The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Agreed, however, I’m trying to think of an example where the use of such a small concentration of armour has ever been used in an amphibious setting. I would have thought you’d be looking at committing at least a squadron for mutual support. If that’s not possible, then you might be better off bolstering your ATGM teams instead or investing in Switchblade 600 (you’d achieve a mission kill on enemy armour with that and maintain a low profile).

There’s a YouTube video on Switchblade 600. Can be set up in ten minutes. UK is already buying the 300.
Not amphibious, but there was a river crossing involved, the Battle of Long Tan was turned by the arrival of a troop of M-113 APCs and an extra company if infantry. During the Vietnam conflict Australia never deployed more than a Squadron of tanks, the USMC I believe would deploy six Abrams with an ARG.

We are talking about raids here, the whole concept is about over match at a specific point, hit fast and hard and get out. Trying to remember where I read it but for raiding it was common for Commandos to bomb up with additional GPMGs, 84mm Carl Gustav, mortars, even Milan. For a company strength raid it was not unheard of for them to deploy more fire support than a battalion.

When you are hitting then bugging out, rather than trying to seize and hold ground, weight and volume of fire is more important than the number of boots on the ground.

Thinking on it, an AEV or breeching vehicle could be even more useful than an MBT, maybe a modern day AVRE with a demolition gun, or a modified MBT with appropriately trained crews and demolition munitions, as well as multiple RWS and active defence systems.

Heavily armoured, draws enemy fire, absorbs damage and takes out strong points that could hold up or pin down the Raiders. Seems worth the effort of getting a couple ashore.

As to how, the RN wants to use the bay class for this mission, i.e. Combat boats, LCVP, RHIBs and helps to get the troops ashore, LCU for the armour. Going forward, it wouldn't be that hard to incorporate a docking well into an Absalon type multi role vessel design for a single LCU or LCAC.
 

RJH_APAC

New Member
The problem with armour is you will have to recce the landing point in advance to make sure it’s able to support the weight and not get bogged down. So you could end up in a situation where you have to conduct a small scale raid to undertake a beach recce before committing to a slightly larger raid later on, which by visiting the area twice might heighten the risk of compromise if the enemy is sophisticated enough to position electronic surveillance tech to cover previously surveyed likely amphib landing zones (such tech is cheap and durable). Also, by choosing to bring something bigger than a pair of boots or quad bike on the raid, you’re restricting your landing options and means of delivery (Heli’s are out).

Mission will dictate I suppose. AJAX has been tested in the surf, so they’ve already looked at bringing that platform to the beach.

The new focus on conducting raids on a wide front from disbursed assets means that even if they’re detected the enemy doesn’t know if they’re diversionary attacks or the precursor to a landing in force. The Future Commando Force concept dovetails nicely with a USMC ARG, the former can sow confusion on a wide front leaving the big stick to land in an area where the enemy forces are spread thinnest. Same as they did in WWII.
 

RJH_APAC

New Member
Self quote removed for you. You should have been able to do this in edit yourself but done now

Cheers
Alexsa


I think the UK recognises funds are limited, so they’ve looked at the likely peer enemy and determined what can we do that will create the biggest impact. The UK could invest in a mini-ARG and look to bring say 20 tanks to the beach with supporting manpower and material in the first wave. But, when you look at Russia/China and see what they can bring to the fight (particularly long range artillery and vast concentrations of surface to surface missiles) it’s truly terrifying. The 20 tanks and supporting troops will have near zero influence on the battle and will have a lower survival rate than a WW1 pilot against a peer foe. Just research Russian counter battery fire in Ukraine, they’ve rendered towed artillery obsolete with the speed they’re able to respond to the first round fired in their direction. So, for all the above reasons, the UK RM has decided to go Commando, stay light, stay agile and invest in autonomous tech and loitering/stand off munitions.

Apologies, I quoted myself, still don’t fully understand the way this works!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Nah, I just think poor bastard and how fortunate that I am to be free of the high maintenance bird.
I have wondered in the past if Australia would have been better off buying (or building) a half sister to ocean instead of acquiring Kanimbla and Manoora. It wouldn't have been realised at the time but it may well have been cheaper to procure an Ocean or two and two Bays than extending Tobruk and buying the ex USN ships, then having to buy Largs, and the two LHDs.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
I have wondered in the past if Australia would have been better off buying (or building) a half sister to ocean instead of acquiring Kanimbla and Manoora. It wouldn't have been realised at the time but it may well have been cheaper to procure an Ocean or two and two Bays than extending Tobruk and buying the ex USN ships, then having to buy Largs, and the two LHDs.
Good to look at lessons learnt from what if's of the past when making good decisions today for future equipment.
Ocean or a similar new build would or been superior in flight operations and troop numbers to the Kanimbla decision, but would have relied on a Bay class or two for the docking well and moving heavy stuff.
Certainly would have had some merit in the day, but as things have turned out I would not swap the Juan Carlos design for Ocean.
Just wish we had the vision to acquire three instead of two.
As this is the Royal Navy thread, a LHD or two would certainly be the way forward to compliment the two RN carriers.
Will be interesting to see what really evolves from the recent defence review.


Regards S
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
I have wondered in the past if Australia would have been better off buying (or building) a half sister to ocean instead of acquiring Kanimbla and Manoora. It wouldn't have been realised at the time but it may well have been cheaper to procure an Ocean or two and two Bays than extending Tobruk and buying the ex USN ships, then having to buy Largs, and the two LHDs.
Reading your wonderings reminds me of the NZ Govt turning down the Tobruk in 1994 and went for a used Mercandian Class the Charles Upham as they thought they would save money on manning costs. The Irony is that the Tobruk got the NZDF to Bougainville in 1998 and to Iraq in 2005 because the Upham was so unfit for purpose as a military sealift vessel that it lasted just a couple of years in commission. As we know the old Tobruk soldiered on until 2015. The other maybe in hindsight is that there would most likely not have been the rush to acquire L421 Canterbury and the RNZN may also have been keen on a Bay Class later on with its bargain basement price of £65 million.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Good to look at lessons learnt from what if's of the past when making good decisions today for future equipment.
... a LHD or two would certainly be the way forward to compliment the two RN carriers.
Will be interesting to see what really evolves from the recent defence review.

Regards S
You raise an interesting point. How long have LPD / LHDs been around? Yet the RN will build ships like LSDs and not include hangars, or thru deck helicopter carriers with landing craft haunching from davits like Ocean, but no well dock. You would think that they would do what other navies have done and combine both capabilities into a single platform. But no,that apparently is to obvious to the RN and MOD.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Reading your wonderings reminds me of the NZ Govt turning down the Tobruk in 1994 and went for a used Mercandian Class the Charles Upham as they thought they would save money on manning costs. The Irony is that the Tobruk got the NZDF to Bougainville in 1998 and to Iraq in 2005 because the Upham was so unfit for purpose as a military sealift vessel that it lasted just a couple of years in commission. As we know the old Tobruk soldiered on until 2015. The other maybe in hindsight is that there would most likely not have been the rush to acquire L421 Canterbury and the RNZN may also have been keen on a Bay Class later on with its bargain basement price of £65 million.
Your mate Jim Bolger would be the culprit there. Can't remember if Ruthless Ruth was still around then. I remember seeing the drawings of the ANZAC frigates that the RNZN circulated around the ships and it was very noticeable what the NZ government cut out to save money, because the drawings had written in different places for different items AUSTRALIA ONLY. Didn't do our morale much good.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
You raise an interesting point. How long have LPD / LHDs been around? Yet the RN will build ships like LSDs and not include hangars, or thru deck helicopter carriers with landing craft haunching from davits like Ocean, but no well dock. You would think that they would do what other navies have done and combine both capabilities into a single platform. But no,that apparently is to obvious to the RN and MOD.
The RN do seem to like their single role ships, well single role everything. There seems to be a pattern to UK defence procurement of going for unique, single role platforms rather than multirole, or even using common platforms or systems across platforms.

I'm not saying its right or wrong, or even that there aren't advantages, just making the observation.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Reading your wonderings reminds me of the NZ Govt turning down the Tobruk in 1994 and went for a used Mercandian Class the Charles Upham as they thought they would save money on manning costs. The Irony is that the Tobruk got the NZDF to Bougainville in 1998 and to Iraq in 2005 because the Upham was so unfit for purpose as a military sealift vessel that it lasted just a couple of years in commission. As we know the old Tobruk soldiered on until 2015. The other maybe in hindsight is that there would most likely not have been the rush to acquire L421 Canterbury and the RNZN may also have been keen on a Bay Class later on with its bargain basement price of £65 million.
Its a common pattern not just in NZ, but also Australia and the UK, certainly other nations too.

A requirement is derived from government policy, the services recommend their preferred solution(s), the government decides it is too expensive / ambitious / extravagant, dictates a cheaper / more austere requirement, the procurement proceeds but encounters scope creep, schedule and other issues. When it finally enters service it is found that the requirements were insufficient and the system is not what was actually needed. This leads to upgrades and modifications at significant cost and impact to availability, and possibly early replacement.

End result, more time is taken to introduce the originally required capability, at far greater cost, than if the original project had just carried through unmolested by penny pinching politicians and bean counters.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Its a common pattern not just in NZ, but also Australia and the UK, certainly other nations too.

A requirement is derived from government policy, the services recommend their preferred solution(s), the government decides it is too expensive / ambitious / extravagant, dictates a cheaper / more austere requirement, the procurement proceeds but encounters scope creep, schedule and other issues. When it finally enters service it is found that the requirements were insufficient and the system is not what was actually needed. This leads to upgrades and modifications at significant cost and impact to availability, and possibly early replacement.

End result, more time is taken to introduce the originally required capability, at far greater cost, than if the original project had just carried through unmolested by penny pinching politicians and bean counters.
With many examples of the above, by many different governments, hard to believe pollies continue to repeat this process. Memory retention, not a popular skill for pollies apparently.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
The RN do seem to like their single role ships, well single role everything. There seems to be a pattern to UK defence procurement of going for unique, single role platforms rather than multirole, or even using common platforms or systems across platforms.

I'm not saying its right or wrong, or even that there aren't advantages, just making the observation.
Probably the most interesting one watch to from the recent defence review is the " up to six Multi Role Support Ship "proposal.
Suggesting the MRSS will be a common class to replace both the Albion and Bay Class vessels.
While very vague on detail, I'd surmise this new class of vessel would be of a similar size to what they replace.
While this presents a great opportunity for fantasy fleets; I'd suggest in all seriousness that for a maritime nation like the UK with the intention to maintain a defence force providing a global military footprint then this is one program they must get right.

I don't know what the price difference would be between a LHD and LSD of the same size / tonnage / dimensions and systems would be, but suggest a modern LHD Bay Class sized vessel would tick a lot of boxes.


Regards S
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Probably the most interesting one watch to from the recent defence review is the " up to six Multi Role Support Ship "proposal.
Suggesting the MRSS will be a common class to replace both the Albion and Bay Class vessels.
While very vague on detail, I'd surmise this new class of vessel would be of a similar size to what they replace.
While this presents a great opportunity for fantasy fleets; I'd suggest in all seriousness that for a maritime nation like the UK with the intention to maintain a defence force providing a global military footprint then this is one program they must get right.

I don't know what the price difference would be between a LHD and LSD of the same size / tonnage / dimensions and systems would be, but suggest a modern LHD Bay Class sized vessel would tick a lot of boxes.


Regards S
You mean something that already exists such as the Rotterdam/Galicia/Bayclass.
:

I think the RN is somewhat compromised by manning the Bays as RFAs, not that it diminishes their Lift capability but because if they were manned and armed as RN units the administration and employment would be less complicated.
I think that reducing the aviation capability on the Bays was a mistake and lost opportunity which reduced effectiveness.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
You mean something that already exists such as the Rotterdam/Galicia/Bayclass.
:

I think the RN is somewhat compromised by manning the Bays as RFAs, not that it diminishes their Lift capability but because if they were manned and armed as RN units the administration and employment would be less complicated.
I think that reducing the aviation capability on the Bays was a mistake and lost opportunity which reduced effectiveness.
Thinking more along the lines of Italys San Giorgio Class.
Through flight deck but still a somewhat agricultural and basic vessel with a relatively small crew.
More of a logistics / transport type of concept with the benefit of a flight deck.
Larger than the Italian vessel, moving up to the Rotterdam/Galicia/ Bay class in size.
At 25mters wide you could still get an Island to the side and operate four to five medium sized helicopters off the deck.
A flexible platform to cover a wide variety of contingency's with no expectation beyond the vessels limitations.
It's not a Wasp Class LHD
Maybe four to five vessels not the six suggested.

Just a concept.

If the money was really there I'd preference two large F35B capable LHD's and a few large LSDs ;but I think that is beyond the current and future budget, although realistically more within the realm of potential need.

Its a difficult crystal ball to read.

Regards S
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Thinking more along the lines of Italys San Giorgio Class.
Through flight deck but still a somewhat agricultural and basic vessel with a relatively small crew.
More of a logistics / transport type of concept with the benefit of a flight deck.
Larger than the Italian vessel, moving up to the Rotterdam/Galicia/ Bay class in size.
At 25mters wide you could still get an Island to the side and operate four to five medium sized helicopters off the deck.
A flexible platform to cover a wide variety of contingency's with no expectation beyond the vessels limitations.
It's not a Wasp Class LHD
Maybe four to five vessels not the six suggested.

Just a concept.

If the money was really there I'd preference two large F35B capable LHD's and a few large LSDs ;but I think that is beyond the current and future budget, although realistically more within the realm of potential need.

Its a difficult crystal ball to read.

Regards S
The Navantia JC1 actually comes in three sizes so the Poms could go with that design. It would be the least riskiest and they could have two different sizes of the same design. I have a copy of the Navantia document and the 3 LHD / LHA sizes are: 26,000, 20,000, and 13,000 tonnes (page29). Something that would be worth their while looking at, especially if they could convince Navantia to agree to granting them a build licence.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
The Navantia JC1 actually comes in three sizes so the Poms could go with that design. It would be the least riskiest and they could have two different sizes of the same design. I have a copy of the Navantia document and the 3 LHD / LHA sizes are: 26,000, 20,000, and 13,000 tonnes (page29). Something that would be worth their while looking at, especially if they could convince Navantia to agree to granting them a build licence.
Thanks for the link
Not unhappy with being an ambassador for the JC1.
A great design on soo many levels.
But would the Poms culturally take on a design from those evil Spanish?
:)

Regards S
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Thanks for the link
Not unhappy with being an ambassador for the JC1.
A great design on soo many levels.
But would the Poms culturally take on a design from those evil Spanish?
:)

Regards S
Well there is that, but it's not as though they're going to be getting the Spanish Inquisition. Maybe they will be praying to Drake and Nelson.
 
Top