Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

For operation Achillean, yes plus HMS Defender:


Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

WE have certainly gotten the most out of the Bays since they entered service. Often wonder with hindsight whether we should have not sold one to the RAN back when.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post (total 3):
wargame_insomniacserge750zanahoria


Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

I get the impression that these day Littoral Response Group is just another name for an Amphibious Group. THe talked about MRSS also now seems to be linked to the replacement for the Bays and/or Albions, so the requirements may be similar now, who knows.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 15 Oct 2022, 18:05
In 2019 we saw this same make up of 1 x LPD , 1 x Escort , 1 x LSD , Argus and a Point class sealift in the Baltic

For the last 5 years we have seen this basic set and before that this set up was based around Ocean. In the last 3 years we have seen a lot of talk of LRG-N and S but no movement away from the Amphib ready group
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
Repulse

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Given the broader financial headwinds, I think LRG(N) will be the sole war fighting amphibious group, so if something is needed EoS then LRG(N) would be the force deployed - so yes, it is the equivalent of the old ARG.

What I hope is that people do not revert back to a binary view of the world, and prevent anything in the Indo/Pacific is not of interest to the UK, and is none of its concern. It is, but we need to be clear on the UK’s role and ambition.

For me, we need a forward based multi-role ship (outside of the Gulf) that supports HADR and SF operations. It is not a Bay Class IMO, perhaps back to a leased FLSS or even a converted Wave class, assuming RFA Argus is needed for LRG(N).
”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: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 16 Oct 2022, 10:33 Given the broader financial headwinds, I think LRG(N) will be the sole war fighting amphibious group, so if something is needed EoS then LRG(N) would be the force deployed - so yes, it is the equivalent of the old ARG.

What I hope is that people do not revert back to a binary view of the world, and prevent anything in the Indo/Pacific is not of interest to the UK, and is none of its concern. It is, but we need to be clear on the UK’s role and ambition.

For me, we need a forward based multi-role ship (outside of the Gulf) that supports HADR and SF operations. It is not a Bay Class IMO, perhaps back to a leased FLSS or even a converted Wave class, assuming RFA Argus is needed for LRG(N).
The UKs role in the pacific is diplomatic and ensuring we can share technology and information with our allies in the region so they can deter China and North Korea’s in there home.

Why do we need a ship to support HADR?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 16 Oct 2022, 10:49 Why do we need a ship to support HADR?
Because we should support HADR operations in those regions. The UK armed forces are skilled and capable of getting urgently needed supplies and kit quickly to the point of need. Any platform should have a couple of Merlin’s or a Chinook deployed, which gives options not readily available to some of the smaller regional nations.

It’s a small cost and complementary to other lower end / small operations that the UK sees is in its national interest.

Whilst we aren’t a superpower, we are a mid power with global interests and reach. Believe it or not issues in regions outside of Europe have a big impact to the UK, we need to remain engaged with countries to as best we can ensure events are handled in our interests, to do this we need to be seen and present.
”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: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 16 Oct 2022, 11:26
SW1 wrote: 16 Oct 2022, 10:49 Why do we need a ship to support HADR?
Because we should support HADR operations in those regions. The UK armed forces are skilled and capable of getting urgently needed supplies and kit quickly to the point of need. Any platform should have a couple of Merlin’s or a Chinook deployed, which gives options not readily available to some of the smaller regional nations.

It’s a small cost and complementary to other lower end / small operations that the UK sees is in its national interest.

Whilst we aren’t a superpower, we are a mid power with global interests and reach. Believe it or not issues in regions outside of Europe have a big impact to the UK, we need to remain engaged with countries to as best we can ensure events are handled in our interests, to do this we need to be seen and present.

We do but how does a ship support that? Say there’s an earthquake in Nepal or flooding in Congo what do we do with the ship then?

Chinook good more moving large logistical items not so good in hadr no so good in doing the initial search and rescue type role of what you could class as a military first response to such situations. Merlin in the pacific is problematic espionage if it’s mountainous country particularly hot or in jungle landscapes. But perhaps the main issues there is so few helicopters I doubt you could commitment them continually to such a task. Especially now Puma is pretty much permanently assigned to the region. For any HADR task it is best to work with countries to enhance there own national resilience to such incidents and fly in where necessary emergency aid from our logistical hubs as we can not tell where and when such incidents will occur.

The uk will and is engaged outside of Europe and has significant present around the world with its embassies and business footprint, you are assuming when the issue of engagement it raised it only means military it does not.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

For me we need to push on with MRSS and make them a 200 x 32 meter flattop LPD along the lines of the Osumi class or Dokdo class

As for what we do EoS for me we need to be there with something meaningful and what I would like to see is a full time commitment of 1 x MRSS , 1 x Escort , 1 x tanker plus a increase to 4 OPV's this would need a EoS force of

2 x MRSS
2 x Tankers
4 x Type 31
4 x OPV's

This would mean we need to build

6 x MRSS
4 x Type 31's ( on top of the 5 already on order )
4 x River B3's

Allowing for a Atlantic force of

2 x Carriers
4 x MRSS
19 x escorts
5 x OPVs
4 x tankers
3 x SSS

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Tempest414 wrote: 16 Oct 2022, 12:04 For me we need to push on with MRSS and make them a 200 x 32 meter flattop LPD along the lines of the Osumi class or Dokdo class

As for what we do EoS for me we need to be there with something meaningful and what I would like to see is a full time commitment of 1 x MRSS , 1 x Escort , 1 x tanker plus a increase to 4 OPV's this would need a EoS force of

2 x MRSS
2 x Tankers
4 x Type 31
4 x OPV's

This would mean we need to build

6 x MRSS
4 x Type 31's ( on top of the 5 already on order )
4 x River B3's

Allowing for a Atlantic force of

2 x Carriers
4 x MRSS
19 x escorts
5 x OPVs
4 x tankers
3 x SSS
After last week, all bets are off in respct of future UK Defence Spending.

If we assume that the current forces in Operation Achillean in the Med (1 Albion, Argus, 1 Bay, 1 Point, 1 escort) are the likely constituent parts of LRG(N) going forward (with Albion / Bulwark rotating as active HQ), then the maximum I can see for LRG(S) are:
1 x MRSS , 1 x Escort , 1 x tanker.

The escort for LRG(S) will be one of the five already ordered T31.
In the short term then one of the Bays will be depolyed there until the MRSS are ready for deployment.
Likely to be based in Oman, so not in the Persian Gulf but can get there quickly if needed.
Will be at most one Company of RM.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

So At this time we have 1 x Bay , 1 x escort , 4 x MCM and 2 x RB2's EoS so if we were to send a LRG to the region we would be looking to send Argus or a Bay plus a escort and hopefully a tanker meaning we could have

2 x MRSS ( Argus & a Bay or 2 x Bays )
2 x Escorts
2 x RB2
4 x MCM
1 x tanker

Now if we were to build the 6 new MRSS plus 5 more type 31 and 4 RB3's we could have as I said

2 x MRSS
4 x escorts
4 x RB3's
1 x Tanker

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote: 16 Oct 2022, 09:14 In 2019 we saw this same make up of 1 x LPD , 1 x Escort , 1 x LSD , Argus and a Point class sealift in the Baltic

For the last 5 years we have seen this basic set and before that this set up was based around Ocean. In the last 3 years we have seen a lot of talk of LRG-N and S but no movement away from the Amphib ready group
It appears to be business as usual and a long way away from the original LSG concept using a converted commercial hull like MV Ocean Trader.

The whole rationale behind the MRSS concept is beginning to look less than solid and I am expecting a change of direction now that Cold War planning is resurfacing.

Also the widespread use of drones is going to change the design of the Amphibs simply by necessity. A small two helicopter hanger and modestly sized flight deck is going to be virtually obsolete within a decade unless operating in conjunction with another vessel(s) with substantially more aviation capacity.

Any Amphibious operation going forward, whether it is short endurance littoral strike or a larger more sustained operation will need large numbers of MALE drones along with waves of loitering munitions. It not credible to think that PWLS is going to become a drone carrier. A 65000t CVF is not ideally suited to such a task.

IMO this leaves six Ellida style vessels as a substantially suboptimal option for the Amphib replacements without further aviation capacity. Such a rigid six ship concept is beginning to look like the past and certainly not the future. Large numbers of drones are the future and this capability must be included in the Amphib replacement programme.
The reason I want to see six 200 x 32 meter flattop MRSS is that if need be we can embark 1 battalion of RM and the high readiness battalion battle group of 16XX the key to this will be the need for the new Medium lift helicopter to have folding rotors to allow a up take of helicopters on the flattops
I agree with this but is it affordable? Not sure. That would effectively become six 200m LHDs and cost more than £4bn.

Would two fully kitted out Amphibious Assault Drone (AAD) carriers actually be more useful and perhaps affordable? Basically an upgraded 21st century Ocean LPH. Without the floodable well dock such a vessel could in all likelihood be procured for around £500m each. A bargain considering the capability.

Six Ellida style MRSS could then make up the rest of the Amphib fleet, two with a replenishment capability to replace the Waves. This would maintain the LCU capacity at 12 and offer hanger space for 12 medium sized helos. An excellent result.

Ideally six 200m flat-top MRSS could be procured but I suspect they will simply be unaffordable when the time comes.

The steel should be getting cut on these vessels in less than 8 years time. RN really need to make a decision on the direction of travel now and stick to it.

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Tempest414 wrote: 17 Oct 2022, 10:05 So At this time we have 1 x Bay , 1 x escort , 4 x MCM and 2 x RB2's EoS so if we were to send a LRG to the region we would be looking to send Argus or a Bay plus a escort and hopefully a tanker meaning we could have

2 x MRSS ( Argus & a Bay or 2 x Bays )
2 x Escorts
2 x RB2
4 x MCM
1 x tanker

Now if we were to build the 6 new MRSS plus 5 more type 31 and 4 RB3's we could have as I said

2 x MRSS
4 x escorts
4 x RB3's
1 x Tanker
That MIGHT have been possible before Kwasi-Gate when Truss was verbally confirming that UK Defence Spending would be increased to 2.5% and then 3% of GDP. But that is so last week!!!

Now we are unlikely to get these verbally confirmed increases, and if anything, under Hunt we MIGHT even be looking at defence cuts.

So you might well have to remove your hoped for "5 more type 31 and 4 RB3's".

Anything more than what is currently ordered (i.e. T26 and 5*T31) is uncertain now....

2nd MROSS, 3*FSS, 5*T32, 6*MRSS. All of therse are now uncertain. There is the risk that some / all of these might be cancelled / postponed / order reduced to a lower number.

Hope that is clearer.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 17 Oct 2022, 17:59
Tempest414 wrote: 17 Oct 2022, 10:05 So At this time we have 1 x Bay , 1 x escort , 4 x MCM and 2 x RB2's EoS so if we were to send a LRG to the region we would be looking to send Argus or a Bay plus a escort and hopefully a tanker meaning we could have

2 x MRSS ( Argus & a Bay or 2 x Bays )
2 x Escorts
2 x RB2
4 x MCM
1 x tanker

Now if we were to build the 6 new MRSS plus 5 more type 31 and 4 RB3's we could have as I said

2 x MRSS
4 x escorts
4 x RB3's
1 x Tanker
That MIGHT have been possible before Kwasi-Gate when Truss was verbally confirming that UK Defence Spending would be increased to 2.5% and then 3% of GDP. But that is so last week!!!

Now we are unlikely to get these verbally confirmed increases, and if anything, under Hunt we MIGHT even be looking at defence cuts.

So you might well have to remove your hoped for "5 more type 31 and 4 RB3's".

Anything more than what is currently ordered (i.e. T26 and 5*T31) is uncertain now....

2nd MROSS, 3*FSS, 5*T32, 6*MRSS. All of therse are now uncertain. There is the risk that some / all of these might be cancelled / postponed / order reduced to a lower number.

Hope that is clearer.
I don't think we will see cuts at this time Russia is pushing and China has just yesterday doubled down on defence growth. Also Ben Wallace is more powerful than Hunt in the Party yes Hunt is in No 11 but he wont lock horns with Wallace now

Yes I agree 4 more Rivers are a push but we will need to replace the B1's soon

The 4 or 5 Type 31/32's will happen to follow the Type 31's

We will also need at least 2 MRSS even if we keep the Bays and 1 LPD

We Also need 2 x SSS or the carriers have no legs

I agree nothing is certain right now but there is a war on going and china is getting more head strong

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

The focus of any cuts will be in the next two years. This means real cash savings need to be made in the short term - I’m sure a longer term 3% promise will remain along with the current procurement plans though stealthily moved to the right on the usual jam tomorrow basis.

I cannot see the amphibious fleet growing anytime before 2030, maybe even 2035. To save money in the short term I can see more time tied up alongside, the reserve LPD being back in even deeper reserve, cuts to training exercises and even a Bay being laid up with any pretence of a LRG(S) moving back a couple of years.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
serge750
”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

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Tempest414 wrote: 17 Oct 2022, 18:38
wargame_insomniac wrote: 17 Oct 2022, 17:59
Tempest414 wrote: 17 Oct 2022, 10:05 So At this time we have 1 x Bay , 1 x escort , 4 x MCM and 2 x RB2's EoS so if we were to send a LRG to the region we would be looking to send Argus or a Bay plus a escort and hopefully a tanker meaning we could have

2 x MRSS ( Argus & a Bay or 2 x Bays )
2 x Escorts
2 x RB2
4 x MCM
1 x tanker

Now if we were to build the 6 new MRSS plus 5 more type 31 and 4 RB3's we could have as I said

2 x MRSS
4 x escorts
4 x RB3's
1 x Tanker
That MIGHT have been possible before Kwasi-Gate when Truss was verbally confirming that UK Defence Spending would be increased to 2.5% and then 3% of GDP. But that is so last week!!!

Now we are unlikely to get these verbally confirmed increases, and if anything, under Hunt we MIGHT even be looking at defence cuts.

So you might well have to remove your hoped for "5 more type 31 and 4 RB3's".

Anything more than what is currently ordered (i.e. T26 and 5*T31) is uncertain now....

2nd MROSS, 3*FSS, 5*T32, 6*MRSS. All of therse are now uncertain. There is the risk that some / all of these might be cancelled / postponed / order reduced to a lower number.

Hope that is clearer.
I don't think we will see cuts at this time Russia is pushing and China has just yesterday doubled down on defence growth. Also Ben Wallace is more powerful than Hunt in the Party yes Hunt is in No 11 but he wont lock horns with Wallace now

Yes I agree 4 more Rivers are a push but we will need to replace the B1's soon

The 4 or 5 Type 31/32's will happen to follow the Type 31's

We will also need at least 2 MRSS even if we keep the Bays and 1 LPD

We Also need 2 x SSS or the carriers have no legs

I agree nothing is certain right now but there is a war on going and china is getting more head strong
I admire your optimism. I hope it is not being naive.

Just to be clear - I HOPE what you described will happen. I FEAR that it is more like the situation I mentioned in the earlier post.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

So this morning both Wallace and Heappey have said defence spending if fixed and will be 3% GDP by 2030 and if that changes they will quit as HMG can't afford the likes of Wallace to quit he has put his make in the sand for now

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Wallace positioning himself for the top job? He does seem to have a strong party following at the moment. I hope he stays at Defence and keeps his powder dry.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

2030 is at least 2 general elections away.

Lots of time for cuts and deferments between now and then.

Jeremy Hunt was very keen on increased defence spending until very recently.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... e-spending

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

The only hope I have left of no cuts and maybe slip chance if an increase is because the power that Ben Wallace now holds with in the party and his stance on defence increases.

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by jonas »

These users liked the author jonas for the post (total 2):
Poiuytrewqwargame_insomniac

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Interesting that Polaris MRZR(D) is picked out as an example vehicle. Looks like they, or something very similar, may be under consideration
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Bad news for all the CB90 fans!

Looks a lot more like a modern, fast and low signature LCVP.

Something like this?
C0BA95ED-8D1B-4300-8B42-18A8D5FEAADA.jpeg
82A31F84-D5BB-42DB-A7F7-6A5A282940D1.jpeg
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
Repulse

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

The Royal Marines used borrowed Polaris MRZR(D) to great effect during exercises state side recently and appear to very complimentary about the platform seeing it as the future. Where this leaves the Vikings is up for discussion but transferring them to the Army for use in difficult conditions by say a Light BCT up in the far north maybe an option.

The new competition is very interesting and shows that the Royal Marines are doubling down on their Littoral Support Unit (LSU) concept even if the form of the planned MRSS is still unknown. An enclosed high speed stealthy platform would be very exciting and being able to be launched far offshore will have an impact on the MRSS design programme. What the future s form the larger LSU is also going to be interesting, could we see the Bays beig retained and the LSUs assigned to them to support larger Amry deployments?

I wonder how many of these craft will the future MRSS embark, could a T-26 embark one or more? I wonder, would our Nordic allies be also interested in such a craft to replace exiting platforms such as the CB-90? It does seem that we are now concentrating on the ship to shore facilitator and the future MRSS will be designed around its operation.

Post Reply