UK Defence Forum

Repulse wrote: ↑30 Apr 2023, 15:16

SW1 wrote: ↑30 Apr 2023, 12:51 That we have operated across the world for decades without anyone ever needing to attach global to anything shows how shallow the marketing has become.

Maybe or how limited funds are, and a real danger that those calling for BAOR2 / Nott Mk2 might be listened to.

Or it was just a BOJO slogan because we left the EU political institutions because he was shallow..

The RM hardly need to be told they are global they just need to look at their cap badge.

Global Britain may well be a slogan, and it may well be a slogan designed to cover a lack of (political) substance (within the government).

But it was not merely a slogan.

Global Britain is a recognition that that the centre of economic/political gravity has moved from europe to asia, and that europe is now a relatively smaller actor in disputes between other people. That we left the EU is almost incidental, other than the fact that it entailed recognising we would have to take responsibility for responding to this economic/political change.

jedibeeftrix wrote: ↑30 Apr 2023, 16:25 Global Britain may well be a slogan, and it may well be a slogan designed to cover a lack of (political) substance (within the government).

But it was not merely a slogan.

Global Britain is a recognition that that the centre of economic/political gravity has moved from europe to asia, and that europe is now a relatively smaller actor in disputes between other people. That we left the EU is almost incidental, other than the fact that it entailed recognising we would have to take responsibility for responding to this economic/political change.

Whose economic/political gravity has moved?

You mean apart from that dispute that has seen the largest invasion in Europe since the Second World War.

A snap shot but an interesting one from 2018 of uk trade

https://media.rs-online.com/image/uploa ... l-size.png

Our economic outlook has always been “global”

Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑30 Apr 2023, 14:50

Tempest414 wrote: ↑30 Apr 2023, 10:16 Do we want to lose our global amphib capability ?

No but D-Day Mk2 isn’t happening either so realistically what will ever be used in a REAL conflict, not just an exercise.

What the IR will throw up in terms of the FCF is nothing as it is still in play

After how many years now?

The transition of RM has supposedly being going on since at least SDSR 2010. Someone needs to grip it now and illustrate in a coherent way what the structure of RM is actually going to be going forward. Finland and Sweden joining NATO should help to clear the decks in terms of a dedicated JEF Amphibious force to secure the Nordics.

Collectively working together Norway, Sweden and Finland with a modest number of rotated NATO Battlegroups along with a highly capable UK led Rapid Reaction Force is all that is required from NATO to secure the region apart the RM, USMC and the Dutch Marines helping secure the Norwegian coast.

For me pre 2030 nothing will change we might see some small movement on LRG/s and post 2030 more of the same what I can see is the Navy trying to eek out the LPD's LDS's until 2040

It will be tempting to do this but availability will start to fall away and the refits will start to get eye watering.

Getting the LSDs converted to LSS spec by adding permanent hangers to allow Argus to decommission without replacement makes complete financial sense. Getting H&W to build two LHDs and three MRSS over 12-15 years starting 2030 is most likely IMO.

From memory, the initial proposal for a LSS was to add aviation facilites and a hangar to one of the Bays.
I believe that currently it is the Argus that is having it's hangar and aviaition facilities upgraded - do we know how much is the cost of doing so, how much more time it will take etc??

Argus entered RN service in late 1980's, Albion & Bulwark from late 80's, and 3 Bays from 2006/07. It might be that Albion & Bulwark have longer remaining useful life (as they took took turns being mothballed as reserve). Depending on the cost and effort to update Argus, it would to me make most sense to upgrade the newer Bays with hangars and aviation facilities, and meanwhile keep Argus and Albion / Bulwark until ready to start building two new LHD's once H&W have finished building the 3*FSS.

wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑30 Apr 2023, 17:39

Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑30 Apr 2023, 14:50

Tempest414 wrote: ↑30 Apr 2023, 10:16 Do we want to lose our global amphib capability ?

No but D-Day Mk2 isn’t happening either so realistically what will ever be used in a REAL conflict, not just an exercise.

What the IR will throw up in terms of the FCF is nothing as it is still in play

After how many years now?

The transition of RM has supposedly being going on since at least SDSR 2010. Someone needs to grip it now and illustrate in a coherent way what the structure of RM is actually going to be going forward. Finland and Sweden joining NATO should help to clear the decks in terms of a dedicated JEF Amphibious force to secure the Nordics.

Collectively working together Norway, Sweden and Finland with a modest number of rotated NATO Battlegroups along with a highly capable UK led Rapid Reaction Force is all that is required from NATO to secure the region apart the RM, USMC and the Dutch Marines helping secure the Norwegian coast.

For me pre 2030 nothing will change we might see some small movement on LRG/s and post 2030 more of the same what I can see is the Navy trying to eek out the LPD's LDS's until 2040

It will be tempting to do this but availability will start to fall away and the refits will start to get eye watering.

Getting the LSDs converted to LSS spec by adding permanent hangers to allow Argus to decommission without replacement makes complete financial sense. Getting H&W to build two LHDs and three MRSS over 12-15 years starting 2030 is most likely IMO.

From memory, the initial proposal for a LSS was to add aviation facilites and a hangar to one of the Bays.
I believe that currently it is the Argus that is having it's hangar and aviaition facilities upgraded - do we know how much is the cost of doing so, how much more time it will take etc??

Argus entered RN service in late 1980's, Albion & Bulwark from late 80's, and 3 Bays from 2006/07. It might be that Albion & Bulwark have longer remaining useful life (as they took took turns being mothballed as reserve). Depending on the cost and effort to update Argus, it would to me make most sense to upgrade the newer Bays with hangars and aviation facilities, and meanwhile keep Argus and Albion / Bulwark until ready to start building two new LHD's once H&W have finished building the 3*FSS.

Bulwark and Albion commissioned in 2003 and 2004 not the late 80s.

wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑30 Apr 2023, 17:39

Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑30 Apr 2023, 14:50

Tempest414 wrote: ↑30 Apr 2023, 10:16 Do we want to lose our global amphib capability ?

No but D-Day Mk2 isn’t happening either so realistically what will ever be used in a REAL conflict, not just an exercise.

What the IR will throw up in terms of the FCF is nothing as it is still in play

After how many years now?

The transition of RM has supposedly being going on since at least SDSR 2010. Someone needs to grip it now and illustrate in a coherent way what the structure of RM is actually going to be going forward. Finland and Sweden joining NATO should help to clear the decks in terms of a dedicated JEF Amphibious force to secure the Nordics.

Collectively working together Norway, Sweden and Finland with a modest number of rotated NATO Battlegroups along with a highly capable UK led Rapid Reaction Force is all that is required from NATO to secure the region apart the RM, USMC and the Dutch Marines helping secure the Norwegian coast.

For me pre 2030 nothing will change we might see some small movement on LRG/s and post 2030 more of the same what I can see is the Navy trying to eek out the LPD's LDS's until 2040

It will be tempting to do this but availability will start to fall away and the refits will start to get eye watering.

Getting the LSDs converted to LSS spec by adding permanent hangers to allow Argus to decommission without replacement makes complete financial sense. Getting H&W to build two LHDs and three MRSS over 12-15 years starting 2030 is most likely IMO.

From memory, the initial proposal for a LSS was to add aviation facilites and a hangar to one of the Bays.

Initial LSS was this:
https://www.navylookout.com/a-closer-lo ... p-concept/
Buy the love of god could MRSS not come quicker

Tempest414 wrote: ↑30 Apr 2023, 11:32 ….a similar route to the Rangers

Or should Rangers actually be doing what 3Cdo Bde used to do?

What the Rangers are doing is great but I’m not convinced it should be the Rangers doing it.

For example, could the Rangers be leading in the Arctic, specialising in mountain warfare rather than RM?

Getting RM to focus on the Artic at Viking and provide the Mountain Leaders whilst also pushing the Raiding/Reconnaissance FCF concept seems muddled at best.

Or should the rangers exist….

wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑30 Apr 2023, 17:39 From memory, the initial proposal for a LSS was to add aviation facilites and a hangar to one of the Bays.
I believe that currently it is the Argus that is having it's hangar and aviaition facilities upgraded - do we know how much is the cost of doing so, how much more time it will take etc??

Argus entered RN service in late 1980's, Albion & Bulwark from late 80's, and 3 Bays from 2006/07. It might be that Albion & Bulwark have longer remaining useful life (as they took took turns being mothballed as reserve). Depending on the cost and effort to update Argus, it would to me make most sense to upgrade the newer Bays with hangars and aviation facilities, and meanwhile keep Argus and Albion / Bulwark until ready to start building two new LHD's once H&W have finished building the 3*FSS.

Argus was built around 1980 and was converted at H&W back in the mid 1980’s entering RFA service around 1988, the Albions were commissioned in 2003 and 2005 and the Bays in 2006/2007.

What RN/RFA HAS isn’t that important it is what they NEED that is really important. With a clean slate it would be an entirely different fleet in the water but we are where we are.

Adapting Argus is an easy win and very cheap but it’s just a sticking plaster solution because nobody appears to have any idea what the FCF is or what a LRG/LSG is yet. Probably best not to spend too much money until the planners fully work that out. Unfortunately Argus is the one vessel that isn’t required and therefore shouldn’t be getting any money spent on it.

The LSS concept had merit but it was a cut price solution to delete the Albions which are very expensive to maintain and operate. The Prevail Partners concept was the most mature but in the end the balance of EMF, embarked aviation, landing spots and amphibious craft just didn’t look good enough to proceed.

The solution is obvious and is hiding in plain sight. The Bays in any other navy are LHDs suitable for Amphibious Assault. All that is required is permanent full width hangers and bingo, RN has a 3x LHD, 2x LPD Amphibious fleet. Three £40m conversions should do it. It’s all in the water, it just need’s someone to make the call.

That would give RN the fleet it needs to transition to the FCF if that really is the chosen direction of travel.

Each Bay LSS could easily cope with 2 Coy of RM, support crew for assault craft and the flight and maintenance crew for up to 5 or 6 Merlin depending how the hanger is configured. Extensive hospital facilities could be added if required and RN could have three such vessels in 18 months.

I don’t see any sensible reason for not doing this now.

SW1 wrote: ↑30 Apr 2023, 18:50 Or should the rangers exist….

Used and structured correctly I think they do add a useful capability.

Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑30 Apr 2023, 19:43

SW1 wrote: ↑30 Apr 2023, 18:50 Or should the rangers exist….

Used and structured correctly I think they do add a useful capability.

Yes training and mentoring is useful. But we have part of 42 commando doing it, we have security force assistance units doing it, we have a swath of the armoured forces doing it for the Ukraine soldiers here in the uk. We have Belize and Brunei where we can invite others to train and be mentored too.

Do we need yet another separate unit doing it especially if we have fwd deployed units who could do it.

SW1 wrote: ↑30 Apr 2023, 19:57 Do we need yet another separate unit doing it especially if we have fwd deployed units who could do it.

Yes we do need the Ranges, there is not enough RMs to cover the role and the units going through the training establishments you mention need the training otherwise they would be there. I see the Rangers as the equivalent of the global forward based Presence FCF and the Paras the Intervention RM force.

Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑30 Apr 2023, 19:39 …Unfortunately Argus is the one vessel that isn’t required and therefore shouldn’t be getting any money spent on it.

It may be the oldest vessel, but it’s probably the most appropriate for the FCF. The LSDs were designed for a logistical role, transporting and landing a large number of vehicles and stores - neither of which is required in the same scale moving away from Brigade ops.

SW1 wrote: ↑30 Apr 2023, 19:57Do we need yet another separate unit doing it especially if we have fwd deployed units who could do it.

It seems like another muddle to me.

On the one hand the Rangers are going to be a deeply embedded SF unit taking risks other conventional units would not be allowed to take with Allies and partners across the world.

On the other hand the ultimate ambition appears to be to form a deployable Brigade sized force of Army Rangers.

How much of an overlap is there with SF?

Dedicating another four Battalions to defence engagement does seem like a bit of a luxury when the Army is due to shrink by over 10%.

Repulse wrote: ↑30 Apr 2023, 20:13 …global forward based…

The Army Rangers are pretty focused and not truly global.

Perhaps, but I would include the Ghurkas in the Rangers.

SW1 wrote: ↑30 Apr 2023, 16:50

jedibeeftrix wrote: ↑30 Apr 2023, 16:25 Global Britain may well be a slogan, and it may well be a slogan designed to cover a lack of (political) substance (within the government).

But it was not merely a slogan.

Global Britain is a recognition that that the centre of economic/political gravity has moved from europe to asia, and that europe is now a relatively smaller actor in disputes between other people. That we left the EU is almost incidental, other than the fact that it entailed recognising we would have to take responsibility for responding to this economic/political change.

Whose economic/political gravity has moved?

You mean apart from that dispute that has seen the largest invasion in Europe since the Second World War.

A snap shot but an interesting one from 2018 of uk trade

https://media.rs-online.com/image/uploa ... l-size.png

Our economic outlook has always been “global”

The worlds.

Economically:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10. ... 10.00066.x

And geopolitically:
https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Intern ... dian-Ocean

It's not complicated: The Ukraine war is small regional conflict where a poor medium sized neighbour(!) has completely absorbed the potential, material, and capacity of what purported to be the major security threat to NATO europe. Besides the utter absense of a 20thC world war standoff, Europe itself has shrunk in economic importance from ~25% of world GDP to ~20% at the turn of the century, and onward down to about 15% by the end of this decade. "Global Britain" is recognition that the world has moved east.

Tempest414 wrote: ↑30 Apr 2023, 11:32 With 42 & 47 commando responsible for having 6 Troop size units of 32 to 36 deployed on ships at sea 365 days a year

47Cdo has a number of roles and whilst I see they have a role, the bulk of the forces would come from 42 Cdo.

Edit: correction according to the RN site 42 Cdo has six companies, so have updated

42 Cdo has 6 companies each with three troops, so 18. Each troop has three sections. If you work on a ratio of 3:1 (available:deployed), I’d say that the following deployed forces would probably be the max, with ability to surge an additional Company for a short period.

- 1xTroop deployed on the EoS Aviation Support Ship (with three Merlins and two Wildcats)
- 2xTroop on two deployed Bays
- 9xSections deployed on the 5 OPVs, 1 Ice Patrol ship plus 2 more ships

Obviously this means handing over the Carrier support role to the other Cdos.

Repulse wrote: ↑30 Apr 2023, 20:58 Perhaps, but I would include the Ghurkas in the Rangers.

I think we need to remember that the Ranger battalion's are more re-enforced companies with 250 heads as said up thread I would like to see the RM get to something like this

Right now between 40 & 45 commando they have about 1400 people so maybe they could split into say 4 new units of 350 something like

1 x Command Troop = 30
1 x Rcce Section = 10
6 x Close contact Troops = 180
2 x stand off Troops = 60
1 x Mortar Troop = 30
1 x Logistics Troop = 40

i worry about continueing the notion of making more understrength formations.

two recognised negative trends in UK land formations in recent years:

1. pretend brigades - that don't have permanent and appropriately scaled CS/CSS.
in the process of considering whether to add 3Cdo to that sorry list: "do they really need an army artillery and and engineering support?"
2. miniature battalions - that don't have the headcount to support combined arms warfare (or attrition!).
army shrinking from ~650 down to ~550, and now down to ~250 for rangers: "hey, great idea, shall we do this to the Commandos too?"

For 40 and 45 Cdos I believe they should still operate at Cdo level, however this would only be in a conflict and I would rotate a Company at a time (with associated split of supporting functions).

jedibeeftrix wrote: ↑01 May 2023, 12:01 i worry about continueing the notion of making more understrength formations.

two recognised negative trends in UK land formations in recent years:

1. pretend brigades - that don't have permanent and appropriately scaled CS/CSS.
in the process of considering whether to add 3Cdo to that sorry list: "do they really need an army artillery and and engineering support?"
2. minature battalions - that don't have the headcount to support combined arms warfare (or attrition!).
army shrinking from ~650 down to ~550, and now down to ~250 for rangers: "hey, great idea, shall we do this to the Commandos too?"

Both the Rangers and RM are much more Specialist groups in the case of the RM 2 or 3 of the new groups could come together to form bigger formation's long with 30 and 47 Commando

It is not and should not be the job of the RM to grind it out they need to light and fast moving it is the job of the Armies Infantry brigades to grind it out

Tempest414 wrote: ↑01 May 2023, 12:33

jedibeeftrix wrote: ↑01 May 2023, 12:01 i worry about continueing the notion of making more understrength formations.

two recognised negative trends in UK land formations in recent years:

1. pretend brigades - that don't have permanent and appropriately scaled CS/CSS.
in the process of considering whether to add 3Cdo to that sorry list: "do they really need an army artillery and and engineering support?"
2. miniature battalions - that don't have the headcount to support combined arms warfare (or attrition!).
army shrinking from ~650 down to ~550, and now down to ~250 for rangers: "hey, great idea, shall we do this to the Commandos too?"

Both the Rangers and RM are much more Specialist groups in the case of the RM 2 or 3 of the new groups could come together to form bigger formation's long with 30 and 47 Commando

It is not and should not be the job of the RM to grind it out they need to light and fast moving it is the job of the Armies Infantry brigades to grind it out

Grind out, no. Never, in fact. 3x Commandos vs 30x Infantry Battalions never permitted this.
But:
Not becoming combat ineffective after a few key casualities...? Surely yes. IMHO.
Being capable of battlegroup-level combined arms maneuvre...? Surely yes. IMHO.

Repulse wrote: ↑01 May 2023, 12:21 For 40 and 45 Cdos I believe they should still operate at Cdo level, however this would only be in a conflict and I would rotate a Company at a time (with associated split of supporting functions).

Yes. Totally fine with this. As long as 3Cdo can use those Commandos for battlegroup-level operations with organic CS/CSS.

jedibeeftrix wrote: ↑01 May 2023, 14:57

Tempest414 wrote: ↑01 May 2023, 12:33

jedibeeftrix wrote: ↑01 May 2023, 12:01 i worry about continueing the notion of making more understrength formations.

two recognised negative trends in UK land formations in recent years:

1. pretend brigades - that don't have permanent and appropriately scaled CS/CSS.
in the process of considering whether to add 3Cdo to that sorry list: "do they really need an army artillery and and engineering support?"
2. miniature battalions - that don't have the headcount to support combined arms warfare (or attrition!).
army shrinking from ~650 down to ~550, and now down to ~250 for rangers: "hey, great idea, shall we do this to the Commandos too?"

Both the Rangers and RM are much more Specialist groups in the case of the RM 2 or 3 of the new groups could come together to form bigger formation's long with 30 and 47 Commando

It is not and should not be the job of the RM to grind it out they need to light and fast moving it is the job of the Armies Infantry brigades to grind it out

Grind out, no. Never, in fact. 3x Commandos vs 30x Infantry Battalions never permitted this.
But:
Not becoming combat ineffective after a few key casualities...? Surely yes. IMHO.
Being capable of battlegroup-level combined arms maneuvre...? Surely yes. IMHO.

Repulse wrote: ↑01 May 2023, 12:21 For 40 and 45 Cdos I believe they should still operate at Cdo level, however this would only be in a conflict and I would rotate a Company at a time (with associated split of supporting functions).

Yes. Totally fine with this. As long as 3Cdo can use those Commandos for battlegroup-level operations with organic CS/CSS.

As said between 40 & 45 commando there are 1400 people all I am saying is splitting down to 4 groups of 350 people as said they can come back together with 2 making a battalion battle group or all 4 coming together along with 28 , 29 , 30 , & 47 commando groups to make 3 Cdo brigade

Plus if 30 infantry Battalions come over the hill all armies 20 infantry battalion would struggle let alone 2 commando battalions