Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1224
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Well would you have argued for Drones rather than Fast Jets ? I think not, so do not blame it on the RN. If sufficient resources are not provided, hard choices then have to be made. The real problem is INSUFFICIENT GRASP BY THE DECISION MAKERS OF WHAT IS REQUIRED, LEADING TO INSUFFICIENT FUNDING BEING PROVIDED !!!

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2293
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

Tempest414 wrote: 21 Nov 2021, 12:04 When we look back at 2009 it was as good as it was going to get i.e

1 x LPH , 2 x LPD's , 4 x LSD's , Argus and 6 Point class

On top of this we had 2 x light carriers , 6 x destroyers , 17 frigates .
There were also 2 Fort Class solid stores ships to carry large quantities of ammunition and other stores for a landing force, and the promise of replacement MARS Amphibious support vessels down the line to replace these, that may even have had floodable stern docks.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3017
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Timmymagic wrote: 23 Nov 2021, 09:53
Tempest414 wrote: 21 Nov 2021, 12:04 When we look back at 2009 it was as good as it was going to get i.e

1 x LPH , 2 x LPD's , 4 x LSD's , Argus and 6 Point class

On top of this we had 2 x light carriers , 6 x destroyers , 17 frigates .
There were also 2 Fort Class solid stores ships to carry large quantities of ammunition and other stores for a landing force, and the promise of replacement MARS Amphibious support vessels down the line to replace these, that may even have had floodable stern docks.
There were 3 Forts active with Fort Rosalie out of refit and Fort Austin going into mothball in 2009 but not only could they carry lots of stores they could carry 9 helicopters between the 3 of them

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2806
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 23 Nov 2021, 08:48 Where is the damage control?
They aren't amphibious assault ships, they are logistics - they will need a secured port to land with escorts (probably including a CSG) if we are at war.

The days of large scale amphibious assaults are over (at least for now).
”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

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1224
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

If we don’t have the vessels, they will not be over “just for now”, but virtually on a “permanent basis” as if they were needed, we would not have the time to acquire any !

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2806
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Scimitar54 wrote: 23 Nov 2021, 14:16 If we don’t have the vessels, they will not be over “just for now”, but virtually on a “permanent basis” as if they were needed, we would not have the time to acquire any !
Possibly, but the chances that of a full scale amphibious assault with a significant land element (like Iraq) is almost zero IMO. A classic example is the Falklands, whereby if refought would be done a probably a similar way landing where the enemy isn't or light, but with CSG air superiority.

Also, you could also argue (rightly IMO) that the FCF & MRSS will provide a seed-corn to expand and re-establish skills (with time) if ever needed.

What is needed is the ability to bring the Army to the theater which is and always has been primarily about logistics, and ability to scale when needed.
”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

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1224
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

But we won’t have time !

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6205
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

With the Falklands, a significant amount of personnel were carried by requisitioned civilian ships ranging from Ocean Liners to North Sea Ferries. Even today, depending on the level of emergency there are always option. Regarding the Points, yes they are for hauling the Army's vehicles and such like as they are the difficult part of any expeditionary force to move. Just as they will use a friendly port to unload, there is little stopping the personnel being flown to their destination at marry up with their equipment once on the ground.

With the MRSS, the Navy should be looking for a self contained unit that carries everything the RM Company/LSU need for it mission, as well as the necessary ship to shore connectors and the stores for the initial part of the operation. To this needs be be some sort of Escort in order to form the LRG. I cannot see an RFA being permanently part of any LRG, but rather the group would resupply in friendly/allied ports during its operational cruise. By its nature it will operate in the littoral environment rather than in the middle of come ocean. They will be home ported at a forward location, in the case of LRG(South) with LRG(North) possibly based in Northern Norway or the Baltic in times of tension to act as a component of the UK's part of NATO's deterrent forces.

My mentioning of the ACV was tongue in cheek, though it would give any LSU greater range once ashore. But yes The Viking is probably the ideal AFV for the Royal Marines, and the number should be expanded when and/or if it is chosen to replace the elderly unarmoured Bv206 used in the support role. Whilst raiding is the way forward for teh Royal Marines, this role covers quite a range of activities, both in size and duration. The RM will still have a requirement to be able to manoeuvre and fight once landed regardless of the size of Raiding force. This is why they are currently experimenting with lightweight vehicles such as the Polaris, which can be transported inside large Helicopters rather than as an underslung load, increasing the range and speed of the helicopter involved.

Air support for the LSU is something that also needs to be addressed. At present there is a single Squadron of Apaches modified to operate from naval vessels to a degree, but further modification are still needed to allow long term embarkation. The FAAs Wildcats can also provide limited support with their LMM and door mounted M2 .50 cal, and they have the capability to operate in adverse weather. As a result I believe that the AAC Apaches should be further modified and operate routinely from the MRSS, especially with their new longer range missiles that should contain a man in the loop function.

As we are looking 10+ years for the LRGs to fully mature and have the equipment, ships and personnel they need, a lot can happen between now and then including at least two General Elections. Will the LRGs still be fully developed or could they and the LSU go the way of the Army's Strike Brigades and be over written by changes in threat and resources?

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3017
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

As said the new AH 64 E for the army are having work done to allow better operations from the sea the AAC idented a lot of thing when operating from Ocean and Argus and most of this will be covered in the new build

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2152
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Repulse wrote: 23 Nov 2021, 12:44
Poiuytrewq wrote: 23 Nov 2021, 08:48 Where is the damage control?
They aren't amphibious assault ships, they are logistics - they will need a secured port to land with escorts (probably including a CSG) if we are at war.

The days of large scale amphibious assaults are over (at least for now).
Why replace purpose built amphibious craft with commercial ferries unless cost cutting is the primary aim?

Given the proliferation of long range and hypersonic long range AShM how realistic is it to think that ferries carrying 500 or 1000 troops are going to be sent into war zones regardless of whether a port has been secured?

I suspect the MRSS is an attempt to negate at least some of the risks associated with relying too heavily on commercial ferries for troop transports.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2806
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 24 Nov 2021, 08:35
Repulse wrote: 23 Nov 2021, 12:44
Poiuytrewq wrote: 23 Nov 2021, 08:48 Where is the damage control?
They aren't amphibious assault ships, they are logistics - they will need a secured port to land with escorts (probably including a CSG) if we are at war.

The days of large scale amphibious assaults are over (at least for now).
Why replace purpose built amphibious craft with commercial ferries unless cost cutting is the primary aim?

Given the proliferation of long range and hypersonic long range AShM how realistic is it to think that ferries carrying 500 or 1000 troops are going to be sent into war zones regardless of whether a port has been secured?

I suspect the MRSS is an attempt to negate at least some of the risks associated with relying too heavily on commercial ferries for troop transports.
Let's face it the LSDs have been consumed into the broader RN fleet and increasingly becoming RM only platforms. The MRSS will effectively covered the requirements for the RMs (and RN given the MCM discussion) that are provided currently along with the LPDs.

The MRSS and current LSDs are not sufficient to cover the transport of an Army CBT. Some will argue that it can be done via plane, which is possible but there will be times where it's not possible so need a Army Transport capability IMO.

In terms of likelyhood of sending in a ferry / cruise ship, I do think it is likely. More often than not it could be to be a neighboring country, a country that is being attacked or at threat or a secured port (either by the RMs or allied forces). Given the probability that the transport of heavy kit is more likely, then dedicated Point like ships with limited hotel facilities, backed by troop transports via STUFT / shared contract is probably ok. However, it needs planning and funds, plus they group needs to train together. Not sure if it still happens, but in the past the government used to give the likes of PO money when they built their ships to ensure that "UK military conversion" requirements were considered.

I am really surprised the Army isn't trying to do "transport a battlegroup via the sea" exercise already, it would be great PR and fill part of the hole left by the RMs.
”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

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3017
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

right now with the 2 Bays and Points we could move a Battalion battle group some 1400 troops plus kit and support this in turn could be supported by a RM force operating from the LPD now a zero notice deployment of such a force to Poland would be a good thing

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2806
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote: 24 Nov 2021, 11:39 right now with the 2 Bays and Points we could move a Battalion battle group some 1400 troops plus kit and support this in turn could be supported by a RM force operating from the LPD now a zero notice deployment of such a force to Poland would be a good thing
You could, and it does seem odd why they haven't tried IMO. BUT, RFA Lyme Bay is in the Gulf playing MCM mothership and RFA Cardigan Bay is in refit. Then you have the problem of only using one of the LPDs so that means that RFA Mounts Bay is needed to help carry kit for the RMs. The reality is that with the grand plans of using the MRSS not only as Littoral Platforms for the RMs but also motherships and other roles, the chances of them being available to the Army is getting slimmer - PLUS the MRSS should be optimized for forward LSU operations, the Army need larger Battlegroup / Brigade level logistic ships.
”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

Post Reply