Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

[Repulse]

We have done everything up to brigade level amphibious operations without carrier strike.

Sorry, which operation are you talking about?

Iraq in 2003 no uk carrier strike there. Same serria leone

The US had five carrier groups, if the UK had had one it would have been there also. If the USN carriers hadn’t been there we wouldn’t have been there.

Sierra Leone had 14 Harriers operating from HMS Illustrious acting in a strike role alongside HMS Ocean. It was also a sub brigade operation operating against an enemy without any air assets.

[SW1]

We have done everything up to brigade level amphibious operations without carrier strike.

Sorry, which operation are you talking about?

Iraq in 2003 no uk carrier strike there. Same serria leone

The US had five carrier groups, if the UK had had one it would have been there also. If the USN carriers hadn’t been there we wouldn’t have been there.

Sierra Leone had 14 Harriers operating from HMS Illustrious acting in a strike role alongside HMS Ocean. It was also a sub brigade operation operating against an enemy without any air assets.

So we didn’t need one did we. We aren’t doing tier 1 amphibious assault (whatever that means) on our Todd are we.

Turning up after 1 para had taken over doesn’t really count. If that’s the reason for carrier strike as defined this month going fwd it’s not a great one.

[Repulse]

So we didn’t need one did we. We aren’t doing tier 1 amphibious assault (whatever that means) on our Todd are we.

No we relied on the US, but again as you know multiple carriers were absolutely needed, the fact the UK could not contribute should be an embarrassment.

If we followed your argument we could have turned up with a frigate and that would have proved that neither a carrier nor amphibious platform are required - it’s about your contribution.

The harsh fact is that we can invest everything into an amphibious fleet but it can only be used when operating with the US. Albeit limited CSG and LSG will be capabilities that can be used independently.

Turning up after 1 para had taken over doesn’t really count. If that’s the reason for carrier strike as defined this month going fwd it’s not a great one.

Why? The operation changed from one of extraction to active participation - it could not have been done without the task group. Amphibious Operations come in many forms, and this is one that is more likely than a traditional beach assault.

[Tempest414]

All of these points feed into the fact that FCF, MRSS and T32 were aspirations in a completely different global security environment.

The tumultuous events of 2022 has changed everything.

Funding and planning simply hasn’t caught up yet.

Events dear boy events as someone said..

It has shown that the much hyped conventional threat from Russia was to a large part an exaggeration. Their conventional threat has been seriously depleted over the past year by relatively simple equipment. they would have had little chance with the things currently available to nato. With sanctions and their level of losses it will take them sometime to rebuilt a credible force.

It has shown defence of territory and integrity and resilience of our infrastructure, enabling capabilities and supply lines is back in vogue rather than questionable foreign adventures. Also how timely and credible intelligence and political action can have significant effect on outcomes. It would do well for us not to take our eyes of event along the African coast and central and South America in that regard.

We are moving into a new age that needs us to have capability to move effort and effect from place to place and this is why for me we need a EoS command with

1 x Logistics sea base
1 x Tanker
4 x Type 31's
2 x OPV's

This Command would be to over see the Indo-Pacific but it main area of operation would be the Gulf and East African coast. I think we will also need to get back to having a South Atlantic group made up of 2 x type 31 and 2 OPV 's these are going to be key areas challenged by China

I am assuming that reflects your previously noted desire to add at least one T31, which might be pushing it in terms of both current Budger and likely available manpower. I hope this will be the case but I fear a toich optimistic.

Assuming that when you say South Atlantic that you are including the BOT's of Ascencion / St Helena / Tristan de Cunha, as well as covering west coast of Africe and east coast of South America, as well as the current deployment for Falklands Islands Guard Ship, then I would be comfortable with that suggestion assuming extra funds can be made available to improve the Naval budget.

Yes when talking about a South Atlantic command I am talking about the area you have noted there is going to be a lot of work to be done here

The navy will need at least 3 more Type 31 and will also need to keep 8 OPV's and we have time to find the manpower

In real terms we will be looking to replace 1 LPD , 3 Bays and Argus = 5 ships for me I fill we need to go with 4 or 5 Flattop sips capable of operating helicopters and MALE drones. As said we need to get our heads around joint force ops and as said this when it comes to LRG/N this should be able to move and support a re-enforced RM battalion battle group allowing a Army Mechanised brigade into the high North or Baltic and LRG/s should be a re-enforced RM Company which can be re-enforced by the 16AA battalion battle group or the Gurkha battalion battle group

For me I don't care if the flattop EoS only has a handful of helicopters and troops on it for me it is about it being there able to be re-enforced with kit and troops from home by air in quick time

[Poiuytrewq]

Is the marines future just all fwd reconnaissance and very small scale direction action and boardings? Is the high water mark now an operation Paraquet equivalent?

Problem is the supporting arms and a/c. If the “plan” really is to have both carriers in commission and JPR element with them with let’s say 4 commando Merlins assigned that pretty much gobbles up commando helicopter force deployable strength with little left for anything else so these littoral groups live and die by the deployments of the carrier.

This is crucial and so far unexplained.

RN is asking for funding for ships (T32, MRSS) with no clear and coherent idea of how to use them.

In the last 5 years we have been bombarded with new acronyms. The FCF, FLSS, LSS, LRG, LSG, EMF, MRSS etc etc but it’s all just alphabet soup without a clear strategic direction, where is that clear strategic direction? Where is the manpower to achieve it? The future of the Royal Marines is in flux so it’s no wonder HMT is withholding funding until a coherent structure is finalised.

IMO it looks most likely that the RN manpower crisis will be fixed at the expense of RM. Why is a 6k to 7k force still required when the ambition for the Marines is now so low. This would be a disaster but RM and their shipping is first on the chopping block to pay for the CSG(s), F35 and additional SSNs. It’s a sad reality.

However the current structure is very inefficient and can be improved greatly so what are the priorities?

IMO the FCF through the LRG, LSG, EMF, structure can achieve so much more than an Op Paraquet type Assault and it’s a great example to test the theory. If configured correctly a LRG consisting of a modest LHD with the ability to launch and recover MALE drones, an inshore littoral enabler vessel plus one or two GP escorts should be able to complete the task. Doubling that force to an LSG would be better but the full CSG is completely unnecessary.

The fly in the ointment is the SSK threat and that has always been the achilles heel of the LSG concept. RN really needs to illustrate how they intend to negate a SSK threat to a LSG without dispatching the CSG. Is a couple of T26s bolted onto the LSG together with XLUUVs and MALE drones enough? Is a SSN essential? Does this show that the second MRSS in a LSG needs to assume the role of an ASW LPH? If so that again points towards a flattop MRSS design and illustrates that a LPD/ASS combination is suboptimal.

If you really wanted a hard look at such things then it would really be around much more than their single service role but instead within the armed forces as a whole. If both the marines and the paras are to have a sort of tier 2 global SF style role then there air/land and sea support and new types of delivery really need considered in the whole.

Interoperability is key however amalgamating the Marines and Paras is a step too far. It would just be used as an excuse for more cutting IMO. Conversely I think there is a strong argument to expand the size of the Marines and Paras and embed them will allied nations across the globe as rapid reaction forces. This could and should be a persistent presence and a clear ongoing commitment to global security. The Paras could attach to equivalent land based forces and the Marines could slot into other nations Amphibious setups. Much more effective than dropping in for an exercise every 5 to 10 years.

As for the helo shortage:

- Marinise the Chinook fleet and add auto folding rotors. Ensure the MRSS is capable of embarking 4 Chinook and 4 Wildcat concurrently.

- Transfer all Army Wildcats to RN and add the battlefield reconnaissance role to the Puma replacements or invest in additional drones.

Effectively doubling the number of Wildcats for RN would give all kinds of options. Could an ASW variant be developed quickly to give the T31s and the LSGs a helo capable of tackling both surface and subsurface targets? It would be a great stopgap whilst the drone tech matures.

[Ron5]

Did the French get it right with mistral I think so, did we get it right with ocean I think so. The cost capability trade off was pretty much spot on for a military of our size. Ocean could have been improved on if some of its systems installed were more widely used within the maritime sector. We became myopic in our bigger shinny things elsewhere and moved away from this path.

Interesting notion to size our individual military assets by the overall size of the forces. And not size them by the task they will be asked to do.

Silly old RN, sizing its carriers by the number of sorties that need to be flown. What were they thinking.

I guess the next thing will be to make Tempest half the size of its American equivalents. Clearly Typhoon is way too big. Should be Gnat size.

[SW1]

Is the marines future just all fwd reconnaissance and very small scale direction action and boardings? Is the high water mark now an operation Paraquet equivalent?

Problem is the supporting arms and a/c. If the “plan” really is to have both carriers in commission and JPR element with them with let’s say 4 commando Merlins assigned that pretty much gobbles up commando helicopter force deployable strength with little left for anything else so these littoral groups live and die by the deployments of the carrier.

This is crucial and so far unexplained.

RN is asking for funding for ships (T32, MRSS) with no clear and coherent idea of how to use them.

In the last 5 years we have been bombarded with new acronyms. The FCF, FLSS, LSS, LRG, LSG, EMF, MRSS etc etc but it’s all just alphabet soup without a clear strategic direction, where is that clear strategic direction? Where is the manpower to achieve it? The future of the Royal Marines is in flux so it’s no wonder HMT is withholding funding until a coherent structure is finalised.

IMO it looks most likely that the RN manpower crisis will be fixed at the expense of RM. Why is a 6k to 7k force still required when the ambition for the Marines is now so low. This would be a disaster but RM and their shipping is first on the chopping block to pay for the CSG(s), F35 and additional SSNs. It’s a sad reality.

However the current structure is very inefficient and can be improved greatly so what are the priorities?

IMO the FCF through the LRG, LSG, EMF, structure can achieve so much more than an Op Paraquet type Assault and it’s a great example to test the theory. If configured correctly a LRG consisting of a modest LHD with the ability to launch and recover MALE drones, an inshore littoral enabler vessel plus one or two GP escorts should be able to complete the task. Doubling that force to an LSG would be better but the full CSG is completely unnecessary.

The fly in the ointment is the SSK threat and that has always been the achilles heel of the LSG concept. RN really needs to illustrate how they intend to negate a SSK threat to a LSG without dispatching the CSG. Is a couple of T26s bolted onto the LSG together with XLUUVs and MALE drones enough? Is a SSN essential? Does this show that the second MRSS in a LSG needs to assume the role of an ASW LPH? If so that again points towards a flattop MRSS design and illustrates that a LPD/ASS combination is suboptimal.

If you really wanted a hard look at such things then it would really be around much more than their single service role but instead within the armed forces as a whole. If both the marines and the paras are to have a sort of tier 2 global SF style role then there air/land and sea support and new types of delivery really need considered in the whole.

Interoperability is key however amalgamating the Marines and Paras is a step too far. It would just be used as an excuse for more cutting IMO. Conversely I think there is a strong argument to expand the size of the Marines and Paras and embed them will allied nations across the globe as rapid reaction forces. This could and should be a persistent presence and a clear ongoing commitment to global security. The Paras could attach to equivalent land based forces and the Marines could slot into other nations Amphibious setups. Much more effective than dropping in for an exercise every 5 to 10 years.

As for the helo shortage:

- Marinise the Chinook fleet and add auto folding rotors. Ensure the MRSS is capable of embarking 4 Chinook and 4 Wildcat concurrently.

- Transfer all Army Wildcats to RN and add the battlefield reconnaissance role to the Puma replacements or invest in additional drones.

Effectively doubling the number of Wildcats for RN would give all kinds of options. Could an ASW variant be developed quickly to give the T31s and the LSGs a helo capable of tackling both surface and subsurface targets? It would be a great stopgap whilst the drone tech matures.

It is indeed a good question and I would agree. Problem you have is when you start talking about going up the risk scale is that for example there is only asw Merlin’s for a single carrier there isn’t sufficient to even field the 2nd carrier so if an asw threat is perceived the carrier group would need to be there which comes back to my point the RN really has the potential makings of a single US expeditionary strike group if it uses all its assets and not much else.

The rest is boarding groups and maritime security tasks which can be done off frigates as it has in the past and we have scaled type 31s boats and accommodation to that end.


I don’t think we have the helicopters or support assets to support multiple units I think we could group to support a single brigade type organisation especially if we are considering a tilt rotor future. I’m coming to the opinion of taking the 2 marine battalions and 2 para battalions and placing them under a single brigade command forming something akin to the the US 3rd SFG and supporting it with a helicopter fleet about 2/3rd the size of the 160th SOR and let them operate on land or sea as our sole battlefield helicopter tasking but it might be too radical.

[SW1]

Did the French get it right with mistral I think so, did we get it right with ocean I think so. The cost capability trade off was pretty much spot on for a military of our size. Ocean could have been improved on if some of its systems installed were more widely used within the maritime sector. We became myopic in our bigger shinny things elsewhere and moved away from this path.

Interesting notion to size our individual military assets by the overall size of the forces. And not size them by the task they will be asked to do.

Silly old RN, sizing its carriers by the number of sorties that need to be flown. What were they thinking.

I guess the next thing will be to make Tempest half the size of its American equivalents. Clearly Typhoon is way too big. Should be Gnat size.

Silly me of course I forgot the UK requires the navy to be running 120 fast jet sorties a day for a week or two, sure it also requires the airforce to run regiment strength air raids across the Baltic front and on to Moscow to cover the 3 uk armoured divisions as they swing thru Belarus on their way to cut off St Petersburg. Mind you I could have the closing scenes of downfall on a loop. Wonder if the spares and ammo holding would get below lasting hours?

There is wiser eating grass than those that thought that one up!.

[Poiuytrewq]

I would because they would soak resources weakening the overall balance of the fleet. It’s not necessary.

Done properly it could transform RN capabilities, introduce a potent short endurance Littoral Strike capability, maintain a credible Amphibious Assault capability and turbo charge the UK’s response time to humanitarian disasters as well as more regular overseas humanitarian support through a more direct overseas aid policy.

The current Amphib fleet is obsolescent. There is no point recreating what we already have just because we already have it.

Would disagree, the LPDs are paid for and can last another 15-20 years, and Aviation Support ship would be @£1/2bn. The smaller craft I’m proposing is a fraction of a MRSS. LPDs are expensive to run, but much of the costs are related to HQ costs which would be required anyway.

I see the LIFEX LPD plan as a money saving last resort. It’s sub-optimal but it would work.

Starting to replace the Amphib fleet around 2030 is the best outcome both for RN/RFA and UK/PLC.

Spreading the limited CHF over more than three platforms makes no sense, it’s too costly and each will be limited. To land a Cdo Company requires 6 spots, this can be done from a CVF. Combined with a couple of Chinooks operating from the LPD large deck it gives a serious first wave assault capability. You would need multiple Enforcers to get close.

It’s a surge capability. The CHF and FCF go to the MRSS that is best placed to form the LRG or LSG. The rest of the time it’s a low cost RFA vessel providing low intensity maritime security and defence engagement taskings unless called upon to conduct HADR.

Would agree a high capacity OPV/Sloop is something definitely worth exploring.

This Littoral enabler vessel could be anything from a converted PSV to a Damen Crossover. RN need to decide what they want but the steel for it needs to cut in less than three years from now so no time to waste. Hopefully we find out in June.

Using the ASS for SF ops and more usual HADR / evacuation operations would mean that using a CSG is exceptional which ultimately it is, you can count on one hand the operations in the past 25 years.

My fear on costs is quite the opposite, I think multiple MRSS will cost more and it will be easy to salami cost cut.

I think that’s part of the plan. RN are aiming for six so expect to get four or perhaps more likely have a couple chopped within the first 2 SDSRs.

The Amphib fleet, GP frigates and RM numbers will always be the things that get cut first.

Having two MRSS either side of Suez with two in reserve/refit doesn’t seem overly ambitious and is certainly affordable even without any funding uplift.

[Repulse]

The current Amphib fleet is obsolescent. There is no point recreating what we already have just because we already have it.

…

I see the LIFEX LPD plan as a money saving last resort. It’s sub-optimal but it would work.

…

Having two MRSS either side of Suez with two in reserve/refit doesn’t seem overly ambitious and is certainly affordable even without any funding uplift.

I personally do not believe the amphibious fleet is obsolete, the way we need to use it has and will evolve.

I’m also not convinced to spread forces east and west of the Suez. By all means let’s have something in the east, but the bulk of the amphibious force should be UK based.

The days of concentrated assault with total area dominance are gone, so sailing large groups of amphibious ships are over, but the same ships can continue to do the job differently for the next 10-20 years.

Deploying an Albion (or two) plus RMs/SFs with the CSG actually gives a dramatic increase in capability. It allows the RN to not only project from the sea, but strike on land OTH albeit in a limited way for a limited duration. It adds to the options to keep the enemy guessing.

What are probably most at risk for their primary role are the LSDs, because the last thing you’d want to do is sail them close to an enemy shore. But, they can still be used for HADR or SF platforms in low threat areas.

One ship that needs replacing is RFA Argus, it is still one of the most useful platforms the navy has but it’s old. Fantasy fleets, I would go for a LHD, but realistically it will be another RFA conversion. Having this global mobile or based with the RAN with RMs/SFs gives a real potent capability.

There is a gap though, that is what will operate in and control the Littoral. Which is where the “T32” can work.

[Tempest414]

given what we see now and working with what is out there a mix Amphib fleet of

4 x Absalon's fitted with 1 x 127mm , 2 x 40mm , 30 x CAMM , 8 x NSM and 24 GSDB's able to carry 2 x Merlin , 2 x LCVP ,4 x ORC and a Company of RM

2 x LHD's able to carry 20 x aircraft including Chinook , Apache , Merlin , Wildcat , MALE drones plus 4 x Caiman-90 FLC & 400 troops

3 x RFA flatop LPD's able to carry 12 aircraft including Merlin , Apache , Wildcat , MALE drones plus 2 x Caiman-90 FLC & 300 troops

Split into 2 x UK based LRG's of 1 x LHD , 1 x Flattop LPD , 2 x Absalon , 1 x Type 45

The 3rd Flattop LPD would be deployed EoS along with 3 x type 31 and act as a sea base for SF & RM raiding plus HDRA

For me these groups would be able to enter the Littoral and land troops from OTH

[Ron5]

Did the French get it right with mistral I think so, did we get it right with ocean I think so. The cost capability trade off was pretty much spot on for a military of our size. Ocean could have been improved on if some of its systems installed were more widely used within the maritime sector. We became myopic in our bigger shinny things elsewhere and moved away from this path.

Interesting notion to size our individual military assets by the overall size of the forces. And not size them by the task they will be asked to do.

Silly old RN, sizing its carriers by the number of sorties that need to be flown. What were they thinking.

I guess the next thing will be to make Tempest half the size of its American equivalents. Clearly Typhoon is way too big. Should be Gnat size.

Silly me of course I forgot the UK requires the navy to be running 120 fast jet sorties a day for a week or two, sure it also requires the airforce to run regiment strength air raids across the Baltic front and on to Moscow to cover the 3 uk armoured divisions as they swing thru Belarus on their way to cut off St Petersburg. Mind you I could have the closing scenes of downfall on a loop. Wonder if the spares and ammo holding would get below lasting hours?

There is wiser eating grass than those that thought that one up!.

You're mixing up two things: the size of individual assets and the number of assets. According to your argument carriers should be smaller because UK forces are smaller. The logical extension to that would be that the UK should have smaller fighters, smaller airfields, smaller tanks, smaller trucks, smaller rifles etc. Clearly nonsense. And all because you dislike UK carriers.

[Repulse]

IMO the RN should be watching what the USN is doing with their LSM programme. Aside from the the LPDs and ASS, this is the right direction for the Littoral platform for the FCF.

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2023/ ... y-marines/

Not thinking about the Pacific (though it might be a scenario in support of the US), more about operating on the coast of Norway or in the Baltics as part of JEF, and other regions operating from BOTs and other forward bases.

[Tempest414]

For me we have a different set of problems and if we want some smaller landing ships we should be looking at Caiman 200 capable of self deploying from the UK into the Baltic or to Norway with a company of RM and there kit

For me the Idea that you can hide in open sight is just madness as soon as the ship is built photos will start being taken and the other side will know what they are looking for you are better taking up ships from trade as and when needed and making little or no change to them just as the Commando's did in WW11 using the fishing fleet

[mrclark303]

For me we have a different set of problems and if we want some smaller landing ships we should be looking at Caiman 200 capable of self deploying from the UK into the Baltic or to Norway with a company of RM and there kit

For me the Idea that you can hide in open sight is just madness as soon as the ship is built photos will start being taken and the other side will know what they are looking for you are better taking up ships from trade as and when needed and making little or no change to them just as the Commando's did in WW11 using the fishing fleet

There's certainly a strong argument for smallish fast Amphibious shipping to rapidly transport a company sized RM raiding force of 125 personnel to the beach and bug out again.

Typically supported by a T31 I would imagine. The Commando Raider concept is after all what's being pushed these day.

That said, if we are talking company sized, then 5 Merlin HC4's, with AH64E escorts, could Just deploy such a force much faster.

The issue you now have is we have no sensibly sized asset to launch such a raid from, the perfect HMS Ocean 'type' job if you will.

It means we have to deploy a 70,000 ton carrier to launch a small raid...

We definitely need to replace Albion and Bulwark with HMAS Canberra class vessels.

[shark bait]

For me we have a different set of problems and if we want some smaller landing ships we should be looking at Caiman 200 capable of self deploying from the UK into the Baltic or to Norway with a company of RM and there kit

That's an over correction. Yes, Arctic operations should remain a key capability for the Marines, but it shouldn't come at the expense an ocean crossing expeditionary force.

The current Amphib fleet is obsolescent. There is no point recreating what we already have just because we already have it.

I tend to agree because so much as changed since the current fleet was planned. So much has changed that the Navy have to keep a 40+ year old container ship in service to keep the amphibious fleet viable. It's a totally understandable bodge given the constrains, but it's a long way from optimal, and given the opportunity to refresh the Navy needs to rebuild from scratch.

[Tempest414]

For me we have a different set of problems and if we want some smaller landing ships we should be looking at Caiman 200 capable of self deploying from the UK into the Baltic or to Norway with a company of RM and there kit

That's an over correction. Yes, Arctic operations should remain a key capability for the Marines, but it shouldn't come at the expense an ocean crossing expeditionary force.

You are quite right and I would want to keep said ocean capability. My comment above was in response to the post above mine what we have to remember is the USMC are not giving up there LHD's , LPD's and Sea Base ships so maybe the UK could get say 8 Caiman 200 as well

For me I would like to see a LHD with 4 Caiman 90 FLC

[wargame_insomniac]

That said, if we are talking company sized, then 5 Merlin HC4's, with AH64E escorts, could Just deploy such a force much faster.

…

We definitely need to replace Albion and Bulwark with HMAS Canberra class vessels.

That’s not a small raid, that’s a declaration of war.

Unless the escort fleet and overall funds expand significantly, then forget separate war fighting LRGs/ARGs. Currently a CVF + LPD combination is the answer not duplication. Also, if funds did exist I’d go for a small LHD replacement for Argus before we wasted money elsewhere.

[Repulse]

For me we have a different set of problems and if we want some smaller landing ships we should be looking at Caiman 200 capable of self deploying from the UK into the Baltic or to Norway with a company of RM and there kit

For me the Idea that you can hide in open sight is just madness as soon as the ship is built photos will start being taken and the other side will know what they are looking for you are better taking up ships from trade as and when needed and making little or no change to them just as the Commando's did in WW11 using the fishing fleet

Given Russia’s behaviour in Ukraine I tend to agree - outside of a peacetime surprise SF raid, everything will be hit, looking like a civilian ship will not save you.

However, Caiman 200 is basically a LCU - fine and it can operate for a number of days, but it’s not a forward operating platform (nor is a T31) which IMO is what is needed to control the Littoral zone.

[mrclark303]

That said, if we are talking company sized, then 5 Merlin HC4's, with AH64E escorts, could Just deploy such a force much faster.

…

We definitely need to replace Albion and Bulwark with HMAS Canberra class vessels.

That’s not a small raid, that’s a declaration of war.

Unless the escort fleet and overall funds expand significantly, then forget separate war fighting LRGs/ARGs. Currently a CVF + LPD combination is the answer not duplication. Also, if funds did exist I’d go for a small LHD replacement for Argus before we wasted money elsewhere.

My point is the Royal Marines are being reshaped into a raiding force, now that means Companies strength, anything much below that level and you are firmly into SF territory.

I don't agree with the loss of Commando Brigade capability, it's a mistake that will come back to bite us on our arse, of that I've no doubt....

But that's what's been decided and dedicated large LPD's like Albion and Bulwark now make little sense anymore.

Raiding requires sped and a degree of surprise ... There's very little surprise in parking a 17,000 ton LPD based task group off the coast with sedate landing craft pootling out the back!

They both need to go and be replaced with far more flexible light carriers.

Something with a dock well, flexible vehicle deck, (that can be rapidly re rolled for additional aviation use if needed) and provision for 25 helicopters and drones max aviation load.

Like I said, 5 Merlin could land an entire company, from over the horizon, with AH64E and maybe future strike drone support, that's a lot of firepower and boots on the ground, suddenly upon your enemy with no warning.

Using a 70,000 ton Aircraft Carrier is massive overkill..

Light Amphibious Commando carriers would offer tremendous flexibility for the RN and the Royal Marines.

As I said, I disagree with the direction of travel with the Royal Marines, but if they are going all out raiding force, then give them the right tools ...

[Lord Jim]

Couldn't one of the Army's Light BCTs be rerolled to include amphibious landings. Equipping such a unit with BVS10s in various forms and have the RM Arctic Warfare leaders train them, and we retain the ability to deploy a Brigade sized force over the beach from over the horizon as a Chinook can carry a BVS10 underslung for the initial deployment.

[Scimitar54]

Three (something like the Trieste class) LHDs ought to do the trick, for anything between company or brigade sized operations. They would need to be that size to accommodate 25 x Helicopters. Here’s hoping!

[SW1]

Couldn't one of the Army's Light BCTs be rerolled to include amphibious landings. Equipping such a unit with BVS10s in various forms and have the RM Arctic Warfare leaders train them, and we retain the ability to deploy a Brigade sized force over the beach from over the horizon as a Chinook can carry a BVS10 underslung for the initial deployment.

You could but you could also say that our nato commitment could be centred around JEF with the army brigade being deployed thru a port rather than over a beach into Scandinavia. We would be defending the Nordic countries not retaking them.

If the future really is tiltrotor with marine raiding/fwd recon then the commandos would be flown in from northern Scotland in said tiltrotors and transport a/c with a sea element maybe in ribs operating up the coast and fjords with teams calling in long range fires to deny opposing forces access ahead of the Nordic and army brigades arriving in position..

[mrclark303]

Couldn't one of the Army's Light BCTs be rerolled to include amphibious landings. Equipping such a unit with BVS10s in various forms and have the RM Arctic Warfare leaders train them, and we retain the ability to deploy a Brigade sized force over the beach from over the horizon as a Chinook can carry a BVS10 underslung for the initial deployment.

You could but you could also say that our nato commitment could be centred around JEF with the army brigade being deployed thru a port rather than over a beach into Scandinavia. We would be defending the Nordic countries not retaking them.

If the future really is tiltrotor with marine raiding/fwd recon then the commandos would be flown in from northern Scotland in said tiltrotors and transport a/c with a sea element maybe in ribs operating up the coast and fjords with teams calling in long range fires to deny opposing forces access ahead of the Nordic and army brigades arriving in position..

Tilt rotates really would make a huge difference here, a game changer, with their range and crusing speed, truly closing the gap and allowing Royal Marines to be moved directly into position from Scotland.

It might well make sense to build some bare bones mounting facilities in the Orkneys the way things are going....

The ability to move like chess pieces (and resupply) a highly trained and heavily armed RM Company, is a potentially huge force multiplier, allowing small force units to have a disproportionately large effect on the Northern flanks.

[Repulse]

You could but you could also say that our nato commitment could be centred around JEF with the army brigade being deployed thru a port rather than over a beach into Scandinavia. We would be defending the Nordic countries not retaking them.

If the future really is tiltrotor with marine raiding/fwd recon then the commandos would be flown in from northern Scotland in said tiltrotors and transport a/c with a sea element maybe in ribs operating up the coast and fjords with teams calling in long range fires to deny opposing forces access ahead of the Nordic and army brigades arriving in position..

Would agree with moving Army units to Scandinavia thru a port with sea control of the North Atlantic makes sense. Tilt rotors from Scotland sounds an expensive and dangerous dream, ok for raiding but logistics/scale size for a full war it would be “all fur and no knickers”. And that’s the reality most of this doesn’t have to be glamorous it has to be effective.

Where I do have a different view is that the ability to flank the enemy and disrupt their supply lines through the ability to move company level sized units easily around the Littoral zone in and up the fjords needs to be part of the strategy.

This is where smaller amphibious units such as LCVPs and LCUs get crucial, but is also an area where I think new larger landing ships like the US LSMs I’ve pointed above, look interesting. They would provide the ability to act as forward operating bases and with a helipad able to be easily resupplied with troops and support.

In fact if the UK ambition was just JEF and global SF raids, you could argue that the UK needs Points to transport kit to a port, LSMs to give Littoral options and CVFs+LPDs for OTH raids.