Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 4142
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Repulse wrote: 16 Sep 2023, 09:16…that would be a good outcome IMO.
A good outcome?

If that’s what a good outcome looks like what does a bad outcome look like?
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
new guy

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1320
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by new guy »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 16 Sep 2023, 13:36
Repulse wrote: 16 Sep 2023, 09:16…that would be a good outcome IMO.
A good outcome?

If that’s what a good outcome looks like what does a bad outcome look like?
Thats what I thought.
cancellation of LSV
Ignoring of RB1 rep
MRSS reduction.
How is that good?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4776
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 16 Sep 2023, 13:36 A good outcome?

If that’s what a good outcome looks like what does a bad outcome look like?
new guy wrote: 16 Sep 2023, 13:52 Thats what I thought.
cancellation of LSV
Ignoring of RB1 rep
MRSS reduction.
How is that good?
Yes a good outcome - there are a lot worse outcomes - the most likely is the eternal promise of ships tomorrow which never appear.

There is no B1 replacement, the funds went on the T31. The LSV order has been cut to three, and can easily be cut further with promise of T32 jam tomorrow with a ridiculous dose of the T31s have boat bays. Look at how long it’s taken to get the MRoSS in service, and that’s whilst survey ships and frigates have been cut.

Having four modest multi-role ships and a Joint Support Ship / ASS is affordable and can be done without fuss - they will give a capability that is fit for the modern world and realistic to the RNs budget and the UKs position in the world. Everything else will be an expensive farce suffering from perlonged studies, delay, re-reviews, cuts and and long deaths to cancellation. Look how critical the FSS programme is and how long it’s taken.

This way also there is a chance to increase the overall number of helicopter and other enablers, spending money on making the most of what is there. Moving the Army Wildcats for example will not only help equip the CVFs but also could quite easily allow 3-4 to be deployed on each of the MRLSVs, a capability that is worth something.

Start modest and once you are there build on it if and when you can afford it.
”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

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1320
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by new guy »

Repulse wrote: 16 Sep 2023, 16:15
Poiuytrewq wrote: 16 Sep 2023, 13:36 A good outcome?

If that’s what a good outcome looks like what does a bad outcome look like?
new guy wrote: 16 Sep 2023, 13:52 Thats what I thought.
cancellation of LSV
Ignoring of RB1 rep
MRSS reduction.
How is that good?
Yes a good outcome - there are a lot worse outcomes - the most likely is the eternal promise of ships tomorrow which never appear.

There is no B1 replacement, the funds went on the T31. The LSV order has been cut to three, and can easily be cut further with promise of T32 jam tomorrow with a ridiculous dose of the T31s have boat bays. Look at how long it’s taken to get the MRoSS in service, and that’s whilst survey ships and frigates have been cut.

Having four modest multi-role ships and a Joint Support Ship / ASS is affordable and can be done without fuss - they will give a capability that is fit for the modern world and realistic to the RNs budget and the UKs position in the world. Everything else will be an expensive farce suffering from perlonged studies, delay, re-reviews, cuts and and long deaths to cancellation. Look how critical the FSS programme is and how long it’s taken.

This way also there is a chance to increase the overall number of helicopter and other enablers, spending money on making the most of what is there. Moving the Army Wildcats for example will not only help equip the CVFs but also could quite easily allow 3-4 to be deployed on each of the MRLSVs, a capability that is worth something.

Start modest and once you are there build on it if and when you can afford it.
1) Of course there are worse outcomes, there are always worse outcomes, but for £50bn+ a year the RN should be able to afford the for mentioned 3 LSV and 6 MRSS, not counting RB1.
3 LSV= less than £300m
6 MRSS= £2-3bn

not that expensive.

2) LSV is budgeted fully, and no, unlike you have said, there have been no LSV cuts from X to 3, because before there was no MCMV replacement.

3) So funds went on the T26 problems, not T31

4) You have a problem against ...... the T31 boat bays??.... Seriously?

5) If you think MROSS has been slow, then you have the memory of a hypocritical goldfish.

6) Anything repulse, anything, can done with fuss, especially in the MoD, least of all Amphibs.

7)
Everything else will be an expensive farce suffering from perlonged studies, delay, re-reviews, cuts and and long deaths to cancellation
So anything else than your specific model would be 'farce'.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6431
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 16 Sep 2023, 12:41 The Ellida Mk2 looks interesting but the foredeck is still the weak point IMO due to the access required between flight deck and the foredeck
where has this come from?
@LandSharkUK

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 538
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by jedibeeftrix »

Fr0sty125 wrote: 15 Sep 2023, 21:54 The new enforcer 28m beam options look interesting. 15628

2x LCU
4x LCVP
Hangar for 4 medium helicopters and a 3 spot flight deck
UAV hangar and flight deck on top for 8 medium UAV

https://media.damen.com/image/upload/v1 ... y41Ny4wLjA.
i feel like 2x LCU ought to be the minimum ambition for future amphibs.
enormously more useful than loads of davits.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4776
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

new guy wrote: 16 Sep 2023, 16:49 1) Of course there are worse outcomes, there are always worse outcomes, but for £50bn+ a year the RN should be able to afford the for mentioned 3 LSV and 6 MRSS, not counting RB1.
3 LSV= less than £300m
6 MRSS= £2-3bn

not that expensive.
That made me chuckle - I wish I had your optimism but reality and history proves that money is not as plentiful as you wish.
2) LSV is budgeted fully, and no, unlike you have said, there have been no LSV cuts from X to 3, because before there was no MCMV replacement.
Four LSVs were in the equipment plan - https://researchbriefings.files.parliam ... P-9697.pdf
3) So funds went on the T26 problems, not T31
Wrong - the T31 has been purchased to replace the B2s as forward based vessels which will replace the B1s.
4) You have a problem against ...... the T31 boat bays??.... Seriously?
Absolutely- they a small and individual rib sized, could have had much more, but in our wisdom we decided that more capable designs weren’t a good idea.
5) If you think MROSS has been slow, then you have the memory of a hypocritical goldfish.
https://www.navylookout.com/photo-essay ... onversion/

Due in service in Summer but issues with crewing it, still a Wave got ditched in the end so good-oh
6) Anything repulse, anything, can done with fuss, especially in the MoD, least of all Amphibs.

7) So anything else than your specific model would be 'farce'.
Perhaps not everything no, but if we carry on in the same direction yes. These long expensive programmes fighting over too few funds is the slow death of the RN - time for some more modest and immediate thinking.
”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

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 4142
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

shark bait wrote: 16 Sep 2023, 17:32
Poiuytrewq wrote: 16 Sep 2023, 12:41 The Ellida Mk2 looks interesting but the foredeck is still the weak point IMO due to the access required between flight deck and the foredeck
where has this come from?
Im not sure what you are asking. The Mk1 Eillida had a passageway between foredeck and flight deck which halved the size of the hangar.

We shall have to wait and see if the same arrangement is still included in the Mk2.

The design may not have been altered at all because the original version was available in various sizes so the graphic may just be of a different variant.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 2):
new guyshark bait

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1320
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by new guy »

Repulse wrote: 16 Sep 2023, 17:33
new guy wrote: 16 Sep 2023, 16:49 1) Of course there are worse outcomes, there are always worse outcomes, but for £50bn+ a year the RN should be able to afford the for mentioned 3 LSV and 6 MRSS, not counting RB1.
3 LSV= less than £300m
6 MRSS= £2-3bn

not that expensive.
That made me chuckle - I wish I had your optimism but reality and history proves that money is not as plentiful as you wish.
2) LSV is budgeted fully, and no, unlike you have said, there have been no LSV cuts from X to 3, because before there was no MCMV replacement.
Four LSVs were in the equipment plan - https://researchbriefings.files.parliam ... P-9697.pdf
3) So funds went on the T26 problems, not T31
Wrong - the T31 has been purchased to replace the B2s as forward based vessels which will replace the B1s.
4) You have a problem against ...... the T31 boat bays??.... Seriously?
Absolutely- they a small and individual rib sized, could have had much more, but in our wisdom we decided that more capable designs weren’t a good idea.
5) If you think MROSS has been slow, then you have the memory of a hypocritical goldfish.
https://www.navylookout.com/photo-essay ... onversion/

Due in service in Summer but issues with crewing it, still a Wave got ditched in the end so good-oh
6) Anything repulse, anything, can done with fuss, especially in the MoD, least of all Amphibs.

7) So anything else than your specific model would be 'farce'.
Perhaps not everything no, but if we carry on in the same direction yes. These long expensive programmes fighting over too few funds is the slow death of the RN - time for some more modest and immediate thinking.
1) Explain to me how my budgeting is unrealistic.

2) 3 LSV's are budgeted as far as we know, nothing is known and thus nothing can be said about the 4th.

3) T31's (Originally T26) is to replace the T23GP's.

4) AH140 was best for T31, it's not like the other proposals where better in terms of boat bays let alone design overrall, and even BAE T26 MMB has a few flaws.

5) I refer MROSS relative to the delay of other programmes.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4776
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

new guy wrote: 16 Sep 2023, 20:09 1) Explain to me how my budgeting is unrealistic.
How long did it take for the RN to get the funds together for the FSS which was half of what you are quoting? There is no magical project that is going to end - quite the opposite inflation and projects starting will push it out (at best).
2) 3 LSV's are budgeted as far as we know, nothing is known and thus nothing can be said about the 4th.
I have no doubt some budget is in the plan, is it sufficient to buy ships that will be fit for purpose who knows, but that wasn’t my point - my point was that fewer more capable / multi-role ships would be more likely to happen in terms of both purchasing and crewing.
3) T31's (Originally T26) is to replace the T23GP's.
It’s not about what they replaced, it’s about what they are going to do - if you believe the hype they will be forward based replacing a number of the B2 Rivers to replace the B1s. The T23 GPs aren’t doing this today, and it’s questionable whether it’s a priority.
4) AH140 was best for T31, it's not like the other proposals where better in terms of boat bays let alone design overrall, and even BAE T26 MMB has a few flaws.
I beg to differ - however even then it is a really poor design to handle unmanned vessels. The T26 mission bay is far superior in every aspect.
5) I refer MROSS relative to the delay of other programmes.
For a ship they bought, painted grey and add some secured comms, it’s taken 9 months hardly aspiring - what is of real concern is the lack of crew, this will increase per vessel as these additional unrealistic demands are asked of the RFA.
”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

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 660
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Dahedd »

Tempest414 wrote: 16 Sep 2023, 10:05

First thing I would say is more ships more crew the next thing would be group scalability for me a third flattop would allow 2 to be available at all times I am thinking Ocean 2 210 x 40 meters with a steel beech plus a rear lift the same size and make as on the QE class to allow unfolded Chinook's to be carried


This I feel is a must. Buy something off the shelf (Canberra class or better still the Italian navy Trieste ❤️) and run with it. Ski ramp for limited F35b ops but far more chopper centric. Also brings back the rule of 3.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian ... ck_Trieste

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1158
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Dahedd wrote: 17 Sep 2023, 23:19
Tempest414 wrote: 16 Sep 2023, 10:05

First thing I would say is more ships more crew the next thing would be group scalability for me a third flattop would allow 2 to be available at all times I am thinking Ocean 2 210 x 40 meters with a steel beech plus a rear lift the same size and make as on the QE class to allow unfolded Chinook's to be carried


This I feel is a must. Buy something off the shelf (Canberra class or better still the Italian navy Trieste ❤️) and run with it. Ski ramp for limited F35b ops but far more chopper centric. Also brings back the rule of 3.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian ... ck_Trieste
Trieste at 38,000t and EUR 1.17bn is definitely WAY too big and expensive for what RN can hope for, and even Canberra is probably too big and expensive too. I tink you are going to hav to depress your expectations else you will end up disapointed with what the RN or even the Dutch go for.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 4142
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 18 Sep 2023, 00:18 Trieste at 38,000t and EUR 1.17bn is definitely WAY too big and expensive for what RN can hope for, and even Canberra is probably too big and expensive too. I tink you are going to hav to depress your expectations else you will end up disapointed with what the RN or even the Dutch go for.
Not necessarily.

IMO the Amphibious replacement programme should be a 10yr, £2.5bn or ideally £3bn project. Perfectly proportionate and affordable.

From HMT’s point of view it matters little what these ships are, just as long as they slot nicely into the in-year framework although crew allocations, operating and maintenance costs plus hull service life timeframes are also considerations.

If RN truly believes that going forward, no serious Amphibious Assault will be launched without a CSG attending then the third flattop idea becomes plausible. Possibly vital.

Make no mistake, the Amphib replacement programme is RN’s last chance to get the 3rd flattop for a generation.

RN may decide that one large F35 capable 40,000t LHD costing £1.5bn plus 3x £400m MRSS is the preferred option. This gives RN the much vaunted 3rd flattop and increased strength in depth. Effectively this would be an equivalent of a USN Wasp class. A tempting prospect as if only one global CSG is possible every two years a global ARG with a RM MEU could fill in on alternate years. A clear rationale if the numbers can be made to work.

Conversely RN may decide that two LHDs are required and the budget is stretched to £3bn. This could procure 2x 30,000t LHDs costing £1bn each, slightly smaller than Trieste but still highly effective if loaded with MALE maritime drones and helos. The LHDs could be augmented with 3x simplified £350m MRSS.

Current planning suggests 6x 200m MRSS for roughly £2.4bn. It’s difficult to see the rationale behind such a proposal apart from its usefulness as a placeholder until RN can decide which direction to take.

The big question is, which is the most strategically significant for RN?

- A disaggregated group of 6x MRSS

- A single but highly capable 40,000t LHD with a full RM MEU including F35.

- A twin LRG comprised of MALE maritime drones and helos

Long before choosing individual platforms RN needs to answer this question.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5660
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

One could argue that if the RN is going all in on CEPP then a 3rd flattop in the 230 by 40 meter range is a must as we would need one in full strike mode and a second in LHA so 3 flattops are needed to maintain 2 ready anything else would be a bodge

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 4142
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote: 18 Sep 2023, 16:42 One could argue that if the RN is going all in on CEPP then a 3rd flattop in the 230 by 40 meter range is a must as we would need one in full strike mode and a second in LHA so 3 flattops are needed to maintain 2 ready anything else would be a bodge
Thats the decision that needs taken.

Compared with 6x Ellida type MRSS it could actually be a cheaper option depending on the enablers required.

If the FSS/Tides can slot into a UK ARG how would that change the configuration and cost of the MRSS?

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5804
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

If that’s the course of direction that the RN wants to down the. It gets out of the amphibious capability altogether and stops wasting money and resources on half ass’d ideas to keep up pretence. It’s made it’s bed….

Spend the mrss budget on something else.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
Repulse

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2007
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

For me while I’d love to see 1 or 2 F35 Male drone capable LHDs I can’t see getting them plus the needed support ships for the £3bn odd budget, I’d also worry the political risk to the QEs then.

So what I’d do is go for 2 Karel Doorman MRS at £500m each, these would help build up our RAS support since the Tides and SSS will be tide to the CSG.
I’d then go for 4 kind of LPD LSD hybrid, something along the lines of -

- 200m - 210m by 28m - 30m
- 2 LCU well dock
- 700 lane metre vehicle deck
- 70m flight deck ( good for 2 merlin, 1chinook plus 1 Merlin or 2 chinooks at a squeeze )
- 30m by full width hanger ( for 4 merlin, 2 chinook blades folded )
- 35m by full width reinforced work deck with 2 50t cranes ( could hold 40+ 20ft ISOs )
- 2 enclosed diverdens either side for 4 LCVPs / CB90s
- 400 troop capacity
- 230 odd crew compliment
- build standard between that of the Albions and Bays
- fit out with 2 40mm with LLM and 2 x phalanx / SeaRam mounts
- 2 fitted with C&C

I think these could be done for £500m each and would give us a great flexibility and capacity for each LSG and could come together to form and formidable ARG.
These 6 would replace the Albions, Bay, Waves and Argus, the only thing that would need replacing else where is Argus’s med set up, but I think this could be done by HMG but 2 Hospital/HADR ships via the aid budget.
These users liked the author Jake1992 for the post (total 2):
new guyjedibeeftrix

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6431
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

Tempest414 wrote: 18 Sep 2023, 16:42 One could argue that if the RN is going all in on CEPP then a 3rd flattop in the 230 by 40 meter range is a must as we would need one in full strike mode and a second in LHA so 3 flattops are needed to maintain 2 ready anything else would be a bodge
I think this argument does make sense, and should be the long term best case objective for a Navy that received additional funds.

Perusing this right now has big consequences, it's giving up any ability to move equipment from ship to shore without permanent infrastructure, and it relegates the Royal Marines to a maritime security force with a small air mobile infantry unit. None of this is necessarily a bad thing, it's just a big and hard to reverse decision.

The Royal Navy would gain a high quality, but small helicopter assault force, and see the traditional Royal Marines dissolve. Is that a good trade off?
These users liked the author shark bait for the post:
jedibeeftrix
@LandSharkUK

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 4142
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

shark bait wrote: 19 Sep 2023, 10:15 …it's giving up any ability to move equipment from ship to shore without permanent infrastructure, and it relegates the Royal Marines to a maritime security force with a small air mobile infantry unit.
Completely disagree here. Not sure how you came to this conclusion?

If RN is intending to use the second CVF as an LHA for the FCF how does that relegate the RM to a small air mobile infantry unit? Likewise if RN decides to build a single LHA to replace the Albions how does that reduce the scale or effectiveness of anything?

Even with what is in the water today, a CVF, Albion, Bay and Tide/Wave would be a pretty effective ARG with a meaningful UK MEU. Certainly not a small air mobile infantry unit.

If this capability is now deemed unneeded then clearly no one has informed USMC.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 2):
mrclark303new guy

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5660
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

shark bait wrote: 19 Sep 2023, 10:15
Tempest414 wrote: 18 Sep 2023, 16:42 One could argue that if the RN is going all in on CEPP then a 3rd flattop in the 230 by 40 meter range is a must as we would need one in full strike mode and a second in LHA so 3 flattops are needed to maintain 2 ready anything else would be a bodge
I think this argument does make sense, and should be the long term best case objective for a Navy that received additional funds.

Perusing this right now has big consequences, it's giving up any ability to move equipment from ship to shore without permanent infrastructure, and it relegates the Royal Marines to a maritime security force with a small air mobile infantry unit. None of this is necessarily a bad thing, it's just a big and hard to reverse decision.

The Royal Navy would gain a high quality, but small helicopter assault force, and see the traditional Royal Marines dissolve. Is that a good trade off?
Maybe but I think we can keep the RM as a Battalion battle group by having the 8 x LSU's of 250 troop able to work alone or as a BBG with 5 coming together with all the enablers. If this ends up being the way forward then what we need is the third flattop and 4 large MRSS this allows 2 flattops available and 3 MRSS at all times for me the 3rd Flattop should be 230 by 40 meters with maximum flight deck space with a lift capable of taking an unfolded Chinook plus have steel beech it should be capable of operating all type of UK helicopters plus MALE drones so maybe a cat would be useful it should be able to carry 600 troops i.e 2 x 250 troop LSU plus extra enablers at no time should F-35 be looked at in terms of operations and only in the ability to ferry.

The MRSS's should be 190 by 30 meters with a full width T hangar able to take 4 Merlin's 3 across and 1 in the fully equipped maintenance bay they should have a well dock for 2 Caiman-90 FLC plus Davits for the new CIC and carry up to 350 troops and 600 in overload these will be the day to day workhorses with 2 deployed each with a high readiness LSU

The last part of the jigsaw if the Point class replacements for me we should be looking at 4 x Baltic Enabler class ships at 242 by 35 meters these ships could move an Mech army brigade in one go

What all this allows is for a fully enabled RM BBG to operate from OTH to open the door for a Army Mech brigade

We need to look at this in a purple way as a island nation we need to be able to move and land a army brigade
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post (total 2):
mrclark303Poiuytrewq

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 878
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by mrclark303 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 19 Sep 2023, 12:05
shark bait wrote: 19 Sep 2023, 10:15 …it's giving up any ability to move equipment from ship to shore without permanent infrastructure, and it relegates the Royal Marines to a maritime security force with a small air mobile infantry unit.
Completely disagree here. Not sure how you came to this conclusion?

If RN is intending to use the second CVF as an LHA for the FCF how does that relegate the RM to a small air mobile infantry unit? Likewise if RN decides to build a single LHA to replace the Albions how does that reduce the scale or effectiveness of anything?

Even with what is in the water today, a CVF, Albion, Bay and Tide/Wave would be a pretty effective ARG with a meaningful UK MEU. Certainly not a small air mobile infantry unit.

If this capability is now deemed unneeded then clearly no one has informed USMC.
I totally agree, however, despite Ukraine and Sweden, plus Finland coming into the NATO fold (making rapid re-enforcement of the Northern flank more important than ever), the government hasn't reversed its move away from Brigade operations and is hell bent on the far cheaper Commando raider concept.

I'm certainly not against the raider concept, but it should be employed alongside a robust brigade level capability, so increasing the size of of the Corps by one Commando, specialising in and equipped for Raider operations.

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 878
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by mrclark303 »

Tempest414 wrote: 19 Sep 2023, 12:44
shark bait wrote: 19 Sep 2023, 10:15
Tempest414 wrote: 18 Sep 2023, 16:42 One could argue that if the RN is going all in on CEPP then a 3rd flattop in the 230 by 40 meter range is a must as we would need one in full strike mode and a second in LHA so 3 flattops are needed to maintain 2 ready anything else would be a bodge
I think this argument does make sense, and should be the long term best case objective for a Navy that received additional funds.

Perusing this right now has big consequences, it's giving up any ability to move equipment from ship to shore without permanent infrastructure, and it relegates the Royal Marines to a maritime security force with a small air mobile infantry unit. None of this is necessarily a bad thing, it's just a big and hard to reverse decision.

The Royal Navy would gain a high quality, but small helicopter assault force, and see the traditional Royal Marines dissolve. Is that a good trade off?
Maybe but I think we can keep the RM as a Battalion battle group by having the 8 x LSU's of 250 troop able to work alone or as a BBG with 5 coming together with all the enablers. If this ends up being the way forward then what we need is the third flattop and 4 large MRSS this allows 2 flattops available and 3 MRSS at all times for me the 3rd Flattop should be 230 by 40 meters with maximum flight deck space with a lift capable of taking an unfolded Chinook plus have steel beech it should be capable of operating all type of UK helicopters plus MALE drones so maybe a cat would be useful it should be able to carry 600 troops i.e 2 x 250 troop LSU plus extra enablers at no time should F-35 be looked at in terms of operations and only in the ability to ferry.

The MRSS's should be 190 by 30 meters with a full width T hangar able to take 4 Merlin's 3 across and 1 in the fully equipped maintenance bay they should have a well dock for 2 Caiman-90 FLC plus Davits for the new CIC and carry up to 350 troops and 600 in overload these will be the day to day workhorses with 2 deployed each with a high readiness LSU

The last part of the jigsaw if the Point class replacements for me we should be looking at 4 x Baltic Enabler class ships at 242 by 35 meters these ships could move an Mech army brigade in one go

What all this allows is for a fully enabled RM BBG to operate from OTH to open the door for a Army Mech brigade

We need to look at this in a purple way as a island nation we need to be able to move and land a army brigade
All makes perfect sense, but unfortunately decades of incompetence in procument and general defence policy means the inevitable continued contraction in force structure will just carry on.

They try and make the whole mess fit the budget and as a result in this case, means an ever increasing dilution of RM capabilities.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 4142
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

mrclark303 wrote: 19 Sep 2023, 12:47 …it should be employed alongside a robust brigade level capability, so increasing the size of of the Corps by one Commando, specialising in and equipped for Raider operations.
Exactly. The reduction in the size of the Army would have been easier to justify if something like this had of been implemented.

However, I think the plan was always to ensure that the raiding force could always be scaled back up if required.

Something like this,

- LRG(N) and LRG(S) operating independently
- Both LRG combined = Littoral Strike Group
- LSG plus CSG = Expeditionary Strike Force

The devils in the detail but it’s still a very credible force structure. Against insurgents and terrorists a permanent ARG has little rationale. Against peer and near-peer opponents the ARG is a highly valuable capability.

Shows the importance of flexibility and adaptability going forward as the security picture can change rapidly without notice.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 2):
jedibeeftrixmrclark303

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6431
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

Tempest414 wrote: 19 Sep 2023, 12:44 we need is the third flattop and 4 large MRSS
Poiuytrewq wrote: 19 Sep 2023, 12:05 If RN decides to build a single LHA to replace the Albions how does that reduce the scale or effectiveness of anything?
The Navy will not get a new large flat top and new LPDs. They could make the argument for either, both options could work, but the chance of getting both in service are close to zero.
  • With the LHA option the Marines are a light airmobile force.
  • With the LPD option the Marines are medium amphibious force
Either is a reasonable approach.
These users liked the author shark bait for the post:
jedibeeftrix
@LandSharkUK

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4776
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

shark bait wrote: 19 Sep 2023, 13:20
Tempest414 wrote: 19 Sep 2023, 12:44 we need is the third flattop and 4 large MRSS
Poiuytrewq wrote: 19 Sep 2023, 12:05 If RN decides to build a single LHA to replace the Albions how does that reduce the scale or effectiveness of anything?
The Navy will not get a new large flat top and new LPDs. They could make the argument for either, both options could work, but the chance of getting both in service are close to zero.
  • With the LHA option the Marines are a light airmobile force.
  • With the LPD option the Marines are medium amphibious force
Either is a reasonable approach.
Agree that you cannot have both - but IMO having the assets to be able to operate LPDs close to shore safely with the necessary cover against a peer or near-peer nation is also unaffordable.
”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