Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

[SW1]

….current Sudan crisis

Perfect for Argus and LRG(S)?

Depending on the numbers to be evacuated even QE may be appropriate.

Doubt it have you seen how far Khartoum is from the sea. Its why a number of transport aircraft have moved to the region in the past week.

[Tempest414]

Our commitment EoS should be

1 x LHD
4 x Type 31
2 x OPV
1 x Tanker
Gurkha rapid response Brigade backup by RM , Ranger & SF units from the UK

The Gurkha Brigade should be a all Gurkha affair with 3 Infantry battalions , Artillery , Logistics , Engineer , Signals. Gurkha's by there very being know they will away from home overseas for long periods so using them as our EoS rapid response force with one Battalion battle group at high readiness would be the way forward

[Poiuytrewq]

Doubt it have you seen how far Khartoum is from the sea. Its why a number of transport aircraft have moved to the region in the past week.

What is the most likely option IUO?

[Repulse]

The UK has always had a global involvement it had it before boris decided to attach a catchy sound bite to it and has had since. It’s just militarily it’s not that significant or as the defence secretary even admitted we don’t move the dial in the pacific. It’s diplomatic involvement not military.

I agree it’s always been the case. What the sound bite did was to acknowledge what was already happening.

The UK defence capabilities in peacetime will not move the dial significantly, though I would argue that through AUKUS and the FPA it can move it a notch. The agreement on SSN technology and the possibility to base a SSN there with joint biannual CSG exercises isn’t small.

Equally, through presence the UK is well equipped to fighting the “Grey War” against China and North Korea in the region, plus Iran in the Gulf Region and Africa with Russia. We aren’t a super power, but there is a lot we can and should do.

That is not taking away anything from diplomacy, but to be effective it does need backing from being capable to directly support allies and threaten foes with force.

[Repulse]

Doubt it have you seen how far Khartoum is from the sea. Its why a number of transport aircraft have moved to the region in the past week.

What is the most likely option IUO?

My bet is Paras + SFs deploying from a base in Kenya.

[SW1]

Doubt it have you seen how far Khartoum is from the sea. Its why a number of transport aircraft have moved to the region in the past week.

What is the most likely option IUO?

If it’s embassy staff only it will be something asking to the Afghan evacuation from Khartoum airport with force protection coming in on the first transport a/c and ac130 on top cover. It will be an international effort.

[SW1]

The UK has always had a global involvement it had it before boris decided to attach a catchy sound bite to it and has had since. It’s just militarily it’s not that significant or as the defence secretary even admitted we don’t move the dial in the pacific. It’s diplomatic involvement not military.

I agree it’s always been the case. What the sound bite did was to acknowledge what was already happening.

The UK defence capabilities in peacetime will not move the dial significantly, though I would argue that through AUKUS and the FPA it can move it a notch. The agreement on SSN technology and the possibility to base a SSN there with joint biannual CSG exercises isn’t small.

Equally, through presence the UK is well equipped to fighting the “Grey War” against China and North Korea in the region, plus Iran in the Gulf Region and Africa with Russia. We aren’t a super power, but there is a lot we can and should do.

That is not taking away anything from diplomacy, but to be effective it does need backing from being capable to directly support allies and threaten foes with force.

If you wanted to be particularly wide eyed, “carrier strike” offensive capability is 8 aircraft with 16x500lb bombs and will be that for the foreseeable. If you even exclude the US military in region your talking scores of aircraft from the rest including significant numbers of f35, Japan, Korea and Australia alone north of 200 with significant numbers of standoff cruise missiles integrated. We add significant diplomatic weight thru the uk but militarily beyond the nuclear capacity which we don’t guarantee to Asian allies we don’t move the dial.

[serge750]

If you wanted to be particularly wide eyed, “carrier strike” offensive capability is 8 aircraft with 16x500lb bombs and will be that for the foreseeable.

In peacetime maybe, but it can operate with Allied F35B assets surrounded by a world class escort group. In wartime, I’m sure 24 F35Bs would be rustled up in short order along with acceleration of weapon systems also.

[Repulse]

Focusing purely on the RN contribution (although to be clear this needs to be part of a joint Purple strategy) and with few new additions I think a reconfiguration of the amphibious forces as below is possible in the short term.

Regional forward based units:
- North Atlantic / JEF:
> 1 Cdo Company with landing craft at camp Viking
> 1 Cdo Troop on a new Artic Patrol ship (same spec as previous HMS Endurance with dual Wildcat hangar)
- South Atlantic:
> 1 Cdo Troop on an additional new Ice Patrol ship (same spec as previous HMS Endurance with dual Wildcat hangar)
- North and East Africa - based in Gibraltar:
> 1 Cdo Troop operating from a Bay Class
- Gulf and West Africa - based in Oman:
> 1 Cdo Company operating from RFA Argus
- Pacifc Region - based in Oman:
> 1 Cdo Company operating from a Bay Class

Globally Deployable Force:
> 1 Company with a surge capability of a whole Cdo operating from a LPD along with each CSG
> 4 Point Class (looking to expand to six) to ferry an Army Expeditionary Brigade

I’d sell a Bay to offset the cost of some of the new ships.

[serge750]

The UK has always had a global involvement it had it before boris decided to attach a catchy sound bite to it and has had since. It’s just militarily it’s not that significant or as the defence secretary even admitted we don’t move the dial in the pacific. It’s diplomatic involvement not military.

I agree it’s always been the case. What the sound bite did was to acknowledge what was already happening.

The UK defence capabilities in peacetime will not move the dial significantly, though I would argue that through AUKUS and the FPA it can move it a notch. The agreement on SSN technology and the possibility to base a SSN there with joint biannual CSG exercises isn’t small.

Equally, through presence the UK is well equipped to fighting the “Grey War” against China and North Korea in the region, plus Iran in the Gulf Region and Africa with Russia. We aren’t a super power, but there is a lot we can and should do.

That is not taking away anything from diplomacy, but to be effective it does need backing from being capable to directly support allies and threaten foes with force.

If you wanted to be particularly wide eyed, “carrier strike” offensive capability is 8 aircraft with 16x500lb bombs and will be that for the foreseeable. If you even exclude the US military in region your talking scores of aircraft from the rest including significant numbers of f35, Japan, Korea and Australia alone north of 200 with significant numbers of standoff cruise missiles integrated. We add significant diplomatic weight thru the uk but militarily beyond the nuclear capacity which we don’t guarantee to Asian allies we don’t move the dial.

It's almost as if you don't like UK carriers.

US carriers on the other hand are a major part of deterrence against China & Korea. Maybe because they are inhabited by navy aircraft flown by navy personnel unlike the UK? A mistake by the UK that could be so easily corrected.

[Poiuytrewq]

Maybe because they are inhabited by navy aircraft flown by navy personnel unlike the UK? A mistake by the UK that could be so easily corrected.

If the UK ever achieves the 3% GDP Defence spend transferring all F35b to the FAA should be one of the top priorities. The RAF can concentrate on Tempest.

It was HMG policy (less than a year ago) to hit 3% GDP by 2030. Now it’s 2.5% “whenever economic conditions allow”.

[Poiuytrewq]

Focusing purely on the RN contribution (although to be clear this needs to be part of a joint Purple strategy) and with few new additions I think a reconfiguration of the amphibious forces as below is possible in the short term.

Are you trying stay within the current funding envelope or is this a wish list?

[Poiuytrewq]

Focusing purely on the RN contribution (although to be clear this needs to be part of a joint Purple strategy) and with few new additions I think a reconfiguration of the amphibious forces as below is possible in the short term.

Are you trying stay within the current funding envelope or is this a wish list?

Within current funding plus a net injection of @£200mn. The only new ships would be the two Ice Patrol ships (probably civilian conversions) in the near term.

Argus would need replacing towards the end of decade of course, though am wondering if a conversion of one of the Wave classes could be considered as a forward operating base. It already has hangar space for two Merlin’s.

[SW1]

The UK has always had a global involvement it had it before boris decided to attach a catchy sound bite to it and has had since. It’s just militarily it’s not that significant or as the defence secretary even admitted we don’t move the dial in the pacific. It’s diplomatic involvement not military.

I agree it’s always been the case. What the sound bite did was to acknowledge what was already happening.

The UK defence capabilities in peacetime will not move the dial significantly, though I would argue that through AUKUS and the FPA it can move it a notch. The agreement on SSN technology and the possibility to base a SSN there with joint biannual CSG exercises isn’t small.

Equally, through presence the UK is well equipped to fighting the “Grey War” against China and North Korea in the region, plus Iran in the Gulf Region and Africa with Russia. We aren’t a super power, but there is a lot we can and should do.

That is not taking away anything from diplomacy, but to be effective it does need backing from being capable to directly support allies and threaten foes with force.

If you wanted to be particularly wide eyed, “carrier strike” offensive capability is 8 aircraft with 16x500lb bombs and will be that for the foreseeable. If you even exclude the US military in region your talking scores of aircraft from the rest including significant numbers of f35, Japan, Korea and Australia alone north of 200 with significant numbers of standoff cruise missiles integrated. We add significant diplomatic weight thru the uk but militarily beyond the nuclear capacity which we don’t guarantee to Asian allies we don’t move the dial.

It's almost as if you don't like UK carriers.

US carriers on the other hand are a major part of deterrence against China & Korea. Maybe because they are inhabited by navy aircraft flown by navy personnel unlike the UK? A mistake by the UK that could be so easily corrected.

Or maybe it’s not over egging things by attempting to put people into situations that are completely unrealistic. There is night and day between a single US carrier group and the entire uk fastjet deployable capability. Not to mention their budget it has sweet FA to do with who is manning them despite the pontification to the contrary by the cabal from save the Royal Navy and Phoenix think tank drivel of the past decade.

Perhaps best then to concentrate closer to home to allow the US more resource to concentrate on the pacific as that is there beat.

[mrclark303]

I think we have to be very careful regarding potential Indo Pacific commitments.

While lots of official noise was made about a pivot East of Suez, the government have made no effort, or apparently any plan to expand the armed forces, now or in the future.

Labour make no comments either.

The armed forces are now very small, mass has been sacrificed and integration within NATO's structure is the only way it can be operated really effectively.

If that is out ambition and need as a nation then we can halve the defence budget. However it cannot be, the “fight” against Russia and China will be global and its outcome will have a very direct impact to the UK. It seems people get excited by the phrase “pivot EoS”, but all it is is an acknowledgment that the UKs interests are global. It’s not a choice, it’s reality.

Look at the current Sudan crisis for example, scratch the surface and you will see the Wagner Group involved.

With the exception of our ability to launch a unilateral Carrier/ Amphibious task group and our special operations capabilities, (that is still world class), we have to pick our commitments and battles carefully, as there is no mass to back that mailed fist up.

We are quite capable of kicking in most people's front door and dropping the hammer, but we can't maintain a hypothetical post conflict presence with our force structure.

Yes the CSGs is a very good capability, and can be deployed independently and as part of an allied force against any foe. So are our SSNs. The number of escorts and SSNs are a concern but numbers can be increased modestly (but significantly) with a clear strategy and prioritisation of funds.

Equally on land the UK can take a lead in fighting the grey war against the likes of Wagner. With some more thought on structure and kit, with clever use of UK BOTs and overseas bases, it can be a force to be reckoned with.

However, you are right that depth is a concern. Having said a globally deployable flexible Brigade backed by the FCF and a similar FPF (Future Parachute Force) can have a significant effect, again if prioritised. To make way for it all dellusions of a globally deployable Division should finally put to bed.

Unfortunately, I would think as far as China is concerned, we are now out of the game east of Suez and unable to 'militarily effect' them in any meaningful way, it's probably only our Nuclear capability and small SSN fleet that seriously worry them.

Completely disagree. The UK can play its role in checking Chinas aggressive ambitions in peacetime. In wartime, as part of an alliance the UK can add significant weight, capability and expertise. Outside of the US, it’s still the player everyone will want on their team, regardless of the doomsayers.

Also, remember there is the day one of a conflict and the hard years that come after. The UK is still relatively rich, it has advanced manufacturing and it can over time build a large force. It is quite possible that we can see the contribution made by the Anzacs in the two World Wars being played in reverse.

Having presence in the region today just will make all this more effective.

The reality is, we are once again commited to the central European front and will likely remain so for the next 10 years at least

While we are unilaterally weak now ( thanks to our corrupt political classes over the 30 years), we are a vital component of NATO and will continue to be so.

In fact with news that Ukraine will be allowed to apply for NATO membership post conflict, with possibly Georgia being next, the tensions with Russia show no sign of de-escalation.

Let’s not overdo it. The UK’s contribution to NATO outside of CASD should be in the JEF. It does not require the whole of the defence forces or budget that is even available today. What’s more there are a number of capabilities like SSNs & CSGs that are complementary with a global role.

I agree with your general thrust, but in reality we don't keep the Chinese leadership awake at night. We have to all intents disarmed over the last 30 years and that sends a very clear message to countries like China.

It clearly says, we lack the ability and political will to intervene in the Indo Pacific region.

Will that change, let's wait and see...

Unfortunately, the UK has turned into an inward looking apologist state, saying 'sorry' for being British, while our general population becomes ever more reliant on sucking from the States teet.....

I barely recognise our country anymore as the Woke brigade seem happy to steer it onto the rocks. China and Russia look on and see weakness and indecisive and frankly poor govenence..

The first thing to change is the attitude of the general bleating, moaning and whining population, good luck with that one!

[Poiuytrewq]

Within current funding plus a net injection of @£200mn.

Thanks. Interesting proposal. The Ice ship issue is interesting as patrolling the High North is going to become a hot topic over the next few decades.

When an IPS is discussed the overwhelming opinion is simply to build more RRS SDA(s) but is that really the correct approach?

As you suggest an Endurance design is a much better option for RN if multiple hulls are to be considered. Endurance had a displacement of less than half of RRS SDA but still retained hanger space for two Lynx and accommodation for 120.

Again Vard has the answers and if procured they really should be new and built in the UK. A couple of 100m class Vard designed Ice Patrol Ships would slot in nicely into one of the UK yards to keep the drumbeat going. Even if kept as simple as possible it would a £300m procurement. It’s a good idea but is it a nice to have at this point?

Argus would need replacing towards the end of decade of course, though am wondering if a conversion of one of the Wave classes could be considered as a forward operating base. It already has hangar space for two Merlin’s.

IMO the Waves should go to the pacific and be based at Sembawang and DG. That is a tangible effort that the UK could do now. It’s not provocative or expensive and it would be really useful for Allies and for HADR.

An easy win for for the pacific tilt.

[wargame_insomniac]

Within current funding plus a net injection of @£200mn.

Thanks. Interesting proposal. The Ice ship issue is interesting as patrolling the High North is going to become a hot topic over the next few decades.

When an IPS is discussed the overwhelming opinion is simply to build more RRS SDA(s) but is that really the correct approach?

As you suggest an Endurance design is a much better option for RN if multiple hulls are to be considered. Endurance had a displacement of less than half of RRS SDA but still retained hanger space for two Lynx and accommodation for 120.

Again Vard has the answers and if procured they really should be new and built in the UK. A couple of 100m class Vard designed Ice Patrol Ships would slot in nicely into one of the UK yards to keep the drumbeat going. Even if kept as simple as possible it would a £300m procurement. It’s a good idea but is it a nice to have at this point?

Argus would need replacing towards the end of decade of course, though am wondering if a conversion of one of the Wave classes could be considered as a forward operating base. It already has hangar space for two Merlin’s.

IMO the Waves should go to the pacific and be based at Sembawang and DG. That is a tangible effort that the UK could do now. It’s not provocative or expensive and it would be really useful for Allies and for HADR.

An easy win for for the pacific tilt.

Re Ice Patrol Ships, I would argue that two is a nice to have but one is IMO a necessity, especially if used to patrol and survey our Artic undersea cables, and to START reducing the numerical advantage the Russians have over the combined western Icebreaker fleet. But even one IPS Artic would require additional Defence Spending for both the construction and the subsequent crewing, although agree it should be achiveable with even a small uplift.

For the South Pole we have the twenty year old HMS Protector (as well as the newer civilian research vessel RRS SDA). So IMO a 2nd RN IPS is less urgent

Agree that any future IPS should be built in Britain - presumably either H&W or CL.

Re the Waves, my understanding is that they are in "extended readiness" and the UK government has been trying to sell them both. Therefore we would need an increase in MOD defence spending for RFA for us to be able to crew them both.

[Repulse]

With the restructure of the Surface Fleet away from Singleton operations towards Carrier escort groups and forward basing then whilst more is nice, 4 Tankers is sufficient.

The reality is that the Waves in their current configuration are less of a priority than Proteus, Sterling Castle and the three FSS being built. This isn’t going to change nor is a rapid increase in RFA numbers.

Reconfiguring one to be a forward operating base (dare I say like IRIS Shahid Roudaki) as a replacement for Argus would be a good option IMO.

[Repulse]

For the South Pole we have the twenty year old HMS Protector (as well as the newer civilian research vessel RRS SDA). So IMO a 2nd RN IPS is less urgent

RRS SDA is not a military or constabulary vessel, it is a polar research vessel, let’s put that to bed now as muddying the waters in this area could cause significant harm and risk. It is not there to deter Argentine / foreign (including possibly future Chinese) incursions and low level “grey” warfare across the whole of the South Atlantic.

I do agree that a HMS Forth and HMS Protector (in Summer) do afford a level of amphibious/Littoral capability, but it’s not enough to tackle what is expected to be increasing interference from a Chinese backed Argentina, and also covering an area that spans as far north as the Ascension Island. By adding an additional forward based (all year round) auxiliary vessel with helicopters capable of covering all areas (hence the need to be a IPS) is an appropriate, cost effective and required response IMO. This leaves HMS Protector to focus on Summer roles in the Antarctic.

[Tempest414]

Really we need to rethink our areas of operation and have commands for them something like

Home North Atlantic fleet / Europe

2 x Carriers , 1 x LHD , 3 x LPD , 6 x T-45 , 8 x T-26 , 2 x T-31 , 2 x OPV's

Indian Ocean / Gulf

1 x LHD , 4 x T-31 , 2 x OPV's

South Atlantic

2 x T-31 , 2 x OPV's

What we need to be thinking about is covering Europe , the Gulf , both sides of Africa and South America

with the above commands plus 16AA , RM and Gurkha rapid response brigades the Rangers and SF units we could have a core response to most things

[Repulse]

Better to think Purple in my opinion and have coordinated strategies across all services, split by objective.

- Territorial Defence: this would include CASD and UK’s contribution to NATO through JEF.
- Global Presence: this would include protection of BOTs and fighting the “grey war”.
- Global Expeditionary: UK’s go anywhere war fighting capability.

For the Navy’s surface fleet, this would mean something like:

- Territorial Defence: 5 (equipped) T31s, MRoSS(s), OSV.
- Global Presence: the Overseas Patrol Squadron, 4 LSVs, 2 Bays, Argus + Ice Patrol Ship(s)
- Global Expeditionary: 2 CSGs + LPDs

[Tempest414]

Better to think Purple in my opinion and have coordinated strategies across all services, split by objective.

- Territorial Defence: this would include CASD and UK’s contribution to NATO through JEF.
- Global Presence: this would include protection of BOTs and fighting the “grey war”.
- Global Expeditionary: UK’s go anywhere war fighting capability.

For the Navy’s surface fleet, this would mean something like:

- Territorial Defence: 5 (equipped) T31s, MRoSS(s), OSV.
- Global Presence: the Overseas Patrol Squadron, 4 LSVs, 2 Bays, Argus + Ice Patrol Ship(s)
- Global Expeditionary: 2 CSGs + LPDs

What I put above is very purple as we would have naval assets were they are needed ready to receive anything from a re-enforced company to a re-enforced battalion battle group from any of the 3 rapid response brigades

so lets say something happens in the Indian Ocean we already have a LHD in the region plus 4 T-31's the LHD is loaded with stores the RAF fly in a Battalion battle group plus extra helicopters the LHD along with 1 or 2 T-31's or OPVs plus the rapid response battle group and RAF helicopters under take the task

[wargame_insomniac]

For the South Pole we have the twenty year old HMS Protector (as well as the newer civilian research vessel RRS SDA). So IMO a 2nd RN IPS is less urgent

RRS SDA is not a military or constabulary vessel, it is a polar research vessel, let’s put that to bed now as muddying the waters in this area could cause significant harm and risk. It is not there to deter Argentine / foreign (including possibly future Chinese) incursions and low level “grey” warfare across the whole of the South Atlantic.

I do agree that a HMS Forth and HMS Protector (in Summer) do afford a level of amphibious/Littoral capability, but it’s not enough to tackle what is expected to be increasing interference from a Chinese backed Argentina, and also covering an area that spans as far north as the Ascension Island. By adding an additional forward based (all year round) auxiliary vessel with helicopters capable of covering all areas (hence the need to be a IPS) is an appropriate, cost effective and required response IMO. This leaves HMS Protector to focus on Summer roles in the Antarctic.

In mentioned RRS SDA (in brackets and with note that civilian reserach vessel) because it had been mentioned previously i talking IPS, and then I focussed my main comment (i.e. OUTSIDE brackets) on HMS Protector.

I agree that we need an addiyional vessel to cover Ascencion Island / St.Helena / Tristan de Cunha. I have regularly noted that I wanted an OPV there to patrol a huge area of BOT's exclusive Maritime Zones.

Would I like a 2nd Ice Patrol Ship for Antartic, as well as HMS Protector? Yes sure, but funds are tight,and I would prefer a cheaper OPV instead of a 2nd new IPS.

[wargame_insomniac]

Really we need to rethink our areas of operation and have commands for them something like

Home North Atlantic fleet / Europe

2 x Carriers , 1 x LHD , 3 x LPD , 6 x T-45 , 8 x T-26 , 2 x T-31 , 2 x OPV's

Indian Ocean / Gulf

1 x LHD , 4 x T-31 , 2 x OPV's

South Atlantic

2 x T-31 , 2 x OPV's

That is an impressive Fantasy Fleet, but it is pure fantasy and unlikely to be achievable in the near future.

In addition to our current and ordered ships, we have supposedly 5*T32 but these are currently mere soundbites as both unfunded in the current and future MOD Budgets and yet to have a finalised concept. So the only realistic wriggle room in RN spending are IMO the funds earmarked for 6*MRSS (which we can assume are to replace Argus, 2*Albions and potentially 3*Bays).

So with that funding for 6*MRSS, you have seemingly added:
2*LHD, 3*LPD, 3*T31, 1*OPV's.

Whilst I would love to see that level of increased Defenc Spending being allocated to the RN, we have to be realistic- any increase over and above what we currently have / already ordered would likely be one or two more ships if at all.

[wargame_insomniac]

Hence why I like to see two additional RN vessels: firstly an IPS Artic, able to cover MROSS tasks surveying and patrolling our underseas cables in the Artic, and secondly a Patrol Vessel for BOT's Ascencion Island / St Helena / Tristan de Cunha.

And tying it back into the main topic title, each of those two vessels, plus 5*RB2's and 5*T31's could each carry up to a troop of RM's, with a Platoon of RM's on Argus, advance deployed to Oman.