But it’s clearly not it’s only use - it’s is capable of independent Strike, Sea Control and also has the ability to defend territory through air superiority/ground attack/ISTAR.
Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
- wargame_insomniac
”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
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4073
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
mrclark303 wrote: ↑27 May 2023, 19:48 …the Royal Marines should have been expanded by a Commando (up to 8,500), with Brigade level operations fully supported and a single Commando dedicated to to the Raider concept.
I agree completely with this but it’s not happening as HMG is cutting not increasing.Scimitar54 wrote: ↑27 May 2023, 20:18 …the size of the RM increased by the establishment of an additional Commando that would be dedicated to the Raider Concept.
If Defence spending elevates to 3% GDP then increasing RM can be revisited but until then it’s not going to happen.
- These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
- mrclark303
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5599
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
And this is why the RM are trying to hold a Commando Battle group at readiness something likeSW1 wrote: ↑28 May 2023, 11:11 I think you’re missing the point of what the commandos would be used for. It isn’t about nation building. Not necessarily large scale expeditionary operations either though if you’re not doing large expeditionary operations why are you building an a/c carrier it’s there only use.
The use of marines would largely be very similar to their role in the Cold War or indeed how the US marines littoral regiments plan to operate. Namely to deploy quickly to reinforce friendly allies to deny hostile forces access to sea lanes or naval infrastructure. Buying time for an army brigade to deploy and reinforce. The marines would be creating a A2AD in the littoral off allied states for the enemy to penetrate not the other way round.
1 x Recce Troop = 30 Cdo
1 x Commando = 40 or 45
1 x Support Sqn = 47
1 x Logistics sqn = Cdo Logs Regt
1 x Engineer Sqn = 28 Cdo
1 x Artillery Battery = 29 Cdo
This can be moved and supported by the ships of LRG/N which are 1 x LPD , 1 x Bay , Argus and a Point class along with escorts
this force would be used to keep the door open for an Army brigade . And this is where the army needs to get it shit together and order 1200 Patria 6x6 to make the 1st division more like a Stryker division made up of 3 BCT's
- These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
- jedibeeftrix
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4073
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
The reason contributors can’t move on is primarily because HMG/MoD/RN/RM collectively have done such a terrible job in explaining what the FCF are going to become.
If the Defence Command Paper can’t spell this out in a clear and easily understandable way then the conclusion must be drawn that there is still no clear agreement on the future direction of RM apart from deflecting cuts by sounding “modern and relevant.”
Exactly but that’s only part of it.SW1 wrote: ↑28 May 2023, 11:11 The use of marines would largely be very similar to their role in the Cold War or indeed how the US marines littoral regiments plan to operate. Namely to deploy quickly to reinforce friendly allies to deny hostile forces access to sea lanes or naval infrastructure. Buying time for an army brigade to deploy and reinforce. The marines would be creating a A2AD in the littoral off allied states for the enemy to penetrate not the other way round.
In peace time the LRG(s) needs to operate with Allies almost continuously in small ways using distributed assets. Most especially in the Indo Pacific and the African costal areas.
The USMC ARG model unaffordable for the UK as large, permanent ARGs are expensive and have little practical value unless WW3 breaks out.
The FCF must strike a balance between providing a highly useful maritime short endurance littoral strike capability whilst retaining the ability to conduct a large scale unopposed Amphibious Landing if required.
The way to fund this change of direction is to reduce permanent RM involvement at Camp Viking by letting the Army take the lead in the NORDIC land arena but still retain interoperability with JEF through regular exercises with LRG(N). The Norwegian coast should be secured using a rotational NATO force derived from USMC, RM and korps mariniers.
The key to achieving this is to get the Army to do much more in the Nordic area. If that is deemed too costly due to the Artic kit required then the only other option is for HMG to authorise an expansion of RM funded but cuts to the Army. As unpalatable as that seems if the overall headcount remains the same then it could be one option worthy of consideration.
- These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
- jedibeeftrix
- mrclark303
- Donator
- Posts: 843
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
You know what mate, even if it was 3% GDP, they would find a way of wasting every extra penny on ridiculous bespoke programmes....Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑28 May 2023, 11:32mrclark303 wrote: ↑27 May 2023, 19:48 …the Royal Marines should have been expanded by a Commando (up to 8,500), with Brigade level operations fully supported and a single Commando dedicated to to the Raider concept.I agree completely with this but it’s not happening as HMG is cutting not increasing.Scimitar54 wrote: ↑27 May 2023, 20:18 …the size of the RM increased by the establishment of an additional Commando that would be dedicated to the Raider Concept.
If Defence spending elevates to 3% GDP then increasing RM can be revisited but until then it’s not going to happen.
- These users liked the author mrclark303 for the post:
- Poiuytrewq
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
K company 42 commando is already doing the liaison and training in the Indian Ocean coast why does it need to be more?Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑28 May 2023, 12:05The reason contributors can’t move on is primarily because HMG/MoD/RN/RM collectively have done such a terrible job in explaining what the FCF are going to become.
If the Defence Command Paper can’t spell this out in a clear and easily understandable way then the conclusion must be drawn that there is still no clear agreement on the future direction of RM apart from deflecting cuts by sounding “modern and relevant.”
Exactly but that’s only part of it.SW1 wrote: ↑28 May 2023, 11:11 The use of marines would largely be very similar to their role in the Cold War or indeed how the US marines littoral regiments plan to operate. Namely to deploy quickly to reinforce friendly allies to deny hostile forces access to sea lanes or naval infrastructure. Buying time for an army brigade to deploy and reinforce. The marines would be creating a A2AD in the littoral off allied states for the enemy to penetrate not the other way round.
In peace time the LRG(s) needs to operate with Allies almost continuously in small ways using distributed assets. Most especially in the Indo Pacific and the African costal areas.
The USMC ARG model unaffordable for the UK as large, permanent ARGs are expensive and have little practical value unless WW3 breaks out.
The FCF must strike a balance between providing a highly useful maritime short endurance littoral strike capability whilst retaining the ability to conduct a large scale unopposed Amphibious Landing if required.
The way to fund this change of direction is to reduce permanent RM involvement at Camp Viking by letting the Army take the lead in the NORDIC land arena but still retain interoperability with JEF through regular exercises with LRG(N). The Norwegian coast should be secured using a rotational NATO force derived from USMC, RM and korps mariniers.
The key to achieving this is to get the Army to do much more in the Nordic area. If that is deemed too costly due to the Artic kit required then the only other option is for HMG to authorise an expansion of RM funded but cuts to the Army. As unpalatable as that seems if the overall headcount remains the same then it could be one option worthy of consideration.
The UK already has the assets to form a similar arg construct if it choices infact it has the potential for 2 one high readiness one low if it wanted to as the navy’s principal surface offering.
Namely a carrier, lpd, lsd, 1 type 45 and 2 type 23 and a marine battlegroup. It would need to invest in missiles and support assets but it’s certainly possible to do.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4073
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
I agree with this. Boxer is just too expensive to do everything and the Army needs to find its T31.Tempest414 wrote: ↑28 May 2023, 11:49 ….this force would be used to keep the door open for an Army brigade . And this is where the army needs to get it shit together and order 1200 Patria 6x6 to make the 1st division more like a Stryker division made up of 3 BCT's
Maintaining the Royal Marines as the Littoral “door openers” is vital but anything beyond that risks diluting the primary capability.
IMO the British Army needs to move to a completely expeditionary structure based around 3 Divisions with artillery, engineers, logistics, signals etc shared between the Divisions.
- A Rapid reaction Expeditionary Division.
Ideally completely formed from Army Light Infantry including 16AAB.
- 1st Div - Expeditionary Light Mechanised
- 3rd Armoured Division
Anything else is pretty much unaffordable now and perfectly achievable within the 100k regular/reserve headcount. This would give the UK all of the options that are required at a scale that can be afforded whilst allowing RM to concentrate on all things maritime.
The ability to deploy a UK RED gradually over 3 weeks to stabilise a conflict or incursion which could then be replaced gradually by elements of 1st or 3rd Division to either consolidate or continue to fight is what the UK should be trying to achieve. It’s scalable, proportionate and most importantly affordable to do properly within the current budget. The ARMY could do it properly and the remaining budget could be spent on reinforcing RN and the RAF.
What Allied nation could accuse the UK of not pulling its weight with such a capability?
- These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 2):
- wargame_insomniac • jedibeeftrix
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Already got it - horses & bearskin hats.Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑28 May 2023, 13:01 I agree with this. Boxer is just too expensive to do everything and the Army needs to find its T31.
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Patria AMV?Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑28 May 2023, 13:01 Boxer is just too expensive to do everything and the Army needs to find its T31.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4073
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Exactly. The Patria 6x6 looks more and more like the most cost effective way for the Army to add mass. The Amphibious capability and working more closely with our Nordic allies are just more bonuses.Caribbean wrote: ↑29 May 2023, 13:14Patria AMV?Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑28 May 2023, 13:01 Boxer is just too expensive to do everything and the Army needs to find its T31.
Ditching Ajax for a maximum order of CV90 would also be a prudent way to proceed.
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
UK Plans New Commando Insertion Craft (CIC)
https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/cn ... craft-cic/The UK Royal Navy officer overseeing the Commando Force modernisation programme has set out plans for the acquisition of a new high-speed, low-signature Commando Insertion Craft (CIC) to replace the Royal Marines’ current Landing Craft Vehicle Personnel (LCVP) MK 5.
Speaking at the CNE 2023 conference in Farnborough on 23 May, Captain Nick Unwin, Commando Force programme director, said that top-level requirements called for a vessel “that can carry a strike team and a small vehicle in from 150 miles, at 25 knots plus and with a low signature,” adding: “That’s the challenge we’ve set to industry.”
- These users liked the author xav for the post (total 4):
- donald_of_tokyo • Tempest414 • Repulse • wargame_insomniac
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Opinions on potencial solutions?
BAE has SeaKeeper Fast Assault Craft concept featured at the bottom of this article featured alongside BAE ASF.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... o-vessels/
BAE has their FIC, if stern beaching is an option the vehicle could be loaded in the rear.
Stellar systems has a concept
https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/cn ... craft-cic/
This
https://t.co/0UYsiQecVZ
others?
BAE has SeaKeeper Fast Assault Craft concept featured at the bottom of this article featured alongside BAE ASF.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... o-vessels/
BAE has their FIC, if stern beaching is an option the vehicle could be loaded in the rear.
Stellar systems has a concept
https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/cn ... craft-cic/
This
https://t.co/0UYsiQecVZ
others?
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5599
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
This is the first real show of change for the FCF and a budget of 200 million is a good start I do like the K70 Sabre however I think a modified Caimen 90 with a roof and 2 x 30mm RWS would be a good fit it has good range speed and carrying
- These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
- jedibeeftrix
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
That’s OTH insertion - perfect for a LPD operating as part of a ESG. The current LSD days are numbered, can’t see a role in this with their small well docks.Captain Nick Unwin, Commando Force programme director, said that top-level requirements called for a vessel “that can carry a strike team and a small vehicle in from 150 miles, at 25 knots plus and with a low signature,” adding: “That’s the challenge we’ve set to industry.”
”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
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4073
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Do you mean ESF as in the Expeditionary Strike Force?
How often will the UK form an Expeditionary Strike Force?
That’s both LRGs plus the CSG, very much a maximum effort scenario due to eye watering costs involved.
If these new Assault Craft are LCVP sized then four of them will fit in a Bays well dock. More than enough for most FCF Company sized requirements. Plus the Bays hanger can fit two Merlin’s or up to 4 Wildcat.
HMS Albion could fit 16 in the Well Dock plus 4 in davits so effectively the entire procurement in a single vessel.
I don’t think there are to many in RN or RM that would agree it’s time to get rid of the Bays.
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Sorry yes, ESF… which is a LRG plus a CSG (not both LRGs).
However, if this is the game being played then you want the LPD which can take a combination of fast Assault Craft, USVs and larger landing craft. Very different capability from four LCVP sized craft. Put the three Bays together and you still wouldn’t have the same capability.
However, if this is the game being played then you want the LPD which can take a combination of fast Assault Craft, USVs and larger landing craft. Very different capability from four LCVP sized craft. Put the three Bays together and you still wouldn’t have the same capability.
”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
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4073
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Its a CSG plus the LSG which is effectively both LRGs.
The versatility of the LPDs is clear but the large well dock reduces lane meters and they have zero embarked aviation. This is why the LPDs and LSDs complement each other perfectly.However, if this is the game being played then you want the LPD which can take a combination of fast Assault Craft, USVs and larger landing craft. Very different capability from four LCVP sized craft. Put the three Bays together and you still wouldn’t have the same capability.
The Bays need permanent 1000sqm hangers fitted and each LRG should be comprised of an Albion, Bay, Wave and 2x T31’s.
RN is small enough - no more cuts.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1143
- Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Thats why LRG is nt a choice between an LPD and an LSD. It is one of each acting together.Repulse wrote: ↑30 May 2023, 22:15 Sorry yes, ESF… which is a LRG plus a CSG (not both LRGs).
However, if this is the game being played then you want the LPD which can take a combination of fast Assault Craft, USVs and larger landing craft. Very different capability from four LCVP sized craft. Put the three Bays together and you still wouldn’t have the same capability.
With 3 Bays we can have one assigned to each LRG, and the third either sent to WI for HADR during hurricane season / undergoig refit / available for other missions.
If you sell another LSD, then we are too short of RFA hull numbers, and if one is in for refit, then one of the LRG's will be lacking.
If the RN / RFA finds some additional funds down the back of the sofa and are thus able to afford 3+ Vard 7-313 or equivalent ships, then, and only then, can RN afford to dispose of any of the Bays. To simply try anf flog them off now, for probably much less than we got for Largs Bay at that time, is in my opinion a totally foolish course of action.
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
The fact that we’ve got at-least three tied-up doesn’t feel like it. Tough decisions need to be made without more money, otherwise we end up in muddled mess we are now.
”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
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
If the LPD and any FSS sailing with the group are able to carry all the RMs, kit and stores that meet the requirement then yes it is, but the only choice is a LPD. The LSD is for logistics - and if we are talking about HADR maybe it’s time to realise that civilian contracts (STUFT in extreme circumstances) is ok and what we can afford.wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑30 May 2023, 22:46 Thats why LRG is nt a choice between an LPD and an LSD. It is one of each acting together.
”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
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
I like it. They would look good with a blue ensign!
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
- These users liked the author shark bait for the post (total 2):
- wargame_insomniac • serge750
@LandSharkUK
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Jumping threads.....
However if the Royal Marines want to survive they need the capability to create an entry to theatre from nothing. Without, the marines become the RAF regiment of the sea, necessary, but it doesn't bring value to the UK by itself.
This leads to a conflicting requirement, where the Marines need the scale and mass to force entry, and keep that position. Meanwhile the Marines need to become distributed and less intensive to more usable during peace time.
It's totally going to change, and that seems to be with a focus on smaller security/special operations.Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑30 Jun 2023, 10:07 Continuing to play devils advocate.
Is the future of Amphibious Ops the same as the past? What is going inside the big cavernous vessels?
The British Army is changing (and shrinking) so is MoD planning on the scale of Amphibious requirements changing also?
However if the Royal Marines want to survive they need the capability to create an entry to theatre from nothing. Without, the marines become the RAF regiment of the sea, necessary, but it doesn't bring value to the UK by itself.
This leads to a conflicting requirement, where the Marines need the scale and mass to force entry, and keep that position. Meanwhile the Marines need to become distributed and less intensive to more usable during peace time.
@LandSharkUK
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4073
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
I agree that you have accurately laid out current planning but how logical and practical current planning actually is could be debated endlessly.shark bait wrote: ↑30 Jun 2023, 15:34
It's totally going to change, and that seems to be with a focus on smaller security/special operations.
However if the Royal Marines want to survive they need the capability to create an entry to theatre from nothing. Without, the marines become the RAF regiment of the sea, necessary, but it doesn't bring value to the UK by itself.
This leads to a conflicting requirement, where the Marines need the scale and mass to force entry, and keep that position. Meanwhile the Marines need to become distributed and less intensive to more usable during peace time.
IMO current planning is based around the funding available and an effort to give RM something unique to do rather than an urgent capability requirement that has been identified.
Regardless there is a few points that need to be clarified with the FCF theory before anything can be built.
1. Will the small scale raiding parties be deployed from a single vessel and if so it must therefore be self escorting?
2. How does the T32 need to differ from the T31? If the answer is more a question of refinement rather than revolution does RN actually need any T31’s? Should the longer term ambition be to regard T31 as a stop-gap and ultimately work towards a class of T32’s with the T31’s being sold when replaced? Is this the most practical way of keeping the drumbeat going at Rosyth.
3. What mass is required if a full blown amphibious operation is required? Is 4x MRSS and 4x Points enough? How many helos, heavy lift UAVs, LCUs and mexefloats will be requited?
4. As it is unlikely any large scale amphibious op would be attempted without the CSG in the area will the MRSS need to be capable of RAS with the amphibious vessels and associated escorts or can the FSS and Tides do it all?
5. How important a requirement is HADR and highly capable medical facilities in the next-gen amphibs? Is it going to be Amphibious Assault ships doing HADR or HADR vessels doing Amphibious Assault? This is important.
Lots of questions but by going through them carefully and logically it’s clear that some of the proposed options are better than others.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5599
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
The way I see it the RN need at least one LHD better with two. This could allow the RFA to have 4 smaller ships of say 150 by 22 meter to support re-enforced Company level operations but if needed when combined having the ability to deliver 2 RM Commando Battle groups with artillery , engineer and Logistics support
- These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
- wargame_insomniac
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4073
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Thats more like it!
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain ... ault-ship/
Hopefully Enforcer based and LHD, LPD and LSD variants on the same hull.
Karel Doorman would be a good place to start.
More here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-a ... lationship
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-l ... h-50-years
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain ... ault-ship/
Hopefully Enforcer based and LHD, LPD and LSD variants on the same hull.
Karel Doorman would be a good place to start.
More here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-a ... lationship
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-l ... h-50-years
- These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
- wargame_insomniac