Formerly about Russian Submarines but now a Thread for AFV Chimping

Five what? I am unwilling to believe that a single ship could carry all the kit for a heavy brigade,c and why would the Navy want less and not more sea lift? Can you elaborate?

There is an article on the Bay class LSD(A) here.

The requirement to replace the 6 Round Table class LSLs, starting with RFA Sir Geraint and RFA Sir Percivale led to the establishment of the Alternative Landing Ship Logistic (ALSL) project in 1997. The 1998 Defence Review committed to a balanced amphibious capability for the RN and confirmed these ships would be constructed. The ALSL had evolved into the Landing Ship Dock Auxiliary, LSD(A) by Autumn of 2002 and the specification called for a ship that could carry at least 350 troops, had 500 lane metres for vehicles and embark 70 tonnes war maintenance reserves (stores, fuel and ammunition). The ship would be able to operate helicopters and mexeflotes, while being able to offload vehicles in conditions up to Sea State 3. The Albion class LPDs would provide the amphibious spearhead and command and control while the Bay class would back it up carrying a larger number of troops, vehicles and stores that will sustain the assault.

The paragraph dedicated to capability says:

Standard RFA crew compliment is just 59 with accommodation for up to 75 to allow for additional RN personnel or trainees. There is good accommodation for an Embarked Military Force of 356 fully equipped combat troops, this can be increased to 500, using camp beds in spare compartments. Up to 700 could be carried for short periods in war “overload” conditions. The ship has been designed with wide passageways to allow fully equipped troops to reach disembarkation areas quickly and has an airtight NBCD citadel, usually found on warships. There are about 1,200 line-metres available on the vehicle deck with a theoretical load of up to 24 Challenger tanks and 150 trucks. Vehicles can be embarked through door in the starboard side and there is a lift to transport vehicles or stores between the vehicle deck and upper deck. There is also space on the upper deck for either 12 x 40-TEU or 24 x 24-TEU containers. Two 30-tonne upper deck cranes are used for cargo handling and to load LCVPs and boats on or off the upper deck. The floodable well dock has space for either 2 Landing Craft Vehicle and Personnel (LCVP) or 1 Landing Craft Utility (LCU). Two large Mexeflotes (powered rafts) can be carried, strapped to the port and starboard side of the ship.


This might interest some - The RAF sets sail for Estonia.

The vehicles, including aircraft tugs, fuel bowsers and other speciality equipment, boarded the cargo ship MV Eddystone at the Army’s Sea Mounting Centre for their five-day journey to Estonia to support NATO’s Baltic Air Policing mission. Also, on board are British army vehicles including Challenger 2 main battle tanks destined for the British Army Battlegroup.

Christ you're boring. And you post on other threads wondering why you haven't got very far in life?

Some well-intentioned advice: step away from the Internet, sit down and think where you would like to be in 2020 and how you are going to get there. Your obsession with the RN really is doing you no good whatsoever. H_M.
 

Alamo

LE
Indeed it does. I think the concern is whether that piece of paper will match reality if push comes to shove.
Not really. Art V doesn’t compel nations to do anything, but gives them the mechanism to do what they believe is necessary. Not the same thing.
 
Not really. Art V doesn’t compel nations to do anything, but gives them the mechanism to do what they believe is necessary. Not the same thing.

True - but a Russian incursion into the Baltics that NATO does not respond to would raise questions about the future of the alliance would it not?
 

Alamo

LE
True - but a Russian incursion into the Baltics that NATO does not respond to would raise questions about the future of the alliance would it not?
For sure. But a lot of folk assume a n incursion into the B3 means we’re automatically at war, and we’re automatically “all in”, neither are true. Personally I think the NAC would declare Art V, but by no means would everyone participate.
 
For sure. But a lot of folk assume a n incursion into the B3 means we’re automatically at war, and we’re automatically “all in”, neither are true. Personally I think the NAC would declare Art V, but by no means would everyone participate.
Agreed - but the question would be who is and isn’t in. This would drive any response - the U.K. public is unlikely to support a U.K. response if major players from mainland Europe are not involved. Would Germany fight if required? Would France? You would hope so - given their involvement in eFP and centrality to other planning but as @smallbrownprivates points out there are wider strategic issues at play.
I think that a major conventional war incursion which caused a significant loss of NATO life would provoke a response but the MDCOA must surely be a more limited incursion which tugs at the questions of NATO unity. Give the NATO members a genuine strategic dilemma about the nature of their response - with no right or wrong response, just good or bad ones.
Preventing the need for this kind of decision making is at the heart of NATO strategy. Deterrence is where it is - and there are a variety of measures, some overt and some covert, some military and some in other arenas which contribute to this strategy. The Baltics, being prepared to fight there - and issues such as sustainment are only a small part of NATO planning.
 

Truxx

LE
Five what? I am unwilling to believe that a single ship could carry all the kit for a heavy brigade, and why would the Navy want less and not more sea lift? Can you elaborate?

There is an article on the Bay class LSD(A) here.

The requirement to replace the 6 Round Table class LSLs, starting with RFA Sir Geraint and RFA Sir Percivale led to the establishment of the Alternative Landing Ship Logistic (ALSL) project in 1997. The 1998 Defence Review committed to a balanced amphibious capability for the RN and confirmed these ships would be constructed. The ALSL had evolved into the Landing Ship Dock Auxiliary, LSD(A) by Autumn of 2002 and the specification called for a ship that could carry at least 350 troops, had 500 lane metres for vehicles and embark 70 tonnes war maintenance reserves (stores, fuel and ammunition). The ship would be able to operate helicopters and mexeflotes, while being able to offload vehicles in conditions up to Sea State 3. The Albion class LPDs would provide the amphibious spearhead and command and control while the Bay class would back it up carrying a larger number of troops, vehicles and stores that will sustain the assault.

The paragraph dedicated to capability says:

Standard RFA crew compliment is just 59 with accommodation for up to 75 to allow for additional RN personnel or trainees. There is good accommodation for an Embarked Military Force of 356 fully equipped combat troops, this can be increased to 500, using camp beds in spare compartments. Up to 700 could be carried for short periods in war “overload” conditions. The ship has been designed with wide passageways to allow fully equipped troops to reach disembarkation areas quickly and has an airtight NBCD citadel, usually found on warships. There are about 1,200 line-metres available on the vehicle deck with a theoretical load of up to 24 Challenger tanks and 150 trucks. Vehicles can be embarked through door in the starboard side and there is a lift to transport vehicles or stores between the vehicle deck and upper deck. There is also space on the upper deck for either 12 x 40-TEU or 24 x 24-TEU containers. Two 30-tonne upper deck cranes are used for cargo handling and to load LCVPs and boats on or off the upper deck. The floodable well dock has space for either 2 Landing Craft Vehicle and Personnel (LCVP) or 1 Landing Craft Utility (LCU). Two large Mexeflotes (powered rafts) can be carried, strapped to the port and starboard side of the ship.

This might interest some - The RAF sets sail for Estonia.

The vehicles, including aircraft tugs, fuel bowsers and other speciality equipment, boarded the cargo ship MV Eddystone at the Army’s Sea Mounting Centre for their five-day journey to Estonia to support NATO’s Baltic Air Policing mission. Also, on board are British army vehicles including Challenger 2 main battle tanks destined for the British Army Battlegroup.
 

Truxx

LE
Christ you're boring. And you post on other threads wondering why you haven't got very far in life?

Some well-intentioned advice: step away from the Internet, sit down and think where you would like to be in 2020 and how you are going to get there. Your obsession with the RN really is doing you no good whatsoever. H_M.
The paper that started the demise of any real UK LOTS capability was drafted by a couple of pussers in DNSD in about 1997

I remember seeing a copy of the original that had been sent to the Director (Naval staff Duties) on whicvh he had written in manuscript

"more important than any capability is the overriding requirement for the Navy to be in charge of ALL THINGS maritime"
 

Alamo

LE
Agreed - but the question would be who is and isn’t in. This would drive any response - the U.K. public is unlikely to support a U.K. response if major players from mainland Europe are not involved. Would Germany fight if required? Would France? You would hope so - given their involvement in eFP and centrality to other planning but as @smallbrownprivates points out there are wider strategic issues at play.
I think that a major conventional war incursion which caused a significant loss of NATO life would provoke a response but the MDCOA must surely be a more limited incursion which tugs at the questions of NATO unity. Give the NATO members a genuine strategic dilemma about the nature of their response - with no right or wrong response, just good or bad ones.
Preventing the need for this kind of decision making is at the heart of NATO strategy. Deterrence is where it is - and there are a variety of measures, some overt and some covert, some military and some in other arenas which contribute to this strategy. The Baltics, being prepared to fight there - and issues such as sustainment are only a small part of NATO planning.
Agreed, and best we get deterrence right as eviction would be bloody hard! As to whose in? Beer drinkers v wine drinkers would be a reasonable guide IMHO.
 
Nicholas Drummond putting some current affairs spin on Strike employability and then (like any good Defence industry insider....) running up a shopping list for which ever very senior lazy thinker reads WR for strategic advice...
 
That report said "only the UK {in Nato} doesnt have a Strike Brigade concept" in other words.

Is that true?

Why is this not a thread on its own?
 
I must have imagined Stryker being used by, for example, the 2nd Cavalry Regiment, a recce formation.

2CR has been just about every type of formation possible...basically Mech (not so Heavy) Infantry.

4th Squadron would be the reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition Squadron, retaining 3 Stryker Cavalry Scout troops, and 1 Anti-Armor Troop (TOW & MGS).
 
Nicholas Drummond putting some current affairs spin on Strike employability and then (like any good Defence industry insider....) running up a shopping list for which ever very senior lazy thinker reads WR for strategic advice...

It's fine as long as we also have all this other stuff we don't have?
 
That report said "only the UK {in Nato} doesnt have a Strike Brigade concept" in other words.

Is that true?

Why is this not a thread on its own?
Its not a report, its an opinion piece on Strike by some one who is ex army and works in the defence industry.

E2A: the UK only has Strike as it ditched its wheeled fleet but kept light inf numbers high for BANNER, screwed up MRAV/FRES back in the day, got distracted with HERRICK/TELIC UORs and then realised the piggy bank couldn't afford 2 new things (New wheels & tracks at Bde level), but could get a smaller pick and mix version - best* of both worlds.

*or worst if you accept economy of scale is valid
 
Last edited:
Indeed it does. I think the concern is whether that piece of paper will match reality if push comes to shove.

As you allude to, only if all 29 agree that 'such action as it (they) deem necessary' includes putting their own troops in harm's way. This has always been a concern of the 'new joiners', particularly those with a border with the Russian Federation. How many years since Georgia was touted as the next NATO member, and is effectively no closer because some in the club don't want an additional length of common border (among other concerns about Georgia).
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top