Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Lord Jim wrote:Taking a step back, before we start ordering new ships to replace the Bays and Albions we need a very clear and well defines vision of what the future role of the Royal Marines is to be, how are they to be equipped and how will they operate.
I think we have a good idea on where the Future Commando Force is going - smaller (company level and smaller) focused combat units, forward based, maximising new technology - able to work in a unpredictable way and able to come together for larger tasks.

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-l ... the-future

https://news.usni.org/2019/09/11/dsei-r ... ard-deploy

Information available talks about forward basing scaling up to force of three vessels; I assume a FLSS, LPD and LSD.

Whilst this would be ok in COIN or HADR, the problem comes when we discuss what is escorting these in higher threat conflicts. It also questions, what comes after the RMs and how they get there.
”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

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by jedibeeftrix »

Lord Jim wrote:Taking a step back, before we start ordering new ships to replace the Bays and Albions we need a very clear and well defines vision of what the future role of the Royal Marines is to be, how are they to be equipped and how will they operate. This will define what type of platforms the Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary will need to meet these criteria.

The Royal Navy will need far more specialise platforms, albeit smaller, faster and better protected than the Albions to support The Royal Marines. They will need to be able to operate up to four CB-90 type craft either form a dock or from davits. I would say that traditional landing craft like the LCVP would not feature as their limited range, slow speed and the fact that the ships would not have the capacity to carry both these and the Combat Boats in number sufficient for effective operations.
Totally agreed on the first point.

Curious absence of any mention of LCU in the second...

No problem with with your larger class of smaller vessels to replace the LPD's, but they need LCU sized docks (plural). If you're looking at a class of four then we'd want at [least] two Caiman90 capable docks on each.

If we want a bunch of commandos tearing round in speed boats we don't need a brigade for three (and a half?) principle combat formations, and we don't need a RM training pipeline. No, we're looking at a naval infantry specialist course as a tack-on to catterick, able to support one or two 'commando' battalions.
------------
More generally -
I still see people veering silently away from combined-arms mobile formations, with occasional comments about stopping dreaming about SDR97 and putting brigades across beaches.
No one here is suggesting that, but no-one has convinced me that retaining a capability at battlegroup level isn't both achievable and necessary.

We can still have Commandos racing around in speedboats, plenty of room for that with three (and a half) principal commando 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 »

jedibeeftrix wrote:More generally -
I still see people veering silently away from combined-arms mobile formations
I fully agree with you: too much 'technical' talk about ship-to-shore... and then?

Let's remember that just one Bay can take the vehicles for two mobile RM companies... then other ships can take the other elements of a cdo
- but that is nowehere near a bde; so back to the Q: what then :?:
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)

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 still believe there is a need to be able to go "Over the beach", but not opposed. As for 3 Commando plus aligned units operating ashore, again I see this as vital but in a light infantry role specialising in harsh terrain. With the addition of an Army Battalion, 3 Commando would be able to put a Brigade sized force in the field as well as having sufficient assets to conduct raids up to Company size also where needed.

To replace the LPDs I would, as mentioned, see a class of between four and six advanced LSTs. As previously stated these platforms would be able to defend themselves and be able to land troop directly onto the shore, each able to carry the load substantially more than an LCU could carry ashore over multiple round trips. They would be faster and more survivable. A number of LCUs would be retained to operate form the vessels that replace the Bays, each of which would be able to carry two, and which would also provide the immediate vertical lift capability of any force, each carrying a minimum of four Merlin sized helicopters. In addition the LSTs would be able to act as ship to shore connectors from the LSDs if required.

The third wave would consist of three to four Points, which should be able to have a prefabricated helicopter pad attached able to support helicopters up to Chinook size and weight. In addition there would be one or two Aviation Support Ships each able to transport and hanger up to four Chinooks using modular or containerised facilities. These vessels would also be able to act a aviation repair platforms, medical evacuation platforms and other roles, being easily reconfigurable in any friendly port.

Of the above only the LSTs would be operated by full Royal Navy Crews. The remained of the Amphibious assets would be crewed main by RFA personnel and/or civilian crew under contract on the points for example.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Repulse wrote:How about a couple of the BMT FSSs and a couple of the following - built under license in UK yards...

https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/pa ... ip-design/

Would be a good HADR platform and tie up nicely with the a follow on RFA 2nd wave amphibious force.
Lord Jim wrote:A larger version of this is roughly what I see replacing the Bays.
Taking this from the FSS thread - but when we talk about a Littoral Strike Group scaling up to three vessels, then in a permissive environment then I’d see a JSS (as above), a Bay LSD and a FLSS would be a solid mix. Capable of moving @1,200 troops, 6/7 helicopters and three large landing craft (plus a few LCVPs and Rhibs). More than enough for an reinforced battle group / Cdo in a Sierra Leone style conflict.

Add the two LSGs together, plus the third Bay LSD, 4 Points and STUFT then that’s a decent lift capability for a brigade level second wave 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

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by jedibeeftrix »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
jedibeeftrix wrote:More generally -
I still see people veering silently away from combined-arms mobile formations
I fully agree with you: too much 'technical' talk about ship-to-shore... and then?

Let's remember that just one Bay can take the vehicles for two mobile RM companies... then other ships can take the other elements of a cdo
- but that is nowehere near a bde; so back to the Q: what then :?:
What should I take from your final point:
"- but that is nowehere near a bde; so back to the Q: what then :?:"

Are you indicating that we need to be able to scale beyond company strength raids?
i.e. something that has persistence, moblity, and breadth
And do you believe that a 'light' battlegroup in the ATFG mold lacks the features, or has them in sufficiency to be a worthwhile capability that we [should] retain?

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 »

jedibeeftrix wrote: indicating that we need to be able to scale beyond company strength raids?
i.e. something that has persistence, moblity, and breadth
Yes, but as you say it is "light" and needs to be part of a "joint" Op... funnily enough after so many years the CEPP doctrine piece is "still in the works", though it would probably be for "the one step up"
- be that initially, or soon after (ref. amph READY group)

With one Bay (vehicles!), one LPD and a helicoptering platform (FLSS/ carrier) we can put 4 companies onshore overnight, two with mobility and the other two to have enough helicopter support, though one at the time.
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)

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:With one Bay (vehicles!), one LPD and a helicoptering platform (FLSS/ carrier) we can put 4 companies onshore overnight, two with mobility and the other two to have enough helicopter support, though one at the time.
I completely agree - the question though is given the broader future fleet composition what scenarios is this still valid and are these the highest priorities (or can been delivered as a result of a higher priority requirement).

It assumes that the LPD and LSD operate in a secure zone close to shore, my view is that given the RN escort fleet does not have the scale to support a separate ARG then this has limited value. Also, given that A2D capabilities are increasing the covering units need to high end, not cheap frigates. The RN, with its limited budget, has chosen CEPP with smaller scale RM operations rather than the old ARG model.

Lastly, we also need to look at what comes next. My view is at the moment if the UK can only afford to support a Cdo Level amphibious assault over a beach OR the ability to transport via the sea an Army Brigade to a secure port with limited facilities - I would choose the latter (with the ambition to be able to do RM company level raids etc).
”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

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Interesting and echos much what’s been discussed.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... sels-92626

Adding ASuW capability to a LPD is an interesting concept as is operating it with 4 LCSs.
”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

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 »

Repulse wrote:Adding ASuW capability to a LPD is an interesting concept as is operating it with 4 LCSs.
Especially as that capability was a key part of the concept but was then dropped (Hellfires don't count as the sphere of influence is (too!) much reduced)
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)

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2785
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Repulse wrote:Interesting and echos much what’s been discussed.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... sels-92626

Adding ASuW capability to a LPD is an interesting concept as is operating it with 4 LCSs.
The article also fleshes out the USMC's ideas on the "small, cheap" vessels that we were discussing earlier - it looks as if they are thinking more along the lines of c. 50- 60m vessels, based on the offshore oil industry's OSV's, capable of landing a platoon plus equipment, with a budget of around $100m each (so around £80m).

So, more of an SD Victoria derivative than an Absolon
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by jedibeeftrix »

https://ulstein.com/vessel-design/sx123

https://pdf.nauticexpo.com/pdf/ulstein/ ... 032_1b.jpg

inc stern dock/ramp.
i still prefer the sx-119, but the sx 123 would be smaller and cheaper to act as LST's:

https://www.google.com/search?q=ulstein ... B5M:&vet=1

[edit] although i do continue to question reversing a set of props/pods into a gravel beach as we saw suggested with the other recent OSV derived LST concept last week! [/edit]

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 »

The prototype for these
"The MSL(V) will be 100 feet and can haul one M1A2 Abrams tank, two Stryker armored vehicles with slat armor or four joint light tactical vehicles with trailers. It will have a top speed of 18 knots, 15 knots fully laded, and a range of about 350 miles."
should be fully tested by 2022 (production to commence, 36 over 10 yrs).
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)

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Daily Express, but interesting read:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/11992 ... lite-force
“ The Ministry of Defence has already dedicated £35m to developing two new vessels, one to be based East of Suez and the other covering the Mediterranean, which are to be rolled out in five years.

Each will contain a company - or strike force - of 120 commandos and up to six helicopters, possibly three “heavy lift” Chinooks, a Wildcat and two Apache gunships.

In the meantime a new amphibious task force, headed by Commodore James Parkin, has just been launched.

Until the Littoral Strike ships arrive, it will operate from the amphibious assault ships HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, as well as the fleet's Bay class landing ships.”
The FLSS helicopter mix is interesting as I’m not sure it would fit on the mock platforms that have been presented so far.

Also, I’ve read a rumour Cdr Parkin wants to get both LPDs active, which this article suggest also. Anyone heard anything similar?
”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

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 »

Repulse wrote:The FLSS helicopter mix is interesting as I’m not sure it would fit on the mock platforms that have been presented so far.
[...] get both LPDs active
I agree, a new design in the works? Getting both LPDs active (the non-active's crew was upped from 14 to 40, based on the bad experiences from leaving it too 'idle' for too long a period) might be a stretch too far, though? But *a flexible multi role force capable of number of different mission sets everything from small self-supporting raids to large scale medium intensity Ship To Objective Manoeuvre (STOM); with ships that all can support helicopter operations - at least when operating in suitable pairs - and can act independently or part of a larger task force.
- budget/ manpower will never be high enough to be able to sustain an ARG indefinitely*

If anyone wonders why there are two asterisks in the text ;)
- well, it is almost word for word what our contributor "R" from Oz said about their transformation (thinking) in our discussion at the beginning of 2016
- it is the continuous salami slicing of budgets that has held us back from coming to the same conclusions - until now
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)

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Getting both LPDs active (the non-active's crew was upped from 14 to 40, based on the bad experiences from leaving it too 'idle' for too long a period) might be a stretch too far, though?
Good question, a few thoughts going through my mind assuming the required manning cannot be found:
- If reconfigured into a Company Level ops platform rather than a Brigade Level command ship, could the crew be reduced from the stated 325? (could be switched back with notice)
- Would it be worth to drop a forward based GP frigate for a forward based LPD? Difficult decision, but I would say yes - a SF platform is more useful to our allies than a T31.
- Could a multi-national manning model be used, for example with the RNZN or RCN?
”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

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2785
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Repulse wrote:If reconfigured into a Company Level ops platform rather than a Brigade Level command ship, could the crew be reduced from the stated 325?
A good question. Drawing an (not too wild) inference from the Daily Express article quoted above, it looks as if the intention is to possibly trial both amphibs as company-level operations platforms until the FLSS arrives, following which they could revert to their traditional Brigade-level role (and presumably go back into rotating through the active/ low-readiness cycle).
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Caribbean wrote:trial both amphibs as company-level operations platforms until the FLSS arrives, following which they could revert to their traditional Brigade-level role
I read the same, though personally if they achieve it I’d keep both LPDs in that role alongside the FLSSs and LSDs. This would allow the flexible mission specific mix-and-match would could scale from Company up to a Cdo + Army Strike Brigade operation.
”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

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 660
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Dahedd »

Whatever you do don't read the readers comments on that Express post.
Theres an extra helping of Tinfoil hats needed on there. It's all a ploy to surrender the UKs forces to the EU apparently.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

Repulse wrote:Also, I’ve read a rumour Cdr Parkin wants to get both LPDs active,
Sounds massively unlikely. If the Marines transform into a big special operations group, and get two new sea bases, I'm willing to wager both LPD's will be sold.

In general that express article sets out an exciting direction, sounding just like what the Marines need to stay relevant.
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by jedibeeftrix »

shark bait wrote:If the Marines transform into a big special operations group, and get two new sea bases, I'm willing to wager both LPD's will be sold.
That 'if' is holding a lot weight right there!

We don't need 7,000 underwater-knifefighters racing around in speedboats, so [if] the Marines transform into a big special operations group it will be either:
1. As part of an ongoing capability for combined arms maneurve warfare continuing to require:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Mar ... port_Group
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/539_Assault_Squadron_RM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/29th_Comm ... _Artillery
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24_Comman ... _Engineers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commando_ ... c_Regiment
Or:
2. A drastically reduced 3Cdo 'brigade', where we'll see something similar to:
42 Commando (in its reduced raiding format)
40/45 Commando (just one of the two - and reduced to the 42 raiding format)
43 Commando Fleet Protection Group
With not a great requirement for the above support regiments.

Not a world I want to see.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Repulse wrote:up to six helicopters, possibly three “heavy lift” Chinooks, a Wildcat and two Apache gunships.
The Prevail Partners concept has no hope of embarking a force as described above, unless the Chinooks gain powered folding rotors and/or a lift is installed like Argus.

However, switch the Chinooks for Merlin's and it could be doable.....if the Wildcat operates from an escort.

If 3 Chinooks, 2 Apache and 1 Wildcat are now required, even as a max effort, the FLSS is heading for something approaching an Ocean Mk2.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

You could always order a dozen new build special mission chinooks with some extra features and assign them to the commandos and send the merlins to a different role.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

Why on earth would a thing like that happen? Spend lots of money to fix something that isn't a problem!

Also its clearly Merlin or Chinook in the above quote. Don't need both to move 120 Marines.
@LandSharkUK

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

shark bait wrote:Why on earth would a thing like that happen? Spend lots of money to fix something that isn't a problem!

Also its clearly Merlin or Chinook in the above quote. Don't need both to move 120 Marines.
Because the chinooks are already lined up was what the marines wanted originally and there isn’t enough merlins for asw and crowsnest.

Post Reply