UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6015
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 21 Jul 2020, 11:42

Repulse wrote: last thing should be to throw away what you have that works and only halfway through their useful lifespan.

Sounds like the sunk cost fallacy
@LandSharkUK

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1882
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 21 Jul 2020, 11:43

For me people keep saying the RM needs to do this it needs to do that it needs a job and so on. But it has one and it is about to become high stakes the RM's job is to support the High North along with Norway , US and Holland and it is the Armies job to support the centre of NATO with this in mind what the RN/RM needs is 1 x LPD , 1 x LPH and 3 Bay class and to stop looking please. There will be money to made in the High North for UK companies so HMG should invest in the RM to protect it

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 2355
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 21 Jul 2020, 11:46

The word “Vanguard” normally means advance party - there needs to be something that follows up. Each Cdo currently has 5 Companies, so 40 RM Cdo + 45 RM Cdo would give 10 Companies. Working on two LRG’s and a rotation of three then you’d have though two Vanguard Companies deployed (one on each LRG) and a ready surge group of 3 Companies that could be quickly deployed for larger ops.

For me the the LRG should be an LPD plus a support RFA that also can carry 3-6 Merlins. A Bay could then be added for a ASG (Amphibious Strike Group).
”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: 1552
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 21 Jul 2020, 12:53

Repulse wrote:The word “Vanguard” normally means advance party - there needs to be something that follows up


But is that follow up force not something that an alliance member provides or the army something able to operate against a Russia type force.

The advance party provides intelligence, reconnaissance, long range patrol ect.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 2355
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 21 Jul 2020, 13:12

SW1 wrote:or the army


That is an option, and a globally deployable “Strike Brigade” or whatever it’s called after the next SDSR is a must. To rely totally on allies would be a step too far. It would need enough RFAs and Points as part of a restructured Army Logistics Corps however to make it at all credible.

If we go down the pure “Vanguard” approach, then I’d see the Army need to structure the Paras in the same way with ability to join for maximum effect.
”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

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 235
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby jedibeeftrix » 21 Jul 2020, 13:27

shark bait wrote:Yeah that would be great, however that's a cost adder at at time when the Marines really need to be cheaper. That's what this whole thing is about right? The Marines need to be cheaper to use.

But it looks like we're getting something like BMT Elida anyway.
And this would be cheaper than a dedicated LPH and LSS's.
Does that count as being cheaper?
Repulse wrote:The word “Vanguard” normally means advance party - there needs to be something that follows up. Each Cdo currently has 5 Companies, so 40 RM Cdo + 45 RM Cdo would give 10 Companies. Working on two LRG’s and a rotation of three then you’d have though two Vanguard Companies deployed (one on each LRG) and a ready surge group of 3 Companies that could be quickly deployed for larger ops.

For me the the LRG should be an LPD plus a support RFA that also can carry 3-6 Merlins. A Bay could then be added for a ASG (Amphibious Strike Group).

This is why I made the point about seeing what remains in the smoking ruin of 3Cdo brigade when the dust settles...
If there is no Commando21 regiment anymore, will there still be five companies in a Commando?
Will a commando still have 692 people?
We're already talking about smaller formations in the army at the same time we're talking about turning the marines into a raiding force... dangerous to assume we'll still have 3.5 x 692 Marine Commandos.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1552
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 21 Jul 2020, 14:04

Repulse wrote:
SW1 wrote:or the army


That is an option, and a globally deployable “Strike Brigade” or whatever it’s called after the next SDSR is a must. To rely totally on allies would be a step too far. It would need enough RFAs and Points as part of a restructured Army Logistics Corps however to make it at all credible.

If we go down the pure “Vanguard” approach, then I’d see the Army need to structure the Paras in the same way with ability to join for maximum effect.


I think it maybe appropriate to rely on allies in parts of the world were we are not a dominate player.

Yes absolutely the Israelis are streamlining and generating a force very similar to what you could do with the paras.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 2355
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 21 Jul 2020, 14:08

SW1 wrote:maybe appropriate to rely on allies in parts of the world were we are not a dominate player.


I think it’s fine that we assume a supporting role in land operations especially in the Far East, however we need to retain the ability to do it West of Suez, so it could be there if ever needed.
”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
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6015
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 21 Jul 2020, 14:59

jedibeeftrix wrote:But it looks like we're getting something like BMT Elida anyway.

Does it? Where?
@LandSharkUK

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 235
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby jedibeeftrix » 21 Jul 2020, 18:36

shark bait wrote:
jedibeeftrix wrote:But it looks like we're getting something like BMT Elida anyway.

Does it? Where?

well, i should say it looks like the point class with a flight desk in the early renders, but i used some lazy shorthand to associate the reduced requirement of the LRG with the elida concept renders. My bad.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4366
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 21 Jul 2020, 18:46

Of course there is also the possibility that some of the RA/RHA Regiments will retain or gain the green Beret and be allocated to provide the precision fires in operations where they need to be landed by sea or air to establish a counter A2/AD zone once the RM have secured an area. To this you can add Engineers and other supporting assets like Air Defence and EW units, some coming from exisiting RM units and others from the Army with the appropriate training and equipment.

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 235
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby jedibeeftrix » 21 Jul 2020, 19:05

The king is dead, all hail the king!

Breaking 3Cdo to make it anew?

Scimitar54
Member
Posts: 751
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Scimitar54 » 21 Jul 2020, 22:30

So long as it is not a case of “The King’s New Clothes”! :mrgreen:

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 2355
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 24 Jul 2020, 14:12

Glanced at the MST brochure when looking at the Gibraltar Squadron replacement boats, the 1100 Submersible looks interesting, wonder if they’ve sold any already?

https://www.mstltd.com/wp-content/uploa ... 16-web.pdf
”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
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 2355
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 01 Aug 2020, 10:19

I know I’m going to get flack for verging in fantasy land, but if money was less of a problem I would say the perfect platform for a Vanguard RM Company would be a variant of the new Kalaat Beni-Abbes LPD.

It has:
- Space for 200-400 RMs
- 3 LCVPs
- upto 3 larger landing craft
- Flexible hangar / garage deck
- Merlin capable flight deck (2 spots)
- Ability to store / maintain Wildcats / UAVs
”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

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1882
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 01 Aug 2020, 11:26

Repulse wrote:I know I’m going to get flack for verging in fantasy land, but if money was less of a problem I would say the perfect platform for a Vanguard RM Company would be a variant of the new Kalaat Beni-Abbes LPD.

It has:
- Space for 200-400 RMs
- 3 LCVPs
- upto 3 larger landing craft
- Flexible hangar / garage deck
- Merlin capable flight deck (2 spots)
- Ability to store / maintain Wildcats / UAVs


This class of ship has a cost of $291 million for maybe around 100 million dollars you could have a 160 meter Makassar class fitted out how we want and would do the same if not a better job

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 2355
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 01 Aug 2020, 13:33

Tempest414 wrote:This class of ship has a cost of $291 million for maybe around 100 million dollars you could have a 160 meter Makassar class fitted out how we want and would do the same if not a better job


Very different ship - better to use the Bays than buy new Makassar class ships. The strategy seems to be more focused on complementing the RMs with high tech surface, air and land systems - it needs a platform that can operate these not glorified civilian transport ships.
”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

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3628
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 01 Aug 2020, 15:35

Repulse wrote:I know I’m going to get flack for verging in fantasy land, but if money was less of a problem I would say the perfect platform for a Vanguard RM Company would be a variant of the new Kalaat Beni-Abbes LPD.

It has:
- Space for 200-400 RMs
- 3 LCVPs
- upto 3 larger landing craft
- Flexible hangar / garage deck
- Merlin capable flight deck (2 spots)
- Ability to store / maintain Wildcats / UAVs
Without armament?

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 2355
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 01 Aug 2020, 17:11

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Without armament?


Good question, one that I avoided as the focus should be on what it gives the RMs, which should be a flexible floating base, rather than just a transport ship to get from A to B.

Having said that the armament of the Kalaat Beni-Abbes is interesting with a 76mm gun and 8 cell VLS.
”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

serge750
Member
Posts: 575
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby serge750 » 01 Aug 2020, 18:04

I was actually thinking of having a Kalaat type LPD as a self escorting ( maybe a few more CAMM ) raiding type multi mission ship

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1882
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 01 Aug 2020, 18:51

Repulse wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:This class of ship has a cost of $291 million for maybe around 100 million dollars you could have a 160 meter Makassar class fitted out how we want and would do the same if not a better job


Very different ship - better to use the Bays than buy new Makassar class ships. The strategy seems to be more focused on complementing the RMs with high tech surface, air and land systems - it needs a platform that can operate these not glorified civilian transport ships.


All the things you talk about can be operated off a any ship that has a dock. The one thing the RN and RM don't need is a toy LHD if we had a spare 600 million dollars going then build something that will really work like a new Enforcer LPD

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4366
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 02 Aug 2020, 03:21

The sort of platform the Royal Navy is going to be looking for if it continues to pursue this new doctrine, is one that can embark and land no more than a reinforces Royal Marine Company operating in the Light Infantry Role with few if any vehicles. These along with the main logistics and support units would arrive in the second phase form an Albion either by Landing Craft of Helicopters from a Carrier lilly padding off the LPD. They want the craft to be non threatening, whatever that means as well as have a measure low observability so reduced RCS etc. They do not want it to have more than the rudimentary self defence capabilities of existing amphibious vessels as it is expected to be escorted by a T-31 or possibly a T-26 when conducting operations, as well as having air cover provided by the Carrier. So to sum up they are setting the bar very low as far as capabilities are concerned, and I have more than a few issues with this to put it mildly.

serge750
Member
Posts: 575
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby serge750 » 02 Aug 2020, 17:13

Still sounds like a P&O ferry :lolno:

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4366
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 03 Aug 2020, 20:49

Mind you a P&O Ferry would have far better facilities for the troops than an RFA. :D

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 2355
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 06 Aug 2020, 22:17

Good pictures of 846 Flight from the CHF training on RFA Fort Victoria. Shows the flexibility of the vessel - combined with an Albion it would give a solid core for any Vanguard group.

”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


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bri, Google [Bot] and 27 guests