Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

SW1 wrote: 25 Apr 2023, 14:00 Khartoum to port Sudan is 500 km plus. Good luck with helicoptering on a 1000 km round trip in a hot country with elevation. Add ground force protection to each helicopter flight and that unworkable. It’s why everyone is using transport planes and not helicopters.
Cant agree here.

Khartoum is where the attention is but what about the UK citizens in the rest of Sudan? What do they do?

It’s at least plausible that RN could evacuate some via the sea if they had assets in the area.

What’s plan B if the airport gets too dangerous for large transport aircraft?

This crisis has a long way to go yet and having vessels in the Red Sea with helos and RM is not a waste of time or effort.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

jedibeeftrix wrote: 25 Apr 2023, 16:04 Do 3Cdo even know what this is, because I sure as hell do not!
Good question. I agree it’s as clear as mud and the rate of transformation since 2021 appears modest to say the least.

Hopefully the defence command paper will actually articulate something comprehensible rather than vague references to emerging technologies and the biggest transformation since WW2.

Unfortunately due to Sweden and Finland joining NATO the IR 2023 is already out of date.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
jedibeeftrix

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 25 Apr 2023, 16:35
SW1 wrote: 25 Apr 2023, 14:00 Khartoum to port Sudan is 500 km plus. Good luck with helicoptering on a 1000 km round trip in a hot country with elevation. Add ground force protection to each helicopter flight and that unworkable. It’s why everyone is using transport planes and not helicopters.
Cant agree here.

Khartoum is where the attention is but what about the UK citizens in the rest of Sudan? What do they do?

It’s at least plausible that RN could evacuate some via the sea if they had assets in the area.

What’s plan B if the airport gets too dangerous for large transport aircraft?

This crisis has a long way to go yet and having vessels in the Red Sea with helos and RM is not a waste of time or effort.
I don’t know where U.K. citizens are but I’m guessing most near the capital. I have heard there has been an overland route to port sudan. Also heard of people going overland to South Sudan, Ethiopia, Chad and Egypt.

Of course it’s an option and a RN asset is in the region HMS Lancashire to do that if people turn there it doesn’t need more, marines have been flown into port Sudan to scope. But it won’t take many flights to lift U.K. nationals out there isn’t that many there.

I would actually go further I know there’s the usual hair on fire in the news but if the foreign office has a do not travel against Sudan which it did and people went anyway then I wouldn’t be going to get them. Yes there is a duty of care to government employees who were sent there and they had to go get them but the rest I don’t have much less sympathy for tbh.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

The RMs have no role in JEF outside of Littoral security / manoeuvre, maritime security and supporting raiding from maritime platforms (primarily OTH from the CSGs).

Same can be said for its global role, with the exception of sea based HADR operations.

If the Army wants logistics to move its kit (be it MBTs or whatever), then they should have a fleet of ships to do it. However, they aren’t an amphibious assault force, so will be going for Points not LPDs/LSDs/LHDs.

Given the RMs role is as described above is it time we dropped our obsession with these ship types? My view is not completely, but ships with large well docks are not required.
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 25 Apr 2023, 14:15 2 JMSDF Osumi-like, flat top LPDs (with small well-dock)
2 Bay like logistic LSDs (with small well-dock)
And 4-6 new-types of landing assets like BMT ARES CAIMEN 200? (mainly for Baltic?)

Just a thought.
Two Osumi-like LPD replacements to replace the Albions and sail with CSGs absolutely.

LSDs no. If sufficient aviation resources could be found then three forward based Argus style Aviation Support Ships (commercial conversions) with 4 LCVP sized davits could make a lot of sense. Based in Gib, Oman and Oz.
”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

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

The more I have been reading up on the various efforts of US / European nations to bring home their national citizens from Sudan (the UK latest news I saw is that HMS Lancaster has arrived at Port Sudan to help with transporting any UK Nationals in the northern coastal region of Sudan to offer an alternate exit from the airport to the north of Khartoum), and thinking back to the previous retreat from Kabul, the more I come to agree with having these so-called "penny-packets" of RM advance deployed at various UK bases aboard.

I do think these contingents should be reduced from RM Companies to RM Platoons, reflecting that we don't want the RM to be advance deployed away from home for too long, as would adversely effect RM recruitment and retention. Whereas smaller deployments of shorter durations should be more positive and might even help.

The UK has overseas BoT;s / bases near the equator, in Belize, Ascencion Island and Gibralter, then Kenya, Oman and Singapore. If the UK had a RM Platoon based in each of those regional hubs, would give geat geographical coverage for many / most of the world's likely trouble spots. Especially if those hubs had both an airfield and a naval base, then we would have great flexibility of either responding to HADR requests or carrying out other missions. Realised I had forgotten Cyprus and Brunei as possible options.

If we had an OPV, a Bay or the previously discussed LSV in these locations, ideally with a couple of transport helicopters and a A400 transport. The point with these "penny packets" of RM would be to set up a structure of logistics with small forces (unlikely to cause any tensions with any local regional powers) but easy to quickly reinforce up to Company strength by deploying reinforcements from UK.
These users liked the author wargame_insomniac for the post (total 3):
PoiuytrewqRepulseserge750

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 27 Apr 2023, 21:49 … agree with having these so-called "penny-packets" of RM advance deployed at various UK bases aboard.

I do think these contingents should be reduced from RM Companies to RM Platoons, reflecting that we don't want the RM to be advance deployed away from home for too long, as would adversely effect RM recruitment and retention…
I do agree, but these “penny packets” can and should include units from the other services such as the Paras and Rangers.

I do understand the point on retention, but can’t help but think that a platoon/troop sized deployment is too small, even if backed by a larger UK force. You’d really want a long enough period for handovers and acclimatisation. Maybe a rotation model of two platoons/troops deployed, one at readiness in the UK and one on leave could be a happy medium.

Also, one point to remember is that a number of the BOTs now have local units that can be used to scale also.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
wargame_insomniac
”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
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

We all do know that each B2 River carries a Platoon of RM at all times and in the case of Forth she works with the Infantry based on the Falklands

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

”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

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1183
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by new guy »

Tempest414 wrote: 28 Apr 2023, 11:24 We all do know that each B2 River carries a Platoon of RM at all times and in the case of Forth she works with the Infantry based on the Falklands
RB2 can carry a crew of 25-45 and room for up to 50 others. How many is a platoon of royal marines? 90 people on a River seems pritty packed, especially considering that T31 is expected to have less than 100 crew + space for 60 ((!) considering that T23 has a crew for 185 and accommodation for 205) .
T26 has a crew of 157 with space for 208.

class Crew Extras Total
River 35-45 + 50 = 95
T23 185 + 20 = 205
T26 157 + 51 = 208
T31 80-100 + 60 = 160

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

I believe the RM is the same as the Army and its Platoons are 36 strong so the B2's carry a crew of 45 plus 36 RM making 81 so as said the FIGS will work with infantry based on Falklands Medway carries a working party of about the same number the other 3 carry a RM Platoon

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Aren’t Platoons called Troops in the RMs? Each troop has @30 marine’s depending on its role.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
zanahoria
”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

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Just also to note HMS Forth in the Falklands has the capability to move the stationed Army company to where ever they are needed in the islands.
”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
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote: 29 Apr 2023, 09:49 Just also to note HMS Forth in the Falklands has the capability to move the stationed Army company to where ever they are needed in the islands.
She may well be able to move said Company but they will stood up or sitting about with there kit left on the flight deck for the short trip its like saying a B2 could move 200 plus troop from Dunkirk to the UK

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote: 29 Apr 2023, 10:47
Repulse wrote: 29 Apr 2023, 09:49 Just also to note HMS Forth in the Falklands has the capability to move the stationed Army company to where ever they are needed in the islands.
She may well be able to move said Company but they will stood up or sitting about with there kit left on the flight deck for the short trip its like saying a B2 could move 200 plus troop from Dunkirk to the UK
Not quite
“All five new patrol ships have a dedicated mess for up to 51 troops – bunks, galley, toilets and showers, plus space for their kit – something HMS Clyde never had, and can accommodate another 50 soldiers or Royal Marines on camp beds.”
https://en.mercopress.com/2020/02/05/fa ... d-exercise
”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

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

jedibeeftrix wrote: 25 Apr 2023, 16:04 What is a properly implemented FCF concept? Do 3Cdo even know what this is, because I sure as hell do not!
Nearly 2 years after the Royal Marines biggest reorganisation since WW2 no one appears to be 100% what has changed?

Simple questions have not been adequately answered:

1: What does the structure of the Future Commando Force actually look like?

2: Is 3Cdo Bde is still a coherent fighting Brigade sized force that is deployable as a separate entity to 16 AAB?

3: With the Nordic countries now becoming part of NATO is the twin LRG structure even relevant anymore?

4: If the Royal Marines are due to be a predominantly Tier2 SF raiding and reconnaissance force is the logistical, engineering and artillery support to form 3Cdo Bde still required or should it be reassigned within the British Army?

The lack of a clear FCF structure make it look like a reorganisation was embarked upon when the future direction of RM was still fluid. For planning to still be in flux two years on could it be that there is a level of disagreement as to the correct way forward?

Prior to the Defence Command Paper making everything crystal clear in 6 weeks time, any one like to try to propose what it should be:

A: Pre 2030 with existing vessels/manpower/kit

B: Post 2030 when the Amphibious Fleet is replaced

It would be interesting to see if anyone can nail it.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 2):
zanahoriajedibeeftrix

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Do we want to lose our global amphib capability ?

What the IR will throw up in terms of the FCF is nothing as it is still in play

For me pre 2030 nothing will change we might see some small movement on LRG/s and post 2030 more of the same what I can see is the Navy trying to eek out the LPD's LDS's until 2040

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 29 Apr 2023, 20:50 ^
To answer any of those questions the requirement for the FCF needs to be confirmed.

From the announcements made and general comments / discussions, I believe that the requirement for the FCF is:
- Forward global operations on both warships and in the Littoral zone for low scale security, stability, initial reaction and grey-war operations. This would include regions such as the Artic.
- Short term global interventions (raiding / HADR) scaling from SF operations / evacuations to Cdo level manoeuvres to secure (not necessarily seize) a landing zone / port.

In my view:
- For the former (Global Presence) you need small units operating from a number of forward based platforms/bases. This seems to be the role of 42 and 47 Cdo.
- For the latter (Global Intervention) you need a large platform (or two) that can sail with a configurable task force (up to a CSG), capable of transporting a Cdo landing or OTH using helicopters / fast landing craft. This would include logistics and stores. This seems to be the role of 40 and 45 Cdo.

In terms of platforms in the short term:
- Global Presence: Use existing LSD/ASS platforms and OPVs forward based. In addition use existing BOT / bases such as Camp Viking. If money allows buy new LCVP sized craft to improve Littoral manoeuvre capabilities.
- Global Intervention: Use both LPDs in combination of RMs being based on other ships in the task group. Stores can be carried by the FSS.

Longer term is an interesting question, and alot will depend on funds. My (almost) fantasy fleet would be:
- Global Presence: An RFA replacement for Argus in the ASS role, 3-4 CrossOver/Absalon style frigates, two new Ice Patrol ships and keep the five B2s in their current global roles.
- Global Intervention: Two new (larger) Ōsumi class style flat top LPDs and some LCACs.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
wargame_insomniac
”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

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote: 30 Apr 2023, 10:16 Do we want to lose our global amphib capability ?
My question would be so we even have it now and do we need it?

The force structure was designed in 90s for nation building and was never finished (missing a LPH) and is now further diminished (minus a LSD). It was meant to always ensure that we had a ready ARG (LPH, LPD + 2 LSDs). We can’t do this today.

Also, the world has changed. Iraq and Afghanistan has rightly reminded the UK that nation building is not to be taken lightly and a quick initial win without depth of forces is a long term loss. On top of that with A2D systems there is a likely cost of a large scale amphibious operation that outside of a peer war which threatened the UK or a very close ally would be beyond the UK public. Therefore, IMO it’s not needed and if it is would take years to build not only the amphibious capability, but the needed scale to go in behind it. Keep seedcorn capabilities absolutely, but let’s not kid ourselves.
”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: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 30 Apr 2023, 10:52
Tempest414 wrote: 30 Apr 2023, 10:16 Do we want to lose our global amphib capability ?
My question would be so we even have it now and do we need it?

The force structure was designed in 90s for nation building and was never finished (missing a LPH) and is now further diminished (minus a LSD). It was meant to always ensure that we had a ready ARG (LPH, LPD + 2 LSDs). We can’t do this today.

Also, the world has changed. Iraq and Afghanistan has rightly reminded the UK that nation building is not to be taken lightly and a quick initial win without depth of forces is a long term loss. On top of that with A2D systems there is a likely cost of a large scale amphibious operation that outside of a peer war which threatened the UK or a very close ally would be beyond the UK public. Therefore, IMO it’s not needed and if it is would take years to build not only the amphibious capability, but the needed scale to go in behind it. Keep seedcorn capabilities absolutely, but let’s not kid ourselves.
The ARG conceived in the early 90s was not for nation building it was to support the the landing of 3 commando brigade as a brigade on NATOs flanks. Nation building and the force for good mantra was born in the 98 sdsr.

If the 2nd paragraph of your post is your thinking then why keep the “global” (has this become the new word we attach to everything like strike) intervention force that you say is the role of 40 and 45 commando and an Argus replacement it’s just the same thing only less well equipped for the job.

Or as the saying goes it’s the ooops we spend all the money on carrier strike what do we do with the marines now strategy…
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
jedibeeftrix

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Our ready LRG is not what it was with the loss of Ocean and a Bay however it is still 1 x LPD , 2 x LSD, Argus and a Escort which along with a CSG can be deployed globally

Maybe one way for the RM to go is a similar route to the Rangers something like

40 & 45 commando being split into 6 new commando's of 200 troops along the lines of the Rangers Battalions of 250 troops

With 42 & 47 commando responsible for having 6 Troop size units of 32 to 36 deployed on ships at sea 365 days a year

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 30 Apr 2023, 11:11 If the 2nd paragraph of your post is your thinking then why keep the “global” (has this become the new word we attach to everything like strike) intervention force that you say is the role of 40 and 45 commando and an Argus replacement it’s just the same thing only less well equipped for the job.

Or as the saying goes it’s the ooops we spend all the money on carrier strike what do we do with the marines now strategy…
The word is “Global” is required to remind some that this is a global requirement and a global capability, it is not some narrow North Atlantic/ NATO only centric view that some seem to be obsessed with - the UK remains a (albeit limited) global player. Hopefully that is enough Globals for you :)

Carrier strike is a prerequisite for Amphibious Ops, regardless of their scale, outside a very benign environment. By giving it a ground attack capability only strengthens it. I think we’ve made our differing views known on CEPP in the past.
”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

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote: 30 Apr 2023, 11:32 40 & 45 commando being split into 6 new commando's of 200 troops along the lines of the Rangers Battalions of 250 troops
Each Cdo has 4 companies, which makes 8. One on the active LPD, one on the deployed CVF with another two at high readiness at any point in time seems ultimately doable.
”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: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 30 Apr 2023, 12:33
SW1 wrote: 30 Apr 2023, 11:11 If the 2nd paragraph of your post is your thinking then why keep the “global” (has this become the new word we attach to everything like strike) intervention force that you say is the role of 40 and 45 commando and an Argus replacement it’s just the same thing only less well equipped for the job.

Or as the saying goes it’s the ooops we spend all the money on carrier strike what do we do with the marines now strategy…
The word is “Global” is required to remind some that this is a global requirement and a global capability, it is not some narrow North Atlantic/ NATO only centric view that some seem to be obsessed with - the UK remains a (albeit limited) global player. Hopefully that is enough Globals for you :)

Carrier strike is a prerequisite for Amphibious Ops, regardless of their scale, outside a very benign environment. By giving it a ground attack capability only strengthens it. I think we’ve made our differing views known on CEPP in the past.

That we have operated across the world for decades without anyone ever needing to attach global to anything shows how shallow the marketing has become.

Maybe it’s all style over substance these days anyway.

It isn’t really but then no point going round the blinkered circle again

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote: 30 Apr 2023, 10:16 Do we want to lose our global amphib capability ?
No but D-Day Mk2 isn’t happening either so realistically what will ever be used in a REAL conflict, not just an exercise.
What the IR will throw up in terms of the FCF is nothing as it is still in play
After how many years now?

The transition of RM has supposedly being going on since at least SDSR 2010. Someone needs to grip it now and illustrate in a coherent way what the structure of RM is actually going to be going forward. Finland and Sweden joining NATO should help to clear the decks in terms of a dedicated JEF Amphibious force to secure the Nordics.

Collectively working together Norway, Sweden and Finland with a modest number of rotated NATO Battlegroups along with a highly capable UK led Rapid Reaction Force is all that is required from NATO to secure the region apart the RM, USMC and the Dutch Marines helping secure the Norwegian coast.
For me pre 2030 nothing will change we might see some small movement on LRG/s and post 2030 more of the same what I can see is the Navy trying to eek out the LPD's LDS's until 2040
It will be tempting to do this but availability will start to fall away and the refits will start to get eye watering.

Getting the LSDs converted to LSS spec by adding permanent hangers to allow Argus to decommission without replacement makes complete financial sense. Getting H&W to build two LHDs and three MRSS over 12-15 years starting 2030 is most likely IMO.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 2):
wargame_insomniacjedibeeftrix

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 30 Apr 2023, 12:51 That we have operated across the world for decades without anyone ever needing to attach global to anything shows how shallow the marketing has become.
Maybe or how limited funds are, and a real danger that those calling for BAOR2 / Nott Mk2 might be listened to.
”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

Post Reply