Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Defiance
Donator
Posts: 747
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Defiance »

Lord Jim wrote: 21 Nov 2021, 02:42 In a nutshell the RM are moving away from being seen as another Infantry brigade/Battalion organisation aimed at moving such formations over the beach. It is returning to its roots so to speak and destined to be conducting raids and other smaller scale operation as the norm.
The way i've wrapped my head around it is we were talking about a lead group at Battalion strength that could be strengthened (on paper) to Brigade strength. What we've now done is decided we'd rather have two lead groups at Company strength that could be strengthened to Battalion strength each.

Fundamentally, nobody really believed that 3 Cdo truly represented an independent, deployable and combat capable brigade towards the end anyway. All we're doing is cutting our cloth to suit the purse.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2818
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 21 Nov 2021, 02:09 Hi First post.

As a layman I am finding it very confusing what the Future Commando Force programme and the creation of two new Littoral Response Groups (North and South) will mean both to the Royal Marines and the RN/RFA Amphibious Warships.
Welcome @wargame_insomniac

I think you can see from reading the pages on this thread that no-one really knows and there are significant gaps still to be filled.

What is clear is that the way the RM operated since the war is over, it’s no longer a significant land fighting force, but as others have said a scalable raiding force. We are taking about a low visibility force executing missions that could last from minutes to days, not months as in Afghanistan.

It will have the ability (I hope) to open the door a crack for a follow on force. And this is where I’m concerned, the USMC (and historically the RMs) are the lead force and the follow up. The UK follow up has to be the British Army. Probably rightly the focus is not on “over the beach” but deployment to a secured port - this needs logistical ships allocated to the Army, which is what the Round Table class was and what the Bays were supposed to be combined with the Points. So to have a real Amphibious capability we need to look at capabilities for both the RMs and the Army.

As such, with this in mind, IMO we need ships tailored to the RM and Army amphibious roles (without being sentimental about ships classes of the past, such as large LHDs), plus a navy that can defend these formations.
”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: 3031
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 21 Nov 2021, 02:09 Hi First post.

As a layman I am finding it very confusing what the Future Commando Force programme and the creation of two new Littoral Response Groups (North and South) will mean both to the Royal Marines and the RN/RFA Amphibious Warships. I have seen articles talking about (converting) Littoral Strike Ships as well as building new Multi Role Support Ships (as well as replacement Fleet Solid Support ships). Is it me or does everything feel up in the air and liable to fall down if not all these promises are kept....

I know you can't compare the Royal Marines to US Marines Corps, but when you look at the latter, they will shortly have ten LHA's / LHD's, a dozen LPD's, a dozen LSD's, as well as 7 Command Ships and Expeditionary Docks / Sea Bases, not to mention a dozen plus Fast Transports. But at the moment we have no LHD's, just the two RN Albion Class LPD's (with one in extended readiness) and at most four RFA ships (three Bay class LSD's and Argus helicopter support / hospital ship), with pretty much of all of these due to replaced iin the next decade.

How are we going to support two LRG's with such few amphibious ships, (let alone provide an escorts for them)? It seems that we would struggle to move one complete RM Commando in one go or to move separtely the six companies of another Commando. I am guessing that if just an individual RM Troop was being deployed then they could be carried by a Type 23 Frigate or River Class OPV??

It seems that we would need in future something like 2 LHD's, 3-4 LPD's or LSD's, and maybe half a doen smaller ships. But I doubt the RN Budget could stretch to that whilst also maintaining two carriers, six destroyers and (eventually) 18 frigates. What concrete facts / figures do we know about these new Multi Role Support Ships? What tonnage will they be? Similar size to Bay Class or smaller?

Presumably Bulwark would need to be reactivated for LRG South? What impact will this have on the already stretched Bay Class?
When we look back at 2009 it was as good as it was going to get i.e

1 x LPH , 2 x LPD's , 4 x LSD's , Argus and 6 Point class

On top of this we had 2 x light carriers , 6 x destroyers , 17 frigates . Now I for one would like to see the UK Amphib ships get to

1 x Light carrier/ LHA , 6 x 145m Absalon style T-32 , 6 x MRSS and 5 Point class allowing for 3 LRGs of 2 x T-32 and 2 x MRSS allowing 1 T-32 and 1 MRSS to be deployed along with 1 fully supported LSU. In turn the 3 LRG's could be supported by the light carrier and Points or a CSG

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1845
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Tempest414 wrote: 21 Nov 2021, 12:04
wargame_insomniac wrote: 21 Nov 2021, 02:09 Hi First post.

As a layman I am finding it very confusing what the Future Commando Force programme and the creation of two new Littoral Response Groups (North and South) will mean both to the Royal Marines and the RN/RFA Amphibious Warships. I have seen articles talking about (converting) Littoral Strike Ships as well as building new Multi Role Support Ships (as well as replacement Fleet Solid Support ships). Is it me or does everything feel up in the air and liable to fall down if not all these promises are kept....

I know you can't compare the Royal Marines to US Marines Corps, but when you look at the latter, they will shortly have ten LHA's / LHD's, a dozen LPD's, a dozen LSD's, as well as 7 Command Ships and Expeditionary Docks / Sea Bases, not to mention a dozen plus Fast Transports. But at the moment we have no LHD's, just the two RN Albion Class LPD's (with one in extended readiness) and at most four RFA ships (three Bay class LSD's and Argus helicopter support / hospital ship), with pretty much of all of these due to replaced iin the next decade.

How are we going to support two LRG's with such few amphibious ships, (let alone provide an escorts for them)? It seems that we would struggle to move one complete RM Commando in one go or to move separtely the six companies of another Commando. I am guessing that if just an individual RM Troop was being deployed then they could be carried by a Type 23 Frigate or River Class OPV??

It seems that we would need in future something like 2 LHD's, 3-4 LPD's or LSD's, and maybe half a doen smaller ships. But I doubt the RN Budget could stretch to that whilst also maintaining two carriers, six destroyers and (eventually) 18 frigates. What concrete facts / figures do we know about these new Multi Role Support Ships? What tonnage will they be? Similar size to Bay Class or smaller?

Presumably Bulwark would need to be reactivated for LRG South? What impact will this have on the already stretched Bay Class?
When we look back at 2009 it was as good as it was going to get i.e

1 x LPH , 2 x LPD's , 4 x LSD's , Argus and 6 Point class

On top of this we had 2 x light carriers , 6 x destroyers , 17 frigates . Now I for one would like to see the UK Amphib ships get to

1 x Light carrier/ LHA , 6 x 145m Absalon style T-32 , 6 x MRSS and 5 Point class allowing for 3 LRGs of 2 x T-32 and 2 x MRSS allowing 1 T-32 and 1 MRSS to be deployed along with 1 fully supported LSU. In turn the 3 LRG's could be supported by the light carrier and Points or a CSG
I don’t mind the sound of that at all depending on what the MRSS turns out to be though, for me they need decent helo facilities so they can operate independently of any flattops.

Iv been saying for awhile the T32 should be a slightly larger British version of the absalon it just makes sence in every way to me.

The only problem I can see is the idea of another flattop ( not that I don’t want one ) but that the RN could see this putting the QEs at risk in the eyes of politicians. IMO the way around this is for the MRSS to have relatively large helo faculties ie 6 medium helos odd.

The one thing missing in this set up fore is replenishment, we simply won’t have enough Tides or SSS for these abd the CSG.
This is where the waves replacement should come in and should come in the form of something like the Karel Doorman, solid and liquid replenishment along with good lane meterage for vehicle/cargo and very good helo set up.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6241
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Is there a programme to replace the Waves?

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1845
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Lord Jim wrote: 21 Nov 2021, 15:18 Is there a programme to replace the Waves?
I’m not sure Iv seen some stuff saying there is and others saying they won’t be, I do believe though that they need to be.
Like I said above the Tides and SSS will be tied to the CSGs leaving nothing for the LSGs ( or what ever they end up being named ) or any of the stand alone vessels, this along with our turn to the indo pacific where replenishment vessels is an area allies are short in.

A pair of Karel Doorman’s would not only fit the above role nicely but also be able to help with the HADR work, I mention this as currently most of that is covered by the Bays now if the MRSS are not similar is capability then what do we have to cover that role.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2153
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Lord Jim wrote: 21 Nov 2021, 15:18 Is there a programme to replace the Waves?
No, not that I am aware of.

This is the reason why the MRSS could be the single biggest cut to RN since at least 2010.

Current planning suggests the 6 hulls of the MRSS programme will replace:

Ocean
Argus
2 LPD’s
4 Bays
2 Waves
The entire MCMV fleet
Possibly the Points?

The detail is unclear but the potential for a massive cut is clear. If RN/RFA end up with 6 Ellida type vessels to replace the above then it will be confirmed that the Amphibious and MCMV fleets have indeed been gutted to pay for the CVF’s and the CASD.

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Lord Jim wrote: 21 Nov 2021, 02:42 I understand your confusion, but more an entire Commando will become a rare event once the FCF is implemented and hopefully the required ships are assigned. And LRG will normally only have a single Marine Company or LSU assigned to it. In a nutshell the RM are moving away from being seen as another Infantry brigade/Battalion organisation aimed at moving such formations over the beach. It is returning to its roots so to speak and destined to be conducting raids and other smaller scale operation as the norm.
Thanks - and I can understand an LRG fielding only RM Company level force, but my concern is who reinforces them, so that they can move onto the next raid etc. What Fast Reaction forces does the Army have?

My worry is having deployed a RM Company level force, who extricates or reinforces them? It feels like a strategy without thinking of the following consqeuences.

And how are these RM Company level forces being deployed? When the Type 31 Frigates come into service it could well be them, but that is further demands on an already strecthed surface fleet escorts. It needs to be a warship as the enemy territory could well be medium to high intensity conflict. e.g. if LRG North then they may well be deployed to Norway or the Baltic and up against Russian opposition. if LRG South then may well be deployed to recapture UK or Allied assets in the Persian Gulf or say Singapore.

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Repulse wrote: 21 Nov 2021, 08:59
wargame_insomniac wrote: 21 Nov 2021, 02:09 Hi First post.

As a layman I am finding it very confusing what the Future Commando Force programme and the creation of two new Littoral Response Groups (North and South) will mean both to the Royal Marines and the RN/RFA Amphibious Warships.
Welcome @wargame_insomniac

I think you can see from reading the pages on this thread that no-one really knows and there are significant gaps still to be filled.

What is clear is that the way the RM operated since the war is over, it’s no longer a significant land fighting force, but as others have said a scalable raiding force. We are taking about a low visibility force executing missions that could last from minutes to days, not months as in Afghanistan.

It will have the ability (I hope) to open the door a crack for a follow on force. And this is where I’m concerned, the USMC (and historically the RMs) are the lead force and the follow up. The UK follow up has to be the British Army. Probably rightly the focus is not on “over the beach” but deployment to a secured port - this needs logistical ships allocated to the Army, which is what the Round Table class was and what the Bays were supposed to be combined with the Points. So to have a real Amphibious capability we need to look at capabilities for both the RMs and the Army.

As such, with this in mind, IMO we need ships tailored to the RM and Army amphibious roles (without being sentimental about ships classes of the past, such as large LHDs), plus a navy that can defend these formations.
Hi - thanks for welcome. What Army units are being set up as high readiness reinforcements to take over from RM raiding force? Would an Army Light Infantry Regimment be able to be carried by an LSD such as an upgraded Bay Class?

If that is the intended model then has this been practicised with the Army in exercises? Because it would be hairy doing it for the first time if we had the backrop of imminent hostilities with either Rusia and/or China!!

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Tempest414 wrote: 21 Nov 2021, 12:04 When we look back at 2009 it was as good as it was going to get i.e

1 x LPH , 2 x LPD's , 4 x LSD's , Argus and 6 Point class

On top of this we had 2 x light carriers , 6 x destroyers , 17 frigates . Now I for one would like to see the UK Amphib ships get to

1 x Light carrier/ LHA , 6 x 145m Absalon style T-32 , 6 x MRSS and 5 Point class allowing for 3 LRGs of 2 x T-32 and 2 x MRSS allowing 1 T-32 and 1 MRSS to be deployed along with 1 fully supported LSU. In turn the 3 LRG's could be supported by the light carrier and Points or a CSG
A CVL/LHA/LHD/LPH does nt have to be as big as a Wasp or America Class. Look at South Korean Dokdo class or Japanese Hyuga class - they can operate 4-5 helicopters simultaneously.

The Absalom class does interest me. I know they were originally fitted with RORO facilities. I think an Absalom with slightly bigger helicopter deck plus a Welll Deck would be a great flexible way of deploying a RM Company sized force, with a warship's build quality amd armanent if landing force comes under fire.

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Jake1992 wrote: 21 Nov 2021, 12:13 I don’t mind the sound of that at all depending on what the MRSS turns out to be though, for me they need decent helo facilities so they can operate independently of any flattops.

Iv been saying for awhile the T32 should be a slightly larger British version of the absalon it just makes sence in every way to me.

The only problem I can see is the idea of another flattop ( not that I don’t want one ) but that the RN could see this putting the QEs at risk in the eyes of politicians. IMO the way around this is for the MRSS to have relatively large helo faculties ie 6 medium helos odd.

The one thing missing in this set up fore is replenishment, we simply won’t have enough Tides or SSS for these abd the CSG.
This is where the waves replacement should come in and should come in the form of something like the Karel Doorman, solid and liquid replenishment along with good lane meterage for vehicle/cargo and very good helo set up.
The problem at the moment is that the specs for 5*T32 and 6*MRSS and 3*FSS are ALL up in the air.

Have heard that the T32 could be used us "as a platform for autonomous systems, such as anti-submarine warfare and mine countermeasures". If they are busy deploying UAV / USV / UUV, then are they going to be able to deploy the RM force??

If the MRSS can deploy 6 helicopters then they would certainly be useful. But still depends on what other capailities they would have.....

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1845
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 21 Nov 2021, 21:30
Jake1992 wrote: 21 Nov 2021, 12:13 I don’t mind the sound of that at all depending on what the MRSS turns out to be though, for me they need decent helo facilities so they can operate independently of any flattops.

Iv been saying for awhile the T32 should be a slightly larger British version of the absalon it just makes sence in every way to me.

The only problem I can see is the idea of another flattop ( not that I don’t want one ) but that the RN could see this putting the QEs at risk in the eyes of politicians. IMO the way around this is for the MRSS to have relatively large helo faculties ie 6 medium helos odd.

The one thing missing in this set up fore is replenishment, we simply won’t have enough Tides or SSS for these abd the CSG.
This is where the waves replacement should come in and should come in the form of something like the Karel Doorman, solid and liquid replenishment along with good lane meterage for vehicle/cargo and very good helo set up.
The problem at the moment is that the specs for 5*T32 and 6*MRSS and 3*FSS are ALL up in the air.

Have heard that the T32 could be used us "as a platform for autonomous systems, such as anti-submarine warfare and mine countermeasures". If they are busy deploying UAV / USV / UUV, then are they going to be able to deploy the RM force??

If the MRSS can deploy 6 helicopters then they would certainly be useful. But still depends on what other capailities they would have.....

All the specs currently being up in the air is a good thing as it means we can plan the design of all vessels to the requirement other than trying to mash together the LSG out what we have after there built.

We know the SSS are going to be tied to CSGs and that’s it so that’s why we need to hope and push for a waves replacement.

The T32s being based on a larger absalon style vessel would allow the for the operation of unmanned syste / small RM forces / LSG escort. I don’t believe though that they should be the only unmanned operators because if so what we have done is not really expand the escort fleet like is said but have replaced the 15 odd mcm and survey vessels with 5 odd T32s.

If the MRSS is to replace the LPDs, LSDs and Argurs we need to look at all the roles these vessel currently under take and see how the MRSS will fill them and not just look at the new RM set up.
This includes HADR, large scale medical and aviation support abd training. This is why Iv often stated we need large vessels not small as they will have other jobs than just LSG, and as for the whole small and commercial looking to “blend in” argument it’s a crock of sh**t as radar will pick up the vessel and the design and looks of it will be plastered all over the internet for anyone to see.

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Jake1992 wrote: 21 Nov 2021, 22:09 All the specs currently being up in the air is a good thing as it means we can plan the design of all vessels to the requirement other than trying to mash together the LSG out what we have after there built.

We know the SSS are going to be tied to CSGs and that’s it so that’s why we need to hope and push for a waves replacement.

The T32s being based on a larger absalon style vessel would allow the for the operation of unmanned syste / small RM forces / LSG escort. I don’t believe though that they should be the only unmanned operators because if so what we have done is not really expand the escort fleet like is said but have replaced the 15 odd mcm and survey vessels with 5 odd T32s.

If the MRSS is to replace the LPDs, LSDs and Argurs we need to look at all the roles these vessel currently under take and see how the MRSS will fill them and not just look at the new RM set up.
This includes HADR, large scale medical and aviation support abd training. This is why Iv often stated we need large vessels not small as they will have other jobs than just LSG, and as for the whole small and commercial looking to “blend in” argument it’s a crock of sh**t as radar will pick up the vessel and the design and looks of it will be plastered all over the internet for anyone to see.
As I said in a previous post, the Absalon style escort does interest me greatly. They are perfect hull for lower intensity tasks such as disaster recovery, transport of military equipment and deployment of small RM forces, using both their RORO features and helicopter pad + hangar. The PODS space might be ideal for variety of unmanned systems although those are mainly unknown / untested militariliy at the moment.

Yet enough of a military warship to be able to defend themselves in most apart from highest intensity situations. Could quite easily have one advanced deployed in Carribean / Med / Gulf etc. With both T31 and T32 being seemingly based on Iver Huitfeldt hull, the option is open to make either along Absalon support ship lines. However this would cut into surface escorts commitments unless you are telaking about two Absalon variants, one as an escort frigate for each LSG.

Re replacing the replace the LPDs, LSDs and Argus, I agree we need a mxture of ships sizes. A couple of bigger shops and several smaller ones. Larger ships operating something like six helos and smaller ones each operating three or four helos.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6241
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

In my opinion the Points or whatever the current negotiations deliver are pretty safe as it is important for the UK to retain the ability to move a Brigade Combat Team efficiently to where it may be needed. Any MRSS design cannot deliver that capability if it is meant to operate as part of a LRG transporting an RM LSU and having the right ship to shore enablers. Its aviation facilities may not exceed the ability to launch/land two helicopters at a time and have hanger space for four Merlin sized machines. For me the big design question is whether the MRSS will have a well deck or rely on davits to launch water borne craft. The latter would certainly impose major design limitation on what craft could be carried.

As to what ship will be replaced, the Albions could be the first to go, even before the first MRSS is commission, in order to save money. If the MRSS has sufficient range, it may mean the LRGs do not require integral underway replenishment by a permanently attached RFA, but can operate and be resupplied from friendly naval bases in the region it is operating in. Losing Argus will be a blow, but it maybe possible to retain a casualty evacuation facility by creating a modular medical unit using module the size of ISO containers. Pf course each MRSS may have onboard medical facilities of the level needed. Argus's aviation capability will the replaced by that of the MRSS, and if two MRSS are part of each LRG then we should have sufficient lift capability. Having two per LRG also means that each will probably only embarking just over a company's worth of RM plus attached SF. This could influence the size of the MRSS or will they be built to hold a reinforce Company to allow the expansion of the RM component of a LRG if the situation requires it?

Saying that, given our historical tardiness in designing complex warships, and the MRSS will be a warship not a RFA, serious design work should start sooner rather than later. The RM have been working hard to evolve into its new FCF persona so the designers will have a good idea of what the carrying capacity will be required for crew, embarked personnel, aviation facilities and the vehicles and stores needed.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3031
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 21 Nov 2021, 20:52
Tempest414 wrote: 21 Nov 2021, 12:04 When we look back at 2009 it was as good as it was going to get i.e

1 x LPH , 2 x LPD's , 4 x LSD's , Argus and 6 Point class

On top of this we had 2 x light carriers , 6 x destroyers , 17 frigates . Now I for one would like to see the UK Amphib ships get to

1 x Light carrier/ LHA , 6 x 145m Absalon style T-32 , 6 x MRSS and 5 Point class allowing for 3 LRGs of 2 x T-32 and 2 x MRSS allowing 1 T-32 and 1 MRSS to be deployed along with 1 fully supported LSU. In turn the 3 LRG's could be supported by the light carrier and Points or a CSG
A CVL/LHA/LHD/LPH does nt have to be as big as a Wasp or America Class. Look at South Korean Dokdo class or Japanese Hyuga class - they can operate 4-5 helicopters simultaneously.

The Absalom class does interest me. I know they were originally fitted with RORO facilities. I think an Absalom with slightly bigger helicopter deck plus a Welll Deck would be a great flexible way of deploying a RM Company sized force, with a warship's build quality amd armanent if landing force comes under fire.
As I have said in the past for me any new light carrier / LHA should be about 230 x 40 meter ( making it the same size as Hermes ) and capable of operating 12 F-35 and 12 helicopters or 25 helicopters

As for a type 32 based on a Absalon again for me if we could make a Absalon 145 meters and keep the 127mm and 2x 40mm plus 24 CAMM and 16 Mk-41 we could also look to add 2 x LCVP davits as well as the 2 boat bays this along with the twin hangar would make a good ship for the LRG's

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2818
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Lord Jim wrote: 22 Nov 2021, 08:12 MRSS will have a well deck or rely on davits to launch water borne craft
Both is required - I can't see how a ship without a well deck will be able to move the supporting kit - the need for a LCU/LCM remains, but additionally the need to launch smaller craft without having to stop / flood the well dock is also key.
”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: 2818
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 21 Nov 2021, 20:32 What Army units are being set up as high readiness reinforcements to take over from RM raiding force? Would an Army Light Infantry Regimment be able to be carried by an LSD such as an upgraded Bay Class?
Good question, and a lot of this is still speculation. The core Army fighting units will be based around (light and heavy) Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs). The last defence review paper talked about a Deep Recce Strike BCT, so this could be one of them. Also, if I understand correctly, forward positioning of Army units in places like Oman is on the cards, so that could mean that any Army Logistical Ships would be forward based also. I suspect we are 10+ years away from it becoming a reality.
”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

GarethDavies1
Member
Posts: 25
Joined: 26 May 2021, 11:45
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by GarethDavies1 »

Won't the new Ranger Battalions have a role too?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2818
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

GarethDavies1 wrote: 22 Nov 2021, 15:01 Won't the new Ranger Battalions have a role too?
Possibly, but my reading of the Rangers are that they will be forward based (on the ground). TBH, it will be interesting to see the overlap between them and the Paras, who remain the primary group for airborne assault.
”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

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6241
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

More likely to be 16 Air Assault if an airfield can be secured. The Army will be aboard Points, though a light BCT could fly in a number of its vehicles to get the ball rolling. Getting the LSUs heavier equipment ashore could involve the MRSS being able to land kit on the beach, like what the USN is looking at. A useful option to have and one the Round Table class had. THe MRSS is not just about "Over the horizon insertions".

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4181
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

To my understanding, Points cannot carry troops, only vehicles?

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 1983
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by R686 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 22 Nov 2021, 23:21 To my understanding, Points cannot carry troops, only vehicles?

Where there is a will there is way, but one also has to remember portable/temporary accommodation will be at the expense of cargo

I remember see a picture which had some portable accommodation on the hanger deck of one of the LHD, trying to find again with no luck from memory they were just converted shipping containers

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2818
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

R686 wrote: 23 Nov 2021, 00:32
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 22 Nov 2021, 23:21 To my understanding, Points cannot carry troops, only vehicles?

Where there is a will there is way, but one also has to remember portable/temporary accommodation will be at the expense of cargo

I remember see a picture which had some portable accommodation on the hanger deck of one of the LHD, trying to find again with no luck from memory they were just converted shipping containers
As stated, the Points are not troop carriers. Containerised accommodation is an option, but with the contract up for renewal my view is that any replacement contract needs to have “hotel facilities” for a BCT in it - either on the transports or more likely a similar option for passenger ships that can be leased commercially and taken as required. A couple of cruise boats with a helipad and transfer boats launched by davits, plus a few large ferries should do it.
”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
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2153
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Repulse wrote: 23 Nov 2021, 08:26 As stated, the Points are not troop carriers. Containerised accommodation is an option, but with the contract up for renewal my view is that any replacement contract needs to have “hotel facilities” for a BCT in it - either on the transports or more likely a similar option for passenger ships that can be leased commercially and taken as required. A couple of cruise boats with a helipad and transfer boats launched by davits, plus a few large ferries should do it.
Where is the damage control? Such vessels as you describe will sink very very fast.

It must be remembered what is being replaced.

Ocean
Argus
4x Bays
2x Albions
6x Points

This force was constructed due to lessons learned. Are these hard won lessons now being forgotten?

Simple question.

Why does the UK now not require an Amphibious force as capable as what deemed necessary in the 1990s?

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2686
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

The choice was made by the RN and it was carriers not marines. It was one or the other there isn’t/wasn’t the money for both. You can argue for more marines and littoral/sea control shipping but it has to done in that context.

Post Reply