Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
As people may have realised I am concentrating on the Arctic scenario here. With regards to the carrier, it would not really be tasked with a vertical lift responsibility for the assault phase other than being the launch pad for3-4 Chinooks to lift a force to secure a perimeter around the disembarkation point. Its main role would be to do a ferry run to transport a number of helicopters into theatre. In theatre ops would run from the Bay Mk2s and allied ships. Once the Carrier had delivered the helicopters its airwing could reembark on site by flying out. Also as we are talking about operations in a littoral environment, there will also be a certain amounts of land based aircover. As for using the T-26 for very small scale raids, I am talking about platoon sized or smaller, and the T-31 is ideal for that. There will be T-26s already in theatre to protect the CVBG and the sea lift so re-tasking one for a special mission would not be out of the question. We have to accept that the ARG as was planned back in the 2000s is dead. With the loss of Ocean, one Albion ties up and reducing the number of Bays, we no longer have the capability or capacity. The funding to guild the necessary replacements to reconstitute the capability is too great and not a high enough priority given the large bow wave of programmes fighting for funding. We have never specialised in over the beach assault against effective opposition, both the Falklands and Iraq were more about sea lift and getting the troops in theatre and Amphibious Assault. Like so may thing decided in the 1997 SDR, the capability was not fully funded to both create it and maintain it. Money is even tighter now so unless we give up something substantial we need to accept what we can do rather than what we want to.
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
I think the Dutch shipping that LJ mentioned can takeJake1992 wrote: improved bays with out a 3rd flattop would mean they would need large aviation capabilties, something along the lines of a twin chinook flight deck and a 5-6 merlin or twin chinook hanger.
- two Chinooks on the deck
- 4 Merlin/ NH90 in the hangar
... so we would be talking about 'pretty big' ships for Edition 2 of the Bays?[/quote]
Oh I agree something like the karldoorman with a 2 LCU well dock would be needed with out a 3rd flattop, and atleast 4 of them would be need to allow 3 to be easily surged giving up to 18 halos comparable to hms ocean.
Now if a 3rd flat top was to come then the bay replacements could be smaller with simpler aviation facilities say only 2-3 halo capacity and a single chinook spot.
But this all highlights what is needed with out a 3rd flat top, as I mentioned it's all well and good saying the second QE can do it but what happens when she isn't available ?
Do we say sorry we can't do anything until latter on ? That would go down well with allies or our dependents
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Lord Jim what you are asking though is for a single QE to ferry loads of helos and then some how quickly gain an F35 air wing to provide air cover. Relying on ground bases for air cover early on is just asking for trouble as it is not guarantied.
Yes the T26s would be there but they would already have a job to do, your surgesting taking them away from that job leaving the carriers and the rest of the group vounerable to subs. Like I surgested if you want a Veseel to do that role ( which I have no problem and support ) then the T31 becoming an absolan type would be the perfect answer
Yes the T26s would be there but they would already have a job to do, your surgesting taking them away from that job leaving the carriers and the rest of the group vounerable to subs. Like I surgested if you want a Veseel to do that role ( which I have no problem and support ) then the T31 becoming an absolan type would be the perfect answer
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
F-35s flying out of Scotland could be back on a QE in just over an hour. As for shore based air support, well I cannot see Norway closing its air bases to other NATO nations or not being willing to provide aircover of a NATO task Force off its coast. With the T-26, I am talking about a single T-26 being detached form a task farce for a specific mission than returning. Remember we will not be alone up there, there will be Canadian, Norwegian, American, Dutch assets plus other. Solo operation elsewhere are going to be on a very small scale in future when it comes to amphibious assault operations.
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
That would still be an hour with out air cover in that time a lot could happened to both the fleet and landing forces, your working on the assumption that Norway will be complety free from hostile forces, this may not always be the case and so we should plan for the worst not the best case.Lord Jim wrote:F-35s flying out of Scotland could be back on a QE in just over an hour. As for shore based air support, well I cannot see Norway closing its air bases to other NATO nations or not being willing to provide aircover of a NATO task Force off its coast. With the T-26, I am talking about a single T-26 being detached form a task farce for a specific mission than returning. Remember we will not be alone up there, there will be Canadian, Norwegian, American, Dutch assets plus other. Solo operation elsewhere are going to be on a very small scale in future when it comes to amphibious assault operations.
I can see what your saying with regards to the T26 and that your basing these plans on being part of an allied group, while this is reasonable it can't always be expected and with such low numbers of T26s taking even 1 away from its role of protecting the task group even for a short period could end in desaster. I just can't see any reason for this risk when we have a T31 project that could provide the perfect vessel for this role an absolan style vessel is designed for this exact role and would offer a much better set up than a T26, it would also be much better for flag waving carrebean patrol and HADR, 4 of such a vessel would be much better for the over all fleet ( especially amphibious ) than the corrent T31 plan.
Planing the whole future amphibious fleet around only Norway operations is very short sighted and neglectful, we have over sea territories that we are reasonable for and should always have a way of protecting and liberating them. Yes the Aegies havnt got the capability to retake the Falklands now but with the way the future is going who's to say the Chinese won't rearm them at there own cost to keep us out of the game down there way.
As is always said you plan for the worst and hope for the best.
This is why I believe the very minimum needed for future amphibious set is a 3rd flat top ( what form this takes is up for debate ) and 3-4 bay mk2s that have previously been descused on here.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
And as for landing elsewhere, pages 16-17 in this one https://forsvaret.no/en/ForsvaretDocume ... ridged.pdf gives the alternatives. The same map shows the multiple "single points of failure" for relying (only) on the planned use of major roads for Ops.Lord Jim wrote:F-35s flying out of Scotland could be back on a QE in just over an hour. As for shore based air support, well I cannot see Norway closing its air bases to other NATO nations or not being willing to provide aircover of a NATO task Force off its coast.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
I have concentrated on the reinforcement of Norway by UK forces as it is the traditional role for which the RM have trained with regards to NATO. How these operations are conducted involve far more than what has been discussed here, which I have tried to keep within the borders of the thread. As to when such a deployment would take place, before the shooting started or after would greatly influence where troop would disembark, but they would not do so against a dug in OPFOR. In any campaign there would be a major naval engagement to clear and control the fiords and exercises in the 1980s actually had a USN CVBG using these as bases of operation to launch strikes which would in wartime be aimed at the Kola Peninsular and so on.
Concentrating on Norway is also very relevant as NATO is still our primary military mission. The RM are finally now getting back on track with operations in this theatre after a prolonged absence due to other commitments. They are on of the few non Scandinavian formations able to operate here and together with the Norwegians are retraining the USMC on how once again operate in the climate and terrain. This is where they would be needed most in any shooting war. What is also needed is for components of the planned "Strike" Brigades to also regularly train in such conditions. Being able to operate off the MSR would be vital in any conflict and both the RM and "Strike" will be able to do this. The RM bring their ability to operate amongst the islands than proliferate in the region, in smaller formation of company strength or below as do local forces. This is where the Bay Mk2s and coastal craft like the CB-90 come in to their own together with SF and rotary assets. I could go on and on but will leave Norway there.
Talk of operations in the Far East, and I understand we have alliances with nations, but these will not be on a large scale. We simply do not have the power projection capability to do so. As far as the Carrier Group is concerned, whilst it may be politicaaly expedient to sent it is trouble ocurs, the Carrier group would be far more useful freeing up a USN CVBG inthe Atlantic to be sent east then actually going there itself. The same could also be said for sending the ARG. We would do better dispatching 16 AA together with supporting aviation assets, and I cannot remember when we last deployed any heavy formations to that region. In fact deploying it would require a step change in capacity to be able to send any really meaningful force to the regiion if we are honest. The recent deployment shows this, but we can still wave the flag with the best of them
Turning to the use of the T-26 as a platform for amphibious raids. This is one of the reasons the design is what it is and that it has a "Mission" bay. Yes if the T-31 were built along the lines of the Danish Absalon it would be ideal for the role but it isn't going to be and as currently planned, will not be equipped for such a role.
Concentrating on Norway is also very relevant as NATO is still our primary military mission. The RM are finally now getting back on track with operations in this theatre after a prolonged absence due to other commitments. They are on of the few non Scandinavian formations able to operate here and together with the Norwegians are retraining the USMC on how once again operate in the climate and terrain. This is where they would be needed most in any shooting war. What is also needed is for components of the planned "Strike" Brigades to also regularly train in such conditions. Being able to operate off the MSR would be vital in any conflict and both the RM and "Strike" will be able to do this. The RM bring their ability to operate amongst the islands than proliferate in the region, in smaller formation of company strength or below as do local forces. This is where the Bay Mk2s and coastal craft like the CB-90 come in to their own together with SF and rotary assets. I could go on and on but will leave Norway there.
Talk of operations in the Far East, and I understand we have alliances with nations, but these will not be on a large scale. We simply do not have the power projection capability to do so. As far as the Carrier Group is concerned, whilst it may be politicaaly expedient to sent it is trouble ocurs, the Carrier group would be far more useful freeing up a USN CVBG inthe Atlantic to be sent east then actually going there itself. The same could also be said for sending the ARG. We would do better dispatching 16 AA together with supporting aviation assets, and I cannot remember when we last deployed any heavy formations to that region. In fact deploying it would require a step change in capacity to be able to send any really meaningful force to the regiion if we are honest. The recent deployment shows this, but we can still wave the flag with the best of them
Turning to the use of the T-26 as a platform for amphibious raids. This is one of the reasons the design is what it is and that it has a "Mission" bay. Yes if the T-31 were built along the lines of the Danish Absalon it would be ideal for the role but it isn't going to be and as currently planned, will not be equipped for such a role.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4111
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
It isn't inconceivable that something a bit more ambitious could be done with the Arrowhead 140. There is a lot of space in the stern and under the flight deck that could potentially be maximised and converted into a mission space without a massive redesign. Maybe similar to the Danish Knud Rasmussen Class.Lord Jim wrote:Turning to the use of the T-26 as a platform for amphibious raids. This is one of the reasons the design is what it is and that it has a "Mission" bay. Yes if the T-31 were built along the lines of the Danish Absalon it would be ideal for the role but it isn't going to be and as currently planned, will not be equipped for such a role.
https://www.naval-technology.com/projec ... sen-class/ This is a highly impressive design considering its a very modest OPV.
If a TAS/VDS isn't a nailed on requirement on the first batch of T31's, a stern ramp arrangement may be possible.
Obviously the budget is key but in the case of the A140, a CB-90 capabilty isn't totally impossible in my opinion, just very unlikely
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
I fully agree, if funding were available and the RFI was changed to include the roles discussed then this could be the way forward. However I feel the whole T-31e programme is basically the tail wagging the dog, with the Government wanting to avoid appearing to cut the surface fleet further, but unwilling to put the resources in. This is why I am arguing that rather than building expensive dedicated amphibious assault vessels for a mission that is rarely used, we need to ensure we have the necessary sea lift platforms in grey to move a meaningful land component with all that entails. The fact that the Bay Mk2 will be far more versatile and able to carry out a multitude of roles reinforces the argument and even the Point Mk2 would have the ability to more considerable resources in other roles such as HADR.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4111
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
One thing I should have mentioned regarding the Knud Rasmussen Class is that they only cost £60m
An impressive design with an impressive price tag.
I think it's fair to say that we could learn a thing from the Danes and OMT.
An impressive design with an impressive price tag.
I think it's fair to say that we could learn a thing from the Danes and OMT.
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Well it is certainly affordable but the MoD would need to think again about the RFI etc.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5604
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
1: But is does not have a hangar, its top speed is only 17 knots, but is a basic ice breaker. No objection Dames and OMT is good, but the OPV also has gone through "choice of capability".Poiuytrewq wrote:One thing I should have mentioned regarding the Knud Rasmussen Class is that they only cost £60m
An impressive design with an impressive price tag.
I think it's fair to say that we could learn a thing from the Danes and OMT.
2: What Knud Rasmussen Class and Absalon class carries is NOT CB90, 15m long, but SB90 which is 10m long.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storebro_SB90E
It can be easily carried on T26's mission bay. If T31e is to be Leander, it can be carried on its larger RHIB alcove, as well.
Do we really need, stern ramp?
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
I agree that Norway should be the core focus of the RM but it shouldn't it's only focus. To plan your future amphibious fleet soley on Norway is negligent as it disregards the needs of BOST that we are responsible for.Lord Jim wrote:I have concentrated on the reinforcement of Norway by UK forces as it is the traditional role for which the RM have trained with regards to NATO. How these operations are conducted involve far more than what has been discussed here, which I have tried to keep within the borders of the thread. As to when such a deployment would take place, before the shooting started or after would greatly influence where troop would disembark, but they would not do so against a dug in OPFOR. In any campaign there would be a major naval engagement to clear and control the fiords and exercises in the 1980s actually had a USN CVBG using these as bases of operation to launch strikes which would in wartime be aimed at the Kola Peninsular and so on.
Concentrating on Norway is also very relevant as NATO is still our primary military mission. The RM are finally now getting back on track with operations in this theatre after a prolonged absence due to other commitments. They are on of the few non Scandinavian formations able to operate here and together with the Norwegians are retraining the USMC on how once again operate in the climate and terrain. This is where they would be needed most in any shooting war. What is also needed is for components of the planned "Strike" Brigades to also regularly train in such conditions. Being able to operate off the MSR would be vital in any conflict and both the RM and "Strike" will be able to do this. The RM bring their ability to operate amongst the islands than proliferate in the region, in smaller formation of company strength or below as do local forces. This is where the Bay Mk2s and coastal craft like the CB-90 come in to their own together with SF and rotary assets. I could go on and on but will leave Norway there.
Talk of operations in the Far East, and I understand we have alliances with nations, but these will not be on a large scale. We simply do not have the power projection capability to do so. As far as the Carrier Group is concerned, whilst it may be politicaaly expedient to sent it is trouble ocurs, the Carrier group would be far more useful freeing up a USN CVBG inthe Atlantic to be sent east then actually going there itself. The same could also be said for sending the ARG. We would do better dispatching 16 AA together with supporting aviation assets, and I cannot remember when we last deployed any heavy formations to that region. In fact deploying it would require a step change in capacity to be able to send any really meaningful force to the regiion if we are honest. The recent deployment shows this, but we can still wave the flag with the best of them
Turning to the use of the T-26 as a platform for amphibious raids. This is one of the reasons the design is what it is and that it has a "Mission" bay. Yes if the T-31 were built along the lines of the Danish Absalon it would be ideal for the role but it isn't going to be and as currently planned, will not be equipped for such a role.
My statment about china wasn't about us nesaserily operating in the Far East ( even though I belive we should build upon alliances there ) but more of China rebuilding the argies to keep us occupied in that we wouldn't have the time or resurses to operate in the far east with any meaning, now I know that sounds far fetch but it was only a few months ago China gave it the big I am threatening just that so who know how the future will go.
With all this in mind we need the future amphibious force to be more flexible than just Norway focused only.
I just belive there won't be enough T26s to conduct the jobs you want with out leaving other assets too vonreble. Yes the T31 direction would need changing but this is the time to do that giving us a more flexible option for the over fleet and no just a large up armed OPV for mainly flag waving so HMG can say they kept 13 frigates
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
A great backgrounder on "Far" North. It is worthwhile to remember that Russia maintains three bdes there, available for a "flying start", whereas the whole Norwegian field army (1 bde) is up North, but not flanked by any from Sweden (used to be 6) and the 2 that Finland used to maintain in the region have been whittled down to demi-bdes. Moreover, two of the three Russian bdes have been specially kitted out for flanking moves (their marines plus the Arctic bde), so amphibiosity on our side is not about going against dug-in opposition, but getting to the right places plenty quick.
... I would focus on the wider Gulf Region, insteadLord Jim wrote:Concentrating on Norway is also very relevant as NATO is still our primary military mission. The RM are finally now getting back on track with operations in this theatre after a prolonged absence due to other commitments. They are on of the few non Scandinavian formations able to operate here and together with the Norwegians are retraining the USMC on how once again operate in the climate and terrain. This is where they would be needed most in any shooting war. What is also needed is for components of the planned "Strike" Brigades to also regularly train in such conditions. Being able to operate off the MSR would be vital in any conflict and both the RM and "Strike" will be able to do this. The RM bring their ability to operate amongst the islands than proliferate in the region, in smaller formation of company strength or below as do local forces. This is where the Bay Mk2s and coastal craft like the CB-90 come in to their own together with SF and rotary assets. I could go on and on but will leave Norway there.
Talk of operations in the Far East
if it is one boat, fast insertation craft would be more relevant, on these lines http://www.eliteukforces.info/gallery/v ... -craft.php (though the pictured ones are from the 90's as the photos of the current ones tend to be from too far and 'grainy').Poiuytrewq wrote:a stern ramp arrangement may be possible.
Obviously the budget is key but in the case of the A140, a CB-90 capabilty isn't totally impossible
for 'all seasons' asLord Jim wrote: we need to ensure we have the necessary sea lift platforms in grey
Jake1992 wrote: To plan your future amphibious fleet soley on Norway is negligent
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5634
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
I think some people are forgetting a few things in this debate over a Norway planLord Jim wrote:F-35s flying out of Scotland could be back on a QE in just over an hour. As for shore based air support, well I cannot see Norway closing its air bases to other NATO nations or not being willing to provide aircover of a NATO task Force off its coast. With the T-26, I am talking about a single T-26 being detached form a task farce for a specific mission than returning. Remember we will not be alone up there, there will be Canadian, Norwegian, American, Dutch assets plus other. Solo operation elsewhere are going to be on a very small scale in future when it comes to amphibious assault operations.
1) RAF typhoons out of Lossi with Tanker support can cover the fleet and Norway as could Norway's F-16s / F-35A if they had to leave there bases
2 ) 1 QE class could embark for the first part of mission with 8 F-35b - 20 Merlin - 10 Apache in the Hangar and 10 Chinooks on the the deck under war time load plus wildcats carried on the escorts
3 ) if needed paras can be airdropped from A400 / C17
this is just a start I could go on
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1717
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
If you have 10 chinooks on deck, you may not be able to operate any other aircraft
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5634
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
I think if working with a 2 billion pound budget for replacement of the amphib fleet I would still be looking to get
1 x 235 meter Ocean type LPH capable of carrying 25 Helicopters
3 x 200 meter B2 Bay class as in option 1 on page 44 of this thread
this along with the Point class would allow for the movement of around 2500 troops and there kit and stores. given that we only have 10 LCUs if the 3 new Bays could carry 6 between them plus 12 of the remaining 16 LCVPs we would be doing alright
1 x 235 meter Ocean type LPH capable of carrying 25 Helicopters
3 x 200 meter B2 Bay class as in option 1 on page 44 of this thread
this along with the Point class would allow for the movement of around 2500 troops and there kit and stores. given that we only have 10 LCUs if the 3 new Bays could carry 6 between them plus 12 of the remaining 16 LCVPs we would be doing alright
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Please do, asTempest414 wrote:if needed paras can be airdropped from A400 / C17
this is just a start I could go on
would be our "amphibiosity" exhausted in the "immediate run" and a USMC bde (with prepositioning of equipment) would be bringing in double that.Tempest414 wrote:movement of around 2500 troops
- so far you have upped the immediate reinforcements by about 1/8th (12.5% is better than nothing )
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5634
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
If another Nato member other than the US could deploy 2500 highly skilled highly motivated troops in to Norway I would very happy
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Germany sent (OK, the multinational formations where they were the lead) 8000 to this year's Trident JunctureTempest414 wrote:If another Nato member other than the US could deploy 2500 highly skilled highly motivated troops
- same problem as with our Strike Bde (vs. the RM early, or later 2nd wave, force): how to be at the right place, at the right time... before the 'show' is over
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
If done right, and this rests mainly with the Politicians, you should aim to be in the right place and the right time to stop things happening before the go too far.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Correct, and we do realise the current approach is imperfect. In the long run the RN need another helicopter carrier, which along side the two carriers will guarantee 1 fast jet, and 1 helicopter assault platform is always available to respond.Repulse wrote:Also, for those arguing that if “you have one you have nothing”, the current approach seems to suggest any serious amphibious assault requires a CVF in Carrier Strike mode and the other in LPH mode - so does that not mean we have one of each so are equally buggered?
50 miles is totally impractical, even 20 miles will likely require too greater resource to make it work. Far over the horizon is nice, but I expect in reality commanders will prioritise faster delivery of the fighting formation. Its a balancing act, between the vulnerability of sitting closer to shore, versus the vulnerability of an extended transition.Poiuytrewq wrote:In Over The Horizon Amphibious Assault terms its between 20nm and 50nm.
Do we ever expect the Marines to be equipped to make 20+ miles work?
@LandSharkUK
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4111
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Tell that to the USMC.shark bait wrote:50 miles is totally impractical
50 miles may be at the upper end of what is practical but with large LCAC's and a suitable sea state, an initial assault at this distance is perfectly possible.
It's unproven and untested in a major conflict but it's the direction planning is now moving.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Really? I thought they were backtracking a bit, after a few trials they realised it was a bit too resource intensive even for the US.
And worth remembering our Royal Marines are not the USMC, its not likely the RN will be equipped to operate at the same distance the USN do.
And worth remembering our Royal Marines are not the USMC, its not likely the RN will be equipped to operate at the same distance the USN do.
@LandSharkUK
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
So are we settled on this then, as a compromise between effective concept of Ops vs. cost avoidance from investment in markedly more expensive 'kit'?
ArmChairCivvy wrote:A good thing that (without being a lawyer) I inserted the "+" in there:Poiuytrewq wrote: a hill or tower of 100 m (330 ft) in height, the horizon is 36 km (22 mi)
22 Miles =
19.117477 Nautical Miles
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)