Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

[Poiuytrewq]

The entire UK armed forces has only got about 12 MALE UAVs.

How is that relevant?

You can’t put them all routinely on a ship

And 10 years from now?

[Poiuytrewq]

I assume you mean for a CVF? If so, a default hybrid mode for deployments with a similar mix of aircraft is absolutely achievable - however, I would make it 9-18 F35Bs, 9 Merlin’s (4 HCA and 5 ASW), 3 Wildcat AHs, 2 Chinooks, 4 Apaches and in the future 6 STOL drones. This and 2 Coys of RMs deployed on the CVF and a Bay in the task group.

My point is that the CVFs or a large LHD have fantastic versatility with more to come as drone technology matures.

If a CVF or Invincible sized LHD was despatched to the Red Sea tomorrow morning what would be the optimal load out?

Likewise, if a CVF or LHD acting as a LHA moved into position in the western Atlantic to monitor any potential incursions what would be the optimal load out?

24x F35 will be the exception rather than the rule.

[SW1]

The entire UK armed forces has only got about 12 MALE UAVs.

How is that relevant?

You can’t put them all routinely on a ship

And 10 years from now?

The only ones they have on order is protector so about 12 unless there a billion or so quid down the sofa someone hasn’t mentioned.

[Poiuytrewq]

Clearly the spreadsheet needs more data before coming to a decision.

https://www.forces.net/politics/no-fina ... ister-says

[Poiuytrewq]

The entire UK armed forces has only got about 12 MALE UAVs.

How is that relevant?

You can’t put them all routinely on a ship

And 10 years from now?

The only ones they have on order is protector so about 12 unless there a billion or so quid down the sofa someone hasn’t mentioned.

Why not make the same argument for all those empty Mk41 cells?

[shark bait]

Helicopter carriers without MALE STOL drones are old news now.

Bold choice of words in a world with not a single navy operating MALE STOL drones at sea.

For todays Navy another carrier is an unhelpful distraction that does nothing to fix the state of the Fleet or Marines.

[SW1]

The entire UK armed forces has only got about 12 MALE UAVs.

How is that relevant?

You can’t put them all routinely on a ship

And 10 years from now?

The only ones they have on order is protector so about 12 unless there a billion or so quid down the sofa someone hasn’t mentioned.

Why not make the same argument for all those empty Mk41 cells?

I do repeatedly. Not sure why we are fitting them

[tomuk]

The reality is outside of UK/BOT defence the purpose of the bulk of the Army is now JEF.

And they will have to walk or fly because the Naval assets won't be there to support a movement by sea.

[Repulse]

The reality is outside of UK/BOT defence the purpose of the bulk of the Army is now JEF.

And they will have to walk or fly because the Naval assets won't be there to support a movement by sea.

Of course there will be ships to transport them via the sea if needed, just not over a beach.

More likely they will fly with kit arriving by sea which has been the case for every conflict the Army has been involved with for a long time with the exception of the Falklands.

[SW1]

The reality is outside of UK/BOT defence the purpose of the bulk of the Army is now JEF.

And they will have to walk or fly because the Naval assets won't be there to support a movement by sea.

Of course there will be ships to transport them via the sea if needed, just not over a beach.

More likely they will fly with kit arriving by sea which has been the case for every conflict the Army has been involved with for a long time with the exception of the Falklands.

And who controls the port and the littoral region around it to allow the army to move in?

If you can do it with a company today why did it take 2 full commandos and 15MEU to secure UMM Qsar port and the waterways around it to supply the army that took Basra?


The army doesn’t go over the beach because the marines ensure they don’t have to.

3 commando brigade and 16 air assault were too of the most requested formations from allies and if we’re honest probably all that is required for any independent Uk operations on land.

[Poiuytrewq]

I do repeatedly. Not sure why we are fitting them

Why not plan for the future?

[SW1]

I do repeatedly. Not sure why we are fitting them

Why not plan for the future?

What future need is there for them? Why do I need them on a ship.

You can plan for the future without duplication and with what is a realistic budget expectation.

[Poiuytrewq]

Helicopter carriers without MALE STOL drones are old news now.

Bold choice of words in a world with not a single navy operating MALE STOL drones at sea.

Not as bold as suggesting that RN replacing two LPDs with a single LHD is “obscene”.

With the deletion of the LPDs the MRSS program is in free fall along with the entire fabric of the National Shipbuilding Strategy.

Therefore, this is the time to completely reassess the merit of the 6x MRSS direction of travel. Does it still make sense? Particularly if the T32 goes ahead or even more pertinently, doesn’t go ahead?

There is absolutely no way 6x MRSS will be built in the U.K. for less than £2bn regardless of the design chosen. It would likely cost at least £2.5bn.

So if RN ultimately decided to procure one Canberra sized LHD for £1bn (to replace the LPDs) plus 4x 14428 Enforcers for £350m unit (to replace the 3x Bays and Argus) what is the difference? The RN headcount allocation would be similar to current vessels if all 4x 14428 were operated by RN. It would also free up the RFA crews for the 2x Waves, the 2nd MROSS and the 4th Tide OR all 3x FSS. Big win.

Likewise if RN decided to build a Cavour style LHD for £1.4bn and 3x 14428 Enforcers for £350m unit. Completely rational way forward and both affordable and operationally preferable. RN would have a substantially upgraded capability within budget and within current headcount restraints.

• 1x 40,000t LHD (operated with CVF crews in rotation).
• 3x 14428 Enforcer (All RN crewed from LPD and Bays/Argus allocation).
• 2x Waves (Crewed with crews from 2x Bays).
• 2nd MROSS (Crewed with crew from 3rd Bay).
• Spare RFA crew from Argus for 4th Tide.

The 6x MRSS strategy isn’t the only game in town. No other blue water navy in the world is following RN’s lead. Why?

For today’s Navy another carrier is an unhelpful distraction that does nothing to fix the state of the Fleet or Marines.

A third flattop ensures the CSG strategy works, without it unacceptable gaps will occur.

The only thing that will secure the future of RM is a clear and coherent direction of travel.

[Repulse]

And who controls the port and the littoral region around it to allow the army to move in?

It has to be an allied held port, and normally troops are being deployed based on intelligence ahead of a conflict, failing that you need to slow down the advance and buy some time for troops to arrive. If you think that the UK or any modern force is ready to assault beaches against a peer without a period of build up you are mad. D-Day took years to plan and if Russia has seized all the ports on the Norwegian coast and the Baltics, thats exactly the scale of the challenge.

The army doesn’t go over the beach because the marines ensure they don’t have to.

Even the USMC are looking at different options in this area.

3 commando brigade and 16 air assault were too of the most requested formations from allies and if we’re honest probably all that is required for any independent Uk operations on land.

That’s history, Brigade level interventions died for at least a generation following Blair’s wars. The days of superpowers (and their allies) imposing their will on others is fast coming to an end, unless governments are willing to accept casualties and open ended conflicts, which Western democracies are not.

Both the RMs and Paras should be transformed for smaller operations that can be conducted at speed either unilaterally or combined with SFs - operations like the Sudan or Kabul evacuations are increasingly likely.

[Repulse]

• 1x 40,000t LHD (operated with CVF crews in rotation).
• 3x 14428 Enforcer (All RN crewed from LPD and Bays/Argus allocation).

An aviation platform (more likely a style Argus replacement) and three smaller LPD replacements based on a joint design with the Dutch is by far the most likely outcome. When they announced the MRSS, it was for 4-6 platforms, 6 was always a dream IMO.

[SW1]

And who controls the port and the littoral region around it to allow the army to move in?

It has to be an allied held port, and normally troops are being deployed based on intelligence ahead of a conflict, failing that you need to slow down the advance and buy some time for troops to arrive. If you think that the UK or any modern force is ready to assault beaches against a peer without a period of build up you are mad. D-Day took years to plan and if Russia has seized all the ports on the Norwegian coast and the Baltics, thats exactly the scale of the challenge.

The army doesn’t go over the beach because the marines ensure they don’t have to.

Even the USMC are looking at different options in this area.

3 commando brigade and 16 air assault were too of the most requested formations from allies and if we’re honest probably all that is required for any independent Uk operations on land.

That’s history, Brigade level interventions died for at least a generation following Blair’s wars. The days of superpowers (and their allies) imposing their will on others is fast coming to an end, unless governments are willing to accept casualties and open ended conflicts, which Western democracies are not.

Both the RMs and Paras should be transformed for smaller operations that can be conducted at speed either unilaterally or combined with SFs - operations like the Sudan or Kabul evacuations are increasingly likely.

The troops normally deployed first based on intelligence and deter aggression or to slow the advance have historically been 3 commando brigade and 16 air assault that is their role as high readiness rapid reaction forces.


They are not assaulting any beach. They are operating around and over a beach to secure and keep secure the area so that port infrastructure or routes to that port remain open for the follow on forces. They use there landing craft to manoeuvre and position forces that can secure routes or attack advancing forces from directions or locations they do not expect.

Did they indeed, when Russia invaded Ukraine or when evacuations required in Afghanistan or Sudan what happened.

Marines moved in from Norway to the polish border to assume defensive positions. The US flying the 82nd airborne to Romania for the same effect.

the lead airborne battle group moved to the Middle East and Cyprus respectively for Afghanistan and Sudan it was way bigger than a small scale company operation!. No will imposing to be seen.

[Poiuytrewq]

An aviation platform (more likely a style Argus replacement) and three smaller LPD replacements based on a joint design with the Dutch is by far the most likely outcome. When they announced the MRSS, it was for 4-6 platforms, 6 was always a dream IMO.

Intetesting as IMO a Argus style ASS commercial conversion is the least likely outcome.

If the Albions are deleted without replacement it will be a national scandal of monumental proportions. Where is the upside?

If the 2x CVFs end up costing 33% of the escort fleet, 1x LPH, 2x LPDs and 2x LSDs and a large chunk of the Royal Marines then the price has been too high.

[jedibeeftrix]

An aviation platform (more likely a style Argus replacement) and three smaller LPD replacements based on a joint design with the Dutch is by far the most likely outcome. When they announced the MRSS, it was for 4-6 platforms, 6 was always a dream IMO.

Intetesting as IMO a Argus style ASS commercial conversion is the least likely outcome.

If the Albions are deleted without replacement it will be a national scandal of monumental proportions. Where is the upside?

If the 2x CVFs end up costing 33% of the escort fleet, 1x LPH, 2x LPDs and 2x LSDs and a large chunk of the Royal Marines then the price has been too high.

to be fair, when the RM officer (Jenkins?) did his interview a month or so back, at the same time that he said he would prefer to have something other than the Albions he did also say he absolutely sees the need to retain an amphibious capability. By which I understand hime to mean the MRSS programme.

[shark bait]

So if RN ultimately decided to procure one Canberra sized LHD for £1bn (to replace the LPDs) plus 4x 14428 Enforcers for £350m unit (to replace the 3x Bays and Argus) what is the difference?

I hate to sound mean, but this is just flat out fantasy rambling now. The Spanish built Canberra costs £1.3 billion in 2023, never mind UK build. On top of that there is no viable Royal Navy or Marines for something as intensive as a third carrier to drop into. The foundations of the Navy are crumbling under it's own weight, only a fool would want to build on that until the very deep problems have been underpinned.

[Tempest414]

Firstly a 3rd Flattop is key as this allows 2 flattops at all times as not even a USN CVN carrier can conduct Strike , CAP , ASW , AEW , troop movement , troops support and Overwatch at the same time

So with this in mind the UK should be looking at having a fleet of

2 x CVF , 1 x LPH , 4 x MRSS , 22 x Escorts , 5 x Tankers , 3 x SSS , 12 x MHPC , 5 x Points

With this fleet we should be looking to have 2 x MRSS , 4 x escorts , 3 x MHPC & 1 x tanker deployed in the Indian ocean. The rest of the fleet should be focused on the North and South Atlantic

The RM need to be able to work in LSU's of 250 based around a strike company that can work alone or come together and there should be 8 LSU's. On top of this there should be 42 Cdo's 12 x Platoon teams working as boarding and training teams plus a Battle group HQ with engineer , artillery , Logistics support

[shark bait]

While I agree in principal with the logic above, the rest of the Navy is so broken it feels ridiculous to even consider expansion like this.

First the Marines need to decide to be a airborne force, with only limited ability to bring heavy equipotent ashore. The next decade would be spent operating from the Carriers, Bays and unfortunately Argus. At the same time the Navy needs to rapidly modernise is escort fleet, and its benefits package for sailors, because these are the biggest hurdles to progress in the Navy at the moment.

Once the Marines have proven they have a concept of operations that is usable and sustainable, as well as the Navy having a routinely deployable surface fleet, then its the time to design a bespoke assault platform.

[Poiuytrewq]

I hate to sound mean, but this is just flat out fantasy rambling now. The Spanish built Canberra costs £1.3 billion in 2023, never mind UK build.

Incorrect.

Navantia only built the hull and floated it to Osborne so that BAE Australia could complete the fitting out with Siemens joining to complete the propulsion.

Navantia built the Harrier capable Juan Carlos LHD completely in Spain for £600m adjusted for inflation.

Are you suggesting that Navantia can build identical vessels in Spain for 50% of a U.K. build?

On top of that there is no viable Royal Navy or Marines for something as intensive as a third carrier to drop into.

Do you actually read what contributors write?

RN needs 3x flatops to ensure one is always available. This requires 2x crews as the 3rd hull will always be in refit/reserve. RN already has 2x crews for the CVFs which could cross deck to the LHD when a CVF goes into refit. It’s pretty simple.

As for not enough Marines to fill a LHD, are you even serious?

[shark bait]

Sure! and I need a private jet so I can go surfing in California at the weekends. But much like the Navy needing a third carrier, the fundamentals are so broke there is no reasonable path to achieving this. For example, despite spending over 2 decades consuming itself to build carrier groups, the Navy still cant deploy. There is no way throwing a third carrier in the mix makes this better.

There may be a lot of Marines, but they've had no viable concept of operations post Afghanistan. They need to build the foundations before plonking a big assault carrier on top of them.

[RichardIC]

Sure! and I need a private jet so I can go surfing in California at the weekends. But much like the Navy needing a third carrier, the fundamentals are so broke there is no reasonable path to achieving this. For example, despite spending over 2 decades consuming itself to build carrier groups, the Navy still cant deploy. There is no way throwing a third carrier in the mix makes this better.

There may be a lot of Marines, but they've had no viable concept of operations post Afghanistan. They need to build the foundations before plonking a big assault carrier on top of them.

Unfortunately you're debating with a fantasist. They exist on a completely different planet where things like people and money don't count because they just happen.

[Poiuytrewq]

They need to build the foundations before plonking a big assault carrier on top of them.

Such as what?

The LPDs are obsolescent but still the main conduit of RM.

Flesh out the “foundations” in practical terms.