Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

SW1 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:
SW1 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:To shrink any of these in favour of what light battalions
I don’t know why you think that’s what I would favour.

Numbers would be shrunk to invest in the people and equipment needed for them to undertake there enhanced role.
What enhanced role they’d be undertaking the roles they do today but in smaller number with a greater emphasis on raiding.
How is reducing personal investing in personal ?

What use would a RM force be of only 3,000 strong when like I point out around half would be needed for current security roles ?
43 commando if that is what your referring to does not number 1500.

Because they would be becoming nato tier 2 special forces and undertaking that role requires investment in equipment and training and also paying them more for the increased skills and risk.
It’s not just the security roles though, we currently have around 6,500 RM only about half would undertake raiding and amphibious roles. If you cut that number in half we take a big cut in capability I can’t see how cutting over 3,000 odd of the most highly skilled highly trained personal the armed forces have help increase the RM capabilities let alone the forces as a whole.

I agree for the most part with the change up your suggesting just not getting there by cutting RM numbers. I’d see it better to cut light infantry numbers to reuse that funding to do what you suggest than the RM themselves.

To me as I keep saying the RM along with 16AA and the Gurkhas are the best we can offer to allied forces and we should be investing in them and increasing their numbers at the expense of the large numbers of not much use light infantry not cutting the former.

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 would say a company was the largest size of "Raiding", force we should consider. For a Brigade sized formation operating under NATO in Norway for example, we would have the Dutch Marine Battalion imbedded in the formation bringing this formation up to three Light Infantry Battalion all similarly equipped Add to this one of the Army's Rifle Battalions that has be trained in arctic warfare and has regularly trained with the RM in arctic and mountain terrain and you have the core of an impressive Brigade.

But such a formation will need greatly increase firepower to operate in a peer conflict. As I mentioned above the use of UGVs to carry heavy equipment and weaponry really needs to be investigated. This would allow for example the RM to replace their 81mm Mortars with the larger 120mm variety without the worry of carrying the heavier ammunition around. Adopting the Swedish Stryx ammunition for these would give them an indirect anti armour capability useful is such terrain. The Vikings can easily town a weapon like the M777A2, and both could even be airlifted by Chinook albeit separately. A weapon in the NLOS category, again mounted on a Viking chassis would be very useful, as obviously there will be a need to increase the number of Viking Mk2s available and in a number of further new variants, at least including SPAA. We should work with the Dutch to ensure commonality both in this and the replacement for the Bv206, which ideally should also be further Vikings.

On the raiding front a platform like the CB-90 is really essential. The current RHIB based platforms have limited range and capability, as to the light hovercraft. Basing a LPD in a fjord to act as a mother ship for a number of these and a company of RM is what I see as an operation template moving forward. Of course such a combination has other uses as the Dutch/Swedish operation off Somalia has shown. In fact working with the Swedes we could work on the next generation platform say a CB-2000 with a modular weapons package and troop compartment, allow the platform to operate as it has traditionally done but also in a littoral gunboat or fire support roles for example.

The FAA also needs a dedicated squadron equipped with at least an armed Recce platform to provide support for the RM during land operations and raiding missions. As I mentioned above the Wildcat should fit this role nicely, with a few modification bringing it closer to its existing FAA cousin, and the Army should be persuades to give up a dozen of these in return for a dozen new UH-60 sized platforms to be dedicated to the support of 16 Air Assault.

Another deployment should be that of a RM company aboard the various vessels of the Carrier Strike Group at all times to cover emergency contingencies, and smaller groups onboard all RN Escorts and deployed RFAs for the same reason.

The RM should always been seen as an elite group with skill sets the Army cannot match. 3 Commando should not be used in any rotation with other Army Brigades and the same goes for the units in 16 Air Assault. Their traditional roles need expanding as does their capabilities. These two Brigades together with out SF are capabilities regarded by their peer as some of the best in the world. We must ensure they can operate at their maximum potential.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

If we are talking about Brigade level operations, then it is clearly an Army affair IMO, even if we are talking Norway. The focus should be on the UK Strike Concept and RFA transport to get it there.

As discussed many times on this thread, the RMs look to be becoming an enforced company level force (200-250 RMs), that could be combined for one off Cdo level operations.

I still think there is a role for the 2 LPDs to optionally sail with the CSG to give an extra Enforced Company of RMs able to deploy OTH, plus a UUV/USuV mothership capability. Having said that the current Albion class could be replaced by something faster / smaller / cheaper to operate in the future.

What is needed IMO is the warship/helicopter carrier that can operate closer to shore. On reflection, with the choice of the T31 design, it would not be a big leap to build a modified Absalon class - maybe using the flex deck (and lift to the hangar) to extend the aviation capabilities, and add a few more LVCPs.
”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

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Jake1992 wrote:To me as I keep saying the RM along with 16AA and the Gurkhas are the best we can offer to allied forces and we should be investing in them and increasing their numbers at the expense of the large numbers of not much use light infantry not cutting the former.
For me we should not be cutting anymore man power anywhere full stop this on ward race to the bottom needs to stop and a real budget of 2.5 GDP put in place as for the RM they should be a 7000 strong force and remain capable of Brigade level ops how we go about deploying them is a good debate but at its core it should remain a Brigade. As for the amphib force I can't see how a number of LST's is going to work for the UK for me what is needed is new kit that works to allow better OTH deployment like

1 x LPH capable of operating 25 aircraft from 8 spots plus carrying 800 troops ( allowing 1 carrier and 1 LPH at anytime)
4 x 200 meter Enforcers capable of operating 3 LCU and 4 LCVP or CB-90 and 2 aircraft plus carrying 400 troops
5 x Point class for sea lift

these need to be backed up by the re-equipping of the Cdo force with

30 x MV-22 Osprey
12 x Caimen-90
25 x CB-90
New armoured vehicles
armed UAV's

No this can't happen over night but for me this is where we should heading and could allow at max effort a first wave rapid landing of 1000 troops backed up by a second wave of 1000 with light armour

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Tempest414 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:To me as I keep saying the RM along with 16AA and the Gurkhas are the best we can offer to allied forces and we should be investing in them and increasing their numbers at the expense of the large numbers of not much use light infantry not cutting the former.
For me we should not be cutting anymore man power anywhere full stop this on ward race to the bottom needs to stop and a real budget of 2.5 GDP put in place as for the RM they should be a 7000 strong force and remain capable of Brigade level ops how we go about deploying them is a good debate but at its core it should remain a Brigade. As for the amphib force I can't see how a number of LST's is going to work for the UK for me what is needed is new kit that works to allow better OTH deployment like

1 x LPH capable of operating 25 aircraft from 8 spots plus carrying 800 troops ( allowing 1 carrier and 1 LPH at anytime)
4 x 200 meter Enforcers capable of operating 3 LCU and 4 LCVP or CB-90 and 2 aircraft plus carrying 400 troops
5 x Point class for sea lift

these need to be backed up by the re-equipping of the Cdo force with

30 x MV-22 Osprey
12 x Caimen-90
25 x CB-90
New armoured vehicles
armed UAV's

No this can't happen over night but for me this is where we should heading and could allow at max effort a first wave rapid landing of 1000 troops backed up by a second wave of 1000 with light armour
I completely agree even have a similar idea of the amphibious set up. I was simply stating in relation to the debt I was having that if cuts are needed to improve areas it shouldn’t be to the likes of the RMs or other elite forces, if you look up threat I’d actually want the RM to increase to 10,000 odd along with other elite forces we have.

The caiman 90 is a lot better than we have today but I’m starting to think even this isn’t large enough or fast enough for what we need. I personally think we should be looking at something that is around 30% larger than the LCU mk10 that can do up to 30knots full load and 40 empty and be fitted with star streak or similar.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Jake1992 wrote:I’d see it better to cut light infantry numbers
It is alway easy to cut something you have no interest for from another service to pay for something you do have an interest in. The army has geriatric equipment any saving the army makes within its own budget needs to be invested in fixing its own many issues.

The budget we currently have is over extended, reductions are coming anyway. If we want to actually transform and prioritise rather than pretend, window dress and look like we are but aren’t and live in hope of more money or efficiency saving will be coming round the corner to pay for it all then we can continue the pretence and fancy.

If you want to invest more in one area then you have to be prepared to remove funding from another or reduce in scale. The RN chose to place carrier strike at the heart of its conventional future not brigade level Royal Marines operations it cant afford to do both, might not agree with it but that’s the route taken.

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 current RHIB based platforms have limited range and capability, as to the light hovercraft. Basing a LPD in a fjord to act as a mother ship for a number of these and a company of RM is what I see as an operation template moving forward.
Fully agree with both statements. The "replacement"project was termed Force Protection Boats, which I am not sure fully reflects what is needed.
Jake1992 wrote:Would suspect merlin and puma replacement will be one and the same.
Agree, and until the order for more Chinooks came out of the blue I was expecting that the "hole" in the helos line-up in the middle ("medium") was going to be filled in such a way
- Merlin's mediocre lift capacity is directly related to the original spec for being dependable in the N Atlantic weather, far away from anyone else
- we would still also need a heavy ASW helo... and who is making such?
Lord Jim wrote:may be unaffordable for the RN in the future, against peer opponents.
The operative word: peer
- we need to plan for other types of Ops as well
Lord Jim wrote:even adding an Army Battalion to the Brigade
which is what we used to do, up to abt 10 yrs ago
Lord Jim wrote: into a properly equipped Mountain Brigade
I would leave mountain troops to folks that have "propper" mountains: The French, Italians, Germans...
Jake1992 wrote: 3 special groups the RMs, 16AA and the Gurkhas
as for 16X, I think the plan for it to operate as a Bde has somewhat faded. Reflected in infantry element fading (though one of the two Gurkha rgmnts now dons the maroon berets) and the Apache rgmnts being earmarked (50/50) to the v rapid reaction and the 3rd D reaction forces, respectively.
SW1 wrote:Much lighter, supacat vehicles
for once a wish that can be quickly met: the army has an abundance of them, including the 6-wheeled Coyotes for keeping supplies running over 'what ever terrain'
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
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Repulse wrote:If we are talking about Brigade level operations, then it is clearly an Army affair IMO, even if we are talking Norway.
I would say both; consider this: driving to Oslo 1153 km and as the crow flies a further 1148 km to Tromso (whereto, incidentally, the Norwegian HQ was moved to in the last decade)
... at times there is a single (for such a big column) practical road, so the assets tied down to protect the force movement, rather than fighting the invasion, would be substantial
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)

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

SW1 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:I’d see it better to cut light infantry numbers
It is alway easy to cut something you have no interest for from another service to pay for something you do have an interest in. The army has geriatric equipment any saving the army makes within its own budget needs to be invested in fixing its own many issues.

The budget we currently have is over extended, reductions are coming anyway. If we want to actually transform and prioritise rather than pretend, window dress and look like we are but aren’t and live in hope of more money or efficiency saving will be coming round the corner to pay for it all then we can continue the pretence and fancy.

If you want to invest more in one area then you have to be prepared to remove funding from another or reduce in scale. The RN chose to place carrier strike at the heart of its conventional future not brigade level Royal Marines operations it cant afford to do both, might not agree with it but that’s the route taken.
This is why we need to get out of the mentality of looking at each service as separate and start to look at what’s best for the forces over all, to me this is the big 3 highly skilled specialised forces that I mentioned above. They should be the focus followed by strike.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Jake1992 wrote:
SW1 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:I’d see it better to cut light infantry numbers
It is alway easy to cut something you have no interest for from another service to pay for something you do have an interest in. The army has geriatric equipment any saving the army makes within its own budget needs to be invested in fixing its own many issues.

The budget we currently have is over extended, reductions are coming anyway. If we want to actually transform and prioritise rather than pretend, window dress and look like we are but aren’t and live in hope of more money or efficiency saving will be coming round the corner to pay for it all then we can continue the pretence and fancy.

If you want to invest more in one area then you have to be prepared to remove funding from another or reduce in scale. The RN chose to place carrier strike at the heart of its conventional future not brigade level Royal Marines operations it cant afford to do both, might not agree with it but that’s the route taken.
This is why we need to get out of the mentality of looking at each service as separate and start to look at what’s best for the forces over all, to me this is the big 3 highly skilled specialised forces that I mentioned above. They should be the focus followed by strike.
So if we stop looking at each service separately then beyond 539 assault sqn which operates the small craft, 43 commando who do the fleet protection work, have the artic specialist ect, 148 battery who do strike coordination and now 42 commando who do maritime security, boarding and jpr. What does the rest offer that isn’t found elsewhere within defence. The army has plenty of all arms ground manoeuvre formations.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by jedibeeftrix »

SW1 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:I’d see it better to cut light infantry numbers
It is alway easy to cut something you have no interest for from another service to pay for something you do have an interest in. The army has geriatric equipment any saving the army makes within its own budget needs to be invested in fixing its own many issues.
maybe that is because the army has a surfeit of formations that politics has prevented from disbandment, which nevertheless it cannot afford to equip.

i.e. light infantry.
SW1 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:They should be the focus followed by strike.
So if we stop looking at each service separately then beyond 539 assault sqn which operates the small craft, 43 commando who do the fleet protection work, have the artic specialist ect, 148 battery who do strike coordination and now 42 commando who do maritime security, boarding and jpr. What does the rest offer that isn’t found elsewhere within defence. The army has plenty of all arms ground manoeuvre formations.
they are what makes strike a credible threat, in promising the port facilities that strike can deploy from.
i keep hearing people talk of the chunnel, but that betrays a fixation on article 5 in what is the asia-pacific century where the ME and Africa will be deemed 'our backyard' by what is currently the 'world's' policeman.

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 »

jedibeeftrix wrote:they are what makes strike a credible threat, in promising the port facilities that strike can deploy from.
exactly,
jedibeeftrix wrote:a fixation on article 5 in what is the asia-pacific century where the ME and Africa will be deemed 'our backyard'
I've been banging the drum about this gradual (with Trump, not always gradual) US withdrawal for years, but in the defence debate it is most of the time buried under the noise about Europe's inability to defend themselves (and getting the supporting industries sorted onto a sustainable footing... some may have noticed what the two French candidates to the Commission share in their backgrounds ;) - we create a void and someone will immediately step into 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)

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: Lord Jim wrote:
may be unaffordable for the RN in the future, against peer opponents.
The operative word: peer
- we need to plan for other types of Ops as well
True, but days the days of Blair’s world policeman is well and truly over. Look at Syria, there are now at least 3 if not 5 big boys (inc India and possibly Iran) in the world who have ambitions and don’t mind proxy wars, so long gone in my view is any easy intervention - above all else the RN (and UK) needs to be able to fight peer like conflicts.
”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: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Repulse wrote:If we are talking about Brigade level operations, then it is clearly an Army affair IMO, even if we are talking Norway.
I would say both; consider this: driving to Oslo 1153 km and as the crow flies a further 1148 km to Tromso (whereto, incidentally, the Norwegian HQ was moved to in the last decade)
... at times there is a single (for such a big column) practical road, so the assets tied down to protect the force movement, rather than fighting the invasion, would be substantial
As I say, the ability to move an Army brigade via sea using the RFA is a must.

The RMs will never be the USMC, nor should it ever be. It should be complimentary to the Army, focusing on the its specific objectives.

The thoughts of replicating the 1998 SDR amphibious ambitions is the wrong answer for today’s reality both geopolitics and the appetite to put boots on the ground.

I used to also promote additional LPHs and such, but now firmly of the view is that our amphibious assault force has to be specialist high end platforms to operate RMs in smaller company level groups, plus ensuring we have a similar RFA (Argus, Bays and Points) to move the Army.
”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

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 660
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Dahedd »

As an aside, someone above said leave the Mountain warfare to the countries with actual Mountains (the French, Italians)

Surely with the Gurkhas we have troops from what must be the highest & most unforgiving mountains in the world.

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 »

Dahedd wrote:Surely with the Gurkhas
Sure, but the context was turning the 3 CDO into a mountain specialist bde (like the US 10th Mountain Div)
- the only gurkha inf. bn in Europe is already designated as airlanded (hesitate to use airmobile as that would imply an abundance of helicopter lift) and having them train as one wing and the seaborne Cdo as the other for manoeuvres in Norway is not at all a bad idea
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)

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 »

Ok I might have confused things by referring to £ Commando as a "Mountain" Brigade. I used this term as I have seen it used not just for formations that are good at climbing but also operating in sub zero temperatures and the terrain found inside the Arctic Circle, so it was the RM's broader skill set in that theatre I was think about.

The Army doesn't really have any formations with skill sets that cover this style of warfare, but maybe assigning the UK based Gurkha Battalion as the Army Battalion to be seconded to 3 Commando is not a bad idea.

Of course Arctic Warfare would be one of the skill sets as already mentioned but the Brigade would still need to retain expertise in other types of warfare such as Jungle, Desert and so on. All these need to be dovetailed into the skill sets owned by a revised 16 Air Assault so that both Brigades and their component units can work seamlessly together.

Finally both these Brigades must regularly train with the units in both "Strike" Brigades, so that these formation are able to work in an integrated manner. This is important as it is the "Strike" Brigades that are likely to be the heavier support for both 3 Command and 16 Air Assault, especially in out of area operations. In fact this is probably the Divisional sized formation more likely to be deployed than the existing heavier 3rd Division. Therefore should 3 Commando also in theory slot into 3rd Division's order of battle via a side door so that planning at that level includes not just the 2 Armoured Infantry and 2 "Strike" Brigades but also 16 Air Assault and 3 Commando, giving the Division the maximum flexibility when assigning forces to a mission, with Staff planning, logistics etc. already working from the same hymn sheet?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Coming back to an earlier thought - does the T31 design choice open the door to a revised Absalon class for the RN?

The differences between the Iver H and Absalon is relatively small and the the Iver H design evolved from the latter as far as I understand.

Now if rumours are true that eventually the RN will get 3 more T31s to replace the B2 Rivers who will in turn replace the B1s; then why not go for 5 RN Absalons instead replacing also the 2 LPDs? These would then act closer to shore alongside OTH helicopters from a CVF.

In my view the design on the whole can be evolved but would not need to differ drastically. I would though would add about 20m to accommodate two LCVPs / fast craft on davits, which make it just longer than a T26; which allow up to 4 landing craft.

I would then still go for two FLSS to replace Argus, but would see these then with the Bays and Points transporting the follow up Army brigade in a hot war.

Overall a realistic and affordable amphibious package IMO.
”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

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 660
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Dahedd »

Not sure about using Absaloms to replace the LPDs but it's certainly a ship class that would work say to replace the Bays when they are used as mine warfare command ship in the gulf or for anti drug warfare/pirate operations.

They are a ship with plenty of uses.

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 »

Taking a step back, before we start ordering new ships to replace the Bays and Albions we need a very clear and well defines vision of what the future role of the Royal Marines is to be, how are they to be equipped and how will they operate. This will define what type of platforms the Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary will need to meet these criteria.

At the same time we will need to look at what size and type of land formation we aim to be able to move in a single lift, which will intern dictate how many vessels both from the RFA and chartered we will require. This is important as if we intend to be able to move one of the Armoured Infantry Brigades, we will need substantially more lift capacity than for the Mechanised Brigades.

I personally can see the Albions being replaced by a larger number for smaller ships with the replacement for the Bays taking up the burden of moving not just logistics but also aviation assets and heavy equipment into theatre. A class of four should be able to meet our needs. This of course puts the emphasis on the RFA, augmented by Royal Naval personnel when needed, for the conduct of more traditional amphibious operations.

The Royal Navy will need far more specialise platforms, albeit smaller, faster and better protected than the Albions to support The Royal Marines. They will need to be able to operate up to four CB-90 type craft either form a dock or from davits. I would say that traditional landing craft like the LCVP would not feature as their limited range, slow speed and the fact that the ships would not have the capacity to carry both these and the Combat Boats in number sufficient for effective operations. These platforms are going to have to have a low signature covering Radar, IR and EM. They are also going to have to be able to adequately defend themselves and ideally provide fire support for the Royal Marines whilst they are ashore. An evolves Absalon might be a good place to start for this type of platform but I would not rely on any commonality with the T-31. There are quite a few design for multi role ship currently out their so we are obviously not the only nations possibly looking in this direction.

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 »

jedibeeftrix wrote:jake is right to look at larger faster LCU's and amphibs with enough docks to deploy them at scale.
If the UK is heading down that route V-22 and LCAC will be on the shopping list, its the only way to make it work at a safe distance, and with that I expect the price will become obstructive.

To be blunt, the UK needs a cheaper amphibious force.
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

shark bait wrote:
jedibeeftrix wrote:jake is right to look at larger faster LCU's and amphibs with enough docks to deploy them at scale.
If the UK is heading down that route V-22 and LCAC will be on the shopping list, its the only way to make it work at a safe distance, and with that I expect the price will become obstructive.

To be blunt, the UK needs a cheaper amphibious force.
Cheaper just isn’t going to an option unless you plan to operate in low none peer areas as the cost to get there and defend will just go up.

I think there are cheaper options than v-22 and LCAC coming up, the V-280 while not as big as V-22 but gives the same capability with an aim price of closer to £25-£30m per unit. We’re seeing traditional LCU style vessels getting faster and over the next 10 years I can see them getting 30knots plus at full load.
The thing I think often gets over looked when talking about speed and size it protection this is why I bring up the mounting of systems like star streak or similar to the future LCUs to give them a small short range air defence.

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 »

I'll believe that when I see it, next-gen kit rarely gets cheaper.

Any high risk operation will be air lifted, much like what happened at Al-Faw. When the Marines want want to put boats close to shore they will have to work in a reduced threat environment and/or accept greater risk. One way to deal with that risk is to distribute it.
@LandSharkUK

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 660
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Dahedd »

Probably been discussed earlier but what ever became of the Pascat project?

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

shark bait wrote:
jedibeeftrix wrote:jake is right to look at larger faster LCU's and amphibs with enough docks to deploy them at scale.
If the UK is heading down that route V-22 and LCAC will be on the shopping list, its the only way to make it work at a safe distance, and with that I expect the price will become obstructive.

To be blunt, the UK needs a cheaper amphibious force.
However if we really want the FLSS and wider amphib force to work then maybe it is time to really look hard at V-22 as this will allow SF and RM units to be dropped in at greater range and with more speed. Yes V-22 costs nearly as much as a Fighter jet but but when mixed with SF and a low cost FLSS it could bring as big a bang for the money

Post Reply