And that is what is so brilliant about it, it will catch the watchful Argies totally awwf guard!abc123 wrote:
Of course... Because landing in say West Falkland Island would do wonders for Operation Corporate...
Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Indeed, you can't deny that you will return 50% of the Falklands that way... It kind'a reminds me on US invasion of Attu and Kiska...Defiance wrote:And that is what is so brilliant about it, it will catch the watchful Argies totally awwf guard!abc123 wrote:
Of course... Because landing in say West Falkland Island would do wonders for Operation Corporate...
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
But in the first gulf war amphibious forces of the U.S.M.C were used as decoys to move large amounts of Iraqs armed forces to the coast to defende against this type of landing which of course never took place
-
- Member
- Posts: 217
- Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 11:12
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Could the lpd,s be converted to other roles ie a repair ship or a disaster relief/ hospital ship funded by other dept (overseas aid )manned by a civilian crew with most military equipment removed . This would allow the manning of POW and future commando carrier , would need a couple of enhanced Bay,s possibly.
My other thought was too have them RNR manned and maintained in a operation by preservation type role, again releasing crew .
My other thought was too have them RNR manned and maintained in a operation by preservation type role, again releasing crew .
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
No one has yet informed the rest of us what that (small) reserve is earmarked forPAUL MARSAY wrote: RNR manned
- MCM? Harbour defence here in the UK? Or just to fill in, like the tank crews from Yeomanry?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Question: Does the UK still need the ability to land Challenger II tanks via LCUs? I personally don't think so, and that would mean that smaller LCMs could be used.
Therefore, as part of a RFA focused Amphibious group perhaps 3 enlarged Canterbury ships (perhaps 4 LCUs and hangar space for 3-4 Merlins)? Would replace thexisting Albions to free up more sailors and cash for escorts (including a hybrid Amphibious T26 concept).
Therefore, as part of a RFA focused Amphibious group perhaps 3 enlarged Canterbury ships (perhaps 4 LCUs and hangar space for 3-4 Merlins)? Would replace thexisting Albions to free up more sailors and cash for escorts (including a hybrid Amphibious T26 concept).
”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
-
- Member
- Posts: 217
- Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 11:12
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
We are missing a trick with the RNR it needs expanding and given a role , mcm is one as historically but amphibious is another
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
The RNR already has an amphibious warfare branch. The missing trick is aligning RNR branches with RN branches. There is a pool of 3000 odd reservists that can be utilised, the RN seem reticent to utilise and realign the Reserve though.
-
Online
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5600
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
By saying "enlarged Canterbury", you are proposing no dock?Repulse wrote:Question: Does the UK still need the ability to land Challenger II tanks via LCUs? I personally don't think so, and that would mean that smaller LCMs could be used.
Therefore, as part of a RFA focused Amphibious group perhaps 3 enlarged Canterbury ships (perhaps 4 LCUs and hangar space for 3-4 Merlins)? Would replace thexisting Albions to free up more sailors and cash for escorts (including a hybrid Amphibious T26 concept).
I personally do not think RN need to be able to land modified Challenger II = 75t monster. But, I do think LCU in dock will be good. My personal preference is 4 modified/enlarged Bay-like, with a dock for 2 LCU each, as a replacement for 1+1 Albions and 3 Bays. We also need (at least) Argus replacement, to provide Commando helicopter transport, to cover the period the 2nd carrier is not available.
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Though we may not need to land C2s across the beach very often, I see no reason to spend good money on deliberately removing our ability to do so. The Bays are a proven multi-role platform, the logical approach is to improve and enlarge on that base.
If we do get an Argus replacement, it would also seem logical to base it on an updated/ enlarged Bay hull, perhaps without the dock (steel beach, possibly?) to allow more room for the PCRS facilities and with enhanced facilities for helicopter training operations. In the fullness of time, replacements for the current Bays should also have better aviation facilities than the current ships, but with a large dock (2X LCAC?) instead of the full PCRS facility.
If we do get an Argus replacement, it would also seem logical to base it on an updated/ enlarged Bay hull, perhaps without the dock (steel beach, possibly?) to allow more room for the PCRS facilities and with enhanced facilities for helicopter training operations. In the fullness of time, replacements for the current Bays should also have better aviation facilities than the current ships, but with a large dock (2X LCAC?) instead of the full PCRS facility.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Actually I think the RM should become a heavier force with a combined arms team, in a similar concept as the new ADF multi role brigades. The basic structure stays the same but has enablers that can be inserted like bricks when needed, an amphiboius ready element could call upon with heavy elements as needed such as a troop of MBT's (3-4 tanks)Repulse wrote:Question: Does the UK still need the ability to land Challenger II tanks via LCUs? I personally don't think so, and that would mean that smaller LCMs could be used.
If the concept was taken up it would require the RN to keep the capabilty to move ashore without port facility's a heavy MBT. I think you will find that once the future operating concept is more defined an LHD and combined arms migh just be the ticket.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Quite right, but I think that is already the case. The specially trained RM are the ones who open (Kicking it open may sound too kinetic viz-a- viz the actual doctrine) the door, a Chally contingent of 7 being landed is practiced... etcR686 wrote:the RM should become a heavier force with a combined arms team, in a similar concept as the new ADF multi role brigades. The basic structure stays the same but has enablers that can be inserted like bricks when needed, an amphiboius ready element could call upon with heavy elements as needed such as a troop of MBT's (3-4 tanks)
If the concept was taken up it would require the RN to keep the capabilty to move ashore without port facility's a heavy MBT.
- why no more than 7?
- every single one takes a roundtrip by an LCU
- and, if you plan to engage in running tank-on-tank battles from DD:hh 1+1, then obviously the site of the landing has not been chosen well, or other force elements (interdiction & CAS, including the Army Apaches) have not been supplied and/or applied in right proportion to the overall force package
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
If your doing tank on tank battles, someone hasn't done their homework, a combined arms team are not their to act as a heavy Armoured brigade more of a support function to the troops in contact, whilst not an Amphibious operation have a look at Operation Hammer as par of the Battle of Binh Ba (June 69) it gives an indication of a combined arms team.ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Quite right, but I think that is already the case. The specially trained RM are the ones who open (Kicking it open may sound too kinetic viz-a- viz the actual doctrine) the door, a Chally contingent of 7 being landed is practiced... etc
- why no more than 7?
- every single one takes a roundtrip by an LCU
- and, if you plan to engage in running tank-on-tank battles from DD:hh 1+1, then obviously the site of the landing has not been chosen well, or other force elements (interdiction & CAS, including the Army Apaches) have not been supplied and/or applied in right proportion to the overall force package
http://vietnam-war.commemoration.gov.au ... inh-ba.php
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
the need to be able to reinforce the marines with armour is exercised and was put into practice on Al Faw pennusliar when ch2's crossed the euphraties on M3 bridging rigs. As the marines and command recognise that the best anti tank weapon is another MBT. Given the marines usual role is light infantry they need MBT's on an as needed basis. Same with 16AA Bde they can have tanks allocated if needed. deploying them on exercises allows staff to plan how to use them and more importantly how to support them.
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Is there any reliable information for Itialys new LHD as Iv seen a few different measurements, 200m by 32m, 210m by 32m, 230m by 36m and 245m by 36m.
If it does turn out to be on the larger side would it be worth looking at as a replacement for the 2 LPDs and HMS Ocean, as it'd be clearly large enough to meet our needs if we got 2 of them
If it does turn out to be on the larger side would it be worth looking at as a replacement for the 2 LPDs and HMS Ocean, as it'd be clearly large enough to meet our needs if we got 2 of them
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
certainly we should look at the options when and if the decision is made to replace the LPD's or are we having Nott defence review for slow learners.
There are some good designs out there picking one and one using them as a starting point to design our own will hopefully happen.
There are some good designs out there picking one and one using them as a starting point to design our own will hopefully happen.
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
For me we should look to start the design of our own LHDs soon to minimise the need to use the carriers in a role they shouldn't be used in
Ideal I think we should be looking at something along these lines:
Length - 245m
Beam - 35m
Draft - 8m
Dispacement - 35,000t
Twin island design
Speed - 22kn
Range - 10,000nm
Aircraft capacity - 30-35
6+ medium in line landing spots
F35B capable
At least 1 lift chinook capable
Troop capacity - 1100-1200 standard 1600-1700 in overload
Vehicle capacity - 50+
Design and build of 2 of these should be capable for £2.5bn
Ideal I think we should be looking at something along these lines:
Length - 245m
Beam - 35m
Draft - 8m
Dispacement - 35,000t
Twin island design
Speed - 22kn
Range - 10,000nm
Aircraft capacity - 30-35
6+ medium in line landing spots
F35B capable
At least 1 lift chinook capable
Troop capacity - 1100-1200 standard 1600-1700 in overload
Vehicle capacity - 50+
Design and build of 2 of these should be capable for £2.5bn
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
The only good thing in all this is that we are going to have plenty of time to consider our options with regards to replacing the Albions and/or Ocean, say after the T-31 and CASD programmes have run their course.
One could argue that is the UK continues the shrinkage in the size of operationally deployed formations with the Army aiming at a maximum of a reinforces Brigade (off the record) the RM could reduce down to Company sized operation meaning they can easily squeeze only existing and planned escort and carrier platforms and the Albions can be on reduced readiness like Intrepid and Fearless were.
The Armed Forces are probably going to concentrate on the RAF and RN as they are the easiest branches to use politically as are SF, especially as the latter aren't mentioned much in briefings to the media and will be even less so in the future. Why spend money on something you don't really want to use.
One could argue that is the UK continues the shrinkage in the size of operationally deployed formations with the Army aiming at a maximum of a reinforces Brigade (off the record) the RM could reduce down to Company sized operation meaning they can easily squeeze only existing and planned escort and carrier platforms and the Albions can be on reduced readiness like Intrepid and Fearless were.
The Armed Forces are probably going to concentrate on the RAF and RN as they are the easiest branches to use politically as are SF, especially as the latter aren't mentioned much in briefings to the media and will be even less so in the future. Why spend money on something you don't really want to use.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Because you might have to (use it)?LordJim wrote: Why spend money on something you don't really want to use.
- or, if you spend enough, deterrence value will suffice
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
or go Japanese with some big nice 'helicopter destroyers'.....
@LandSharkUK
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Shark bait I really like the idea of ASW helicopter destroyers, have them with the carriers giving a better ASW cover and free up space for more F35Bs or have a self escorting version and have it roaming the North Atlantic.
The only thing is that these wouldn't really help our amphibious capacities like 2 large LHDs would. With the lose of the LPDs we'd really need to replace those well decks or lose a big portion of that capability
I would love to see us build 2 large LHDs and 2 large LPDs to increase the over all amphibious capacity, and this could be dome aswell as getting a large increase in escorts if the proper 2% was spent from this year onwards
The only thing is that these wouldn't really help our amphibious capacities like 2 large LHDs would. With the lose of the LPDs we'd really need to replace those well decks or lose a big portion of that capability
I would love to see us build 2 large LHDs and 2 large LPDs to increase the over all amphibious capacity, and this could be dome aswell as getting a large increase in escorts if the proper 2% was spent from this year onwards
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
No need to re-invent the wheel you already have the plans just need to be updated, save yourselves a lot of work.shark bait wrote:or go Japanese with some big nice 'helicopter destroyers'.....
-
- Member
- Posts: 217
- Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 11:12
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
We have the through deck cruiser design which became Invincible , can be updated to be a real multi capability . My only question would be could we do it cheap enough .
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Well we're going to need to replace the LPDs anyways so the best and cheapest rout to replace there capabilities and those of HMS ocean would be replace the 3 with 2 large LHDs as we couldn't afford to lose the well decks that the LPDs currently supply.
I personally don't think a modified invincible design would work. For one they're just not large enough to give us what we really need, and for two they're already and 40 year old design even if modified I can't see it staying a capable design over the next 40 years.
For me we should start from a fresh drawing board and design and build something between Juan Carlos 1 and the America class in size and capablities. We could use the new Italian design as a starting point the twin island idea saves space and increases survivability
I personally don't think a modified invincible design would work. For one they're just not large enough to give us what we really need, and for two they're already and 40 year old design even if modified I can't see it staying a capable design over the next 40 years.
For me we should start from a fresh drawing board and design and build something between Juan Carlos 1 and the America class in size and capablities. We could use the new Italian design as a starting point the twin island idea saves space and increases survivability
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
HMS Ocean was basically Invincible class v2.0, without the ramp, speed and build quality...