Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Pte. James Frazer
Member
Posts: 56
Joined: 13 Nov 2023, 20:12

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Pte. James Frazer »

SW1 wrote:
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.
That's correct.

Obvious from the Supacat HMT600 spec pdf posted earlier, which shows:

Kerb weight (with fuel and armour) 6600kg
Gross Vehicle Weight: 10500kg
Payload e.g. L119 105mm (note L119 is shown, which is not in general UK service we field L118), 120mm mortar or Brimstone overwatch module, of up to 3900kg.

10500kg full load is on the limit for Chinook however.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk


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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote: 01 Apr 2024, 10:44 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
We do, and it’s an amazing effective and simple piece of kit, which can be carried and operated from the Point Class themselves. Again ThinkDefence has a great overview - https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2024/03/ ... mexeflote/. I’m amazed they were used out to sea to transfer kit between ships.

I guess where it’s lacking is the ability to “fix in place” and ensuring it can withstand a reasonable sea state / level of weather is the key bit for it to be useable for anything beyond small loads. This is where some additional modules could be added.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
wargame_insomniac
”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

Pte. James Frazer
Member
Posts: 56
Joined: 13 Nov 2023, 20:12

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Pte. James Frazer »

Pte. James Frazer wrote:
SW1 wrote:
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.
That's correct.

Obvious from the Supacat HMT600 spec pdf posted earlier, which shows:

Kerb weight (with fuel and armour) 6600kg
Gross Vehicle Weight: 10500kg
Payload e.g. L119 105mm (note L119 is shown, which is not in general UK service we field L118), 120mm mortar or Brimstone overwatch module, of up to 3900kg.

10500kg full load is on the limit for Chinook however.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk
Actually just found this (think newish) pdf of the HMT600 105mm concept. Saying GVM of up to 12000kg vs 10500kg previously with gun and soft mount at 1250kg

https://supacat.com/wp-content/uploads/ ... t-2022.pdf

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

These users liked the author Pte. James Frazer for the post (total 3):
Tempest414jedibeeftrixSW1

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Interesting concept.

https://www.stellersystems.co.uk/news/s ... ale-craft/

19m is an interesting size, suggesting 6x would fit in Albions well dock.

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: 02 Apr 2024, 11:24 Interesting concept.

https://www.stellersystems.co.uk/news/s ... ale-craft/

19m is an interesting size, suggesting 6x would fit in Albions well dock.
Rules out using a Type 26 mission bay

we need to remember that CIC needs to improve on LCVP mk-5 which can do 24 knts fully loaded and has range of 210 nm can carry 38 troops or 2 x landrovers or 1 x Viking so right now today the RM could deloy a 12 man team with 4 x MRZR over the beech from 100 km's out using 2 x LCVP Mk-5's or 2 x 12 man teams plus 2 x Vikings with 2 x LCVP Mk-5's
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
Poiuytrewq

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Maybe the RM could do with some CAMM capable Vikings

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BvS_10#/m ... -T_SLS.png

Online
Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7304
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Tempest414 wrote: 02 Apr 2024, 14:15 Maybe the RM could do with some CAMM capable Vikings

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BvS_10#/m ... -T_SLS.png
*ASRAAM capable

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: 02 Apr 2024, 14:15 Maybe the RM could do with some CAMM capable Vikings
Why RM?

It needs to be British Army now.

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: 02 Apr 2024, 16:41
Tempest414 wrote: 02 Apr 2024, 14:15 Maybe the RM could do with some CAMM capable Vikings
Why RM?

It needs to be British Army now.
OK 3 Cdo and 29 RA Cdo could do with few GBAD Vikings

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: 02 Apr 2024, 17:35 OK 3 Cdo and 29 RA Cdo could do with few GBAD Vikings
No argument.

My point is: If the Army is concentrating of the JEF region and leaving the large land armies to continental Europe, how many Vikings will the British Army need?

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 02 Apr 2024, 21:34
Tempest414 wrote: 02 Apr 2024, 17:35 OK 3 Cdo and 29 RA Cdo could do with few GBAD Vikings
No argument.

My point is: If the Army is concentrating of the JEF region and leaving the large land armies to continental Europe, how many Vikings will the British Army need?
5 of the JEF nations are in continental Europe.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

SW1 wrote: 02 Apr 2024, 22:14
Poiuytrewq wrote: 02 Apr 2024, 21:34
Tempest414 wrote: 02 Apr 2024, 17:35 OK 3 Cdo and 29 RA Cdo could do with few GBAD Vikings
No argument.

My point is: If the Army is concentrating of the JEF region and leaving the large land armies to continental Europe, how many Vikings will the British Army need?
5 of the JEF nations are in continental Europe.
I know but deploying Battlegroups to Denmark and the Netherlands would be pointless and securing the Baltics is a problem primarily for continental Europe. A couple of token UK battlegroups will achieve little.

Helping to secure the Nordics, the Baltic and in particular southern Finland and Gotland would be a huge contribution by the U.K.

If that is going to be the primary focus of the British Army going forward then it’s currently poorly equipped for the task.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1506
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 02 Apr 2024, 22:53
SW1 wrote: 02 Apr 2024, 22:14
Poiuytrewq wrote: 02 Apr 2024, 21:34
Tempest414 wrote: 02 Apr 2024, 17:35 OK 3 Cdo and 29 RA Cdo could do with few GBAD Vikings
No argument.

My point is: If the Army is concentrating of the JEF region and leaving the large land armies to continental Europe, how many Vikings will the British Army need?
5 of the JEF nations are in continental Europe.
I know but deploying Battlegroups to Denmark and the Netherlands would be pointless and securing the Baltics is a problem primarily for continental Europe. A couple of token UK battlegroups will achieve little.

Helping to secure the Nordics, the Baltic and in particular southern Finland and Gotland would be a huge contribution by the U.K.

If that is going to be the primary focus of the British Army going forward then it’s currently poorly equipped for the task.
So by putting our small contribution into a smaller battlefield it makes it look bigger?

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 02 Apr 2024, 22:53
SW1 wrote: 02 Apr 2024, 22:14
Poiuytrewq wrote: 02 Apr 2024, 21:34
Tempest414 wrote: 02 Apr 2024, 17:35 OK 3 Cdo and 29 RA Cdo could do with few GBAD Vikings
No argument.

My point is: If the Army is concentrating of the JEF region and leaving the large land armies to continental Europe, how many Vikings will the British Army need?
5 of the JEF nations are in continental Europe.
I know but deploying Battlegroups to Denmark and the Netherlands would be pointless and securing the Baltics is a problem primarily for continental Europe. A couple of token UK battlegroups will achieve little.

Helping to secure the Nordics, the Baltic and in particular southern Finland and Gotland would be a huge contribution by the U.K.

If that is going to be the primary focus of the British Army going forward then it’s currently poorly equipped for the task.
So not the JEF region after all just the bits that best suit the narrative.

It’s about being there and being seen to be there so as to show resolve and Russia knows the consequences. The uk should be bringing the specialist capability to the JEF that the Americans bring to NATO on a bigger scale. The ones I’ve mentioned before c4i, logs, ISR, sf ect.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
Repulse

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

tomuk wrote: 02 Apr 2024, 22:55 So by putting or small contribution into a smaller battlefield it makes it look bigger?
You will have to explain the relevance of whatever that means before I can respond.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1506
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 02 Apr 2024, 23:12
tomuk wrote: 02 Apr 2024, 22:55 So by putting or small contribution into a smaller battlefield it makes it look bigger?
You will have to explain the relevance of whatever that means before I can respond.
You dismiss a UK contribution to the 'continental land war' as pointless and a mere token but big up a similar contribution to the Nordics as as huge.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

tomuk wrote: 02 Apr 2024, 23:15 You dismiss a UK contribution to the 'continental land war' as pointless and a mere token but big up a similar contribution to the Nordics as as huge.
A couple of U.K. Battlegroups in the Baltics would be irrelevant apart from boosting morale. It’s a token gesture.

The question of securing the Baltics is far from straightforward and the mass to do so must come from continental Europe. The U.K. doesn’t have the mass required and even if we did it wouldn’t be forward deployed to the Baltics.

If the Nordics aren’t secured then the Baltics are massively vulnerable. Helping secure Finland, Sweden and Norway would be a huge contribution from the U.K. before helping to reverse any incursions in the Baltics.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

SW1 wrote: 02 Apr 2024, 23:04 So not the JEF region after all just the bits that best suit the narrative.
Not at all. It’s the entire JEF area.

In the same way that UK Battlegroups in Denmark and the Netherlands would be pointless is a single UK Battlegroup in Estonia going to move the dial?

Deploying 2 or 3 rapid reaction Brigades to stall any incursions would be a massive contribution by the U.K. If other NATO countries added the same it’s unlikely any incursion would get too far before the Armoured and Mechanised Divisions started to show up are re-establish control over NATO territory.

Securing the Baltic and the Nordics to allow the massed continental land forces to sweep through Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia would be a huge contribution from the U.K.

Unfortunately the British Army is currently pretty poorly equipped to perform such a contribution.

It’s about being there and being seen to be there so as to show resolve and Russia knows the consequences. The uk should be bringing the specialist capability to the JEF that the Americans bring to NATO on a bigger scale. The ones I’ve mentioned before c4i, logs, ISR, sf ect.
That’s great but what about the rest of the Army?

A few niche capabilities may be important to oil the wheels of the NATO machine but it’s not enough in isolation.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

I personally cannot see anything beyond a “trip wire” Army Battlegroup being of sense to deploy to Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia when it comes to traditional units. Russia will not invade until it feels it has an overwhelming majority, which means that these countries will be captured or cut off in days, if not hours. Linking it back to this thread, perhaps (half jokingly) the evacuation of the BBEF (Baltic British Expeditionary Force) is the future reason of the amphibious force, but that I think we all agree makes no sense. The British Army as we know it would be broken in a week also.

That doesn’t mean the UK cannot stand and significantly contribute to the protection of those countries, it just needs to do it in a smarter way.

Edit: have thought that Gotland (if Sweden would allow it) would make a good site for a significant JEF manned / UAV airbase with long ranged artillery and missiles, along with a Para/RM/SFs base.
”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

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 02 Apr 2024, 23:51
SW1 wrote: 02 Apr 2024, 23:04 So not the JEF region after all just the bits that best suit the narrative.
Not at all. It’s the entire JEF area.

In the same way that UK Battlegroups in Denmark and the Netherlands would be pointless is a single UK Battlegroup in Estonia going to move the dial?

Deploying 2 or 3 rapid reaction Brigades to stall any incursions would be a massive contribution by the U.K. If other NATO countries added the same it’s unlikely any incursion would get too far before the Armoured and Mechanised Divisions started to show up are re-establish control over NATO territory.

Securing the Baltic and the Nordics to allow the massed continental land forces to sweep through Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia would be a huge contribution from the U.K.

Unfortunately the British Army is currently pretty poorly equipped to perform such a contribution.

It’s about being there and being seen to be there so as to show resolve and Russia knows the consequences. The uk should be bringing the specialist capability to the JEF that the Americans bring to NATO on a bigger scale. The ones I’ve mentioned before c4i, logs, ISR, sf ect.
That’s great but what about the rest of the Army?

A few niche capabilities may be important to oil the wheels of the NATO machine but it’s not enough in isolation.
It’s not about moving a dial it’s about being there. The scary thing for the Baltic states is that little bits of their country will be taken at a time and the western nations won’t care enough to challenge because of were it leads.

If there is say 2000 uk soldiers on Estonias border and they are killed by a Russian attack the reckoning is that would cause a full response and they know Russia knows that too.


It isn’t a few niche areas they are critical areas that make operations work. There maybe 3 or 4 combat brigades but only 1 needs to be British. If you have the division hq, divisional logs and strategic transport and the theatre level ISR ect.

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1144
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 02 Apr 2024, 22:53
SW1 wrote: 02 Apr 2024, 22:14
Poiuytrewq wrote: 02 Apr 2024, 21:34
Tempest414 wrote: 02 Apr 2024, 17:35 OK 3 Cdo and 29 RA Cdo could do with few GBAD Vikings
No argument.

My point is: If the Army is concentrating of the JEF region and leaving the large land armies to continental Europe, how many Vikings will the British Army need?
5 of the JEF nations are in continental Europe.
I know but deploying Battlegroups to Denmark and the Netherlands would be pointless and securing the Baltics is a problem primarily for continental Europe. A couple of token UK battlegroups will achieve little.

Helping to secure the Nordics, the Baltic and in particular southern Finland and Gotland would be a huge contribution by the U.K.

If that is going to be the primary focus of the British Army going forward then it’s currently poorly equipped for the task.
But we have also accepted leadership of NATO's Enhanced Forward Presence battle group in Estonia and we have signed specific defence treaties direct with both Estonia and Poland. So the focus is spread wider and hence more thinly than just southern Finland and Gotland.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

As I have said before NATO needs to re shape its self with Norway , Sweden and Finland forming 1st & 2rd Nordic Corp's and the UK , Holland , Denmark , and the Baltic states forming 1st Baltic Corps

1st Baltic Corps could bring to battlefield 4 x Armoured brigades , 3 x Deep fires Brigades & 8 Mechanised brigades under a full effort add to this 2 x Air mobil brigades , 1 x joint UK Dutch Cdo brigade plus SF units

Its would be hard to see Russia wanting to take this on with 2 Nordic Corps and 4 Central corps on its flanks

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Repulse wrote: 03 Apr 2024, 07:52 …BBEF (Baltic British Expeditionary Force) is the future reason of the amphibious force, but that I think we all agree makes no sense.
It’s a fair question.

What should LRG(N) look like if it’s specifically designed to provide rapid transportation of troops and vehicles across the Norwegian coast/Baltic/Bothnia and provide A2/AD is the same area?

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

SW1 wrote: 03 Apr 2024, 09:31 It’s not about moving a dial it’s about being there.

If there is say 2000 uk soldiers on Estonias border and they are killed by a Russian attack the reckoning is that would cause a full response and they know Russia knows that too.
The British Army isn’t big enough anymore to knowingly sacrifice 2000 troops. The U.K. hasn’t lost numbers like that since WW2.

If that’s the plan it’s the wrong one.
It isn’t a few niche areas they are critical areas that make operations work. There maybe 3 or 4 combat brigades but only 1 needs to be British. If you have the division hq, divisional logs and strategic transport and the theatre level ISR ect.
Can the British Army manage that and secure the Nordics also? What are the huge continental land armies doing? Where are their logistics?

The British Army cannot do it all at its current size.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 03 Apr 2024, 14:42
SW1 wrote: 03 Apr 2024, 09:31 It’s not about moving a dial it’s about being there.

If there is say 2000 uk soldiers on Estonias border and they are killed by a Russian attack the reckoning is that would cause a full response and they know Russia knows that too.
The British Army isn’t big enough anymore to knowingly sacrifice 2000 troops. The U.K. hasn’t lost numbers like that since WW2.

If that’s the plan it’s the wrong one.
It isn’t a few niche areas they are critical areas that make operations work. There maybe 3 or 4 combat brigades but only 1 needs to be British. If you have the division hq, divisional logs and strategic transport and the theatre level ISR ect.
Can the British Army manage that and secure the Nordics also? What are the huge continental land armies doing? Where are their logistics?

The British Army cannot do it all at its current size.
Well the hope is that by the very nature of there fwd presence it stops any attack before it begins.


The JEF region is not the nordics it’s not either or. It’s about having forces that can be deployed quickly from the uk to any of the JEF nations be it the Baltic states or Scandinavia. Its what being the framework nation means bring all the nations together go where the need is, command the operation and support it.

We used to provide the 1st infantry brigade as the Uk mobile force to allied command Jutland!


It’s a big continent they all have there areas.

Post Reply