Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 4073
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote: 30 Mar 2024, 09:19 Both Archer and M270a2 can be moved by LCU or A400m so both could bring support…..
Do the rapid reaction Brigades need 155mm and M270?

Would HMT based 105mm Howitzer, GMLRS, Brimstone and Protector be enough? At least in the initial stages?

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5601
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 30 Mar 2024, 10:24
Tempest414 wrote: 30 Mar 2024, 09:19 Both Archer and M270a2 can be moved by LCU or A400m so both could bring support…..
Do the rapid reaction Brigades need 155mm and M270?

Would HMT based 105mm Howitzer, GMLRS, Brimstone and Protector be enough? At least in the initial stages?
The point is both can be airlifted in by A400m if needed. The fact is that L118 , 120mm and Brimstone Exactor towed by ATMP's or LMV 600's plus something like Hero 120 witch has a 65km range could be enough in the in the early stages but as said these could be backed up in the 2nd stage by Archer and M270a2 brought into the fight by A400m or LCU

sol
Member
Posts: 551
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by sol »

Tempest414 wrote: 30 Mar 2024, 09:19 Both Archer and M270a2 can be moved by LCU or A400m so both could bring support also maybe both 3 Cdo and 16AA should be looking at LMV 400/600 as a replacement to Landrover WMIK
Archer can not be moved by A400. It require C-17.
Poiuytrewq wrote: 30 Mar 2024, 10:20 Having two air mobile fast reaction Brigades (ideally with a third in reserve) would be a huge capability for Euro NATO.
And where do you expect them to be based, in UK or Europe? If you are transporting it from UK to Europe it have much more sense to use A400 or C-17 which would land somewhere near area of deployment. Nobody would use Chinooks for that as not practical not UK possess enough Chinooks to move whole brigade from UK to the East Europe.

And if they are intended for rapid deployments they can not play legos to assemble all its equipment. Again, if Paras dropped Jackal in favour of older WMIK, why do you think they would be happy to get even heavier vehicle that they can not use as soon as they land but would need to use multiple helicopters to get all parts and necessary equipment for assembling, assemble the vehicle and then use it. 7 RHA Regiment would need to use at least 36 Chinooks just to transport its guns, not to mention all ammo or other vehicles and equipment in the unit. So whole UK Chinook fleet just for one unit. And all that but they would still need to assemble all they equipment. That is nonsense.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5772
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Why can’t archer be moved by a400m?

We have already done the helicopter move within Europe from the fwd mounting positions on operations so I don’t know why it would be impractical now.


https://www.forces.net/news/seven-aircr ... bury-plain

Seven British military aircraft have completed a rare synchronised lift of seven field guns.

It involved three Chinooks and four Pumas from 7th Parachute Regiment Royal Horse Artillery and 16 Air Assault Brigade, alongside the Joint Helicopter Support Squadron.

The three Chinooks went first, collecting three field guns, while the Pumas hovered in the distance.

https://ukmamsoba.org/agricola.html

After a further night of planning and briefings and preparation we were all in our positions ready for the big outload beginning at 0530. My task was to be the ‘Beachmaster’, otherwise known as the ‘MC’ who controlled the landing zone and allocated aircraft to loads and lanes. For the planned six hours outload we would be using 8 Chinooks and 5 Pumas, the plan was for 99 lifts including 38 underslung and 1260 troops internal.

We planned and used three load lanes, forward, left and centre for Chinooks with troops and underslung loads, aft left and centre for troops only and the right hand lane for Pumas who carried troops only.

At 0530 just after dawn all aircraft were sat in the wheat field, their rotors turning. Nothing was lifting and I began to wonder what the problem was when with total surprise six Apache helicopters appeared and acted as escorts for the Chinooks and Pumas. For everyone who witnessed this it was indeed breathtaking and history in the making. The lifts continued without a break for the next two and a half hours until we had cleared the fields and holding areas, mission accomplished in less than half the time planned. The operation was justified as well as one of the tunnels was mined and it took four hours to clear. One mine was detonated by the downwash of a helicopter’s rotors but we had no casualties. 4 Brigade were through the defile within six hours and heading for Pristina.

sol
Member
Posts: 551
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by sol »

SW1 wrote: 30 Mar 2024, 19:04 Why can’t archer be moved by a400m?
To big or to heavy, not sure. Info came from one twitter post by Gabrielle Molinelli.
SW1 wrote: 30 Mar 2024, 19:04 We have already done the helicopter move within Europe from the fwd mounting positions on operations so I don’t know why it would be impractical now.
Yes, I know that Chinook, Puma and Merlin could transport L118 with no problems, but that is not what is discussed here. Poiuytrewq is suggesting that if 16AAB use Coyote with 105mm gun. It could be transported in modules, as it would be to heavy to be transported by one, which would require at least two Chinooks per single gun. Same for everything that would exceed max capacity of the Chinook.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5772
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

sol wrote: 30 Mar 2024, 19:41
SW1 wrote: 30 Mar 2024, 19:04 Why can’t archer be moved by a400m?
To big or to heavy, not sure. Info came from one twitter post by Gabrielle Molinelli.
SW1 wrote: 30 Mar 2024, 19:04 We have already done the helicopter move within Europe from the fwd mounting positions on operations so I don’t know why it would be impractical now.
Yes, I know that Chinook, Puma and Merlin could transport L118 with no problems, but that is not what is discussed here. Poiuytrewq is suggesting that if 16AAB use Coyote with 105mm gun. It could be transported in modules, as it would be to heavy to be transported by one, which would require at least two Chinooks per single gun. Same for everything that would exceed max capacity of the Chinook.
I’m not sure that’s correct on a400m

I think you want to move into long range artillery so it doesn’t need to be as far fwd as the past. If something like coyote was towing a 105mm gun I don’t see the problem.


Helicopters are really for what’s going on in the tactical level and being able to move equipment with them in that regard is no bad thing especially if we are aiming to lighten the logistics burden of such forces.

sol
Member
Posts: 551
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by sol »

SW1 wrote: 30 Mar 2024, 19:57 If something like coyote was towing a 105mm gun I don’t see the problem.
How about something like this, because, if I am not wrong this is something that he had in mind

Image

And add armoured cabin on it too.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5772
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

sol wrote: 30 Mar 2024, 20:03
SW1 wrote: 30 Mar 2024, 19:57 If something like coyote was towing a 105mm gun I don’t see the problem.
How about something like this, because, if I am not wrong this is something that he had in mind

Image

And add armoured cabin on it too.
We don’t have those but I think the max weight the hmt600 can be is 10.5 tonnes so it should be still liftable by chinook. We were developing the mlrs pod on hmt for this requirement years ago.

sol
Member
Posts: 551
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by sol »

SW1 wrote: 30 Mar 2024, 20:15 We don’t have those ...
Sometimes I really ask myself why I even bother

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5772
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

sol wrote: 30 Mar 2024, 20:32
SW1 wrote: 30 Mar 2024, 20:15 We don’t have those ...
Sometimes I really ask myself why I even bother
Fair enough. I have no idea what your point is.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5601
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

sol wrote: 30 Mar 2024, 19:41
SW1 wrote: 30 Mar 2024, 19:04 Why can’t archer be moved by a400m?
To big or to heavy, not sure. Info came from one twitter post by Gabrielle Molinelli.
SW1 wrote: 30 Mar 2024, 19:04 We have already done the helicopter move within Europe from the fwd mounting positions on operations so I don’t know why it would be impractical now.
Yes, I know that Chinook, Puma and Merlin could transport L118 with no problems, but that is not what is discussed here. Poiuytrewq is suggesting that if 16AAB use Coyote with 105mm gun. It could be transported in modules, as it would be to heavy to be transported by one, which would require at least two Chinooks per single gun. Same for everything that would exceed max capacity of the Chinook.
Its not to heavy or to long it is 15 cm to high but if needed let the tyres down it would go in :lol:

However we can still air lift in both Archer and M270 if needed

sol
Member
Posts: 551
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by sol »

SW1 wrote: 30 Mar 2024, 20:34 I have no idea what your point is.
Yes, that was obvious from your previous post.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5772
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

sol wrote: 31 Mar 2024, 10:40
SW1 wrote: 30 Mar 2024, 20:34 I have no idea what your point is.
Yes, that was obvious from your previous post.
Indeed because the vehicle you posted an image off has a gross vehicle weight limit which is less that the weight which can be lifted by chinook. So regardless of what configuration it is(gun, cab whatever) it should still be lift able by chinook.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5601
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

sol wrote: 31 Mar 2024, 10:40
SW1 wrote: 30 Mar 2024, 20:34 I have no idea what your point is.
Yes, that was obvious from your previous post.
For me the HMT-600 SP 105mm would be a great fit for the Light mech

sol
Member
Posts: 551
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by sol »

SW1 wrote: 31 Mar 2024, 11:05 Indeed because the vehicle you posted an image off has a gross vehicle weight limit which is less that the weight which can be lifted by chinook.
So you are still missing the point.
SW1 wrote: 31 Mar 2024, 11:05 So regardless of what configuration it is(gun, cab whatever) it should still be lift able by chinook.
Somehow I doubt that. Also that is a great logic there, If something is lift-able by helicopter, if you add significant more weight on it, it should still be lift-able just because....

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5601
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

sol wrote: 31 Mar 2024, 11:49
SW1 wrote: 31 Mar 2024, 11:05 Indeed because the vehicle you posted an image off has a gross vehicle weight limit which is less that the weight which can be lifted by chinook.
So you are still missing the point.
SW1 wrote: 31 Mar 2024, 11:05 So regardless of what configuration it is(gun, cab whatever) it should still be lift able by chinook.
Somehow I doubt that. Also that is a great logic there, If something is lift-able by helicopter, if you add significant more weight on it, it should still be lift-able just because....
So my understanding is that Coyote is 10500 kg right on the limit for Chinook and it can carry 1.5 tons of kit making it 12 ton witch is over the limit for Chinook

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5772
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

sol wrote: 31 Mar 2024, 11:49
SW1 wrote: 31 Mar 2024, 11:05 Indeed because the vehicle you posted an image off has a gross vehicle weight limit which is less that the weight which can be lifted by chinook.
So you are still missing the point.
SW1 wrote: 31 Mar 2024, 11:05 So regardless of what configuration it is(gun, cab whatever) it should still be lift able by chinook.
Somehow I doubt that. Also that is a great logic there, If something is lift-able by helicopter, if you add significant more weight on it, it should still be lift-able just because....
Well then enlighten me what is your point


The hmt with a mlrs pod and cab was just under 9 tonnes.


SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5772
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Tempest414 wrote: 31 Mar 2024, 12:09
sol wrote: 31 Mar 2024, 11:49
SW1 wrote: 31 Mar 2024, 11:05 Indeed because the vehicle you posted an image off has a gross vehicle weight limit which is less that the weight which can be lifted by chinook.
So you are still missing the point.
SW1 wrote: 31 Mar 2024, 11:05 So regardless of what configuration it is(gun, cab whatever) it should still be lift able by chinook.
Somehow I doubt that. Also that is a great logic there, If something is lift-able by helicopter, if you add significant more weight on it, it should still be lift-able just because....
So my understanding is that Coyote is 10500 kg right on the limit for Chinook and it can carry 1.5 tons of kit making it 12 ton witch is over the limit for Chinook
You take the payload off the gross vehicle weight you don’t add it on. Kerb weight plus payload gives you the gross vehicle weight ie the not to exceed weight.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5601
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote: 31 Mar 2024, 12:28
Tempest414 wrote: 31 Mar 2024, 12:09
sol wrote: 31 Mar 2024, 11:49
SW1 wrote: 31 Mar 2024, 11:05 Indeed because the vehicle you posted an image off has a gross vehicle weight limit which is less that the weight which can be lifted by chinook.
So you are still missing the point.
SW1 wrote: 31 Mar 2024, 11:05 So regardless of what configuration it is(gun, cab whatever) it should still be lift able by chinook.
Somehow I doubt that. Also that is a great logic there, If something is lift-able by helicopter, if you add significant more weight on it, it should still be lift-able just because....
So my understanding is that Coyote is 10500 kg right on the limit for Chinook and it can carry 1.5 tons of kit making it 12 ton witch is over the limit for Chinook
You take the payload off the gross vehicle weight you don’t add it on. Kerb weight plus payload gives you the gross vehicle weight ie the not to exceed weight.
Can you show me where it has said that HMT-600 has a max weight of 10,500kg all I can find is talk of 10,500kg's and 1.5 ton's of payload

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5772
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Tempest414 wrote: 31 Mar 2024, 12:43
SW1 wrote: 31 Mar 2024, 12:28
Tempest414 wrote: 31 Mar 2024, 12:09
sol wrote: 31 Mar 2024, 11:49
SW1 wrote: 31 Mar 2024, 11:05 Indeed because the vehicle you posted an image off has a gross vehicle weight limit which is less that the weight which can be lifted by chinook.
So you are still missing the point.
SW1 wrote: 31 Mar 2024, 11:05 So regardless of what configuration it is(gun, cab whatever) it should still be lift able by chinook.
Somehow I doubt that. Also that is a great logic there, If something is lift-able by helicopter, if you add significant more weight on it, it should still be lift-able just because....
So my understanding is that Coyote is 10500 kg right on the limit for Chinook and it can carry 1.5 tons of kit making it 12 ton witch is over the limit for Chinook
You take the payload off the gross vehicle weight you don’t add it on. Kerb weight plus payload gives you the gross vehicle weight ie the not to exceed weight.
Can you show me where it has said that HMT-600 has a max weight of 10,500kg all I can find is talk of 10,500kg's and 1.5 ton's of payload
Yeah the supacat website

https://supacat.com/wp-content/uploads/ ... -small.pdf

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5601
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Great that settles it then HMT 600 even with brimstone or 105mm can be lifted by a Chinook
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post (total 2):
jedibeeftrixnew guy

Online
Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7300
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Tempest414 wrote: 31 Mar 2024, 13:59 Great that settles it then HMT 600 even with brimstone or 105mm can be lifted by a Chinook
Probably why its been seen towing the light gun. Well, I think that's a Coyote. Bit far away to be sure.

Oops no, they are Jackals :cry:

Image

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 4073
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

sol wrote: 30 Mar 2024, 18:31 And where do you expect them to be based, in UK or Europe?
Depends. The rapid reaction Brigades will be one of the UK’s biggest contributions to global security so just concentrating on Euro NATO isn’t enough.

• 16AAB should be UK based but focused on Euro NATO, primarily in the JEF region.

• 3 Cdo should be based in the U.K. with two modest LRGs operating in the JEF region and EoS. A UK based ARG to support the LRGs or deploy independently should be permanently available.

• A Gurkha Brigade should be re-established and forward deployed across the globe to rapidly support the Rangers if required.

16AAB and 3Cdo would be the UKs primary rapid reaction forces with the Gurkha Brigade as a reserve.
If you are transporting it from UK to Europe it have much more sense to use A400 or C-17 which would land somewhere near area of deployment. Nobody would use Chinooks for that as not practical not UK possess enough Chinooks to move whole brigade from UK to the East Europe.
Absolutely, the rapid expeditionary Brigades should be both air transportable and air mobile. If 155mm and M270 is required then that’s fine, move with A400m/C17 and then transport to where required but the primary fire support of 105mm Howitzer, 120mm Mortar, GMLRS and Brimstone etc should be air mobile.
And if they are intended for rapid deployments they can not play legos to assemble all its equipment. Again, if Paras dropped Jackal in favour of older WMIK, why do you think they would be happy to get even heavier vehicle that they can not use as soon as they land but would need to use multiple helicopters to get all parts and necessary equipment for assembling, assemble the vehicle and then use it.
Why and where did the Paras prefer WMIK? Would that decision still hold in the boggy forests of Finland or above Arctic circle in Norway?

If 16AAB is going to operate in the JEF on a much more regular basis how relevant are vehicles like WMIK? Would a vehicle with ballistic protection, heated interior and modest amphibious capability be a better option?

Can a rapid reaction force that primarily operates in Arctic and Sub Arctic still be a coherent global rapid reaction force simultaneously?

These are urgent considerations for the Army now.
7 RHA Regiment would need to use at least 36 Chinooks just to transport its guns, not to mention all ammo or other vehicles and equipment in the unit. So whole UK Chinook fleet just for one unit. And all that but they would still need to assemble all the equipment. That is nonsense.
I completely agree with you. The UK needs more Chinooks.

If 16AAB are attempting to stall a single or multiple incursions both the blocking forces and the fire support will need to be extremely nimble. Finland for example is a mixture of mountains, forests, lakes and bogs.
IMG_1562.jpeg
Without an air mobile capability as well as vehicles with low ground pressure and amphibious capabilities the risk of being overrun and encircled is huge.

Finland is clearly nothing like Iraq or Afghanistan and concentrating on the JEF region will require major investment in the kit needed to enable the Army to achieve what is now required.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
wargame_insomniac

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4699
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

With all the reporting on Gaza, I’ve been reading about the US Expeditionary Elevated Causeway (ELCAS) capability. There’s a lot of information over at ThinkDefence.

Seems to be too expensive both in terms of cost and supporting troop requirements for the UK, but it does feel a capability that the UK should have to a degree, through a joint RM / Army formation. This should range from repairing / extending existing port infrastructure but also a degree of building from scratch (but not as grand as the US - more ability to off load the Point Class). This would be useful for not only for a level of logistics/entry in a low threat landing ground but also HADR operations. Before, everyone gets excited it would not be in an active war zone nor to open a beach head thousands of miles from a friendly port.
”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

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5601
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote: 01 Apr 2024, 09:47 With all the reporting on Gaza, I’ve been reading about the US Expeditionary Elevated Causeway (ELCAS) capability. There’s a lot of information over at ThinkDefence.

Seems to be too expensive both in terms of cost and supporting troop requirements for the UK, but it does feel a capability that the UK should have to a degree, through a joint RM / Army formation. This should range from repairing / extending existing port infrastructure but also a degree of building from scratch (but not as grand as the US - more ability to off load the Point Class). This would be useful for not only for a level of logistics/entry in a low threat landing ground but also HADR operations. Before, everyone gets excited it would not be in an active war zone nor to open a beach head thousands of miles from a friendly port.
What we have is Mexeflote if we put 2 x Maxi- Mexeflotes together we get a 80 x 12 meters Causeway capable of taking 180 tons we have 50 Mexeflotes of different sizes what we need is away of fixing up to 3 Maxi-Mexeflotes together and fixing them in place so a Point class can unload

Post Reply