Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3455
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 21 times
Been liked: 122 times
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

One thing we are seeing in this war is that any idea that we can unload a army brigade through a port uncontested by missile strikes has now gone and there is a real need to be able to put kit across a beech or fishing port

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 3047
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 85 times
Been liked: 101 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote: 10 Apr 2022, 09:57 One thing we are seeing in this war is that any idea that we can unload a army brigade through a port uncontested by missile strikes has now gone and there is a real need to be able to put kit across a beech or fishing port
Disagree that the Ukraine conflict has proved that you need to deploy over the beach or via a small port. It has proved the need to neutralise A2D capabilities and gain air superiority. You could argue that that is what the FCF and CEPP are designed to do.
”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: 3455
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 21 times
Been liked: 122 times
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote: 10 Apr 2022, 10:05
Tempest414 wrote: 10 Apr 2022, 09:57 One thing we are seeing in this war is that any idea that we can unload a army brigade through a port uncontested by missile strikes has now gone and there is a real need to be able to put kit across a beech or fishing port
Disagree that the Ukraine conflict has proved that you need to deploy over the beach or via a small port. It has proved the need to neutralise A2D capabilities and gain air superiority. You could argue that that is what the FCF and CEPP are designed to do.
My point is that any movement to put the army ashore at a port will be contested with missile strike and if the port is made unusable before or during one would have rethink and have the ability to put a force over a beech or go home

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 3047
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 85 times
Been liked: 101 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Putting a large force ashore in a secured port or in a relatively uncontested landing area like San Carlos Bay should be the limit of our aspirations. If that is not possible we should go home until we build the capabilities required - it is not just landing craft, there is a whole raft of capabilities that we do not have, nor should we prioritise. It took years to plan D-Day and it will take years to plan and equip for the next one if ever required.

Putting ashore smaller raiding parties over the beach is a different matter, but also a different requirement.

In terms of repairing a damaged or mined port that is under friendly control, then we should have the capability to do this. Not just for war but also for HADR.
”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

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 386
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54
Has liked: 99 times
Been liked: 11 times

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by jedibeeftrix »

Lord Jim wrote: 10 Apr 2022, 02:46 There will not be a return to Brigade [[or even Battalion level amphibious operations]] once the FCF is fully realised and its new ships are constructed.
Isn't that what 3Cdo was doing up in Norway last month?
These users liked the author jedibeeftrix for the post:
wargame_insomniac

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 3227
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 81 times
Been liked: 183 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

It has always been Russian/soviet doctrine to hit NATO logistical centres of importance thru there investment in long range, missiles/artillery.

You can move an army brigade into a region without using a port or thru a port nowhere near to where it needs to finally end up, rail, road, air all options.

This is what partly drove the original idea of FRES and the current US marine doctrine. You get there first in the hope your deterrent presence changes the calculus and that attacking is too expensive and so they don’t. Second is having lighter forces with significantly reduced logistical tail is much easier to support in a contested logistical environment than heavy ones.

There was a report somewhere about how having vehicles with 5% improvement in engine efficiency reduced the need for fuel convoys by quite a bit and as a result thousands of troops in force protection

If you need a demonstration in the current war we have remained able to supply the light capabilities into Ukraine through out the Russian invasion

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 3227
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 81 times
Been liked: 183 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Tempest414 wrote: 09 Apr 2022, 13:12
SW1 wrote: 09 Apr 2022, 11:58
Tempest414 wrote: 09 Apr 2022, 11:27 I think there are a few thing to clear up here

1 ) Given the number of times the RM have changed focus in the last 40 years it will change again
2) in the last 40 years the RM have conducted 3 large opposed over the beech combat operations in 1982 , 1991 & 2003 i.e nearly once every 10 years and in the 19 years between 2003 and today it has been fighting fall time as a brigade in Afgan
3) right up to this very month the RM have been training to carry out Battalion battle group over the beech operations in the North and EoS
4) the RN is a global global force
5) The British Army is already moved by the Royal Logistics Crop using the Point Class who's crews become sponsored reserve's in time of war It is also worth noting that the Mexeflote's are operated by the RLC and not the Navy
6 ) Everything in the RN including the Strike carriers are there to support Amphibious lands and this has been a point of fact since WW2
7) We will need be able to conduct combined Op's going forward

So with all of this said for me we still need

2 x LHD's or LPH's capable of carrying 700 troops and 18 to 20 helicopters plus 2 docks or 4 Landing craft
4 x LPD's capable of carrying 350 troops and 4 Helicopters plus 2 dock
6 x Absalon style Type 32's capable of carrying 200 troops and 2 Helicopters
4 to 6 Point class able to move a complete army BCT

This would allow anything from a Company level op supported by a single type 32 to a fully combined Operation of 1 x Air Assault battalion battle group flown from the LHD's & supported by type 31's , 1 x RM Battalion battle group launched from the LPD's and Type 32's , 1 x Army BCT delivered by Point class and all supported by a Carrier strike group
In 1982 the landings were against a contested air environment, certainly not an opposed ground force landing.

Not sure where the opposed over the beach landing was in 1991 or 2003?
The Falkland landings were contested even if it was just by air attack and they were landed across a beech

All three were contested operations that saw the RM deploy from ships on to land to conduct combat and I used the word contested as it was contested no matter how it was contested air sea or land and the point is the RM over the past 40 years have had to deploy large forces across a coast line and fight and there for the need for this remains

In 91 the marines as a 3 commando brigade force didn’t get involved until the safe haven operation to protect the Kurds after the war, don’t remember a US marine landing either. In 2003 did not most of 3 commando move into iraq either by driving in or being airlifted in from Kuwait?

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3455
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 21 times
Been liked: 122 times
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote: 10 Apr 2022, 10:39 Putting a large force ashore in a secured port or in a relatively uncontested landing area like San Carlos Bay should be the limit of our aspirations. If that is not possible we should go home until we build the capabilities required - it is not just landing craft, there is a whole raft of capabilities that we do not have, nor should we prioritise. It took years to plan D-Day and it will take years to plan and equip for the next one if ever required.

Putting ashore smaller raiding parties over the beach is a different matter, but also a different requirement.

In terms of repairing a damaged or mined port that is under friendly control, then we should have the capability to do this. Not just for war but also for HADR.
Bang on and at this time we have the ability to conduct such operations just and having a mix of

2 x LHD's
4 x LSD's
6 x Absalon's
5 x Point class

gives us the means to conduct rote though secure port or San Carlos style operation what I would like to see is the ability scale up and down as needed so replacing like so

2 x LPD's with 2 x LHD's
3 x Bay and Argus with 4 x LSD's able to carry 3 or 4 helicopters
4 x Points with 5 x Points
and adding 6 Absalon's through the type 32 order

we would have the ability to do just that we could even have 3 groups of

Also to be clear I am not saying we have to go over a beech all the time but we have to have the ability to do so the one thing we are missing is Helicopters

2 x 1 LHD , 2 x LSD's and 3 Absalon's
1 x 5 Points , 1 x type 45 and 3 Type 31

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3455
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 21 times
Been liked: 122 times
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote: 10 Apr 2022, 11:21
Tempest414 wrote: 09 Apr 2022, 13:12
SW1 wrote: 09 Apr 2022, 11:58
Tempest414 wrote: 09 Apr 2022, 11:27 I think there are a few thing to clear up here

1 ) Given the number of times the RM have changed focus in the last 40 years it will change again
2) in the last 40 years the RM have conducted 3 large opposed over the beech combat operations in 1982 , 1991 & 2003 i.e nearly once every 10 years and in the 19 years between 2003 and today it has been fighting fall time as a brigade in Afgan
3) right up to this very month the RM have been training to carry out Battalion battle group over the beech operations in the North and EoS
4) the RN is a global global force
5) The British Army is already moved by the Royal Logistics Crop using the Point Class who's crews become sponsored reserve's in time of war It is also worth noting that the Mexeflote's are operated by the RLC and not the Navy
6 ) Everything in the RN including the Strike carriers are there to support Amphibious lands and this has been a point of fact since WW2
7) We will need be able to conduct combined Op's going forward

So with all of this said for me we still need

2 x LHD's or LPH's capable of carrying 700 troops and 18 to 20 helicopters plus 2 docks or 4 Landing craft
4 x LPD's capable of carrying 350 troops and 4 Helicopters plus 2 dock
6 x Absalon style Type 32's capable of carrying 200 troops and 2 Helicopters
4 to 6 Point class able to move a complete army BCT

This would allow anything from a Company level op supported by a single type 32 to a fully combined Operation of 1 x Air Assault battalion battle group flown from the LHD's & supported by type 31's , 1 x RM Battalion battle group launched from the LPD's and Type 32's , 1 x Army BCT delivered by Point class and all supported by a Carrier strike group
In 1982 the landings were against a contested air environment, certainly not an opposed ground force landing.

Not sure where the opposed over the beach landing was in 1991 or 2003?
The Falkland landings were contested even if it was just by air attack and they were landed across a beech

All three were contested operations that saw the RM deploy from ships on to land to conduct combat and I used the word contested as it was contested no matter how it was contested air sea or land and the point is the RM over the past 40 years have had to deploy large forces across a coast line and fight and there for the need for this remains

In 91 the marines as a 3 commando brigade force didn’t get involved until the safe haven operation to protect the Kurds after the war, don’t remember a US marine landing either. In 2003 did not most of 3 commando move into iraq either by driving in or being airlifted in from Kuwait?
So looking back you are right about 91 RM play little role

however 2003 it was a full brigade assault from the sea with 40 ,42 ,29 RA and 24 RE commando units plus the 15 MEU and a Seal team supported by HMS Ark Royal , Ocean , RFA Sir Galahad , USS Rushmore , HMAS Kanimbla , 3 Frigates , 1 Cruiser , 5 MCM

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 3227
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 81 times
Been liked: 183 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Tempest414 wrote: 10 Apr 2022, 12:22
So looking back you are right about 91 RM play little role

however 2003 it was a full brigade assault from the sea with 40 ,42 ,29 RA and 24 RE commando units plus the 15 MEU and a Seal team supported by HMS Ark Royal , Ocean , RFA Sir Galahad , USS Rushmore , HMAS Kanimbla , 3 Frigates , 1 Cruiser , 5 MCM
Well 1 company assaulted from the sea from ocean the rest in an air assault from TA Viking in Kuwait, 15 meu drove in from Kuwait as did Queens DG, the US operated landing craft/hovercraft logistics over the beach abandoned due to mining, so our mcm force moved in.

The air assets involved was huge 40 plus helicopters everything from ch53, chinook, Puma, to cobras, b52s, ac130 and a10s all in support and I think we would agree it wouldn’t be comparable to assaulting a enemy coastline capable of targeting long range strike missiles

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 3047
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 85 times
Been liked: 101 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote: 10 Apr 2022, 11:30 Bang on and at this time we have the ability to conduct such operations just and having a mix of

2 x LHD's
4 x LSD's
6 x Absalon's
5 x Point class
You do realise that the landing at San Carlos was performed using 11 ships? 2 LPDs, 5 x LSLs, 1 RFA Stores Ship, a STUFT Ferry, a small Aviation Support STUFT ship (Elk 5) and 1 Troop Carrier STUFT Cruise Ship.

One could argue that the Points are similar to the Roundtable LSLs. So all we need is a couple of LPDs, an Aviation Support ship and a FSS; the rest should be delivered through ensuring a flexible / large enough civilian fleet to support STUFT strategy.
”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

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4419
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 99 times
Been liked: 121 times
Japan

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Looking at Ukraina, I'm getting more concerned about how to get the landing ship out of horizon.

Numerous handy drones and eye-ball Mk.Is spots your ship's location, and "not moving ship" is a very easy target for relatively simple long-range weapons, like rockets. As fully eliminating such drones and eyes are virtually impossible, you need Iron-Dome like anti-missile system, or you are forced to waste expensive Aster30/15 to shoot the rockets down (can CAMM be used against simple (GPS guided?) rockets?).

On the other hand, simple drones does not have long-range telemetry system, and hence cannot fly dozens of km away from land. (They can fly, but communication is not easy). These medium-range drones will be inevitably large, with expensive communication kits, and hence cannot be "numerous". In other words, spending a CAMM on such drones pays well, to cut the "kill chain".

So, keeping the LSD/LPD 40-100 km (or 20-50 nm) away from the shore will be essential.

Then, RM needs a faster ship-to-shore connector. If the fast-LCU can steam at 20 knots loaded, it will take 1-2.5 hours from 50-100 km afar. If with 40 knots speed, it will take 30min to 1.2 hours. Because LCAC is very expensive, I think BMT Caimen90 will be a good option. (see https://www.bmt.org/media/3320/bmt-das- ... c_2019.pdf). 20 knots fully loaded, and 40 knots light, it is "so-so" fast. Even fully loaded, it can go toward the shore in 20 knots and comeback in 40 knots. It is much simple than LCAC nor SES, so shall be cheaper to maintain (and to buy).

As Caimen-90, although cheaper than LCAC, shall be more expensive than LCU Mk.10, how many can RN/RM afford? It will be cheaper than helicopters, but will be 10 times slower. Do we need CB-90 type "man-only" (no vehicle) landing boats which can steam at 40 knots? If yes, from where these boats will go? RN/RM will surely need tens of drones to scan and constantly monitor the shore, but from where they will deploy? All these stuffs will cost a lot, then what shall be cut in place? (I mean "cut" in such a way that, if there are £300M more money there, shall you buy 2 more F35B or 14 Caimen-90 (ref) ?)

All the MRSS arguments shall consider all these stuffs, I guess? For example, if these ship-to-shore connectors are expensive, can we allocate them another task (such as MCM mother ship and/or littoral ASW asset) so that they can find good "other jobs" when no amphibious operation is there (= even in war time, amphibious operation is only a small fraction of the time).

ref; US MSV(L) is a ~£770M contract for 36 LCUs, slightly enlarged Caimen-90. Just for scale...
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
Dahedd

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1893
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 14 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

We keep going over what should the amphibious replacements be, myself and some others stating we should keep with a smaller number of larger vessels to allow flexibility over their life allowing for change again to the RM, others stating we should go for more numorus smaller vessels and have the RMs being only a raiding force for the next 40 years.

The thing we are missing from this descusion which will be the true deciding factory is the budget for MRSS ( and to a lesser extent if the waves will be replaced )

If the budget for MRSS is to be £3bn plus and the waves are to be replaced then 6 LPDs / LSDs is a very real possibility and the most logical IMO as it allows the RM to be a capabile raiding force for now but still allows change in doctrine and growth to the RMs, with the waves replacement hopefully being a pair of multi role support ships like KD.


If the budget for MRSS is signifanctly less than £3bn but the waves are still to be replaced then I believe smaller vessels will be the only choice but what in this case ? Why not a larger style Absalon design or a larger Damen Cross over design, say 6 or so of such designs in the 150m by 24m range with the ability to carry and laurnch 2 CB90 / LCVPs and 2 merlins each ?
This along with 2 KD style vessels to replace the waves.


If the budget for MRSS is less than £3bn and the waves are not to be replaced then I think the only route is to have 5 or so KD style vessels. Each with hanger space for 4 merlins or 2 chinooks and launch capability for 2 CB90s / LCVPs and 150-200 troop capacity.
These users liked the author Jake1992 for the post:
wargame_insomniac

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3455
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 21 times
Been liked: 122 times
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Jake1992 wrote: 10 Apr 2022, 14:32 We keep going over what should the amphibious replacements be, myself and some others stating we should keep with a smaller number of larger vessels to allow flexibility over their life allowing for change again to the RM, others stating we should go for more numorus smaller vessels and have the RMs being only a raiding force for the next 40 years.

The thing we are missing from this descusion which will be the true deciding factory is the budget for MRSS ( and to a lesser extent if the waves will be replaced )

If the budget for MRSS is to be £3bn plus and the waves are to be replaced then 6 LPDs / LSDs is a very real possibility and the most logical IMO as it allows the RM to be a capabile raiding force for now but still allows change in doctrine and growth to the RMs, with the waves replacement hopefully being a pair of multi role support ships like KD.


If the budget for MRSS is signifanctly less than £3bn but the waves are still to be replaced then I believe smaller vessels will be the only choice but what in this case ? Why not a larger style Absalon design or a larger Damen Cross over design, say 6 or so of such designs in the 150m by 24m range with the ability to carry and laurnch 2 CB90 / LCVPs and 2 merlins each ?
This along with 2 KD style vessels to replace the waves.


If the budget for MRSS is less than £3bn and the waves are not to be replaced then I think the only route is to have 5 or so KD style vessels. Each with hanger space for 4 merlins or 2 chinooks and launch capability for 2 CB90s / LCVPs and 150-200 troop capacity.
The other option is to lump in both type 32 and MRSS and go for 2 LHD's and 8 Absalon's with the LHD's being 210 x 35 meters and the Absalon style type 32's having 1 x 127mm , 2 x 40mm , 32 VLS plus a steel beech a group of 1 LHD and 4 Types 32 should be able to move a Battalion battle groups and defend it

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 363
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Has liked: 443 times
Been liked: 49 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

jedibeeftrix wrote: 10 Apr 2022, 10:52
Lord Jim wrote: 10 Apr 2022, 02:46 There will not be a return to Brigade [[or even Battalion level amphibious operations]] once the FCF is fully realised and its new ships are constructed.
Isn't that what 3Cdo was doing up in Norway last month?
It's why although I dod nt mind LSG (S) to be restricted to just Company strength operations, we need to be able to deploy LSG (N) in Battalion strength, epecially if reinforcing northern Norway. And when I say Battalion, I mean a Battlegroup with a Battalion of RM reinforced with all of the necessary support, transport and logistics units.

I recognise that often we will be deploying with our allies the Dutch Marines, but with 3 battalion strength RM Commandos, we should always be in a position to deploy one Battalion strength Battlegroup to Norway.

I would be happy to have a small advance presence (maybe up to Company strength in rotation) permanently advance deployed to Northren Norway with some of the heavier equipment such as BvS 10 Viking.
These users liked the author wargame_insomniac for the post:
jedibeeftrix

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 3047
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 85 times
Been liked: 101 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Each Cdo will have 4 Strike Companies in FCF - 2 “deployed” at any time each operating from a LPD/LSD or other platform. Whilst in overload I’m sure all 4 could deploy its not a standard way of operating.

My view is that with a Company each on a LPD and a CVF, then that would be a solid core for LRG(N). Additionally a Company on a LPD and also one on an Aviation Support Ship (currently a.k.a. Argus) would be a solid core for LRG(S). A logistics ship (Bay or FSS) for each would round them off nicely. Ideally also there would be a spare LPD to cover any operating issues / losses.
”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: 3227
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 81 times
Been liked: 183 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

You have to start with what you want the RM to do on land and indeed in the coastal littoral area, then what they need to support them doing it and how they will move about (dune buggies wont do) and over what distance only then do you know what a ship would look like. Will they follow the US marine re orientation? Given they way there training it looks it will be a version of it as I don’t think they’ll have the investment in air and missile systems to match it.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1893
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 14 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

SW1 wrote: 10 Apr 2022, 18:05 You have to start with what you want the RM to do on land and indeed in the coastal littoral area, then what they need to support them doing it and how they will move about (dune buggies wont do) and over what distance only then do you know what a ship would look like. Will they follow the US marine re orientation? Given they way there training it looks it will be a version of it as I don’t think they’ll have the investment in air and missile systems to match it.
The problem with that is if you design ships that are meant to be in service for 30-40 years solely around what you want the RM to do today then you limit the RM to that for the next 40 odd years.

I agree that this is to be taken in to account but so does any possible change in doctrine along with technology in umanned systems. What ever replaces the current amphibious fleet needs to be flexible enough to accommodate this change or we be screwing our selves over down the road, and this is why I keep coming back to the large LPD idea as it’s the only design I see fitting both what’s currently planned but accommodates that flexible need. The question that is the main driver in all design as always is budget and what that will allow though.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 3227
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 81 times
Been liked: 183 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Jake1992 wrote: 10 Apr 2022, 18:29
SW1 wrote: 10 Apr 2022, 18:05 You have to start with what you want the RM to do on land and indeed in the coastal littoral area, then what they need to support them doing it and how they will move about (dune buggies wont do) and over what distance only then do you know what a ship would look like. Will they follow the US marine re orientation? Given they way there training it looks it will be a version of it as I don’t think they’ll have the investment in air and missile systems to match it.
The problem with that is if you design ships that are meant to be in service for 30-40 years solely around what you want the RM to do today then you limit the RM to that for the next 40 odd years.

I agree that this is to be taken in to account but so does any possible change in doctrine along with technology in umanned systems. What ever replaces the current amphibious fleet needs to be flexible enough to accommodate this change or we be screwing our selves over down the road, and this is why I keep coming back to the large LPD idea as it’s the only design I see fitting both what’s currently planned but accommodates that flexible need. The question that is the main driver in all design as always is budget and what that will allow though.
Then don’t design ships for a 40 years life. If things change sell off and start again. Ocean being the example a fantastic ship and capability for the RN

To be honest where the US marines have gone with the idea of getting in there first and denying an enemy space, isn’t new, people have been talking about doing for decades just no one’s been brave enough to try it

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 363
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Has liked: 443 times
Been liked: 49 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Repulse wrote: 10 Apr 2022, 17:43 Each Cdo will have 4 Strike Companies in FCF - 2 “deployed” at any time each operating from a LPD/LSD or other platform. Whilst in overload I’m sure all 4 could deploy its not a standard way of operating.

My view is that with a Company each on a LPD and a CVF, then that would be a solid core for LRG(N). Additionally a Company on a LPD and also one on an Aviation Support Ship (currently a.k.a. Argus) would be a solid core for LRG(S). A logistics ship (Bay or FSS) for each would round them off nicely. Ideally also there would be a spare LPD to cover any operating issues / losses.
Giving you a hypothetical scenario, if Russia invaded northernn Norway, would that qualify as a suitable overload scenario?

Now up until late February the chances of that scenario would have been far. far lower. But now we arguably need to prepare for it as IMO the main role of LSG (N). If we need to ensure our best chance of delivering a Battalion strength RM Battlegroup under such wartime conditions, then we need to ensure that we have tested regularly for something approaching that scenario. I was under the impression that exercise Cold Resolve 2022 was most recent example of such a Battalion strength RM exercise.

(Now at that point I don't care if the Battalion strength is made up of 4 Companies all from the same Commando, or two Companies apeiece from two separate Commados. Either works so long as can rotate with other half).

My understanding is that the Integrated Review 2021 was cutting the size of RM from around 6,700 to around 4,000, with Commandos being reduced from 6 Companies to 4 Companies. I have consistently expressed my opinion that, after Russian invasion of Ukraine, that the government ought to cancel or at the very least postpone the cuts announced in IR 2021. Yes it will have a small impact on higher costs for the next few years, but I don't think the small cost savings obtained justify the loss in current / future capability.

So while I can accept that any future RM operations in the Med or east of Suez would be limited to the RM Company level, I maintain my opinion that we need to have the capability to deploy Battalion strength RM Battlegroup to northern Norway. And accept that will require funding from Government to maintain that capability and not carry out the IR 2021 cuts.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 3047
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 85 times
Been liked: 101 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Jake1992 wrote: 10 Apr 2022, 14:32 If the budget for MRSS is to be £3bn plus…
I don’t know what it will be, but I am willing to bet it’s nearer £600mn than £3bn. And if it’s close to the latter then unless the RN budget overall is 5x larger then the bulk of the money should be spent on more T26s/SSNs first.
”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

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1893
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 14 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Repulse wrote: 10 Apr 2022, 18:40
Jake1992 wrote: 10 Apr 2022, 14:32 If the budget for MRSS is to be £3bn plus…
I don’t know what it will be, but I am willing to bet it’s nearer £600mn than £3bn. And if it’s close to the latter then unless the RN budget overall is 5x larger then the bulk of the money should be spent on more T26s/SSNs first.
It’ll be no where near £600m that’s £100m per ship, let’s just compare that - the tides built in SK cost around £125m each - Karel Doorman cost around £400m, are we really to believe they’ll be any where near the Tides cost while built here.

6 Multi Role Support Ships if any thing like the Ellied concept roled out around the time the whole MRSS was announced we’d be having to look closer to the KD budget per ship so at least £2bn plus over all.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 3047
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 85 times
Been liked: 101 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Let’s see, but there is zero chance the RN is going to get 6 KDs. The stated aim is 4 to 6 ships, probably half the size of the KDs maybe even smaller.
”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

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1893
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 14 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Repulse wrote: 10 Apr 2022, 19:29 Let’s see, but there is zero chance the RN is going to get 6 KDs. The stated aim is 4 to 6 ships, probably half the size of the KDs maybe even smaller.
The only thing we know about MRSS is the aim of 4-6 ships and the name nothing else and until the budge is announced we can’t even guess what they will be only what we’d like.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2234
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Has liked: 35 times
Been liked: 59 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Repulse wrote: 10 Apr 2022, 19:29 probably half the size of the KDs maybe even smaller.
A minor point but the much vaunted Ellida concept is 200m X 30.5m. HNLMS Karel Doorman is 205m X 30m.

https://www.bmt.org/media/4197/bmt-das- ... x297mm.pdf

A vessel half the size of a KD is basically Absalon.

The smaller Enforcer and Vard designs are fantastically capable but if you want to embark multiple LCU sized craft in the well dock the Lim capacity shrinks below sensible levels….especially if HMG is considering replacing Ocean, Argus, Albion, Bulwark, Largs, Lyme, Mounts and Cardigan Bay with 4 to 6 such ships.

The world changed on 24th February 2022 and the Integrated Review will now need to be reviewed with conclusions arrived at prior to the Autumn budget.

Basically what I’m saying is, what was previously fixed is now fluid and perhaps we should be considering where RN needs to invest further when defence spending reaches 2.8% to 3% GDP in the not too distant future.

I suspect the old Cold War plans will be taken out of the drawer for another look and they will show the importance of a balanced and capable UK Amphibious fleet, not replacing it with a few cheap support ships to act as window dressing to obscure another round of cuts.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 2):
Jake1992wargame_insomniac

Post Reply