The Royal Navy, Royal Marines, US Navy, and US Marine Corps have committed to enhancing collaboration on littoral operations.

A Statement of Intent, signed at Admiralty House in Portsmouth Naval Base, sets the stage for increased cooperation in complex operations in coastal zones, ultimately improving both countries’ ability to execute land, sea, and air operations effectively.

This agreement will lead to increased joint training and deployments for sailors and marines, bolstering the UK and US’s already substantial capabilities and facilitating better collaboration between maritime forces.

The Statement of Intent falls under the scope of Delivering Combined Seapower, a dialogue initiated in 2016 between the two nations to establish and maintain close joint operations.

This latest development builds upon previous successes in areas such as counter-reconnaissance and littoral strike cooperation.

Lieutenant General David Furness, Deputy Commandant for Plans, Policy, and Operations at the US Marine Corps, and Vice Admiral Martin Connell, Second Sea Lord, signed the Statement of Intent.

You can read more here.

Avatar photo
Lisa has a degree in Media & Communication from Glasgow Caledonian University and works with industry news, sifting through press releases in addition to moderating website comments.
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

27 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins (@guest_715890)
1 year ago

I remember seeing this last year and managed to find it again.

I wonder if we will purchase a mobile platform for the NSM at some point further down the line.

USMC NMESIS And Naval Strike Missiles Logistics Explained
“The “tyranny of distance” problem in the United States Indo-Pacific Command (INDO-PACOM) region, dotted with numerous small islands, forms the basis of the U.S. Marine Corps’ (USMC) strategy of Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations (EABO) of establishing ad-hoc bases on land and sea and advancing from these temporary bases in a “leapfrog movement.”
LINK

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins (@guest_715891)
1 year ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

NMESIS Now
The Marine Corps must carefully consider how it will integrate its new weapon system to maximize its potential.

By First Lieutenant James Winnefeld, U.S. Marine Corps

LINK

Coll
Coll (@guest_716002)
1 year ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

I’ve wondered if a Supacat 600 or HMT LWR chassis could be used for rapid deployment of a SAM missiles system. Although, I’m not sure if A400m can carry sky sabre.

Blue Fuzz
Blue Fuzz (@guest_715912)
1 year ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

I’ve been thinking the same thing Nigel. Perhaps the L118 Light Guns of 29 Regt RA should be replaced with NSM – offering far greater range and the ability to strike both maritime and land targets from the land.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins (@guest_715915)
1 year ago
Reply to  Blue Fuzz

It would be even better to have both 😉

Blue Fuzz
Blue Fuzz (@guest_715917)
1 year ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

🤞🏻👍🏻

DFJ123
DFJ123 (@guest_715995)
1 year ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

We should form a new air-mobile artillery regiment that specialises in area denial. Put out a tender for a LIMAWS 2.0 project that includes a multirole launcher that can fire NSM, CAMM, GMLRS, Spear 3 or fit a 155mm cannon.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_715914)
1 year ago

It’s been brought up before. Wouldn’t 1-2 Canberra class LHDs to complement or replace some of the Albions, Argus and Bays to help with all these littoral requirements and the T32 program be brought forward? Even the T31 can just be well armed prior to T32.

John Clark
John Clark (@guest_715922)
1 year ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

I would have thought having a couple of Canberra class, with suitable reinforcement to carry F35B would be a great replacement for Albion and Bulwark, giving maximum platform flexibility. Alas, that would mean more than the handful of F35’s and transport Merlin’s we are procuring or already have. I think half the reason for the Commando Raider concept was a final move away from brigade level deployment and bin off most of the Amphibious fleet. I wouldn’t be surprised if Albion and Bulwark are not replaced, they just let the capacity dwindle away. There’s certainly no reason to believe they… Read more »

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_715931)
1 year ago
Reply to  John Clark

It’s agonizing & extemely irresponsable watching our core capabilities dwindle. Putin & Xi can only be delighted & emboldened seeing us butcher our abilities to intervene on the world stage. As an Island nation & permanent member of the security council we must have a stong amphibious capability. Perpetually whittling it away by design & neglect is demented. We’ve yet to see if the “growing the fleet” soundbite means actually reducing numbers & capabilities even further from already inadequate. The CCP seems to be going rogue simply declaring neighbouring areas Chinese territory & therefore an internal matter beyond comment by… Read more »

grizzler
grizzler (@guest_715947)
1 year ago
Reply to  Frank62

I doubt we will do much more (any) “intervention on the world stage” Afganistan was probabably a last hurrah (I use the word loosely).

John Clark
John Clark (@guest_715948)
1 year ago
Reply to  Frank62

Very well said, I totally agree. I’ve come to the conclusion that the political class of this country just don’t give a toss about defence, 30 years of cuts without let up have hollowed us out to the point of loosing any real ability to act unilaterally, we are only capable of the smallest of policing or military actions with no mass left to sustain effort for more than a few months. Like the rest of NATO, we are now utterly dependent on Uncle Sam as the guarantor of our defence. The RAF has basically got sufficient Typhoons to police… Read more »

David Barry
David Barry (@guest_716062)
1 year ago
Reply to  John Clark

What he said.

grizzler
grizzler (@guest_715946)
1 year ago
Reply to  John Clark

yep I bet we loved having Finland join- “what else does that allow us to cut “

John Clark
John Clark (@guest_715967)
1 year ago
Reply to  grizzler

It’s hard to see what’s left to cut really, nothing left to trim, meat has already been cut to the bone…

Only MBT’s and Amphibious capability.

Now tranche one Typhoons are going too, will that really leave the the RAF with four squadrons of Thypoons and one joint F35 squadron.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_715975)
1 year ago
Reply to  John Clark

John.

There are currently 8 front line fast jet Sqns, excluding OCUs.
As far as I’m aware 7 Typhoon Sqns will remain until more F35 Sqns stand up, despite T1 withdrawal.

The 2nd F35 Sqn makes 9.

If a 3rd F35 Sqn forms and even a 4th, which was the original aspiration, Typhoon Sqns might then drop to 5, and after further as Tempest, if it ever arrives, comes in.

John Clark
John Clark (@guest_715983)
1 year ago

Afternoon Daniele, Thanks for your clarification mate. It’s very hard to see how a force of 7 squadrons can be sustained with the loss of 30 airframes . I suppose I am assuming 12 airframes per squadron, perhaps it’s going to 8 or 9 in a slight of hand….. I find it incredible that the world is rapidly destabilising and the Government is effectively doing little better than nothing…. A vague promise of 2.5% GDP on defence, one day, perhaps, maybe. Labour is just as bad, no firm commitment. So what’s the plan, just threaten to nuke people, hard to… Read more »

Ron
Ron (@guest_716019)
1 year ago
Reply to  John Clark

Hi JC, I agree with everything that you say in relation to the Canberra class and the future use of the RMs. However, two or three Canberra class ships for the RN should not be used for the RMs but for battle groups from the British Army, one battle group per LHD with RM support either coming from the T32s (Damen Crossover type each with 120 RMs) and-or the Multi Role Support Ships each with 250 RMs. The Aussies use the LHDs in this way with 3 Brigade forming the Amphibious Force This Brigade would be larger than a normal… Read more »

John Clark
John Clark (@guest_716025)
1 year ago
Reply to  Ron

Great post Ron, before Russia took us back to the Future and decided to turn the clock back and fight the great patriotic war again ( the Russians being the Nazis this time), I had high hopes that we would start rebuilding expeditionary warfare capability again. I’m slightly jaded these days, I’ve realised all our politicians really don’t care, to a level I didn’t think was possible, but there it is, Europe is staring down the barrel of a short ass madman’s gun ( again), the situation in the Indo Pacific is getting worse by the day, but defence is… Read more »

Last edited 1 year ago by John Clark
Paul.P
Paul.P (@guest_717374)
1 year ago
Reply to  John Clark

Must be tempting to let the LPD capability fade away. You would free up 650 crew….

DFJ123
DFJ123 (@guest_715999)
1 year ago

I’m not sure if this is on topic but one I thing I really don’t understand is the new “Raiding” concept for the RM’s. It makes zero sense in a modern context where radars, drones etc make it impossible for surface vessels to stealthily approach coastlines and anti-ship missiles are so dangerous. The RM ships are hardly stealthy, they have the RCS of a skyscraper.

The only raiding that is going to get done, against anyone more capable than a bunch of pirates, is going to be done by the SBS from submarines.

BobA
BobA (@guest_716001)
1 year ago
Reply to  DFJ123

It’s because the RN has the budget for either Carrier Strike or Amphib – it actually offered up the RM as a saving for the last IR… but obviously couldn’t be seen to actually cut them!

So the compromise is Future Commando Force – which has a fraction of the actual cost of replacing amphibious shipping, and as a bonus looks really cool.

John Clark
John Clark (@guest_716026)
1 year ago
Reply to  BobA

Spot on…..

Basically a simple cut to end RM Brigade level operations, but hidden behind a shiny catchy new tag line, fancy new uniforms and new rifles….

We are going to be a bit part player from now on, increasingly sidelined in NATO, while countries like Poland step up to the bar.

I suppose it means the next ‘Tony Blair’ sort can’t get us involved in faraway never ending wars, if we have nothing to fight with….

Perhaps that’s a positive??

DFJ123
DFJ123 (@guest_716099)
1 year ago
Reply to  John Clark

Bit of a problem if Russia invades the High North or there’s a Falklands style situation.

John Clark
John Clark (@guest_716166)
1 year ago
Reply to  DFJ123

I totally agree, it’s a shame our politicians couldn’t give a toss…..

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_716280)
1 year ago
Reply to  John Clark

With you John and others here. Those that don’t give a toss should be “tossed out”! Somehow. The Ukraine/Russia conflict and other tension areas would definitely be focusing people’s minds, budgets and surely actual needed requirements. And Mr BW is still in the house and other like minded people. It’s can’t be all bad.