That creates a huge constraint, it means a force must use well developed infrastructure, is that acceptable?Repulse wrote:leave logistics to the Points
The whole point of the Marines is to have the freedom to land where the enemy is not.
That creates a huge constraint, it means a force must use well developed infrastructure, is that acceptable?Repulse wrote:leave logistics to the Points
It’s all down to choices and priorities in my view - there’s no point having landing craft to deploy a brigade level force if it will get sunk on the way in, or once there is basically too weak to defend itself, so it has to be a fairly benign / well prepared landing ground in the first place. The UK cannot afford all the bits to be a mini USMC, so we have to focus on what is important and most likely. Plus working with allies like the US they value our SFs plus having “boots on the ground”.shark bait wrote:That creates a huge constraint, it means a force must use well developed infrastructure, is that acceptable?Repulse wrote:leave logistics to the Points
The whole point of the Marines is to have the freedom to land where the enemy is not.
We could (that's not the same as should) "play it again":Tempest414 wrote:no more than just taking over the cross channel ferries
I believe 85 tons can go over https://u0v052dm9wl3gxo0y3lx0u44wz-wpen ... ote-01.jpgshark bait wrote:so perhaps the future sea lift should have a self supporting ramp to enable offloading onto mexeflote
If we could afford that, great, but I fear it might just get cut again with an unfriendly government in a time of low perceived threat. If there was a cross party commitment to a minimum of 2.5% GDP on defence spending then I think your proposal is credible and sustainable. Without an increase in funding we may be in danger of building an Amphibious fleet for the rest of the world (again).Tempest414 wrote:1 new LPH 230 meters by 40 meters with 8 spots
3 new LSDs 200 meters be 28 meter able to operate 2 LCUs plus 4 LCVP or CB-90s
5 Point class
The problem I have with a cross party agreement only, is that parties can drastically change over the time periods we'd be looking at just look at the Labour Party today compared to 10 12 years ago. My consern would be would the new style party stick to the agreements of the old ie would a Corby style labour really stick to agreements of a Blair style labour.Poiuytrewq wrote:If we could afford that, great, but I fear it might just get cut again with an unfriendly government in a time of low perceived threat. If there was a cross party commitment to a minimum of 2.5% GDP on defence spending then I think your proposal is credible and sustainable. Without an increase in funding we may be in danger of building an Amphibious fleet for the rest of the world (again).Tempest414 wrote:1 new LPH 230 meters by 40 meters with 8 spots
3 new LSDs 200 meters be 28 meter able to operate 2 LCUs plus 4 LCVP or CB-90s
5 Point class
I agree, a cross party consensus leading to a law voted through with a massive majority in the Commons would be the ideal outcome.Jake1992 wrote:I believe a more concrete solution is needed, the budgets needs to be set in law as a minimums GDP with what is classed a defence spend set out in this law just like with the forgien aid budget.
We shouldn't but we also shouldn't build a force that we can't realistically afford going forward. If we do and it gets cut then we end up with a badly balanced fleet like what we have now.Jake1992 wrote:Iv seen a lot of talk about drastically reducing the amphibious fleet or even just turning it in to a RoRo fleet. For me this would be a large backwards step, there is a reason loads of nations are building or increasing thier current fleets why should we do any different ?
as I said before I would be looking forPoiuytrewq wrote:A few questions,
The LPH would be able to embark 800 to 1000 Marines, about 16 to 18 helicopters and 4 LCVP/CB90's with 8 landing spots?
The LSD's would be able to embark 450 to 500 Marines, 2 to 3 Merlins, 2 LCU's and 4 LCVP/CB90's with 1 landing spot?
The Points would be the same design as existing and unmodified to give maximum value for money?
Just trying to weigh up what your Amphib Task force could achieve.
Favourite phrase in politics: If facts change, I can...Lord Jim wrote: That worked out well didn't it.
I think this vessel could be more capable than your specifications. Are you proposing stretching the Bays superstructure, working deck or flight deck by 24m?Tempest414 wrote:3 x LSDs 200 meter long 28 meter beam able to embark 500 troops operate 2 helicopters from 1 spot , 2 LCUs , 4 LCVP/ CB-90s
At that size you are looking at a RFA version of the San Antonio-class - not so many bells and whistles but gives an idea on capacity.Poiuytrewq wrote:I think this vessel could be more capable than your specifications. Are you proposing stretching the Bays superstructure, working deck or flight deck by 24m?Tempest414 wrote:3 x LSDs 200 meter long 28 meter beam able to embark 500 troops operate 2 helicopters from 1 spot , 2 LCUs , 4 LCVP/ CB-90s
As I have always said it would be between the working deck and the flight deck to house the hangar and davit for the 2 helicopters and 2 LCVP/CB-90s and as also said before it could carry as many as 4 more LCVPs on the working deck lowered in to the water using the cranes. also the Hangar would have doors opening onto both decks which could allow more helicopters to be stored on the working deckPoiuytrewq wrote:I think this vessel could be more capable than your specifications. Are you proposing stretching the Bays superstructure, working deck or flight deck by 24m
Karel Doorman being the JSS... just wondering if the same hull could cover our bases, going forwardLord Jim wrote:Johan de Witt design as that covers all the bases