet its commitments.

[SW1]

I’m afraid this is fast moving to fantasy land. Any notion of LHDs and the like disappeared when the Rn committed to two 60k tonne aircraft carriers. It had a choice and it made it. Repeated announcements have underscored the tasks the RN have committed to, that is to deploy a carrier strike group and maintain a continuous at sea deterrent. The navy will fundamentally change its deployment schedule centred on a carrier group.

Any future amphibious capability will launch from their decks. Instead of worrying about future LHDs we need to worry about how we will crew and support the vessels we already have and how to get as many aircraft and helicopters on there decks because by any historical uk aircraft deployability measure the numbers we will generate from any current or projected future force structure the numbers will be small.

So you don't think they will replace the Albion's in the 2030's then?

No infact I think they will struggle to survive the current defence review. Hard to justify a replacement when you mothball one for 6 years at a time and tie up several frigates because you can’t afford to operate them.

[Scimitar54]

No such thing as "can't" in this case ........... only "won't" pay for it!
Underfunded defence is DANGEROUS and a false economy.

[donald_of_tokyo]

I do not think we need new assets for raids/assaults.

Offshore Raiding Craft level of assault boats can handle some sort of raids. If they are smaller than 11-12 m long, T26 can carry ~6 of them. Even Leander can carry 2.

In addition, just keep one Albion as “the 3rd HVU”, with C&C. Supplemented by 3 Bays, as it is.

In 2030, replace them with 1 Enlarged-Ocean-like simple LPH with C&C. No well dock, but may be with a steel beach. Also, 3 Enlarged Bay, with 2 LCU capable well dock and 2 Merlin capable hangar, because they are earning a lot of money when MHG does not need it.

Keep Point as charter ship, and happily rely on chartering Merchant ships for “brigade level transfer”. No need to keep them in RFA nor RN.

Merchant RoRo ship is very good. Large, cheap, and plenty in the market for charter.

[jedibeeftrix]

I'm always going to demand a description of what is meant by "capability" of 3Cdo when people breezily suggest removing the LCP's (and vessels that house them).

Colour me skeptical when people talk about the glorious future of 3Cdo racing around the briny in FAC's.

What capability?
And how useful is that really, when compared to the ability to deploy, fight, sustain, with a combined arms battlegroup?

#FantasyCommandos

[Repulse]

As I’ve argued many times, staying the same isn’t an option unless there is the luxury of a larger budget and political will to actually deploy a large force on foreign soil - I see neither. I also see it less when you have to insert it via force over a beach.

Also, there is little point deploying land forces via the sea when you do not have control of the Sea and the skies over it.

This for me should be the focus, whilst retaining a seed corn capability to expand if “the balloon goes up”. I also see the need to perform combined RM/Army/SF raids, plus the ability to deploy a HADR stability force and with notice deliver an Army Strike Brigade via a secured port.

One thing I waiver on is the whether it would make more sense to sacrifice the number of escorts (to say either one more T26 or say 3 T31s) to provide enough crew to operate both Albions (and perhaps adding aviation facilities) partnering each with a QE. This sounds counter to what I say above but it would give a decent short term raiding platform and also, and possibly more importantly, allow the two to be replaced on a one to one basis with light carriers later.

[seaspear]

I may have missed discussion on this but recently H.M.S Albion was involved in freedom of the seas exercise in the South China sea and as could be expected was challenged Was this the wrong type of ship to commit to that exercise considering how it was challenged ?

[Repulse]

seaspear, In my view, given the actual threat level and the fact that any significant action would have countermanded war, then I think it was ok. The worse that could have happened was a boarding but given the few hundred RMs onboard it wouldn’t have been a good idea...

However, as tensions rise, which they will, it will not be the right vessel for long.

[jedibeeftrix]

As I’ve argued many times, staying the same isn’t an option unless there is the luxury of a larger budget and political will to actually deploy a large force on foreign soil - I see neither. I also see it less when you have to insert it via force over a beach.

Also, there is little point deploying land forces via the sea when you do not have control of the Sea and the skies over it.

This for me should be the focus, whilst retaining a seed corn capability to expand if “the balloon goes up”. I also see the need to perform combined RM/Army/SF raids, plus the ability to deploy a HADR stability force and with notice deliver an Army Strike Brigade via a secured port.

One thing I waiver on is the whether it would make more sense to sacrifice the number of escorts (to say either one more T26 or say 3 T31s) to provide enough crew to operate both Albions (and perhaps adding aviation facilities) partnering each with a QE. This sounds counter to what I say above but it would give a decent short term raiding platform and also, and possibly more importantly, allow the two to be replaced on a one to one basis with light carriers later.

We aren't staying the same.
We have gone from:
1. A post-SDR98 ability to deploy, fight, sustain a brigade (~5,000 bodies?) across the beach, to;
2. A post SDSR10/15 to deploy, fight, sustain a brigade-minus (2,700 bodies), to;
3. A post MPD18 [hope] to preserve at least a fully enabled combined-arms battle-group (1,900 bodies), vs;
4. An alternative view where we might be; "able to secure a point of entry with their embarked forces" with a company of Commandos operating from half a dozen FAC's, and another from heli's.

I'm fully on board with the notion of the core of power-projection being the strike brigade deployed through a port via roro and/or RFA assets.
But somebody needs to ensure you have a port to securely disembark, deploy and sustain from.
And somebody needs to be a ready to act as a [mobile] reinforcement to the Strike Brigade that can fight alongside it.
I don't believe it is responsible to let the whole viability of the Strike Brigade method hang on a formation that is not capable of combined arms warfare from austere conditions.
I don't believe a company arriving by helicopter perhaps supported by another company in FAC's, is a credible force to hang HMG's power projection strategy upon.
It is not a responsible choice.

Maintaining a level of amphibious capability able to achieve this is not a huge ambition. We're talking about 1,900 bodies, less than we are capable of today. Perhaps this requires nothing more to enable it than 4x improved Bay class with two Caimin90 capable docks and two Merlin capable Hangers. Fine.

Given the [enormous] utility this provides, it is hard not to consider as barking-mad any suggestion to bin it while maintaining 10+ immobile light infantry regiments!

In case it needs confirming; I say all of this while being very supportive of the rebuilding of a capability for Raiding and FAC's as is happening with the re-roled Commando.

[Lord Jim]

The utility of the CB-90s is not so much as FACs but rather water borne IFVs which are ideal for the coast of Norway and the Baltic. The idea I have been trying to put across is that we need to move away form the large amphibious operation idea. Yes we will still need to be able to ensure that the point of entry for say one of the Army's "Strike" Brigades is secure, but a reinforced Commando is adequate for that at most. However 3 Commando's great strength, or at least can be, is that it is the UK's only Mountain/Arctic warfare formation, a skill set we cannot afford to lose. It was hard enough for the troops to acclimatise to conditions in the Gulf to a level they could fight effectively but that is nothing compared to fighting in northern Norway for example. 3 Commando Brigade operating as such is the ideal compliment to a "Strike" Brigade and visa versa.

Regarding getting the "Strike" Brigade into Norway for example as suggested three or four improved Bays plus Ro-Ros is what is needed, but I think having at least two of the latter in RFA service with at least some level of self defence capability is needed. Whether this is consists solely of Decoys and other counter measures of something more substantial, the speed at which tensions could escalate and the relative proximity of possible hostile forces means purely civilian chartered vessels would be too vulnerable. In the Falklands we were incredibly lucky the Argentinian pilots went for the "Grey" ships rather then say the QE2 of Canberra. If either had been lost retaking the islands would have been far more difficult to say the least.

After watching the evidence cession in front of the Defence Sub-committee, I actually purchased "Battle for the Fiords", by Eric Grove, and it is a very good read outlining NATO policy regarding NATO's forward maritime strategy and Norway and the large scale NATO exercises in the late 1980s. I strongly recommend it.

[SW1]

Scimitar

You talk about can’t you talk about underfunded what ever way you want to cut it by the time type 26 is deliver the uk will of of spent close £23b pounds buying 6 type 45s, 8 type 26s and 2 carriers, 16 ships. You could of bought 5 LHD Canberra/Juan Carlos type vessels and 20 fremm frigates and still had money left over. You talk about capability to the cows come home but weve paid our money and made our choices.


Jedi

What is the point in having a commandos as a light infantry battlegroup operating against whom? Any overt formation deploying against anyone be it a none state actor to a peer enemy has to take into consideration what we have seen over the last decades with the employment of ieds against any part of the deployed force driving protection across the board.

The commandos need to return not to some fantasy but to there roots as commandos. Deployed across the world in small groups as an extension of special forces support group, to provide targeted strikes against high value targets be they against non state actors or peer enemies and to provide strategic intel. This is an area of ever growing importance and demand.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Given the [enormous] utility this provides, it is hard not to consider as barking-mad any suggestion to bin it while maintaining 10+ immobile light infantry regiments!

In case it needs confirming; I say all of this while being very supportive of the rebuilding of a capability for Raiding and FAC's as is happening with the re-roled Commando.

Well put. And we have opposing views coming up. I would just add that we have SF and SFSG, so it would be false economy to build a copy of that setup by pruning the RM further. They already (in addition to the new Commando jedi is referring to)
- are the Mountain Cadre (not just the trainers within the RM designated with that name)
- are protecting our "nuclear" in various ways
- in most civilian evacuation ops (under fire?) would be a major player
- and, rather than doing the beach assault that many keep going back to, are key to creating a lodgement for a Strike Bde (and any follow on) to be brought to bear

As for capacity measures, a Bay can take a Coy with their vehicles ( Close Combat Coys have been kept light so that whole formations can be mover around by helicopters)
- so, a basic metric (before the PoW modifications become fully understood) is that a Cdo can be put ashore by a carrier and two Bays (originally designated Aux Logistics ships)
- without heavy kit, that would be the upper limit of a raid (you can get out as quick as you can enter)

Let's bring in the average availability of suitable (other) shipping, and that sets the picture as to how much can be added to that "base"
- average availability being further conditioned by "special" factors: 1 Bay in the Gulf; 1 Albion in "readiness, not!"

[Poiuytrewq]

- in the mid-30s we will get to see "the right answer"

My concern is how many of the current Amphibious vessels are actually going to make it into the 2030's.

we need to decide what we want the marines to be before we invest in the kit , is it a brigade or a raiding force ?

Why not both?

1 x Larger Ocean type LHP 30,000 tons 230 meters long 38 meter beam able to support up to 30 aircraft + 900 marines + 4 landing craft and C&C budget 1.2 billion Crew transfered from the Albion class

I think this may be where some confusion has come from (certainly on my part). At £1.2bn the vessel you describe would be much more than Ocean Mk2, I would suggest for a budget in that region an F35 capability is possible enabling the 'third flattop'.

Also, are the landing craft LCVP's? If the LCVP's were replaced by davit deployed LCM's, almost everything the British Army and RM's would want to put ashore (apart from MBT's) could be carried without the need for a well dock, via a steel beach.

4 x Larger 200 meter Batch 2 Bay Class fitted with a full width hangar for 2 Merlin also able to support 2 LCU + 2 LCVP or replacements and 450 Marines Budget 250 million per ship = 1 billion 3 crews transfered from current Bay class one new cre

This sounds great but by stretching the hull by 24m a lot of extra space is created so embarking a lot more than 2 Merlins should be simple.

5 x New Point class sea lift Budget 600 million

Would these be standard Points or more of an improved design?

Budget for core Amphib group ships 3 billion

This would be a very healthy budget and would enable a fantastic capability to be procured.

Also the RAFs Puma fleet replacement should be seem as the first step in a common platform replacement for Puma , Merlin and Wildcat with all being able to operate from UK and allied flattops and escorts

I like this idea, but sense the danger of a project such as this getting bogged down in interservice rivalry. Ideally it would be a single airframe covering ASW, ASuW and battlefield recon and logistics. Something around the size of NH90? If partnered with a fully marinised Chinook with powered folding rotors this would seem like an ideal combination.

No such thing as "can't" in this case ........... only "won't" pay for it!

100% Agreed, current funding levels are a conscious choice by HMG to prioritise other departmental budgets.

Offshore Raiding Craft level of assault boats can handle some sort of raids. If they are smaller than 11-12 m long, T26 can carry ~6 of them. Even Leander can carry 2.

What happens if RM go for the CB90 in large numbers? In that scenario the UK would have very few platforms capable of deploying them.

just keep one Albion as “the 3rd HVU”, with C&C. Supplemented by 3 Bays, as it is.

100% Agreed, if the existing Bays are refitted with enhanced aviation facilities and relieved by cheaper and more cost effective vessels in APT(N) and KIPION.

We aren't staying the same.
We have gone from:
1. A post-SDR98 ability to deploy, fight, sustain a brigade (~5,000 bodies?) across the beach, to;

Seems like a big ask for 4x Bays, 2 Ablions and Ocean. Was that really possible between 1998 and 2010?

....somebody needs to ensure you have a port to securely disembark, deploy and sustain from.

Agreed, this capability must be maintained.

....somebody needs to be a ready to act as a [mobile] reinforcement to the Strike Brigade that can fight alongside it.

Exactly, it's one thing taking it, it's another thing holding it. Is the UK prepared to allocate the funds necessary to maintain such a capability? Presently I don't think that's clear.

Given the [enormous] utility this provides, it is hard not to consider as barking-mad any suggestion to bin it while maintaining 10+ immobile light infantry regiments!

This has been raised here many times by myself and others. The UK's Amphibious and Air Assault forces's strength should maintained at current levels or even enhanced at the expense of the Light Infantry. If modernising is to take place, this would seem like a very good place to start.

[ArmChairCivvy]

if the existing Bays are refitted with enhanced aviation facilities

Lots of good points, just on the above one: Someone, on this forum, very expert-like pointed out "the cost" to their primary capabilities from doing such modifications
- a pity I forget who it was (bird-eye view photos and all, to back up the "opinion")

[donald_of_tokyo]

Offshore Raiding Craft level of assault boats can handle some sort of raids. If they are smaller than 11-12 m long, T26 can carry ~6 of them. Even Leander can carry 2.

What happens if RM go for the CB90 in large numbers? In that scenario the UK would have very few platforms capable of deploying them.

RN decided to carry ORCs in T26. Why change that mind even before commissioning T26? If we now think it is CB90, what if RN think they need more large crafts, LCU-size, 10 years later? I think Bays and Albions, capable to carry ORC, CB90, LCVP, and LCU, and mexefloat is better asset.

just keep one Albion as “the 3rd HVU”, with C&C. Supplemented by 3 Bays, as it is.

100% Agreed, if the existing Bays are refitted with enhanced aviation facilities and relieved by cheaper and more cost effective vessels in APT(N) and KIPION.

I am a bit more realistic / pessimistic here.
- The 2nd CVF or Albion will be the core of the amphibious operation. If it is PoW, enhanced heliborne with Chinooks. If it is Albion, enhanced LCU capabilities.
- Having 1 Bay in APT(N) is good. Caribbean ocean is not so far from Britain, so we can call it back to form "2nd-wave" of amphibious force in emergency. APT-N is a good "reservoir" for 1 Bay.
- Having another Bay in Persian gulf is something needs re-considerration. For a moment, I think it is OK. I think it can be replaced by one of the Echos (which is design to be MCMV mother ship), and in place the Bay can "shift" to Med, which is near to Britain. Another good "reservoir" for 1 Bay.
- another Bay in refit/train/low-readiness = rest.

This will make all 4 (1 Albion and 3 Bays) assets "useful asset even in peace time" = 90% of the day. It will save them from cut. They will contribute to the UK maritime commitment, even in peace time. RN/RFA can retain the "minimum amphibious force" which can be formed upon emergency. Albion and Bay is only needed when there is no port.

On the other hand, 4 Points will be doing "every-days tasks", such as carrying Armies IFV or anything logistic.

[Tempest414]

Tempest414 wrote:
1 x Larger Ocean type LHP 30,000 tons 230 meters long 38 meter beam able to support up to 30 aircraft + 900 marines + 4 landing craft and C&C budget 1.2 billion Crew transfered from the Albion class
I think this may be where some confusion has come from (certainly on my part). At £1.2bn the vessel you describe would be much more than Ocean Mk2, I would suggest for a budget in that region an F35 capability is possible enabling the 'third flattop'.

Also, are the landing craft LCVP's? If the LCVP's were replaced by davit deployed LCM's, almost everything the British Army and RM's would want to put ashore (apart from MBT's) could be carried without the need for a well dock, via a steel beach.

Tempest414 wrote:
4 x Larger 200 meter Batch 2 Bay Class fitted with a full width hangar for 2 Merlin also able to support 2 LCU + 2 LCVP or replacements and 450 Marines Budget 250 million per ship = 1 billion 3 crews transfered from current Bay class one new cre
This sounds great but by stretching the hull by 24m a lot of extra space is created so embarking a lot more than 2 Merlins should be simple.

Tempest414 wrote:
5 x New Point class sea lift Budget 600 million
Would these be standard Points or more of an improved design?
Budget for core Amphib group ships 3 billion
This would be a very healthy budget and would enable a fantastic capability to be procured.

Tempest414 wrote:
Also the RAFs Puma fleet replacement should be seem as the first step in a common platform replacement for Puma , Merlin and Wildcat with all being able to operate from UK and allied flattops and escorts
I like this idea, but sense the danger of a project such as this getting bogged down in interservice rivalry. Ideally it would be a single airframe covering ASW, ASuW and battlefield recon and logistics. Something around the size of NH90? If partnered with a fully marinised Chinook with powered folding rotors this would seem like an ideal combination.

The budget for the LHP is as you say on the high side however I would start with stand point that it would have a limited F-35 capability but operating f-35s would not be its role. my vision is of a 30,000 ton ship capable of operating 30 helicopters from 8 spots embarking 900 Marines + 40 light armoured vehicles and 4 landing craft plus have full C&C for the Amphib group

The the 4 new 200 meter bays as you say have a lot of scope however the enlarged well dock will take some of the extra space as will the 100 extra troops as you know I have always liked your option 1 on page 44 of this thread and in a full landing operation I would embark 3 battle field Wildcats on each Bay class plus I feel anything past option 1 would ramp up costs

At this time I would keep the Points simple maybe at most fit them for but with a Phalanx on the bow

When I say a common platform to replace Puma , Merlin and wildcat I do mean a single airframe like a NH90 or Blackhawk type of size

[jedibeeftrix]

es we will still need to be able to ensure that the point of entry for say one of the Army's "Strike" Brigades is secure, but a reinforced Commando is adequate for that at most.

After watching the evidence cession in front of the Defence Sub-committee, I actually purchased "Battle for the Fiords", by Eric Grove, and it is a very good read outlining NATO policy regarding NATO's forward maritime strategy and Norway and the large scale NATO exercises in the late 1980s. I strongly recommend it.

Are we talking about:
1. Lead Commando Landing Force A lead Cdo (e.g 40 Cdo or 45 Cdo) plus attachments A Logistics Task Group from Commando Logistics Regiment 1 battery plus coord centre from 29 Cdo RA 1 eng sqn plus planning cell from 24 Cdo RE Approx Totals: 1200 personnel & 500 vehicles
Or:
2. Lead Commando Group (LCG)
As above but with full support personnel.
Approx Totals: 1900 personnel & 800 vehicles
Or:
3. Something less than this, i.e. just the 591 sets of boots, and not a combined-arms formation?

Thank you, I will keep an eye out for it.

What is the point in having a commandos as a light infantry battlegroup operating against whom? Any overt formation deploying against anyone be it a none state actor to a peer enemy has to take into consideration what we have seen over the last decades with the employment of ieds against any part of the deployed force driving protection across the board.

The commandos need to return not to some fantasy but to there roots as commandos. Deployed across the world in small groups as an extension of special forces support group, to provide targeted strikes against high value targets be they against non state actors or peer enemies and to provide strategic intel. This is an area of ever growing importance and demand.

At least this light infantry battlegroup comes with its own vehicles, its own method of strategic deployment, and its own unique military purpose. Same can't be said of the dozen light role infantry battalions...

There is nothing fanciful about their current role, to suggest as much is absurd. As noted by ACC, the UK is now well stocked with underwater-knife-fighters and their support formations.

Well put. And we have opposing views coming up. I would just add that we have SF and SFSG, so it would be false economy to build a copy of that setup by pruning the RM further.
As for capacity measures, a Bay can take a Coy with their vehicles ( Close Combat Coys have been kept light so that whole formations can be mover around by helicopters)
- so, a basic metric (before the PoW modifications become fully understood) is that a Cdo can be put ashore by a carrier and two Bays (originally designated Aux Logistics ships)
- without heavy kit, that would be the upper limit of a raid (you can get out as quick as you can enter)

Thank you.

Is that "a Cdo" as in a Commando21 of 591 pairs of boots, stood in their boots with little else to hand but their bergens. Or, is this a Commando with vehicles and CS/CSS support formations?

Agreed, this capability must be maintained.

This has been raised here many times by myself and others. The UK's Amphibious and Air Assault forces's strength should maintained at current levels or even enhanced at the expense of the Light Infantry. If modernising is to take place, this would seem like a very good place to start.

Thanks.

But to be clear: I'm not quite sure from that statement above whether you're merely advocating the continued existance of 3Cdo as a brigade comprised principally of 3x Commando Regiments, or, whether you are explicitly referring to the capability to deploy, fight, sustain amphibious forces as a combined-arms formation?

[ArmChairCivvy]

would start with stand point that it would have a limited F-35 capability but operating f-35s would not be its role. my vision is of a 30,000 ton ship capable of operating 30 helicopters from 8 spots embarking 900 Marines + 40 light armoured vehicles and 4 landing craft plus have full C&C for the Amphib group

Perhaps the Italians would be willing to sell Cavour off, on a fine price?
" at full load of 27,100t, an overall length of 244m and a sustained speed of 27kt. The carrier’s runway is 180m×14m with a 12° ski jump.[a typical mix of helos and fixed-wing = 24] It can accommodate up to 1,202 people on board, including the ship’s crew of 486, 211 aircrew, an amphibious command force of 140, and San Marco Battalion of 360, plus an extra 90 troops if required.
= a bit short, but the facilities have been designed for comfort, should one end up bobbing up and down off someone's coast for a bit longer

A strong feature of the ship is its high flexibility in operational terms [:] The aircraft hangar can accommodate 100 light vehicles or 24 main battle tanks for amphibious missions. The ship can also support four LCVP landing craft. "