Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4580
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Poiuytrewq wrote:The strike force is the LSG possibly operating in conjunction with the CSG.
Should have been more careful with my words - I meant land strike force - i.e. an Army formation. Whilst the LSG will be optimized towards Littoral strike, for anything above a limited SF raid or A2/AD neutralization for air strikes it is not a means to an end.

The missing part for me is the level of ambition and means to deploy the army. We need to be clear on what is the requirement, not focusing on equipment which will end up with the UK having "fur but no knickers".

My view - the objective of the FCF is provide the ability to do the following:
  • Maritime security
  • Small scale SF type raids
  • Destroying A2/AD capabilities
  • Disrupting / delaying an advancing force
  • Securing a port / landing ground for the Army in a low threat environment
  • Act as a seed-corn to build the ability to conduct opposed landings
What really I want to see is the ability to move an Army Brigade via the sea with 30 days notice. The Bays IMO are a key part of this strategy, rather than FCF / MCM / etc motherships.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

The UK really needs to conduct a short notice Army Brigade Deployment to an off shore location, possible in Europe or Scandinavia in the near future. This is a capability we lost a long time ago at the end of the Cold War, but will be a key requirement of our Armed Forces moving forward, be it a Heavy BCT to Poland or a Light BCT to Kenya. It will probably go pear shaped, but this should not be an issue. We need to find out what we can and cannot do, and what capabilities are needed to allow such a deployment to happen seamlessly in the future. We can only find these things out by trying it in the first place for real, not with a simulated C2 exercise.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

It appears that the FCF and the new LSGs are to be set at two, one north covering Norway etc. and the other the Gulf and Indo/Pacific regions. This is a good thing as more than that would dilute resources too much.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

One “East” and the other “West” rather, I think! :mrgreen:

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Same thing really, with the west one being aimed primarily at Norway and the surrounding area. That is unless we have designs on either the USA or Canada. :D

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

What about West coast of Africa ? :mrgreen:

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4580
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Lord Jim wrote:This is a good thing as more than that would dilute resources too much.
Whilst the focus on the Nordic’s for LRG(N) is correct, I personally would have liked to have seen a second group EoS for the Med and Western Africa, perhaps based out of Gib. I get the point of not spreading the RMs to thinly (though a thin spreading of RMs seems inherent in the FCF strategy) but think these formations / groups should be seen as “Purple” and therefore involve light Army Cdo units also.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

I think the idea of the forward deployed groups a "Purple" would be the right approach. You could have the two sea based LSGs and a land based one built around elements of the Ranger Regiment. All three would have access to SF, tier one if necessary, Rotary aviation and unmanned platforms and ground transportation fitting to the environment in which they are operating. Even more so than the BCTs these forward deployed forces need to be totally self contained and self sufficient.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4580
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

The way things are going having a detachment from 42 Commando on the B1 Rivers carrying out fisheries patrol duties might come in handy. This also shines a slightly brighter light on the T-31, though we still might have done better with an extra T-26 and a few more B2 Rivers or even a B3 with improved accommodation for embarked detachments, be they RM or civilian.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

3 of the River B2's right now have a embarked force of 26 RM on top of this Forth trains with embarked Army units

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote:Maybe they have an eye on the new Combat Boat the Swedes are building to replace the latest CB-90 variants? That would certainly meet the criteria for the FCF, with it being capable of mounting everything from Mortars like AMOS to both anti air and anti surface missiles whilst being roughly the sale size.
The latest (not v recent) assessment of such boats carried a Force Protection title, so such versions would not be too far off the mark
Lord Jim wrote: projects such as the Bay conversion and I-SSGW and now everything is on hold. A bit like the Army's MRV(P) programme amongst others.
As for sealift (over the beach, as raiding bases, into a secure[d] port) and the wider picture, the Points contract is coming up for tender
- one of the current operators may have offered a hull at a 'very' good price?
Poiuytrewq wrote:Perhaps Largs Bay is coming back as a part exchange
Good joke, but also on the serious front: she did have extensive improvements for ops in the tropics
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)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Scimitar54 wrote:One “East” and the other “West” rather, I think! :mrgreen:


Yes and no - as we have a foretaste of the size of the contingent e.g. for the Gulf of Guinea in the form of the one currently on a RB2
- so not really a third force, but more of an ad hoc thing that can be quickly formed

Whereas "North" needs specialised kit (and training with/ on it).
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)

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:…..she did have extensive improvements for ops in the tropics
I think the chances of the RAN returning Choules is almost non-existent. Hardly surprising due to the fantastic versatility of the Bay Class.

The recent decision to halt work on the Bay conversion for LRG(N) is, as yet, unexplained. The amount of back peddling since the Integrated Review was published is concerning given the amount of time it took to produce the document.

Without further vessels or, as a minimum, suitable conversions to existing vessels to enhance levels of embarked aviation, the FCF concept will remain just a concept. RN/HMG really need to show some progress with the direction of FCF as the whole concept currently looks adrift.

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by jedibeeftrix »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote: Without further vessels or, as a minimum, suitable conversions to existing vessels to enhance levels of embarked aviation, the FCF concept will remain just a concept. RN/HMG really need to show some progress with the direction of FCF as the whole concept currently looks adrift.
in case any of this is news, there were some interesting (if not terribly enlightening) updates here:


Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

A bit more news on the FCF and the LRG’s here.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/1 ... -training/

Royal Marines 'dominate' US troops during training exercise
Elite commandos outperformed their US counterparts when trialling a new battle structure.

Royal Marines have “dominated” US forces during a training exercise in California, using a new battle structure.

Royal Marine commandos exercising in California trialled the new Littoral Response Group (LRG) structure, around which the Future Commando Force will be built, and outperformed their US adversaries in the Mojave Desert.

Within the first four hours of Exercise Green Dagger, a five-day warfighting exercise, LRG South delivered decisive blows against three waves of attack helicopters and drones, forcing the enemy to rethink their strategy.

Britain will have two LRGs, each based around an existing unit of Royal Marines. LRG North will be based in the UK to cover Nato’s northern and Baltic flanks. LRG South will be based in and around the Omani port of Duqm, focussing on British military activity in the Indo-Pacific region.

Marines
Exercise Green Dagger took place at the US Marine Corps' Twentynine Palms base in the Mojave Desert in southern California

Britain will eventually have two LRGs; one based in the UK and one located in and around the Omani port of Duqm

LRG South, based around 40 Commando, will be held at a high state of readiness from next year. The LRG concept aims to produce flexible and mobile commando forces and will operate alongside allies and partners. The LRGs will be able to work with the carrier strike group to produce an expeditionary strike force.

Exercise Green Dagger is a multi-national, multi-domain exercise, played out across one of the biggest military training areas in the world. It is designed to test the United States Marine Corps in preparation for operational readiness.

Based around three urban areas set within a vast expanse of over 3500 square kilometres of mountainous and desert terrain, and including an interactive civilian population, the exercise facilitated complex operational scenarios.


The British LRG based in Oman will focus on British military activity in the Indo-Pacific
The LRG concept aims to produce highly flexible and mobile commando forces and will operate alongside allies and partners

The military exercise was based around three urban areas set within a vast expanse of over 3500 square kilometres of mountainous and desert terrain

As the warfighting exercise, developed the LRG infiltrated behind the the enemy’s front lines, causing havoc by striking high value targets and command and control nodes, which paralysed any counter-attack.

The enemy were forced to avoid decisive engagement with the LRG, but were eventually defeated via a daring long-range helicopter commando assault supported by fighter aircraft.

The exercise concluded with a last minute and unsuccessful enemy assault that was repelled, leaving the LRG in control of over 65 per cent of the entire battlespace, having started with less than 20 per cent.


The British Marines repelled a last-minute, unsuccessful enemy assault

Lt Col Andy Dow, the commander of LRG South, said: “Throughout this deployment our focus has been on integrating game-changing capabilities from across the Commando Force to deliver disproportionate effect in the face of a free-thinking peer adversary.


“Our success has proved the new Commando Force concept is more lethal and sophisticated than ever before and I am immensely proud of every member of the LRG and their vital contributions.

“Operating alongside our partners from the US, Netherlands, Canada and the UAE gives us a fantastic opportunity to test, integrate and continue to push our capabilities in new and innovative directions.”

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7248
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Shit, the Brits have taken California :o

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

I thought that it was San Andreas’s Fault ! :mrgreen:

BB85
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by BB85 »

In 20 paragraphs I have no idea how the RM managed such an impressive feat. How does a new structure improve performance so dramatically with the same equipment? Did they really repel the USMC with vastly superior equipment only by improving their structure? Vikings and manpads fought off Apaches

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Is this the reason the fixed hanger conversion on the Bay has been shelved?


User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

USN is procuring 6-8 to replace the two v large hospital ships
... so with that formula (a ship can only cover so many nm a day, if it is not in the right location to begin with) we should get 3-4 with space that is suitable for a roll-on/ roll off medical facility.

I hope something else than the Bays will be the answer; we only have the three and keeping a lot of space 'ready' is bound to have an effect on any other roles that they might be called into.
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)

BB85
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by BB85 »

Crazy that the Royal Navy had not lobbied the treasury 10 years ago to fund 1 or 2 hospital ships out of the foreign aid budget to replace RFA argus. They should arguably fund out hurricane relief efforts in the Carribbean to boot with an updated bay class with hanger facilities and a couple of helecoptors.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

The RM have "Borrowed", a number of light weight 4x4s that carry four troops and a number cam be carried internally in larger helicopters. This is just one example for the new equipment being trailed for FCF. They are going well beyond just Viking and yomping, though these are still in use. :D

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Moved across as not solely Argus related.
Repulse wrote:Pairing Argus with a LSD for the LRG(S) seems to be the logical short term solution to me.
Agreed, why not go further and forward base Argus at Duqm with the rest of LRG(South).

This would then allow the two LSG’s to operate independently of the CVF’s as the required embarked aviation levels would have been met.

Something along these lines:

LRG (N)
1x Albion
1x Bay (Converted)
1x Tide
1x T23

LRG(S)
1x Albion
1x Bay
Argus
1x Wave
1x T23

In addition this would also facilitate:

1x Bay for Op Kipion
1x Bay for MCM trails
1x Wave and 1x RB2 for APT(N)
Repulse wrote: This really leaves only the MRSS as an option, but with it's potential MCM mothership role (also mentioned by the 1SL)
It sounded like the MRSS is going to be the platform of choice for the new MCM kit although there was a mention of utilising commercial vessels also.

My concern is how many vessels the proposed six MRSS are now going to replace.

The list seems to get ever longer:

Ocean
Argus
2x Albions
4x Bays
The entire MCMV fleet (originally 28 MCMV’s)

The introduction of the MRSS could end up being being one of the biggest cuts in RN post war history.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Repulse wrote: This really leaves only the MRSS as an option, but with it's potential MCM mothership role (also mentioned by the 1SL)
It sounded like the MRSS is going to be the platform of choice for the new MCM kit although there was a mention of utilising commercial vessels also.

My concern is how many vessels the proposed six MRSS are now going to replace.

The list seems to get ever longer:

Ocean
Argus
2x Albions
4x Bays
The entire MCMV fleet (originally 28 MCMV’s)

The introduction of the MRSS could end up being being one of the biggest cuts in RN post war history.
I do NOT share the idea that "6 MRSS are cuts".

Compared to the capability now RN has,
- Ocean was replaced by Prince of Whales. Done.
- Argus replacement is currently under debate. --> 1
- Only 1 of the 2 Albions are active. --> 1 or 2
- Only 3 Bays are remaining. --> 3
This gives 5 or 6 vessels to be replaced. Six MRSS matches here, no cuts.

12 MCMV fleets are replaced with 10-15 sets of autonomous MCM kits.
- 4 of them assigned to Persian Gulf can be merged into the MCM kits operating from the Bay (already assigned there). This will be coupled with another 4 "in rotation", meaning this capability is replacing 8 MCMVs.
- A few MCMVs assigned for Clyde clearance and Port clearance can be replaced by autonomous MCM kits operated from land.
- A few (or a several) Mine Countermeasure Logistic Support Vessels are reported to be included in the modified NSbS (see Navylookout). They will do "the other jobs" well.

I understand it is debatable, but I see no cuts here. When we want to "increase" the asset numbers from 2020's ones back to the pre-2010 era level, yes we need more ships.

Personally, the 5 River B2 OPVs added to the fleet, coupled with its very high tempo of operation (longer sea-going days) is very significant, and thus there seems no cuts here in number of ships for patrol capability.

What we need to be careful is,
- HMS Scot replacement
- need for dedicated replacement for HMS Echo and Enterprise.
- losing 3 River B1s on 2028 is a cut, I agree. But it will be well compensated by replacing the 5 T23GP (with low availability, because it is complex and old) with 5 T31 (simpler and new). Nonetheless, this is a cut.

Post Reply