Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
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 »

This does sort of confirm that the historical 3 Commando Brigade is dead as a deployable force as we knew it. How this may affect our plans as well as NATO's for the reinforcement of Northern Norway would be interesting to know as well as how much NATO has been consulted regarding the changes being made to the RM as they were one of the key components of traditional plans.

I can also see the RM presenting the MoD with a rather large shopping list for specialist equipment normally only allocated to our historical Sf such as the SAS and SBS.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4584
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Agree, the RMs seem to be headed for a role of fleet protection and unconventional operations, but personally I think that is a good thing. In Afghanistan they were seen as just another light infantry brigade to fill a gap in an operation that the UK was not scaled for.

Having the RMs (and I’d argue a similar structure for the Paras) capable of SF type operations maximises the potential of the UK’s small armed forces - allowing up to 10,000 troops for this kind of sub-war conflict power fight. Having the army able to deploy globally an “medium” Army Brigade, and a seed corn capability to scale over a period is appropriate and affordable.

Interesting to see that FLSS concept still seems alive. If the concept evolves around company, troop and section operations, and the LPDs are dead it would leave in mid 2030s the following platforms:

- 7 Company Level Platforms: 2 CVFs + 2 FLSSs + 3 LSDs
- 37 Troop Level Platforms: 8 T26s + 5 T31s + 5(?) T32s + 5 B2 Rivers + 5(?) Survey and Ice Ships + 9 RFA FSS/Tankers

Quite a significant number - the issue is how many of these are capable of transporting the necessary vehicles and supplies that are required for operations longer than a few days or at a significant distance in-land?

Personally, would be going for a couple more FLSSs and a T32 capable of operating LCVPs to make the concept more effective.
”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

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »


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 »

Great work (above) by James Clarke & the team; glad that they have moved from stills to lengthy video.

I think I picked up a couple of clips with Norgie stuntmen :) in role.

Btw, are those manheld flare-launchers a std issue? - as mortars can't be everywhere, all 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: 4584
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-l ... ted-review
We will convert the LSDAs and then build new ships specifically for Littoral Strike.
I spot a plural in the LSDAs conversion... I would love to see at least two Bays with hangars, makes the 2 LRGs of a LPD+LSDA a real possibility :D

I assume (hope) the A bit in LSDA means Aviation, rather than Auxiliary?
”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 »

Great video. I was looking at the kit they are using and comparing to the kit I remember seeing during exercises in the late 70s and 80s with the camo L1A1s and the Soviet style headgear under hoods. It is interesting that they are all using L119A2 carbine. Are all the RM going to transition to this weapon or is it still to be only selected units or sub-units?

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Curious lack of mention of the lpds in relation to littoral strike.

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: It is interesting that they are all using L119A2 carbine.
You can't ski with a full length rifle
... or you can, have it slung on the front. And just wait to fall, can be ueber-dangerous, like break your jaw, for starters
SW1 wrote:Curious lack of mention of the lpds in relation to littoral strike.
Depends on the source. One of them to step in line straight away (WoS) and after the conversion, a Bay to become the vessel for the EoS LRG, from 2023.
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
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

With all the talk about the CSG -21 it is good to see the LRG have deployed as well to the North for 3 months for Ex's in Norway and the Baltic the group is made up again of HMS Albion and Kent and joined this time by RFA Mounts Bay

Edit ; Sorry it HMS Lancaster not Kent escorting the LRG

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

Totally agree, was pleasantly surprised to see a sea stallion onbaord :thumbup:

With both carriers floating around as well the MOD must of found some dosh behind the sofa :D :lol: seriously though it's good to see all the movements & co-operation between nations :thumbup:

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »


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 »

Well it appears more and more Commando Units are being re-equipped with the L119A1/A2 (Canadian C8 Carbine). Do we think the whole of the Royal Marines are gradually going to adopt this weapon instead of the L85A3, under the transformation they are under going?

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

The Commando's are the finest part of the BA. You'd think they would be expanded because of that. Not cut.

Maybe calling them the Black Watch Commando would help ;)

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

The Commandos are Royal Navy with some army units like artillery attached

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:Well it appears more and more Commando Units are being re-equipped with the L119A1/A2 (Canadian C8 Carbine). Do we think the whole of the Royal Marines are gradually going to adopt this weapon instead of the L85A3, under the transformation they are under going?
As you pointed out yourself, the short version of the L85 seems to be used quite a bit
- I can understand the ease of handling (I don't mean when shooting)
- But what is the C8 USP (or the attraction of 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)

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 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:As you pointed out yourself, the short version of the L85 seems to be used quite a bit
- I can understand the ease of handling (I don't mean when shooting)
- But what is the C8 USP (or the attraction of it)?
The L85A3 isn't a shortened version of the L85, it is a further evolved version of the L85A2 with some important upgrades. I believe the C8 USP is a version of the Carbine with an even shorter barrel that can be and often is used with a suppressor. Why do troops like the C8, well it is lighter than the L85 and easier to use in CQB especially as it is ambidextrous. The C8 is a good compromise between the latest M4A1 and the HK416, with its heavier chrome lines barrel and other improvements over the former and it is about half the price of the HK in the number we have purchased so far.

Anyhow Here is Forces News highlighting HMS Albions latest cruise, operating as part of NATO's Littoral Response Group North. One thing that stands out is the reference to Royal Marine "Strike" Companies.

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 »

Didn't pick up that repetition, but as they are talking abt LRG (N), the standing group onboard is supposed to be company-sized, though Albion can do many more, and that number of bods then goes towards 200 with boat handlers, Viking drivers etc included (who are not part of whichever 'organic' company is taking a turn).

Is Colt Canada, btw, doing the 'His Masters Voice' trick, ie. if the main company goes out of business, the Canadian sub just keeps 'trucking'?
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 »

They definitely seem to be moving to all arms and capability groupings up to Company size, with raiding being their main mission, get in do the biz and then get out. They should also be able to do amphibious "Pathfinding", for a follow on BCT or smaller Army force. It seems to be becoming a case of 3 Commando Brigade is only a name now.

Yes the C7 and C8 are now manufactured by Colt Canada. Colt bought them out because they were making M16 and M4 variants better then what they produced and had become the product of choice for that weapon type. They also had much more modern manufacturing facilities compared to Colt's US manufacturing sites. Mind you the patent on the AR-15 has run out quite a while back so everybody, especially in the USA is making a AR-15 based weapon, so really good and some really cheap and nasty.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4584
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-l ... ht-vehicle

Wonder if a couple of these would also fit in a LCVP - would imagine so.
”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 »

May have already been posted but here is the article referring to the Can-Am 6x6 that was used for Mortar trial back in 2020. Looking at the manufacture's web site the civilian version of the 6x6 costs around £12k, so equipping the relevant units would be a very small price to pay for the overall increase in ability and the ability to be carried inside a Chinook.
https://www.joint-forces.com/defence-eq ... or-mortars
https://can-am.brp.com/off-road/gb/en/m ... -xu--450-t

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

I can see vehicles in this class being useful for airborne forces, as well as being cheap enough to be left behind if the situation demands it (presumably with a nasty surprise attached).
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Outside of some roles of the special forces where the government are more able to accept risk, I don’t see it will be acceptable to deploy troops in vehicles that don’t have protection against mines, small arms fire and rpgs as a minimum, if it wasn’t acceptable to send them in land rovers I can’t see how this is any better.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote:Outside of some roles of the special forces where the government are more able to accept risk, I don’t see it will be acceptable to deploy troops in vehicles that don’t have protection against mines, small arms fire and rpgs as a minimum, if it wasn’t acceptable to send them in land rovers I can’t see how this is any better.
Its not as black and white as that I would say when on operations like Afgan and Mali troops need protected vehicles but even today if the shit hits the fan a lot of our troops would be moved around the outer battle space in soft skin MAN trucks. For me as said above these would be good for Air Assault troops for recon and mortar teams and medivac and lets face it they don't much more than this now

Edit I think something like this should be limited to the likes of the RM , 16AA , the new Ranger units and SF

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Tempest414 wrote:For me as said above these would be good for Air Assault troops for recon and mortar teams and medivac
So why would use these instead of the ATMP if this is the areas your aiming it at.

J. Tattersall

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by J. Tattersall »

SW1 wrote:Outside of some roles of the special forces where the government are more able to accept risk, I don’t see it will be acceptable to deploy troops in vehicles that don’t have protection against mines, small arms fire and rpgs as a minimum, if it wasn’t acceptable to send them in land rovers I can’t see how this is any better.
Yes and no. Yes in the sense that there's a societal and moral imperative to reduce casualties. No in the sense that protected often means slow, heavy, and predictable which has the potential to attract trouble and threat. I think they'll continue to be an uneasy balance struck between protected and unprotected vehicles.

Post Reply