Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

[shark bait]

whats the baseline?

[marktigger]

The majority of the worlds coastline will be accessible to armour landed across borders, or air lift across a continent to support a landing force. So support can, and should be provided through joint means.

Of course I do still recognise the need for specialist equipment, I have always maintained LDS's should be there for equiptment like the engineering plant you mention, or air defence for example.

Really? would like to see armour like Challenger or Warrior trying to operate in Places like the Falklands or Belize. Large chunks of the world are fairly impassable to heavy armour. The CVRT worked well in the Falklands because of its low ground pressure. CET was bit more restricted and the Centurions were only meant to be used round the Bridgehead anyway.

[Gabriele]

whats the baseline?

The baseline is the roughly MEU-equivalent all-round Commando Battlegroup that the current amphibious fleet is able to deliver when pulled together.

12 F-35B instead of 6+; (with the carrier)
Chinook instead of CH-53K
Merlin instead of MV-22
two companies on Vikings (in place of AAV-7 and LAV-25)
two foot / wheel companies
One artillery battery with 4 to 6 guns
One logistic group
One engineer squadron
Stores and support vehicles and the means to land them; including the capability to put ashore a small quota of heavy armour to help.

Of course I do still recognise the need for specialist equipment, I have always maintained LDS's should be there for equiptment like the engineering plant you mention, or air defence for example.

To land it where, then? Are you still going to secure a beach, and then do it by mexeflote? How? You are back where you started, don't you notice?

[shark bait]

If we take that baseline, a carrier and HMS Ocean type platform have the capacity to lift the four Combat Companies vertically with the Commando Logistic & Artillery being lifted through RFA assets. It's not unreasonably challenging to meet that baseline through other means.

Shifting the support functions through the RFA is acceptable, this comes after the initial manoeuvre of the Combat Companies, so the landing party now has greater clarity, with time to send in the mine sweepers, and with marines on the ground to protect vulnerable landing craft through its transition phase.

Using landing craft 'blind' is just far too risky, before that happens the pop up hybrid threats, and the threats of mines need to be reduced.

It was unacceptable to use landing craft in Iraq, and since then we have done nothing to reduce the treats, so chances are it will be unacceptable for future efforts, without significant risk reduction beforehand.

[Gabriele]

so the landing party now has greater clarity, with time to send in the mine sweepers, and with marines on the ground to protect vulnerable landing craft through its transition phase.

That is called "vertical encirclement" and is already in the doctrine. That is the point of moving part of the troops by air: to secure the immediate landing area. You are not inventing anything, you are just trying to cut pieces off while inventing justifications on the go.

If you are using your airlift companies for vertical encirclement, you are not going "deep and over the contested area", even assuming it was possible, you are just securing a beach and waiting for the - now weaker - surface element to arrive - even slower - via pure RFA without the landing craft. We are back to square one, and to it being nothing but a cut.

And if we are assuming there is funding for a third flat top in addition to the carriers and the RFAs, why the hell shouldn't it have the well dock? It makes no frigging sense as a basic assumption. Someone did build two assault ships without well dock recently. Then realized how stupid an idea it was, and changed the design of the third. That, despite being the same force that has lots of MV-22 and C-130 tankers to go "deep" with. Your "flat top" is only giving you a few more spots than you already have, while cutting a whole lot of surface capability. You could be launching more Marines by air from the Albions as well, two Chinooks at a time, and it wouldn't change a thing. Meanwhile, LCUs loaded with 5 Vikings each could be heading ashore to give the Marines mobility to push out of the initial landing area.

[marktigger]

Vertical envelopment has been around since WW2 its always needed to be reinforced by sea to make it successful. The means of delivery have changed from Parachutes and gliders to Parachutes and Helicopters.

But for the Americans with all their gear to make the mistake of Helicopters only then to back track shows the folly of the LPH in todays world and given the RN is so much smaller with the amphibious mission probably being carried out from less platforms the hybrid LHD is a much more flexible idea.

[marktigger]

And if we are assuming there is funding for a third flat top in addition to the carriers and the RFAs, why the hell shouldn't it have the well dock? It makes no frigging sense as a basic assumption. Someone did build two assault ships without well dock recently. Then realized how stupid an idea it was, and changed the design of the third. That, despite being the same force that has lots of MV-22 and C-130 tankers to go "deep" with. Your "flat top" is only giving you a few more spots than you already have, while cutting a whole lot of surface capability. You could be launching more Marines by air from the Albions as well, two Chinooks at a time, and it wouldn't change a thing. Meanwhile, LCUs loaded with 5 Vikings each could be heading ashore to give the Marines mobility to push out of the initial landing area.

Does an albion have the capability to handle 2 chinooks at once? have never seen any pictures or video footage of this and would suggest the deck would be a very conjested and dangerous space.

[Gabriele]

It was part of a previous refit.

[shark bait]

That is called "vertical encirclement" and is already in the doctrine. That is the point of moving part of the troops by air: to secure the immediate landing area. You are not inventing anything, you are just trying to cut pieces off while inventing justifications on the go.

Never claimed to invent anything, just an extension of an existing practice, that can be used in many more situations.

Going vertical gives more options, its open to going deep, or close to the shore, which ever is more suitable at the time, an option no available with landing craft, as well as far greater reaction speed.

The justification is real, landing craft are just far too vulnerable, the last amphibious op they were unusable, that must be addressed or its a force stuck over the horizon with no acceptable way to maneuver.

[Gabriele]

The justification is real, landing craft are just far too vulnerable, the last amphibious op they were unusable, that must be addressed or its a force stuck over the horizon with no acceptable way to maneuver.

They weren't "unusable". They decided that they couldn't be harsed with clearing the intended beach from mines, and just re-routed the vehicles and then drove them over land because they could.
If we went by astract notions of vulnerability, we wouldn't use helicopters either. They aren't that hard to shot down, you know.

[R686]

The justification is real, landing craft are just far too vulnerable, the last amphibious op they were unusable, that must be addressed or its a force stuck over the horizon with no acceptable way to maneuver.

They weren't "unusable". They decided that they couldn't be harsed with clearing the intended beach from mines, and just re-routed the vehicles and then drove them over land because they could.
If we went by astract notions of vulnerability, we wouldn't use helicopters either. They aren't that hard to shot down, you know.

Like any op planning they have known threat matrix and work around or sometimes the obvious stands out but desicide the operation risk.

Anything can be shot down given the right circumstance just look at F117 the 5P's brought it down

[shark bait]

so the mines on the beach meant landing craft couldn't be used... then add in mines in sea and ATGW hiding with the civilian population, leading to a situation with too much to counter effectively.

Aircraft benifit greatly from speed of response, live intelligence, and can't be taken out by passise systems, making aircraft less vulnerable than the current crop of landing craft.

Last time we needed an amphibious assult landing craft were sidelined for aircraft, that will be repeated in the future.

[Gabriele]

so the mines on the beach meant landing craft couldn't be used... then add in mines in sea and ATGW hiding with the civilian population, leading to a situation with too much to counter effectively.

No, it is the very same process: determining where, when and how to land from landing craft is not conceptually different from finding a Landing Zone for helicopters. Both face a multitude of problems and offer a number of benefits. Balancing those is what shapes the operation. Losing one of the two options is nothing but an handicap. It cannot be described in any other way.

[shark bait]

Again, I have never suggested loosing landing craft, just shifting to a more helicopter focused set up.

Aircraft bring much greater speed and flexibility. I would suggest that if aircraft can't be used, neither can landing craft, and there is more work to do before hand.

[marktigger]

so the mines on the beach meant landing craft couldn't be used... then add in mines in sea and ATGW hiding with the civilian population, leading to a situation with too much to counter effectively.

Aircraft benifit greatly from speed of response, live intelligence, and can't be taken out by passise systems, making aircraft less vulnerable than the current crop of landing craft.

Last time we needed an amphibious assult landing craft were sidelined for aircraft, that will be repeated in the future.

and of course HLS's and potential HLS's can't be mined? a claymore or even a tincan grenade will make a very nasy mess of a chinook or merlin. The serbs during the Bosnia op were boobytraping landing sites and if you have restricted landing areas by nature of terrain it makes it easy.

[shark bait]

[Tinman]

Again, I have never suggested loosing landing craft, just shifting to a more helicopter focused set up.

Aircraft bring much greater speed and flexibility. I would suggest that if aircraft can't be used, neither can landing craft, and there is more work to do before hand.

The last time we used Helicopters in an opposed landing we lost one, with all onboard.

[Repulse]

With the exception of a Falklands II, which I'd argue that with (CVF) air superiority would be fought very differently to 82 (and if the UK had not lost the Chinooks on the Atlantic Conveyer it would have been fought differently in 82 also), what are the amphibious assault scenarios we are are planning for? Is it still relevant to think we will be rushing 3 Cdo to the Northern Flank to counter a Russian invasion for example?

On the basis that the UK has to prioritise and cannot cover everything, then I'd argue that a rerun of Operation Palliser, a limited raid against terrorists / rouge state or supporting SF operations is the most likely and should be the core requirement.

[LordJim]

I agree, but also believe that the RAF needs to be reinforced to allow an Army Brigade be it Armoured Infantry or "Strike" to be moved in one go including its initial logistics and support units. That is of course if we still intend to have expeditionary operations as part of our core roles. This would entail having the relevant transports having some capability to defend themselves with auto canon being the minimum and CIWS ideal. An improved Bay or a Ro-Ro with a helicopter platform able to take a Chinook (used for containers or other cargo when not required. To support this I would push for the Voyagers to go through a refit to have cargo doors fitted, increasing our capability to move troops and stores.

On a more radical route I would expand the troop capacity of the T-26 to allow it to land at least 2 platoons of troops using its mission bay to house raiding craft. In theory two T-26 could land nearly a company, especially if they carried Merlin HC4s for the mission. This ties into the raiding idea and in some way negates the need for the Albions.

[MRCA]

Shark bait

We should of bought 4 of those to of replaced the invincibles ocean and the albions. Instead we bought qe class. They would of been cheaper in service by now and more appropriately sized to the number of both fixed wing and rotary a/c we will have available to deploy on operations. On top of that they would of ensured we could of have such a capability permantly fwd deployed as a sea control unit with marines and raiding craft, without creating overstetch on people, a/c and logistics.

[shark bait]

Disagree.

A light carrier will not buy superiority at sea. It's small air wing will be too busy protecting the Fleet, lifting marines, or land strike. It doesn't have the capacity to do those things at the same time, so doesn't buy real power at sea.

A QE has enough capacity for fleet protection and land attack at the same time, that is naval power.

[serge750]

Shark bait

We should of bought 4 of those to of replaced the invincibles ocean and the albions. Instead we bought qe class. They would of been cheaper in service by now and more appropriately sized to the number of both fixed wing and rotary a/c we will have available to deploy on operations. On top of that they would of ensured we could of have such a capability permantly fwd deployed as a sea control unit with marines and raiding craft, without creating overstetch on people, a/c and logistics.

Hi, Wonder how long 4 of these would of lasted in service after the bean counters got to thinking why do we need 4.... invincible nearly got sold to Oz shortly after she entered service....( that would of left Ark & lusty) 2 LHD to replace Albion/bulwark/ocean would be a good thing with the Qe class aswell imho

[LordJim]

We are probably going to have to make do with the 2 Albions, the 3 Bays and the Carriers until well after 2040 because the RN is going to have to put all its efforts into get the 8 T-26 and theoretical 5 T-31. To that add the compulsory Dreadnought class, the part funding of the F-35 programme and the RFA refit and that about covers all the funds he RN will have.

What will be interesting is if we have another SDSR after this election, which the treasury don't want, as it will make the hole in the much publicised spending plan public. It may be we actually lose either an Albion and/or one of the bays as the MoD decides amphibious warfare is not a priority anymore but speeding up the carriers and their aircraft is, or all three services need additional personnel , or the Army's MIV programme gets top billing, the list goes on and on.

Yes a couple of LHDs would be great but we won't see them in service until the 2040s at the earliest.

[MRCA]

Shark bait

Even qe is gonna have a small air group. The uk does not have the aircraft to put on it and unless billions are spend it won't for an awfully long time.

I think people are gonna be awfully disappointed because a lot of wishful thinking is being talked about what 2 sqns of f35s can deliver interms of deployed numbers.

Only twice since the end of Cold War has the uk deployed more than 16 fast jet aircraft from a single a/c fleet and that was the opening stages of both Iraq wars and from a force at its smallest 4 times the size of the f35 one. If you look at all uk fast jet deployments since 91 the uk tends to only deploy 8 a/c i.e. A sqn deployment to sustained fwd operations.

It should also be noted that since grey merlin entered service in 98 the RN has only once deployed 9 a/c to same task group and only for a couple of months and that fleet is now smaller. To turn that into a regular deployment of half the total fleet while also providing assets to the asw specialist type 23/26 frigates will I guarantee you break the force as presently conceived. Now you may think that bucket loads of extra cash are coming over the hill to expand the air fleets but I can't see it any time soon.

[shark bait]

Yes, for the first decade the air ops on the carriers will be a little a little underwhelming in the grand scheme of things, but its rebuilding from scratch so even 2 squadrons is an achievement.

Even that comparatively small effort will be bigger than what would be possible from a LHD, and remember these carriers will be around for 50 years, so usage will be completely different to what the power points say today.