Or it was just a BOJO slogan because we left the EU political institutions because he was shallow..
The RM hardly need to be told they are global they just need to look at their cap badge.
Or it was just a BOJO slogan because we left the EU political institutions because he was shallow..
Whose economic/political gravity has moved?jedibeeftrix wrote: ↑30 Apr 2023, 16:25 Global Britain may well be a slogan, and it may well be a slogan designed to cover a lack of (political) substance (within the government).
But it was not merely a slogan.
Global Britain is a recognition that that the centre of economic/political gravity has moved from europe to asia, and that europe is now a relatively smaller actor in disputes between other people. That we left the EU is almost incidental, other than the fact that it entailed recognising we would have to take responsibility for responding to this economic/political change.
From memory, the initial proposal for a LSS was to add aviation facilites and a hangar to one of the Bays.Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑30 Apr 2023, 14:50No but D-Day Mk2 isn’t happening either so realistically what will ever be used in a REAL conflict, not just an exercise.After how many years now?What the IR will throw up in terms of the FCF is nothing as it is still in play
The transition of RM has supposedly being going on since at least SDSR 2010. Someone needs to grip it now and illustrate in a coherent way what the structure of RM is actually going to be going forward. Finland and Sweden joining NATO should help to clear the decks in terms of a dedicated JEF Amphibious force to secure the Nordics.
Collectively working together Norway, Sweden and Finland with a modest number of rotated NATO Battlegroups along with a highly capable UK led Rapid Reaction Force is all that is required from NATO to secure the region apart the RM, USMC and the Dutch Marines helping secure the Norwegian coast.It will be tempting to do this but availability will start to fall away and the refits will start to get eye watering.For me pre 2030 nothing will change we might see some small movement on LRG/s and post 2030 more of the same what I can see is the Navy trying to eek out the LPD's LDS's until 2040
Getting the LSDs converted to LSS spec by adding permanent hangers to allow Argus to decommission without replacement makes complete financial sense. Getting H&W to build two LHDs and three MRSS over 12-15 years starting 2030 is most likely IMO.
Bulwark and Albion commissioned in 2003 and 2004 not the late 80s.wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑30 Apr 2023, 17:39From memory, the initial proposal for a LSS was to add aviation facilites and a hangar to one of the Bays.Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑30 Apr 2023, 14:50No but D-Day Mk2 isn’t happening either so realistically what will ever be used in a REAL conflict, not just an exercise.After how many years now?What the IR will throw up in terms of the FCF is nothing as it is still in play
The transition of RM has supposedly being going on since at least SDSR 2010. Someone needs to grip it now and illustrate in a coherent way what the structure of RM is actually going to be going forward. Finland and Sweden joining NATO should help to clear the decks in terms of a dedicated JEF Amphibious force to secure the Nordics.
Collectively working together Norway, Sweden and Finland with a modest number of rotated NATO Battlegroups along with a highly capable UK led Rapid Reaction Force is all that is required from NATO to secure the region apart the RM, USMC and the Dutch Marines helping secure the Norwegian coast.It will be tempting to do this but availability will start to fall away and the refits will start to get eye watering.For me pre 2030 nothing will change we might see some small movement on LRG/s and post 2030 more of the same what I can see is the Navy trying to eek out the LPD's LDS's until 2040
Getting the LSDs converted to LSS spec by adding permanent hangers to allow Argus to decommission without replacement makes complete financial sense. Getting H&W to build two LHDs and three MRSS over 12-15 years starting 2030 is most likely IMO.
I believe that currently it is the Argus that is having it's hangar and aviaition facilities upgraded - do we know how much is the cost of doing so, how much more time it will take etc??
Argus entered RN service in late 1980's, Albion & Bulwark from late 80's, and 3 Bays from 2006/07. It might be that Albion & Bulwark have longer remaining useful life (as they took took turns being mothballed as reserve). Depending on the cost and effort to update Argus, it would to me make most sense to upgrade the newer Bays with hangars and aviation facilities, and meanwhile keep Argus and Albion / Bulwark until ready to start building two new LHD's once H&W have finished building the 3*FSS.
Initial LSS was this:wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑30 Apr 2023, 17:39From memory, the initial proposal for a LSS was to add aviation facilites and a hangar to one of the Bays.Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑30 Apr 2023, 14:50No but D-Day Mk2 isn’t happening either so realistically what will ever be used in a REAL conflict, not just an exercise.After how many years now?What the IR will throw up in terms of the FCF is nothing as it is still in play
The transition of RM has supposedly being going on since at least SDSR 2010. Someone needs to grip it now and illustrate in a coherent way what the structure of RM is actually going to be going forward. Finland and Sweden joining NATO should help to clear the decks in terms of a dedicated JEF Amphibious force to secure the Nordics.
Collectively working together Norway, Sweden and Finland with a modest number of rotated NATO Battlegroups along with a highly capable UK led Rapid Reaction Force is all that is required from NATO to secure the region apart the RM, USMC and the Dutch Marines helping secure the Norwegian coast.It will be tempting to do this but availability will start to fall away and the refits will start to get eye watering.For me pre 2030 nothing will change we might see some small movement on LRG/s and post 2030 more of the same what I can see is the Navy trying to eek out the LPD's LDS's until 2040
Getting the LSDs converted to LSS spec by adding permanent hangers to allow Argus to decommission without replacement makes complete financial sense. Getting H&W to build two LHDs and three MRSS over 12-15 years starting 2030 is most likely IMO.
Or should Rangers actually be doing what 3Cdo Bde used to do?
Argus was built around 1980 and was converted at H&W back in the mid 1980’s entering RFA service around 1988, the Albions were commissioned in 2003 and 2005 and the Bays in 2006/2007.wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑30 Apr 2023, 17:39 From memory, the initial proposal for a LSS was to add aviation facilites and a hangar to one of the Bays.
I believe that currently it is the Argus that is having it's hangar and aviaition facilities upgraded - do we know how much is the cost of doing so, how much more time it will take etc??
Argus entered RN service in late 1980's, Albion & Bulwark from late 80's, and 3 Bays from 2006/07. It might be that Albion & Bulwark have longer remaining useful life (as they took took turns being mothballed as reserve). Depending on the cost and effort to update Argus, it would to me make most sense to upgrade the newer Bays with hangars and aviation facilities, and meanwhile keep Argus and Albion / Bulwark until ready to start building two new LHD's once H&W have finished building the 3*FSS.
Used and structured correctly I think they do add a useful capability.
Yes training and mentoring is useful. But we have part of 42 commando doing it, we have security force assistance units doing it, we have a swath of the armoured forces doing it for the Ukraine soldiers here in the uk. We have Belize and Brunei where we can invite others to train and be mentored too.Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑30 Apr 2023, 19:43Used and structured correctly I think they do add a useful capability.
Yes we do need the Ranges, there is not enough RMs to cover the role and the units going through the training establishments you mention need the training otherwise they would be there. I see the Rangers as the equivalent of the global forward based Presence FCF and the Paras the Intervention RM force.
It may be the oldest vessel, but it’s probably the most appropriate for the FCF. The LSDs were designed for a logistical role, transporting and landing a large number of vehicles and stores - neither of which is required in the same scale moving away from Brigade ops.Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑30 Apr 2023, 19:39 …Unfortunately Argus is the one vessel that isn’t required and therefore shouldn’t be getting any money spent on it.
It seems like another muddle to me.
The Army Rangers are pretty focused and not truly global.
The worlds.SW1 wrote: ↑30 Apr 2023, 16:50Whose economic/political gravity has moved?jedibeeftrix wrote: ↑30 Apr 2023, 16:25 Global Britain may well be a slogan, and it may well be a slogan designed to cover a lack of (political) substance (within the government).
But it was not merely a slogan.
Global Britain is a recognition that that the centre of economic/political gravity has moved from europe to asia, and that europe is now a relatively smaller actor in disputes between other people. That we left the EU is almost incidental, other than the fact that it entailed recognising we would have to take responsibility for responding to this economic/political change.
You mean apart from that dispute that has seen the largest invasion in Europe since the Second World War.
A snap shot but an interesting one from 2018 of uk trade
https://media.rs-online.com/image/uploa ... l-size.png
Our economic outlook has always been “global”
47Cdo has a number of roles and whilst I see they have a role, the bulk of the forces would come from 42 Cdo.Tempest414 wrote: ↑30 Apr 2023, 11:32 With 42 & 47 commando responsible for having 6 Troop size units of 32 to 36 deployed on ships at sea 365 days a year
I think we need to remember that the Ranger battalion's are more re-enforced companies with 250 heads as said up thread I would like to see the RM get to something like this
Both the Rangers and RM are much more Specialist groups in the case of the RM 2 or 3 of the new groups could come together to form bigger formation's long with 30 and 47 Commandojedibeeftrix wrote: ↑01 May 2023, 12:01 i worry about continueing the notion of making more understrength formations.
two recognised negative trends in UK land formations in recent years:
1. pretend brigades - that don't have permanent and appropriately scaled CS/CSS.
in the process of considering whether to add 3Cdo to that sorry list: "do they really need an army artillery and and engineering support?"
2. minature battalions - that don't have the headcount to support combined arms warfare (or attrition!).
army shrinking from ~650 down to ~550, and now down to ~250 for rangers: "hey, great idea, shall we do this to the Commandos too?"
Grind out, no. Never, in fact. 3x Commandos vs 30x Infantry Battalions never permitted this.Tempest414 wrote: ↑01 May 2023, 12:33Both the Rangers and RM are much more Specialist groups in the case of the RM 2 or 3 of the new groups could come together to form bigger formation's long with 30 and 47 Commandojedibeeftrix wrote: ↑01 May 2023, 12:01 i worry about continueing the notion of making more understrength formations.
two recognised negative trends in UK land formations in recent years:
1. pretend brigades - that don't have permanent and appropriately scaled CS/CSS.
in the process of considering whether to add 3Cdo to that sorry list: "do they really need an army artillery and and engineering support?"
2. miniature battalions - that don't have the headcount to support combined arms warfare (or attrition!).
army shrinking from ~650 down to ~550, and now down to ~250 for rangers: "hey, great idea, shall we do this to the Commandos too?"
It is not and should not be the job of the RM to grind it out they need to light and fast moving it is the job of the Armies Infantry brigades to grind it out
Yes. Totally fine with this. As long as 3Cdo can use those Commandos for battlegroup-level operations with organic CS/CSS.
As said between 40 & 45 commando there are 1400 people all I am saying is splitting down to 4 groups of 350 people as said they can come back together with 2 making a battalion battle group or all 4 coming together along with 28 , 29 , 30 , & 47 commando groups to make 3 Cdo brigadejedibeeftrix wrote: ↑01 May 2023, 14:57Grind out, no. Never, in fact. 3x Commandos vs 30x Infantry Battalions never permitted this.Tempest414 wrote: ↑01 May 2023, 12:33Both the Rangers and RM are much more Specialist groups in the case of the RM 2 or 3 of the new groups could come together to form bigger formation's long with 30 and 47 Commandojedibeeftrix wrote: ↑01 May 2023, 12:01 i worry about continueing the notion of making more understrength formations.
two recognised negative trends in UK land formations in recent years:
1. pretend brigades - that don't have permanent and appropriately scaled CS/CSS.
in the process of considering whether to add 3Cdo to that sorry list: "do they really need an army artillery and and engineering support?"
2. miniature battalions - that don't have the headcount to support combined arms warfare (or attrition!).
army shrinking from ~650 down to ~550, and now down to ~250 for rangers: "hey, great idea, shall we do this to the Commandos too?"
It is not and should not be the job of the RM to grind it out they need to light and fast moving it is the job of the Armies Infantry brigades to grind it out
But:
Not becoming combat ineffective after a few key casualities...? Surely yes. IMHO.
Being capable of battlegroup-level combined arms maneuvre...? Surely yes. IMHO.
Yes. Totally fine with this. As long as 3Cdo can use those Commandos for battlegroup-level operations with organic CS/CSS.