Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
I guess those fine refinements to Bays are on a different thread, but to me they would do the trick as the current set-up is a fudge: The 2010 SDSR mandated landing a 1800-strong commando force, but actually of that number about a quarter is of the kind that will stay on the ships, ie. not landed.
Looking at the numbers, and this is generous (costing in vehicles and other support that cannot be carried at the same time):
Platform Dock
(LPDs), 2, giving a 405-strong contribution, but only one at a time
2x LCU
LSD(A)s , AKA Bays,3
<400 X 3, but really max. 2 as one is in the Gulf
1 x LCU (each)
QEC, one at a time (max) in Littoral/ amph. mode
A 250-strong contribution, all by helicopter
Notably Apaches with F35 (ie. both interdiction and CAS)
So, without those enhancements and the modifications to PoW we get
405+ 800+ 250 = 1455 (i.e that mandated 1800, when you count in support that is not landed)
- however, the Bays ideally deliver the 2 vehicle-mounted Coys of a Cdo, so doing that halves the manpower landed from them... now we are down to just over a thousand
- the 4 LCUs on the scene being fully busy just doing this part of the Op; so any artillery and the supply of rounds needed would burden the (available) Chinook lift
So one can say that the CEPP concept falls short by the landed component of power projection being scaled (in the above calculation we had none of the shipping in dock... which does happen) to doing a NEO, more or less
- when it should be ONE Cdo dedicated to NATO tasks and the other (part of it?) standing ready to do "a NEO" somewhere else
Looking at the numbers, and this is generous (costing in vehicles and other support that cannot be carried at the same time):
Platform Dock
(LPDs), 2, giving a 405-strong contribution, but only one at a time
2x LCU
LSD(A)s , AKA Bays,3
<400 X 3, but really max. 2 as one is in the Gulf
1 x LCU (each)
QEC, one at a time (max) in Littoral/ amph. mode
A 250-strong contribution, all by helicopter
Notably Apaches with F35 (ie. both interdiction and CAS)
So, without those enhancements and the modifications to PoW we get
405+ 800+ 250 = 1455 (i.e that mandated 1800, when you count in support that is not landed)
- however, the Bays ideally deliver the 2 vehicle-mounted Coys of a Cdo, so doing that halves the manpower landed from them... now we are down to just over a thousand
- the 4 LCUs on the scene being fully busy just doing this part of the Op; so any artillery and the supply of rounds needed would burden the (available) Chinook lift
So one can say that the CEPP concept falls short by the landed component of power projection being scaled (in the above calculation we had none of the shipping in dock... which does happen) to doing a NEO, more or less
- when it should be ONE Cdo dedicated to NATO tasks and the other (part of it?) standing ready to do "a NEO" somewhere else
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
I keep forgetting this one, from JanuaryArmChairCivvy wrote:should be ONE Cdo dedicated to NATO tasks and the other (part of it?) standing ready to do "a NEO" somewhere else
" at a joint press conference following Mr Macron’s visit to Sandhurst Military Academy [...] Mrs May said that the UK and France were "Europe's two foremost military powers" and it was "incumbent on us to demonstrate leadership in meeting the great challenges of our time and upholding the international rules-based system".
She said the UK-France combined joint expeditionary force would be ready to deploy up to 10,000 troops "quickly and effectively to face any threat" by 2020."
- looks like everyone else keeps forgetting it, too
- why else did the force, already declared operational, need to be "reconfirmed"?
- and ,if anything, the land component of it seems to be going down in size (from 13k)
Why post this here? From the exercises in this context it would seem that the RM is not involved in any major role... so they avoid the "new normal" of being triple-hatted and have to cope with just double (saying this as one of the three Cdos now has a more specialised/ permanent tasking; so really talking about the two remaining ones, with "heavy" weapons)
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Classic case of aspiration over substance.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5598
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
with one week and 2 weekends training and that mount of ground cover I could get 15 year old cadets to do that to that standard it is a poor video for fire and maneuver plus I they need to learn to get out of the CB-90s
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
There's a ramp... but no one told them!Tempest414 wrote:they need to learn to get out of the CB-90s
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
ACC
You could argue that saif sareea 3 is exercising the uk half of the uk/fr force about 4500 personnel.
You could argue that saif sareea 3 is exercising the uk half of the uk/fr force about 4500 personnel.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
I'd happily go along with that... but where is the other (joint!) half?SW1 wrote:saif sareea 3 is exercising the uk half of the uk/fr force about 4500 personnel.
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
SW1 wrote:You could argue that saif sareea 3 is exercising the uk half of the uk/fr force about 4500 personnel.
Its actually almost 5,500 from all three services going to Saif Sareea 3. Including 900 from the RAF.ArmChairCivvy wrote:I'd happily go along with that... but where is the other (joint!) half?
Another 2,000-2,800 going to Trident Juncture at the same time.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Or holding the flank... very far to the WestSW1 wrote:Retreating??
[Benny, I meant the French half of the joint intervention force]
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
My bad, forgot about the French... So Oman is our CJEF contribution, could you say our participation in Trident Juncture is our JEF contribution?ArmChairCivvy wrote:[Benny, I meant the French half of the joint intervention force]
-
- Member
- Posts: 129
- Joined: 07 Jan 2016, 11:13
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Deary me....Lord Jim wrote:
What a load of shite
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
I suppose my question / comment is that an unopposed landing can become opposed if a secure beachhead is not created, so the deployed or should I say landed force needs to have sufficient capabilities and stores to achieve this.ArmChairCivvy wrote:or after sufficient preparation by another force
(naval fires, air power, or pre-landing force operations) to sufficiently degrade the
opposition such that the landing is unopposed."
I know a number of you believe the opposed capability is 'cloud cuckoo land', but I hope we never loose the capability to use the element of surprise to our advantage, and loose this by being too slow or ineffective.
-
- Member
- Posts: 518
- Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
LPD (wiki) -ArmChairCivvy wrote:I guess those fine refinements to Bays are on a different thread, but to me they would do the trick as the current set-up is a fudge: The 2010 SDSR mandated landing a 1800-strong commando force, but actually of that number about a quarter is of the kind that will stay on the ships, ie. not landed.
Looking at the numbers, and this is generous (costing in vehicles and other support that cannot be carried at the same time):
Platform Dock
(LPDs), 2, giving a 405-strong contribution, but only one at a time
2x LCU
LSD(A)s , AKA Bays,3
<400 X 3, but really max. 2 as one is in the Gulf
1 x LCU (each)
QEC, one at a time (max) in Littoral/ amph. mode
A 250-strong contribution, all by helicopter
Notably Apaches with F35 (ie. both interdiction and CAS)
Boats & landing craft carried:
4 × LCU MK10
4 × LCVP MK5
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Thanks, that now jogs my memory... the photos where loading in the dock is done in two parallel "lanes" from both sidesjedibeeftrix wrote:LPD (wiki) -
Boats & landing craft carried:
4 × LCU MK10
So, from our puny number of LCUs there won't be any special offers for some "with one careful previous owner" coming out any time soon
Let's count the other type of "connectors" as well - more like per wave than the total carried, as the latter will depend on the overall airwing:
QEC - 10 Merlins (Apaches are slower than Chinooks but can catch up with Merlins? Taking off later)
LPD(A) - trials have shown that two Chinooks can be "prepositioned" for use from their deck... so 4 in the first round trip
plus whatever is loaded onto the LPD (being a C&C vessel may dictate that)
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
They didn't have a service manual telling them how to do it.ArmChairCivvy wrote:There's a ramp... but no one told them!Tempest414 wrote:they need to learn to get out of the CB-90s
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
101 of "inter-operability"Lord Jim wrote: a service manual telling them how to do it.
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
ars wholeLuke jones wrote:Deary me....Lord Jim wrote:
What a load of shite
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
May be a better video of the CB-90 being used.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
You can get out (and back into the boat)
when you design it properly; see the ramp (and the hatches that go with it)
when you design it properly; see the ramp (and the hatches that go with it)
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Now that does like a bit of kit we should look into to replace the LVCPs or at least a few to possibly put on the T-26s for "Special" jobs.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5598
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
As an EX field skills instructor I have to say there is some work needed. where to start great use of the CB-90 though
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4066
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Interesting optionArmChairCivvy wrote:You can get out (and back into the boat)when you design it properly; see the ramp (and the hatches that go with it)
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
And a patria nemo option I see also. If only the army had bought amv!ArmChairCivvy wrote:You can get out (and back into the boat)
when you design it properly; see the ramp (and the hatches that go with it)