Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

[quote="RetroSicotte"]Here's a crazy idea.

Why don't Australia and the UK swap amphibious vessels? We are dreadfully short of flattops and will have a STOVL aircraft, while many Australians I've spoken to are very unhappy with the Canberra as not entirely suitable to their needs, not having enough helos to justify the big flat decks and there only being a couple of them with a Bay.

We get the two Canberras with ramps, plus we get our 4th Bay back.

They get 2 Albions and HMS Ocean.

Personaly I would be happy just with one Canberra for that swap :) maybe we could just about afford to run her, All the mothballing of ships suck :(

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2782
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Exchanging ships permanently may be a "crazy idea", but I think that joint crewing and long-term deployments in each other's sphere of influence (and supported by each others facilities) may not be too fanciful. So deploy a QE and Albion to Aus, with a large RAN (and possibly USMC) contingent in the crews in return for (say) a Canberra in UK waters (or wherever we need it). It might get both QEs and Albions deployed, along with giving us a good look at the reality of operating a large LHD
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by marktigger »

again what happens IF UK or Australia want/need to operate in their won interest and the Australian, UK or US governments deny permission for them to use their assets both people and equipment in that operation?

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by R686 »

RetroSicotte wrote:
Why don't Australia and the UK swap amphibious vessels? We are dreadfully short of flattops and will have a STOVL aircraft, while many Australians I've spoken to are very unhappy with the Canberra as not entirely suitable to their needs, not having enough helos to justify the big flat decks and there only being a couple of them with a Bay.

We get the two Canberras with ramps, plus we get our 4th Bay back.

They get 2 Albions and HMS Ocean.

Straight swap, both nations remain happy.
So trade 2x brand new ships for 3x used ships two of which are close to 15 years old, 1 just about to see the end of her service life increase our manning levels increase our thru life cost halving our aviation capacity lowering troop accomadation halving our useable lane meters, and having to replace the ships in about 15 years for 2 and another about now instead of the 35 plus years now.

sounds like the bargin of the century

Online
User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by whitelancer »

shark bait wrote:Opposed landings are a definite no
A question. What would you regard as an opposed landing?
Does it depend on whether the opposition comes from the air, sea or land? If on land does that have to be on the beach or inland? What about 1 mile inland or 10 or 100. Does the strength or quality of the opposition have a bearing?
Would you consider the Falkland's an opposed landing? How about Anzio, Inchon, the Torch landings in north west Africa?
As you seem so sure we are never going to conduct an opposed landing some guidance on what constitutes an opposed as against an unopposed landing would be helpful.
Thanks.

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 »

whitelancer wrote: Anzio
We want fair play, and if we do an unopposed landing (Anzio), then we wait for long enough for the heaviest tank division included in the OpFor (and part of the Luftwaffe, for all that!) to drive in and take up surrounding positions.
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)

Online
User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by whitelancer »

Anzio was an interesting case. General Lucas has been heavily criticised for failing to advance quickly inland and seizing the Alban hills. Given the constraints he was under I do wonder how things would have turned out if he had done so. Given the rapid response of the Germans it can at least be argued that such an advance could well have proved disastrous.

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 »

whitelancer wrote: such an advance could well have proved disastrous.
What I remember the slow rate was called "consolidation " - not of the area held (Alban Hills could have been added) but of stores, before committing to heavier battles
- here we come to the slow rate of transfer
- landing craft were being rotated, Burma -to Italy - to Normandy, so there were plenty, but the shipping, loading from them to the LCs... which nicely takes us back to the topic

BTW, a good question whitelancer opened up with, the discussion hinges on definitions, because only then you can make assumptions (set constraints) in a way that are understood in the same way by all
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

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 »

A threat to a landing force will come from the Land, Sea and air.

Almost everyone has access to guided weapons, and outside the west everyone is willing to exploit hybrid tactics. Coastlines are increasingly busy places, plenty of opportunity for a pop up attack with some anti-tank guided weapons to lay waste to our slow unprotected landing craft. It is far too easy for an asymmetric opponent to bugger up our amphibious manoeuvre's, to the extent it has to be a completely permissive environment.

To allow for that the landing is going to be pushed much further away from the objective.

The Falklands was uncontested from the land and sea, but clearly not from the air, a situation that will not be repeated. A landing force will not sea a coastline without guaranteed safety from the air.
@LandSharkUK

Online
User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by whitelancer »

@ shark bait
So uncontested landings equals no opposition at all. Given the difficulty of guaranteeing zero opposition you are in effect ruling out any sort of Amphibious Landing let alone an Assault. Certainly you are ruling out any of the operations I mentioned above. Little point having Amphibious shipping or the Royal Marines in that case. Access to some RO-RO shipping and some Mexeflots (if no port is available), would then meet our needs, saving a load of money we could spend on something we could do.

Mercator
Member
Posts: 669
Joined: 06 May 2015, 02:10
Contact:
Australia

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Mercator »

RetroSicotte wrote:...while many Australians I've spoken to are very unhappy with the Canberra as not entirely suitable to their needs...
You need better Australians. The ones you are talking to are broken.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

Always been willing to hear other sides.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by R686 »

Mercator wrote:
RetroSicotte wrote:...while many Australians I've spoken to are very unhappy with the Canberra as not entirely suitable to their needs...
You need better Australians. The ones you are talking to are broken.
Well to be fair most Australians hate Canberra because that's where parliment is and hate their fundamental core beliefs.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by marktigger »

shark bait wrote: The Falklands was uncontested from the land and sea, but clearly not from the air, a situation that will not be repeated. A landing force will not sea a coastline without guaranteed safety from the air.
Really Shark Bait I suggest you go and read about day one landings in the falklands interesting the major losses that day were helicopters to ground fire. Then there were the initial air strikes. Ewen Southbury Tailour or Mike Clappe's books would give you a better insight. There was some resistance(the fanning head mob) so describing them as uncontested is incorrect. Their books will also give you an insight into the background planning and the constraints.

The "Threat" to any landing comes across all spectrums Air, Surface and Subsurface. And weapons like AntiArmour weapons, Tanks and field artillery in direct fire will cause as much havoc on a landing as anti ship missiles eg Use of Carl Gustav & M72 against ARA Gurreco. If you also look at the Argentine attempt to vertically land troops on south Georgia it was frustrated by smallarms fire as helicopters are extremely vulnerable so vertical envelopment is hugely risky as well as logistically intensive and limited.

The landings on Al Faw pennisular were also largely uncontested but there the marines were able to have access to M3 bridging rigs to move heavy armor and logistics across the euphrates. A large ammount of the Lift for that operation came from ashore as well.

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 »

whitelancer wrote:So uncontested landings equals no opposition at all. Given the difficulty of guaranteeing zero opposition you are in effect ruling out any sort of Amphibious Landing let alone an Assault. Certainly you are ruling out any of the operations I mentioned above. Little point having Amphibious shipping or the Royal Marines in that case. Access to some RO-RO shipping and some Mexeflots (if no port is available), would then meet our needs, saving a load of money we could spend on something we could do.
That assessment sounds about right.

Under equipped for contested landing, over equipped for permissive landings, it's not really making the best use of valuable resources.
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by marktigger »

whitelancer wrote:@ shark bait
So uncontested landings equals no opposition at all. Given the difficulty of guaranteeing zero opposition you are in effect ruling out any sort of Amphibious Landing let alone an Assault. Certainly you are ruling out any of the operations I mentioned above. Little point having Amphibious shipping or the Royal Marines in that case. Access to some RO-RO shipping and some Mexeflots (if no port is available), would then meet our needs, saving a load of money we could spend on something we could do.
you can argue same for helecopters and parachuting to you still need to be landing into relatively benign enviroments given proliferation of anti aircraft weapons at all ends of the technology spectrum. You rule out airborne and air assault operations. Huge savings there to!

A full frontal assault by airborne, arimobile or amphibious forces isn't going to happen any time soon but assaults into lightly contested areas are what the current amphibious and airmobile fleets are set up for and what planning works round. By use of intelligence and reconissance you locate a position you can tip the odds in your favour and land there.

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 »

shark bait wrote:Under equipped for contested landing, over equipped for permissive landings,
Allowing for some margin for error ( intel might be an hour or 24 hrs behind... less and less so with modern means). Other types of failures (psychology, personal ambitions) are possible: Nijmegen area photo recce (the analysts layer processing the photos) identified the two panzer divisions withrawn from the East for rest and maintenance... but the users of the intel "wilfully" ignored that part.
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 »

Quite a nice collection of ship-to-shore connectors in a 4 min long vid:


Note the CAS a/c towards the end (that flew in from RAF Salford).
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)

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

http://m.navaltoday.com/#newsitem-135934

RFA Argus back on operations

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 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: Note the CAS a/c towards the end (that flew in from RAF Salford).
The "mystic" ref was to B52s. The first time that I have seen it mentioned that they have a sea mines capability , too
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
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 »

Chinooks and Apaches training on deck. It's vital they get plenty of at sea training if the TAG's are going to work so there has to be a training ship in service. We would struggle without Argus to keep all those skills sharp.
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by abc123 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Quite a nice collection of ship-to-shore connectors in a 4 min long vid:


Note the CAS a/c towards the end (that flew in from RAF Salford).

And the enemy will what? Just watch them coming ashore and wawe on them? :lol:
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

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 »

shark bait wrote:Chinooks and Apaches training on deck.
Fully agreed... and probably flying home for the night (neither is marinised, so "allergic" to salty water; Apaches got some mods for pilot survival when landing on water?)
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 »

abc123 wrote: And the enemy will what?
But, but... we always land where they are not!
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)

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by abc123 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
abc123 wrote: And the enemy will what?
But, but... we always land where they are not!

Of course... Because landing in say West Falkland Island would do wonders for Operation Corporate... :lol:

Just think what would a 3-4 good sharpshooters do to them... :shock:
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

Post Reply