UK Defence Forum

Yes the two LSG can come together but that means more raids can be carried out in the same area/theatre, not a larger landing, at least that is how I am reading things. Until a contract is let to marinize the RAF's Chinooks including those on order, it would be foolhardy to deploy then onboard any vessels for any length of time. Maybe for a specific mission where the range of the Merlin will not suffice, but the latter is gong to be the workhorse of the LSG, backed up by Wildcats. One question is, are the Wildcats going to get some sort of upgrade in the future to make them more effective at supporting RMs in land? A CSG will not always be in the neighbourhood, so having some integral airborne fire support would probably be useful, both to escort and protect the transports if required, as well as any troops on the ground if things get hairy. Any major ground operations, of greater strength will become the preview of the Army, whether they be transported in one of the LPDs or Points.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:…could be a way to approach this?

Lots of options here.

The first thing to consider is whether the Apache is part of the plan. What could be better for a FCF raiding force than having couple of Apaches providing support. Would any available money be better spent marinising a modest number of Apache rather than upgrading Wildcat further?

A modest group of 1x modified LPD, 1x Wave and 2x T31’s could embark 2x Apache, 3x Merlin and 2x Wildcats. Very capable.

Clearly the well dock is more than sufficient for a large number of raiding craft and a generous number of XLUUV, UUV or USV. Again very capable.

Adding a hanger to the LPD’s could be the key to unlocking the whole FCF concept.

All your highlighting is the strategic planning failure of placing all your aviation assets on solely 2 ships which can only be in a single location at any time. But too late now they paid there money they made there choice.

SW1 wrote:All your highlighting is the strategic planning failure of placing all your aviation assets on solely 2 ships which can only be in a single location at any time. But too late now they paid there money they made there choice.

Possibly but if the £50mn was used to convert a civilian ship or as Poiuytrewq suggests adding hangars to the Albions then that would be better use of money IMO than trying to enhance a Bay (we have two of them already called HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark).

Lord Jim wrote: One question is, are the Wildcats going to get some sort of upgrade in the future to make them more effective at supporting RMs in land?

That is the old LAH concept that went as far as 4 from the Army and 4 from the Navy order being allocated, mainly for the Marines. But the concept then (quietly) disappeared.

Poiuytrewq wrote:Would any available money be better spent marinising a modest number of Apache rather than upgrading Wildcat further?

A good question

ArmChairCivvy wrote: Poiuytrewq wrote:
Would any available money be better spent marinising a modest number of Apache rather than upgrading Wildcat further?


A good question

No amount of marinizing could convert Apache to be an adequate small ships helo.

The only RN Wildcat upgrade I have heard, is adding a datalink. Are there more in the pipeline? Aux fuel tanks would be nice.

the front two u see here
https://www.naval-technology.com/wp-con ... alView.jpg
are 'small ship Apaches' except that
1. they do not look like Apaches... the foot print matches, though
2. the ship is not small (conversions, rather than escorts, in the meanwhile)
and 3. the concept (by Prevail) has grown to 230m in length, adding space to carry around 3,600m3of fuel

So in the early 2030s, collapsing the LPDs and the Waves into a single class.... get 3, instead of 2+2?

Poiuytrewq wrote:The first thing to consider is whether the Apache is part of the plan. What could be better for a FCF raiding force than having couple of Apaches providing support. Would any available money be better spent marinising a modest number of Apache rather than upgrading Wildcat further?

When I was last at Wattisham in 2019 there was a lot of talk about how much better the armies new E's would be when it comes to going sea they had identified a number of areas for improvement when operating the WAH-64's from Ocean and these were being built in to the E's

We have to remember for the FCF we are going to be talking "Raiding", not assaults. Ideally the troops would want to get ashore all quiet like, hit the target and then get the hell out of dodge. Having airborne fore support would be useful, so having our FAA Wildcats evolve into a platform similar to the SH-60 "Romeos" would not be a bad thing.

With the ground component of LSG (South) being stood up next year I am getting worried that we are trying to run before we can walk. Whilst the Albions and Bays can act as stand ins for the planned MRSS, that are not ideal and it appears that neither are to be modified to make their capabilities more akin to the latter.

The FCF is a great idea and one the Royal Marines were born for. But like so many bright ideas that a being banded around these days within the MoD, it is going to take serious investment to make it a reality, and no half baked measures like what we see far too often. The MRSS need to be built at least at the same time as the FSS, definitely not after. What will actually be the make up of the LSG, does anybody know? Will each contain one, two or more MRSS, their capacity will play a role in this? Are they going to be RFAs of under Royal Navy management? Will the new "Medium", helicopter have a part to play in the groups? All these questions and many more are out there.

What I have seen of the New Royal Marine organisation and tactics is very encouraging, we just need to be able to house them comfortably afloat as well as having effective means to get them to and from the target.

Lord Jim wrote:
What I have seen of the New Royal Marine organisation and tactics is very encouraging, we just need to be able to house them comfortably afloat

Escorts will definitely have to play a role (what fraction of the 200 to be berthed in this way?) An escort is needed anyway; the folks for the helo can't be left behind, so it will be the ASW team then No more than 20, and - oops - not all escorts will have such teams, to begin with
- RB2s may come to show their worth
- but then (with such an allocation for the newer batch; 2 EoS, for one on real station, rather than just on the right half of the globe) RB1s will have to soldier on for much longer than planned

Lord Jim wrote: The MRSS need to be built at least at the same time as the FSS, definitely not after.

When again was the 30-yr building plan due to be published? All indications (and there have not been many) so far have been that the build and the LPDs' retirement will be closely matched...

ArmChairCivvy wrote: RB1s will have to soldier on for much longer than planned

True, but they are also the easiest and cheapest ships to replace, my vote would be to spend £100mn to kick off the MLSV program with an initial batch of three - basic radar, 20mm and space for a boarding team job done…

Lord Jim wrote:With the ground component of LSG (South) being stood up next year I am getting worried that we are trying to run before we can walk. Whilst the Albions and Bays can act as stand ins for the planned MRSS, that are not ideal and it appears that neither are to be modified to make their capabilities more akin to the latter.

And this is why I keep coming back to LRG South needing to be made up of

1 x Bay , 1 x escort , Argus and a Tanker

this would allow a re-enforced company of RM landing craft of different types plus up to 4 Merlin's and 6 Wildcats with the ability of the group to cover the Indo-Pacific

With LRG North being made up of 1 x LPD , 1 x Bay , 1 x escort and being closer to home it will have the support of the Dutch LPD's or a Carrier

What's all this LRG shit doing here, go away

Ron5 wrote: all this LRG shit

Which 'ship' will deliver "it" without any kind of escort

ArmChairCivvy wrote:

Ron5 wrote: all this LRG shit

Which 'ship' will deliver "it" without any kind of escort

So you lot are discussing LRG escorts? Could have fooled me

SD67 wrote:This is interesting, not quite a frigate factory but
still a step in the right direction

This illustrates the proposal very nicely.

Expanding the halls but keeping the slipway? Or are they replacing that with a dock/lift?

It's only a planning application....

Halidon wrote:Expanding the halls but keeping the slipway? Or are they replacing that with a dock/lift?

Is the slipway still there? I doubt if it would be ever used again.

Ron5 wrote:Is the slipway still there? I doubt if it would be ever used again.

Sure is still there. But has not been used lately and will not be needed for T26.

The slipway was last used for HMS Duncan and is currently being used as an extra steel storage area. The older slipways have portacabins on them. I believe the actual 'slips' were sent to Cammell Laird to launch RRS Sir David Attenborough.

tomuk wrote: sent to Cammell Laird to launch RRS Sir David Attenborough

Small, but tangible proof of UK shipbuilding becoming an 'ecosystem' rather than just insular companies, in which type of environment losing one contract kills the whole company off
- cranes to Belfast, and all that

tomuk wrote:The slipway was last used for HMS Duncan and is currently being used as an extra steel storage area. The older slipways have portacabins on them. I believe the actual 'slips' were sent to Cammell Laird to launch RRS Sir David Attenborough.

Thanks, just saw it on the photo's George Allison posted today ..

ArmChairCivvy wrote:

tomuk wrote: sent to Cammell Laird to launch RRS Sir David Attenborough

Small, but tangible proof of UK shipbuilding becoming an 'ecosystem' rather than just insular companies, in which type of environment losing one contract kills the whole company off
- cranes to Belfast, and all that

If Bae Govan doesn't get the type 26 batch 2 order, they close. Forever.

Don't think that what I said and you responded are at odds. Or even touch each other, in any way??
- it was not about launch methods, either

"ecosystem"