Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
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:- Keep the 4 B1 Rivers in service: 130
- Bring 3 T26s into service: 3 * 118 = 354
- Bring the 2nd Albion class into permanent service: 325
Total: 1,260
B1s won't be in service for that long
minus 130 away from minuses
the 2nd Albion has a skeleton crew of 40
so another, gives 1260 minus 170 on the absorbtion side = 1090
surplus against yr 1295 start point ~ 200
Phew! Will keep the Bays in service :D
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)

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3956
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

SW1 wrote:They’ve just kept light infantry in the shape of the marines
Good decision :clap:
SW1 wrote:What climate?
The current political climate, this Government is clinging on by its finger nails. No point rocking the boat for a few million here or there at this time.
SW1 wrote:If you mean some sub activity there’s 5 type 23s without tails
True, and 2 could be disposed off and still retain deployments at current levels but it won't help the manning shortfall. Cutting 3 or 4 Type 23's would save a useful amount of money and plug the crew shortages to a certain extent. I'm not in favour of cutting anything but if a sensible plan was drawn up to show that the money saved was reinvested back into the escort fleet to procure 18+ credible escorts by increasing the T31 budget to a sensible level then maybe it's worth looking at. Any short term gaps would have to filled by retaining the Batch 1 Rivers.
SW1 wrote:You could always take type 45 numbers down.
Disagree, six is the bare minimum.
SW1 wrote:It’s the navy budget and it’s manning that is way out of kilter
Agreed, HMG should make arrangements to increase both immediately.
SW1 wrote:If you mean army light infantry I would agree but they need to cut those numbers just to equip the 4 mechanised brigades with armoured vehicles that were built in the 60s. It’s rumoured to be in the order of 4b a year that needs to be saved that’s an awful lot of infantry!
I do mean British Army light infantry. I believe this is an area that could benefit from some modernisation and reorganisation. I would argue that the UK needs to revert back to a primarily maritime based defence strategy. The Royal Marines should be expanded further along with reinforcing the Air Assault Brigade and SF. The UK should focus on equipping, enhancing and properly training its elite forces at the expense of the regular light infantry. Controversial I know.

A lot will depend on the shape and direction of the UK's next Government.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
SW1 wrote:They’ve just kept light infantry in the shape of the marines
Good decision :clap:
SW1 wrote:What climate?
The current political climate, this Government is clinging on by its finger nails. No point rocking the boat for a few million here or there at this time.
SW1 wrote:If you mean some sub activity there’s 5 type 23s without tails
True, and 2 could be disposed off and still retain deployments at current levels but it won't help the manning shortfall. Cutting 3 or 4 Type 23's would save a useful amount of money and plug the crew shortages to a certain extent. I'm not in favour of cutting anything but if a sensible plan was drawn up to show that the money saved was reinvested back into the escort fleet to procure 18+ credible escorts by increasing the T31 budget to a sensible level then maybe it's worth looking at. Any short term gaps would have to filled by retaining the Batch 1 Rivers.
SW1 wrote:You could always take type 45 numbers down.
Disagree, six is the bare minimum.
SW1 wrote:It’s the navy budget and it’s manning that is way out of kilter
Agreed, HMG should make arrangements to increase both immediately.
SW1 wrote:If you mean army light infantry I would agree but they need to cut those numbers just to equip the 4 mechanised brigades with armoured vehicles that were built in the 60s. It’s rumoured to be in the order of 4b a year that needs to be saved that’s an awful lot of infantry!
I do mean British Army light infantry. I believe this is an area that could benefit from some modernisation and reorganisation. I would argue that the UK needs to revert back to a primarily maritime based defence strategy. The Royal Marines should be expanded further along with reinforcing the Air Assault Brigade and SF. The UK should focus on equipping, enhancing and properly training its elite forces at the expense of the regular light infantry. Controversial I know.

A lot will depend on the shape and direction of the UK's next Government.
Hammond is tin eared, the easiest win he could do to please the the back benchers and party members would be to spend an extra billion on defence....but he won't, he will have to be dragged kicking and screaming to do it.

And, if you drop the FF fleet by 3-4 hulls you will never get them back. You can hear the Chancellor already, "you've managed with 15 escorts for last 5 years so why do you need any more? Besides the French only have 15 and they make do..."

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3956
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

dmereifield wrote:
Hammond is tin eared, the easiest win he could do to please the the back benchers and party members would be to spend an extra billion on defence....but he won't, he will have to be dragged kicking and screaming to do it.
How likely is it that Mr Hammond will still be in post by next summer? :wave:
dmereifield wrote:And, if you drop the FF fleet by 3-4 hulls you will never get them back. You can hear the Chancellor already, "you've managed with 15 escorts for last 5 years so why do you need any more? Besides the French only have 15 and they make do..."
Current planning has the escort fleet dropping to 14, so......a lot will depend on the direction of the UK's next Government.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Poiuytrewq

You do realise the a significant percentage of the marines are infact army mainly its supporting arms that allow it to function if I was an army commander and asked to cut stuff to protect a navy budget I know what I would be offering up first!

The current political climate means putting money to areas that wins votes and there’s no votes in defence no matter how much we would like it to be different!

No no there is no money in the budget it’s time to stop pretending about jam tomorrow! You have a situation soon where all the tailed type 23s will be at devenport and all the general purpose ones at Portsmouth! Put a 9th into Devonport and stream line Portsmouth which I believe has a labour mp to type 45, carriers and minesweepers only!

You say 6 is the bare minimum I remember hearing 12 was the bare minimum then 8 then.....

You can only increase manning if people want to join! Do they?

I would agree there is no need for the light infantry wrapped up in the adaptable force it was a cap badge fudge. I believe there is no role for overt western light forces outside of those supporting the special forces on a modern battlefield and I include the the Paras and marines in that. There’s no reason why a reorganised territorial army cannot undertake the support to civil powers in the uk in times off terrorist attack or national emergency in the same way we have retained fire fighters or rnli operate. There is also no reason why the ceremonial units cannot be drawn from the reserve forces.


If the next government if a Jeremy Corbyn lead one then sdsr 2010 will look tame in comparisonto what will come.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Repulse wrote:- Keep the 4 B1 Rivers in service: 130
- Bring 3 T26s into service: 3 * 118 = 354
- Bring the 2nd Albion class into permanent service: 325
Total: 1,260
B1s won't be in service for that long
minus 130 away from minuses
the 2nd Albion has a skeleton crew of 40
so another, gives 1260 minus 170 on the absorbtion side = 1090
surplus against yr 1295 start point ~ 200
Phew! Will keep the Bays in service :D

But are the B1 river crews not going to the B2 rivers?

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3956
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

SW1 wrote:You do realise the a significant percentage of the marines are infact army mainly its supporting arms that allow it to function if I was an army commander and asked to cut stuff to protect a navy budget I know what I would be offering up first!
I fully understand the current structure, but structures can change and adapt and I would rather see a long term plan, with a clear forward looking direction enacted, rather than endless strategically nonsensical cuts driven by a desire to balance a short term budget imbalance.
SW1 wrote:The current political climate means putting money to areas that wins votes and there’s no votes in defence no matter how much we would like it to be different!
Only if the general public feel safe and secure. It all depends on the threat level. Public perceptions can change fast as can events.
SW1 wrote:No no there is no money in the budget it’s time to stop pretending about jam tomorrow!
Who's pretending? The UK's defence budget in not an insignificant sum. Its extracting maximum value for money that Is always the difficult part.
SW1 wrote:You say 6 is the bare minimum I remember hearing 12 was the bare minimum then 8 then.....
I rember that too but I think 6 is low enough.
SW1 wrote:You can only increase manning if people want to join! Do they?
Maybe it would help if Top Gun 3 was filmed onboard HMS Queen Elizabeth :D
Seriously, it's all about pay and conditions. They currently aren't attractive enough. The doom and gloom climate of endless cuts also doesn't help.
SW1 wrote:If the next government if a Jeremy Corbyn lead one then sdsr 2010 will look tame in comparisonto what will come.
Time will tell on that one....

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote:stream line Portsmouth which I believe has a labour mp to type 45, carriers and minesweepers only!
Will also have the OPVs - future should include the MHPCs :angel:
”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 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:will depend on the shape and direction of the UK's next Government.
I have some sympathy for what Jake is saying. Even though we are taking a detour from the thread topic, the capital upfront cost of our deterrent is whopping compared to the annual cost of running it, which then goes on for a v long period (each time after renewal).

Not even mentioning the missile renewal (not before 2040) or the atomic weapons establishment for the warheads (outsourced): in rough terms replacing the current class of nuclear submarines is expected to cost £31 billion (with another £10 billion put aside to cover any extra costs or spending over the estimate).

That’s just for the new submarines - but upfront.

Whether it is the political sensitivity (against the background of 10 yrs of austerity) or a bungling Gvmnt... I won't say, but keeping the current Trident submarines in operation for four years longer than planned, that is also expected to cost between £1.2 and £1.4 billion.
- so add that to capital costs, and over an 1/8th of the contingency already used... just about when we are only getting started

The annual operating costs of Trident are expected to be around £2 billion.

Sorry to have bored everyone with the long intro, but the deterrence is a strategic asset, operated by the Navy.

Hence the next Gvmnt (I have given up any hope with the current lot) should neutralise the extreme cost bump we are going to go over - already are - with it crowding out other spending, and upsetting the Force structure.
- take the current cost of Gilts, make the capital spending into "a loan" to amortise over the years out to 2060(-ish)
- and the Navy is to carry the operating costs - for the priveledge of having been "chosen"

So that was carrying on from "Hammond is tin eared, he won't"
- he just needs to restructure his spreadsheet :idea:
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Poiuytrewq

I don’t disagree we don’t have a plan we’re bouncing around all over the place another this is safe that isn’t while a supposed review is ongoing.

I would argue we’ve been bouncing around for such a plan or strategy since then end of the Cold War.

I also agree endless cuts sap moral. But that is because we continue to fund future capabilities based on fancy cuts the military top brass insist they can make to fund said capability and then complain when they can’t. Imo all future budgeting equipment and people must be made assuming zero efficiency saving. Any saving found can be used WHEN they are achieved to enhance resilience, so we aren’t back here ever 5 years because we act like kids in a sweet shop come the review after the one were we made the cuts to balance the books.

There is lots of things you could do that would require pain across service sacred cows that could give a clear direction but we can’t continue everything like we have in the past in all services things will need to change.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

ACC

I understand what Jake is saying but if they move the deterrent sub replacement out of the defence budget they’ll simply move the budget with it. What people are really asking for with this option is a 3.2b pound defence funding increase to pay for the sub replacement and that isn’t going to happen.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SKB »

SW1 wrote:stream line Portsmouth which I believe has a labour mp
Portsmouth has two MP's. Portsmouth North is held by Conservative MP Penny Mordaunt. Portsmouth South was won in 2017 by Labour MP Stephen Morgan.
Streamline Portsmouth was a local taxi company which had a very memorable phone number (811111), but sadly went bust years ago.... ;)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

SKB wrote:
SW1 wrote:stream line Portsmouth which I believe has a labour mp
Portsmouth has two MP's. Portsmouth North is held by Conservative MP Penny Mordaunt. Portsmouth South is held by Labour MP Stephen Morgan.
Streamline Portsmouth was a local taxi company which had a very memorable phone number (811111), but sadly went bust years ago.... ;)
And the labour one has already said he wants all the type 26s in Plymouth!

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SKB »

Only because he was voted in by angry hoardes of remoaners/marxists/socialists/snowflakes/sheep ("students") from Portsmouth "University" (Polytechnic) which is located in the southern half of our once all-Tory and 58.1% pro-Brexit city. Flick Drummond (Conservative) was Portsmouth South MP from 2015-2017 before Theresa May held her stupid snap election in 2017.

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 »

With no new money planned, and I doubt we will see any even in the nest 10 year plan either, something has got to give. For the Navy that has to be its over the beach amphibious capability in that it will need to be cut back to where it is capable of company sized operations at the most. We simply do nor will have the resources for anything else unless it is decided to further reduce the escort fleet and/or put PoW into reduced readiness as soon as it is accepted into service. However the Royal Marines, as with 16 Air Assault are the cheapest formation for the MoD to gain a win on. Compared to both the Armoured Infantry and Mechanised Brigades, these 2 formations could be brought up to full effectiveness for far less money and together with Special Forces would provide the UK with effective formations viable at all levels of conflict. But we need to be able to move the formations to where they are needed and this is where resources are needed, in other words sea lift. The fact that pressure has led to the retention of both Albions is a mistake in my mind. They are a legacy from the dream that once existed of the UK having a significant amphibious capability, second only to the US within NATO. That dream was never funded or realised effectively, but like the Army's aspiration of always being able to deploy a division it still is though to be reality in the minds of the Top Brass and Politicians as it allows them to maintain the UK is still a major player militarily on the world stage. In reality what the UK needs to be able to do is simply move a Brigade of any type with all its equipment, logistics and supporting units in one lift anywhere with a port of whatever size and capability. Using our limited amphibious capability by sea and air we should be able to land at most two company sized units with support to secure such an entry point. Using PoW as a LHA should only come about in times of the greatest threat as operating both carriers is not going to be a realistic option under current funding arrangements and these are not going to improve, more likely to worsen. Maintaining one carrier at full capability should be the realistic goal. In a surge situation this could be used to also transport the Helicopter component of any brigade being deployed, in addition to its airwing with ASW assets moved to RFAs for example. I have few hopes for the current MDP and the retention of the Albions is not a good sign that the review will be able to come up with anything game changing as there are too many restrictions in place so we are going to see nothing except "Salami slicing", of existing programmes, capabilities and manning levels.

CameronPerson
Member
Posts: 300
Joined: 09 Apr 2017, 17:03
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by CameronPerson »

Essentially i think we’re all agreed on the fact that this government is as weak as an old woman’s hip and it would be worse under Corbyn. We also accept that there is no new money, the main issue now is actually getting the MOD and Parliament into seeing that we can only do as much as the money allows and yes that does now require cutting or limiting capability. I mention Parliament having to accept this because I remember a few months ago there was an odd request by certain MPs for the RAF to start dropping aid into Syria. While you add Emily Thornberry stating that she understood the danger but that it was something “we” had to do, another one of them (Caroline Lucas) even suggested using our drones to drop the aid.. it further demonstrated how out of touch and uninformed they are.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Option-1:
- Disband and sell Bulwark, and reduce the fleet to 1 Albion and 3 Bays

Option-2: more drastic.
- Disband both Albion and Bulwark.
Its not Option 1 or 2, what's Option 3? :D
As I heard Times-online said, "3 T23 and T31e-program" or "3 T23 and 2 T26" are to be cut (can anyone confirm?),

My Option-3 will be to:
- ban 3-5 T23GPs as well as T31 as a whole
- keep Albion active, Bulwark sleeping, 3 Bays active.
- ban Argus (with small modification to one of the Bays), sell 2 Waves, ban another 2 MCMVs to make it in total 10
- reduce Persian gulf MCMV from 4 to 2, replace the Bay there with a River B2. The 1 "surplus" Bay will be "Argus replacement".
- modify 2 River B2s with hangar, ESM/chaff/flare and CIWS (on 2 out of 5 of them).

In total, a fleet with
- 2 CV, 1+1 Albions, 6 T45, 8-10 T23 (to be replaced with 8-9 T26)
- 4 SSBN, 6 SSN (not 7)
- 2 River B2 "Sloop", 3 River B2 OPV, 2 Echos, 1 Scot, 1 Protector, 1 Magpie
- 3 Forts/SSS, 4 Tides, 3 Bays
- 4 Points :thumbup:

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Everybody knows that the Fleet is drastically too small. This state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue! The RFA is impacted in exactly the same fashion. How many people would seek employment with a "Company" that was continuously down-sizing both in terms of it's employees and it's capabilities. It is NOT that the Fleet is "Out of Kilter" (God I detest that phrase) with the budget. It is rather that the budget is " Out of Synch." with what is actually urgently required. If the Politicians truly believe that more can be done with less, then let them take a similar percentage cut in their own pay. Would they do that, what do you think? :idea:

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:provide the UK with effective formations viable at all levels of conflict
... I like the wording (much more than "Adaptable Force"). However, the next quote, with all the "good bits" in it still ignores the stated intention of manning both carriers?
Lord Jim wrote: Maintaining one carrier at full capability should be the realistic goal. In a surge situation this could be used to also transport the Helicopter component of any brigade being deployed, in addition to its airwing with ASW assets moved to RFAs for example
Going to the two companies max effort?? that looks rather slim, but could answer the question posed upthread about what is available for elsewhere with one cdo's permanent Arctic tasking:
- exactly those two Coys, for a NEO hafway round the world
- if the need to "round up" the numbers becomes evident, the other two (helo-borne, from a carrier... note: not "the") need not be drawn from the RM
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 »

Manning both carrier is the publicly stated aspiration but one PoW has finished trial and joins the fleet I can see it going into "Extended readiness". The Government can still state both carrier are fully manned and get away with it unless the balloon goes up and we actually need both, but out Politicians and Treasury Civil Servants seem willing to take that risk based on past experience.

As for moving troops half way around the world, again this is an aspiration we really cannot afford to meet with anything other than a token force. I understand we have agreements with nations but we have not funded our Armed Forces to achieve this and to say so or declare we have the true capability to do so is purely spin. Despite years of Governments declaring out status as a global power our Military is a one shot pony these days, in other words we can conduct one medium to small scale operation at a time with effective forces. However we still contribute key capabilities to NATO and are one of the larger Europeans armed forces, and one of the few with the ability to deploy at least one Brigade sized formation to NATO's northern flank.

Regarding the two Companies I mentioned and balancing the force, this would be one deploy by sea and one by helicopter. Of course a third could "Jump" in theatre if needed. This is the first wave as I see it to secure entry for the follow formations. I would actually like to see 3 Commando, 16 Air Assault, the associated support units, and SF put under a single command, a sort of UK variant of JSOC. As I stated before with investment this could become a seriously world class force and one we have the assets to deploy. But investment is the key, and the MoD needs to reduce the number of programmes it has underway at the moment to free up the funding to do this. WE would do far better to move funding from modernising the equipment used by the AI Brigades into bring these formations up to the level they should be. Next in line should be funding for the Strike Brigades to ensure that they contain sufficient integral firepower to be viable formations (Unlike under present plans). The invest that is going to be required to bring the AI Brigades up to a viable level is not cost effective at our current level of funding and we would achieve far more investing as I have described. As a bonus this change of priorities would allow the UK to deploy a three Brigade Division that is combat effective.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by R686 »

Good news

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-s ... -announces
The Defence Secretary also put to bed any speculation about the future of amphibious assault ships HMS Bulwark and HMS Albion being withdrawn from service early

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:Regarding the two Companies I mentioned and balancing the force, this would be one deploy by sea and one by helicopter. Of course a third could "Jump" in theatre if needed. This is the first wave as I see it to secure entry for the follow formations.
Just to clarify, I was contrasting the "needs" of an Arctic deployment and whatever is left to do anything else ("EVO" used as an example) anywhere else.

Rather than just painting the picture, let me also colour it in:

2 Bays, with two Coys with their vehicles go in close
- they land the force - yes, over the beach - and the force co-mingles with the evacuees and the perhaps friendly, or neutral, local forces (Police and whatever)
- the perimeter is well defined and restricted in area

Just like in the UNIFIL ops (some unsavoury characters in the area that can be cast here as the stereotypes) there is always the danger of escalation, so what you need is a Force Commander's Reserve (FCR)
- so if someone decides to start shooting, they can quickly be flown in to re-enforce that flank
- or, if there are forces external to the scene, but approaching, they can - equally quickly - be deployed as the blocking force... everyone else departed (on landing craft); hey! the blocking force is picked up, and the invading force will have to look for another opponent

Anyway, that is just EVO - which could be stage one - and with the non-combatants out of the way, the same force could be used as a vanguard for a foillow-on (alliance based) action
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 »

I must admit I was not considering EVO, but even without the Albions we would still be able to mount such an operation. Facilitating my train of though is that the RM would aim to consolidate their order of battle around these reinforces Company sized formations and there default unit. When on board they would be equipped for the majority of contingencies be it securing a port for follow on forces in a shooting war or for the evacuation of nationals or both. The key theory is that we need to forget about aspiring to be able to land significant forces over the beach liker many here still do. Sea Lift has to be the foundation of the RN and RFAs capability with future platform tailored to this resulting in there being no need for large LHDs and other specialised Amphibious Assault vessels. How the Dutch used their Rotterdam class LPD in operation Atlanta, acting as mothership to at least four Swedish CB-90s who in turn worked with the Dutch Marines, is a classic example and having the Bays replaced by similar vessels, being that they are already related is probably the way ahead. These vessels are able to operate helicopters up to the Chinook in size and can also support and maintain them. For smaller operations, as luck would have it we will have the T-26 and its mission bay to launch a number of smaller assault craft. I would suggest hat when possible we should replace the Albions and Bays with three vessels that would be the offspring of the Bay and Rotterdam, ignoring the fact they are related. One would be manned permanently by the RN with the other two having mainly RFA crew but when needed supplemented by personnel. these three ships between them could if all were available support either six Chinooks or between eight and twelve Merlins. With their ship to shore platforms and or craft like the CB-90 we would gain significant flexibility in how operations at the level I have discussed could be conducted. Backing these would be the follow to the points, and as has been mentioned a while back I would also like to see at least some of these operated by the RFA and given basic aviation facilities, even if these are simply landing spots for helicopters up to the size of the Chinook. More importantly like the Other vessels mentioned they would be equipped with CIWS and countermeasures to give them at least a basic level of self protection. So like the Voyager fleet say half of the Improved Points would be in RN/RFA colours at all times and the rest would be being used elsewhere by others until needed by the MoD. As a by product of the above the RN would also get a replacement for Argus as the Rotterdam class has more than adequate aviation facilities for such a role and they have extensive medical facilities making them ideal for HADR. Another benefit is that the suggested Improved Bay is basically an existing design be it based on HrMs Rotterdam, her half Sister HrMs Johan de Witt or their Cousins of the Galicia Class.

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 »

We don't seem to be :D disagreeing.
Lord Jim wrote:considering EVO, but even without the Albions we would still be able to mount such an operation
Yes, that was the point: the Albions (a confident plural there :) ) as manoeuvre support for the Arctic Cdo.
Lord Jim wrote:aim to consolidate their order of battle around these reinforces Company sized formations
I guess we have a degree of difference around "consolidate" there. RM21 was a big step making the Coys more independent. Separate support Coys were turned into ones with vehicles. Also at the Cdo level, each has a Logs Coy of its own as a default - for the same purpose, being a unit of independent deployment.
Lord Jim wrote: having the Bays replaced by similar vessels, being that they are already related is probably the way ahead.
I am all for it. The Bays (as they stand) were designed as specialist vessels, operating as part of an amph. fleet and thereby became a bit too "truncated" in their design/ capabilities.
Lord Jim wrote: they have extensive medical facilities making them ideal for HADR
Rotterdam's cost impact on the not-so-sizeable Dutch marines force is moderated by the fact that there
- is a Belgian recce unit onboard, and
- a German medical unit (from their Marines, who are not officially designated as such and who - as combat troops - also train with the vessel)
Both mentioned countries also contribute to the operating costs of the vessel (hence my recommendation for buying it when it was about to be offered for sale became null and void :( )
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 »

I am not fully up to speed on the planned organisation of the Royal Marines. Any chance someone could elaborate for me?

Post Reply