Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3716
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 48 times
Been liked: 203 times
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

My thinking is a bigger better Osumi class ship not a full LHD

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4580
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 191 times
Been liked: 197 times
Japan

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Tempest414 wrote: 23 Sep 2022, 16:15 My thinking is a bigger better Osumi class ship not a full LHD
That's one option, I agree. But not sure UK can build 6 of them, as MRSS. I'm rather thinking of 6 15000t class ships, whatever the design is. (yes, Osumi-like arrangement will be good).

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: 23 Sep 2022, 11:29 For me the RN needs to start thinking in terms of groups…
Agree in principle but not necessarily in the composition, more like:

- Home Fleet (inc North Atlantic / CASD)
> 4 SSBNs, 4 SSNs, 3 T26s, 2 T31s, 3 OPVs plus @6 new IPVs (unmanned motherships)

- 2 Carrier Strike Groups
> each with CVF, SSN, 3 T45s, 3 T26s, 2 Tides plus FSS

- 1 Amphibious Ready Group (a.k.a. LRG(N))
> mission specific formation from 2 LPDs, 2 JSBLs, 2 LSDs plus 5 T32s

- 1 Overseas Presence Group West
> 3 B2 Rivers, Wave Class, Ice Patrol Ship

- 1 Overseas Presence Group East (inc Kipion)
> T31, 2 B2 Rivers, JSBL, Bay Class, Wave Class, @2 new IPVs (unmanned motherships)
”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: 3455
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 114 times
Been liked: 269 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

The RN hierarchy have talked about deploying in groups for years then soiled themselves when the reality of working in groups was laid bare and type 31 was born!

U.K. defence procurement, budget and force structure will continue to be a complete disaster until it gets into it head it cannot operate like the Americans do.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2499
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Has liked: 79 times
Been liked: 60 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 23 Sep 2022, 16:22 That's one option, I agree. But not sure UK can build 6 of them, as MRSS. I'm rather thinking of 6 15000t class ships, whatever the design is. (yes, Osumi-like arrangement will be good).
Or, of course, at 14500 tonnes (light), the Dokdo class
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Online
User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2265
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Has liked: 44 times
Been liked: 81 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 23 Sep 2022, 16:22
Tempest414 wrote: 23 Sep 2022, 16:15 My thinking is a bigger better Osumi class ship not a full LHD
That's one option, I agree. But not sure UK can build 6 of them, as MRSS. I'm rather thinking of 6 15000t class ships, whatever the design is. (yes, Osumi-like arrangement will be good).
IMO two Oceans and four modified Enforcers are the ideal mix. This would cover all bases so should be future proof.

With a substantially rising defence budget this should now also be affordable.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7236
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 295 times
Been liked: 334 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

EAch if the two full strength Commandos is responsible for providing the manpower for a specific LRG. Each would have a reinforced Company afloat at any one time. Therefore LRG(N) would have access toa full Commando is the Balloon really went up. Present plans as they stand would therefore require LRG(N) to have the capacity to transpot a Single reinforces Commando if needed, possibly using some berths in the Dutch Amphibs.

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 512
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Has liked: 734 times
Been liked: 87 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

My understand is that we currently have 3 full Commandos plus some specialist Commandos for specific tasks. I would be interested to see if those 3 full Commandos would alternate in their tasking?

e.g. if one of the 3 full Commandos concentrated on say providing several small dispersed formations specialising in the old school sea raiding from small boats and another one focussed on say larger scale Battalion operations with full Amphibious Ready Group, would the 3rd full Commando be used to rotate between the two above taskings. i.e. to have some downtime for staff leave after a deployment followed by updated training and exercises in preparation to do one of the above taskings in rotation?

Note - my query above assumed that the RM benefit from any increased UK Defence Spending IF (and it is still a big IF) that UK Defence Spending is initially increased to 2.5% of GDP and eventually to 3% of GDP, and that therefore the RM capability of conducting operations of a full Commando (at reinforced Battlion level) is manitained. (I understand this is currently my hope rather than any firm expectation or announcement).

tomuk
Member
Posts: 480
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 70 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 23 Sep 2022, 14:02
Lord Jim wrote: 23 Sep 2022, 13:21 The number of troops that are part of LRG(N) is a little confusing. The Dutch, and the German Battalion that is part of their Marine force are still seeing themselves working very closely with the Royal Marines. But we are organising the ROyal Marines into LRUs that are made up form a Commando Company with attached support units. Does this mean the Rolyal MArines will concentrate on raiding missions with the Dutch/German Amphibious Brigade acting as a follow up force to expand any holes made by the Royal Marines? Alternatively has there been a unwritten change in the MoD that reverts our northern commitments ot a larger force that is more like the units that trained with the Dutch for years but below full Brigade strength?
Not sure, but I guess RN is just thinking to "scale" everything? When a full-level Norwayan operation takes place, maybe the LRG(S) soldiers will be coming back by airplane and join LRG(N), to make up a commando-level assault force? (although the ships and heavy vehicles might be kept in Indo-Pacific.)
The FCF\LRGs seem to have been proposed on the basis that a full scale amphibious assault is no longer practical and handily it also takes into account the required cuts in RM numbers . However what seems to have been forgotten is that there is still a commitment to NATO's northern flank and the ships they have and which don't need replacing yet are geared up for commando\brigade level ops.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3716
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 48 times
Been liked: 203 times
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

By 2007 we had reached the high point with

1 x LPH
2 x LPD's
4 x LSD's
6 x Points

its been a sad slip down the shit slope since then
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
Jensy

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 399
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54
Has liked: 166 times
Been liked: 22 times

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by jedibeeftrix »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 23 Sep 2022, 22:48 My understand is that we currently have 3 full Commandos plus some specialist Commandos for specific tasks. I would be interested to see if those 3 full Commandos would alternate in their tasking?
There are two 'proper' Commandos on the Commando21 structure.
There is a third Commando, which has been emasculated as part of its brave new raiding future, with penny-packets of steely-eyed marines clinging to the gunwales of rigid raiders, fairburn-sykes gripped in their teeth. **
Then there is the fourth Commando which is the special duties/protection one.

** i don't have anything against the raiding Commando itself, but i remain scathing of the notion of converting all Commandos to this model.
These users liked the author jedibeeftrix for the post (total 2):
Poiuytrewqwargame_insomniac

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 512
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Has liked: 734 times
Been liked: 87 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

jedibeeftrix wrote: 24 Sep 2022, 12:05
wargame_insomniac wrote: 23 Sep 2022, 22:48 My understand is that we currently have 3 full Commandos plus some specialist Commandos for specific tasks. I would be interested to see if those 3 full Commandos would alternate in their tasking?
There are two 'proper' Commandos on the Commando21 structure.
There is a third Commando, which has been emasculated as part of its brave new raiding future, with penny-packets of steely-eyed marines clinging to the gunwales of rigid raiders, fairburn-sykes gripped in their teeth. **
Then there is the fourth Commando which is the special duties/protection one.

** i don't have anything against the raiding Commando itself, but i remain scathing of the notion of converting all Commandos to this model.
Yes - I was focussing on 40/42/45 as "full" Commandos. I was ignoring the more specialist Commandos that provide Maritime Security, Intelligence & Surveillance, Armoured Support & Logistics, & SBS.

I was wondering whether 40/42/45 would rotate to cover the various taskings or whether they would become specialised e.g. the old style martime commando raiding role?

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 3455
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 114 times
Been liked: 269 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

The marines being more commando in nature is a gd thing, such skills are always in demand. We should have focused on the commandos as our principal naval component instead we’ve focused on the fantasy of carrier strike at there expense.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3716
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 48 times
Been liked: 203 times
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote: 24 Sep 2022, 18:50 The marines being more commando in nature is a gd thing, such skills are always in demand. We should have focused on the commandos as our principal naval component instead we’ve focused on the fantasy of carrier strike at there expense.
I agree with this the RM need to really get back to littoral warfare by sea and air at company and battalion level.

The reason I want to see six 200 x 32 meter flattop MRSS is that if need be we can embark 1 battalion of RM and the high readiness battalion battle group of 16XX the key to this will be the need for the new Medium lift helicopter to have folding rotors to allow a up take of helicopters on the flattops
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
jedibeeftrix

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: 24 Sep 2022, 18:50 The marines being more commando in nature is a gd thing, such skills are always in demand. We should have focused on the commandos as our principal naval component instead we’ve focused on the fantasy of carrier strike at there expense.
Unless SF raiding is the limit of the ambition, then everything else needs air superiority. Carrier Strike is not a luxury in power projection.
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

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 3455
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 114 times
Been liked: 269 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 25 Sep 2022, 13:07
SW1 wrote: 24 Sep 2022, 18:50 The marines being more commando in nature is a gd thing, such skills are always in demand. We should have focused on the commandos as our principal naval component instead we’ve focused on the fantasy of carrier strike at there expense.
Unless SF raiding is the limit of the ambition, then everything else needs air superiority. Carrier Strike is not a luxury in power projection.
Carrier strike does not in anyway equal air superiority or is it needed way to achieve it. A luxury it most definitely is and an extremely expensive one.

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 512
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Has liked: 734 times
Been liked: 87 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Repulse wrote: 25 Sep 2022, 13:07
SW1 wrote: 24 Sep 2022, 18:50 The marines being more commando in nature is a gd thing, such skills are always in demand. We should have focused on the commandos as our principal naval component instead we’ve focused on the fantasy of carrier strike at there expense.
Unless SF raiding is the limit of the ambition, then everything else needs air superiority. Carrier Strike is not a luxury in power projection.
And that for me is three separate reasons why I think we could, at most, deploy one RM Commando at full reinforced Battalion level (i.e. one warfighting Battalion plus all the various support troops including signals, intelligence, logistics, artillery etc):

1) we can relistically expect only one Carrier Strike Group to be available at any one time to provide air superiority. The other carrier will most likely either be post operation repairs, training or getting ready for the next operation, and if ready to put to sea would likely to be able to only carry helicopters.

2) we would need 1 Albion and 1 Bay, possibly Argus to deploy this reinforced RM Battalion. Similar restrictions apply as for the carriers - would be unlikely to have both Albion and Bulwark and two of the Bays ready for operations at the same time.

3) with at least one of the full RM Commandos (40/42/45) being required to distribute troops out at Company and PLatoon level to serve in other locations and aboard escorts / OPV's, again we could expect to have at most one Commando to be fully operational at any one time.

Again this does assume that RM and RN get some additional resources from increased Defence Spending. But at most we are only likely to be able to pull together enough resources to have one CSG + ATG (Amphibious Task Group) for all three limiting factors above.

We are unlikely to need air cover if RM are just being deployed at Platoon level. Unclear whether we would need air cover if RM are being deployed at Company level - assuming this is LRG (S), they are most likely to be deployed to a lower intensity situation.

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 512
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Has liked: 734 times
Been liked: 87 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

SW1 wrote: 25 Sep 2022, 15:20
Repulse wrote: 25 Sep 2022, 13:07
SW1 wrote: 24 Sep 2022, 18:50 The marines being more commando in nature is a gd thing, such skills are always in demand. We should have focused on the commandos as our principal naval component instead we’ve focused on the fantasy of carrier strike at there expense.
Unless SF raiding is the limit of the ambition, then everything else needs air superiority. Carrier Strike is not a luxury in power projection.
Carrier strike does not in anyway equal air superiority or is it needed way to achieve it. A luxury it most definitely is and an extremely expensive one.
You do like to repear that at EVERY opportunity don't you??
These users liked the author wargame_insomniac for the post:
js44

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 399
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54
Has liked: 166 times
Been liked: 22 times

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by jedibeeftrix »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 25 Sep 2022, 15:30 with at least one of the full RM Commandos (40/42/45) being required to distribute troops out at Company and PLatoon level to serve in other locations
just to point out; as mentioned above, that one of these is not a full RM Commando, it is an emasculated thing and not alike in task and purpose to the other two.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/42_Commando
Organisation
Prior to April 2017, the structure of 42 Commando[21] followed the Commando 21 model with four rifle companies:[22]
J (Juliet) company.
K (Kilo) company.
L (Lima) company.
M (Mike) company.
Following the commando's re-role in 2018 the companies specialised as follows:[23][24]
J company - board and search specialists (role transferred from 43 Commando under project Sykes).
K company - Support, Augment, Liaise and Train (SALT) either other UK units, Allied forces, or front-line operations
L company - Joint Personnel Recovery, rescuing aircrew or fellow marines/soldiers who are isolated, missing, detained or captured in an operational environment, in particular fliers aboard HMS Queen Elizabeth.
M company - force protection teams to RN and RFA ships passing through high threat areas around the globe
In 2021 the unit comprised 6 companies.[20]

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 512
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Has liked: 734 times
Been liked: 87 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

jedibeeftrix wrote: 25 Sep 2022, 16:50
wargame_insomniac wrote: 25 Sep 2022, 15:30 with at least one of the full RM Commandos (40/42/45) being required to distribute troops out at Company and PLatoon level to serve in other locations
just to point out; as mentioned above, that one of these is not a full RM Commando, it is an emasculated thing and not alike in task and purpose to the other two.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/42_Commando
Organisation
Prior to April 2017, the structure of 42 Commando[21] followed the Commando 21 model with four rifle companies:[22]
J (Juliet) company.
K (Kilo) company.
L (Lima) company.
M (Mike) company.
Following the commando's re-role in 2018 the companies specialised as follows:[23][24]
J company - board and search specialists (role transferred from 43 Commando under project Sykes).
K company - Support, Augment, Liaise and Train (SALT) either other UK units, Allied forces, or front-line operations
L company - Joint Personnel Recovery, rescuing aircrew or fellow marines/soldiers who are isolated, missing, detained or captured in an operational environment, in particular fliers aboard HMS Queen Elizabeth.
M company - force protection teams to RN and RFA ships passing through high threat areas around the globe
In 2021 the unit comprised 6 companies.[20]
See this is where I am confused. Your last line stated "In 2021 the unit comprised 6 companies".
i.e. later than the two previous dates mentioned above of April 2017 and 2018.

Now I understand this maybe Wikipedias fault, but does 42 Commando currently have 4 companies or 6 companies??

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 399
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54
Has liked: 166 times
Been liked: 22 times

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by jedibeeftrix »

the move to a raiding function did result in the removal of the heavy weapons company (?) from the standard Commando 21 template, and it's basically not designed to function as a battalion as part of a larger combined arms formation anymore.

but agreed, the wiki text rather obscures that dimunition in status.
These users liked the author jedibeeftrix for the post:
wargame_insomniac

Post Reply