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 »

IMO the Albion's replacements would benefit from a small hanger for say 1 or maybe 2 Merlins mainly for emergency repairs to helicopters Lilly-padding from the QEC/LPH task group in these situations & it would also benefit if they were doing solo ( with escort) type deployments but as said it is down to budget, can't really see the extra dosh coming for a huge hanger on the replacements.

Requirements do change though, the RN probably wont even prioritise this until the late 2020's or even 2030's for replacement in 2035 or maybe later as is usually the case...

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

serge750 wrote:the RN probably wont even prioritise this until the late 2020's or even 2030's for replacement in 2035 or maybe later as is usually the case...
Hence the reason for the super cheap FLSS.

Unless more money shows up soon I think it's highly likley that a Serco type vessel will end up conducting the Aviation training role and the PCRS capability will end up under the DIFD umbrella. In other words.... No direct replacement for Argus.

For those advocating the deletion of the FLSS vessels, be careful what you wish for because when Argus goes without replacement all the UK's eggs will be firmly in the CVF basket.

A Point derived FLSS working in tandem with an Albion or Bay would be very capable and all for only 1/3 of the cost of a T31.... personally I think it's worthy of serious consideration.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

For me we have to look at the need before the platform, so what will we most likely need to do -
1 - form an ARG up to Brigade level
2 - small scale amphibious raids
3 - Littoral security
4 - HADR

So requirement 1 could be covered with a similar set to what we have today, so can requirement 4 with an added rubber hanger. Requirements 2 and 3 would struggle with out hangers on the LPDs / LSDs though.
The other issue to take in to account is if we only have 2 flat tops the chances are only 1 would be available to do both the commando role and carrier strike. The problem with that is not only does it drastically reduce the number of aircraft for each role but the fact that each role requires the carrier to be in different positions.

Now while a 3rd flat top would sort the issue for a full ARG when it comes to small scale raids or Littoral security work it doesn’t help.

What I’d look at doing is at first build 5+ 200m+ LPDs / LSDs based on a single parent design that between them would have 14-19 merlin size hanger spaces and 12 merlin / 7 chinook landing spots. While this distributed set up would make coordinating in a full ARG a bigger pain it would massively reduce the need for a 3rd flat top ( if funding stays tight this is good ) but also allow greater flexibility for all ops when used as single platforms.
If the funding is there after the above is secured I’d look to add a 3rd or even 4th flattop, what form this comes in is up for debate LPH / LHD / LHA.

To me though with the way the world is moving a single ARG set up that we had or have where all aviation is concentrated on a single flat top will not work for the over all fleet and only in those rear times we form the full ARG ( only with a 3rd flat top )

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Serco type vessel will end up conducting the Aviation training role and the PCRS capability will end up under the DIFD umbrella. In other words.... No direct replacement for Argus.
Why would PCRS end up under DIFD? Hospital Ship maybe, but Argus is not just a standard hospital ship - is see the PCRS replacement ultimately be modular spread over CVF/LPD/LSD/FSS assets.

The FLSS option is tempting but can only be a small scale operator - I think the RN needs a RFA platform that can support / transport helicopters at a medium scale that would ultimately be used for an initial lift then offload to a land based airfield.
”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

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Repulse wrote:Why would PCRS end up under DIFD? Hospital Ship maybe, but Argus is not just a standard hospital ship - is see the PCRS replacement ultimately be modular spread over CVF/LPD/LSD/FSS assets.
If Argus is decommissioned without direct replacement then the PCRS goes as well. DFID may yet fund a dedicated hospital ship, if so it could be used for PCRS if the need arose but it will be another cut from what the UK has today. A modular system spread across RN/RFA is also a viable option but again it would require additional funding.
Repulse wrote:The FLSS option is tempting but can only be a small scale operator - I think the RN needs a RFA platform that can support / transport helicopters at a medium scale that would ultimately be used for an initial lift then offload to a land based airfield.
The two Point derived FLSS vessels would have an 8 Merlin capacity with 4 Chinook capable landing spots. This is a pretty big increase over and above what Argus is capable of handling.

With such low procurement and operating costs, if RN really did need more aviation support/transport capacity would it not make more sense to just add a third or forth FLSS?

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:have to look at the need before the platform, so what will we most likely need to do -
2 - small scale amphibious raids
3 - Littoral security
4 - HADR
I would say that is the likely need. Added to this the ability to reconstitute a disused or damaged port to deliver a strike brigade .

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:have to look at the need before the platform, so what will we most likely need to do -
2 - small scale amphibious raids
3 - Littoral security
4 - HADR
I would say that is the likely need. Added to this the ability to reconstitute a disused or damaged port to deliver a strike brigade .
I still think an ARG will be needed in some form, the size of it is open to debate 1800 ? 3000 ? 5000 ? But the need to deliver a large enough force to retake any BOST should not just be a desire but is a obligation of HMG.

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 »

When looking at the warfighting roles for our amphibious Rn and RFA vessels we should not forget that the Dutch are an integral part of the force when it comes to NATO operations and given their commitment to other operations outside of NATO, we should consider them part of the ARG for any medium amphibious ops. They bring with them three very capable vessels and a well trained and equipped Battalions plus helicopter assets. Like us with the Bays they have been very effective in finding alternative roles for their amphibious platforms, and they have once again begun train to be part of any RM force sent to Norway for example. They come under RM command in such circumstances and operate as part of 3 Cmdo Brigade.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Poiuytrewq wrote:The two Point derived FLSS vessels would have an 8 Merlin capacity with 4 Chinook capable landing spots. This is a pretty big increase over and above what Argus is capable of handling.

With such low procurement and operating costs, if RN really did need more aviation support/transport capacity would it not make more sense to just add a third or forth FLSS?
But would the RN want to spread operations and support costs across multiple platforms, when a large RFA could support as a reserve, transport for Army/RAF aviation assets and HADR. With two CVFs and a large RFA Aviation Support / Transport Ship the requirement for always being able to surge a CBG + ARG would be met.

Thinking it through, I have no problem with the FLSS concept for SF raids / Littoral ops, but seeing it would be possible now with a LSD/RFA Argus/RFA Victoria combination (and future supported by an Argus replacement/ FSS) it shouldn’t be prioritised above getting the other assets / capabilities in place.
”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: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

for me if we want a truly flexible force of ships we should put FLSS to bed and replace the Bays , Argus and the Albion's with

2 x Enforcer 200 meter x 28 meter capable of holding 400 troops and operating 6 Merlin's from 3 spots plus 2 LCU's from the dock

2 x Enforcer 160 meter x 28 meter capable of holding 300 troop and operating 2 Merlin's from 1 spot plus 2 LVCP's from davits and 2 LCU's from the dock

1 x LPH 220 meter x 38 meter capable of holding 600 troops and operating 24 helicopters from 8 spots

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:But the need to deliver a large enough force to retake any BOST should not just be a desire but is a obligation of HMG
The obligation on HMG is ensure any BOST isn’t taken by force in the first place which is exactly what it’s done. Luckily none of them are in any danger what so ever in any strategic timeframe you care to think off.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Repulse wrote:But would the RN want to spread operations and support costs across multiple platforms, when a large RFA could support as a reserve, transport for Army/RAF aviation assets and HADR. With two CVFs and a large RFA Aviation Support / Transport Ship the requirement for always being able to surge a CBG + ARG would be met.
Depends if the requirement is for two vessels to be in two places at once. That's the key.

With the ultra low procurement and operating costs of a Point based FLSS it's entirely possible that two such vessels would be cheaper overall than a large all encompassing Argus replacement.
Repulse wrote:Thinking it through, I have no problem with the FLSS concept for SF raids / Littoral ops, but seeing it would be possible now with a LSD/RFA Argus/RFA Victoria combination (and future supported by an Argus replacement/ FSS) it shouldn’t be prioritised above getting the other assets / capabilities in place.
Personally I think the FLSS concept is simply the cheapest way for the MOD to give the LPD's the aviation capacity that they should of had from day one.

How the FLSS/LPD's/LSD's/Tides/etc slot into a Littoral Strike Group and how a LSG slots into the LitM group is crucial. Maybe when the LSG concept is fleshed out, the FLSS will make more sense.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote:2 x Enforcer 200 meter x 28 meter capable of holding 400 troops and operating 6 Merlin's from 3 spots plus 2 LCU's from the dock

2 x Enforcer 160 meter x 28 meter capable of holding 300 troop and operating 2 Merlin's from 1 spot plus 2 LVCP's from davits and 2 LCU's from the dock

1 x LPH 220 meter x 38 meter capable of holding 600 troops and operating 24 helicopters from 8 spots
This would probably cost in the region of £1.5bn to make it happen. It would be a great outcome both for RN/RFA and UK shipbuilding but it's just not seen as enough of a priority for HMG to stump up the cash to make it happen.

It would be interesting to work out the annual operating costs of what you propose as compared with what the UK has today. If both Albions were decommissioned along with the entire fleet of MCMV'S and the 3 existing Bays transferred to the MCM role it would be an attractive option, possibly even for the bean counters.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Controlling or providing security in the littoral is the navy equivalent of fighting in a city. It will require a full joined up approach, a littoral group what ever it’s composition will need a lot of specialists

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:But the need to deliver a large enough force to retake any BOST should not just be a desire but is a obligation of HMG
The obligation on HMG is ensure any BOST isn’t taken by force in the first place which is exactly what it’s done. Luckily none of them are in any danger what so ever in any strategic timeframe you care to think off.
But we know that isn’t always possible so it’s obligation then turns to reasserting British sovereignty over them, with out an ARG of suitable size this won’t be possible.

Playing the game of we can’t see any risk right now so we don’t need the equipment to respond is a very dangerous game. We’ve already seen talk from China saying they will rearm the Argies if we push the SCS issue.

With the ever greater potential of a new Cold War situations like the above can quickly become a reality, and if we just sit there with our thumbs up our ass we get caught out again.

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:But the need to deliver a large enough force to retake any BOST should not just be a desire but is a obligation of HMG
The obligation on HMG is ensure any BOST isn’t taken by force in the first place which is exactly what it’s done. Luckily none of them are in any danger what so ever in any strategic timeframe you care to think off.
But we know that isn’t always possible so it’s obligation then turns to reasserting British sovereignty over them, with out an ARG of suitable size this won’t be possible.

Playing the game of we can’t see any risk right now so we don’t need the equipment to respond is a very dangerous game. We’ve already seen talk from China saying they will rearm the Argies if we push the SCS issue.

With the ever greater potential of a new Cold War situations like the above can quickly become a reality, and if we just sit there with our thumbs up our ass we get caught out again.
It is always possible hence the garrison is there. Deterrence is much cheaper than action It isn’t just right now it’s anytime in the next 30 years. It almost as far fetched as asking what’s the plan to retake Gibraltar if Spain invaded.

Why would such an operation even be conducted similar today to one 40 years ago.

Not since suez has the armed forces retained that level of capability.

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:But the need to deliver a large enough force to retake any BOST should not just be a desire but is a obligation of HMG
The obligation on HMG is ensure any BOST isn’t taken by force in the first place which is exactly what it’s done. Luckily none of them are in any danger what so ever in any strategic timeframe you care to think off.
But we know that isn’t always possible so it’s obligation then turns to reasserting British sovereignty over them, with out an ARG of suitable size this won’t be possible.

Playing the game of we can’t see any risk right now so we don’t need the equipment to respond is a very dangerous game. We’ve already seen talk from China saying they will rearm the Argies if we push the SCS issue.

With the ever greater potential of a new Cold War situations like the above can quickly become a reality, and if we just sit there with our thumbs up our ass we get caught out again.
It is always possible hence the garrison is there. Deterrence is much cheaper than action It isn’t just right now it’s anytime in the next 30 years. It almost as far fetched as asking what’s the plan to retake Gibraltar if Spain invaded.

Why would such an operation even be conducted similar today to one 40 years ago.

Not since suez has the armed forces retained that level of capability.
This is the same mentality and tried reasoning that was round just before 82 as a way to justify killing off the amphibs and RM, all talk of it’ll never happen. I see no lessons have been learnt by some or just forgotten.

It would take much on China’s behave to arm the Argies to a point of capability, it’s all well an good saying it’s unlikely but if we have no way to react then not only does it make it more likely but breaks our obligation.

There is also more than just the falklands to things of we have 14 OST and dependence’s to think off.

What you are suggesting is that nothings likely to happen so we don’t need the force or equipment, this is a dangerous game at best.

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:This is the same mentality and tried reasoning that was round just before 82 as a way to justify killing off the amphibs and RM, all talk of it’ll never happen. I see no lessons have been learnt by some or just forgotten.
Hardly even remotely the same. If you think we’re putting those sorts of numbers across a beach and marching round islands great but I don’t.

It’s going to take us what 15-20 years to reconstruct a carrier capability China can give all the encouragement to Argentina it likes it will be decades for them to get up a scale to even consider it.

Likewise for the other Overseas territories.

Not sure why the soap box emotion of killing off the marine or amphibs comes from. Reconfiguring said units training changes and using there current vessels is doing neither it’s making both more relevant than configuration you describe.

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:This is the same mentality and tried reasoning that was round just before 82 as a way to justify killing off the amphibs and RM, all talk of it’ll never happen. I see no lessons have been learnt by some or just forgotten.
Hardly even remotely the same. If you think we’re putting those sorts of numbers across a beach and marching round islands great but I don’t.

It’s going to take us what 15-20 years to reconstruct a carrier capability China can give all the encouragement to Argentina it likes it will be decades for them to get up a scale to even consider it.

Likewise for the other Overseas territories.

Not sure why the soap box emotion of killing off the marine or amphibs comes from. Reconfiguring said units training changes and using there current vessels is doing neither it’s making both more relevant than configuration you describe.
Who said ote about across a beach in numbers ? Falklands wasn’t conducted across a beach in numbers so where your getting this idea that I’m putting that forward from god knows.

With China’s industrial and financial might they could arm any small nation pretty quickly. 20 year build up when they are chucking out 10 odd vessels a year and if you include there CG ( which has 10,000 destroyers ) they have a navy close to 800 vessels. If they wanted to arm the Argie ( or any other small nation ) in a new Cold War to pull our self or other western nations way from the main play it wouldn’t take them much.
The whole arming smaller nations for proxy wars has being going on for a very long time.

The list you gave as a need for amphibious forces going forward was HADR, raiding forces and Littoral security ( no mention of an ARG ) with no ARG the RMs will be reduced to little more than a larger SF SBS set up. With no ARG there would be no chance of retaking any OST or any real deterrent in the first place. Your list could be done by the proses FLSS.

My proposal was to have 5 vessels LPDs / LSDs based on one parent design with descent hangers that could come together to form a reasonable ARG but operate alone to greater effect than current vessels in regards to HARD, small raiding and Littoral security.

When it comes to the RM Iv always been in mind that all high end forces ( RM, 16 Para, Gurkhas, SF ) should all be increased not decreased as we seen. For me these are the force that would be our best contribution to our allies. They would also be some of the easiest and cheapest ways to increase our force capabilities.

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:The list you gave as a need for amphibious forces going forward was HADR, raiding forces and Littoral security ( no mention of an ARG ) with no ARG the RMs will be reduced to little more than a larger SF SBS set up.
Yep that exactly what they should be.

The amphibious ready group is a light battleground and deploys across a beach. It not fighting any serious opposition to gain territory.

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:The list you gave as a need for amphibious forces going forward was HADR, raiding forces and Littoral security ( no mention of an ARG ) with no ARG the RMs will be reduced to little more than a larger SF SBS set up.
Yep that exactly what they should be.

The amphibious ready group is a light battleground and deploys across a beach. It not fighting any serious opposition to gain territory.
I agree with them being a light armoured force that is equipped and trained for amphibious and arctic ops but if the numbers are reduce to be no more than a raiding force then what is the point of them as they will be no more than the SBS.

Having them solely for those roles though does not mean the ability to form an ARG is not needed, an ARG is needed for them to preform those roles. The scale of the RM complement to this ARG is open to debate but does not take away the need for the vessel to preform said ops.

I see there jobs for an amphibious op like so -
- UKSF there to pick the doors lock get the info needed
- RMs there to kick the door in and hold it open
- Strike brigade there to walk through the door and do what’s needed from then on

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:The list you gave as a need for amphibious forces going forward was HADR, raiding forces and Littoral security ( no mention of an ARG ) with no ARG the RMs will be reduced to little more than a larger SF SBS set up.
Yep that exactly what they should be.

The amphibious ready group is a light battleground and deploys across a beach. It not fighting any serious opposition to gain territory.
I agree with them being a light armoured force that is equipped and trained for amphibious and arctic ops but if the numbers are reduce to be no more than a raiding force then what is the point of them as they will be no more than the SBS.

Having them solely for those roles though does not mean the ability to form an ARG is not needed, an ARG is needed for them to preform those roles. The scale of the RM complement to this ARG is open to debate but does not take away the need for the vessel to preform said ops.

I see there jobs for an amphibious op like so -
- UKSF there to pick the doors lock get the info needed
- RMs there to kick the door in and hold it open
- Strike brigade there to walk through the door and do what’s needed from then on
There not light armoured there just light. A formation such as that is pointless against anything approaching a peer enemy. Also arguable if such a formation is useful at much given how risk adverse we are and how IEDs will continue to be prevalent which is driving vehicle size and weight.

Special forces and special forces support remain one of the most in demand branches of the military expanding the capability but moving the commandos to a commando footing allows them to let the tier 1 special forces concentrate on there specialties. 42 commando is already heading that way, time for the other two to follow suit. There “door kicking” ability would be a commando raid to secure a port if one were needed with the engineering support to make it operational.

As for the ships they stay all 5 of them but to Support littoral dominance strike and reconnaissance.

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:The list you gave as a need for amphibious forces going forward was HADR, raiding forces and Littoral security ( no mention of an ARG ) with no ARG the RMs will be reduced to little more than a larger SF SBS set up.
Yep that exactly what they should be.

The amphibious ready group is a light battleground and deploys across a beach. It not fighting any serious opposition to gain territory.
I agree with them being a light armoured force that is equipped and trained for amphibious and arctic ops but if the numbers are reduce to be no more than a raiding force then what is the point of them as they will be no more than the SBS.

Having them solely for those roles though does not mean the ability to form an ARG is not needed, an ARG is needed for them to preform those roles. The scale of the RM complement to this ARG is open to debate but does not take away the need for the vessel to preform said ops.

I see there jobs for an amphibious op like so -
- UKSF there to pick the doors lock get the info needed
- RMs there to kick the door in and hold it open
- Strike brigade there to walk through the door and do what’s needed from then on
There not light armoured there just light. A formation such as that is pointless against anything approaching a peer enemy. Also arguable if such a formation is useful at much given how risk adverse we are and how IEDs will continue to be prevalent which is driving vehicle size and weight.

Special forces and special forces support remain one of the most in demand branches of the military expanding the capability but moving the commandos to a commando footing allows them to let the tier 1 special forces concentrate on there specialties. 42 commando is already heading that way, time for the other two to follow suit. There “door kicking” ability would be a commando raid to secure a port if one were needed with the engineering support to make it operational.

As for the ships they stay all 5 of them but to Support littoral dominance strike and reconnaissance.
Well in party they are light armoured with the likes of the vikings. I have never said they should be sent again a peer enemy they should not be used in the way a light army formation is.

I’m not sure if your getting the impression that I think the RMs in them selves should be operating like the USMC if so I can assure you I don’t. For the UK to put a formation like that together you’d be looking at a combination of RM and the strike brigade.

Securing ports or unopposed beach heads is exactly what I believe the RM should be doing that an be the UKs arctic warfare specialists, but the vessels themselves would still need to be designed to transport and unload ( in what ever way this is needed, port, LCU/LCVP, helo ) both the RM and the strike brigade when needed.

I agree other roles for these vessels would be Littoral security work along with HADR and depending on the way the mcm replacement goes and amphibious vessel numbers maybe that role as well.

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 »

We are never going to unload a "Brigade" over the beach, except 3 Cmdo, if we are doing that we won't be alone and will have the assets of others to help. Yes we have our overseas territories, but most are near the US and/or have US forces on them, and are hardly under threat these days. The Falklands are secure and will remain so unless we withdraw the garrison and allow Argentina to rebuild its forces without countering then.

Recent Governments seem to want to reverse the East of Suez decision. Fine, then they need to increase the Defence Budget back up to a minimum of 4% of GDP and we can start to work on it.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Lord Jim wrote:We are never going to unload a "Brigade" over the beach, except 3 Cmdo, if we are doing that we won't be alone and will have the assets of others to help. Yes we have our overseas territories, but most are near the US and/or have US forces on them, and are hardly under threat these days. The Falklands are secure and will remain so unless we withdraw the garrison and allow Argentina to rebuild its forces without countering then.

Recent Governments seem to want to reverse the East of Suez decision. Fine, then they need to increase the Defence Budget back up to a minimum of 4% of GDP and we can start to work on it.
Here’s this talk of the US again do not only are we meant to base out power projection on US help but the defence of our own sovereign territory on US help, well that says a lot when you can’t defined your self with out help. People need to remember the US is not always going to run to ours or anyone else rescue Trump has made that clear.

With regard to going over the beach we’d never attempt to go over even a slightly defended beach let alone by our selves, but if we need to land a brigade somewhere and a port isn’t available to be taken then an undefended beach is an option.
As for “allowing” Argentina to rearm I don’t think we get a vote in whether they do or not, it’s not like they have to ask for permission.

I do agree with the fact that is HMG want a global influence in military term the budget needs to increase, IMO 3% is would be enough and is realistic for a nation of our size.

Post Reply