Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3182
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 13 times
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

I agree with the above but the force I have shown would the tip of the spear not the other way round i.e they would not try to sneak across on civv ships

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 815
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 13 times
Been liked: 22 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Defiance »

Tempest414 wrote: 12 Jan 2022, 13:05 I agree with the above but the force I have shown would the tip of the spear not the other way round i.e they would not try to sneak across on civv ships
Ah but that's the challenge I'm making, there's a reasonable amount of evidence that suggests that the force they have for the 'tip of the spear' is only a fraction of what they would actually need for an invasion of Taiwan (if your roster is accurate). That's before we approach the issue of availability or attrition. But I appreciate we're wandering a bit OT here, if you want to carry this on we can in another thread.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2161
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Repulse wrote: 09 Jan 2022, 15:19 If any of these conflicts turned hot and the UK got involved…..
Nice list but why would the UK get involved in any such conflicts unless under the NATO umberella?

Personally I think China and Russia are perhaps making a strategic mistake by bogging down in expensive and relatively unimportant regional conflicts.

It’s easy to get involved but it’s much more difficult to withdraw satisfactorily once the shooting starts. The French in the Sahel have relearned this crucial lesson in recent years.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3182
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 13 times
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Defiance wrote: 12 Jan 2022, 13:11
Tempest414 wrote: 12 Jan 2022, 13:05 I agree with the above but the force I have shown would the tip of the spear not the other way round i.e they would not try to sneak across on civv ships
Ah but that's the challenge I'm making, there's a reasonable amount of evidence that suggests that the force they have for the 'tip of the spear' is only a fraction of what they would actually need for an invasion of Taiwan (if your roster is accurate). That's before we approach the issue of availability or attrition. But I appreciate we're wandering a bit OT here, if you want to carry this on we can in another thread.
I agree that they would need a lot of civv shipping to move all the troops needed however this could only happen once they had air and sea secured and I would say this could take up to 3 days and by then the US and allied forces would be moving in also the build up needed would take weeks and would be seen

But what it dose high light is we need a much better amphib force of our own and in 2007 we had reach the peak with

2 x light carriers
1 x LPH
2 x LPD
4 x LSD
6 x point class sea lift
25 x escorts

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 815
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 13 times
Been liked: 22 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Defiance »

Tempest414 wrote: 13 Jan 2022, 11:46
I agree that they would need a lot of civv shipping to move all the troops needed however this could only happen once they had air and sea secured and I would say this could take up to 3 days and by then the US and allied forces would be moving in also the build up needed would take weeks and would be seen
Absolutely, it's a monumental endeavour with a lot of moving parts. The overall effort shouldn't be underestimated.
Tempest414 wrote: 13 Jan 2022, 11:46But what it dose high light is we need a much better amphib force of our own and in 2007 we had reach the peak with

2 x light carriers
1 x LPH
2 x LPD
4 x LSD
6 x point class sea lift
25 x escorts
It depends if we realistically think we want to deploy an amphibious brigade onto a beach and sustain it from the sea. If that's the case then you have a point, but what I think is actually happening (thankfully) is we are abandoning the pretence that we can do that, and instead adapting a force construct that allows us to actually provide the capability we claim.

We've not been able to deploy 3 Cdo like the good old days for years, at least with the FCF we are acknowledging that and cutting our cloth appropriately. That might make the Norwegians a bit unhappy, but maybe we drag the Dutch and the French along to provide that amphibious capability along NATO's northern flank.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3182
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 13 times
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

From 2018 what we have seen is a Core LRG of 1 x LPD , 1 x LSD and 1 Escort this as been joined by a

second Bay plus a Point class in 2018
RFA Argus a Point class plus a Dutch LPD in 2019
A Point class plus a Dutch LPD and JSS in 2020
A Dutch LPD plus a Danish Absalon class in 2021

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3182
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 13 times
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

As for NATO Europe we have

3 x Carriers
1 x Light carrier
5 x LHD's
11 x LPD
3 x LSD's
3 x LST's
126 x Escorts

I have said for some time now that NATO needs to move from 2 x SNMG to 2 x LRG's plus a CSG deployed or at 20 days readiness

Online
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6406
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 10 times
Been liked: 41 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

As far as I am concerned one of the priorities of the RN and RFA moving forward is to rapidly moe and Army Battlegroup to a location, say the high north, with all it kit and logistics in under fourteen days with the remainder of the BCT the former originated from arriving after no more than a further fourteen days. This is the RN/RFA sea lift capability that needs to be retained. The follow up forces could be carried by the Points but would still need a full RN escort.

The UKs amphibious capability will be limited ot he two LRGs each with one reinforces Company sized LSU for the respective Commando. A third Commando will provide embarked contingents one other RN/RFA vessels such as the B2 Rivers when these are deployed forward, as they will be on the T-31s when they arrive in service. Anything larger will involve the landing of the aforementioned Army Battlegroup being landed at a location secured by the LRG.

If land based air cover is not available the RN or one of out allies will have to provide and CSG and its associated Air Group and Escorts. If course instead of a British Army Battle Group one formed by our Allies could be landed instead as well as the latter reinforcing outr LRG as well.

I do believe though that in addition to the forward deployed forces in Oman we should negotiate with the Norwegian Government to see if we could pre position elements of one of our Heavy BCTs in the country to speed up their deployment.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post (total 2):
Repulsewargame_insomniac

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 131
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Has liked: 61 times
Been liked: 3 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Lord Jim wrote: 16 Jan 2022, 00:55 As far as I am concerned one of the priorities of the RN and RFA moving forward is to rapidly moe and Army Battlegroup to a location, say the high north, with all it kit and logistics in under fourteen days with the remainder of the BCT the former originated from arriving after no more than a further fourteen days. This is the RN/RFA sea lift capability that needs to be retained. The follow up forces could be carried by the Points but would still need a full RN escort.

The UKs amphibious capability will be limited ot he two LRGs each with one reinforces Company sized LSU for the respective Commando. A third Commando will provide embarked contingents one other RN/RFA vessels such as the B2 Rivers when these are deployed forward, as they will be on the T-31s when they arrive in service. Anything larger will involve the landing of the aforementioned Army Battlegroup being landed at a location secured by the LRG.

If land based air cover is not available the RN or one of out allies will have to provide and CSG and its associated Air Group and Escorts. If course instead of a British Army Battle Group one formed by our Allies could be landed instead as well as the latter reinforcing outr LRG as well.

I do believe though that in addition to the forward deployed forces in Oman we should negotiate with the Norwegian Government to see if we could pre position elements of one of our Heavy BCTs in the country to speed up their deployment.
I am keen to see how us reinforcing Norway will work in pratice. I gather that RM have been exercing for years with their Dutch amd Norwegian equivalents. Apart from the UK's CASD, there does seem several things that UK can realistic contribute i support of their fwllow NATO Allies.

Whether patrolling the GIUK Gap versus Soviet submarines, reinforcing the NATO North Flank in Norway with LRG(N), reinforcing both with a UK CSG giving air support and hopefully anti missile differece againts the Soviet Northern Fleet operating in the Barents Sea. The US, Canada, Norway and Netherlands all look to be our natural allies in all of those missions.

In recent days HMS Albion has sailed to lead the Littoral Response Group (North) and then following day, HMS Prince of Wales assumed command of NATO’s Maritime High Readiness Force. I am assuming both UK CSG and LRG(N) will be involved in Norwegian-led Exercise Cold Response 22 in the second half of March & April, along with USS Harry S Truman's US CSG.

Apparently Cold Response 22 will be in Ofoten area, near the training where US/US/Dutch drill Arctic warfare, and near airport where Norwegian P8 and F35 ar based:
https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/secur ... d-response

Later the NATO Maritime High Readiness Force is due to go to Baltic and then Mediterranean, both areas where UK can offer less to NATO (who should be relying on Germany/Denmarl/Sweden/Finland, and France/Italy/Greece/Turkey respectively,

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 815
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 13 times
Been liked: 22 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Defiance »

Serious amount of firepower with USS Harry S Truman - according to a USNI News piece from her stint in the Med she's being accompanied by
  • USS San Jacinto (CG-56)
  • USS Cole (DDG-67)
  • USS Bainbridge (DDG-96)
  • USS Gravely (DDG-107)
  • USS Jason Dunham (DDG-109)
  • HNoMS Fridtjof Nansen (F310 - Fridtjof Nansen class)
The carrier itself is carting around 3 F/A-18E squadrons, an F/A-18F squadron plus EA-18G, E-2D, C-2A and MH-60S/R.
These users liked the author Defiance for the post:
wargame_insomniac

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2819
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 15 times
Been liked: 35 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Sounds like a standard US carrier group. Interestingly toward the end of the Cold War the Pentagon estimated that a US carrier group off Norway would have a life expectancy of 36-48hrs in the event of things turning hot wonder what it is today.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3182
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 13 times
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

It will be interesting to see what escorts POW gets this year also with a US CSG what air group POW will deploy maybe a good mix would be 8 F-35 , 8 Chinook , 8 Apache , 8 ASW Merlin , 6 Merlin HC4

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1276
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Has liked: 13 times
Been liked: 18 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

I cannot see that more than four Chinook would be on board and even that would severely constrain use by other Rotary and Fixed Wing aircraft, as they would occupy the majority of the Hangar space due to lack of Marinisation (Powered folding Rotor blades and corrosion resistant materials). The Apaches could also be at risk in this regard and would be likely to need the remaining hangar space.
F35b and Merlin on the Flight Deck may be ok unless requiring surgery, but this would not be a good set-up.
A practical maximum of Two Chinooks (if any at all) would be my prediction, if other Aircraft are to be accommodated as well. :mrgreen:
These users liked the author Scimitar54 for the post:
Jensy

Online
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6406
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 10 times
Been liked: 41 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

You may be right. I can see a couple of Chinooks plus Merlin HC4/4a and Wildcat and maybe two or three of the Apaches assigned to support the RM but not a lot else. F-35s would be nice but the fleet is sorting itself out after CSG-21 so the RAF may contribute some land based Typhoons instead. With everything on deck the PoW will look formidable as a LHA but it will also show how bare our cupboard is.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2819
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 15 times
Been liked: 35 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Ark royal sailed to the gulf with 5 chinook plus sea kings. So I would think the cvf should be able to take more than 2….

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1276
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Has liked: 13 times
Been liked: 18 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

That was for an actual combat scenario and therefore the risk of salt water damage was justified. They would almost certainly have been “passengers” for transport on the CVS, with rotor blades manually folded (whilst in port) and highly likely to have been covered with tarpaulins to protect them from Spray as well. :mrgreen:

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2819
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 15 times
Been liked: 35 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Scimitar54 wrote: 18 Jan 2022, 07:05 That was for an actual combat scenario and therefore the risk of salt water damage was justified. They would almost certainly have been “passengers” for transport on the CVS, with rotor blades manually folded (whilst in port) and highly likely to have been covered with tarpaulins to protect them from Spray as well. :mrgreen:
And you would be incorrect. Like wise the multiple joint warrior exercises on ocean and illustrious, or the operations onboard ocean in the Caribbean and elsewhere.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3182
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 13 times
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

we don't have enough Typhoons to hold CAP over the carrier 24/7 and if they are not over the carrier then they are useless this means at least six F-35 are needed for QRA as for helicopters I would be happy with 4 Chinook , 8 Merlin HC4 , 6 ASW Merlin , 6 Apache

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2923
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 26 times
Been liked: 23 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Originally the Invincible Class had 5 Sea Harriers for CAP which eventually grew to 9. If the role was ASW in the middle of the North Atlantic 5 (or 6) would probably be sufficient to defend against long range bombers, but if you are operating with fighter range of land then I would still argue for 9.
”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: 3182
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 13 times
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote: 18 Jan 2022, 10:13 Originally the Invincible Class had 5 Sea Harriers for CAP which eventually grew to 9. If the role was ASW in the middle of the North Atlantic 5 (or 6) would probably be sufficient to defend against long range bombers, but if you are operating with fighter range of land then I would still argue for 9.
Right now 6 would be about all we could muster but in time I would like that the carriers should carry 12 jets as a minimum in LHA and 24 jets minimum in strike

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1276
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Has liked: 13 times
Been liked: 18 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

SW1 wrote:-
And you would be incorrect. Like wise the multiple joint warrior exercises on ocean and illustrious, or the operations onboard ocean in the Caribbean and elsewhere
If you had read the post that I was responding to, then you might have noticed that it was obviously suggested that HMS PoW would be operating not as an LPH, but as both a CV and LPH hybrid, with around 40 aircraft on board. If there were to be Eight Chinooks on board, and on the Flight Deck with their rotors spread then other Flight Deck movements would be compromised.

Great play has been made that the Chinook can be fitted on either elevator with rotor blades spread ……….. fine, but when stored in the hangar, they will take up an awful lot of space!

When deployed on the Invincible class or Ocean, they HAD to be on the flight deck, as they could not be fitted into the hangar. The host ships were also operating as LPHs, so we would not be comparing like with like.

Of course you could fit many more Chinook on board a QEC, but that was not the point! :mrgreen:

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 131
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Has liked: 61 times
Been liked: 3 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

A reminder that for the training leading up to Norway's Exercise Cold Response 2002 in late March / ealy April, the HMS PoW will be accompanied by USS CSG 8, lead by carrier USS Harry S. Truman and guided-missile cruiser USS San Jacinto (CG-56), Carrier Air Wing One, and the ships of Destroyer Squadron 28. Air Wing One includes four Strike Fighter Squadrons, all equipped with Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornet.

So maybe they are going to emphasize HMS PoW for carrying helicopters initially (whilst the UK's F35's recover from CSG21), protected by 48 Super Hornets.....

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1276
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Has liked: 13 times
Been liked: 18 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Any prediction now is far too premature, but if those who seem to think that only a single company of RM will be landed in future, to use HMS PoW for that would be overkill and would not require the volume of rotary wing aircraft being suggested by some. HMS PoW has already operated F35B and it would make sense for her to do so again and in so doing provide a second Strike Carrier Group for a potential adversary to worry about. The Two Carrier Strike Groups would also gain from the opportunity to work “in concert”. :mrgreen:

Online
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6406
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 10 times
Been liked: 41 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

PoW's inclusion in the exercise probably has more to do with her training needs than the future of LRG(N) or the FCF. As for the number of helicopters embarked, that will probably be governed mainly by the number of Commandos being embarked on the RN/RFA ship participating in the exercise. The role the RN now sees for its Carriers is Carrier Strike not as amphibious shipping anymore. However until the MRSS hit the water and when Argus is unavailable, then we will need to use a Carrie, at least in training exercises, when either LRG undertakes an exercise if we want to use the necessary aviation component.

Post Reply