Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

One last thought, does anyone know if there has been any trials of a temporary shelter on the LPDs, like the Rudd UK ones on the Bays?
”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 »

Reading articles on the reorganisation of the Royal Marines, where they are to concentrate on their historical raiding role, their desire to distance themselves from the Army, adopting unique digital camouflaged uniforms and adoption of the C7/8 rifle throughout the force, really outs a focus on where our future amphibious capability is heading. It appears that we will not see 3 Commando Brigade deployed as such in the future. The maximum size force that may be deployed as a whole will be a Commando, of which two will remain in their more recognisable form. Other Commandoes are as previously announced to be specialised in naval protection and embarking detachments on Royal Navy warships.

So in principal we only need enough amphibious assault assets to land a single Commando and it support and logistics assets. Now are we to achieve this by a small number of large platforms, or are we to have a larger number of smaller one? In addition we are going to need platforms more configured to facilitate the raiding operations that are to become the mainstay of Commando operations. In my opinion the route we need to take in that of more smaller platforms that can be combined to land a Commando or operate individually to conduct raiding operations against multiple locations at the same time. In line with the raiding concept, helicopters are going to be an important part, and to maintain maximum flexibility, any new platform must incorporate aviation facilities for a number or Merlin sized helicopters. Depending to the final configuration of the FLSS, these could form the first step in this reorganisation, but it is going to be very difficult to realise this new structure on the cheap. To avoid stretching the Navy's escort force, the new amphibious platforms are gong to need far greater self defence capability than that of our current platforms. They are going to need air defence and close in defence together with warship levels of ECM and decoys as a minimum.

In addition to the changes in the size and composition of the amphibious assault platforms there is also a need to ensure that the UK retains sufficient sea lift to be able to move by sea, at a minimum, a single Army Brigade including its logistics and attached support units. There is also a need to be able to transport helicopters to support this formation, ideally without the need to utilise either of the Navy's carriers.

These are two distinct requirements with limited commonality. The planned Littoral Strike Groups may only be a testing ground for where the future amphibious assault capability and capacity needs to be so the leasing of platforms could be the best way forward. The Points have given good service, but may be their successors need to be more capable and even brought under toe wing of the RFA? But where is the funding gong to come from. In the press articles it seems the Royal Marines wan to move ahead with their restructuring full tilt, but without the new platforms from which to launch and conduct operations, they are going to be held back.

Are we going to go down the frequently travelled road where a new strategy is announced, but which then gets bogged down through a lack or resources and when finally born is but a shadow of what was originally envisaged?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Lord Jim, lot’s of things in your comment I agree with. Having a larger number of smaller vessels is the right way to go IMO, not only allowing for a wider area for forward presence (coming together for a larger Cdo level op), but also to avoid putting all our eggs in fewer inevitably exposed platforms.

However, I do think the RN does have enough vessels now to get started - the RMs aren’t wasting time to adapt, they are smart enough to know they need to, and avoid being just “another infantry” unit that is ready to be cut.
”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 »

good post, lots to agree with.
Lord Jim wrote:The maximum size force that may be deployed as a whole will be a Commando, of which two will remain in their more recognisable form
are we looking at ~1500 here?

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 »

Most likely including the tail and supporting units like an Artillery Battery, Air Defence troops, Engineers and so on.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

So change roles provided we don’t change. Distance the marines from the army provided you don’t and keep all the army supporting arms.

Moving to a special forces orientated role is important & relevant to all future conflicts across the board the current set up isn’t.

A light infantry group is great for the west side boys in serria leone but is questionable against anyone with the ability to seriously shoot back..

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:not only allowing for a wider area for forward presence (coming together for a larger Cdo level op), but also to avoid putting all our eggs in fewer inevitably exposed platforms
A good summary of drivers for change
Lord Jim wrote:Most likely including the tail and supporting units like an Artillery Battery, Air Defence troops, Engineers and so on.
So 1500 could be a slight step up as the current plans are for 1800 but that includes "the airwing" that will only land for minutes (and presumably also the experts from what now has been termed 47 Cdo, i.e. all kinds of boats and craft used in addition to helicopters) summing up to approx 400... 1800-400 <1500
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)

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by jedibeeftrix »

Lord Jim wrote:Most likely including the tail and supporting units like an Artillery Battery, Air Defence troops, Engineers and so on.
that sounds like a combined arms battlegroup capable of maneuver warfare.

i'm okay with that. tbh, sounds more or less like the statu-quo!

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 »

Lord Jim wrote: To avoid stretching the Navy's escort force, the new amphibious platforms are gong to need far greater self defence capability than that of our current platforms. They are going to need air defence and close in defence together with warship levels of ECM and decoys as a minimum.
Thanks, great read.

One point I think the other way is, I do not think they need high level of armaments. Arming landing ships to avoid stretching the escort fleet will result in reduced number of escorts itself, further stretching the fleet.

Phalanx level is good enough. If enemy retains numbers of hyper/super sonic ASMs and their threat level is so high that all the escorts need to defend CVTF, there shall not be landing ops itself.

If we make these landing ships expensive, there will be less numbers. I think the “size” vs “number” discussion shall be on, replacing the current fleet of 1 LPD and 3 LSD, added with 1 LPD in reserve, all ~15000 t class, with

1: 4 medium
2: 8 smallish
3: or 2 large (LHD)

assets.

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 »

Obviously where and when a full Commando led battle group would be employed is very dependant on the circumstances, but one standing commitment for such a force is the reinforcement of northern Norway. The Royal Marines do bring additional skill sets to the table compared to say 16 Air Assault, and offer greater flexibility at present. However their increased raiding role will most likely be they role in which we will see them in future. Whether this is by sea or air they are going to be the go to formation for overseas operation. That said the Marines still have a number of equipment gaps that need to be filled if they are to be able to carry out the roles envisioned for them moving forward.

But returning to the size shape and capability of the platform from which they will operate. Under current funding pressured, having well equipped assault platforms to the level I believe is required would impact on future escort strengths, though I see it more likely to reduce the chance of the latter increasing beyond nineteen rather than reducing that number. Such vessels, if as I would hope, being modular and able to utilise containerised mission equipment, would have the ability to carry out other roles when not needed in that of amphibious assault. The operation of unmanned vehicles would be an obvious role to start with. They could even supplement true escorts in some circumstances

For aviation I cannot see the Royal Navy receiving a new LPH let alone more than one. What I can see, and I have mentioned this often, is a common replacement for the Bays and Albions, that would have the capacity of between two and six Merlin sized helicopters, the capacity being increased to the higher number through the used of mission modules and containers. In their core build they would be improved Bays with aviation facilities and improved medical facilities. Their dock would be no larger than that of the existing Bays as the role of getting kit ashore in the first and/or second wave would be the role of the new smaller amphibious assault vessels mentioned above. I would suggest that these vessels would be manned by varying rations of Royal Navy and RFA personnel dependant of each vessels role at a given time, with one under Royal Navy control at any one time as the high readiness vessel, outfitted to its maximum capability, and the remaining vessels under RFA control on other assignments with varying configurations from basic logistics vessel to aviation training platform and so on.

I do see the planned FLSS as prototypes for the new small assault ships to a certain extent, allowing the development of the revised doctrine, which is why I see leasing as the preferred option. They obviously will lack certain capabilities needed to carry out all the roles, but our existing platforms should be able to stand in for these during training so that the Marines and their supporting units can develop their skills sets for when the new vessels arrive in service.

This future cold possibly be achieved with current funding levels, but I have my doubts. This scheme will be competing with the Army, which is trying to rediscover its high end fighting capability and has a large bow wave of equipment needed to meet this goal after years of neglect in this area. However given the higher profile of the Royal Marines, and the greater chance of them being used, they are more likely to get preferential treatment from the Treasury, unfortunately making the Army's job even harder.

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:obviously will lack certain capabilities needed to carry out all the roles, but our existing platforms should be able to stand in for these during training
Agreed; few things are perfect on Day One and transformation tends to take 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: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Arming landing ships to avoid stretching the escort fleet will result in reduced number of escorts itself, further stretching the fleet.
I take the point on a finite budget, but do not agree with this. The old Fearless LPDs used to have 16 SeaCat AAW missiles back in the day. Also, the whole “landing ship” principle is up in the air - in a lot of ways like MCM it is becoming less restricted to single classes but a role of multiple vessels (as the Absalon class has shown or even having a large number of RMs on frigates and OPVs with the associated “landing” boats).
”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
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:discussion shall be on, replacing the current fleet of 1 LPD and 3 LSD, added with 1 LPD in reserve, all ~15000 t class, with
It could and maybe should be based on replacing 1 Albion , 3 Bays and Argus and this could be replaced by

2 x 210 meter Enforcer LHD's - RN crews
2 x 180 meter Enforcer LSD's - RFA crews
2 x FLSS - sponsored reserves crews

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 »

Repulse wrote:I take the point on a finite budget, but do not agree with this. The old Fearless LPDs used to have 16 SeaCat AAW missiles back in the day. Also, the whole “landing ship” principle is up in the air - in a lot of ways like MCM it is becoming less restricted to single classes but a role of multiple vessels (as the Absalon class has shown or even having a large number of RMs on frigates and OPVs with the associated “landing” boats).
Thanks.

1: For me, Sea Cat is not much different from Phalanx CIWS. Also, the Round Table class LSL did not carry any Sea Cat. Sea Ceptor is much more than Sea Cat, with local area air defense capability, and needs so so high level of CMS = expensive. Carrying one on command LSD (Albion replacement) will be acceptable, because anyway she will be equipped with CMS and 3D radar (but I still think not needed).

But, no need for such AAW assets for Bay-replacements. It will significantly increase the maintenance load and crew, and significantly reduce the sea going days/availability. Bay-LSD with Sea Cetpor is very INFERIOR to Bay LSD without it, in many of the tasks they do.

2: If UK needs a highly protected assault platform, there are many escorts to do it, exactly as you said. Six T45, eight T26 and 5 T31 can carry 50 (or more) RM soldiers each (also 5 River B2s). Added up, it amounts to 950 (+250) soldiers onboard. The fleet also can carry; 6x2 RHIBs (T45), 8x1 RHIBs and 8x4 ORCs (T26) and 5x4 ORCs (T31) = 20 RHIBs and 52 ORCs (also 10 RHIBs and 10 ORCs onboard 5 River B2s).

Of course, only half of them will deploy in surge campaign. So, it is 450-500 soldiers with 10 RHIBs and 26 ORCs (in addition to 8 RHIBs and 8 ORCs onboard 4 River B2 OPV available (considering their 300+ sea going days per hull, 4 out of 5 hulls will be always ready to go)).

I'm not sure any kind of "heavily armed landing vessels" needed, in addition to the current plan.

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 reason the Round Tables were not armed was that the policy at the time was for the RFA fleet not to be armed where as Fearless and Intrepid were part of the Royal Navy.

I am not suggesting that the Bay replacements and the possible new smaller amphibious assault vessels are permanently armed, though it makes more sense for the latter to be so. If the former are modular and or able to use containerised systems, then it would be possible to install additional equipment and weapon systems dependant on the mission at any one time. Such modules/containers could even be held at out planned forward operating bases EOS.

In the future every platform in the Royal Navy and RAF is going to have to be as flexible as possible, whether this be fixed as part of the design, or a level or modularity built in. The former is the more expensive option as we have seen to a degree in the T-26 so maybe we should look at the letter for future platforms.

As for the need to army some or all of the amphibious fleet, well if one looks at the USN, the basic San Antonio class have multiple Phalanx, RAM and Bushmaster RWS, and they are now looking at installing Mk41s. Now the USN is not short of capable escorts but they see a need to go down this route. WE have a shortage of escorts and if our Amphibs can defend themselves to a certain degree the number of escorts needs should be less, and we can always fond a use for the escorts freed up as a result.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Following on from Lord Jim, I’m going to say something Ive been thinking a while probably controversial and in the fantasy category... I know it will be an unpopular view.

The future RN/RFA does not need LSDs.

Why? Well the new RM role is being geared up to focus on Raiding, from small scale up to I’d argue operations to seize, secure and repair/build a landing area for a follow on Army Strike Brigade. For this the RN/RMs will operate from two Littoral Strike Groups.

To fulfil the LSG role, it needs IMO three vessel types.
- An LPD
- An LPH (call it a FLSS or Aviation Support Ship if you want)
- a Joint Support Ship (like the BMT ELLIDA design)

The first two should be RN manned have a decent warship level of self defence and maybe even NGFS. The JSS is RFA and will be for a large part OTH.

The follow on Strike Brigade capability really needs a fleet of enlarged charters Points capable of carrying troops and kit - nothing more.

Now there is an argument that the LSDs should become unmanned craft Motherships, but that’s different to the LSD role and I’m not yet convinced that there are better designs out there.

Now start the abuse :angel:
”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 »

let's be honest here, you don't need 3Cdo brigade if this is the limit of our ambition. a naval infantry battalion would more than suffice, perhaps two if we include the special duties.

we certainly wouldn't need a royal navy brigade with the following cs and css support:
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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/30_Comman ... tion_Group

so yes, if we are going to do non-persistent company strength raids with no land maneuvre component, then i quite agree that LSD's with all those useless LIMS seem quite redundant.

if 3Cdo survives it will be with battlegroup maneuvre warfare and serious ship-to-shore connectors.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

It has been said a number of times over the last year or so by Commander Littoral strike group RN that the RN will maintain the capability to put 1800 troops ashore support them and retrieve them given this statement I would say there is a need for 1 x LPH , 2 x LSDs , 2 x FLSS , 4 x points. Given this if the these ships where set up like so

LPH ) capable of carrying 20 helicopters off of 8 spots plus 4 CB-90's and 850 troops
LSD ) capable of carrying 3 Caimen-90 plus 4 x LCVP or CB-90 and 350 troops
FLSS ) capable of carrying 6 Helicopters off of 3 spots plus 6 LCVP or CB-90 and 350 troops

this would allow a ready littoral strike group of 1 LPH , 1 LSD , 1 FLSS , 1 Point class

as for raiding as said all the frigates and the 5 B2 OPVs can carry ORC's and 50 troops

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414, I think we are going to see some more radical changes than you are suggesting. I’m sure the 1,800 target if it remains will be a one off throw everything at it, rather than a business as usual capability per LSG.
”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
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

I don't think we will see any radical changes in kit yes we will see a lot of talk and we will the RM move to raiding and supporting SF ops in a effort to keep the axe away but at its heart it will need to be able to deploy on force to defend the North flank from the sea. If radical change is to come then it wont be in the form of lots of smaller ships that HMG can cut away at but kit like MV-22 which will allow the RM to be delivered further fast meaning they can strike anytime anywhere over a larger area

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Tempest414 wrote:I don't think we will see any radical changes in kit yes we will see a lot of talk and we will the RM move to raiding and supporting SF ops in a effort to keep the axe away but at its heart it will need to be able to deploy on force to defend the North flank from the sea. If radical change is to come then it wont be in the form of lots of smaller ships that HMG can cut away at but kit like MV-22 which will allow the RM to be delivered further fast meaning they can strike anytime anywhere over a larger area
This is kind of what Iv thought, we’ve gone on a lot about the platforms ie LPDs LSS but what show be the first focus is the connectors.
We should look at fast ship to shore connectors that can do around 30+ knots full load along with faster air born delivery like V-22 variants and then design the platforms around them.

To me the LSS and other amphibious vessel should be looked at separately with LSS focusing on supporting the raiding and SF side of things but have enough capacity to meaningfully contribute to an over ARG. The rest of the amphibious fleet should be focused on how we can get a bulk of forces on to NATO’s norther flank as quickly as possible.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Seems that people are going back to an early 1980s position that the RMs primary role is to strengthen the Northern Flank from Russian aggression. Even if this was the case investing in OTH assets versus landing platforms to hide in the safety of the fjords and land the assets needed. For this role, I’d go for an enhanced Point versus a dozen V-22s any day.

The RM role seems to be the future UKs global forward based force, sure the Army will do exercises and will retain their bases, but the RMs bobbing around on platforms will be the reality.

The UK has decided to give up the ARG, we can talk about ship to shore connectors, but that scale has gone and having platforms able to operate close to shore and support the future smaller force (and ambition) is key.
”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:Seems that people are going back to an early 1980s position
Sometimes things go a full circle (even if they shouldn't). A decade later Berlin Wall fell. In 1998 (the crash in Russia) a conservative, even part Communist gvmnt was installed. 2004 the democratic "revolution" in the near-abroad Ukraine was crushed by non-military means. In 2008 Georgia got the taste of 'other means". Once Ukraine blew up, again, the rest "became history" and we are back where we are.
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 »

As has been discussed the bread and butter for the Royal Marines is going to be a return to the role of "Raiders from the sea", but with the volume turned up to eleven. This is the area where there is going to be a need for new equipment for the Marines and new amphibious vessels and raiding craft to facilitate this.

Looking at raiding craft, I see a need for a purchase of a number of Combat Boats along the lines of the Swedish CB-90 to compliment their existing force of RHIBs. Linked to this, the next Littoral Amphibious Assault Ship, call them LASS from now on, will need to be able to carry and operate at least two of these, either form davits or a well deck. Each of the LAAS should be able to carry a full Company of Royal Marines, be able to hanger and operate two Merlin sized helicopters and have enhanced medical facilities. It should also be able to both protect itself and provide fire support to the troops going ashore. The LAAS should be able to rapidly approach an area, aided by its low vis characteristics and launch up to the entire company in one go. For obvious reason it should be able to retrieve that same sized force on one trip as well.

As for deploying a Battle Group based around a Commando, a force of this size would either go ashore over a benign beach or port, most likely friendly. Its role is to fight on land not conduct an amphibious assault. It is because of this that the platform most suitable to get them into theatre will probably be a enhanced Bay class, rather than a full blown LPD. three t four of these vessels would be capable of transporting the Battlegroup and Brigade Headquarters to their destination together with sufficient supplies etc. to support combat operations for an initial period. They would be able to bring the FAA Merlin HC4s as well as all the vehicles needed by the force.

And this brings me to 3 Commando Brigade. It might only command one Royal Marine Battle Group, but because I see this form of operation only being conducted under NATO control, I must highlight that in these circumstances the Dutch Marine Force, which consists also of a Battle Group based around a Marine Battalion, would come under the command of 3 Commando. 3 Commando would almost certainly be deployed in northern Norway and would be a very viable force, given its training and hopefully the right equipment. In addition to these three Battle Groups, 3 Commando would probably also command a number of Royal Marine Raiding forces, and could even have CAS provided by Dutch Air Force AH-64 Apaches.

But it will be the Raiding forces that will probably end up being the UK's go to rapid response force, with at least one EOS at any one time. Right I am going to stop there and collect my thoughts as this hasn't gone done on paper as it was meant to but should give people some food for thought. I will be back with a much more well laid out submission over the weekend on this topic.

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 »

Will be interesting to see the 'refined' version, over the wk end.
As for
Lord Jim wrote:Looking at raiding craft, I see a need for a purchase of a number of Combat Boats along the lines of the Swedish CB-90 to compliment their existing force of RHIBs.
+
Lord Jim wrote: need to be able to carry and operate at least two of these, either form davits or a well deck
+
Lord Jim wrote:able to both protect itself and provide fire support to the troops going ashore
I would suggest that there are too many requirements to fit in a 'package of one'.

Putting aside the objection that well decks will add significant cost, I would suggest Finnish Jehu class in place of CB90s, the reasons being
-CB90 has poor seakeeping as and when sea state 'creeps up' whereas Jehu is not only bigger, but has a deep V
- for the above reason it would be a good platform for bringing fire support close to where is is needed, rather than bringing the 'low vis' mothership within direct fire range - as that 'cuts both ways'. In AMOS trials the Swedes found out that CB90 was not a stable enough platform for it (the 245 t platform designed for the purpose never got ordered)... However, Jehu is - and substitute NEMO for Amos - and u'll have enough space on the boat for it to double as a command post, too
- the link to well decks, adding cost? Jehu (probs?) is too heavy for davits, though FSSSs have had a design proposed that can do 40 t and you can operate two of those, side by side

To finish off fire support: Apaches for what these platforms can't do. And CAMM for self protection (the bubble would probably cover boat ops, too).

A broader consideration is whether we are to be conducting waterborne, beachfront assaults or are we going to be conducting airborne, deep inland assaults?... substitute 'raids' :) !
- whichever (in most cases a combination), for any serious vehicle support plus sustaining for any length of period, some form of landing craft will be needed... back to well decks (or combination of amphibs, depending on the type of Op, but potentially seriously adding to our reaction 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)

Post Reply