Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16310
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 77 times
Been liked: 73 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Jensy wrote: 11 Jul 2022, 21:51 Spain and the Netherlands who use derivatives of the same base design seem the best place to look at common requirements (even with the usual Gibraltar sabre-rattling).

If we were looking to go beyond the capability of say a theoretical Bay Mk.II, with hangar space for four Merlin and two landing spots
I think we had a design like that on here... just that as it was deleted, we cannot send a copy to the MoD
Jensy wrote: 11 Jul 2022, 21:51 Whatever form this programme takes it will be competing with Type 83 and eventually Future SSN for budget. Keeping costs down will be key to getting decent numbers of platforms.
Absolutely right.
Jensy wrote: 11 Jul 2022, 21:51 suspect Brazil will be front of the queue when Albion and Bulwark are decommissioned. With the state of their economy post-Covid I don't see them building naval ships of that size in the medium term.
How's the joint Argentinian-Brazilian nuclear sub coming?
- barbs aside, their Marines greatly outnumber ours and they need more than the boats that they run on in the Amazonas
SW1 wrote: 12 Jul 2022, 11:17 Interesting that the Littorial strike is now a bay and Argus. Are the LPDs to decommission?
+
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 12 Jul 2022, 11:26 LPDs are for LRG North, I guess?
Would say that @Donald got it right... with the use of plural
- how many Cdos have we got left (with any heavy weapons)
- conversely, how much warning will Mr. Putin give, for us to get the one in extended readiness back out to sea? CFR. the two remaining cruisers we had (of the class of three) when Falklands 'happened'; Despite best efforts the war had ended before they could (have) steam(ed) out
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)

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 3190
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 139 times
Been liked: 192 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Two LPDs and two LSDs ensures that a LPD+LSD group is always available. Could hint that LRG(N) is expected to fight at Cdo strength (at least for the foreseeable) which I would agree with. Company level ops for LRG(S) surging to two with another based on the Bay feels about right 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
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16310
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 77 times
Been liked: 73 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Repulse wrote: 12 Jul 2022, 15:25 hint that LRG(N) is expected to fight at Cdo strength (at least for the foreseeable) which I would agree with. Company level ops for LRG(S)
"Strike" is not a good descriptor for these being in-situ, early reaction forces: whether that will be a 'nipping in the bud" Op where a company might do the the job. Or, establishing a hold position early on, so that the actual fighting force has a chance to deploy.
- still, the Albions are key to any kind of ramping up (from one Op'North; or none, EoS)
- short of sending a CTF (the MTF may be the term, with a purposeful THE in 'it')
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)

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 3190
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 139 times
Been liked: 192 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: 12 Jul 2022, 15:49 “Strike" is not a good descriptor for these being in-situ, early reaction forces
It’s a good distinction “Strike” vs “Response” - strike should be about aggressive action aligned to attack, response aligned to prevention or early “defensive” operations. If you are going to strike something then clearly you are going with a CSG. A CSG combined with a LPD + LSD could be coined a MTG as you say.

I can see the benefit of a LRG in the Indo Pacific region, but less so within the NATO region where a U.K. based MTG could be formed with the 2nd carrier and also deployed further afield as and when required.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
ArmChairCivvy
”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: 3715
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 47 times
Been liked: 203 times
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

I see Argus + Bay + Wave + a escort as a great force for LRG(S) with a supported company of RM being surged by a Ranger Battalion

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 3452
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 114 times
Been liked: 267 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: 12 Jul 2022, 13:54
Jensy wrote: 11 Jul 2022, 21:51 Spain and the Netherlands who use derivatives of the same base design seem the best place to look at common requirements (even with the usual Gibraltar sabre-rattling).

If we were looking to go beyond the capability of say a theoretical Bay Mk.II, with hangar space for four Merlin and two landing spots
I think we had a design like that on here... just that as it was deleted, we cannot send a copy to the MoD
Jensy wrote: 11 Jul 2022, 21:51 Whatever form this programme takes it will be competing with Type 83 and eventually Future SSN for budget. Keeping costs down will be key to getting decent numbers of platforms.
Absolutely right.
Jensy wrote: 11 Jul 2022, 21:51 suspect Brazil will be front of the queue when Albion and Bulwark are decommissioned. With the state of their economy post-Covid I don't see them building naval ships of that size in the medium term.
How's the joint Argentinian-Brazilian nuclear sub coming?
- barbs aside, their Marines greatly outnumber ours and they need more than the boats that they run on in the Amazonas
SW1 wrote: 12 Jul 2022, 11:17 Interesting that the Littorial strike is now a bay and Argus. Are the LPDs to decommission?
+
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 12 Jul 2022, 11:26 LPDs are for LRG North, I guess?
Would say that @Donald got it right... with the use of plural
- how many Cdos have we got left (with any heavy weapons)
- conversely, how much warning will Mr. Putin give, for us to get the one in extended readiness back out to sea? CFR. the two remaining cruisers we had (of the class of three) when Falklands 'happened'; Despite best efforts the war had ended before they could (have) steam(ed) out
Maybe reading to much into the reply but to me it looks like littoral response group in the singular.

Do wonder if the the north group is now the carrier we are assigning to nato
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
Repulse

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 3190
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 139 times
Been liked: 192 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote: 12 Jul 2022, 18:09 I see Argus + Bay + Wave + a escort as a great force for LRG(S) with a supported company of RM being surged by a Ranger Battalion
Jeremy Quinn’s answer stated:

It has been decided that extending in service and upgrading RFA ARGUS and operating her alongside our Landing Ship Docking (Auxiliary)s in their current configuration, represents the optimum solution to support a forward deployed Littoral Response Group.
The question is whether there will be a second Bay Class EoS or if it will work with the one in the Gulf.

I suspect strongly the latter, if that is the case then perhaps one Bay could go into reserve to pair with the reserve LPD - extending the life of these vessels overall.

The crew from the Bay could then be freed up to operate one of the Waves, which then could also operate EoS.

I think also (rightly) that the escort EoS will also be the Kipion escort, there is no need to add more at this stage. Argus + Bay isn’t going to war unless part of a MTG.
”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: 3715
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 47 times
Been liked: 203 times
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

I agree this is the most likely out come however the same could be said for LRG(N) yet it goes everywhere with a escort it may be better to send LRG(N)'s escort to LRG(S) as LRG(N) can be covered by the FRE the fact is there a large number of Allied escorts in the North and so few in the EoS

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 3190
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 139 times
Been liked: 192 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

I think SW1 is right, there is no LRG(N) as such, probably more PoW + Albion + Bay group assigned to NATO (along with PoW’s escorts).
”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
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16310
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 77 times
Been liked: 73 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

SW1 wrote: 12 Jul 2022, 18:48 Maybe reading to much into the reply but to me it looks like littoral response group in the singular.

Do wonder if the the north group is now the carrier we are assigning to nato
Agree abt the carrier's role, as a step up, but the LPDs in singular was the point... better get both of them on the road?
Repulse wrote: 12 Jul 2022, 18:52
The question is whether there will be a second Bay Class EoS or if it will work with the one in the Gulf.
I read the statement as a ' statement of' capability... which is one or the other; whichever can be done
- -one of the three might be 'in the dock'
Tempest414 wrote: 12 Jul 2022, 19:11 there a large number of Allied escorts in the North and so few in the EoS
Depends on how you read who are the Allies?
- guess you meant NATO (only)?
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)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 3452
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 114 times
Been liked: 267 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: 12 Jul 2022, 19:48
SW1 wrote: 12 Jul 2022, 18:48 Maybe reading to much into the reply but to me it looks like littoral response group in the singular.

Do wonder if the the north group is now the carrier we are assigning to nato
Agree abt the carrier's role, as a step up, but the LPDs in singular was the point... better get both of them on the road?
Repulse wrote: 12 Jul 2022, 18:52
The question is whether there will be a second Bay Class EoS or if it will work with the one in the Gulf.
I read the statement as a ' statement of' capability... which is one or the other; whichever can be done
- -one of the three might be 'in the dock'
Tempest414 wrote: 12 Jul 2022, 19:11 there a large number of Allied escorts in the North and so few in the EoS
Depends on how you read who are the Allies?
- guess you meant NATO (only)?
Yeah I just think the way it’s worded they’re not long for service could be wrong but I see both in extended readiness for sale. Northern group could be the carrier and a bay!

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16310
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 77 times
Been liked: 73 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

SW1 wrote: 12 Jul 2022, 19:57 . Northern group could be the carrier and a bay!
A Bay can put onshore a Coy+its vehicles... and w/o they are not going to achieve much.
- so make it two
- and the recce elements (another Coy) plus a battery & HQ & Med helicoptered from the carrier... was it bunks for 290 (xtras)?... that's about it then
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)

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 3190
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 139 times
Been liked: 192 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Minor point, but wouldn’t a simpler way of seeing things is that the “LRG(N)” requirement really is the UK’s amphibious contribution to JEF?
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
SW1
”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: 3190
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 139 times
Been liked: 192 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

JEF(M) is focused on an adaptable structure based around a flexible pool of assets with the UK as a lead.

From an amphibious standpoint you’d argue that the minimum would be to match what the Netherlands contributes - namely two Cdos, two LPDs and a JSBL.

This would mean allocating:
- 40 & 45 Cdo
- Both Albions
- An LSD + Tanker (combined compares to a JSBL)

In addition as Flagship and to provide aviation support, a CVF would need to be assigned.

In peacetime 42 Cdo, Argus and 1-2 Bays would then be left for “global” amphibious engagements.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
ArmChairCivvy
”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: 3452
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 114 times
Been liked: 267 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 15 Jul 2022, 14:15 JEF(M) is focused on an adaptable structure based around a flexible pool of assets with the UK as a lead.

From an amphibious standpoint you’d argue that the minimum would be to match what the Netherlands contributes - namely two Cdos, two LPDs and a JSBL.

This would mean allocating:
- 40 & 45 Cdo
- Both Albions
- An LSD + Tanker (combined compares to a JSBL)

In addition as Flagship and to provide aviation support, a CVF would need to be assigned.

In peacetime 42 Cdo, Argus and 1-2 Bays would then be left for “global” amphibious engagements.
Or u could argue we provide the vertical lift to their over the shore lift…

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 3190
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 139 times
Been liked: 192 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 15 Jul 2022, 14:25 Or u could argue we provide the vertical lift to their over the shore lift…
Possibly, but a CVF is only really designed for 250 RMs so would say it needs to be paired with a LPD/LSD.

The discussion around the UK partnering on a new amphibious platform is starting to make more sense to me.
”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: 3452
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 114 times
Been liked: 267 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 15 Jul 2022, 14:43
SW1 wrote: 15 Jul 2022, 14:25 Or u could argue we provide the vertical lift to their over the shore lift…
Possibly, but a CVF is only really designed for 250 RMs so would say it needs to be paired with a LPD/LSD.

The discussion around the UK partnering on a new amphibious platform is starting to make more sense to me.
Sham we didn’t prioritise around the RM and LHD sea control of the littoral with our high end strike coming from weapons payload modules on our ssn fleet but such is life!

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3715
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 47 times
Been liked: 203 times
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

For me I don't see the LPD going anytime soon but what I would like to see is the RN work around 6 main groups for the time being like so

1 ) Carrier strike group with Carrier , 1 x T-45 , 2 x T-23 , 1 x SSN , 1 x SSS ,x Tanker
2 ) Same as above
3 ) LRG N with 1 x LPD , 1 x Bay , 1 x T-45
4 ) LRG S with Argus , 1 x Bay , 1 x T-23 1 x Tanker
5 ) Gulf with 1 x Bay , 1 x T-23 , 4 x MCM
6 ) Overseas Patrol Sqn with 8 River class

These should be our main groups other tasks would be taken as and when assets were free to do so

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16310
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 77 times
Been liked: 73 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Repulse wrote: 15 Jul 2022, 12:08 Minor point, but wouldn’t a simpler way of seeing things is that the “LRG(N)” requirement really is the UK’s amphibious contribution to JEF?
Yes and no: is one of the core elements of JEF (as a coalition of the willing) can be quick on 'its' feet
... but LRG(N) can be there (where-ever 'there' is) well ahead of these responses (unilateral vs. agreeing on what an appropriate common response should be)

And :think: the 'other' thing: LRG(N) can only be op High North. Or in the Baltic :problem:
- could ask google about Tromso to Mariehamn, vs Portsmouth to the same destination... but they only know about A. the crow, B. the planes, and C. taking the connecting main roads
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)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16310
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 77 times
Been liked: 73 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Repulse wrote: 15 Jul 2022, 14:15 - Both Albions
- An LSD + Tanker (combined compares to a JSBL)
Both Albions ideal, BUT
- would 2 Bays be a substitute for one of those
- especially as an Albion is easier to convert for "high endurance" which clearly is a rqrmnt for LRG(S)?
SW1 wrote: 15 Jul 2022, 14:25 u could argue we provide the vertical lift to their over the shore lift…
Heh-heh, in that way we have almost surmounted that distance obstacle that is called the Scandinavian Peninsula
Repulse wrote: 15 Jul 2022, 14:43 a CVF is only really designed for 250 RMs so would say it needs to be paired with a LPD/LSD.
True, but if it is an 'airbase' well off the coast and then picks up men & al from the allocated assets placed closer to shore... and provides A2A as well as Strike cover... then what is there not to like?
Tempest414 wrote: 15 Jul 2022, 17:15 6 ) Overseas Patrol Sqn with 8 River class
Now I am sure everyone will see the value of these assets in freeing up more versatile ones... that otherwise would be frozen to the geographical locations (as per the discussion above; what would need to be mobilised)?
- LPDs huntings pirates
- tankers on anti-narco duty .... etc, etc
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)

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 3190
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 139 times
Been liked: 192 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: 15 Jul 2022, 18:37 Both Albions ideal, BUT
- would 2 Bays be a substitute for one of those
- especially as an Albion is easier to convert for "high endurance" which clearly is a rqrmnt for LRG(S)?
If the Bays had larger well docks for say 2 LCUs rather than one, then in reality perhaps both Albions could be replaced with two Bays. All command and control activities could be coordinated from the CVF or ashore.

I have talked myself about a LPD being part of LRG(S), I’m just not sure that the crewing requirement is possible given current limitations.

One thing that could be done is to hand all LSDs over to RN crewing which would allow them to act more in a LPD role with some additional kit. This would result in both LPDs being scrapped, but it feels we are going in this direction anyway.
ArmChairCivvy wrote: 15 Jul 2022, 18:37
Tempest414 wrote: 15 Jul 2022, 17:15 6 ) Overseas Patrol Sqn with 8 River class
Now I am sure everyone will see the value of these assets in freeing up more versatile ones... that otherwise would be frozen to the geographical locations (as per the discussion above; what would need to be mobilised)?
- LPDs huntings pirates
- tankers on anti-narco duty .... etc, etc
Absolutely agree
”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: 3452
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 114 times
Been liked: 267 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

For what we should be allocated (frozen) to the geographical areas we are interested in I would say logistics!

Having a tanker/stores vessel (most are weak in these areas) in situ to me offers many options from low level support to allies (and the carriage of some containerised capabilities for security roles in the region thru to task group support and allows the more expensive and fighting ships to deploy rapidly from the U.K. when required.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16310
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 77 times
Been liked: 73 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

SW1 wrote: 15 Jul 2022, 20:32 the geographical areas we are interested in I would say logistics!
As we have become accustomed to buying from remanufacture/ special edition limited-run queues (Apache/ Chinook SF), so why don't we tap into a "nearly new, but to be decommissioned" plans, likewise... at a good price!
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... thing-else
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)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 3452
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 114 times
Been liked: 267 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: 15 Jul 2022, 20:46
SW1 wrote: 15 Jul 2022, 20:32 the geographical areas we are interested in I would say logistics!
As we have become accustomed to buying from remanufacture/ special edition limited-run queues (Apache/ Chinook SF), so why don't we tap into a "nearly new, but to be decommissioned" plans, likewise... at a good price!
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... thing-else
Well maybe but I was thinking using a few tankers like the waves or perhaps ordering a few ships along the lines of hnoms maud rather than what we are doing with opvs

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 3190
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 139 times
Been liked: 192 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 15 Jul 2022, 20:32 For what we should be allocated (frozen) to the geographical areas we are interested in I would say logistics!

Having a tanker/stores vessel (most are weak in these areas) in situ to me offers many options from low level support to allies (and the carriage of some containerised capabilities for security roles in the region thru to task group support and allows the more expensive and fighting ships to deploy rapidly from the U.K. when required.
This is why I’m thinking the Bays should be manned by the Navy to free up the crew to ensure that all the Tankers we have can be manned, and any future FSSs likewise.
”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