UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
SW1
Member
Posts: 768
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 05 Jan 2019, 11:30

This has just traveled off into fantasy ship building without any thought for what we’re asking this amphibious force to do.

There’s no budget for new ships, there is limited troop numbers a single commando or 2 in an emergency, if the old rules of 3 to 1 attackers to defenders of the opposition still applyif the opposition has more than few hundred troops we’ve problems. We’ve 100 lightly armoured Viking vehlies can they swim ashore or be airlifted by chinook but not merlin. 10 merlins that can lift a company in one go provided it’s not very hot.

What’s the ability of these 1 or possible 2 which are essentially light infantry battalions to operate once ashore for how long and over what distance and against what opposition before heavier and more numerous forces arrive. How are they arriving we can’t deliver them over a beach. Is there any thought to integrating the marine forces with the strike brigades, if there was would the patria amv have been a better option as it has a vehicle variant that swims and could have been attached to such a brigade without increasing the logistics burden. Same with future artillery and missile capability.

Are we really going over the beach and sustaining a force over the beach if we are is there any thought to the worlds changing coast lines becoming more urbanised and climate and coastal erosion affecting the accessibility of traditional landing craft. Before we even start with enemy anti access capacity to disrupt things.

Exercise purple warrior in 1987 was to flesh out lessons of the Falklands war and involved 2 brigades 30 ships and lots of a/c 20K people all in. That’s mass and movement could we repeat today? The ships are the last bit of the equation realism about what we can do and at what distance is why defence is in the mess it’s in with its budget.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5747
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 05 Jan 2019, 11:59

The UK should have an amphibious force capable of acting independently on a small scale, most likely to secure infrastructure or other strategic locations in support of a larger campaign. Perhaps more importantly, the Royal Marines should be designed to slot in perfectly with the USMC because the UK will not be invading anywhere by its self.

Is it reasonable to say that's largely whats possible today?

Under none of the circumstances above would the marines be directly confronting a well equipped state army whilst landing. However there is a growing need to manoeuvre through an increasingly urbanised coast, where the marines will likely encounter asymmetric and hybrid threats, how do we build a force to deal with that when its time to regenerate?
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1802
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 05 Jan 2019, 12:47

Whilst “slotting into the USMC” is still a valid scenario there are others, for example joining with the Australian Army / Navy to provide Brigade level capability in the Far East or the Canadians / Nordic countries to do the same in the Artic or the French in Africa or the Middle East. However, alliances (and public support) are so unpredictable that the ability to project force at an independent UK level is a must also (however limited).

As such, the requirement as I see it is:
- Ability to launch independently upto a Cdo Battlegroup level Raid / Rescue against a peer nation with A2AD capabilities. A good example would be to destroy a chemical making facility in Syria or to rescue hostages from Iran.
- Ability to deliver independently a Strike Brigade and it’s necessary supplies to a friendly or secured port.
- Ability to jointly deliver & integrate with 30 days notice 2 Cdo / Army battlegroups into a joint international Brigade for an amphibious operation against a peer nation.
- Ability to indepently deliver HADR globally to the scale at the same level of the Caribbean, Ebola and Far East (Indonesia) commitments.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1518
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 05 Jan 2019, 13:17

shark bait wrote:Under none of the circumstances above would the marines be directly confronting a well equipped state army whilst landing.

I think that should probably have read ".......the main forces of a well equipped state......". They may well encounter smaller elements of such a force, such as regular force coastal patrol forces, local defence reservists, caribinieri-style paramilitary police etc. Just clarifying that you don't really mean "will always land unopposed by anything more than peasants waving sticks".
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3158
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 05 Jan 2019, 14:53

I think Repulse has got it 80% right in what is required except for the first. I cannot see us landing a Commando based battlegroup over the beach. A reinforced company possibly but nothing larger.

We need to re-establish our ability to deploy 3 Commando to Norway in its entirety and be able to support its operations there. We also need to help the Dutch get back up to speed in Arctic warfare skills, as well as helping the USMC. Integrating more with the Nordic nations is on going. 3 Commando's role would be to fight as Arctic warfare specialised light Infantry, and would be far more mobile than traditional Armoured or Mechanised formations in this region. In addition they would conduct raiding operations along the coastline and amongst the multitude of islands in northern Norway. Initial heavy support would come mainly from the Norwegians, but a UK Brigade cuold also be deployed.

In my suggestion of fleets composition, I only had the Rotterday class manned by the Royal Navy, as it has superior C&C facilities to the Johan de Witt. The three of the latter would be manned by the RFA and in peacetime have a crew not much larger than the Bays. The avation facilities do not need to be permenently manned as oftern happened on other RFA operated vessels. Some of these could operate up to four Sea Kings but rarely did in peacetime. If the balloon goes up the crew are supplimented by RN personnel as well as them having Phalanx fitted to the mounts already there.

As fo rother roles, both the Rotterdam and the Johan de Witt classes are superior HADR platforms than the Bays with the capabilities thay can bring. Yes they would cost more than the Bays to build but less than the Albions would cost today. In addtion we would be replacing five vessels with four vessels that together would gve the UK a far more capable ARG.

We do not need a third flat top. As soon as this is on the table there will be a great temtation to make it F-35B capable and the costs will begin to rise steaply affecting the type and number of other platforms that are available to the ARG. With the four ship proposed there is hanger space for eighteen Merlin HC4s which is probably the maximum we will ever have to deploy and landing spots for eight at any one time meaning a sizeable force of troops could be lifted in one go.

IN addtion the capabilitie sof these four vessels plus the POints mean we can off load troops in even the most autere ports or even at a stretch on to a beach. This is not the same as an amphibious assault over the beach but the disenbarkation of a force back form the front.
As for raiding well the Dutch and Swedes have worked together and used the formers vessels as Motherships for the latter's CB-90s off Somalia very effectively so using them as such for raiding operations would not be an issue. As to how such operations could be carried out read "Battle fo the Fiords", to get an idea of the type of tactics that would be used, and the clue is in the title.

SW1
Member
Posts: 768
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 05 Jan 2019, 18:38

I would go with this Operations veritas, barras and highbrow or in East Timor would be what I would consider the RM being required to do, globally deployable company sized elements able to conduct highly specialised assault, kill or capture operations against a range of targets and provide littoral and riverine security to a larger deployed force.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3158
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 05 Jan 2019, 18:42

Yep that is the way I see things.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3158
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 05 Jan 2019, 19:13

Maybe we can afford this size force, literally :D


User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1802
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 05 Jan 2019, 19:29

Lord Jim wrote:I cannot see us landing a Commando based battlegroup over the beach. A reinforced company possibly but nothing larger.


I’d say you are probably right in terms of over the beach, but could imagine another one be helicoptered in to create a perimeter, another in fast boats covering the sea side whilst another on standby to be helicoptered in as reserve.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1513
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 05 Jan 2019, 20:27

Jake1992 wrote:Yes I complety agree wth what you are saying about the original SSS concept design, if the dimension are in the area of 205m-215m in length and 30m-32m in beam a set of 3 different classes could be formed from the one basic design
1 - a fast solid store ship as shown above

2 - a LPD, by getting rid of all rass kit englarging and pushing the hanger back to allow a double chinook flight deck, enlarge the well dock to 4 lcu and enlarge the forward super structure to meet the new position of the hanger.

3 - an LSD remove the rass kit and replace with a work deck with 2 large cranes, maybe enlarge the well dock to 2 LCUs

The LPD version would have to be built to a higher standard but it could be a very useful and versitle design.

This would be a fantastic result but it seems far too sensible to actually happen :thumbdown:

If the FSS vessels end up going down the Lewis and Clarke route the chance of a common hull for the Amphibious fleet still remains. This may actually be a better outcome as the standards could be increased to a realistic 21st century level across the fleet. It may cost more but how much are lives worth at the end of the day. This is why I believe we are highly likely to end up with a smaller number of larger, more capable and better constructed vessels than what we have today.

Could we afford two of each if a common hull was adopted?

One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is how versatile an Amphibious hull like Enforcer can be, not only as LPD's and LSD's but also in the LHD configuration.
image.jpg


This is the Enforcer 18000 LHD, a similar size to the Bay Class but with a 29.5m beam.
image.jpg
Lots of cosmetic similarities with the Mistral but not in the same league as the Juan Carlos/Canberra classes. A 200m variant should be able to embark 2 LCU's and around 15 helicopters along with a tank deck similar in size to an existing Bay class.
image.jpg
Effectively it is an Enforcer hull with 3 decks added to provide the hanger for the aviation. Simple :D
image.jpg
If UK Defence spending stays at around 2% GDP I believe the 40,000t LHD plus two 200m LPD's is the best way forward but if Defence spending did increase to 2.5% GDP or more, the 2x LHD, 2x LPD, 2x LSD structure is very very attractive. Especially if they could be built on a common hull.

Lord Jim wrote:...there are designs for what we need out there and actually ships in service. Having one Rotterdam and three John de Witt replace out two Albions and the Bays, with the Former manned by the RN and the latter three by the RFA would meet all our needs, especially when supplemented by the Points. One of the Johan de Witts could also act as a replacement for HMS Argus When required, with its crew supplemented with RN and FAA personnel.

Will RN accept Enforcer standards? I don't think so but the standards could be improved to ensure acceptance by both RN and RFA. If that was to happen then a common Amphibious hull is possible.

donald_of_tokyo wrote:The reason why Bay-class LSD is used for APT-N and not Albion-class LPD is clear = much efficient.

The reason Albion isn't used for APT(N) is due to its lack of Aviation. It's a massive oversight with the design just like the RB2's. We mustn't make the same mistakes again.

donald_of_tokyo wrote:I understand the plan to have a large LHD and 2 large LPDs (cost will not allow more). But I personally think 1 LPH and 3 Bay-like (but with 2 LCU and 1-2 Merlin hangar and 2 Mexefloats) will be better.

Can 1 LPH and 3 LSD's be afforded at 2% GDP? If not and one of the Bay's get cut in the future we would be a long way from Ocean, 2 Albions and 4 Bays like we used to have. I'm not convinced a 21st century Ocean will be as cheap as everyone thinks.

donald_of_tokyo wrote:The LHD will be need to have high level of damage control because it must go near ashore to use her well-dock. On the contrary, the LPH will not be needed to have such damage control because it does NOT need to go near ashore.

QE is now the new standard. I just don't see HMG building an LPH with 1200-1400 personnel on board mainly to commercial standards regardless of close to shore it is likely to get and that would mean the entire Amphibious fleet would be built to commercial standards. Nobody likes the Bay design more than I do but we have to be realistic, standards have changed and will continue to do so. Lots of commercially derived vessels can back up an Amphibious Assault but anything going in harms way will have to be built to naval standards. Can the Enforcer design adapt to this?

donald_of_tokyo wrote:This is NOT the same for US Navy/Marine. They have significant numbers of LCAC. RN do not and will not. LCAT or Carmen 90 is not as fast as LCAC (QinetiQ PACSCAT is dead, as I understand)

The LCVP Mk5 and LCU Mk10 will soon go and the replacements could be just about gone by the time the Amphibs are replaced. It worth remembering that when the Albions hit the water the LCU's were made to fit and it's highly likely the same thing could happen again.

We need to get much better at future proofing the new designs. Adaptability is key to try to ensure we don't end up with another unbalanced fleet 20 years from now.

donald_of_tokyo wrote:It can be based on Enforcer 20000, but we seriously need to consider how to operate them with smaller crew.

Agreed. Core crew requirements need to be kept low. Just because a hanger can fit in 6 Merlins doesn't mean they need 6 Merlins at all times. Much more likely to have a single Wildcat or no helicopter at all. Being in the right place at the right time with the inherent ability to surge to full capacity, rapidly and at short notice is key.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3158
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 05 Jan 2019, 23:10

I cannot sea there being any issue with the RFA accepting three Johan de Witts to replace the Bays as they are built to the same standards. As for the RN accepting a Rotterdam class, well the Dutch and Spanish navies have had no issues and it is more flexible platform than the Albions it would be replacing. It would have full RN level passive and active defensive electronics and countermeasures, whereas the Johan De Witts would be FFBNW the majority of systems that do not need to be permenently hardwired into the ship, using modular add ons when needed.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3143
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 06 Jan 2019, 02:38

Poiuytrewq wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:The reason why Bay-class LSD is used for APT-N and not Albion-class LPD is clear = much efficient.
The reason Albion isn't used for APT(N) is due to its lack of Aviation. It's a massive oversight with the design just like the RB2's. We mustn't make the same mistakes again.
I think it is more the issue of 330-strong crew size = very very inefficient. Adding a "for Wildcat plastic hangar" is very easy on Albion. Also, replacing the one LCVP davits with a "Wildcat capable fixed hangar" is also doable. Actually, very easy; Wildcat is significantly smaller than LCVP Mk.5.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:I understand the plan to have a large LHD and 2 large LPDs (cost will not allow more). But I personally think 1 LPH and 3 Bay-like (but with 2 LCU and 1-2 Merlin hangar and 2 Mexefloats) will be better.

Can 1 LPH and 3 LSD's be afforded at 2% GDP? If not and one of the Bay's get cut in the future we would be a long way from Ocean, 2 Albions and 4 Bays like we used to have. I'm not convinced a 21st century Ocean will be as cheap as everyone thinks.
Not sure, it is a matter of decision. French Mistral LHD is cheap, mainly because of its low standard.

Also I have no intent to regain "Ocean, 2 Albions and 4 Bays" fleet.
1: PoW is the primary "LPH" (sometimes used as a backup Strike carrier, when QNLZ is unavailable). So, it is not only "1 LPH", but "1 LPH + 0.5 PoW".
2: there is only 1 Albion active, and 3 Bays now. So, replacing them with "3 (a bit larger) LSD and 1 LPH" will be doable, I guess.
3: Also, now 2 Bays are forward deployed for important tasks = has a good peacetime tasks. I think this fact is very very important for the amphibious fleet to "survive". Therefore, the LSDs (at least the proposed 2 hulls, to be crewed by RFA), must be cheap to operate. If not, we will lose them soon, I'm afraid.
QE is now the new standard. I just don't see HMG building an LPH with 1200-1400 personnel on board mainly to commercial standards regardless of close to shore it is likely to get and that would mean the entire Amphibious fleet would be built to commercial standards.
French CdG and Mistral is NOT built to the same standard. Why RN must build QNLZ/PoW and "Bay-replacements" in the same standard? I do not agree. The LPH might be a good discussion point, but I think the Ocean standard at last (after refit) will be the baseline.
The LCVP Mk5 and LCU Mk10 will soon go and the replacements could be just about gone by the time the Amphibs are replaced. It worth remembering that when the Albions hit the water the LCU's were made to fit and it's highly likely the same thing could happen again.
But LCAC is very expensive, and we are in short of money. The LCU and LCVPs will surely be replaced, but I guess the LCU will be BMT Caimen 90 (adopted by US Army as "Maneuver Support Vessel (Light)") or slightly modified one, and never LCAC.
Agreed. Core crew requirements need to be kept low. Just because a hanger can fit in 6 Merlins doesn't mean they need 6 Merlins at all times. Much more likely to have a single Wildcat or no helicopter at all. Being in the right place at the right time with the inherent ability to surge to full capacity, rapidly and at short notice is key.
Agreed. But, a big hangar with extensive firefighting kits (helicopter is very easy to catch fire), big door, and long-arm gantry-crane is not cheap, when we are talking about Bay-class level of standard cheap ship. I agree a hangar is must, but I think smaller the better; 1 Merlin hangar (as we see in Tides and Waves) or 2 Merlin hangar (as Absalon/IH class Dutch ships) is the most I want. (But I understand your wish, and not much against.)

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1513
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 06 Jan 2019, 08:25

donald_of_tokyo wrote:I think it is more the issue of 330-strong crew size = very very inefficient. Adding a "for Wildcat plastic hangar" is very easy on Albion. Also, replacing the one LCVP davits with a "Wildcat capable fixed hangar" is also doable. Actually, very easy; Wildcat is significantly smaller than LCVP Mk.5.
Albion's full complement isn't needed for a deployment such as APT(N). All that C&C capability isn't necessary.

If Albion/Bulwark was to deploy in a simple Patrol/HADR role with a single Wildcat and 1 LCU embarked, how low could the core crew allocation actually be?

By removing the excess LCU crews and the C&C personnel we may be in the region of 150 crew. Add the aviation complement and we could still be under a T23 crew allocation.

If this was possible Bulwark could be forward deployed to the Western Pacific in a general patrol/HADR/presence role.

donald_of_tokyo wrote:1: PoW is the primary "LPH"
I fully understand between 2010 and 2015 a 'role' had to found for PoW to avoid it being cut and Ocean without replacement was part of the sacrifice but for how long are we going to have to keep up this charade?

We don't need a £3bn LPH. We could have built 10 HMS Ocean's for the same amount of money. Even if we don't have enough F35's to keep PoW in the CVF role, the USMC certainly do. Operating as a 'coalition carrier' mainly in the Indian Ocean and Western Pacific, PoW could have a major role to play.

donald_of_tokyo wrote:French CdG and Mistral is NOT built to the same standard. Why RN must build QNLZ/PoW and "Bay-replacements" in the same standard? I do not agree. The LPH might be a good discussion point, but I think the Ocean standard at last (after refit) will be the baseline.
Standards are rising and will continue to rise. What was acceptable in the 1990's will not necessarily be acceptable in the 2030's. Can Enforcer adapt to these higher standards? I hope so.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10178
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 06 Jan 2019, 10:15

Poiuytrewq wrote:LCU Mk10 will soon go and the replacements could be just about gone by the time the Amphibs are replaced.
This part of the statement I doubt very much.

Poiuytrewq wrote:We need to get much better at future proofing the new designs.

... and all of those things that can be faster, or in-what-ever way better, will probably be to the same rough dimensions. Simply because we can't have (afford :) ) just thoroughbreds; but will have to have some work horses, too
- then you will be able mix & match, depending on the mission and threat assessment
- also in the amph. fleet: old with new

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1232
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 06 Jan 2019, 11:09

Poiuytrewq wrote:If this was possible Bulwark could be forward deployed to the Western Pacific in a general patrol/HADR/presence role.


I think for now and to have patrol/presence and needed role in the Pacific a Wave class with extra accommodation for around 50 RM is the fastest and cheapest way. the Waves as they are have a 80 man crew for there tanker role and accommodation for FFA helicopter team so a small refit to add accommodation for the 50 RM and 3 ribs or at a push a LCVP using the cranes to lift them into the water. maybe also update the radar to a Scanter 4100 and swap 1 of the Phalanx for a searam

Poiuytrewq wrote:We don't need a £3bn LPH. We could have built 10 HMS Ocean's for the same amount of money. Even if we don't have enough F35's to keep PoW in the CVF role, the USMC certainly do. Operating as a 'coalition carrier' mainly in the Indian Ocean and Western Pacific, PoW could have a major role to play.


I agree with this and have said in the past that POW should be used as a NATO or Allied carrier using USMC , Italian or Spanish F-35s / Harriers as its air-wing

Question do you have any costings for Enforcer 10000 & 18000 LHD

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3143
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 06 Jan 2019, 12:21

Poiuytrewq wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:1: PoW is the primary "LPH"
I fully understand between 2010 and 2015 a 'role' had to found for PoW to avoid it being cut and Ocean without replacement was part of the sacrifice but for how long are we going to have to keep up this charade?

We don't need a £3bn LPH. We could have built 10 HMS Ocean's for the same amount of money. Even if we don't have enough F35's to keep PoW in the CVF role, the USMC certainly do. Operating as a 'coalition carrier' mainly in the Indian Ocean and Western Pacific, PoW could have a major role to play.
Thanks, but not convinced.

Using RN's primary LPH (PoW) as NATO-STOVL carrier is a good idea. But, here we are talking about amphibious operations when RN need to do it in singleton, without allies. If it is not, UK can easily rely on NATO's (including US) CV, LHD and LPDs. The task will become very easy in every means. But, all discussion here is not taking them into account.

So, let's concentrate in a case of UK singleton amphibious warfare.

Surely a £3bn LPH "looks" not ideal. But, that is what RN has now, which is the most important fact. There is zero possibility UK to have 2 strike air-wings. The only rationale to keep PoW alive is using PoW as
- a backup strike carrier (to fill the gap when QNLZ is not available)
- and as a primary LPH when, not in "strike role", and not in long-refit.
This situation will not change for the coming 40 years, I think.

And, actually this is good. The only deficit is the fact that, when either QNLZ or PoW is in long-refit, RN can "surge" only one of them = either a Strike carrier or an LPH, not both. And here comes the need for "the 3rd flat top", which for me is a simple LPH now in discussion.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1232
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 06 Jan 2019, 13:43

For me at this time another larger Ocean would be a good fit. However if the Enforcer system worked and its cost is good fit then it could be a good way forward 4 hulls built with the same power plants well docks and a whole host of other systems shared. 3 built with LPD super structure and 1 to LHD speck could work but would need to know more

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1802
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 06 Jan 2019, 14:27

Whilst I’d vote for it in a parallel universe where RN funds are much higher, no-one here is talking about a third flattop the size of a CVF. For me it’s either a large LHD or a LHA - whilst for the latter I will get criticised about fantasy fleets and the limited number of F35Bs etc, we are talking about a platform that should be capable of operating UAVs which will become more numerous over the next 30-40 years.

As suggested before and alluded to above, perhaps the option of dropping a T23 and perhaps a Bay and getting the 2nd Albion into active service (basic level of manning), may be a good first step.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3158
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 06 Jan 2019, 15:00

What is the base line for the maximum size and type of amphibious assault operation people think the UK should be capable of conducting by itself?

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1267
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 06 Jan 2019, 15:32

Lord Jim wrote:What is the base line for the maximum size and type of amphibious assault operation people think the UK should be capable of conducting by itself?


For me it's the ability to retake any of our BOT if ever needed ( from Falklands to gib to Cyprus and so on ) the core of this must be based around having no access to a safe port. Now wheather this is seen as a set up being able to go over the beach to then take a safe port or a set up going over the beach to secure the area for follow ons coming over the beach is up for debate.

It would also be ideal for our force to be able to slot in with allied forces where need be, not to duplicate what they already have but to compliment them

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10178
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 06 Jan 2019, 16:56

Jake1992 wrote: the core of this must be based around having no access to a safe port


A good start... for us not to go round, in circles, as we have

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1802
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 06 Jan 2019, 17:18

Jake1992 wrote:retake any of our BOT if ever needed


A laudable aim, but can never be funded in peacetime. Spain would never invade Gibraltar without EU blessing, and Argentina will never try Falklands again without serious Chinese support.

We should aim for what I stated above, plus the ability to reinforce our BOT defences quickly either via a RM Cdo or a Para Btn air lifted in.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1267
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 06 Jan 2019, 17:56

Repulse wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:retake any of our BOT if ever needed


A laudable aim, but can never be funded in peacetime. Spain would never invade Gibraltar without EU blessing, and Argentina will never try Falklands again without serious Chinese support.

We should aim for what I stated above, plus the ability to reinforce our BOT defences quickly either via a RM Cdo or a Para Btn air lifted in.


It's not laudable it's a legal duty, HMG have a legal responsability to defence BOTs and that mean retaking if ever required.
It's all well and a good saying it can't be funded in peace time but I can be, it's all about choosing priorities and HMGs 1st priority as a government is defence of the realm it's people and property that includes BOTs no ifs not buts that's that. The problem is HMG see thing like HS2 and Forgain aid as more important.

You say it's not going to happen but if you said in the 60s that the Falklands would be taken or in the 20s Germany would occupy France or in the early 2000s that Russia would take Crimea you'd of been laughed out the room but hey ho they all happened.
You do no plan your armed forces around its unlikely so we don't need to ability to defended our own

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3158
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 06 Jan 2019, 18:17

Problem is a system called risk assessment and unless a threat is so high and obvious, and is only aimed at the UK or its BOTs and is imminent, it doesn't really count. In all other circumstances the threat is countered in the way that has the lowest effect on the Treasury and the Government's other more politically important programmes. If Defence really mattered to the Government and the General Public we would be spending at least 3% of GDP on it but it doesn't. So reality is that if something happens that is a UK only issue we will cobble together what we can and try to deal with it.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1267
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 06 Jan 2019, 18:29

Lord Jim wrote:Problem is a system called risk assessment and unless a threat is so high and obvious, and is only aimed at the UK or its BOTs and is imminent, it doesn't really count. In all other circumstances the threat is countered in the way that has the lowest effect on the Treasury and the Government's other more politically important programmes. If Defence really mattered to the Government and the General Public we would be spending at least 3% of GDP on it but it doesn't. So reality is that if something happens that is a UK only issue we will cobble together what we can and try to deal with it.


That's the core of the problem right there we can't respond to an imitate threat if we don't have the assets to do so, as iv Iv quiet a few on here saying the amphibious force should pretty much be done away with and only have a sea lift for safe port use.

There is a reason most other nations are either build or increasing there amphibious force, do we once again believe we know better. And before anyone say we chose carrier strike over amphibious no we didn't from when the QEs were planed all the way to start building we always planed to retain a reasonable amphibious set up but since then defence has been cut over and over down to really 1.6% of GDP

The public will always ignore defence as its not an everyday need for the most part but HMG should take it very seriously as its thier primary duty, they neglect it to do projects that they can prance around on the world stage about like Forgain aid.
If the PM said on the world stage oh look my nations defence, education, health set is all in good order people would say well so they should be that's your job but if she says oh look were spend so much giving to other she get puts up as such s giving person by other leaders and media


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 guests