Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote:Does the UK need to deploy a armoured or mechanised brigade outside of the nato area?
To match the aspirations being discussed, yes; but, not over a beach and not at less than 90 days notice and not into somewhere that is not relatively safe.

If our Points could carry the troop numbers also, then through a combination of these and airlifts the requirement could be met.
”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
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:through a combination of these and airlifts the requirement could be met.
The limits of airlift (by existing fleets of NATO Europe countries) were looked into by the good USAF folks in Ramstein and they used the real force (composition) from the one projected to Mali - noting that some of the bns came from Africa:
" It is highly feasible that this trans­port [MRTT, as stated below] may not be available in a scenario such as this, requiring austere airfield capable aircraft such as the C-130, A400M and C-17 to carry both cargo and passengers. When the model is run without the use of any MRTT aircraft, ­results show that a small increase in A400M numbers in coordination with C-130 passenger transport adequately meets all requirements within stated time­tables. Using 27 C-130 for passenger transport and bringing the total A400M fleet up to 28, all passenger and cargo requirements are met within 10 days."
- which is quite a long time, cfr. the real-world ship+long drive that was resorted to
- in the same 'breath' worth noting that a ro-ro ship taking 4000 LIMs equates to 40 C-17 loads
- so. as per the quote, a combination is most likely in most circumstances - barring a 'Kolwezi' if anyone still remembers such a thing
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)

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

I’d argue it depends on UK policy going forward, if it’s to have global influence then yes this type of requirement is needed. Whether this be to deploy to the Middle East as of the last 20 years odd or to Europe as the prior 30 or maybe to the Far East possibly in the next 20 years.

Strike brigade if done right would be a perfect first response force so delivering it where needed would be key.

If the UK policy going forward is to concentrate on Europe then I’d then the answer is no, but it’s very much leaning towards the former than the later.[/quote]
Repulse wrote:
To match the aspirations being discussed, yes; but, not over a beach and not at less than 90 days notice and not into somewhere that is not relatively safe.

If our Points could carry the troop numbers also, then through a combination of these and airlifts the requirement could be met.
Well I’d argue the answer is no and that it’s completely irrelevant to “global influence”. We will not be deploying an armoured/mechanised brigade to the Mid East or Far East. I think following what’s gone on the last 20 years it will be almost impossible to get it thru parliament (see using a handful of standoff missiles in Syria as an example) and it’s questionable what it would achieve. Ultimately the army’s role in reinforcing and securing NATOs border in a European context is there principle concern.

Any operation outside of the European region will be the preserve of the airforce, navy and special operations capable forces. We are not a lead nation in either the Mid East or Far East and will ultimately contribute an element from these 3 areas as that is what is repeatedly requested from allies. From East Timor to initial support in 2001 in Afghanistan, present operations in the gulf and Syria and supporting operations in Africa these will be a model for future engagement in regions outside of Europe limited in size, scope and offering specific specialities.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... y-setbacks

In April 2019, there were reports that the Egyptian Navy had signed for around 20 AW149s, with options for 10 more, reportedly after a competition with the Airbus NH Industries (NHI) NH90. The Egyptian Navy plans to use the helicopters for land-based and ship-borne troop transport, and search and rescue missions, basing them on its new French-built Mistral-class amphibious assault ships—Gamal Abdel Nasser (L1010) and Anwar El Sadat (L1020). Leonardo Helicopters has refused to confirm the reported Egyptian order.

Today, Leonardo Helicopters is promoting the AW149 as a potential replacement for the UK Royal Air Force’s fleet of Airbus Helicopters Puma HC.Mk 2s starting in 2025, and perhaps for some of the bigger AW101 Merlin HM.Mk 2 and HC.Mk 4/4As operated by the Royal Navy. These are due for replacement in 2035.

If the AW149 is chosen by the MoD, production could be transferred to the legacy AgustaWestland factory in Yeovil, in southwest England, from the plant in Vergiate, Italy, and Leonardo hopes that a UK-buy could influence other possible buyers. “There are potential customers in the MENA region and in other areas. The truth is that if we can start to generate some interest from the UK customer they become a reference customer. A lot of countries follow what the UK does, which is why we see them as quite important at this time,” Whitney said.

A sale to the UK would thereby solve two problems for Leonardo Helicopters, establishing a lead customer for the AW149 and securing work for Yeovil in the longer term.

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:I’d argue it depends on UK policy going forward, if it’s to have global influence then yes this type of requirement is needed. Whether this be to deploy to the Middle East as of the last 20 years odd or to Europe as the prior 30 or maybe to the Far East possibly in the next 20 years.

Strike brigade if done right would be a perfect first response force so delivering it where needed would be key.

If the UK policy going forward is to concentrate on Europe then I’d then the answer is no, but it’s very much leaning towards the former than the later.
Repulse wrote:
To match the aspirations being discussed, yes; but, not over a beach and not at less than 90 days notice and not into somewhere that is not relatively safe.

If our Points could carry the troop numbers also, then through a combination of these and airlifts the requirement could be met.
Well I’d argue the answer is no and that it’s completely irrelevant to “global influence”. We will not be deploying an armoured/mechanised brigade to the Mid East or Far East. I think following what’s gone on the last 20 years it will be almost impossible to get it thru parliament (see using a handful of standoff missiles in Syria as an example) and it’s questionable what it would achieve. Ultimately the army’s role in reinforcing and securing NATOs border in a European context is there principle concern.

Any operation outside of the European region will be the preserve of the airforce, navy and special operations capable forces. We are not a lead nation in either the Mid East or Far East and will ultimately contribute an element from these 3 areas as that is what is repeatedly requested from allies. From East Timor to initial support in 2001 in Afghanistan, present operations in the gulf and Syria and supporting operations in Africa these will be a model for future engagement in regions outside of Europe limited in size, scope and offering specific specialities.[/quote]

I don’t agree to have any real influence in the world you need to have military influence and that involves the ability to deploy more than just SF globally.
Take a look at the likes of Russia the only reason they have global influence is due to their military as they have a relatively small economy, not much in terms of soft power, a small foot print in scientific development and next to no cultural export.

If we limit our selves to just European operations then we are limiting our selves to being a regional power at best.

As for no operation in the Far East there are plenty of examples through out just recent history where it was widely thought we wouldn’t see action in certain regions. I am not saying we will but I am not saying we won’t especially if we maintain global aspersions, so the needed to be able of global deployments is there.

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:I’d argue it depends on UK policy going forward, if it’s to have global influence then yes this type of requirement is needed. Whether this be to deploy to the Middle East as of the last 20 years odd or to Europe as the prior 30 or maybe to the Far East possibly in the next 20 years.

Strike brigade if done right would be a perfect first response force so delivering it where needed would be key.

If the UK policy going forward is to concentrate on Europe then I’d then the answer is no, but it’s very much leaning towards the former than the later.
Repulse wrote:
To match the aspirations being discussed, yes; but, not over a beach and not at less than 90 days notice and not into somewhere that is not relatively safe.

If our Points could carry the troop numbers also, then through a combination of these and airlifts the requirement could be met.
Well I’d argue the answer is no and that it’s completely irrelevant to “global influence”. We will not be deploying an armoured/mechanised brigade to the Mid East or Far East. I think following what’s gone on the last 20 years it will be almost impossible to get it thru parliament (see using a handful of standoff missiles in Syria as an example) and it’s questionable what it would achieve. Ultimately the army’s role in reinforcing and securing NATOs border in a European context is there principle concern.

Any operation outside of the European region will be the preserve of the airforce, navy and special operations capable forces. We are not a lead nation in either the Mid East or Far East and will ultimately contribute an element from these 3 areas as that is what is repeatedly requested from allies. From East Timor to initial support in 2001 in Afghanistan, present operations in the gulf and Syria and supporting operations in Africa these will be a model for future engagement in regions outside of Europe limited in size, scope and offering specific specialities.
I don’t agree to have any real influence in the world you need to have military influence and that involves the ability to deploy more than just SF globally.
Take a look at the likes of Russia the only reason they have global influence is due to their military as they have a relatively small economy, not much in terms of soft power, a small foot print in scientific development and next to no cultural export.

If we limit our selves to just European operations then we are limiting our selves to being a regional power at best.

As for no operation in the Far East there are plenty of examples through out just recent history where it was widely thought we wouldn’t see action in certain regions. I am not saying we will but I am not saying we won’t especially if we maintain global aspersions, so the needed to be able of global deployments is there.[/quote]

Nonsense Russia’s conventional military has extremely limited deployability outside of it borders. It generates influence thru it’s political and diplomatic services, it’s intelligence services and a willingness to sell arms.

So deploying the carrier group to Far East would not result in any influence? Deploying intelligence gathering/transport aircraft or a field hospital to Africa doesn’t generate influence?

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:I’d argue it depends on UK policy going forward, if it’s to have global influence then yes this type of requirement is needed. Whether this be to deploy to the Middle East as of the last 20 years odd or to Europe as the prior 30 or maybe to the Far East possibly in the next 20 years.

Strike brigade if done right would be a perfect first response force so delivering it where needed would be key.

If the UK policy going forward is to concentrate on Europe then I’d then the answer is no, but it’s very much leaning towards the former than the later.
Repulse wrote:
To match the aspirations being discussed, yes; but, not over a beach and not at less than 90 days notice and not into somewhere that is not relatively safe.

If our Points could carry the troop numbers also, then through a combination of these and airlifts the requirement could be met.
Well I’d argue the answer is no and that it’s completely irrelevant to “global influence”. We will not be deploying an armoured/mechanised brigade to the Mid East or Far East. I think following what’s gone on the last 20 years it will be almost impossible to get it thru parliament (see using a handful of standoff missiles in Syria as an example) and it’s questionable what it would achieve. Ultimately the army’s role in reinforcing and securing NATOs border in a European context is there principle concern.

Any operation outside of the European region will be the preserve of the airforce, navy and special operations capable forces. We are not a lead nation in either the Mid East or Far East and will ultimately contribute an element from these 3 areas as that is what is repeatedly requested from allies. From East Timor to initial support in 2001 in Afghanistan, present operations in the gulf and Syria and supporting operations in Africa these will be a model for future engagement in regions outside of Europe limited in size, scope and offering specific specialities.
I don’t agree to have any real influence in the world you need to have military influence and that involves the ability to deploy more than just SF globally.
Take a look at the likes of Russia the only reason they have global influence is due to their military as they have a relatively small economy, not much in terms of soft power, a small foot print in scientific development and next to no cultural export.

If we limit our selves to just European operations then we are limiting our selves to being a regional power at best.

As for no operation in the Far East there are plenty of examples through out just recent history where it was widely thought we wouldn’t see action in certain regions. I am not saying we will but I am not saying we won’t especially if we maintain global aspersions, so the needed to be able of global deployments is there.
Nonsense Russia’s conventional military has extremely limited deployability outside of it borders. It generates influence thru it’s political and diplomatic services, it’s intelligence services and a willingness to sell arms.

So deploying the carrier group to Far East would not result in any influence? Deploying intelligence gathering/transport aircraft or a field hospital to Africa doesn’t generate influence?[/quote]

It’s political influence is only in place due to its military influence and the power or perceived power it has, Russia is not seen as a week or only regional military power on the world stage that can only operate near its own boarders.

You can see the same now playing out with China, China have been a global economic power since the mid 90s but has only started to be taken seriously on the world stage since its military growth. The patterns are often repeated, to have global influence you need the military force to back it up. This is one reason our own global influence has waned over the 30 years odd.

Iv never said deployment of a CSG or other assets would not have influence but rather that if you reduce the army to Europe only that influence is greatly reduced. How many do you know of that have or aim for global influence have an army that can’t be deployed out side it’s local region ?

It is also not just about influence but also about being able to respond to unexpected problems, like I said there’s been many times over the last 100 years odd where we we near certain we would fight here or there yet ended up doing just that so with out the means to get the forces there we are little more than useless.

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:It’s political influence is only in place due to its military influence and the power or perceived power it has, Russia is not seen as a week or only regional military power on the world stage that can only operate near its own boarders.
Russian influence comes from its strategic nuclear forces. Likewise china but also it’s an economic power

Many countries do not look to deploy large army
formations outside of there region, haven t seen a Chinese, Japanese or Indian armoured brigade in Europe. Or a french or German armoured brigade in the Far East for example.

However were veering off topic.

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:It’s political influence is only in place due to its military influence and the power or perceived power it has, Russia is not seen as a week or only regional military power on the world stage that can only operate near its own boarders.
Russian influence comes from its strategic nuclear forces. Likewise china but also it’s an economic power

Many countries do not look to deploy large army
formations outside of there region, haven t seen a Chinese, Japanese or Indian armoured brigade in Europe. Or a french or German armoured brigade in the Far East for example.

However were veering off topic.
Russia’s influence in Syria wasn’t due to its political or nuclear capital but its ability to put boots on the ground there. This has appeared to have swung the out come there.

Most conflicts over the last 20 years odd have happened in the Middle East ( with the odd flare up in Africa ) an area that has been of little to no interest to the likes of China, Japan and India but has seen western forces there including the likes of Germany and France ( Germany does have a policy to not take part in conflicts out side of Europe on a large scale due to its past )

But just because the last 20 years have been Middle East based does not mean Thad where they’ll remain over the next 20.
What you suggest would mean we couldn’t even to take part in the likes of the Middle East on any real scale above SF

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:It’s political influence is only in place due to its military influence and the power or perceived power it has, Russia is not seen as a week or only regional military power on the world stage that can only operate near its own boarders.
Russian influence comes from its strategic nuclear forces. Likewise china but also it’s an economic power

Many countries do not look to deploy large army
formations outside of there region, haven t seen a Chinese, Japanese or Indian armoured brigade in Europe. Or a french or German armoured brigade in the Far East for example.

However were veering off topic.
Russia’s influence in Syria wasn’t due to its political or nuclear capital but its ability to put boots on the ground there. This has appeared to have swung the out come there.

Most conflicts over the last 20 years odd have happened in the Middle East ( with the odd flare up in Africa ) an area that has been of little to no interest to the likes of China, Japan and India but has seen western forces there including the likes of Germany and France ( Germany does have a policy to not take part in conflicts out side of Europe on a large scale due to its past )

But just because the last 20 years have been Middle East based does not mean Thad where they’ll remain over the next 20.
What you suggest would mean we couldn’t even to take part in the likes of the Middle East on any real scale above SF
Would that be Russian air and special forces that were deployed to syria?

Middle East of no interest to China, Japan or India really?, go and have a look at who is buying the bulk of Middle East oil, gas and chemical exports for the last couple of decades or more

Correct on the land side of things yes that would be the scale of effort.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Changing the subject slightly; given that the RM is becoming a “small” Raiding force again, which existing platform would best match the requirement?

Probably fantasy, but for me an enhanced San Guisto Class would be my choice. It is capable of operating Merlin (deck only) and Wildcat (deck and hangar), 3 LCVPs and 2 LCMs with decent radar and self defence AAW missiles and guns. Now 5 of these to replace the 2 LPDs and 3 LSDs would be a solid capability (especially when combined to a Point+ fleet to transport the follow on Strike Brigade).
”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

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 »

Looking forward, the change of emphasis of the Royal Marines to that of a primarily "Raiding" force is gong to require a further restructuring of the force. The more recent restructuring programme put the Royal Marines in a far better position to deploy 3 Commando Brigade, but has made it far less suitable for deploying Company sized raiders. We also have to look at the possibly that to meet our aspirations of deploying two Littoral Strike Groups east of Suez, each of these is going to include a company of Marines. Lastly we need to consider what type of raids are likely to be conducted. Are we going to limit these to coastal targets or do we intend to strike inland either by air lift or vehicle on the ground? In the case of the latter are we to double down on the Viking as the Marines platform of choice or are we to look at a amphibious wheeled platform, like that recently accepted by the USMC?

Under the current Organisation, 40 and 45 Commando are our remain units designed to operate at Battalion size, support by 30 Commando providing Support units as well as 47 Commando with its assault craft. To this you can add the two Army units including that of the Royal Artillery. In term of combat troops this gives the Royal Marines four "Close Combat" Companies and four "Stand Off", Companies. The former are made up of three Infantry Troop/Platoons, whilst the latter comprise of a Javelin Troop, HMG Troop and an Infantry Troop, but are equipped with either Vikings or wheeled transport. The Headquarters of both 40 and 45 Commando are also Company sized and contain the majority of the units heavy weapons. The above works very well when operating as Commando sized or larger formations, but are they really suited for operating as raiding forces of company size or smaller?

For example, the Company sized units attached to the LSGs will certainly need to be more balanced, if they are to be as flexible as needed to allow them to operate beyond that of a raiding force. The Close Combat Troops will probably need access to armoured transport, be that Vikings or another platforms for certain missions, and these and other assets currently held by the Stand Off Companies will have to be either attached or permanently integrated into the Companies as well as assets from both 30 and 47 Commando.

So assigning these two reinforced Companies to the LSG will leave serious holes and unbalance both 40 and 45 Commando as well as reducing the assets available from both 30 and 47 Commando. In the case of 40 and 45 Commando I would suggest that these formations need to be restructured back into three Infantry Companies as a Support Company, so that each can provide three reinforced Companies, both to rotate out to the LSGs and provide raiding forces as the Branch aspires to. This will also make it easier to create a Commando sized force from those remaining if the need arises.

The framework for 3 Commando Brigade will still exist as will the existing support units, though with the commitments above a number could well require enlarging. This will allow, with the support of the Dutch Marines and other assets from the Netherlands, the Brigade to still provide an effective rapid response force to any crisis in NATO's core area, especially northern Norway. I cannot see 3 Commando or even a Commando sized force operating outside of NATO moving forward.

Together with a restructuring the Royal Marines are going to requires new equipment raging from small arms to heavy weapons to meet their new priorities. It has already been decided that the Royal Marines will replace the current L85A2/3 with the L119A2 across the service, both in tis standard carbine and CQB variants, distinguishing them from the other services. The faithful L7 will be retained in both its suppressive and section machine gun roles though a lighter weapon of the same calibre would be preferred for the latter role. A weapon such as the M4 Carl Gustav should be considered for inclusion at Troop/Platoon level, to provide fire support as well as supplementing the Troops anti tank capability. The enhanced ammunition now being developed for this weapon system given the greater interest shown in it by armed forces around the world, especially the guided round would make it a great assets to the Troop and greatly increase its firepower. At Section level each Fire Team should include a UGL, either the improved M203 or the HK model used on the L85. Whilst the venerable 81mm Mortar needs to be retained for the Company sized groups, the Viking Mortar Carriers held at Commando Level should be refitted with an 120mm Mortar system of which there are now many low recoil weapons available on the world market.

With regards to the Viking, the Marines are already looking to replace their aging Bv206 soft skinned all terrain vehicles with the latest version of the Viking and any purchase should be increased, if this platform is chosen to replace the wheeled vehicles currently used to transport the elements of the existing Stand Off Companies, when these are reorganised into support Companies and other weapons distributed to the Infantry Companies. The installation of RWS as standard on all Vikings should be considered and adding light weight 30mm auto cannon and even Javelin to these should be considered on some vehicles. With this it should be possible to equip the two Companies allocated to the LSGs with sufficient Vikings to allow them to be used inland far more effectively, with the vehicles being carried either by the FLSS or by the Logistics platform within the group. And this brings me to the platforms need to transport, land and support the Royal Marines on future operation, and to which I contribute my few pence worth next.

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 »

Not incoherent at all... but would still like to offer my two cents... rather that let spoil the ships - and their adjuncts - for halfpennyworth of tar:
Lord Jim wrote:we need to consider what type of raids are likely to be conducted. Are we going to limit these to coastal targets or do we intend to strike inland either by air lift or vehicle on the ground? In the case of the latter are we to double down on the Viking as the Marines platform of choice or are we to look at a amphibious wheeled platform, like that recently accepted by the USMC?
How far inland (by this force... which in scenarios other than 'raid' will be just setting up the abutment)?
Lord Jim wrote:these two reinforced Companies to the LSG will leave serious holes and unbalance both 40 and 45 Commando
Not so sure... as the follow-on forces (the more instant ones) would likely be their "donor" units - taking "it all" back
Lord Jim wrote:with the support of the Dutch Marines and other assets from the Netherlands, the Brigade to still provide an effective rapid response force to any crisis in NATO's core area, especially northern Norway.
Yes; not forgetting the shipping assets they will bring with them
Lord Jim wrote:especially the guided round
CG will get a guided round?
Lord Jim wrote: the Viking Mortar Carriers held at Commando Level should be refitted with an 120mm Mortar system
Check it out how many types of these axel-articulated carriers have had 120 mm fitted
- I'd wager one... will keep you everyone in suspense for the "right answer"; I might be wrong :(
Lord Jim wrote: the Marines are already looking to replace their aging Bv206 soft skinned all terrain vehicles with the latest version of the Viking and any purchase should be increased
Don't think that is the case. The two vehicles have different roles, and being all terrain is v sensitive to weight penalties (to mobility/ swimming) is likely to be an influence to keep it so?
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)

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by jedibeeftrix »

Repulse wrote:
SW1 wrote:Does the UK need to deploy a armoured or mechanised brigade outside of the nato area?
To match the aspirations being discussed, yes; but, not over a beach and not at less than 90 days notice and not into somewhere that is not relatively safe.
can i just confirm whether we are talking about an army strike brigade outside of the nato area, or 3Cdo?

i only ask as you talk about going across a beach, and i thought we all accepted that we'd long since lost the amphibious assets to put 3Cdo [brigade] across a beach!

i.e. no-one is talking about brigade level amphibious ops, just whether combined arms maneuvre warfare at the battlegroup level was still a useful ambition for amphibious ops...

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

jedibeeftrix wrote:can i just confirm whether we are talking about an army strike brigade outside of the nato area
We are

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 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:CG will get a guided round?
Yep one is already being tested as part of a joint US/Swedish programme. The US are getting into the CG in a very big way now.

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 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Don't think that is the case. The two vehicles have different roles, and being all terrain is v sensitive to weight penalties (to mobility/ swimming) is likely to be an influence to keep it so?
Watching an interview with a BAe Exec at DSEi, who was standing in front of and talking about the latest "Digital" Viking, he mentioned that the vehicle was being considered as a Bv206 replacement. It seem that there are getting fewer and fewer placed in the inventory of soft shinned platforms in theatre. The Viking can carry out any role currently carried out by the Bv206, plus the latter is no longer being developed, so no further growth where as the Viking has still a fair way to go as the latest version shows.

As for the SP 120mm, I think you are referring to the one based on the Warthog and used by Singapore. Other systems have been developed and if you can fit one on the back of a 4x4, you should be able to fit one on the rear section of a Viking. I am not talking fancy auto loading weapon here though but rather systems operated manually but have either recoil reduction technology to easy the stress on the chassis or that lower off the back so that the recoil goes through the ground not the chassis. The other option would be to put a weapon like the Brandt rifles 120mm on skis like happens to the 105mm Light Gun, and tow it behind the Viking with the crew and ammunition carried inside the vehicle. This weapon is a favourite of mine so just thought it should get a mention.

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: is already being tested as part of a joint US/Swedish programme. The US are getting into the CG in a very big way now.
OK, so CG is about to become an NLAW, in the one incarnation, but with more (multiple) uses?

Which will call to the front a lot of amusement as the standing military (on the net pages) tore their tunics* when I suggested that they had got their definition of NLAW 'as a missile' wrong
... as all there is to it is a calculation assuming that the tracked target will maintain its speed (and direction)
- that module would easily be transferable (er, who is the manufacturer :thumbup: )
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

* after a brief look into the dictionaries - that have the 'right answer' - none of them showed signs of humility, such as shaving one’s head, throwing dust on oneself, and wearing sackcloth.
- I am sure :D that they did, just that it happened away from the internet's capture
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
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Gabriele »

With a 2 km reach, the CG guided round is a lot more than "just" an NLAW...
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

”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
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Jake1992 wrote:This is one reason our own global influence has waned over the 30 years odd.
Suez goes back a bit more. Basically, the US wanted to have the area as their backyard (oil), kicked us out... and looking at the mess - and who made it - just as well ;)
- now that they have enough oil of their own, they want us back "to fill their boots" which they want to take elsewhere

"influence thru it’s political and diplomatic services, it’s intelligence services and a willingness to sell arms.

So deploying the carrier group to Far East would not result in any influence? Deploying intelligence gathering/transport aircraft or a field hospital to Africa doesn’t generate influence?"
- we should use all of these, and more
- Special Purpose Rgmnts - was that what they are called - are missing from the list. Training and supporting from behind, like in Mali and northern Iraq, could achieve a lot, and relatively cheaply
- now, when that can't be done, we will need a rapid spearhead force, in which an RM-like force is an essential element... let's see what the linked RUSI article has to say about it (and everything 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)

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 »

the linked RUSI article
in its summary starts out well as it unreservedly accepts the "not-all-eggs in the same basket" theorem, often advanced on these pages:
"Operating in littoral regions will require the current exclusive emphasis on big deck assault ships to be modified in favour of a scalable force capable of operating within an opponent’s anti-access bubble in order to degrade it and thus enable the insertion of heavier follow-on forces.
• The concepts which guide littoral strike must be conceptually focused on enabling access for the Joint Force to exploit, and thereby achieve strategic effect."
as well as the need for means for calibrated (to the situation at hand) escalation; i.e puts aside the idea of restricting the force structure "for raids only"

A heftier tome than most RUSI pieces; apologies for commenting "bit by bit" by perhaps later revisiting some aspects, like the 'submersible fire support' proposed. The first impressions from the detail are that
- persistence of presence is to be a new driver
- multiple, geographically dispersed areas may need to be covered at the same time
- for follow-on to be feasible/ credible both of the Albions will need to be in active fleet
- overall RM numbers may not need to be increased, but for the 2 or 3 FLSs to conduct lengthy deployments the number of recce companies (onboarded) may have to exceed the number of active ('real') Cdos, to facilitate such rotation
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 »

Halfway thru the RUSI text there is a detailed proposal as to how a 120 mm mortar arrangement could be used to replace LG batteries and thereby homogenise the vehicles used for those sub-units.
- the proposal is still considering mortars with plates that are to be lowered to the ground
- one could, however, use (slightly larger) Coyotes that are to serve as ammunition carriers anyway and have a mortar that does not need that time-consuming operation and can be operated by a two-man crew. Shown here on a Coyote @ 1:35 in the video.
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 »

Halfway thru the RUSI text there is a detailed proposal as to how a 120 mm mortar arrangement could be used to replace LG batteries and thereby homogenise the vehicles used for those sub-units.
- the proposal is still considering mortars with plates that are to be lowered to the ground
For ease of reference I copy-paste here where the authors (Kaushal & Watling) are coming from, as a point of departure:
"Whereas a L118 weighs approximately 2 tonnes, a 120mm mortar can weigh less than 200 kg. Recoil dampeners can reduce the impact of fire to less than 7 tonnes,129 which can be transferred to the ground by a retractable foot. The result is a weapons system delivering a heavier bomb that can be mounted on a 4x4 all-terrain vehicle with minor modifications. If mounted on a Supacat variant, one could have a self-propelled artillery piece carrying 40–60 rounds of ammunition while remaining below the 8-tonne weight limit to enable airlift.

This would create a battery of nine barrels, comprising three troops of four vehicles containing three barrels and a command vehicle, while reducing the space taken up on landing craft. Assuming a pair of ammunition carriers per troop, this would create a battery with greater firepower, mobility and protection, with a simpler CSS burden and with fewer components to deploy, reducing the number of helicopter flights to emplace each troop"
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 »

Well I seem to be on the right page as far as RUSI go, but they have come up with some capabilities I hadn't even dreamed of like the XLUUVs.

As for the 120mm Mortars, again there are systems with recoil dampeners that would fit on the rear section of the Viking as one option which I think would be better for Northern Norway for example.

The use of HIMARs I have mentioned before though not from ships, and this would probably require the replacement of out existing tracked GMLRS with the new system.

On the whole I am feeling rather smug for once.

Post Reply