Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

[SW1]

You could but you could also say that our nato commitment could be centred around JEF with the army brigade being deployed thru a port rather than over a beach into Scandinavia. We would be defending the Nordic countries not retaking them.

If the future really is tiltrotor with marine raiding/fwd recon then the commandos would be flown in from northern Scotland in said tiltrotors and transport a/c with a sea element maybe in ribs operating up the coast and fjords with teams calling in long range fires to deny opposing forces access ahead of the Nordic and army brigades arriving in position..

Would agree with moving Army units to Scandinavia thru a port with sea control of the North Atlantic makes sense. Tilt rotors from Scotland sounds an expensive and dangerous dream, ok for raiding but logistics/scale size for a full war it would be “all fur and no knickers”. And that’s the reality most of this doesn’t have to be glamorous it has to be effective.

Where I do have a different view is that the ability to flank the enemy and disrupt their supply lines through the ability to move company level sized units easily around the Littoral zone in and up the fjords needs to be part of the strategy.

This is where smaller amphibious units such as LCVPs and LCUs get crucial, but is also an area where I think new larger landing ships like the US LSMs I’ve pointed above, look interesting. They would provide the ability to act as forward operating bases and with a helipad able to be easily resupplied with troops and support.

In fact if the UK ambition was just JEF and global SF raids, you could argue that the UK needs Points to transport kit to a port, LSMs to give Littoral options and CVFs+LPDs for OTH raids.

Most definitely tiltrotors are more expensive and there will be less of them so they will support fewer units but it is what the direction of travel seems to be.

Does the RM seem to be getting set up for anything other than raids and recon on snowmobiles in the artic north?

Once you bring in the logistics support thru a port with the army brigade it is that logistics that supports all deployed units, hence the need to move an army brigade quickly for larger war fighting. I would repeat you are defending the nordics not retaking them.

When a company strength of RM were tasked with reinforcing natos eastern border as Russia invaded Ukraine how did they get to Poland?

And if you are talking about what happens elsewhere then I would suggest operation Langer in East Timor would be an example to follow. HMS Glasgow supporting a Australian task group supported by a special forces unit and Gurkha company flown in to support the Australian task group.

[Tempest414]

In some ways the waters are being mudded by the army with the deployment of a 16AA battalion battle group to Norway on EX

As said a 1st Division light mechanised BCT should be dedicated to the Northern flank along with a RM re-enforced Commando battle group

with this said the ability to deploy anywhere should be maintained so as I said before I would like to see something like 2 x JC-1 LHD's and 3 x new Enforcer LPD's plus 4 x new Baltic Enabler class sealift

I would like to see us buy 10 Caiman 90 FLC to allow faster ship to shore

[mrclark303]

You could but you could also say that our nato commitment could be centred around JEF with the army brigade being deployed thru a port rather than over a beach into Scandinavia. We would be defending the Nordic countries not retaking them.

If the future really is tiltrotor with marine raiding/fwd recon then the commandos would be flown in from northern Scotland in said tiltrotors and transport a/c with a sea element maybe in ribs operating up the coast and fjords with teams calling in long range fires to deny opposing forces access ahead of the Nordic and army brigades arriving in position..

Would agree with moving Army units to Scandinavia thru a port with sea control of the North Atlantic makes sense. Tilt rotors from Scotland sounds an expensive and dangerous dream, ok for raiding but logistics/scale size for a full war it would be “all fur and no knickers”. And that’s the reality most of this doesn’t have to be glamorous it has to be effective.

Where I do have a different view is that the ability to flank the enemy and disrupt their supply lines through the ability to move company level sized units easily around the Littoral zone in and up the fjords needs to be part of the strategy.

This is where smaller amphibious units such as LCVPs and LCUs get crucial, but is also an area where I think new larger landing ships like the US LSMs I’ve pointed above, look interesting. They would provide the ability to act as forward operating bases and with a helipad able to be easily resupplied with troops and support.

In fact if the UK ambition was just JEF and global SF raids, you could argue that the UK needs Points to transport kit to a port, LSMs to give Littoral options and CVFs+LPDs for OTH raids.

Most definitely tiltrotors are more expensive and there will be less of them so they will support fewer units but it is what the direction of travel seems to be.

Does the RM seem to be getting set up for anything other than raids and recon on snowmobiles in the artic north?

Once you bring in the logistics support thru a port with the army brigade it is that logistics that supports all deployed units, hence the need to move an army brigade quickly for larger war fighting. I would repeat you are defending the nordics not retaking them.

When a company strength of RM were tasked with reinforcing natos eastern border as Russia invaded Ukraine how did they get to Poland?

And if you are talking about what happens elsewhere then I would suggest operation Langer in East Timor would be an example to follow. HMS Glasgow supporting a Australian task group supported by a special forces unit and Gurkha company flown in to support the Australian task group.

I don't think there could be fewer Tilt Rotors, as unless we are talking about replacement of the Chinook fleet, then it's medium support, RAF and Navy, with two tiny fleets of 25 each.

If you go fewer than that, then don't bother, it's below critical mass and pointless.

Hopefully, if Uncle Sam replaces medium Helicopters en mass with Tilt Rotors, then the unit price will drop and make them affordable in numbers for us.

[Jake1992]

You could but you could also say that our nato commitment could be centred around JEF with the army brigade being deployed thru a port rather than over a beach into Scandinavia. We would be defending the Nordic countries not retaking them.

If the future really is tiltrotor with marine raiding/fwd recon then the commandos would be flown in from northern Scotland in said tiltrotors and transport a/c with a sea element maybe in ribs operating up the coast and fjords with teams calling in long range fires to deny opposing forces access ahead of the Nordic and army brigades arriving in position..

Would agree with moving Army units to Scandinavia thru a port with sea control of the North Atlantic makes sense. Tilt rotors from Scotland sounds an expensive and dangerous dream, ok for raiding but logistics/scale size for a full war it would be “all fur and no knickers”. And that’s the reality most of this doesn’t have to be glamorous it has to be effective.

Where I do have a different view is that the ability to flank the enemy and disrupt their supply lines through the ability to move company level sized units easily around the Littoral zone in and up the fjords needs to be part of the strategy.

This is where smaller amphibious units such as LCVPs and LCUs get crucial, but is also an area where I think new larger landing ships like the US LSMs I’ve pointed above, look interesting. They would provide the ability to act as forward operating bases and with a helipad able to be easily resupplied with troops and support.

In fact if the UK ambition was just JEF and global SF raids, you could argue that the UK needs Points to transport kit to a port, LSMs to give Littoral options and CVFs+LPDs for OTH raids.

Most definitely tiltrotors are more expensive and there will be less of them so they will support fewer units but it is what the direction of travel seems to be.

Does the RM seem to be getting set up for anything other than raids and recon on snowmobiles in the artic north?

Once you bring in the logistics support thru a port with the army brigade it is that logistics that supports all deployed units, hence the need to move an army brigade quickly for larger war fighting. I would repeat you are defending the nordics not retaking them.

When a company strength of RM were tasked with reinforcing natos eastern border as Russia invaded Ukraine how did they get to Poland?

And if you are talking about what happens elsewhere then I would suggest operation Langer in East Timor would be an example to follow. HMS Glasgow supporting a Australian task group supported by a special forces unit and Gurkha company flown in to support the Australian task group.

I don't think there could be fewer Tilt Rotors, as unless we are talking about replacement of the Chinook fleet, then it's medium support, RAF and Navy, with two tiny fleets of 25 each.

If you go fewer than that, then don't bother, it's below critical mass and pointless.

Hopefully, if Uncle Sam replaces medium Helicopters en mass with Tilt Rotors, then the unit price will drop and make them affordable in numbers for us.

Hasn’t it already been confirmed that the US army have chosen the V-280 as the Black Hawk replacement.

I have said often on here that we should be looking at buying this and it’s unmanned cousin the V-247

[SW1]

You could but you could also say that our nato commitment could be centred around JEF with the army brigade being deployed thru a port rather than over a beach into Scandinavia. We would be defending the Nordic countries not retaking them.

If the future really is tiltrotor with marine raiding/fwd recon then the commandos would be flown in from northern Scotland in said tiltrotors and transport a/c with a sea element maybe in ribs operating up the coast and fjords with teams calling in long range fires to deny opposing forces access ahead of the Nordic and army brigades arriving in position..

Would agree with moving Army units to Scandinavia thru a port with sea control of the North Atlantic makes sense. Tilt rotors from Scotland sounds an expensive and dangerous dream, ok for raiding but logistics/scale size for a full war it would be “all fur and no knickers”. And that’s the reality most of this doesn’t have to be glamorous it has to be effective.

Where I do have a different view is that the ability to flank the enemy and disrupt their supply lines through the ability to move company level sized units easily around the Littoral zone in and up the fjords needs to be part of the strategy.

This is where smaller amphibious units such as LCVPs and LCUs get crucial, but is also an area where I think new larger landing ships like the US LSMs I’ve pointed above, look interesting. They would provide the ability to act as forward operating bases and with a helipad able to be easily resupplied with troops and support.

In fact if the UK ambition was just JEF and global SF raids, you could argue that the UK needs Points to transport kit to a port, LSMs to give Littoral options and CVFs+LPDs for OTH raids.

Most definitely tiltrotors are more expensive and there will be less of them so they will support fewer units but it is what the direction of travel seems to be.

Does the RM seem to be getting set up for anything other than raids and recon on snowmobiles in the artic north?

Once you bring in the logistics support thru a port with the army brigade it is that logistics that supports all deployed units, hence the need to move an army brigade quickly for larger war fighting. I would repeat you are defending the nordics not retaking them.

When a company strength of RM were tasked with reinforcing natos eastern border as Russia invaded Ukraine how did they get to Poland?

And if you are talking about what happens elsewhere then I would suggest operation Langer in East Timor would be an example to follow. HMS Glasgow supporting a Australian task group supported by a special forces unit and Gurkha company flown in to support the Australian task group.

I don't think there could be fewer Tilt Rotors, as unless we are talking about replacement of the Chinook fleet, then it's medium support, RAF and Navy, with two tiny fleets of 25 each.

If you go fewer than that, then don't bother, it's below critical mass and pointless.

Hopefully, if Uncle Sam replaces medium Helicopters en mass with Tilt Rotors, then the unit price will drop and make them affordable in numbers for us.

They are more expensive to buy, to train on and to support than what they are replacing. Either more budget needs to be allocated to their purchase at the expense of something else or there will be less of them.

And it’s not just two small fleets. Wildcat and apache become pointless if your assault aircraft they support significantly outranges them and is significantly faster than them. It will replace the lot.

Chinook would stay for logistics purposes but even some of their long range insertion roles would likely go too.

[Tempest414]

what we are looking at here is the cost of Chinook being say 30 million against MV-22 which is 84 million on top of this we already have the Logistics in place for Chinook. Yes we would all like MV-22's what they offer is great and they would be perfect for our SF , RM and 16AA but right now I think they are off the table. As for V-280 there is not a naval V-280 with folding wing and rotors

[Poiuytrewq]

Interesting discussion but IMO even the IR refresh is now defunct. Finland and Sweden joining NATO changes everything from a wider European defence strategy.

Much larger British Army formations will now need to be committed to Finland and to a lesser extent Sweden so a modest number of RM operating from Viking in Norway is probably no longer required. As Camp Viking is central to LRG(N) it looks like that also needs to be reassessed. Reinforcing Norway, Sweden and Finland is critical in the event of an incursion but is an Amphibious force really the best way to achieve it? I think the answer is no.

It’s also difficult to imagine an incursion that couldn’t be rapidly blunted by the combined forces of Norway, Sweden and Finland plus NATO troops in the region so any reinforcements need to be heavy armour, massed artillery and multiple NATO Infantry Divisions to reinstate sovereign borders ASAP. In short, Scandinavia is an Army issue now. RM should concentrate their talents elsewhere unless required in the Littoral. Clearly enlarging NATO gives the RAF more to do also which again need’s reassessment.

This is a great example of why the British Army should NOT be cut to enlarge RN and the RAF. However I would argue it clearly shows the British Army is fully committed on the European continent and without much additional funding little extra can be expected of it globally. This has nothing to do with recreating a 21st century BAOR. It’s a simple fact that the British Army is a modestly sized force that is fully committed to European defence. IMO that is the right approach and although procurement processes could be improved and the structure could be adapted and honed the funding level looks about right for an island nation like the U.K.

However, RN is drastically underfunded and this is the priority for any extra funding IMO.

[Tempest414]

Interesting discussion but IMO even the IR refresh is now defunct. Finland and Sweden joining NATO changes everything from a wider European defence strategy.

Much larger British Army formations will now need to be committed to Finland and to a lesser extent Sweden so a modest number of RM operating from Viking in Norway is probably no longer required. As Camp Viking is central to LRG(N) it looks like that also needs to be reassessed. Reinforcing Norway, Sweden and Finland is critical in the event of an incursion but is an Amphibious force really the best way to achieve it? I think the answer is no.

It’s also difficult to imagine an incursion that couldn’t be rapidly blunted by the combined forces of Norway, Sweden and Finland plus NATO troops in the region so any reinforcements need to be heavy armour, massed artillery and multiple NATO Infantry Divisions to reinstate sovereign borders ASAP. In short, Scandinavia is an Army issue now. RM should concentrate their talents elsewhere unless required in the Littoral. Clearly enlarging NATO gives the RAF more to do also which again need’s reassessment.

This is a great example of why the British Army should NOT be cut to enlarge RN and the RAF. However I would argue it clearly shows the British Army is fully committed on the European continent and without much additional funding little extra can be expected of it globally. This has nothing to do with recreating a 21st century BAOR. It’s a simple fact that the British Army is a modestly sized force that is fully committed to European defence. IMO that is the right approach and although procurement processes could be improved and the structure could be adapted and honed the funding level looks about right for an island nation like the U.K.

However, RN is drastically underfunded and this is the priority for any extra funding IMO.

I have said before on other threads at now Finland and Sweden are part of NATO they along with Norway should form the First and Second Nordic Corps these would be supported by a UK light Mech BCT and LRG/N

The British 3rd Division should be the core of the 1st Baltic Corps along with the 3 Baltic states and Denmark with this Corps when at full standing could field 4 x Armoured Brigades , 4 x Mechanised Brigades and 2 x Deep fires Brigades plus 2 x Engineering brigades , 3 x Logistics brigades , 1 x re-enforced signals brigade

With this being said the LRG needs to be able to deploy anywhere in the high North from the Baltic to the top of Finland

[SW1]

You haven’t come up with an international review or a strategy if what results from it needs to change every 5 mins, you have come up with a tactic. No one invest in things to go about face after 12 months and off in another direction.

The defence strategy is if you like, Russia and China are a peer competitor in Europe and the Atlantic and non state actors elsewhere causing destabilisation to trading partners probably at the behest of Russia and China. If we applied similar sanctions on China that we applied on Russia it would be significantly more damaging to us than it would be to China itself, that is a governmental problem that needs to be addressed long before anyone start considering shooting at anyone.

The armed forces themselves need a balance so they aren’t restructuring every 5 mins to suit flavour of the day. Deter and defend not attack should perhaps be the new motto. We are perhaps better placed than most to achieve it and it doesn’t begin and end with more ships! The JEF which first came out of the 2010 defence review seems now to be getting taken seriously the bedrock to our commitment to NATO should be formed around it. By our history or sovereign overseas territories in Gibraltar,Cyprus, BIOT, the Falklands, the Caribbean and our historical position in Brunei allows fwd infrastructure to support a limited policy of supporting the international rule of law and trade without requiring significant enabling investment if such places didn’t exist. How does the joint force fit into that what do we need and not.

We need to invest in these locations and use them instead of attempting to be a mini me copy of the US military we don’t have the money and resources to do it we must play to our strengths. Once you decide that you can talk about ordering ships and the like.

[Poiuytrewq]

I have said before on other threads at now Finland and Sweden are part of NATO they along with Norway should form the First and Second Nordic Corps these would be supported by a UK light Mech BCT and LRG/N

The British 3rd Division should be the core of the 1st Baltic Corps along with the 3 Baltic states and Denmark with this Corps when at full standing could field 4 x Armoured Brigades , 4 x Mechanised Brigades and 2 x Deep fires Brigades plus 2 x Engineering brigades , 3 x Logistics brigades , 1 x re-enforced signals brigade

With this being said the LRG needs to be able to deploy anywhere in the high North from the Baltic to the top of Finland

I don’t disagree with any of this but what capability would LRG(N) actually bring to the table? If things did get kinetic I don’t think any UK Amphibious Task Force is sailing up the Norwegian coast. The Armoured Divisions would be moving South to North through Norway, Sweden and Finland so apart from A2/AD of the Littoral what can LRG(N) add?

[Tempest414]

I have said before on other threads at now Finland and Sweden are part of NATO they along with Norway should form the First and Second Nordic Corps these would be supported by a UK light Mech BCT and LRG/N

The British 3rd Division should be the core of the 1st Baltic Corps along with the 3 Baltic states and Denmark with this Corps when at full standing could field 4 x Armoured Brigades , 4 x Mechanised Brigades and 2 x Deep fires Brigades plus 2 x Engineering brigades , 3 x Logistics brigades , 1 x re-enforced signals brigade

With this being said the LRG needs to be able to deploy anywhere in the high North from the Baltic to the top of Finland

I don’t disagree with any of this but what capability would LRG(N) actually bring to the table? If things did get kinetic I don’t think any UK Amphibious Task Force is sailing up the Norwegian coast. The Armoured Divisions would be moving South to North through Norway, Sweden and Finland so apart from A2/AD of the Littoral what can LRG(N) add?

Would it be a UK only Amphib force . It would more likely be a UK , Danish , Dutch job which could look like today

UK = 1 x LPD , 2 x Bay , Argus , 1 x T-45 , 1 x SSN
Dutch = 1 x LPD , Karel Doorman , 1 x Escort 1 x SSK
Danish = 1 x Absalon , 1 x IH class ,
Norway = 1 x Escort , 1 x SSK

Moving 2 Battalion battle groups

[wargame_insomniac]

Finland being admitted to NATO. and hopefully Sweden soon to follow, will change things for both RM and British Army. Previously we had the key task of leading any amphibious reinforcement along Norway's long thin country (along with Dutch & Danish etc), whilst being a key part of ASW operations in GIUK Gap, North Atlantic & North / Barents Seas (alog with likes of US, Canada, Norway, Denmark).

Now NATO's northern frontline has shifted East to Finland's long border with Russia along the Kola Peninsula, whilst still including reinforcement of Baltics and Poland (although the latter is becoming THE biggest Land army in Europe). So whereas before our logistics would cross the Channel and then go via rail or road trough Germany, now we looking at logistics via sea, probably to a port on Baltic.

Tha brings into play the Russian Baltic Fleet sailing from St Petersburg and Kalinngrad. togethr with bombers and whole variety of subsonic, supersonic and hypersonic missiles. Is the RN as ideally suited to operating in the close confines of the Baltic as those Navies that were expressly designed for it?

I would be quite nervious of sending LRG(N) into the Baltic unless heavily supported with both AAW and ASW escorts. To me it is quite a different scenario than operations in the Barnts and North Seas that we have spent the last few decades practicising. So how do we go about reinforcing Finland and Sweden??

[Poiuytrewq]

Would it be a UK only Amphib force . It would more likely be a UK , Danish , Dutch job which could look like today

UK = 1 x LPD , 2 x Bay , Argus , 1 x T-45 , 1 x SSN
Dutch = 1 x LPD , Karel Doorman , 1 x Escort 1 x SSK
Danish = 1 x Absalon , 1 x IH class ,
Norway = 1 x Escort , 1 x SSK

Moving 2 Battalion battle groups

Its possible but strategically there are better options now. Getting the Armoured Divisions across the Baltic would be the biggest requirement for the Amphibs but RM raids up and down an occupied Norwegian coast is very plausible. They would likely be small scale but highly disruptive. With the SSNs hunting merrily in the Norwegian Sea what would the RM raiding parties be launched and recovered from?

As for LRG(N) I think the resource would be best redirected elsewhere.

[Repulse]

Most definitely tiltrotors are more expensive and there will be less of them so they will support fewer units but it is what the direction of travel seems to be.

It will definitely be part of the future, but as always it will be part of a balanced force. I’m always sceptical of jumping on the latest equipment bandwagon, especially from the US where Defence companies have deep pockets for lobbying.

Does the RM seem to be getting set up for anything other than raids and recon on snowmobiles in the artic north?

In terms of the North Atlantic no, but I think flanking actions to isolate forward units and supply lines is not a massive leap. Anyone with even a basic knowledge of Norway knows that the Littorals are key to transporting goods and kit. Even in defence, chances are the Russians would get half way down before being stopped so offensive land and littoral ops need to be covered.

Once you bring in the logistics support thru a port with the army brigade it is that logistics that supports all deployed units, hence the need to move an army brigade quickly for larger war fighting. I would repeat you are defending the nordics not retaking them.

I’m not arguing on this, just pointing out that Littoral amphibious ops need to part of the capabilities. As noted, defence will involve offensive land and littoral ops - and resupply by sea will also be required given the geography. This relates to landing craft sized boats not LPDs, LSDs and definitely not LHDs.

Similarly with OTH reinforced SF raids for which a CVF + LPD is more than capable.

When a company strength of RM were tasked with reinforcing natos eastern border as Russia invaded Ukraine how did they get to Poland?

By plane, train and automobile - so what. A spectrum of manoeuvre options are required.

And if you are talking about what happens elsewhere then I would suggest operation Langer in East Timor would be an example to follow. HMS Glasgow supporting a Australian task group supported by a special forces unit and Gurkha company flown in to support the Australian task group.

I’m sure that will be an option / scenario as there will be many others. The UK can and should retain a limited sovereign capability also. Again the good thing about the CSG + LPD for reinforced SF raids is that it’s global. It can sit offshore virtually indefinitely, without infringing anyone’s sovereignty, ready to strike as part of an integrated high end war fighting capability.

The only reasonable challenge is do we need anything based permanently East of Suez. I’m not sure, but this is where a RFA Aviation Support Ship or even a cheap small LHD comes in.

So in summary the amphibious requirement is:
- Ability to ship an Army Brigade to Europe with kit
- Ability to operate short distance littoral operations for flanking / resupply from forward land bases
- Ability to conduct global OTH reinforced SF raids

So respectively this leads to a future amphibious capability of:
- Army logistical corps with a fleet of Points and STUFT
- An array of forward based FCF landing craft ranging from rib sized to LSMs
- 2 LPDs (one paired to each CSG) and an ASS or cheap / small LHD for small independent ops.

Scrap the LSDs - they aren’t needed anymore, and neither is the MRSS.

[Poiuytrewq]

I would be quite nervious of sending LRG(N) into the Baltic unless heavily supported with both AAW and ASW escorts. To me it is quite a different scenario than operations in the Barnts and North Seas that we have spent the last few decades practicising. So how do we go about reinforcing Finland and Sweden??

Are we sure they will need reinforced?

Combined Finland, Sweden and Norway are more than capable of bogging down any plausible incursion. The question would be how far would any incursion be likely to reach and what would be required to repel any invading force back over the border in the quickest possible time.

Realistically this will be about having such an overwhelming forced distributed across Scandinavia that an incursion is completely impractical. That is a problem for the Army and shouldn’t really involve any large Amphibious Task Groups.

The Baltics remain the most strategically vulnerable but again it’s an Army issue for NATO to grapple with.

If LRG(N) is now defunct how does that change the direction of travel for the FCF?

[Repulse]

If LRG(N) is now defunct how does that change the direction of travel for the FCF?

I agree that LRG(N) does seem defunct in the traditional sense. However, IMO it enforces part of the FCF in that small units able to strategically strike through Littoral operations is key given the Baltic and Norwegian geography. It’s a LRG made up of small craft. This is where an 40 Cdo and 47 Cdo should play.

This would leave 42 & 45 Cdo to support global OTH raiding / maritime security ops from the CSGs and other independent units.

[Poiuytrewq]

The only reasonable challenge is do we need anything based permanently East of Suez.

Good question but I would add: What British Army forces should be permanently based outside Europe?

With Scandinavia completely within the NATO tent can 80% to 90% of RM effort be redirected from Norway to concentrate on Africa and EoS?

Is it time to structure a combined RM and 16AAB force as the UK’s primary grouping for non peer Expeditionary Warfighting and Rapid Reaction interventions?

By targeting any extra funding towards enlarging and fully equipping RM and the PARAs the UK could have a globally deployable rapid reaction force few other countries could match. This would allow the Army mechanised land forces to primarily concentrate on Europe as they should.

Maintaining a distributed but credible force across Europe should be achievable for the Army even without additional funding whilst targeting additional funding into reinforcing 16AAB and 3Cdo Bde to form a globally deployed light Division sized force if required. An achievable setup until HMG increases defence spending to 3% GDP?

[Repulse]

Good question but I would add: What British Army forces should be permanently based outside Europe?

With Scandinavia completely within the NATO tent can 80% to 90% of RM effort be redirected from Norway to concentrate on Africa and EoS?

Is it time to structure a combined RM and 16AAB force as the UK’s primary grouping for non peer Expeditionary Warfighting and Rapid Reaction interventions?

It’s a good question, but I see it slightly differently in that the UK needs to have a limited global expeditionary capability, a global grey conflict / presence capability and a territorial defence capability - all of these need to be Purple with the force constructs determined by the requirement.

There is no doubt that the RMs / Paras could provide a strong contribution for expeditionary warfare, but I can also see roles in the other two areas where they would be required.

[mrclark303]

Good question but I would add: What British Army forces should be permanently based outside Europe?

With Scandinavia completely within the NATO tent can 80% to 90% of RM effort be redirected from Norway to concentrate on Africa and EoS?

Is it time to structure a combined RM and 16AAB force as the UK’s primary grouping for non peer Expeditionary Warfighting and Rapid Reaction interventions?

It’s a good question, but I see it slightly differently in that the UK needs to have a limited global expeditionary capability, a global grey conflict / presence capability and a territorial defence capability - all of these need to be Purple with the force constructs determined by the requirement.

There is no doubt that the RMs / Paras could provide a strong contribution for expeditionary warfare, but I can also see roles in the other two areas where they would be required.

We are certainly better equipped for limited expeditionary warfare, probably better than most countries.

Our mass has gone, so we might as well concentrate on this moving forward.

I doubt the Army could assemble a division now anyway in anything other than an all out war. Anything more than a 6,000 troop deployment on a short basis would break the Army now...

I wouldn't expect to say anything more than 3,000, if it was purely an Army operation on a routine basis and an enduring deployment.

Maybe that's not a bad thing though, it stops the next 'Blair' getting us into more unwinnable never ending wars I suppose...

[SW1]

Most definitely tiltrotors are more expensive and there will be less of them so they will support fewer units but it is what the direction of travel seems to be.

It will definitely be part of the future, but as always it will be part of a balanced force. I’m always sceptical of jumping on the latest equipment bandwagon, especially from the US where Defence companies have deep pockets for lobbying.

Does the RM seem to be getting set up for anything other than raids and recon on snowmobiles in the artic north?

In terms of the North Atlantic no, but I think flanking actions to isolate forward units and supply lines is not a massive leap. Anyone with even a basic knowledge of Norway knows that the Littorals are key to transporting goods and kit. Even in defence, chances are the Russians would get half way down before being stopped so offensive land and littoral ops need to be covered.

Once you bring in the logistics support thru a port with the army brigade it is that logistics that supports all deployed units, hence the need to move an army brigade quickly for larger war fighting. I would repeat you are defending the nordics not retaking them.

I’m not arguing on this, just pointing out that Littoral amphibious ops need to part of the capabilities. As noted, defence will involve offensive land and littoral ops - and resupply by sea will also be required given the geography. This relates to landing craft sized boats not LPDs, LSDs and definitely not LHDs.

Similarly with OTH reinforced SF raids for which a CVF + LPD is more than capable.

When a company strength of RM were tasked with reinforcing natos eastern border as Russia invaded Ukraine how did they get to Poland?

By plane, train and automobile - so what. A spectrum of manoeuvre options are required.

And if you are talking about what happens elsewhere then I would suggest operation Langer in East Timor would be an example to follow. HMS Glasgow supporting a Australian task group supported by a special forces unit and Gurkha company flown in to support the Australian task group.

I’m sure that will be an option / scenario as there will be many others. The UK can and should retain a limited sovereign capability also. Again the good thing about the CSG + LPD for reinforced SF raids is that it’s global. It can sit offshore virtually indefinitely, without infringing anyone’s sovereignty, ready to strike as part of an integrated high end war fighting capability.

The only reasonable challenge is do we need anything based permanently East of Suez. I’m not sure, but this is where a RFA Aviation Support Ship or even a cheap small LHD comes in.

So in summary the amphibious requirement is:
- Ability to ship an Army Brigade to Europe with kit
- Ability to operate short distance littoral operations for flanking / resupply from forward land bases
- Ability to conduct global OTH reinforced SF raids

So respectively this leads to a future amphibious capability of:
- Army logistical corps with a fleet of Points and STUFT
- An array of forward based FCF landing craft ranging from rib sized to LSMs
- 2 LPDs (one paired to each CSG) and an ASS or cheap / small LHD for small independent ops.

Scrap the LSDs - they aren’t needed anymore, and neither is the MRSS.

If I was betting man I would say the Russians wouldn’t even get 50 miles into Norway let alone half way down, they didn’t get more than 100 miles into Ukraine and that was a much easier proposition for them. Experience of Ukraine would mean if we ever saw a build up on a nato members border we would immediately reinforce to the point it would be impossible for Russia to move over the border.

[Repulse]

If I was betting man I would say the Russians wouldn’t even get 50 miles into Norway let alone half way down, they didn’t get more than 100 miles into Ukraine and that was a much easier proposition for them. Experience of Ukraine would mean if we ever saw a build up on a nato members border we would immediately reinforce to the point it would be impossible for Russia to move over the border.

Russia was complacent in Ukraine, it was over confident and lacked a coherent plan for a full scale war. It actually believed this would be a special (limited) operation and it almost was if the UK and US hasn’t foreseen it and equipped/ trained the Ukrainian forces. Let’s not make the same mistake by underestimating what “total war” would look like.

[jedibeeftrix]

If I was betting man I would say the Russians wouldn’t even get 50 miles into Norway let alone half way down, they didn’t get more than 100 miles into Ukraine and that was a much easier proposition for them. Experience of Ukraine would mean if we ever saw a build up on a nato members border we would immediately reinforce to the point it would be impossible for Russia to move over the border.

Russia was complacent in Ukraine, it was over confident and lacked a coherent plan for a full scale war. It actually believed this would be a special (limited) operation and it almost was if the UK and US hasn’t foreseen it and equipped/ trained the Ukrainian forces. Let’s not make the same mistake by underestimating what “total war” would look like.

Total war is an interesting concept. It suggests going nuclear off the bat, because that's the only utterly pointless and suicidal way Russia could actually invade NATO territory.

Russia is effectively bereft of equipment , all they are left with effectively is a conveyor belt of badly equipped conscripts.

The majority of their conventional war fighting capability is trashed in Ukraine.

Some of the reports regarding Russian armoured reserves, gauging the rate they are reactivating progressively older and older stored MBT's in various depots, suggests they have 18 months of usable armour left, before their ability to fight starts a steep deline

The rate of loss is utterly unsustainable, they are trashing their armed forces in Ukraine and they would be rolled back over the boarder, in a world of hurt if they decided to put one boot into NATO territory.

The Russians will be forced to the negotiation table in due course, or go nuclear....

Go 'BIG' or go home as they say... Let's see what 'Neo Hitler', or perhaps his replacement ( after he breaks his neck falling out of a bungalow window) decides to do....

[Poiuytrewq]

It’s a good question, but I see it slightly differently in that the UK needs to have a limited global expeditionary capability, a global grey conflict / presence capability and a territorial defence capability - all of these need to be Purple with the force constructs determined by the requirement.

There is no doubt that the RMs / Paras could provide a strong contribution for expeditionary warfare, but I can also see roles in the other two areas where they would be required.

Agreed.

With the Army permanently shrinking to 72,500 it will be tempting for future governments to forget anything WoS and concentrate on the North Atlantic and Europe. That would be a massive mistake.

Clearly the UK’s biggest global contribution can and should be in the maritime domain but power projection and a persistent global presence is the clear direction of travel in IR23. The only way this can be realistically achieved with such a modest force is by working with likeminded nations to increase the impact of any power projection. These persistent UK forward based forces need to be light and adaptable but with a clear idea of how they can be rapidly reinforced if required.

At the same time, stabilising the European security environment is critical and this should be the overriding priority for the British Army over the next decade. IMO the British Army has the budget and manpower to achieve that but procurement efficiency must improve going forward or the required modernisation of the armour and artillery will drag on indefinitely.

With the Nordic countries all firmly under the NATO umbrella this is now the perfect time to set out a new path for the UK’s globally deployable high readiness forces. Combined 16AAB and 3 Cdo Bde is a formidable force and when combined with the RAF and the ESF a lot can be achieved without any vast increase in expenditure.

Fully committed a combined 16AAB and 3 Cdo Bde with the relevant Army artillery, engineer and logistic reinforcement could form a globally deployable light Division sized force albeit with no possibility of rotation. IMO this is the best the UK can hope to achieve over the next decade so it should be prioritised over the LRG(N) and LRG(S) strategy which is now defunct.

A few considerations,

- If a light expeditionary division sized force is the most the UK can hope to globally project for the foreseeable should the PARAs and RM troop numbers actually be increased to allow for rotation OR should RM actually be further funded to form another Cdo Bde to give the UK three rapidly deployable Brigades without massively distracting the British Army in Europe?

- Should AUKUS involve a forward based RM force in Australia?

- Are the two LRGs now more logically based EoS at Duqm and Perth?

- Should elements of 16AAB be distributed across Cyprus, Kenya, Oman, Brunei etc?

Finland and Sweden joining NATO massively alters the strategic posture for the U.K. it’s now just a question of how quick current planning can catch up.

[Poiuytrewq]

The majority of their conventional war fighting capability is trashed in Ukraine.

The biggest threat within the NATO sphere isn’t conventional or nuclear, it’s destabilisation.

Maintaining a presence and very actively engaging and exercising with Allies is the best way to counter it.

[Tempest414]

It’s a good question, but I see it slightly differently in that the UK needs to have a limited global expeditionary capability, a global grey conflict / presence capability and a territorial defence capability - all of these need to be Purple with the force constructs determined by the requirement.

There is no doubt that the RMs / Paras could provide a strong contribution for expeditionary warfare, but I can also see roles in the other two areas where they would be required.

Agreed.

With the Army permanently shrinking to 72,500 it will be tempting for future governments to forget anything WoS and concentrate on the North Atlantic and Europe. That would be a massive mistake.

Clearly the UK’s biggest global contribution can and should be in the maritime domain but power projection and a persistent global presence is the clear direction of travel in IR23. The only way this can be realistically achieved with such a modest force is by working with likeminded nations to increase the impact of any power projection. These persistent UK forward based forces need to be light and adaptable but with a clear idea of how they can be rapidly reinforced if required.

At the same time, stabilising the European security environment is critical and this should be the overriding priority for the British Army over the next decade. IMO the British Army has the budget and manpower to achieve that but procurement efficiency must improve going forward or the required modernisation of the armour and artillery will drag on indefinitely.

With the Nordic countries all firmly under the NATO umbrella this is now the perfect time to set out a new path for the UK’s globally deployable high readiness forces. Combined 16AAB and 3 Cdo Bde is a formidable force and when combined with the RAF and the ESF a lot can be achieved without any vast increase in expenditure.

Fully committed a combined 16AAB and 3 Cdo Bde with the relevant Army artillery, engineer and logistic reinforcement could form a globally deployable light Division sized force albeit with no possibility of rotation. IMO this is the best the UK can hope to achieve over the next decade so it should be prioritised over the LRG(N) and LRG(S) strategy which is now defunct.

A few considerations,

- If a light expeditionary division sized force is the most the UK can hope to globally project for the foreseeable should the PARAs and RM troop numbers actually be increased to allow for rotation OR should RM actually be further funded to form another Cdo Bde to give the UK three rapidly deployable Brigades without massively distracting the British Army in Europe?

- Should AUKUS involve a forward based RM force in Australia?

- Are the two LRGs now more logically based EoS at Duqm and Perth?

- Should elements of 16AAB be distributed across Cyprus, Kenya, Oman, Brunei etc?

Finland and Sweden joining NATO massively alters the strategic posture for the U.K. it’s now just a question of how quick current planning can catch up.

If we were to go down this road I would opted to recruit and form a 4th Gurkha Battalion and a Gurkha Artillery regt and then set up a full Gurkha Brigade EoS this along with the RM , 16AA and Rangers would form the UK Rapid expeditionary division with a high readiness Battalion battle group read to to go within each Brigade supported by the Rangers and SF units

We should then get on and mechanise the 1st division with kit like BSv-10 , Patria 6x6 and new Jackals with 3 Brigades of 3 Battalions

As for shipping I still think 2 x 210 x 36 meter LHD's and 3 RFA LPD's is the the way to go