Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

[serge750]

If the idea for the future LHD/LPD is to be close to shore with 2 or 300 marines ready for landing then another ( if a bigger assault is required ) 2/300 lily padding from the carrier' then do the RN/RM need anything bigger than the current (+ hanger!) Albion's???

If a really big force was needed then maybe ww3 has started...

[Repulse]

The escort force has been and the RM brigade will be sacrificed on the altar of carrier strike.

Possibly, time will tell. One thing is for sure, the idea of large scale land offensive / nation building operations will be left to the Blair years where they belong. Surgical strikes and raids, backed up with training allies will be the way of the future.

[Scimitar54]

SW1
So you would rather risk one of the carriers in an LPH role would you? No? Then there must be something else provided to perform this role. An LHD or two to replace Albion & Bulwark when their service lives are over is what is required.

[SW1]

SW1
So you would rather risk one of the carriers in an LPH role would you? No? Then there must be something else provided to perform this role. An LHD or two to replace Albion & Bulwark when their service lives are over is what is required.

No I’d of preferred if a number of LHDs were built instead of the carriers. Now the carriers are built the amphibious role and the requirement will simply disappear along with Albion and bulwark. Or a carrier will become a lha risk or no risk.

[Jake1992]

SW1
So you would rather risk one of the carriers in an LPH role would you? No? Then there must be something else provided to perform this role. An LHD or two to replace Albion & Bulwark when their service lives are over is what is required.

No I’d of preferred if a number of LHDs were built instead of the carriers. Now the carriers are built the amphibious role and the requirement will simply disappear along with Albion and bulwark. Or a carrier will become a lha risk or no risk.

We are judging what’s going to happen in 10-15 years by what is going on today.

The problem with the multiple LHD route would of been that once 2010 came all but 2 would of been cut so we’d be in a shocking place right now.

The amphibious set up won’t be strapped as it’ll be a massive dent to not only our input to NATO but to NATO over all. Who else would be able to give that north flank reinforcement role to NATO ?

I do agree that I can’t see LHDs are going to happen but for different reason to what you seem to.

[Repulse]

No I’d of preferred if a number of LHDs were built instead of the carriers. Now the carriers are built the amphibious role and the requirement will simply disappear along with Albion and bulwark. Or a carrier will become a lha risk or no risk.

LHDs are fine if you don’t want to do anything independently against any significant foe. A CVF plus LPD package is superior and gives options that otherwise would not be possible.

The Albions will be fine in the short term, but to replace them should be more numerous / smaller LPDs capable of area defence, and operating UAVs / Wildcat sized aviation assets like the Kalaat Beni Abbes class. With support from the T31 escorts this is the core of the RM platforms, with enhanced Points being up the Army follow on, and the Bays ultimately retired at the right point.

[SW1]

The problem with the multiple LHD route would of been that once 2010 came all but 2 would of been cut so we’d be in a shocking place right now.

Or 2010 would have been as brutal because the budget would of been as overheated or perhaps had extra headroom or the contract for the ships would of been as watertight as the carriers.

[SW1]

LHDs are fine if you don’t want to do anything independently against any significant foe. A CVF plus LPD package is superior and gives options that otherwise would not be possible.

Don’t agree 2 lhds operating together would for the UK likely bring identical capabilities. But providing vastly superior capability in the every day world operating in multiple locations at the same time

[Jake1992]

For me it’s 5-6 large LPDs / LSDs based on a common hull like the USN San Antonio LPX set up.

2 x LPD as such
Length - 200-215m
Beam - 30m
Speed - 20knots
Range - 7,000nm plus
Well dock - 4 x LCU
Dividends - 4 x LCVP sized
Vehicle deck - similar to current Albion
Hanger - 6 merlin / 2 chinook
Flight deck - 3 merlin / 2 chinook
Troop capacity - 500 standard / 750 over load
24 CAMM
2 phalanx
2 30mm with LLM

3-4 LSDs as such
Same hull size, speed and range as above
Well dock - 2 LCU
Dividends - 4 LCVP size
Lane meterage - similar time current Bays
Hanger - 3 merlin / 1 chinook
Flight deck - 2 merlin / 1 chinook
Reinforce work deck with 2 x 30-60t cranes
Mexeflote carry and launch
Troop capacity - 350 standard / 700 over load
2 phalanx
2 x 30mm with LLM

2 x Planed LSS

16 x fast next gen LCUs
16 x fast next gen LCVP ( these should be modular to allow 3 different variants - 1 as full open vehicle / cargo, 2 - full covered troop carrier, 3 - combination of the prior 2 for 15 odd troops and 1-2 ultra light vehicles
16 x CB90 or similar

I accept this would most likely need investment but this would be the next big RN project as by then the carrier would be in full swing. IMO this would give the greatest flexibility while retaining large scale capability all while not risking the QEs through political out looks.

[ArmChairCivvy]

We should retain the Brigade Head Quarters (3 Commando Brigade) but its role would now be to command a multinational force made up of troops from other NATO countries starting with the Dutch Marine Force, which will, from 2020, also contain the German Army's Sea Battalion.

Yep, the biggest Dutch amphib is now paid for, not just by them, but by Germany and Belgium, who also rotate units through "her"
... so that whoever happens to be "on duty" will be accustomed to the "facilities" while sailing up North... or who knows: to the Baltic?

[jedibeeftrix]

No I’d of preferred if a number of LHDs were built instead of the carriers. Now the carriers are built the amphibious role and the requirement will simply disappear along with Albion and bulwark. Or a carrier will become a lha risk or no risk.

why i disagree with this conclusion is two fold:
1. the world has changed - we're no longer tied to total-war on the european plain with dozens of mechanised divisions.
2. the UK's future is no longer european (insomuch as it is defined in europe) - its now global and for a medium power on the far side of the world that means naval.

this means that the equation you apply... does not apply.
with the resources we have available, binning amphibious warfare to spare the army a 5% cut is simply not what is going to happen.

[Lord Jim]

In my mind the Albions should be replaced by a pair of combat capable LSS in the Royal Navy. I do not however agree with the idea put forward by RUSI, that these can be low vis/threat to the extent that they can wonder up to a location, suddenly run up the White Ensign and dump a load of Marines onto an objective. Any opponent will now exactly what they are and will watch them like a hawk. Yes they will probably not strike first (though some might) but as soon as the LSS starts to carry out an operation it will be under threat.

Any LSS must be able to get within range of its objective and be able to cover any assault in conjunction with its escort(s) as well as protect itself. It must be capable of relatively high speed to be able to both enter and exit the target location and be as radar invisible as possible to reduce the time any opponent has to act. It must be able to launch its ship to shore connectors rapidly and these, whatever shape they take must be capable of very high speed, most definitely in excess of 30kts. These must have ballistic protection and be able to provide suppressive fire whilst the troops disembark, whether the craft is a LVTP type or a CB-90 type of platform.

In a nutshell any LSS and its attached smaller craft must be able to operate against peer opposition in a hostile environment. LPDs are of little use in the first stages of the type of operation the UK and other nations are looking at as the evolution of amphibious warfare. There is a strong case for LSDs for the second wave, but out current Bays lack the aviation facilities that are going to be needed. So there is a case in my mind to build three to four Bay successors which would be a good continuity programme to follow the SSS programme. The LSS should follow the T-31 in the timeline with a leased conversion preceding them in order for the new doctrine to be worked on. Our existing LPDs and PSDs would have to stand in for the time being, with aviation assets lilly padding form shore if necessary.

But we must remember the scale of the operations we are looking at, namely nothing larger than a reinforced company sized battle group able to conduct sustained raiding operations as a sovereign capability. The landing of a Mechanised battle group from one of the planned Mechanised Brigades would be via a safe port via out chartered Point class vessels and is more a case of sea lift than amphibious assault.

[SW1]

this means that the equation you apply... does not apply.
with the resources we have available, binning amphibious warfare to spare the army a 5% cut is simply not what is going to happen.

I don’t know what your on about, Army cuts are coming as well if it’s only 5% they’ll be lucky. Nor are the two linked, all budgets are way over committed and more so if shinny new equipment is required.

The world hasn’t changed at all nor has our engagement with it. The main bedrock to UK security is NATO hence like it or not a European footprint. We maintain a limited ability to deploy globally and we maintain engagements with countries all across the world as we have done for decades.

The idea that global means naval is simplistic to the extreme and a process of thought based solely on I really like ships now how can I come up with a way to get more of them. The biggest benefits we can offer to allies around the world is diplomatic support, information, intelligence gathering and logistics.

[ArmChairCivvy]

We maintain a limited ability to deploy globally and we maintain engagements with countries all across the world as we have done for decades.

The idea that global means naval is simplistic to the extreme

I would wager the biggest deployment is an expeditionary wing's worth across the middle East; spread from Cyprus to the Gulf.
... so that's approaching global

What's the difference between the army and the RM? Rapidity of deployment over the threshold that constitutes 'meaningful'.
- even if there were a follow-on bde, at a lesser speed, then in most circumstances there would be allies, local, global or both, on the scene.
- if we have nothing to contribute in the early stages, then we will not have much say over the outcome to be aimed for

Actually, the spend per soldier is the lowest in the RM. This is of course an optical illusion as many support units assigned fall under the army (budget) as do the ships (under navy budget), so the costing of the capability is seldom seen
- still, I bet, worth it

[Repulse]

Lord Jim, agree with the main thrust of your argument, except this part:

But we must remember the scale of the operations we are looking at, namely nothing larger than a reinforced company sized battle group able to conduct sustained raiding operations as a sovereign capability.

The RUSI talks about a scaleable approach with the following building blocks:
(a) A Company - LSG
(b) Three Companies (mini Cdo) - ASG
(c) Two Companies - CSG

This to me is a sensible approach to scaling up to meet the need.

I would say though that (a) and (b) are scaled such to match near term kit / money (inc the Albions). Longer term I’d say more (smaller) LPDs as we’ve discussed with 2 companies may be a better model

[SW1]

We maintain a limited ability to deploy globally and we maintain engagements with countries all across the world as we have done for decades.

The idea that global means naval is simplistic to the extreme

I would wager the biggest deployment is an expeditionary wing's worth across the middle East; spread from Cyprus to the Gulf.
... so that's approaching global

What's the difference between the army and the RM? Rapidity of deployment over the threshold that constitutes 'meaningful'.
- even if there were a follow-on bde, at a lesser speed, then in most circumstances there would be allies, local, global or both, on the scene.
- if we have nothing to contribute in the early stages, then we will not have much say over the outcome to be aimed for

Actually, the spend per soldier is the lowest in the RM. This is of course an optical illusion as many support units assigned fall under the army (budget) as do the ships (under navy budget), so the costing of the capability is seldom seen
- still, I bet, worth it

Not sure what your point is about the gulf deployment.

The RM are one element of forces held at high readiness to deploy the speed of that deployment will be because they are flown to locations required to support an Allie be that RM, Paratroopers, SF, engineers, helicopters or jets.

The difference is the RM operate on ships boarding other ships and use small craft on waterways.

Afghanistan showed any infantry battalion is as capable as any other once trained and deployed.

[Repulse]

The difference with the RMs is that they can be forward based with thier ships capable of being located near areas of conflict for early intervention (without the need of a secured port or airfield) without boots on the ground. They are also used to operating in smaller groups, allowing for the intervention to be scaled.

Sure there is still a need for the Army and the Paras, but it is a different role - the RMs are going back to a more traditional way of operating (rather than the blurred overlap of the past few decades).

[SW1]

The difference with the RMs is that they can be forward based with thier ships capable of being located near areas of conflict for early intervention (without the need of a secured port or airfield) without boots on the ground. They are also used to operating in smaller groups, allowing for the intervention to be scaled.

Sure there is still a need for the Army and the Paras, but it is a different role - the RMs are going back to a more traditional way of operating (rather than the blurred overlap of the past few decades).

We have bases across the world right now with people fwd based there. That is not unique to ships.
Second if we are supporting allies they are whole countries to base ourselves in.

Which goes back to original point to do fwd basing or presence requires numbers we gave up numbers for the one off time limited large scale balls out once in a generation event.

[Repulse]

We have bases across the world right now with people fwd based there.

Very different things. How do you propose our land forward based units get to the regional trouble zones in terms of speed, logistics and approval to move large units across other countries?

For example we have Army units in Cyprus, how on earth do they influence quickly events in Syria? In short, they don’t.

It’s not just not the number of RMs that would limit a big expeditionary operation, the size and resources available to all forces will not allow that. We have politicians and public who want to spend a low peacetime level on defence, the best we can do is influence events very early on and defend ourselves long enough for any eventual ramp up in a war scenario to take effect.

[Phil Sayers]

For example we have Army units in Cyprus, how on earth do they influence quickly events in Syria? In short, they don’t.

True but that is just a reflection of geography meaning that although Cyprus is very close to Syria it is close to the part that has never left the Assad regime's hands and latterly has had a Russian airforce base. If the geography had been the opposite with ISIS in the west and the Assad regime in the east then raids on ISIS from Cyprus might well have been undertaken. Likewise if there had been a proper effort to topple Assad before the Russians showed up the Army battalions at Cyprus could have conceivably been used (e.g to secure, as opposed to take, Latakia port) albeit probably wouldn't have been because of the inherent risk of casualties in doing so.

[Lord Jim]

I doubt we will see RM flown to trouble spot that often in the future. That is exactly the type of overlap they are trying to move away from. That is the role of elements of 16AA or other Army Infantry Battalions moving forward. Instead we will probably have one if not two RM companies forward deployed within a LSG and able to move towards a trouble spot, or turn around if things calm down. IF a once in a lifetime event occurs then as usual a way will be found to dispatch the relevant response, but we will not have formations like in the Falklands where entire standing Brigades can be packed up and sent, we will be used ad hoc formations instead.

[SW1]

We have bases across the world right now with people fwd based there.

Very different things. How do you propose our land forward based units get to the regional trouble zones in terms of speed, logistics and approval to move large units across other countries?

For example we have Army units in Cyprus, how on earth do they influence quickly events in Syria? In short, they don’t.

It’s not just not the number of RMs that would limit a big expeditionary operation, the size and resources available to all forces will not allow that. We have politicians and public who want to spend a low peacetime level on defence, the best we can do is influence events very early on and defend ourselves long enough for any eventual ramp up in a war scenario to take effect.

They aren’t different thing. They are fwd deployed close to trouble spots or potential trouble spots.

How do forces deployed in Cyprus influence events in Syria well same as all the other forces that have been influencing evens in Syria for years they fly in or low profile ground forces drive in from friendly nations. Same with East Timor when Gurkhas were moved from Brunei.

Logistics and the support assets is a limiting factor for all our forces and why I keep saying we have limited ability to deploy globally. Our global capability is a small scale contribution in nature and only in the region we live in does larger scale operations allow namely the nato area.

If your deploying to support allies then you deploy to their country and operate with their forces, you don’t sit off the coast with an invasion fleet which we don’t have. The uniqueness of the RM is there ability to conduct ship boarding, interceptions and riverine and coastal operations.

[Repulse]

If your deploying to support allies then you deploy to their country and operate with their forces

Absolutely agree, and in future those alliances will become more important. However, rather than basing an Army brigade anywhere it will be a smaller engagement more focused on training and intelligence. If getting mass to a region is needed (which it will) then that is the purpose of the RAF lift capability and RFA. What is increasingly clear is that China and Russia are actively trying to increase their footprint globally also, so the number of “friendly countries who like on the ground U.K. presence” will decrease.

The uniqueness of the RM is there ability to conduct ship boarding, interceptions and riverine and coastal operations.

AND be able to provide presence off shore, intervening in a limited way, or opening the door to the Army via the sea.

[Jake1992]

I keep seeing talk of NATO and it’s relevance to our place in the world and our defence strategy going forward, but one of our main contributions to NATO not only because of who we are but our geographical location is the reinforcement of the norther flank.

How will we do this if we strip the amphibious force and RM down to not much more than raiding set ups ? I am genuinely interested to know how others on here would conduct this role in the future with how they see the replacement of the amphibious force ?

[SW1]

If your deploying to support allies then you deploy to their country and operate with their forces

Absolutely agree, and in future those alliances will become more important. However, rather than basing an Army brigade anywhere it will be a smaller engagement more focused on training and intelligence. If getting mass to a region is needed (which it will) then that is the purpose of the RAF lift capability and RFA. What is increasingly clear is that China and Russia are actively trying to increase their footprint globally also, so the number of “friendly countries who like on the ground U.K. presence” will decrease.

The uniqueness of the RM is there ability to conduct ship boarding, interceptions and riverine and coastal operations.

AND be able to provide presence off shore, intervening in a limited way, or opening the door to the Army via the sea.

No ones basing an army brigade anywhere and we aren’t getting scale anywhere outside of the nato area unless there’s significant increase in funds which there won’t be.

There is no “and” beyond the presence off shore maybe a troop of RM on a type 31