Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

[Poiuytrewq]

All of these points feed into the fact that FCF, MRSS and T32 were aspirations in a completely different global security environment.

The tumultuous events of 2022 has changed everything.

Funding and planning simply hasn’t caught up yet.

[wargame_insomniac]

The FCF is all based around highly distributed smaller fighting units, putting aside logistics, the ships deploying this force needs to reflect this.

The word "all" is doing some heavy lifting there.
Of the three proper commandos, one has been transformed from the Commando21 model to the small-unit raiding model.

Is there indication that both the remaining two will be substantially transformed from the Commando21 model?
Regardless of whether that is too the small-unit raiding model, or something new designed for company-level operations...

I thought the original plan was to move the whole organisation to FCF, with an enthesis on Company level and smaller operations?

I wonder if Ukraine will force a rethink, as Norway and in future Sweden will be looking towards a possible renewed need for a traditional RM northern flank reinforcement role?

[Tempest414]

What we need is to think bigger and in terms of joint force i.e LRG/N working as a re-enforced battalion battle group enabling entry of a Army light mechanised brigade into the high north and Baltic area of operations as at the same time having LRG/S working as at a re-enforced Company battle group able to be re- enforced buy elements of 16AA EoS

[SW1]

All of these points feed into the fact that FCF, MRSS and T32 were aspirations in a completely different global security environment.

The tumultuous events of 2022 has changed everything.

Funding and planning simply hasn’t caught up yet.

Events dear boy events as someone said..

It has shown that the much hyped conventional threat from Russia was to a large part an exaggeration. Their conventional threat has been seriously depleted over the past year by relatively simple equipment. they would have had little chance with the things currently available to nato. With sanctions and their level of losses it will take them sometime to rebuilt a credible force.

It has shown defence of territory and integrity and resilience of our infrastructure, enabling capabilities and supply lines is back in vogue rather than questionable foreign adventures. Also how timely and credible intelligence and political action can have significant effect on outcomes. It would do well for us not to take our eyes of event along the African coast and central and South America in that regard.

[jedibeeftrix]

The FCF is all based around highly distributed smaller fighting units, putting aside logistics, the ships deploying this force needs to reflect this.

The word "all" is doing some heavy lifting there.
Of the three proper commandos, one has been transformed from the Commando21 model to the small-unit raiding model.

Is there indication that both the remaining two will be substantially transformed from the Commando21 model?
Regardless of whether that is to the small-unit raiding model, or something new designed for company-level operations...

I thought the original plan was to move the whole organisation to FCF, with an enthesis on Company level and smaller operations?

I wonder if Ukraine will force a rethink, as Norway and in future Sweden will be looking towards a possible renewed need for a traditional RM northern flank reinforcement role?

First, you'll have to define what "FCF" actually is!
You will find this challenging if you choose to rely on published facts, rather than an aspirational faith that a collection of soundbites and a leaked powerpoint slide reveal a detailed and finalised conops.

I would hope so, it is an invaluable capability for both nato and indo-pac engagement.

[Tempest414]

All of these points feed into the fact that FCF, MRSS and T32 were aspirations in a completely different global security environment.

The tumultuous events of 2022 has changed everything.

Funding and planning simply hasn’t caught up yet.

Events dear boy events as someone said..

It has shown that the much hyped conventional threat from Russia was to a large part an exaggeration. Their conventional threat has been seriously depleted over the past year by relatively simple equipment. they would have had little chance with the things currently available to nato. With sanctions and their level of losses it will take them sometime to rebuilt a credible force.

It has shown defence of territory and integrity and resilience of our infrastructure, enabling capabilities and supply lines is back in vogue rather than questionable foreign adventures. Also how timely and credible intelligence and political action can have significant effect on outcomes. It would do well for us not to take our eyes of event along the African coast and central and South America in that regard.

We are moving into a new age that needs us to have capability to move effort and effect from place to place and this is why for me we need a EoS command with

1 x Logistics sea base
1 x Tanker
4 x Type 31's
2 x OPV's

This Command would be to over see the Indo-Pacific but it main area of operation would be the Gulf and East African coast. I think we will also need to get back to having a South Atlantic group made up of 2 x type 31 and 2 OPV 's these are going to be key areas challenged by China

[SW1]

All of these points feed into the fact that FCF, MRSS and T32 were aspirations in a completely different global security environment.

The tumultuous events of 2022 has changed everything.

Funding and planning simply hasn’t caught up yet.

Events dear boy events as someone said..

It has shown that the much hyped conventional threat from Russia was to a large part an exaggeration. Their conventional threat has been seriously depleted over the past year by relatively simple equipment. they would have had little chance with the things currently available to nato. With sanctions and their level of losses it will take them sometime to rebuilt a credible force.

It has shown defence of territory and integrity and resilience of our infrastructure, enabling capabilities and supply lines is back in vogue rather than questionable foreign adventures. Also how timely and credible intelligence and political action can have significant effect on outcomes. It would do well for us not to take our eyes of event along the African coast and central and South America in that regard.

We are moving into a new age that needs us to have capability to move effort and effect from place to place and this is why for me we need a EoS command with

1 x Logistics sea base
1 x Tanker
4 x Type 31's
2 x OPV's

This Command would be to over see the Indo-Pacific but it main area of operation would be the Gulf and East African coast. I think we will also need to get back to having a South Atlantic group made up of 2 x type 31 and 2 OPV 's these are going to be key areas challenged by China

We do need to invest in the logistical enablers and intelligence gathers but we also need to make the fighting force logistically lighter.

I highlighted something similar from a naval perspective(less the opvs and “sea base”) but it needs in my opinion to be tied into Gurkha unit already in the region and enabling there deployment in the region.

We are fortunate that we have sovereign territories in the regions suggested that we can project from but investment in infrastructure to make it happen in those locations will require a clear set of priorities and better capital allocation from those at the top than we have seen the past 2 decades.

There is far too much navy centric thinking on here in how it will all play out and the outcomes to be achieved with the assets we currently have in those regions.

[Jake1992]

Wouldn’t this concept be best served by not just thinking of it made up solely of the amphibious replacements but also the T32s.

My thinking is if we replaced the Albions, Bays and Argus with a fleet of 6 large LPDs / LSDs based off the same hull ( like the USN is doing with LPX and San Antonio ) this would give the core for large scale ops but can also dispersed. We then replace the waves with 2 Karel Doorman JSS, these can resupply the wider fleet ( leaving sss and tides to the QEs ) while also offering additional aviation and lane meterage to larger scale ops. ...

Sorry I understand this discussion stands on optimistic "what should have been" viewpoint. But I cannot stop pointing out that
- RFA Argus's crew is needed for the 2nd FSSS. Choose which?
- Waves are gone. Anyway, there is no crew to man them. With the 3rd FSSS coming, which also does not have any crew, I think 2 Waves now in extended readiness will simply go. One vessel out of the 10-12 RFA fleet "without crew" is needed to account for long maintenance/modernization, but you do not need more than one.

While I agree what I put forward is on the optermiistic side I also agree with the point stated earlier on the SSS thread that basing a future fleet make on that is 10 plus years away on the crew numbers of today is very poor planning.

Planning of future fleet build should always be based on what the expected need is and the paired back to from there to meet realistic expected budge and crew recruitment, with rectuitment being the keep word and not on what crew is avible 10 years before said fleet is in service.

My plan has the RFA at 13 vessels
4 Tide
3 SSS
2JSS
4 LSD

Compared to the current thinking of 11 vessels
4 Tide
3 SSS
4 MRSS ( most likely replacing Bays and Argus )

Are we really saying that over the next 10 years we can’t expect to try and up tic of crew for 2 JSS some 300 odd extra recruited over 10 years ??

[SW1]

If you zoom up the picture at the top of the article the MRSS you talk about. Helicopters hangers big flight deck, iso containers assault craft all in one image. Not to mention fuel ammo and provisions. One in Asia one in the South Atlantic.

https://www.navylookout.com/rfa-wave-kn ... -in-haiti/

Shame there tied up along side to rot.

[donald_of_tokyo]

While I agree what I put forward is on the optermiistic side I also agree with the point stated earlier on the SSS thread that basing a future fleet make on that is 10 plus years away on the crew numbers of today is very poor planning.

Planning of future fleet build should always be based on what the expected need is and the paired back to from there to meet realistic expected budge and crew recruitment, with rectuitment being the keep word and not on what crew is avible 10 years before said fleet is in service.

My plan has the RFA at 13 vessels
4 Tide
3 SSS
2JSS
4 LSD

Compared to the current thinking of 11 vessels
4 Tide
3 SSS
4 MRSS ( most likely replacing Bays and Argus )

Are we really saying that over the next 10 years we can’t expect to try and up tic of crew for 2 JSS some 300 odd extra recruited over 10 years ??

I understand your point, but think the other way. RFA size will go better, and it will also go worse. Military is reality, so thinking both is better.

Replacing 3 Bays and 1+1 Albions with 2 JSS and 4 LSD is your plan (I think Argus will be "replaced" by 2nd FSSS). That means you increasing the number by one, as well as making them all bigger. Good, if everything goes well, it is a good future. But, what if UK can only prepare resources for 4 hulls? 1 JSS and 3 LSD?

I think RFA shall go with 4 LSD plan (better be 5, and 6 as maximum). The LSD in my mind is;
- JMSDF Osumi-class LSD (13000t FLD) like (or enlarged Itanian San Georgio class like), with smallish dock and flat top.
- slightly enlarged to 15000t FLD.
- limit the well-dock to be "2 LCU capable", and prepare an area "to be used as helicopter hangar" at the fore with an elevator (which could be relatively slow and cheap ones)
- make the bridge superstructure smaller, more like Casablanca-class escort carrier.
- no need for fuel supply. 4 Tides are more than enough for 1 CVTF (not 2), and at least 1 Tide could go along with the LRG in operation.

- if going along with CVTF, "an area to be used as helicopter hangar" can be used for vehicles. Even the front-half of the flight deck can be used as such.
- If LRG is operating alone (with a single LSD), the internal "an area to be used as helicopter hangar" shall be used as a space for 6 Merlins, or 4 Merlins and several UAVs. The front-half of the flight deck can be used as vehicle deck, or flight-deck or run-way for the UAVs and helicopters.

In this plan, UK can have 4 such LSD as minimum. 2 as Albion replacement (with command), and 2 as Bay replacement (without). In "better" case, 2 as Albion replacement (with command), and 3 as Bay replacement (without). In "optimistic" case, increase it to 6 LSDs, 2 with command and 4 without. I think two of them can be operated as UAV/USV/UUV carrier, and 4 as landing assets.

Here, I assume an LRG operating alone will be made of, 2 LSDs, 1 Tide, 1 T31 and 1 River B2 OPV. "1 Tide, 1 T31 and 1 OPV" can provide lily-pad for 4 Merlins, (2 on Tide, 1 on T31, and 1 on OPV) and carry 2 Merlins or 4 Wildcats in their hangar.

Another LRG? It will be made of only 1 LSD and 1 T31/River OPV. It is not commencing landing operations (UK shall never do two amphibious operations at once), so no need for more escorts nor Tide.

Not bad, I think?

[Tempest414]

While I agree what I put forward is on the optermiistic side I also agree with the point stated earlier on the SSS thread that basing a future fleet make on that is 10 plus years away on the crew numbers of today is very poor planning.

Planning of future fleet build should always be based on what the expected need is and the paired back to from there to meet realistic expected budge and crew recruitment, with rectuitment being the keep word and not on what crew is avible 10 years before said fleet is in service.

My plan has the RFA at 13 vessels
4 Tide
3 SSS
2JSS
4 LSD

Compared to the current thinking of 11 vessels
4 Tide
3 SSS
4 MRSS ( most likely replacing Bays and Argus )

Are we really saying that over the next 10 years we can’t expect to try and up tic of crew for 2 JSS some 300 odd extra recruited over 10 years ??

I understand your point, but think the other way. RFA size will go better, and it will also go worse. Military is reality, so thinking both is better.

Replacing 3 Bays and 1+1 Albions with 2 JSS and 4 LSD is your plan (I think Argus will be "replaced" by 2nd FSSS). That means you increasing the number by one, as well as making them all bigger. Good, if everything goes well, it is a good future. But, what if UK can only prepare resources for 4 hulls? 1 JSS and 3 LSD?

I think RFA shall go with 4 LSD plan (better be 5, and 6 as maximum). The LSD in my mind is;
- JMSDF Osumi-class LSD (13000t FLD) like (or enlarged Itanian San Georgio class like), with smallish dock and flat top.
- slightly enlarged to 15000t FLD.
- limit the well-dock to be "2 LCU capable", and prepare an area "to be used as helicopter hangar" at the fore with an elevator (which could be relatively slow and cheap ones)
- make the bridge superstructure smaller, more like Casablanca-class escort carrier.
- no need for fuel supply. 4 Tides are more than enough for 1 CVTF (not 2), and at least 1 Tide could go along with the LRG in operation.

- if going along with CVTF, "an area to be used as helicopter hangar" can be used for vehicles. Even the front-half of the flight deck can be used as such.
- If LRG is operating alone (with a single LSD), the internal "an area to be used as helicopter hangar" shall be used as a space for 6 Merlins, or 4 Merlins and several UAVs. The front-half of the flight deck can be used as vehicle deck, or flight-deck or run-way for the UAVs and helicopters.

In this plan, UK can have 4 such LSD as minimum. 2 as Albion replacement (with command), and 2 as Bay replacement (without). In "better" case, 2 as Albion replacement (with command), and 3 as Bay replacement (without). In "optimistic" case, increase it to 6 LSDs, 2 with command and 4 without. I think two of them can be operated as UAV/USV/UUV carrier, and 4 as landing assets.

Here, I assume an LRG operating alone will be made of, 2 LSDs, 1 Tide, 1 T31 and 1 River B2 OPV. "1 Tide, 1 T31 and 1 OPV" can provide lily-pad for 4 Merlins, (2 on Tide, 1 on T31, and 1 on OPV) and carry 2 Merlins or 4 Wildcats in their hangar.

Another LRG? It will be made of only 1 LSD and 1 T31/River OPV. It is not commencing landing operations (UK shall never do two amphibious operations at once), so no need for more escorts nor Tide.

Not bad, I think?

But the current plan as layout by the MOD is

4 x Tide class already in service
3 x SSS now under order
6 x MRSS been moved to the right but is still the current plan

So the MOD must know what man power is needed and are working to this end and as said the RFA could be planning to crew
3 x Tides
2 x SSS
3 x MRSS with the RN planning to operate 1 or both of the remaining MRSS

[Poiuytrewq]

Not bad, I think?

I think your proposal is sound with a good rationale. It is likely such platforms will more popular especially if optimised for drones. Possibly a future export opportunity if done right?

The only thing that everyone appears to agree on is that current planning is not the way forward.

What level are you expecting the MRSS budget to be set at?

[Poiuytrewq]

Moved across….

The U.K. decided to replace the 3 with 2 carriers in the 30-40k tonnes range sdsr 98!

Exactly but we are where we are.

The rise in SSN numbers is welcome but not without further funding. If the budget remains the same the Amphib fleet will not be fully replaced in the 2030s when the costs of the SSNs are realised.

The “defence spending will increase when the security situation warrants it” mantra has now be replaced by “ defence spending will increase when economic conditions allow”. Clearly shows the first priority of government is no longer the first priority.

IMO the direction of travel for RN is the right one:

1. One CSG always available with both CVFs operating concurrently in extreme circumstances.

2. Two LRGs operating either side of Suez combining to form a LSG when required.

3. CASD maintained

4. Kipion and standing NATO and JEF commitments maintained.

5. OPV filling in the gaps globally

It’s a very achievable and affordable if the political will existed.

Even with defence spending fixed at 2.5% GDP it should be perfectly achievable if sensible decisions are made around manpower and vessel procurement.

Adjusted for inflation HMS Ocean for around £350m is amazing value for money. Likewise the T31s, even if upgraded to GP spec would come in around £375m each. Great value.

High Capacity OPVs for £125m each to replace the RB1s would allow the rest of the fleet to concentrate on the main areas of operation.

The main priority however appears to be increasing RN/RFA manpower by around 1200 over the next 5 years or more and more vessels will continue to be tied up for extended periods.

[SW1]

Moved across….

The U.K. decided to replace the 3 with 2 carriers in the 30-40k tonnes range sdsr 98!

Exactly but we are where we are.

The rise in SSN numbers is welcome but not without further funding. If the budget remains the same the Amphib fleet will not be fully replaced in the 2030s when the costs of the SSNs are realised.

The “defence spending will increase when the security situation warrants it” mantra has now be replaced by “ defence spending will increase when economic conditions allow”. Clearly shows the first priority of government is no longer the first priority.

IMO the direction of travel for RN is the right one:

1. One CSG always available with both CVFs operating concurrently in extreme circumstances.

2. Two LRGs operating either side of Suez combining to form a LSG when required.

3. CASD maintained

4. Kipion and standing NATO and JEF commitments maintained.

5. OPV filling in the gaps globally

It’s a very achievable and affordable if the political will existed.

Even with defence spending fixed at 2.5% GDP it should be perfectly achievable if sensible decisions are made around manpower and vessel procurement.

Adjusted for inflation HMS Ocean for around £350m is amazing value for money. Likewise the T31s, even if upgraded to GP spec would come in around £375m each. Great value.

High Capacity OPVs for £125m each to replace the RB1s would allow the rest of the fleet to concentrate on the main areas of operation.

The main priority however appears to be increasing RN/RFA manpower by around 1200 over the next 5 years or more and more vessels will continue to be tied up for extended periods.

Imo your points one and two are actually one group. It’s very much a U.K. variation on a U.S. expeditionary strike group that simple can be deployed in either one location or splits and can sent to 2 locations. A smoke and mirrors move by our part to pretend otherwise by giving them different names neither will be sustainable in place over the long term.

On pt 3 yes

On pt 4 and 5 we have different views and I think it needs more focus than u suggest.


As for the increasing ssn number means more money. I will again slightly disagree. More money maybe but if it is more money it needs to be from elsewhere in the defence budget it can’t come from hoped for future increases it’s a fools errand.

Yes I would increase ssn number but it would be at the expense of scaling back the surface fleet as I’ve mentioned before. In the event of very high end conflict with russia or China the surface fleet will not imo be of much use the ssn fleet will. The surface fleet in general is for lower peer conflict than that and should scaled accordingly.

[Repulse]

Moved my comment also

But Argus is not taking over the LPH role. The world has changed and so has the requirement. The fact is that there are two capable LPDs with large flight decks that can receive helicopters either from a CVF or ASS.

The fact that amphibious assault is down the priority list for many reasons including aversion to ground wars after Gulf and Afghanistan, is the underlying cause no matter how you want to dress it up. If the priority is Carrier Strike two large CVFs is absolute the right decision.

[donald_of_tokyo]

I’m comfortable that the UK has decided to prioritised other things over a LPH or even a LHD force.

The 1997 SDSR dream of 2 ARGs each comprised of a LPH, LPD and 2 LSDs, was just that a dream. It was based on Blair’s crusade of nation building, it is dead and always was. Even the shining example of Sierra Leone could be done today with the current assets and what’s more be done better.

[shark bait]

The prioritising is fine. If the Navy didn't prioritise they would look like the Army.