Is this known?
I don't remember any such detail - indeed my endless frustration is with the never released endless waffley bollocks that is dicussion of what FCF 'really' means!
Is this known?
IMO Ukraine has reminded us on how difficult an opposed landing is to make and how easy it is for defenders to inflict significant damage. With the increase in A2D capabilities this is also not just limited to tier1 militaries.
Yes, but OTH is part of the answer, given transit times and vulnerability of ship-to-shore connectors it is not the full answer. That’s way the suggestion to invest in a small number of large ships is flawed IMO. From previous interviews it seems both the RN and USN has accepted this.
IMO multiple RM platforms are required - I see four:
This is a must - The ability to deploy MCM/Survey drones will be key. I see the vessels coming out of Project Vahana and Project Wilton delivering the platforms for this.
Agree with this. The large LCUs were designed to deliver a Challenger Tank over the beach - for many reasons this should no longer be a priority requirement, and would say something half the size would be about right.Lord Jim wrote: ↑11 Apr 2022, 02:00 Regarding the former, a faster vessel that what existing today will be need though probably not the size of the LSU. A vessel able to carry up to two Viking would be the ideal, to be able to move at speeds greater the 20 kts and ideally have some form of radar signature reduction, possibly having an enclosed load space.
If this capability cut (losing ability to deploy RM Battalion strength Battlegroup to Norway) is not reversed, then it makes a mockery of the 29 March 2022 paper on UK's Defence Contribution to the High North.Lord Jim wrote: ↑11 Apr 2022, 02:00 With LSG(N) I still do not expect a Battalion size force being used. What I can see is the LSG being reinforces by the Commando's other Company sized LSUs, each operating as separate units but under a combined operational plan. They would be conducting raiding missions to keep any hostile force off balance, neutralising key targets and enabling the conventional forces to have a greater chance of success. This would also entail the use of one or more additional MRSS on which these additional LSUs would be embarked.
For Ship to shore connectors we will have the FAA's Merlin HC4 and 4As, and the existing RHIBs in their various configurations as well as the small number of Hovercraft in use. Additionally there could also be SF operating form SSNs when needed.
Getting the Viking ashore under the FCF is complicated as they do not deem to be compatible with the FCFs planned raiding role. They are more suited to conventional operations. I suppose in a major campaign in Northern Norway one or more LSU may be used, taking advantage of teir Arctic training to act as a SFSG for SF and therefore use the available Viking to enable their land combat operations. These vehicles could be brought ashore via a sea borne vessel like a landing craft or lifted by Helicopter once a landing site has been secured. Regarding the former, a faster vessel that what existing today will be need though probably not the size of the LSU. A vessel able to carry up to two Viking would be the ideal, to be able to move at speeds greater the 20 kts and ideally have some form of radar signature reduction, possibly having an enclosed load space. This would also help with the climatic conditions in northern Norway.
As for the size of the MRSS and the restriction this may impose on the future form of the RM, was the FCF envisioned when when our current Amphibious vessels were planned and built. I cannot think of any time in living memory that the Regular Amphibious and Airborne forces have actually been increased, the opposite is true. It would take a monumental change in how we organise out military for the RM to be reformed as the old 3 Cmdo Brigade or larger. IF such were to happen there would have to have been a significant increase in the Budget for defence and as such funding would be available for newer larger ships to accommodate this change. In the meantime we will have four to six, most likely the former in my eyes, that provide a very flexible flotilla on which the FCF will be embarked.
If the FCF concept is to be successful the Army is going to have to do a lot of the heavy lifting in the North. This will intensify further if Sweden and Finland join NATO later this year.Tempest414 wrote: ↑11 Apr 2022, 10:52 when it comes to the North for me we need a third Army Light BCT with Viking an it needs to keep a Battalion battle group in place the RM need to be able insert up to 3 Companies on the flanks of this battle group to allow the follow on of the rest of the BCT before pushing out
Yeah actually thinking over the past few months this part of the army ( 1 div) should be looking at all arms battlegroups as it’s main grouping, sort a cross between the force in Mali and a us marine meu. Especially as they’re the force that with be fwd working with allies likely in several locations at the same time.
What I am putting forward is a Full army BCT supported by 3 re-enforced Commando companies the battalion battle group is there to ensure the rest of the BCT have somewhere to arrivedPoiuytrewq wrote: ↑11 Apr 2022, 12:52If the FCF concept is to be successful the Army is going to have to do a lot of the heavy lifting in the North. This will intensify further if Sweden and Finland join NATO later this year.Tempest414 wrote: ↑11 Apr 2022, 10:52 when it comes to the North for me we need a third Army Light BCT with Viking an it needs to keep a Battalion battle group in place the RM need to be able insert up to 3 Companies on the flanks of this battle group to allow the follow on of the rest of the BCT before pushing out
A few companies here and the odd Battalion there will make little difference in the final analysis. The UK needs to get serious and stop the shrinkage. Adding strength in depth to allow for high attritional combat against a first world country in Europe is once again a REAL possibility.
It has always been said that if the threat level increased then the budget would increase. If that holds true then that time is now.
I was not making a direct criticism of what you wrote, it was a wider point that small groups of widely distributed forces are strategically negligible if deterrent turns to direct conflict.
Or perhaps I just don’t think we are somehow unique in what can be offered to alliance security. You don’t overcommit yourself and then somehow claim you need more money for X. We are already committed in Estonia, Poland and Romania, there’s only so many places you can commit to permanently position forces.Scimitar54 wrote: ↑11 Apr 2022, 23:56 Yes they do and they also have mountainous areas to defend. French & Italian forces would also have a much longer distance to travel to Scandinavia. Perhaps you think that we should re-enforce Southern NATO Countries, while they re-enforce the Northern NATO countries. At the very least it would be an inefficient use of Forces and resources and at worst a total cluster.… !
Moved over to the future Army thread for thisSW1 wrote: ↑11 Apr 2022, 17:32Yeah actually thinking over the past few months this part of the army ( 1 div) should be looking at all arms battlegroups as it’s main grouping, sort a cross between the force in Mali and a us marine meu. Especially as they’re the force that with be fwd working with allies likely in several locations at the same time.
Sorry for going off on a tangent but to my mind this is still the case? The French aren't far away at all and the Italians have significantly narrowed the gap to us but not sure anyone other than the USN could make a compelling case to be either larger (at least in tonnage terms) or more capable than the RN.
have there ever been any stated headcount figures for 3Cdo under FCF/DCM?wargame insomniac wrote: 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 said this so many times over the last couple of years and only recently of the US thread when talking about there lightning carriers.Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑19 Apr 2022, 20:48 This is exactly the type of capability RN needs for the FCF and next generation Amphibious Ops IMO.
I’m surprised RN aren’t actively involved in this program or something very similar.
Clearly, keeping costs within reasonable limits is paramount.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/v ... y-warships