Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4699
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 21:46 Before dismissing such a group the consideration must be what can a modernised ARG actually achieve?
We need to start with what is the requirement in a UK context, and then decide what it needs to do.

Is it to launch brigade level amphibious operations? Is it to transport large formations or troops and kit to reinforce the JEF region? Is it a platform for reinforced SF operations?

My view is the last is a requirement (reinforced SF ops), plus as a forward operating base for manned and unmanned strike aircraft and long range ground attack missiles.

This does not require a traditional ARG made up of LPDs/LHDs.
”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: 520
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by jedibeeftrix »

SW1 wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 21:28
Poiuytrewq wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 21:07
jedibeeftrix wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 09:47 i'm not expecting a more peaceful Europe in the 21st century, but I do work to the following:
1. the scale of the threat from russia today is an order of magnitude smaller than was the case when britain was staring down the barrel of 15 soviet shock armies.
2. in consequence, the threat that russia represents today can be hard stopped by three hyper-defensive frontier nations (finland/poland/ukraine), with Art5 support.
3. this changes the emphasis in what nato needs from the UK - especially given nato's new interest in the rise of china.
That sounds very reassuring but Poland and Ukraine aren’t going to be helping Finland in a multi incursion scenario.
To assemble a force for such an incursion would require build up and planning. If you have the intelligence assets you would see it.
in addition to the above, on the subject of:
"That sounds very reassuring but Poland and Ukraine aren’t going to be helping Finland in a multi incursion scenario."

Is Russia capable of amassing sufficient force to achieve a 200km incursion if it is also amassing forces for a multi incursion scenario?
i.e. invading Finland, Poland, and Ukraine, all at once.

I would suggest, not:
jedibeeftrix wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 09:47We've seen precisely how effective a poor medium-sized nation with no formal defensive ties has been at disrupting the plans of its 'Superpower' neighbour. Finland would be even harder. Poland would be harder still.
Now imagine poor wickle Russia having to attack all three in the event of General War, with the backing of Art5 commitments from fellow NATO nations.
Including the UK!

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 520
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by jedibeeftrix »

Repulse wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 22:27
Poiuytrewq wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 21:46 Before dismissing such a group the consideration must be what can a modernised ARG actually achieve?
We need to start with what is the requirement in a UK context, and then decide what it needs to do.
Is it to launch brigade level amphibious operations? Is it to transport large formations or troops and kit to reinforce the JEF region? Is it a platform for reinforced SF operations?
I think you are missing an important option that sits between those two extremes:
a) Is it to launch brigade level amphibious operations?
b) Is it to launch battlegroup level amphibious operations? *
c) Is it a platform for reinforced SF operations?

* the minimum scale at which combined arms maneuvre under armour can be achieved, and something that the UK is entirely capable of resourcing.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5601
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 22:27
Poiuytrewq wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 21:46 Before dismissing such a group the consideration must be what can a modernised ARG actually achieve?
We need to start with what is the requirement in a UK context, and then decide what it needs to do.

Is it to launch brigade level amphibious operations? Is it to transport large formations or troops and kit to reinforce the JEF region? Is it a platform for reinforced SF operations?

My view is the last is a requirement (reinforced SF ops), plus as a forward operating base for manned and unmanned strike aircraft and long range ground attack missiles.

This does not require a traditional ARG made up of LPDs/LHDs.
In Fact all 3 are needed we are now getting an idea of what the FCF is looking to do which is dispersed battle group op's using 12 man team by air and sea this will require a aviation centred MRSS with a dock add to this the need for Army to able to capable of brigade level theatre entry using Point class

We are a Island nation and there for we need to get our troops into the fight no matter where that fight is

We need to be able to open the door for a army brigade if needed anywhere in the world supported by a CSG

The Army needs to sort its self out they need to re-role the 6th division to have the

11th Security Force Assistance Brigade
Army Special Operations Brigade = Rangers
77th brigade
SF Brigade = SAS , SBS , SRR & SFSG

This would become the Armies global force and backed up by the UK 1st Division which would have

16 AA brigade
2 x Light mech brigades
1 x reserve light mech brigade

The UK 3rd Division needs to move to

1st Deep fires brigade
2 x Combined arms brigade each with 4 x combined battalions each with

HQ company , 1 x Cavalry Sqn , 1 x Tank Sqn , 2 x Infantry companies , 1 x 120mm Mortar Platoon , 1 x Overwatch Platoon , 1 x air defence Platoon
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
jedibeeftrix

Markam
Member
Posts: 63
Joined: 22 Mar 2024, 13:40
Japan

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Markam »

Sightly off-topic but regarding moving of forces via LPDs; with the Challenger 2/3 being such a huge tank I cannot help but think by design our Army is not very well suited to amphibious operations and is set up as a force to be deployed to Germany.

With the Challenger 3 being reduced in number reportedly due to lack of operable Challenger 2s to upgrade (or perhaps just money issues as usual), it would be interesting if our next tank design (if we were to have one) is developed to be more suited to rapid deployment to for example Scandinavia now that Finland/Sweden have joined. Something more in line with the M10 Booker or the Japanese Type 10 (i.e 40-50 tons). The Japanese Type 10 was made lighter due to geographical issues (lots of bridges could not take previous tanks). The Ajax and Boxer both also are not on the light side.

Sorry, just a random thought I had. A lot of serious considerations to be made ahead of the 2025 IR what kind of Armed Forces we are to form.

Online
Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7299
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Markam wrote: 26 Mar 2024, 12:56 With the Challenger 3 being reduced in number reportedly due to lack of operable Challenger 2s to upgrade
I've not seen this, where have you? Thanks.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4699
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

jedibeeftrix wrote: 26 Mar 2024, 09:12
Repulse wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 22:27
Poiuytrewq wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 21:46 Before dismissing such a group the consideration must be what can a modernised ARG actually achieve?
We need to start with what is the requirement in a UK context, and then decide what it needs to do.
Is it to launch brigade level amphibious operations? Is it to transport large formations or troops and kit to reinforce the JEF region? Is it a platform for reinforced SF operations?
I think you are missing an important option that sits between those two extremes:
a) Is it to launch brigade level amphibious operations?
b) Is it to launch battlegroup level amphibious operations? *
c) Is it a platform for reinforced SF operations?

* the minimum scale at which combined arms maneuvre under armour can be achieved, and something that the UK is entirely capable of resourcing.
I would see the reinforced SF operations to be larger than others, anything up to 1,000 troops which are short (days) in their nature, but you are right, there is a potential gap.

My challenge with battlegroup level operations is what is the role / requirement it is fulfilling - the danger is that they tick a box (we can still do amphibious ops) but they are expensive and of limited value. Would be good to explore the scenarios.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
jedibeeftrix
”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: 4699
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote: 26 Mar 2024, 11:42 In Fact all 3 are needed we are now getting an idea of what the FCF is looking to do which is dispersed battle group op's using 12 man team by air and sea this will require a aviation centred MRSS with a dock…
I don’t know how you’ve jumped to the conclusion that we need a MRSS - helicopters from a flat top or boats from a frigate would have the same effect.
…add to this the need for Army to able to capable of brigade level theatre entry using Point class
Absolutely, if the Army needs to get anywhere over water then it is Points, STUFT and a degree of air lift.
We are a Island nation and there for we need to get our troops into the fight no matter where that fight is

We need to be able to open the door for a army brigade if needed anywhere in the world supported by a CSG
“Open the door” is a very broad term - it suggests the need to seize a port or area to build an artificial one. I would suggest securing a port that isn’t defended by the enemy is a possibility, but the rest are unlikely and expensive. Would say sailing to a friendly port for the Army is by far the most likely scenario.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
jedibeeftrix
”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: 520
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by jedibeeftrix »

Repulse wrote: 26 Mar 2024, 13:10
jedibeeftrix wrote: 26 Mar 2024, 09:12
I think you are missing an important option that sits between those two extremes:
a) Is it to launch brigade level amphibious operations?
b) Is it to launch battlegroup level amphibious operations? *
c) Is it a platform for reinforced SF operations?

* the minimum scale at which combined arms maneuvre under armour can be achieved, and something that the UK is entirely capable of resourcing.
I would see the reinforced SF operations to be larger than others, anything up to 1,000 troops which are short (days) in their nature, but you are right, there is a potential gap.

My challenge with battlegroup level operations is what is the role / requirement it is fulfilling - the danger is that they tick a box (we can still do amphibious ops) but they are expensive and of limited value. Would be good to explore the scenarios.
I see it less about the amphibiosity, more about the combined arms maneuvre, and how any expensive formation that cannot do that is going to struggle to justify the cost - since the capability is core to all modern warfare.

That, combined with the need to do port opening for larger (brigade) scale army forces. Something that inevitably needs more persistance than a 72hr raid, and thus requires bringing your support (in vehicles) with you.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5601
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote: 26 Mar 2024, 13:18
Tempest414 wrote: 26 Mar 2024, 11:42 In Fact all 3 are needed we are now getting an idea of what the FCF is looking to do which is dispersed battle group op's using 12 man team by air and sea this will require a aviation centred MRSS with a dock…
I don’t know how you’ve jumped to the conclusion that we need a MRSS - helicopters from a flat top or boats from a frigate would have the same effect.
…add to this the need for Army to able to capable of brigade level theatre entry using Point class
Absolutely, if the Army needs to get anywhere over water then it is Points, STUFT and a degree of air lift.
We are a Island nation and there for we need to get our troops into the fight no matter where that fight is

We need to be able to open the door for a army brigade if needed anywhere in the world supported by a CSG
“Open the door” is a very broad term - it suggests the need to seize a port or area to build an artificial one. I would suggest securing a port that isn’t defended by the enemy is a possibility, but the rest are unlikely and expensive. Would say sailing to a friendly port for the Army is by far the most likely scenario.
I can flip that why have you jumped to the conclusion that we don't . Frigates and fleet carriers have there own job to do we can't alway rely on them being able to undertake secondary roles or that we will have the second carrier fit for duty. I do agree some op's can be undertaken as you laid out but to do more we need ships that are designed for the task in hand

As said before a carrier can not do CAP , Strike , AEW , ASW and then conduct amphib strike as well first of all the carrier will be in the wrong place for troop movements second if the type 26's are sent to support cdo raids they will way out place to conduct ASW ops in support of our 10 billion pound CSG

Yes we need the RM to be able to open the door for an Army Brigade anywhere in the world remember friendly ports are likely to be 2000km's from where we need to be hopefully we would see an enemy build up and match it without the need to secure a port I am not saying we should be looking to put a Army brigade over a beech but maybe a second or third class port

Markam
Member
Posts: 63
Joined: 22 Mar 2024, 13:40
Japan

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Markam »

Ron5 wrote: 26 Mar 2024, 13:02
Markam wrote: 26 Mar 2024, 12:56 With the Challenger 3 being reduced in number reportedly due to lack of operable Challenger 2s to upgrade
I've not seen this, where have you? Thanks.
As with all things Military it's hard to say for sure but it was reported we only had 157 workable Challenger 2 tanks currently, and the 148 number seems awfully close to that number which is where the articles drawn the conclusion that lack of existing Challenger 2s directly correlated to the number of Challenger 3s we can upgrade. Ben Wallace said we could upgrade more but is that just the 9 extra we have or can we somehow get more from the storage of broke down tanks? If we simply can't make any more Challengers it's a good time to consider what kind of tank would go well with naval deployment now we can examine our strategic needs.

Here's one of many articles;
https://www.army-technology.com/news/br ... s/?cf-view
These users liked the author Markam for the post:
Ron5

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5601
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Markam wrote: 26 Mar 2024, 15:37
Ron5 wrote: 26 Mar 2024, 13:02
Markam wrote: 26 Mar 2024, 12:56 With the Challenger 3 being reduced in number reportedly due to lack of operable Challenger 2s to upgrade
I've not seen this, where have you? Thanks.
As with all things Military it's hard to say for sure but it was reported we only had 157 workable Challenger 2 tanks currently, and the 148 number seems awfully close to that number which is where the articles drawn the conclusion that lack of existing Challenger 2s directly correlated to the number of Challenger 3s we can upgrade. Ben Wallace said we could upgrade morebbut

Here's one of many articles;
https://www.army-technology.com/news/br ... s/?cf-view
So we had 227 CH2 plus some 75 Stored CH2's we gave away 14 to Ukraine in 2023 so we have 210 or so CH2 in service of which 159 are front line plus 70 odd in deep store

To add to this the army requested 190 CH3 but only has funding for 148

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4699
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote: 26 Mar 2024, 14:25 I can flip that why have you jumped to the conclusion that we don't .

Frigates and fleet carriers have there own job to do we can't alway rely on them being able to undertake secondary roles or that we will have the second carrier fit for duty. I do agree some op's can be undertaken as you laid out but to do more we need ships that are designed for the task in hand
The CVFs can be Strike Carriers but they have been designed for a number of roles - let’s not get carried away. The RN does not require an always deployed strike carrier.

Same with the first rate escorts they have all been designed to host 50+ RMs and have chinook capable hangars. Also, uniquely the T26s have a mission bay that can support an array of boats including fast boats. Let’s not over think it, all these are relevant.
As said before a carrier can not do CAP , Strike , AEW , ASW and then conduct amphib strike as well first of all the carrier will be in the wrong place for troop movements
That’s fine, we have two. Plus if you are primarily operating OTH positioning can be with the main task group.
second if the type 26's are sent to support cdo raids they will way out place to conduct ASW ops in support of our 10 billion pound CSG
That’s easy but more T26s as ultimately you’d end up pretty close to them to support operations against peer nations which is your primary concern.
Yes we need the RM to be able to open the door for an Army Brigade anywhere in the world remember friendly ports are likely to be 2000km's from where we need to be hopefully we would see an enemy build up and match it without the need to secure a port I am not saying we should be looking to put a Army brigade over a beech but maybe a second or third class port
No one is going to land a brigade in to enemy territory without being part of a larger coalition, and even then not to a 2nd/3rd rate port that is 2,000 km from a friendly port. The Falklands war was unique and wouldn’t be tried against a peer.

Even if it was a priority the scenario where the risk would even be remotely acceptable is so narrow, I can’t see it as a good use of money.
”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: 5601
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote: 26 Mar 2024, 17:29
Tempest414 wrote: 26 Mar 2024, 14:25 I can flip that why have you jumped to the conclusion that we don't .

Frigates and fleet carriers have there own job to do we can't alway rely on them being able to undertake secondary roles or that we will have the second carrier fit for duty. I do agree some op's can be undertaken as you laid out but to do more we need ships that are designed for the task in hand
The CVFs can be Strike Carriers but they have been designed for a number of roles - let’s not get carried away. The RN does not require an always deployed strike carrier.

Same with the first rate escorts they have all been designed to host 50+ RMs and have chinook capable hangars. Also, uniquely the T26s have a mission bay that can support an array of boats including fast boats. Let’s not over think it, all these are relevant.
As said before a carrier can not do CAP , Strike , AEW , ASW and then conduct amphib strike as well first of all the carrier will be in the wrong place for troop movements
That’s fine, we have two. Plus if you are primarily operating OTH positioning can be with the main task group.
second if the type 26's are sent to support cdo raids they will way out place to conduct ASW ops in support of our 10 billion pound CSG
That’s easy but more T26s as ultimately you’d end up pretty close to them to support operations against peer nations which is your primary concern.
Yes we need the RM to be able to open the door for an Army Brigade anywhere in the world remember friendly ports are likely to be 2000km's from where we need to be hopefully we would see an enemy build up and match it without the need to secure a port I am not saying we should be looking to put a Army brigade over a beech but maybe a second or third class port
No one is going to land a brigade in to enemy territory without being part of a larger coalition, and even then not to a 2nd/3rd rate port that is 2,000 km from a friendly port. The Falklands war was unique and wouldn’t be tried against a peer.

Even if it was a priority the scenario where the risk would even be remotely acceptable is so narrow, I can’t see it as a good use of money.
We will have to agree to disagree on a number of points here but it is my opinion that we need dedicated MRSS for the RM yes there can operate from other ships in there secondary roles

2nd and 3 rd rate ports could be a lot closer plus in any full effort by Russia and China know they have to take out major ports to slow reinforcements from the UK and US

To be part of a larger coalition we still need the kit
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
Repulse

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1144
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Repulse wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 16:44
Absolutely this, which is why talking about the need for the UK to provide and sustain armoured divisions is a complete waste of resources. Also, it is at the core of what the FCF / UK expeditionary capabilities need to look like.
Agreed. It was previously pretty clear what UK RM Commandos, along with our Dutch allies, would need to do in respect of reinforcing the long coastline but shallow strategic depth (i.e. NOT depth of Fjords but how long it would take to move tankss from west coast of Norway to Norway's eastern borders), with Norway's direct land border with Russia being far shorter.

By contrast since the acession of both Finland and then Sweden to NATO has given NATO a much longer direct land border with Russia, albeit one with much larger strategic depth in Scandinavia (ignoring Baltics for the moment) with it taking much longer to drive a tank from eastern Finnish border through all 3 Nordic countries to Norwegian coast in west).

That, plus NATO's dual weakneses of small armed forces of the 3 Baltic States plus the increased stress on Land corridor of the Suwalki Gsp, gives some radically different challenges to the UK as both head of 10 Nation JEF, and also signatory of if I remember correctly, 3 separate individual Mutual Defence Pacts between UK and each of Finland, Poland and Estonia, over and above any NATO Article 5 discussions.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5772
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »


Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 4073
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Markam wrote: 26 Mar 2024, 12:56 …Something more in line with the M10 Booker or the Japanese Type 10 (i.e 40-50 tons)……The Ajax and Boxer both also are not on the light side.
The CH3 is just a stopgap and recent events have clearly shown the continued versatility of the MBT. However that doesn’t necessarily require a CH4.

IMO an uncrewed 105mm or 120mm turret for Boxer and Ajax is the way forward eventually.

If sense prevails and a solid order of 600 CV90 order eventually replaces Warrior then the ~100 Ares variants could receive a 105mm turret which would be a massive boost to CH3 numbers.

The problems are fixable if the will exists.

sol
Member
Posts: 551
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by sol »

Markam wrote: 26 Mar 2024, 12:56 Something more in line with the M10 Booker or the Japanese Type 10 (i.e 40-50 tons). The Japanese Type 10 was made lighter due to geographical issues (lots of bridges could not take previous tanks).
Neither or those two are tanks or could take tank role.
Poiuytrewq wrote: 27 Mar 2024, 09:34 The CH3 is just a stopgap and recent events have clearly shown the continued versatility of the MBT. However that doesn’t necessarily require a CH4.
UK will have several tank options about that time.
Poiuytrewq wrote: 27 Mar 2024, 09:34 IMO an uncrewed 105mm or 120mm turret for Boxer and Ajax is the way forward eventually.
For what? Tank replacement? Not really? For close infantry support? Boxer with NEMO of CROSSBOW turret could provide that.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5601
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 27 Mar 2024, 09:34
Markam wrote: 26 Mar 2024, 12:56 …Something more in line with the M10 Booker or the Japanese Type 10 (i.e 40-50 tons)……The Ajax and Boxer both also are not on the light side.
The CH3 is just a stopgap and recent events have clearly shown the continued versatility of the MBT. However that doesn’t necessarily require a CH4.

IMO an uncrewed 105mm or 120mm turret for Boxer and Ajax is the way forward eventually.

If sense prevails and a solid order of 600 CV90 order eventually replaces Warrior then the ~100 Ares variants could receive a 105mm turret which would be a massive boost to CH3 numbers.

The problems are fixable if the will exists.
what we need right now is deployable formations and there for the armoured brigades need to become Combined arms brigades with 4 x combined arms battalions like so

HQ company , 1 x Cavalry Sqn , 1 x Tank Sqn , 2 x Infantry companies , 1 x 120mm Mortar Platoon , 1 x Overwatch Platoon , 1 x air defence Platoon

the Cavalry Sqn would have 14 Ajax & 8 PMRS and the Tank Sqn would have 14 CH3 & 8 PMRS the Infantry , Mortar , Overwatch & Air defence would all be Boxer based. We could have 8 of these battalions plus a fully equipped reserve battalion

What we need for the FCF is a Viking based Brimstone Overwatch and for 29 Cdo RA to have 1 x M270A2 , 1 x field gun , 1 x UAV & 1 x Air defence battery

I don't see a need for CV90 at this time it would be adding another heavy armoured vehicle type and we don't have the brigades for this

Maybe we should move over to future army thread ?

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 4073
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

sol wrote: 27 Mar 2024, 10:40 For what?
To support the rapid reaction expeditionary forces.

With an uncrewed turret try and keep the transportable weight below 37t so than one can be transported by a A400M and 2x in a C17.

Also much easier to get ashore in a LCM or a Mexefloate.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5601
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 27 Mar 2024, 16:13
sol wrote: 27 Mar 2024, 10:40 For what?
To support the rapid reaction expeditionary forces.

With an uncrewed turret try and keep the transportable weight below 37t so than one can be transported by a A400M and 2x in a C17.

Also much easier to get ashore in a LCM or a Mexefloate.
If you really wanted / needed a light fire support just go with JC-105mm on Boxer

https://www.armyrecognition.com/images/ ... 25_001.jpg

sol
Member
Posts: 551
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by sol »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 27 Mar 2024, 16:13 To support the rapid reaction expeditionary forces.
I am not sure what kind of rapid reaction force people here expect from UK. And against which adversary is it expected to fight. The British Army is not USMC nor it should behave as such.
Poiuytrewq wrote: 27 Mar 2024, 16:13 With an uncrewed turret try and keep the transportable weight below 37t so than one can be transported by a A400M and 2x in a C17.
Stryker MGS had uncrewed turret, it was a failure and it is withdrawn from the service after very short carrier. Neither Boxer or Ajax with 105mm turret could be transported by A400M, UK Boxer base model is already over 37t, now add turret that will weight way over 1 tone, so you can forget about it.

Not to mention that for their weight, nether 105mm Boxer or Ajax are providing any benefit compared to tank. You can have a "lighter" tank, with better protection, maneuverability and firepower for couple more tons. Just look as Japanese Type 10. And when CR3 time come to be replaced, there should be several new options, like MGCS, Abram M1E3 or potential Leo 3 which all should bring reduced crew and basic weight compared to current generation.
Poiuytrewq wrote: 27 Mar 2024, 16:13 Also much easier to get ashore in a LCM or a Mexefloate.
I doubt UK army would conduct some beach invasion with heavy armour any time soon. If they are moved over sea they will probably be moved in RO-RO ships and disembarked in some port. So weight is less relevant.
Tempest414 wrote: 27 Mar 2024, 18:08 If you really wanted / needed a light fire support just go with JC-105mm on Boxer

https://www.armyrecognition.com/images/ ... september/
Never properly tested. Also NEMO and CROSSBOW turret on Boxer could provide both direct and indirect support. It would be waste of money and men.
These users liked the author sol for the post (total 2):
RepulseTempest414

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 4073
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

sol wrote: 27 Mar 2024, 18:38 I am not sure what kind of rapid reaction force people here expect from UK. And against which adversary is it expected to fight. The British Army is not USMC nor it should behave as such.
What has USMC got to do with a U.K. rapid reaction force?

Why exclude more firepower when the possibility of a clash with a peer is an increasing possibility?

Given the amount of small and medium tanks that are being developed around the world its clear that many nations can see the potential.
Stryker MGS had uncrewed turret, it was a failure and it is withdrawn from the service after very short carrier.
So uncrewed 30mm/40mm turrets good, uncrewed 105mm/120mm turrets bad?

The future is completely uncrewed vehicles so why are uncrewed 105mm/120mm turrets unthinkable?
Neither Boxer or Ajax with 105mm turret could be transported by A400M, UK Boxer base model is already over 37t, now add turret that will weight way over 1 tone, so you can forget about it.
Considering that Boxer is modular that’s a pretty big statement.

How much can Ajax be lightened for transportation by air?

I think it’s a bit premature to completely reject the possibility especially when having to consider the low numbers of CH3.

Not to mention that for their weight, nether 105mm Boxer or Ajax are providing any benefit compared to tank. You can have a "lighter" tank, with better protection, maneuverability and firepower for couple more tons. Just look as Japanese Type 10. And when CR3 time come to be replaced, there should be several new options, like MGCS, Abram M1E3 or potential Leo 3 which all should bring reduced crew and basic weight compared to current generation.
Having 250x AJAX with a 40mm turret plus 100x upgraded Ares with either 105mm/120mm turret looks like a good mix to complement the insufficient CH3.numbers.

Ditto for Boxer. Ordering 250x 40mm modules and 100x 105mm/120mm modules to complement a 120mm NEMO variant again looks like a good mix.

Waiting for the next-gen option to introduce a capability that is required now would be extremely complacent.

sol
Member
Posts: 551
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by sol »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 27 Mar 2024, 23:52 Given the amount of small and medium tanks that are being developed around the world its clear that many nations can see the potential.
Keep in mind that majority of those are purposely developed as "light" tanks and there is a reason behind each of them depending on country. still very few are getting them and majority just get more tanks.
Poiuytrewq wrote: 27 Mar 2024, 23:52 The future is completely uncrewed vehicles so why are uncrewed 105mm/120mm turrets unthinkable?
I don't think there is a single 105mm uncrewed turret currently in use beside MGS. Same for 120mm. It is not unthinkable just it will take time for this.
Poiuytrewq wrote: 27 Mar 2024, 23:52 Considering that Boxer is modular that’s a pretty big statement.
Yes, it could be split over two flights, not sure that is the best solution.
Poiuytrewq wrote: 27 Mar 2024, 23:52 How much can Ajax be lightened for transportation by air?
Question is how much Ajax with gun turret would weight.
Poiuytrewq wrote: 27 Mar 2024, 23:52 Having 250x AJAX with a 40mm turret plus 100x upgraded Ares with either 105mm/120mm turret looks like a good mix to complement the insufficient CH3.numbers.

Ditto for Boxer. Ordering 250x 40mm modules and 100x 105mm/120mm modules to complement a 120mm NEMO variant again looks like a good mix.

Waiting for the next-gen option to introduce a capability that is required now would be extremely complacent.
Debatable. IMO it is a waste of money and crews. If you want gun support vehicle just get tank.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 4073
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

sol wrote: 28 Mar 2024, 09:42 I don't think there is a single 105mm uncrewed turret currently in use beside MGS. Same for 120mm. It is not unthinkable just it will take time for this.
At this point crewed and uncrewed isn’t a deal breaker IMO.

If the U.K. developed a workable 105mm but ideally 120mm uncrewed turret for Boxer which could eventually also be utilised on Ares what would be the export potential? It could be extremely lucrative as well as providing increased survivability for the crews.

Reinforced crew citadels and uncrewed turrets with effective APS are the way forward now rather than relying on increasingly heavier armour to provide overall protection.
Yes, it could be split over two flights, not sure that is the best solution.
Why not?

One hour to remove the module, flight time time to anywhere in the JEF region around 4 hours max, one hour to refit module.

That’s less than 7 hours as opposed to nearly 7 days by sea to the eastern Baltic.

It depends if you think that’s important.

Question is how much Ajax with gun turret would weight.
More important to quantify how much appliqué armour can be swiftly removed and reattached.
IMO it is a waste of money and crews. If you want gun support vehicle just get tank.
Two problems there.

The first is that the U.K. isn’t getting enough tanks.

The second is that getting the CH3 to where they need to get too takes a lot of time and if kinetic exchanges have commenced with a peer, the transportation stage will be highly vulnerable.

My reasoning is pretty straightforward. If the rapidly deployed Brigades are deployed and successfully stall an incursion, elements of an all wheeled 1st division can be swiftly transported by air and move (without transporters) to reinforce 16AAB/3 Cdo etc. If that involves Boxer with 30mm or 40mm, 105mm or 120mm, 120mm NEMO, RC155, GMLRS, GBAD and Brimstone then it’s a very credible force.

Is it enough to reverse the incursion if air supremacy isn’t possible? Probably not which is why a fully armoured 3rd Division needs to follow on by sea with CH3, AJAX, M270, AS90 replacements etc.

It would be a huge effort but 2 fully resourced deployable Divisions and the rapid expeditionary Brigades again fully resourced is a realistic target for the UK without breaking the bank.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
wargame_insomniac

Post Reply