The Royal Marines amphibious role ?

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
I don't remember Fallon mentioning this in his conference speech. Funny that.
 
I asked a question in another thread a few months ago about Trident replacement. It wasn't particularly well received. Fair enough as I'm not up on the technicalities (the question was could a lower-spec cruise missile system be a more moderate Trident replacement?)

Without wanting to simply whine on, surely the way these cuts are going there must come a point where the viability of a Trident-like capacity becomes unsustainable without cutting everything else? Our amph capacity would strike me as something that we should be prioritising...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Is this a real proposal, or are they offering something unpalatable so that whatever really happens won't seem so bad ?
 

Grok

Old-Salt
The RM's particular brand of amphib expertise - the kind that was hard won during the second world war and maintained through to the Falklands and beyond - would be a bugger to regain and work up again after breaking the continuity in skills and experience.

Are we heading for near-peer status with the likes of Sweden?
 
I asked a question in another thread a few months ago about Trident replacement. It wasn't particularly well received. Fair enough as I'm not up on the technicalities (the question was could a lower-spec cruise missile system be a more moderate Trident replacement?)

Without wanting to simply whine on, surely the way these cuts are going there must come a point where the viability of a Trident-like capacity becomes unsustainable without cutting everything else? Our amph capacity would strike me as something that we should be prioritising...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think the problem is the NHS not the forces.

UK needs to move away from that idea of free health care fast, no-one deserves free health care, sure some might need it, but the model needs to be based around people having to pay for it first and foremost.

Foreigners / immigrants or anyone coming in need insurance, no insurance, no entry, no access to the aircraft before it leaves the airport.

The NHS is ruining the UK, it needs a massive overhaul.

In my humble opinion.
 

Grok

Old-Salt
I think the problem is the NHS not the forces.

UK needs to move away from that idea of free health care fast, no-one deserves free health care, sure some might need it, but the model needs to be based around people having to pay for it first and foremost.

Foreigners / immigrants or anyone coming in need insurance, no insurance, no entry, no access to the aircraft before it leaves the airport.

The NHS is ruining the UK, it needs a massive overhaul.

In my humble opinion.
The NHS has for decades been deliberately undermined and sabotaged as prep for being declared unfit for purpose in order to be chopped up and sold off to the private sector.

Happened before in many countries accross many industries. It's a tried a tested model for transferring big and expensive public assets paid for by public taxes into private hands with the connivance of captured regulators and politicians.

If you're going to go after the NHS in order to save RM / Trident / CVF / Gurkhas / Loamshires then you may as well follow the money trail a bit further . . .
 

Yokel

LE
Is this a real proposal, or are they offering something unpalatable so that whatever really happens won't seem so bad ?
No idea - but one LPD is in so called Extended Readiness whilst the other is active.

I think the problem is the NHS not the forces.

UK needs to move away from that idea of free health care fast, no-one deserves free health care, sure some might need it, but the model needs to be based around people having to pay for it first and foremost.

Foreigners / immigrants or anyone coming in need insurance, no insurance, no entry, no access to the aircraft before it leaves the airport.

The NHS is ruining the UK, it needs a massive overhaul.

In my humble opinion.
Not free - that is impossible. Free at the point of delivery.

The RM's particular brand of amphib expertise - the kind that was hard won during the second world war and maintained through to the Falklands and beyond - would be a bugger to regain and work up again after breaking the continuity in skills and experience.

Are we heading for near-peer status with the likes of Sweden?
On Newsnight last night, Mark Urban suggested amphibious capabilities have not been used since 2003. So why have they spent so much time deployed?

@Guns
@A2_Matelot
@alfred_the_great
@Not a Boffin
 
I asked a question in another thread a few months ago about Trident replacement. It wasn't particularly well received. Fair enough as I'm not up on the technicalities (the question was could a lower-spec cruise missile system be a more moderate Trident replacement?)

Without wanting to simply whine on, surely the way these cuts are going there must come a point where the viability of a Trident-like capacity becomes unsustainable without cutting everything else? Our amph capacity would strike me as something that we should be prioritising...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You may be right in that
But the point that everyone tried to get across is that you go Trident or you don't bother - everything else will be just as expensive and less capable ( building our own nuclear cruise missiles ) or less expensive and less capable.

A part time deterrent isn't a deterrent.
 

riksavage

Old-Salt
Maybe it's time for Royal to reinvent itself. They have 'Commando' in the title, but are they really commandos in the historical sense of the word? Look at the Aussie and French model, they operate in smaller specialized teams. Strategic raiding by helo and/or small boats. Move to a SEAL team concept (1-5, leave DEVGROUP role to SBS).

Build 26/31e with large mission bays and room for long-range low observable fast boats and embark sizable Commando forces. Focus on strategic raiding by helo from QE class based on the littoral raiding mix already advocated by Andrew.

With today's risk-averse population do we seriously believe Joe-Public will tolerate the level of casualties associated with an opposed beach landing?

Make RM the waterborne/arctic equivalent of the SFSG. Ditch the Albion Class (keep the Bays), upgrade their training and kit.

Adapt or die!
 
We can also save money on parachutes then.


 

Grok

Old-Salt
Maybe it's time for Royal to reinvent itself. They have 'Commando' in the title, but are they really commandos in the historical sense of the word? Look at the Aussie and French model, they operate in smaller specialized teams. Strategic raiding by helo and/or small boats. Move to a SEAL team concept (1-5, leave DEVGROUP role to SBS).

Build 26/31e with large mission bays and room for long-range low observable fast boats and embark sizable Commando forces. Focus on strategic raiding by helo from QE class based on the littoral raiding mix already advocated by Andrew.

With today's risk-averse population do we seriously believe Joe-Public will tolerate the level of casualties associated with an opposed beach landing?

Make RM the waterborne/arctic equivalent of the SFSG. Ditch the Albion Class (keep the Bays), upgrade their training and kit.

Adapt or die!
Something like the Dutch marines then.
 

Yokel

LE
I like the way the usual suspects on PPRuNe etc have wasted no time in blaming the carriers - not Cameron for preventing the RN getting the manpower uplift of 1500 - 2000 bods at the time of SDSR 15!

Also surely when Albion and Bulwark were designed and ordered, it was assumed there would be a carrier for protection (air defence and ASW) and to provide lift as they have no hangar of their own.
 
Last edited:

Yokel

LE
Maybe this thread belongs in another forum?
 
A very sad day for all if this capability is lost and the inevitable decline of The Royal Marines.

One of a number of truly special capabilities that we retain and continue to expect and maintain high standards.

From a lay mans position, this all seems to have been caused by the catastrophic mis management of the 2 new aircraft carriers.
 

Yokel

LE
Nothing to do with being denied the number of personnel we need by politicians?
 
I asked a question in another thread a few months ago about Trident replacement. It wasn't particularly well received. Fair enough as I'm not up on the technicalities (the question was could a lower-spec cruise missile system be a more moderate Trident replacement?)

Without wanting to simply whine on, surely the way these cuts are going there must come a point where the viability of a Trident-like capacity becomes unsustainable without cutting everything else? Our amph capacity would strike me as something that we should be prioritising...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Does it not come from a completely different budget?
 

Blogg

LE
Nothing to do with being denied the number of personnel we need by politicians?
Small clue in the the article; since Albion and Bulwark cannot both be crewed at the same time so are used alternately, half way to scrapping them already.
 

W P

LE
Perhaps the Army's helicopters bods will go to the RAF, marines will find themselves transferred to the Army & the Army's mariners will become members of the Navy.

And then 25 years later it'll all be put back the way it was.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top