Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

[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

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.

Interesting the way people think 6 MRSS will need about 2.5 to 3 billion also HMG have said T-32 is still on and under a funding review depending on what is done this will be another 1.5 to 2.5 billion maybe more

As said 3 extra T-31 + i.e with extra CAMM , 8 NSM , and TAS would be about 1.15 billion

2 LHD's using a OTS design should be able to be done for 1.5 Billion we can then look at 3 Enforcer class RFA LPD's but if we can't get 3 we will just have 2

So not really fantasy at all just a different thinking

[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

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.

However if you want to go another way with what we have and have on order we could go with

Sell a Bay and bring both LPD's back on line with this we could go with

Home Fleet
2 x carriers , 1 x LPD , 2 x Bay's , 6 x T-45 , 8 x T-26 , 2 x OPV

EoS fleet
1 x LPD , 3 x T-31 , 2 x OPV

South Atlantic
2 x T-31 , 2 x OPV , 1 x IPS

[new guy]

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.

However if you want to go another way with what we have and have on order we could go with

Sell a Bay and bring both LPD's back on line with this we could go with

Home Fleet
2 x carriers , 1 x LPD , 2 x Bay's , 6 x T-45 , 8 x T-26 , 2 x OPV

EoS fleet
1 x LPD , 3 x T-31 , 2 x OPV

South Atlantic
2 x T-31 , 2 x OPV , 1 x IPS

1. Both LPD are in service.
2. Carriers are for CSG, not Home fleet
3. Please don't sell another bay

a better laid out plan IMO ( gave separate CSG on and off plans as CSG is huge strain, I do a mix of using rule of thirds and not so for reasons of a. if 2 in class, can't exactly have 0.6 of a ship, B. pernament deployments, C. 'Readiness groups')

CSG on:
Home: 4x RB1, RFA Stirling castle , At home assets respond when needed.
CSG: 2x T45, 2x T26, 1-2 Tides, 1 FSS, 1 astute, QEC + allies
LRGN: 1 LPD, 1 bay, 1 T31, 1 logistic ship.
LRGS: 1 bay, 1 escort, 1 T31, 1 logistic ship
south A: 1 IPS, 1 RB2
Med: 1 RB2
Caribbean: 1 RB2
east asia: 2 RB2, 1 T31
middle east: 1 bay, 1 T31
+ 4 LSV

CSG off:
Home: 4x RB1, RFA stirling castle ,At home assets respond when needed
Europe: 2x T45
NA: 2x T26
LRGN: 1 LPD, 1 bay, 1 T31, 1 logistic ship.
LRGS: 1 bay, 1 escort, 1 T31, 1 logistic ship
south A: 1 IPS, 1 RB2
Med: 1 RB2
Caribbean: 1 RB2
east asia: 2 RB2, 1 T31
middle east: 1 bay, 1 T31
+ 4 LSV

[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

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.

However if you want to go another way with what we have and have on order we could go with

Sell a Bay and bring both LPD's back on line with this we could go with

Home Fleet
2 x carriers , 1 x LPD , 2 x Bay's , 6 x T-45 , 8 x T-26 , 2 x OPV

EoS fleet
1 x LPD , 3 x T-31 , 2 x OPV

South Atlantic
2 x T-31 , 2 x OPV , 1 x IPS

1. Both LPD are in service.
2. Carriers are for CSG, not Home fleet
3. Please don't sell another bay

a better laid out plan IMO ( gave separate CSG on and off plans as CSG is huge strain, I do a mix of using rule of thirds and not so for reasons of a. if 2 in class, can't exactly have 0.6 of a ship, B. pernament deployments, C. 'Readiness groups')

CSG on:
Home: 4x RB1, RFA Stirling castle , At home assets respond when needed.
CSG: 2x T45, 2x T26, 1-2 Tides, 1 FSS, 1 astute, QEC + allies
LRGN: 1 LPD, 1 bay, 1 T31, 1 logistic ship.
LRGS: 1 bay, 1 escort, 1 T31, 1 logistic ship
south A: 1 IPS, 1 RB2
Med: 1 RB2
Caribbean: 1 RB2
east asia: 2 RB2, 1 T31
middle east: 1 bay, 1 T31
+ 4 LSV

CSG off:
Home: 4x RB1, RFA stirling castle ,At home assets respond when needed
Europe: 2x T45
NA: 2x T26
LRGN: 1 LPD, 1 bay, 1 T31, 1 logistic ship.
LRGS: 1 bay, 1 escort, 1 T31, 1 logistic ship
south A: 1 IPS, 1 RB2
Med: 1 RB2
Caribbean: 1 RB2
east asia: 2 RB2, 1 T31
middle east: 1 bay, 1 T31
+ 4 LSV

Point 1: So you want to keep things as they are

Point 2: there is only 1 LPD in service the other is held in low state readiness with 1/5 crew in 5 year rotation pattern so at the end of this year Bulwark will replace Albion and Albion will go into low state where she will stay until her refit starts in 4 years time

point 3: when I say home fleet I mean the ships are held in the UK and not forward deployed

Point 4: under the new MCM program we will not need a Bay in the gulf

We really need to push on now more than at any time in the past 30 years with both Russia and China pushing out we need to get escorts back into the South Atlantic and into the Indian Ocean to back up the OPV's. Under both my plans above there will always be a high readiness CSG there by meaning at all times 4 T-45 & T-26 will be taken up 2 of each at high readiness with the carrier and 2 of each in maintenance with the other carrier this leaves 2 T-26's for TASS plus 1 for LRG/N with the last in deep maintenance

PS welcome on board

[Poiuytrewq]

Here is my attempt at what is achievable by 2026 with a slightly increasing budget per annum.

Reorganisation of UK Land/Maritime Forces by 2026(Gradual 0.1% increase per annum to 2.5% GDP by 2026.)
Main Changes:
- Invest majority of rising defence budget in Army/RN/RM/RFA recruitment and retention. Increasing the headcount back to a sensible level is paramount before any new big ticket items or programs are considered.
- Move British Army primary focus in Europe to ensuring the defence of the Nordic countries.
- Introduce 4 LRGs comprised from 40 and 42 Commando.
- Procure 2 vessels. One commercial FloFlo joint logistics vessel to support RM and one 100m-120m commercial security/HADR vessel for Caribbean.
- Add permanent 1000sqm hangers to the 3 Bays. Large enough to embark 6 Merlin.
-Form specialist British Army ARctic/Mountain Brigade (ARM) plus one specialist Arctic/Mountain Ranger Battalion to concentrate on partnering with JEF countries.
- Increase Gurkhas to 3 Battalions with artillery, logistics and engineering support.
- Ensure 3Cdo Bde, 16AAB and Gurkha Bde are fully deployable and independent of each other.
- This would allow for a UK RED or Rapid Expeditionary Division to be formed as a maximum effort, augmented or complemented with armoured/strike Brigades/Battlegroups as required. The availability of a high readiness Battlegroup from each of the 3Cdo, 16AAB, Gurkha Brigades would be the primary objective in normal circumstances.
- Property kit Army Ranger Battalions to slot into Nordic forces at short notice at anytime of the year.

- U.K.
>Form LRG(N) in UK with 40 Commando
- 1x Albion
- Argus
- Supplemented by escorts and Gibraltar based Bay LSS as required.
- Maintain high readiness CSG from the two CVFs.

- North Atlantic / JEF:
> Camp Viking repurposed as British Army ARM Brigade HQ and Artic Warfare Training Centre
> Form British Army Arctic/Mountain Brigade fully capable of fighting in Arctic and Sub-Arctic 12 months of the year.
> Rotate Ranger Battalions through Nordic AO plus form one specialist Arctic/Mountain Ranger Battalion.
> In addition to ARM Brigade based at Viking rotate three British Army Battlegroups through the Nordic countries as UKs main contribution to NATO Europe land forces. Properly kit out one Brigade sized force (in addition to Army Rangers) to fight and win in the Arctic regardless of time of year. Prioritise mobility over armour and invest heavily in mobile artillery, deep fires, antitank and surface to air.
> RM to permanently provide one Company to focus on securing Norwegian Littoral but maintain RM Artic training as before.
> Procure replacements for LCVPs and LCUs suitable for global deployment but also suitable for Norway/Baltic.
> Procure commercial FloFlo joint logistics vessel to support and transport RM and RN patrol craft around Norway/Baltic and across to UK.

- South Atlantic & APT(N):
> Maintain RB2 at Falklands. Add forward based commercially derived maritime security/HADR ship in Caribbean.

- North and West Africa
> Forward base one Company from 40 Commando at Gibraltar to form LRG(W).
> Forward base one RB2 and Bay LSS at Gibraltar to concentrate on East Africa and the Med. Regular RB2 patrols to Ascension, BOTs and South Atlantic to support Falkland RB2 if required. Replace Gib RB2 with T31 ASAP.

- Gulf and East Africa:
> Forward base LRG(S) and 42 Commando in Oman.
> Forward base at Duqm:
- 1x T45
- 1x T23ASW
- 1x T23GP
- 1x Albion
- 1x Bay LSS
>Maintain Kipion with whatever assets are required going forward

- Pacifc Region
> Form LRG(E) with one Company from 42 Commando in Singapore
- 1x T23GP
- 1x RB2
- 1x Wave
> Forward Base second Wave at Diego Garcia
> Regular port visits to Perth to ensure seamless interoperability with RAN and ADF.
> Ensure CSG deployment EoS at least once per year.

British Army
The overall effect would be a Nordic Tilt for the British Army but with improved Rapid Reaction global capabilities. An increase in highly trained/equipped light infantry plus support would swell the troop numbers back up to an acceptable level. Mobility would be prioritised over more expensive armoured vehicle programs but the extra cash would also be spent on mobile artillery, deep fires, anti tank capabilities and surface to air systems.

Royal Navy and Royal Marines
RN and RM would expand a persistent global presence, able to influence and support allies whilst not concentrating too heavily in any one area. 3Cdo Bde would retain the ability to deploy as a Bridgade but still maintain the trajectory of the FCF raiding ethos.
RN would receive two new ships. One converted commercial vessel for maritime security and HADR in the Caribbean and a FloFlo to support RM primarily in Norway but globally if required. The FloFlo would be a game changing capability to allow numerous RM craft to be transported, repaired and maintained plus help move logistics around the fjords. Globally this vessel could carry many extra landing craft in the event of an amphibious landing to reinforce those carried in the well docks. The Bays would get permanent hangers, large enough to embark 6 Merlin. This would still allow two Chinooks to operate from the flight deck concurrently. RM would maintain Artic training but let the Army take the lead over the Nordic land area. This would allow the FCF to form 4 scalable LRGs in UK, Gibraltar, Duqm and Singapore.

How best to defend the Nordics is an interesting question but if the UK takes the lead the British Army needs to get serious about the Arctic and fast. A long term commitment to rotate 3 Battlegroups through Norway, Finland and Estonia seems realistic with dispersed units of Army Rangers helping to improve interoperability throughout the JEF area. The ability to reinforce this commitment with 3 further Battlegroups within 10 days from 3Cdo, 16AAB and the Gurkhas as part of UK RED would be excellent and virtually unique amongst European NATO members.

Spending big on additional purchases of heavily armoured vehicles for the Army is a popular view but a more numerous, lighter, more flexible and rapidly deployable force backed up by devastating levels of artillery all kept safe under an effective umbrella of short and long range air defence seems like a more logical direction of travel for the UK.

Finland and Sweden joining NATO has changed everything and current planning must adapt quickly.

Just my opinion.

[SW1]

I’d be interested to know what is considered a sensible headcount? The armed forces are recruiting from a smaller portion of the population due to age demographics in the U.K. and in and environment where more are leaving than staying due to a relatively good employment environment.

The second is i still don’t get why “Europe” is simply considered an army role. There is plenty for all 3 services to do. No mention to of allocation to any of the NATO standing naval groups for example, no mention of the air policing requirements which take quite a lot of resource to do properly over a sustained period with contingency to increase.

If rapid reaction into Europe is considered a thing then why not a boxer equivalent to a U.S. army Stryker brigade that can be moved as required. I simply don’t see the supporting assets for rapid reaction divisions or the logistics assets to support so many distributed operating locations across the world.

I would also ask for how long we intend to keep committing resources specifically to the gulf to allow arab countries to continue to supply 90% of their exports to China to bolster their economy.

Or indeed why we think countries such as Singapore would want to be a base for our troops and ships will they set up the required facilities for free? I doubt it.

[Tempest414]

I’d be interested to know what is considered a sensible headcount? The armed forces are recruiting from a smaller portion of the population due to age demographics in the U.K. and in and environment where more are leaving than staying due to a relatively good employment environment.

The second is i still don’t get why “Europe” is simply considered an army role. There is plenty for all 3 services to do. No mention to of allocation to any of the NATO standing naval groups for example, no mention of the air policing requirements which take quite a lot of resource to do properly over a sustained period with contingency to increase.

If rapid reaction into Europe is considered a thing then why not a boxer equivalent to a U.S. army Stryker brigade that can be moved as required. I simply don’t see the supporting assets for rapid reaction divisions or the logistics assets to support so many distributed operating locations across the world.

I would also ask for how long we intend to keep committing resources specifically to the gulf to allow arab countries to continue to supply 90% of their exports to China to bolster their economy.

Or indeed why we think countries such as Singapore would want to be a base for our troops and ships will they set up the required facilities for free? I doubt it.

I would say we can't afford Boxer but as I said before we could afford to make the 1st division into a all light Mech division with 9 battalions on Patria 6x6 split into 3 Brigades each with a HIMARS regiment

Also having 2 Rapid Response Brigades 16AA in Europe and the Gurkha RRB EoS allows the main stay of the army to get on with the day to day

[Tempest414]

Moving over to future form of the Army thread

[wargame_insomniac]

Here is my attempt at what is achievable by 2026 with a slightly increasing budget per annum.

Reorganisation of UK Land/Maritime Forces by 2026(Gradual 0.1% increase per annum to 2.5% GDP by 2026.)
Main Changes:
- Invest majority of rising defence budget in Army/RN/RM/RFA recruitment and retention. Increasing the headcount back to a sensible level is paramount before any new big ticket items or programs are considered.
- Move British Army primary focus in Europe to ensuring the defence of the Nordic countries.
- Introduce 4 LRGs comprised from 40 and 42 Commando.
- Procure 2 vessels. One commercial FloFlo joint logistics vessel to support RM and one 100m-120m commercial security/HADR vessel for Caribbean.
- Add permanent 1000sqm hangers to the 3 Bays. Large enough to embark 6 Merlin.
-Form specialist British Army ARctic/Mountain Brigade (ARM) plus one specialist Arctic/Mountain Ranger Battalion to concentrate on partnering with JEF countries.
- Increase Gurkhas to 3 Battalions with artillery, logistics and engineering support.
- Ensure 3Cdo Bde, 16AAB and Gurkha Bde are fully deployable and independent of each other.
- This would allow for a UK RED or Rapid Expeditionary Division to be formed as a maximum effort, augmented or complemented with armoured/strike Brigades/Battlegroups as required. The availability of a high readiness Battlegroup from each of the 3Cdo, 16AAB, Gurkha Brigades would be the primary objective in normal circumstances.
- Property kit Army Ranger Battalions to slot into Nordic forces at short notice at anytime of the year.

- U.K.
>Form LRG(N) in UK with 40 Commando
- 1x Albion
- Argus
- Supplemented by escorts and Gibraltar based Bay LSS as required.
- Maintain high readiness CSG from the two CVFs.

- North Atlantic / JEF:
> Camp Viking repurposed as British Army ARM Brigade HQ and Artic Warfare Training Centre
> Form British Army Arctic/Mountain Brigade fully capable of fighting in Arctic and Sub-Arctic 12 months of the year.
> Rotate Ranger Battalions through Nordic AO plus form one specialist Arctic/Mountain Ranger Battalion.
> In addition to ARM Brigade based at Viking rotate three British Army Battlegroups through the Nordic countries as UKs main contribution to NATO Europe land forces. Properly kit out one Brigade sized force (in addition to Army Rangers) to fight and win in the Arctic regardless of time of year. Prioritise mobility over armour and invest heavily in mobile artillery, deep fires, antitank and surface to air.
> RM to permanently provide one Company to focus on securing Norwegian Littoral but maintain RM Artic training as before.
> Procure replacements for LCVPs and LCUs suitable for global deployment but also suitable for Norway/Baltic.
> Procure commercial FloFlo joint logistics vessel to support and transport RM and RN patrol craft around Norway/Baltic and across to UK.

- South Atlantic & APT(N):
> Maintain RB2 at Falklands. Add forward based commercially derived maritime security/HADR ship in Caribbean.

- North and East Africa
> Forward base one Company from 40 Commando at Gibraltar to form LRG(W).
> Forward base one RB2 and Bay LSS at Gibraltar to concentrate on East Africa and the Med. Regular RB2 patrols to Ascension, BOTs and South Atlantic to support Falkland RB2 if required. Replace Gib RB2 with T31 ASAP.

- Gulf and West Africa:
> Forward base LRG(S) and 42 Commando in Oman.
> Forward base at Duqm:
- 1x T45
- 1x T23ASW
- 1x T23GP
- 1x Albion
- 1x Bay LSS
>Maintain Kipion with whatever assets are required going forward

- Pacifc Region
> Form LRG(E) with one Company from 42 Commando in Singapore
- 1x T23GP
- 1x RB2
- 1x Wave
> Forward Base second Wave at Diego Garcia
> Regular port visits to Perth to ensure seamless interoperability with RAN and ADF.
> Ensure CSG deployment EoS at least once per year.

British Army
The overall effect would be a Nordic Tilt for the British Army but with improved Rapid Reaction global capabilities. An increase in highly trained/equipped light infantry plus support would swell the troop numbers back up to an acceptable level. Mobility would be prioritised over more expensive armoured vehicle programs but the extra cash would also be spent on mobile artillery, deep fires, anti tank capabilities and surface to air systems.

Royal Navy and Royal Marines
RN and RM would expand a persistent global presence, able to influence and support allies whilst not concentrating too heavily in any one area. 3Cdo Bde would retain the ability to deploy as a Bridgade but still maintain the trajectory of the FCF raiding ethos.
RN would receive two new ships. One converted commercial vessel for maritime security and HADR in the Caribbean and a FloFlo to support RM primarily in Norway but globally if required. The FloFlo would be a game changing capability to allow numerous RM craft to be transported, repaired and maintained plus help move logistics around the fjords. Globally this vessel could carry many extra landing craft in the event of an amphibious landing to reinforce those carried in the well docks. The Bays would get permanent hangers, large enough to embark 6 Merlin. This would still allow two Chinooks to operate from the flight deck concurrently. RM would maintain Artic training but let the Army take the lead over the Nordic land area. This would allow the FCF to form 4 scalable LRGs in UK, Gibraltar, Duqm and Singapore.

How best to defend the Nordics is an interesting question but if the UK takes the lead the British Army needs to get serious about the Arctic and fast. A long term commitment to rotate 3 Battlegroups through Norway, Finland and Estonia seems realistic with dispersed units of Army Rangers helping to improve interoperability throughout the JEF area. The ability to reinforce this commitment with 3 further Battlegroups within 10 days from 3Cdo, 16AAB and the Gurkhas as part of UK RED would be excellent and virtually unique amongst European NATO members.

Spending big on additional purchases of heavily armoured vehicles for the Army is a popular view but a more numerous, lighter, more flexible and rapidly deployable force backed up by devastating levels of artillery all kept safe under an effective umbrella of short and long range air defence seems like a more logical direction of travel for the UK.

Finland and Sweden joining NATO has changed everything and current planning must adapt quickly.

Just my opinion.

I like the broad thrust of proposal, apart from I think missing an Arctic IPS.

For LRG(W) and LRG(E) I think a permanently advance deployed RM Company in each location is too ambitious and would place strain on both 40 & 42 Commando. If you reduced both to a RM Platoon being deployed in rotation, that should lessen the strain.

Similarly maybe LRG(S) should be reduced from a full Commando to maybe a Company being advance deployed in rotation, this also should reduce the strain and allow it be a long term deployment.

Can we spare a T45 and a T23 ASW to be advance deployed to Oman. I worry that puts too much strain on the remaining ships having increased availability once PIP and LIFEX are completed. Also there would be the demand for such ships to take part in two main NATO deployments.

But these are small detaiils set against my liking of the overeall aims of this plan.

[Repulse]

The current situation in Sudan is a good example of a likely scenario that any future amphibious force needs to deliver. It is also a timely reminder that we need to remind ourselves that there will always be a mix of forces required, in this case airborne forces to act quickly and then a maritime one which takes time to do the heavy lifting.

It is also telling that the MCM mothership and on station Kipion escort have to be used - shows lack of depth. Also, a LSD plus frigate is an interesting choice, is the maritime threat high enough that a frigate is required? Is a LSD required to ferry civilians? I would argue that RFA Argus would have been a better choice.

[Poiuytrewq]

I like the broad thrust of proposal

Thanks

….. missing an Arctic IPS

Its a question of priorities and unfortunately the British Army isn’t fit for purpose currently and RN is too small. The headcount has fallen too low and is going to fall further unless action is taken.

RN/RFA can’t man what is in the water now so unless absolutely necessary I did not suggest building anything else.

For LRG(W) and LRG(E) I think a permanently advance deployed RM Company in each location is too ambitious and would place strain on both 40 & 42 Commando. If you reduced both to a RM Platoon being deployed in rotation, that should lessen the strain.

Similarly maybe LRG(S) should be reduced from a full Commando to maybe a Company being advance deployed in rotation, this also should reduce the strain and allow it be a long term deployment.

Its a big change for RM but LRG(S) is due to be based at Duqm already so it’s really just about the scale of ambition and the levels of resource provided. The LRG concept is infinitely scalable. Forces levels can be raised or lowered as required throughout the year. Rotating through the LRGs would become standard practice and actually very desirable. Forward basing is always hard on families which requires thought to mitigate as much as possible.

RN could do with LRG(S) in Duqm right now with Bulwark and a Bay with six Merlin’s.

Can we spare a T45 and a T23 ASW to be advance deployed to Oman. I worry that puts too much strain on the remaining ships having increased availability once PIP and LIFEX are completed. Also there would be the demand for such ships to take part in two main NATO deployments.

Undoubtably there is an embarrassing crunch coming with escort numbers but by 2026/2027 it should be starting to ease and then rapidly improve at the end of the decade. If there is any life left in the hulls, retaining the first 2 or 3 T23ASW due to decommission would be an easy win for RN. Lack of crew will preclude it unless rectified.

Forward basing just makes vessels closer to the action, able to respond faster and waste less time coming and going, to and from the UK.

Duqm based vessels can operate either side of Suez. It isn’t a barrier so no commitments are changed due to forward basing.

The facilities at Duqm allow refit work to be undertaken which again saves transit time.

Having a T45 and T23ASW EoS is important IMO to give the LRGs some ASW deterrent and air defence if needed. If the CSG is operating in the Indian Ocean or Indo Pacific they can slot in as required.

But these are small detaiils set against my liking of the overeall aims of this plan.

It’s not set in stone but a lack of funding drastically limits the options available.

[Poiuytrewq]

The current situation in Sudan is a good example of a likely scenario that any future amphibious force needs to deliver……shows lack of depth.

Its shows an embarrassing lack of depth although let’s wait and see how this plays out before being too critical.

It is a vindication once again for the forward deployed distributed asset approach, pity the transit time is still 4 or 5 days.

Often overlooked but if an Invincible class was involved it would be making 28knts. Worth considering for the next-gen vessels that are tasked to respond rapidly in situations like this as the CVFs will not be getting forward based anytime soon.

[Poiuytrewq]

I’d be interested to know what is considered a sensible headcount?

Whatever is required to allow all units to function properly but it’s difficult to accurately assess now that the reserve in so intertwined.

To do it properly requires 90k to 100k plus a reserve of 20k to 25k. It’s a big uplift which won’t come cheap but in this security climate HMT simply has to find the money.

The second is i still don’t get why “Europe” is simply considered an army role.

I didn’t suggest that. Although the Army would pick up fixed commitments LRG(N) could still operate in Europe as before if required.

The problem with insisting that RM concentrate on Norway through LRG(N) and Camp Viking is that it is the direct opposite of the FCF concept. They are not compatible. RM will do a fantastic job as ever but IMO Norway, Sweden and Finland is a bigger strategic conundrum than RM alone can solve now. Hence the scale of the British Army is now required.

The RAF was too expansive to include in the Amphibious thread.

If rapid reaction into Europe is considered a thing then why not a boxer equivalent to a U.S. army Stryker brigade that can be moved as required. I simply don’t see the supporting assets for rapid reaction divisions or the logistics assets to support so many distributed operating locations across the world.

Firstly, how would a Striker Brigade perform in Northern Sweden and Finland in February?

Having Battlegroups trained and acclimatised to the Arctic temperatures is crucial. Having the ability to then reinforce with 3 Rapid Reaction Battlegroups from UK RED within 10 days followed by 3 more 10 days later and so on. That would stop virtually anything if properly supported.

The bigger question is what force follows up to roll back the incursion and reinstate the sovereign boundaries.

Mechanised Brigades with Ajax and CV90 supported by HIMARS,155mm Archer, Apaches and the RAF would probably be pretty effective.

I would also ask for how long we intend to keep committing resources specifically to the gulf to allow arab countries to continue to supply 90% of their exports to China to bolster their economy.

Just as long as the oil price is global and any spike in prices has a massive knock on effect to the British economy.

Or indeed why we think countries such as Singapore would want to be a base for our troops and ships will they set up the required facilities for free? I doubt it.

If not Singapore then Australia or another country. It doesn’t matter as long as the location is strategically advantageous.

Australia seems keen to maximise engagement with the U.K. through expanding AUKUS.

If you haven’t seen it, this is worth a read.
https://online.flippingbook.com/view/90 ... #zoom=true

[SW1]

I’d be interested to know what is considered a sensible headcount?

Whatever is required to allow all units to function properly but it’s difficult to accurately assess now that the reserve in so intertwined.

To do it properly requires 90k to 100k plus a reserve of 20k to 25k. It’s a big uplift which won’t come cheap but in this security climate HMT simply has to find the money.

The second is i still don’t get why “Europe” is simply considered an army role.

I didn’t suggest that. Although the Army would pick up fixed commitments LRG(N) could still operate in Europe as before if required.

The problem with insisting that RM concentrate on Norway through LRG(N) and Camp Viking is that it is the direct opposite of the FCF concept. They are not compatible. RM will do a fantastic job as ever but IMO Norway, Sweden and Finland is a bigger strategic conundrum than RM alone can solve now. Hence the scale of the British Army is now required.

The RAF was too expansive to include in the Amphibious thread.

If rapid reaction into Europe is considered a thing then why not a boxer equivalent to a U.S. army Stryker brigade that can be moved as required. I simply don’t see the supporting assets for rapid reaction divisions or the logistics assets to support so many distributed operating locations across the world.

Firstly, how would a Striker Brigade perform in Northern Sweden and Finland in February?

Having Battlegroups trained and acclimatised to the Arctic temperatures is crucial. Having the ability to then reinforce with 3 Rapid Reaction Battlegroups from UK RED within 10 days followed by 3 more 10 days later and so on. That would stop virtually anything if properly supported.

The bigger question is what force follows up to roll back the incursion and reinstate the sovereign boundaries.

Mechanised Brigades with Ajax and CV90 supported by HIMARS,155mm Archer, Apaches and the RAF would probably be pretty effective.

I would also ask for how long we intend to keep committing resources specifically to the gulf to allow arab countries to continue to supply 90% of their exports to China to bolster their economy.

Just as long as the oil price is global and any spike in prices has a massive knock on effect to the British economy.

Or indeed why we think countries such as Singapore would want to be a base for our troops and ships will they set up the required facilities for free? I doubt it.

If not Singapore then Australia or another country. It doesn’t matter as long as the location is strategically advantageous.

Australia seems keen to maximise engagement with the U.K. through expanding AUKUS.

If you haven’t seen it, this is worth a read.
https://online.flippingbook.com/view/90 ... #zoom=true

I don’t buy the money has to be found line. Defence has to sort itself out within its current budget, it’s simply not a priority for the electorate and therefore not a priority investment area for politicians. It doesn’t need more money to defend the country.

As the Swedes and Finland have significant wheels vehicle fleets made by patria I assume it will operate ok in those countries.

Moving 3 full battlegroups within 10 days from the uk and then supporting them would require a significant increase in air mobility which is really only currently scaled to move one rapidly.

It’s AirPower that rolls Russia back I would suspect infact I would wager they would be spotted and significant air and long range artillery would ensure they didn’t have far to be rolled back from.

Oil price though global does not necessarily mean we need to be dependent on it. More national resilience spending in such areas can insulate us from such things. Oil/gas strategic reserves domestic supply and expanding nuclear power are all required to wean ourselves off China dependence and the Chinese economy the principle security concern of our time dependence on Chinese manufacture.

I have read the Australian report I think it’s very interesting a direction of travel that makes some sense to me anyway. But I’m not sure they need much material military help from the uk. We need not be there in person anymore than they need to have a marine company deployed here unless they are attacked. I particularly liked how they highlighted the need for domestic missile manufacture as a prerequisite we could learn that lesson.

Yes AUKUS being a technology development and intelligence sharing enterprise could well expand into other areas beyond nuclear subs. As along with chile Canada and Mexico they are one the principle rare earth metal refiners that we know we can trust.

[Poiuytrewq]

I don’t buy the money has to be found line. Defence has to sort itself out within its current budget, it’s simply not a priority for the electorate and therefore not a priority investment area for politicians. It doesn’t need more money to defend the country.

I would have agreed with that 5 years but not now. If the inter connecters, gas pipelines and internet cables are severed it will become more of a priority for the electorate.

The defence command paper in June will show the scale of the ambition even if the funds are not yet secured to achieve it.

As the Swedes and Finland have significant wheels vehicle fleets made by patria I assume it will operate ok in those countries.

Im not suggested Striker brigades wouldn’t work. Simply that the terrain is not ideal for such formations. The Patria is Amphibious for a reason.

Light, agile, highly motivated, highly trained and well resourced units in large numbers supported by mobile artillery and deep fires is the best way to stop any incursion. The ability to reinforce multiple times quickly is also absolutely vital.

Securing the Baltic to ensure the safe transportation of the follow-up Armoured/Mechinised Divisions across to Norway, Sweden and Finland is crucial also. This is really a job for fast ferries rather than large Amphibious vessels.

Moving 3 full battlegroups within 10 days from the uk and then supporting them would require a significant increase in air mobility which is really only currently scaled to move one rapidly.

True but this NATO, not just the UK. If a UK RED formation was chosen as the best way to secure the Nordics then additional UK strategic air-lift capacity may need to be considered.

It’s AirPower that rolls Russia back I would suspect infact I would wager they would be spotted and significant air and long range artillery would ensure they didn’t have far to be rolled back from.

Ideally yes, but important to plan for all eventualities.

Oil price though global does not necessarily mean we need to be dependent on it. More national resilience spending in such areas can insulate us from such things. Oil/gas strategic reserves domestic supply and expanding nuclear power are all required to wean ourselves off China dependence and the Chinese economy the principle security concern of our time dependence on Chinese manufacture.

I agree, both hands need to be working together at the same time.

I have read the Australian report I think it’s very interesting a direction of travel that makes some sense to me anyway. But I’m not sure they need much material military help from the uk. We need not be there in person anymore than they need to have a marine company deployed here unless they are attacked. I particularly liked how they highlighted the need for domestic missile manufacture as a prerequisite we could learn that lesson.

Australians feel threatened.

The Australians gave the UK, US and Europe a lot in both world wars, Korea, Vietnam etc.

It’s our time to help stabilise the situation if possible. No one wants to fight but ignoring the reality won’t make it go away.

Yes AUKUS being a technology development and intelligence sharing enterprise could well expand into other areas beyond nuclear subs. As along with chile Canada and Mexico they are one the principle rare earth metal refiners that we know we can trust.

The West is playing catch-up with minerals and is confused regarding the future of globalisation vs protectionism.

AUKUS will by necessity expand into other areas and the UK has a role to play. Interoperability between RN/RAN/RM/ADF/BA is vital. Just as vital is supporting and engaging with smaller Pacific nations through finance from the City of London and the deep pockets of U.K. international aid. It needs to be a joined up approach from all government departments including the Foreign Office if it is to be properly effective and ultimately successful.

[SW1]

I think the electoral will not vote on defence, it will be the economy, health, immigration and how many handouts for heating. If they base force structures on the hope of future funding it will be a repeat of the mess of the last 20 years.

Then priority needs to be the allocation of defence assets to protect that infrastructure around the UK not far away places

Yeah australia helped when there was a war. We are providing australia with all the technology and information required to defend themselves and would help them if they are attacked. I really don’t get the fascination with these penny packets being sent all around the world under the pretence they are somehow deterring China when the local forces are larger than our entire armed forces in some cases. Especially when there is a war in Europe.

[Tempest414]

The way I see the Rapid response brigades working is

1) 16AA would remain the Air mobile Brigade supported by the RAF

2 ) RM would be Amphib / LRG supported by the Navy

3 ) Gurkha RRB would be the EoS rapid response supported by both the RAF and Navy

Groups 1 & 2 would be UK based and mainly European and African looking but can be deployed as needed Group 3 would be based EoS and mainly looking at the Indian Ocean and south Asia

As said all groups would be required to hold a Battalion battle group at high readiness

[donald_of_tokyo]

Not sure if already discussed in detail.

Finland joined NATO. To defend them, who is "rapidly deploying" there? I guess UK?

Is Norway still an important area? Yes it will be, but Finland will also be important, as much as Norway is now.

Then, the force structure must take into account deploying to Finland? What will change about the UK "northern" RM/BA force?

The landmass and typical geography differs a lot. There are lots of lakes and rocks, fields and forests. But, there are not so many Fijords = sea access. So, amphibious ATV will be needed there? As the landmass is so huge, UK force needs more UAVs than MBTs there? Logistic convoy in land highway is more important there?

Personally, I am not sure.

In short, what will need change?

[Poiuytrewq]

In short, what will need change?

You might want to scroll back a page or two

[Poiuytrewq]

Groups 1 & 2 would be UK based and mainly European and African looking but can be deployed as needed Group 3 would be based EoS and mainly looking at the Indian Ocean and south Asia

The crisis in Sudan illustrates the importance of forward basing IMO.

By dispatching both LRG(E) and LRG(S) as suggested below up to two Bays, with a maximum of 12 Merlin (or equivalent) plus Bulwark and escorts if required could have been available now. Transit time of around 4 days.

A safe area at Port Sudan could have been set up with helos airlifting from Khartoum to Port Sudan or directly onto the Bays and Bulwark.

All these vessels are in the water now but where are they? It’s a pity at least LRG(S) could not have responded faster.

The LRGs would be a fantastic rapid response resource if HMG would get on and implement the FCF concept properly.

- North and West Africa:
> Forward base one Company from 40 Commando at Gibraltar to form LRG(W).
> Forward base one RB2 and Bay LSS at Gibraltar to concentrate on East Africa and the Med.

- Gulf and East Africa:
> Forward base LRG(S) and 42 Commando in Oman.
> Forward base at Duqm:
- 1x T45
- 1x T23ASW
- 1x T23GP
- 1x Albion
- 1x Bay LSS

[SW1]

Groups 1 & 2 would be UK based and mainly European and African looking but can be deployed as needed Group 3 would be based EoS and mainly looking at the Indian Ocean and south Asia

The crisis in Sudan illustrates the importance of forward basing IMO.

By dispatching both LRG(E) and LRG(S) as suggested below up to two Bays, with a maximum of 12 Merlin (or equivalent) plus Bulwark and escorts if required could have been available now. Transit time of around 4 days.

A safe area at Port Sudan could have been set up with helos airlifting from Khartoum to Port Sudan or directly onto the Bays and Bulwark.

All these vessels are in the water now but where are they? It’s a pity at least LRG(S) could not have responded faster.

The LRGs would be a fantastic rapid response resource if HMG would get on and implement the FCF concept properly.

- North and East Africa:
> Forward base one Company from 40 Commando at Gibraltar to form LRG(W).
> Forward base one RB2 and Bay LSS at Gibraltar to concentrate on East Africa and the Med.

- Gulf and West Africa:
> Forward base LRG(S) and 42 Commando in Oman.
> Forward base at Duqm:
- 1x T45
- 1x T23ASW
- 1x T23GP
- 1x Albion
- 1x Bay LSS

Khartoum to port Sudan is 500 km plus. Good luck with helicoptering on a 1000 km round trip in a hot country with elevation. Add ground force protection to each helicopter flight and that unworkable. It’s why everyone is using transport planes and not helicopters.

Yes sovereign fwd locations have proved very valuable uk in Cyprus and France in Djibouti. Forces can be moved in and out quickly why attempt to duplicate when it simply isn’t required



40 commandos chariot of choice…

[Tempest414]

Groups 1 & 2 would be UK based and mainly European and African looking but can be deployed as needed Group 3 would be based EoS and mainly looking at the Indian Ocean and south Asia

The crisis in Sudan illustrates the importance of forward basing IMO.

By dispatching both LRG(E) and LRG(S) as suggested below up to two Bays, with a maximum of 12 Merlin (or equivalent) plus Bulwark and escorts if required could have been available now. Transit time of around 4 days.

A safe area at Port Sudan could have been set up with helos airlifting from Khartoum to Port Sudan or directly onto the Bays and Bulwark.

All these vessels are in the water now but where are they? It’s a pity at least LRG(S) could not have responded faster.

The LRGs would be a fantastic rapid response resource if HMG would get on and implement the FCF concept properly.

- North and East Africa:
> Forward base one Company from 40 Commando at Gibraltar to form LRG(W).
> Forward base one RB2 and Bay LSS at Gibraltar to concentrate on East Africa and the Med.

- Gulf and West Africa:
> Forward base LRG(S) and 42 Commando in Oman.
> Forward base at Duqm:
- 1x T45
- 1x T23ASW
- 1x T23GP
- 1x Albion
- 1x Bay LSS

I meant to say West Africa looks out over the Atlantic where East Africa looks over the Indian Ocean so your groups should be North & west Africa and Gulf & East Africa

Also we can't use the RM twice there are ether a Rapid response brigade holding a Battle group ready for the High North or they are thinly spread out in company level light LRG's

[donald_of_tokyo]

In short, what will need change?

You might want to scroll back a page or two

Thanks. You (not only Poiuytrewq-san) talk about Baltic landing operations, but not much on the RM formation. In Finland, which is now NATO, what kind of operation be needed?

1. Helibone vs land-maneuver? Ship-to-shore connection is really needed there?
2. MALE-UAV drones survey vs infantry occupation?
3. A company of snipers vs wheeled-armored heavy-infantries vs IFV/MBT heavy-infantries?
4. Air-patrols by Typhoons, F18s, Gripens, and F-35s vs air-defense by CAMM-ER or even ASTER?
5. Anti-person sniping or anti-armor weapons?
6. What about artility?

All this will deeply affect the nature of the (near) future RN/RFA amphibious assets.

- LCUs (needed for IFV and MBT) or many LCVPs (for Viking-ATVs) or many CB90s (snipers and light infantries)?
- Several Chinooks or a squadron of Merlin, or (because of long distance) V-22/V-280 will be needed (but in smaller number, because they are expensive)?
- If MALE-UAVs are needed, how to establish air-bases (engineering effort) or having a dedicated flat-top?
- Do UK need to increase LandCeptor system numbers, adding ER-version of CAMM, or UK shall invest more on LMM and StarStreakers (and some kind of Stingers)?

I do NOT think resources for UK amphibious assets will increase. I even think RFA Argus's crew would be needed for the 3rd FSSS and she will be gone. So, for me, we have only 1 Albion, 1 extended-readiness-Bulwark, 3 Bays and 4 Points to replace, probably in 1-by-1 basis.

Clearly, the following points are important
- do UK need good numbers of LCU to land MBT/IFVs off the port in hurry" --> do we need large well-docks?
- MALE UAVs handling. From CVF, from dedicated flat-top, or just do it from land? --> do we need to make (some of the) MRSS flat-top?
These two points will largely affect the RN/RFA amphibious forces future.

2 JMSDF Osumi-like, flat top LPDs (with small well-dock)
2 Bay like logistic LSDs (with small well-dock)
And 4-6 new-types of landing assets like BMT ARES CAIMEN 200? (mainly for Baltic?)

Just a thought.

[jedibeeftrix]

The LRGs would be a fantastic rapid response resource if HMG would get on and implement the FCF concept properly.

Is that HMG's fault?

Or some comnination of: 3Cdo > RN > JFHQ > MoD

What is a properly implemented FCF concept? Do 3Cdo even know what this is, because I sure as hell do not!

[Poiuytrewq]

North & west Africa and Gulf & East Africa

Typo, apologies.

Also we can't use the RM twice there are ether a Rapid response brigade holding a Battle group ready for the High North or they are thinly spread out in company level light LRG's

I agree it’s a reorganisation.

The structure I envisioned was to retain 45 Commando in the U.K. to deploy a high readiness Battlegroup.

40 Commando based in the UK and Gibraltar LRG(N) and LRG(W) plus 42 Commando based in Oman and Singapore LRG(S) and LRG(E) would retain a force large enough to comprise a second Battlegroup at 15 days notice. This retained force would not be committed to the active LRGs. The remainder of 40 and 42 would effectively have over three weeks to get back to Oman or the UK to form the remainder of 3Cdo.

I based that on the likelihood of using the Rapid Reaction Battlegroup as very high, needing to reinforce the RRBG with a second Battlegroup as plausible but very unlikely and committing all of 3 Cdo as only ever going to happen if an incursion happened on NATO soil or another Falklands event etc.

It is ambitious but it would also make the best use of the Royal Marines if it could be made to work.