Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Great picture

These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 4):
RepulsejedibeeftrixRon5serge750

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by jedibeeftrix »

3Cdo marketing and publicity still heavily promoting links to the high-north, indeed, forging new links not merely maintaining old ones.

If the high-north is dead for 3Cdo - for... reasons - then no-one has told the Commandos.
These users liked the author jedibeeftrix for the post (total 4):
SW1Ron5wargame_insomniacserge750

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

jedibeeftrix wrote: 10 May 2023, 13:29 3Cdo marketing and publicity still heavily promoting links to the high-north, indeed, forging new links not merely maintaining old ones.

If the high-north is dead for 3Cdo - for... reasons - then no-one has told the Commandos.
JEF will be central to U.K. defence policy despite some wanting to gaze elsewhere.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
jedibeeftrix

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

jedibeeftrix wrote: 10 May 2023, 13:29 If the high-north is dead for 3Cdo - for... reasons - then no-one has told the Commandos.
Why would the High North be dead for 3Cdo?

Even with the radically altered security framework across the Nordic/Baltic/JEF, LRG(N) will regularly exercise with other forces in the area. Why would this change?

IMO if the UK’s main contribution to European land based security is going to be in the JEF area then it’s for the British Army to reorganise to provide the mass required. Therefore having a large persistent RM presence at Camp Viking whist simultaneously trying to implement a radical FCF transformation elsewhere in the world plus retain part of 3Cdo as a high readiness force seems like a stretch too far.

Finland and Sweden joining NATO is a radical change, is the British Army properly kitted out to fight and win in the Arctic and Sub Artic against a peer?

Perhaps the answer to that question is the reason why it’s business as usual…..for now.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
jedibeeftrix

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 10 May 2023, 13:32
jedibeeftrix wrote: 10 May 2023, 13:29 3Cdo marketing and publicity still heavily promoting links to the high-north, indeed, forging new links not merely maintaining old ones.

If the high-north is dead for 3Cdo - for... reasons - then no-one has told the Commandos.
JEF will be central to U.K. defence policy despite some wanting to gaze elsewhere.
Yes Central, but cannot be the only thing we do. How we meet our JEF commitments / objectives is another question, but it’s stupid to say we mustn’t consider the rest of the world.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
jedibeeftrix
”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

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote: 10 May 2023, 13:32
jedibeeftrix wrote: 10 May 2023, 13:29 3Cdo marketing and publicity still heavily promoting links to the high-north, indeed, forging new links not merely maintaining old ones.

If the high-north is dead for 3Cdo - for... reasons - then no-one has told the Commandos.
JEF will be central to U.K. defence policy despite some wanting to gaze elsewhere.
For me having 1 x LHD , 4 x Type 31 , 2 x OPV's & 2 x Tankers plus a Gurkha Rapid response Brigade EoS is a solid stance this would leave us to get on and make the changes needed for the job in Europe

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Tempest414 wrote: 11 May 2023, 12:19
SW1 wrote: 10 May 2023, 13:32
jedibeeftrix wrote: 10 May 2023, 13:29 3Cdo marketing and publicity still heavily promoting links to the high-north, indeed, forging new links not merely maintaining old ones.

If the high-north is dead for 3Cdo - for... reasons - then no-one has told the Commandos.
JEF will be central to U.K. defence policy despite some wanting to gaze elsewhere.
For me having 1 x LHD , 4 x Type 31 , 2 x OPV's & 2 x Tankers plus a Gurkha Rapid response Brigade EoS is a solid stance this would leave us to get on and make the changes needed for the job in Europe
The JEF is not solely focused on deploying to the Baltic! It is available for rapid reaction elsewhere.

Our principal combat capability should be committed to the JEF with the primary role of support to NATO. Should that not be required within the nato area it can be released for use elsewhere. The U.K. is the framework nation for others to contribute to, so in the maritime area it’s largely attempting to recreate a U.S. expeditionary group in my view.

Our basis beyond that for fwd deployment outside of the nato area in the Maritime domain is I think maritime security, escort and intelligence gathering with our sovereign overseas territories acting as logistics hubs to support said commitments.

Should the JEF force deploy to these regions the fwd deployed units would integrate into the taskgroup.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote: 11 May 2023, 14:56
Tempest414 wrote: 11 May 2023, 12:19
SW1 wrote: 10 May 2023, 13:32
jedibeeftrix wrote: 10 May 2023, 13:29 3Cdo marketing and publicity still heavily promoting links to the high-north, indeed, forging new links not merely maintaining old ones.

If the high-north is dead for 3Cdo - for... reasons - then no-one has told the Commandos.
JEF will be central to U.K. defence policy despite some wanting to gaze elsewhere.
For me having 1 x LHD , 4 x Type 31 , 2 x OPV's & 2 x Tankers plus a Gurkha Rapid response Brigade EoS is a solid stance this would leave us to get on and make the changes needed for the job in Europe
The JEF is not solely focused on deploying to the Baltic! It is available for rapid reaction elsewhere.

Our principal combat capability should be committed to the JEF with the primary role of support to NATO. Should that not be required within the nato area it can be released for use elsewhere. The U.K. is the framework nation for others to contribute to, so in the maritime area it’s largely attempting to recreate a U.S. expeditionary group in my view.

Our basis beyond that for fwd deployment outside of the nato area in the Maritime domain is I think maritime security, escort and intelligence gathering with our sovereign overseas territories acting as logistics hubs to support said commitments.

Should the JEF force deploy to these regions the fwd deployed units would integrate into the taskgroup.
So I think we are not that far apart

4 x T-31 & 2 x OPV's supported by 2 tankers to cover the Indo-Pacific for security , escort and intelligence duties ( main area of ops Indian Ocean )

1 x LPD/ LHD to move the Gurkha RRB and HDAR as needed

Gurkha RR Brigade would hold a Battalion battle group at high readiness

By Having this force EoS allows the rest of the Army , Navy and Air Force to get on with JEF

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Tempest414 wrote: 11 May 2023, 15:23
SW1 wrote: 11 May 2023, 14:56
Tempest414 wrote: 11 May 2023, 12:19
SW1 wrote: 10 May 2023, 13:32
jedibeeftrix wrote: 10 May 2023, 13:29 3Cdo marketing and publicity still heavily promoting links to the high-north, indeed, forging new links not merely maintaining old ones.

If the high-north is dead for 3Cdo - for... reasons - then no-one has told the Commandos.
JEF will be central to U.K. defence policy despite some wanting to gaze elsewhere.
For me having 1 x LHD , 4 x Type 31 , 2 x OPV's & 2 x Tankers plus a Gurkha Rapid response Brigade EoS is a solid stance this would leave us to get on and make the changes needed for the job in Europe
The JEF is not solely focused on deploying to the Baltic! It is available for rapid reaction elsewhere.

Our principal combat capability should be committed to the JEF with the primary role of support to NATO. Should that not be required within the nato area it can be released for use elsewhere. The U.K. is the framework nation for others to contribute to, so in the maritime area it’s largely attempting to recreate a U.S. expeditionary group in my view.

Our basis beyond that for fwd deployment outside of the nato area in the Maritime domain is I think maritime security, escort and intelligence gathering with our sovereign overseas territories acting as logistics hubs to support said commitments.

Should the JEF force deploy to these regions the fwd deployed units would integrate into the taskgroup.
So I think we are not that far apart

4 x T-31 & 2 x OPV's supported by 2 tankers to cover the Indo-Pacific for security , escort and intelligence duties ( main area of ops Indian Ocean )

1 x LPD/ LHD to move the Gurkha RRB and HDAR as needed

Gurkha RR Brigade would hold a Battalion battle group at high readiness

By Having this force EoS allows the rest of the Army , Navy and Air Force to get on with JEF
Maybe not but what you suggest for being in the indo pacific is significantly larger than what I would.

We know there will be a nuclear submarine calling in the area as our principle support to Australia.

Beyond that the Gurkha battalion in Brunei yes no change. I would look at perhaps 3 type 31 and a tanker operating out of BIOT with commando boarding teams assigned.

If there is a need to move elements of the Gurkhas around the region that would be as and when required by the RAF strategic transport from the U.K. or utilising allied assets.

The single biggest change to force structure I would make is around the voyager fleet size and configuration to be held to support task lines in support of movements in the region and U.K. allies alike.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 11 May 2023, 14:56 The JEF is not solely focused on deploying to the Baltic! It is available for rapid reaction elsewhere.

Our principal combat capability should be committed to the JEF with the primary role of support to NATO. Should that not be required within the nato area it can be released for use elsewhere. The U.K. is the framework nation for others to contribute to, so in the maritime area it’s largely attempting to recreate a U.S. expeditionary group in my view.

Our basis beyond that for fwd deployment outside of the nato area in the Maritime domain is I think maritime security, escort and intelligence gathering with our sovereign overseas territories acting as logistics hubs to support said commitments.

Should the JEF force deploy to these regions the fwd deployed units would integrate into the taskgroup.
JEF is a key element of UK’s defence and our NATO commitment. Also to a lesser extent it has ambitions for a western IndoPacific expeditionary role. However, it cannot be our principle combat capability.

It is unlikely that the JEF nations would be willing to participate in operations outside of their regional interests. For that we need capabilities that plug into multiple alliances or can be deployed independently no matter how limited. Outside of NATO, AUKUS will be much more significant than JEF.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
jedibeeftrix
”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: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 11 May 2023, 19:27
SW1 wrote: 11 May 2023, 14:56 The JEF is not solely focused on deploying to the Baltic! It is available for rapid reaction elsewhere.

Our principal combat capability should be committed to the JEF with the primary role of support to NATO. Should that not be required within the nato area it can be released for use elsewhere. The U.K. is the framework nation for others to contribute to, so in the maritime area it’s largely attempting to recreate a U.S. expeditionary group in my view.

Our basis beyond that for fwd deployment outside of the nato area in the Maritime domain is I think maritime security, escort and intelligence gathering with our sovereign overseas territories acting as logistics hubs to support said commitments.

Should the JEF force deploy to these regions the fwd deployed units would integrate into the taskgroup.
JEF is a key element of UK’s defence and our NATO commitment. Also to a lesser extent it has ambitions for a western IndoPacific expeditionary role. However, it cannot be our principle combat capability.

It is unlikely that the JEF nations would be willing to participate in operations outside of their regional interests. For that we need to capabilities that plug into multiple alliances or can be deployed independently no matter how limited. Outside of NATO, AUKUS will be much more significant than JEF.
AUKUS is not a military force alliance it is a technology development and sharing partnership that ensures each nation has the best equipment possible to defend itself.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 11 May 2023, 19:29
Repulse wrote: 11 May 2023, 19:27
SW1 wrote: 11 May 2023, 14:56 The JEF is not solely focused on deploying to the Baltic! It is available for rapid reaction elsewhere.

Our principal combat capability should be committed to the JEF with the primary role of support to NATO. Should that not be required within the nato area it can be released for use elsewhere. The U.K. is the framework nation for others to contribute to, so in the maritime area it’s largely attempting to recreate a U.S. expeditionary group in my view.

Our basis beyond that for fwd deployment outside of the nato area in the Maritime domain is I think maritime security, escort and intelligence gathering with our sovereign overseas territories acting as logistics hubs to support said commitments.

Should the JEF force deploy to these regions the fwd deployed units would integrate into the taskgroup.
JEF is a key element of UK’s defence and our NATO commitment. Also to a lesser extent it has ambitions for a western IndoPacific expeditionary role. However, it cannot be our principle combat capability.

It is unlikely that the JEF nations would be willing to participate in operations outside of their regional interests. For that we need to capabilities that plug into multiple alliances or can be deployed independently no matter how limited. Outside of NATO, AUKUS will be much more significant than JEF.
AUKUS is not a military force alliance it is a technology development and sharing partnership that ensures each nation has the best equipment possible to defend itself.
AUKUS is a new branding for an existing alliance that has lasted over a century. The three nations have fought together in more wars than not, and many many more than JEF. Although it’s focus is on submarines and other tech, the alliance will be 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: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 11 May 2023, 19:26
Tempest414 wrote: 11 May 2023, 15:23 So I think we are not that far apart

4 x T-31 & 2 x OPV's supported by 2 tankers to cover the Indo-Pacific for security , escort and intelligence duties ( main area of ops Indian Ocean )

1 x LPD/ LHD to move the Gurkha RRB and HDAR as needed

Gurkha RR Brigade would hold a Battalion battle group at high readiness

By Having this force EoS allows the rest of the Army , Navy and Air Force to get on with JEF
Maybe not but what you suggest for being in the indo pacific is significantly larger than what I would.

We know there will be a nuclear submarine calling in the area as our principle support to Australia.

Beyond that the Gurkha battalion in Brunei yes no change. I would look at perhaps 3 type 31 and a tanker operating out of BIOT with commando boarding teams assigned.

If there is a need to move elements of the Gurkhas around the region that would be as and when required by the RAF strategic transport from the U.K. or utilising allied assets.

The single biggest change to force structure I would make is around the voyager fleet size and configuration to be held to support task lines in support of movements in the region and U.K. allies alike.
The future is definitely purple and not just dark blue, but having a large number of constabulary frigates EoS makes no real sense.

However, in terms of dark blue -
OPVs / LSVs operating from BOTs and Oman yes. An ASS/LHD plus SSN plus T26/T45 based in Oz would make sense. But the main power projection tool will be CSGs sailing from the UK.
”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: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

And if the rumours are true, AUKUS is soon to become CAUKUS
”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

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

As long as its expansion does not result in it becoming CAUKUP ! :mrgreen:
These users liked the author Scimitar54 for the post:
jedibeeftrix

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote: 11 May 2023, 19:48
SW1 wrote: 11 May 2023, 19:26
Tempest414 wrote: 11 May 2023, 15:23 So I think we are not that far apart

4 x T-31 & 2 x OPV's supported by 2 tankers to cover the Indo-Pacific for security , escort and intelligence duties ( main area of ops Indian Ocean )

1 x LPD/ LHD to move the Gurkha RRB and HDAR as needed

Gurkha RR Brigade would hold a Battalion battle group at high readiness

By Having this force EoS allows the rest of the Army , Navy and Air Force to get on with JEF
Maybe not but what you suggest for being in the indo pacific is significantly larger than what I would.

We know there will be a nuclear submarine calling in the area as our principle support to Australia.

Beyond that the Gurkha battalion in Brunei yes no change. I would look at perhaps 3 type 31 and a tanker operating out of BIOT with commando boarding teams assigned.

If there is a need to move elements of the Gurkhas around the region that would be as and when required by the RAF strategic transport from the U.K. or utilising allied assets.

The single biggest change to force structure I would make is around the voyager fleet size and configuration to be held to support task lines in support of movements in the region and U.K. allies alike.
The future is definitely purple and not just dark blue, but having a large number of constabulary frigates EoS makes no real sense.

However, in terms of dark blue -
OPVs / LSVs operating from BOTs and Oman yes. An ASS/LHD plus SSN plus T26/T45 based in Oz would make sense. But the main power projection tool will be CSGs sailing from the UK.
We will not have enough Type 26/ 45's to forward deploy them in Oz the Type 31 is the perfect ship for EoS larger , low crew & long legged with a helicopter

What I have put forward is very Purple with Army & Navy units operating EoS supported by the RAF

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by jedibeeftrix »

The JEF/Nato vs Aukus/IndoPac resourcing conundrum seems like one that should be defined as commited-forces vs contingency-forces.

Units can have both a committed and a contingency role.
e.g. an RB2 committed to Oman, but available as a continecy resource to deploy into the pacific.
e.g. the gurkas committed to brunei, but available as a continecy elsewhere

You don't want to create the classic post-coldwar sleight-of-hand by committing forces to multiple tasks.
e.g. thinking of the franco-german brigade in the early noughties.

3Cdo is primarily a contingency force, that is more or less their main selling point:
Yes, (small) elements might be committed to JEF, but if there isn't thre ability to form a RM battlegroup RM force for a contingency then I personally consider it to be poorly employed. Offering a poor return on investment.
This includes the possibility that a battlegroup can't be formed without breaking political commitments to JEF/NATO by removing committed forces to resource the contingency need.

So, yes, I tend to agree that JEF will be our primary focus for committed forces within Nato, but it is far more appropriate for an Army brigade to be the resource used for that commitment.
And, yes, I tend to agree that Technology/Intel will be our primary commitment within Aukus, but it is still appropriate to earmark 3Cdo (battlegroup) as a resource for IndoPac contingency.
These users liked the author jedibeeftrix for the post (total 2):
PoiuytrewqRepulse

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

jedibeeftrix wrote: 12 May 2023, 09:19 The JEF/Nato vs Aukus/IndoPac resourcing conundrum seems like one that should be defined as commited-forces vs contingency-forces.

Units can have both a committed and a contingency role.
e.g. an RB2 committed to Oman, but available as a continecy resource to deploy into the pacific.
e.g. the gurkas committed to brunei, but available as a continecy elsewhere

You don't want to create the classic post-coldwar sleight-of-hand by committing forces to multiple tasks.
e.g. thinking of the franco-german brigade in the early noughties.

3Cdo is primarily a contingency force, that is more or less their main selling point:
Yes, (small) elements might be committed to JEF, but if there isn't thre ability to form a RM battlegroup RM force for a contingency then I personally consider it to be poorly employed. Offering a poor return on investment.
This includes the possibility that a battlegroup can't be formed without breaking political commitments to JEF/NATO by removing committed forces to resource the contingency need.

So, yes, I tend to agree that JEF will be our primary focus for committed forces within Nato, but it is far more appropriate for an Army brigade to be the resource used for that commitment.
And, yes, I tend to agree that Technology/Intel will be our primary commitment within Aukus, but it is still appropriate to earmark 3Cdo (battlegroup) as a resource for IndoPac contingency.
As quoted by the RN

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-l ... e-maritime

The Joint Expeditionary Force (Maritime) is the Royal Navy’s high-readiness global task force. Together with armed forces from eight other nations, the unit is poised to respond to crises whenever and wherever they unfold.

Launched at NATO’s Wales summit in 2014, the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) is a UK-led task group consisting of armed forces from the UK and eight partner nations: Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden.

Britain’s contribution to the JEF includes personnel and equipment from the Royal Navy, Royal Marines, British Army and Royal Air Force, with the maritime element headed up by the Royal Navy and Royal Marines.

The task group is designed to demonstrate the UK’s ability to project a highly effective maritime task force anywhere in the world, both individually and in partnership with other allied nations.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
jedibeeftrix

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

jedibeeftrix wrote: 12 May 2023, 09:19 I tend to agree that JEF will be our primary focus for committed forces within Nato, but it is far more appropriate for an Army brigade to be the resource used for that commitment.
So where does that leave RM?

RN will always cut RM and the Amphibs first. Perhaps that cutting process has already started albeit structurally. The change to smaller raiding parties increases that risk as a 6000-7000 force will not be deemed necessary to achieve that. Hence the forward basing at Camp Viking to justify the twin pronged approach.

As stated previously, Finland and Sweden joining NATO makes a huge difference. The Nordic land area is now an Army problem and if it isn’t it should be.

This is not necessarily bad news for RM but rather than the poor relation LRG(S) based at Duqm (concentrating EoS) should become as large or larger than LRG(N) based in the U.K. (concentrating on JEF) whilst retaining the capability to combine the LRGs to form a LSG if required.

I would also argue for two Company sized formations forward based at Gibraltar and Singapore also to concentrate on North/West Africa and the Asia Pacific respectively. This is possible now if the Army share the burden in Norway/Sweden/Finland.

Done properly it could be exciting times to come for the Royal Marines and it also would require zero extra vessels to achieve it.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
jedibeeftrix

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

SW1 wrote: 12 May 2023, 11:20 Launched at NATO’s Wales summit in 2014, the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) is a UK-led task group consisting of armed forces from the UK and eight partner nations: Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden……..The task group is designed to demonstrate the UK’s ability to project a highly effective maritime task force anywhere in the world, both individually and in partnership with other allied nations.
Is that not just another way of saying we have cut our own Armed Forces to point where we can’t operate without the help of others?

Outside of the Nordics where would such a force ever realistically be deployed with the full agreement of the eight allied nations?
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
Repulse

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 12 May 2023, 11:38
SW1 wrote: 12 May 2023, 11:20 Launched at NATO’s Wales summit in 2014, the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) is a UK-led task group consisting of armed forces from the UK and eight partner nations: Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden……..The task group is designed to demonstrate the UK’s ability to project a highly effective maritime task force anywhere in the world, both individually and in partnership with other allied nations.
Is that not just another way of saying we have cut our own Armed Forces to point where we can’t operate without the help of others?

Outside of the Nordics where would such a force ever realistically be deployed with the full agreement of the eight allied nations?
It makes the point we have a single high readiness taskgroup principly assigned to JEF. It’s operates elsewhere with their support or not. There is NOT two different high end response forces for JEF and elsewhere

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

For me the RM needs to keep a high readiness Battalion battle group ready to go where ever needed the same should be done with 16AA and a Gurkha rapid response force these 3 formations would be the UK's Rapid light Forces

The RM would have a role to play in the JEF but out side of the Army's 2 Rapid response formations they should have 5 Brigades 2 x Armoured and 3 x Mech with one of these held at high readiness for JEF

For me the 3 Mech brigades should be a form of Stryker BCT based on the Patria 6x6

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by jedibeeftrix »

SW1 wrote: 12 May 2023, 11:20
jedibeeftrix wrote: 12 May 2023, 09:19 The JEF/Nato vs Aukus/IndoPac resourcing conundrum seems like one that should be defined as commited-forces vs contingency-forces.

Units can have both a committed and a contingency role.
e.g. an RB2 committed to Oman, but available as a continecy resource to deploy into the pacific.
e.g. the gurkas committed to brunei, but available as a continecy elsewhere

You don't want to create the classic post-coldwar sleight-of-hand by committing forces to multiple tasks.
e.g. thinking of the franco-german brigade in the early noughties.

3Cdo is primarily a contingency force, that is more or less their main selling point:
Yes, (small) elements might be committed to JEF, but if there isn't thre ability to form a RM battlegroup RM force for a contingency then I personally consider it to be poorly employed. Offering a poor return on investment.
This includes the possibility that a battlegroup can't be formed without breaking political commitments to JEF/NATO by removing committed forces to resource the contingency need.

So, yes, I tend to agree that JEF will be our primary focus for committed forces within Nato, but it is far more appropriate for an Army brigade to be the resource used for that commitment.
And, yes, I tend to agree that Technology/Intel will be our primary commitment within Aukus, but it is still appropriate to earmark 3Cdo (battlegroup) as a resource for IndoPac contingency.
As quoted by the RN

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-l ... e-maritime

The Joint Expeditionary Force (Maritime) is the Royal Navy’s high-readiness global task force. Together with armed forces from eight other nations, the unit is poised to respond to crises whenever and wherever they unfold.

Launched at NATO’s Wales summit in 2014, the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) is a UK-led task group consisting of armed forces from the UK and eight partner nations: Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden.

Britain’s contribution to the JEF includes personnel and equipment from the Royal Navy, Royal Marines, British Army and Royal Air Force, with the maritime element headed up by the Royal Navy and Royal Marines.

The task group is designed to demonstrate the UK’s ability to project a highly effective maritime task force anywhere in the world, both individually and in partnership with other allied nations.
Re: "Britain’s contribution to the JEF includes personnel and equipment from the Royal Navy, Royal Marines, British Army and Royal Air Force, with the maritime element headed up by the Royal Navy and Royal Marines."

What RN/RM/BA/RAF forces are committed to the Joint Expeditionary Force (Maritime)?
On an ongoing basis.

Is it a full Carrier/Amphibious taskgroup, or, is it closer to what I described above:
e.g. an RB2 committed to Oman, but available as a continecy resource to deploy into the pacific.
e.g. the gurkas committed to brunei, but available as a continecy elsewhere

In which case, no argument from me; units can have both a committed and a contingency role.

To put this another way: I don't believe that brigades that generate VJTF contingency forces should be committed to ongoing/routine security.
Whether that is 3Cdo, 16AAB, or even a putative 'light-strike' brigade composed of gurka and light-cav units, etc.

Phil Sayers
Member
Posts: 365
Joined: 03 May 2015, 13:56

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Phil Sayers »

To be honest I am not sure the structure really makes much sense. The combined armies of Finland, Sweden and Norway would be very effective in stopping an invasion of Scandinavia just by themselves on land. Where we could assist would be enabling capabilities such as air support, intelligence gathering, logistical assistance and naval support (including the NGFS that everyone seems to think is now irrelevant). Also, special forces, RM raiding parties and artillery batteries etc. There will be no need to ship an army brigade over there - if all three armies already present are facing defeat it is very unlikely a British Army brigade or similarly composed force would tip the scales by itself.

If the invasion to be countered is not there but instead e.g of the Baltic States then it would make a lot more sense to integrate our main ground contribution with the US Army rather than with the other countries that form the JEF.

JEF outside the European theatre is probably not much different to the combined RM and Dutch marines force that already exists.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Phil Sayers wrote: 12 May 2023, 13:04 To be honest I am not sure the structure really makes much sense. The combined armies of Finland, Sweden and Norway would be very effective in stopping an invasion of Scandinavia just by themselves on land. Where we could assist would be enabling capabilities such as air support, intelligence gathering, logistical assistance and naval support (including the NGFS that everyone seems to think is now irrelevant). Also, special forces, RM raiding parties and artillery batteries etc. There will be no need to ship an army brigade over there - if all three armies already present are facing defeat it is very unlikely a British Army brigade or similarly composed force would tip the scales by itself.

If the invasion to be countered is not there but instead e.g of the Baltic States then it would make a lot more sense to integrate our main ground contribution with the US Army rather than with the other countries that form the JEF.

JEF outside the European theatre is probably not much different to the combined RM and Dutch marines force that already exists.
Given the history of WWI & WWII, counting on my country to be there day 1 might be a mistake :(

Esp if some of today's candidates for US president actually win.
These users liked the author Ron5 for the post (total 2):
Scimitar54Jensy

Post Reply