Future RN Amphibious Shipping

[Aethulwulf]

There has been much talk about the need to replace the current LCU with faster ship to shore connectors; a prototype PASCAT was tested a few years ago. The desire is to allow 'over the horizon' operations - but can this be achieved?
I've done a few sums...

Assuming a LCU has a load capacity of 62.5 LIMs (25 × 7 m) and we wish to offload 2 × Bay LSD and 1 × Albion LPD (total 2700 LIMs), with a 85% load out factor. It would take 44 trips from a single LCU to complete the offload. If we had 6 LCUs available (i.e. 4 in LPD and one each in LSD), it would take 8 'waves' - 7 waves of 6 LCUs and one last wave of 2 LCUs. If we had 8 LCUs available (i.e. 4 in LPD and two each in LSD), it would take 6 'waves' - 5 waves of 8 LCUs and one last wave of 4 LCUs.

If we want to achieve this offload in 6 hours (one night) how far offshore can we be?
For 6 LCUs with a speed of 10 kts, the ships would need to be within 2.5 nautical miles of the beachhead. This assumes it takes 10 min to load and 5 min to offload each LCU. If we increase our number of LCUs to 8, the distance moves out to 3.75 nm.

Looking at a PASCAT like replacement, assuming it has the same LIM capacity as the current LCU and similar load & offload times, the 6 hour offload could be completed at a distance of 6.7 nm with 6 PASCATs or 10 nm with 8 PASCATs. (This assumes a 20 kts loaded and 40 kts unloaded speed).

In summary, if we were to replace the current LCUs with a PASCAT like capability (and increase the numbers carried within the amphibious group) then we should be able to conduct the offload at a distance of 10 nm, compared to the current 2.5 nm distance.

Is this increase useful or worthwhile?

The numbers above are just an approximation, but it demonstrates that the hope of operating at 25 nm offshore is difficult - with 8 PASCATs this offload would take 12.75 hours. Would this be any safer?

[ArmChairCivvy]

be able to conduct the offload at a distance of 10 nm, compared to the current 2.5 nm distance.

Definitely.

Assuming air threats can be controlled and specialised anti-shipping missiles are not in the area (though they are proliferating fast), you will have moved the ops where ships are practically stationary out of the range of ATGWs and line-of-sight artillery (non-line-of-sight turns into an area bombardment, in which circumstances the firing units can be more easily located and taken out).

[Aethulwulf]

Clearly getting out of range of ATGW is a real advantage. But any assumption about no anti-ship missiles in the area will likely lead to nasty surprises. Israel were surprised by a Hezbollah missile hitting one of their ships about 10 nm offshore. If Israel can be surprised, so can anyone.

I would expect that moving out from 2.5 nm to 10 nm will give any escorts a greater chance of intercepting anti-ship missiles but it would still be far from 100% protection. And the escorts would need to be right next the ships they are protecting.

Moving out further to 25 nm would probably increase the level of protection, but would more than double the time spent in the danger area. Is this better or worse?

[shark bait]

It was my understanding that an initial vertical lift, supported by a single wave og landing craft would be the only over the horizon manoeuvre, after which the platform's move in closer to solve the logistical challenges you mention.

Perhaps worth noting the next increment of the US marines amphibious vehicle program requires a system that can swim for 25nm at 8kns, allowing them to self deploy over the horizon. That a good 40 minute journey, and of course puts a big dent in the vehicles fuel tank. I'm not convinced that's a good method.

I'm also not convinced landing craft are the future either, and I would like to see a reappraisal of our amphibious system. The one we have is not great.

[marktigger]

but how relevant is USMC doctrine to the way the Royal Marines operate?
The USMC being better resourced have a vastly different doctrine to the RM and they need Light medium and heavy armour. The Royal Marines are configured to fight in a "Light" role and that is how their doctrine is set up. I wonder how Amphibious Ajax will be or the Wheeled Mech infantry fighting vehicle will be?

[Aethulwulf]

I suppose the big difference with the USMC is with their amphibious vehicles they can all be launched in one wave without restrictions imposed by landing craft numbers. (But 25 nm at 8 kts would take over 3 hours, not 40 min.)

Ajax is not designed to be amphibious. It has specified fording depths for both a prepared and unprepared vehicle which means it could be offloaded from a landing craft onto a beach.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Perhaps worth noting the next increment of the US marines amphibious vehicle program requires a system that can swim for 25nm at 8kns, allowing them to self deploy over the horizon

The previous attempt (a surf board, going fast enough to provide lift) ended up unaffordable.

I wonder how Amphibious Ajax will be or the Wheeled Mech infantry fighting vehicle will be?

The original AMV is amphibious and we could borrow from improvements designed into the Havoc? Super AV I guess was the other available flavour in the USMC competition.
- "M" in AMV for Modular: modular armour, lots of turret options... lots of different available weights, but the same automotive parts from the REME angle for support

[marktigger]

The original AMV is amphibious and we could borrow from improvements designed into the Havoc? Super AV I guess was the other available flavour in the USMC competition.
- "M" in AMV for Modular: modular armour, lots of turret options... lots of different available weights, but the same automotive parts from the REME angle for support

But who will be operating the Recce troopsfor 3 cdo Bde? Bde Patrol troop (or what ever they are called now) are CTR. Will their be a Squadron from a Mech Cavalry regt or a Light Recce Cavalry regt allocated?

[ArmChairCivvy]

3 cdo Bde? Bde Patrol troop (or what ever they are called now) are CTR

I didn't know they had any other armour than the so-called armoured support group which only has band-tracked (Vikings?).

We have the 50 odd made from new CVR(T)s - if that was meant - and this would be a good use for them. If they were designed to be narrow enough to to slip through the tree gaps on plantations, I wonder if an LCV(P) could land one (width, weight - the latter went up somewhat)?

[marktigger]

Patrol troop never was armoured they were very much long range patrols.
CVRT support usually came from one of the Cavalry regiments. CVRT was a good platform but now with demands for more hightech sensors and better protection the new Recce vehicle will be about the same size as a warrior and will bulldoze a plantation if it doesn't bog in.

[whitelancer]

The RMs have never had CVR(T), never understood why. Would have thought it would have been ideal to provide them with some highly mobile light armoured firepower, with the minimum of logistic support. I always thought they made a major error in not taking at least a full squadron of CVR(T)s to the Falklands, rather than the 2 troops they sent.

[marktigger]

The RMs have never had CVR(T), never understood why. Would have thought it would have been ideal to provide them with some highly mobile light armoured firepower, with the minimum of logistic support. I always thought they made a major error in not taking at least a full squadron of CVR(T)s to the Falklands, rather than the 2 troops they sent.

The RMs have never had CVR(T), never understood why. Would have thought it would have been ideal to provide them with some highly mobile light armoured firepower, with the minimum of logistic support. I always thought they made a major error in not taking at least a full squadron of CVR(T)s to the Falklands, rather than the 2 troops they sent.

there was doubt whether CVRT could operate effectively in the terrain of the falklands and lack of shipping space that limited the numbers.

[whitelancer]

there was doubt whether CVRT could operate effectively in the terrain of the falklands and lack of shipping space that limited the numbers.

Because the RMs never operated CVR(T) or very rarely with it, they never understood it capabilities, while the Army couldn't push the case for its inclusion because they had never deployed to the Falklands and didn't know the terrain. A case for more cooperation and less blinkered thinking!
As for shipping space, I've never really accepted the argument that their was any lack of it. It may have been used by the been counters to limit what was sent south but more shipping could have been taken up from trade if necessary their was no lack of ships or crews at the time.
Even a full Armoured Recce Sqn with logistic support doesn't actually take up that much shipping space, an LSL could easily accommodate it with plenty of room left over.

[shark bait]

but how relevant is USMC doctrine to the way the Royal Marines operate?
The USMC being better resourced have a vastly different doctrine to the RM and they need Light medium and heavy armour. The Royal Marines are configured to fight in a "Light" role and that is how their doctrine is set up.

That was kind of my point about a reappraisal of the UK's amphibious capabilities.

Perhaps the Royal Marines should more closely mirror the Americans as a medium expeditionary army. Given how shoddily it looks like the strike brigade's are being put together it may be worth disbanding that part of the army and rebuilding it as another commando battalion. That would leave the army to focus on heavy armour against a peer threat, and the marines as a medium force for expeditionary and COIN operations.

Clearly blue sky and academic, but given how poor state of UK land power something needs to be done to properly equip our troops.

[marktigger]

but with all the additional things that were added to 3cdo Brigade initially like Rapier, Blowpipe batteries, para bns

[marktigger]

but how relevant is USMC doctrine to the way the Royal Marines operate?
The USMC being better resourced have a vastly different doctrine to the RM and they need Light medium and heavy armour. The Royal Marines are configured to fight in a "Light" role and that is how their doctrine is set up.

That was kind f my point about a reappraisal of the UK's amphibious capabilities.

Perhaps the Royal Marines should more closely mirror the Americans as a medium expeditionary army. Given how shoddily it looks like the strike brigade's are being put together it may be worth disbanding that part of the army and rebuilding it as another commando battalion. That would leave the army to focus on heavy armour against a peer threat, and the marines as a medium force for expeditionary and COIN operations.

I think the royal marines have an input into the US doctrine and Vice versa both units work very closely together as they also do with the Dutch marines. So what do you do with 16 Air Assualt? turn it into a mechanised strike brigade and let the marines do the expeditionary stuff?

one thing to remember is the USMC is about the same size as the British Army

[ArmChairCivvy]

one thing to remember is the USMC is about the same size as the British Army

The other thing is of course that compared to the US Army heavy bde groups (or likely opposing forces), we already have a medium weight force, without the mobility advantage that normally comes with that. Only token artillery strength per bde, tanks being relegated to infantry fire support role (while the number seems to be in continuous decline) etc

[marktigger]

yes but are artillery strength was run down because in counter insurgency you don't need anything larger than a 105

[Repulse]

Having a UK Cdo force consisting both RMs and Army Commandos backed by medium units makes a hell of a lot of sense in my book; effectively a UK version of the MEU. I'm not saying that a divisional strength Army capability should not be kept for UK defence and at extreme European defence, but we need better structures to support our global commitments.

[marktigger]

The Divisional army strength (should be increased) should be flexible that it can deploy from the sea in Support of 3cdo brigade but 3 Cdo brigade shouldn't get sucked into being another Mechanised brigade and should retain that "Light" doctrine and philosophy.

[Ron5]

one thing to remember is the USMC is about the same size as the British Army

More than double in size and has more aircraft than the RAF.

[arfah]

............

[whitelancer]

Its some what unfair to compare the UK armed forces with the US Marine Corps. The Marines only have a limited set of tasks to perform, while the UK armed forces require the capability to perform the whole range of tasks required of a states armed services. Of course looked at the other way the Marine Corps with more manpower than the entire UK forces is only required to perform a limited set of the tasks required of UK forces. Then its just depressing!

[RobHun068]

Good read, thanks for sharing. Some of David Baddams quick points for those who dont want to sign up;

no worries but for a brief profile on the author, he does have a bias for making them strike carriers tho

Biased? Is that so? You know this, how? Do tell.

Perhaps you should brief the R1 nabobs to that effect, because he planned and piloted ground-based air support for CANBERRA's trials and was embarked air chief in ADELAIDE for her second sea trials last year.

He also filed a DWP submission regarding this issue which is held in the very highest accord at the highest levels at R1. Available here - http://www.defence.gov.au/whitepaper/do ... addams.pdf

[R686]

@RobHun068



Mmm........
Interesting first post

The way you write is to make it appear that I disrespect the man which is further than the truth than can be, and I should not have an opinion on his analysis.

Yes I have seen that submission and if you look close at it it reveals a lot of past events which were to strike at targets or use aircraft in a show of strength other than CAS, he also mentions the current ATG or Op Okra and the distance they travel to the AO. Primarily a majority of his justifications are strike in nature. 

I'm not say the ADF does not need this capability, as a matter of fact I believe we do have just a requirement, I'm just against it being placed on the LHD. If you look at a US MEU the fixed wing component of 6 aircraft primary role the CAS of troops on the ground, not conducting strikes unless the LHD has been re-role'd to conduct offensive operations for which the USN has a plethora of assets to achieve the outcome, something the ADF does not.

Also prior to the DWP submission he also provided a write up for the naval institute, and one of the aurgument's was,

(3) What for? Strike fighter stuff, that’s what for. That’s also what the F-35As are for. Embarked F-35Bs also, by default, regenerate RAAF long-range strike lost with the retirement of the F-111s. That’s another what for.