Ocean Class Helicopter Carrier (LPH) (1998-2018) (ex RN)

[abc123]

interesting both these sources state can operate F35 Joint Strike fighter and one of the sources is the builder!

Not without great extra cost.

IMG_20170420_123000.jpg

From The Australian Strategic Policy Institute Limited 2014

It's interesting how everybody somehow just skip the following section. And it's importance for the RN and her two QE-class carriers...

[marktigger]

is that as built as Juan Carlos I or as built as Canberra?

Given the Australiand have no plans to operate F35B it would be increasingly expensive for them.

And we have 2 carriers to operate them we don't need them to be capable.

the QE's need to be used for what thet were designed for and Albion replacement needs to be able to cover the spectrum of needs for landing troops. That is Landing craft fast or slow, Helicopters and Tilt rotors with apache.

Shark Bair you want to waste time and money on a system designed for second wave landings IE a modern Mulberry which is useless in the inital phases relying of 2 CVF to do everything else. I wonder how habital a CVF will be in the Assualt role with troops, F35's, Helicopters, vehcles all shoehorned in. I suspect not for any length of time. And totally impractical except you run both CVF simultaniously with out any refits or reserve periods!

[Jake1992]

Iv been saying for a while the best option for the RN here would be to look at decommissioning the Ablions slightly early say mid 2020s and replace themeith2 large LHDs.

I really like the Italian new LHD design

[shark bait]

is that as built as Juan Carlos I or as built as Canberra?

That is the direct cost to modify a single Canbera to operate the F35.

There are of course billion more in indirect costs, but that likely isnt applicable to the RN as an 'existing' operator.

Organic fixed wing air power at sea is a bloody expensive business. We need a big increase if an Ocean replacement is going to be F35 capable.

[marktigger]

is that as built as Juan Carlos I or as built as Canberra?

That is the direct cost to modify a single Canbera to operate the F35.

There are of course billion more in indirect costs, but that likely isnt applicable to the RN as an 'existing' operator.

so to modify from their original specifications will incur extra cost. As with everything. Remember the Canberra is a derivitive of the Juan Carlos and was built to australian spefications which only planned for operating helicopters. Just like th QE2 or POW would have incurred additional cost to convert them to Cat & Trap for F35C or to put a well deck in to make them an LHD.

[Jake1992]

If were talking about taking an off the shelf design instead of design our own replacement then would the new Italian LHD be the best fit for us ?

It's larger than the JC1 and Mistral designs capable of carrieing more troops more vehicles and more aircraft aswell as being F35B capable from the off set

All for around a planned £1bn a unit

[LordJim]

If and it is a big if, we replace the Albions with LHDs there is no way they would be built to operate F-35s except maybe strengthening the deck against exhaust damage, so the could be use for emergency recovery. This whole idea has to sit firmly in the Fantasy category of naval procurement. We would do well to get 2 LPDs with enlarged landing pads and hangers, say 2 spots and carrying 4 airframes.

[Jake1992]

Why would 2 LHDs be unrealistic ? The funds to replace the Albions will be there for the simple matter that an amphibious force will still be needed, and as many other nations are finding it is cheaper and more efficent to build large LHDs over large LPDs.
To have LPDs like you describe they would need to be comparable to the US San Antonio class witch is not a cheap platform.

Building LHDs will not only replace the capabilties provided by the Albions but also regain the capabilties lost from Ocean and free up the carriers to do what they were designed for. The RN will be clawing at the chance as argue tooth and nail that it will be better over all to put less expensive and prized vessels in harms way over the carriers

As for not making them F35B capable well that would be just shooting your self in the foot as it makes them less flexible.
Why are most other nation out there making their LHDs F35B capable ( Spain, Italy, USA, even the Aussies are looking in to it and the talk is that China's will be )

[shark bait]

2 LHDs is a realistic target.

• If they are two simple Mistral type that could be achieved on the same resources as today, and maybe get both into service properly.
• If they are two big F35 platforms that is a little unrealistic for the time being, requiring greater resources than we have now.
• Could another option be a single huge platform? that brings us to the three big flat tops we need.

[Jake1992]

But we are not talking about the rescues we have today really as the build of 2 such vessels would be in around 10 years time.
2 LHDs of mistral size would not give us the same capabilties as the Albions today as vehicle space would have to be sacrificed for hanger space ( they are quite small in LHD terms )

The problem I see with 1 very large platform ie something around the QE size is that you would not have that capability 100% of the time witch means you'd have to muddle in a QE to take its place ( not giving you the real capability needed ) and putting such a vital vessel in harms way

That's why for me 2 vessels such as JC1 or the new Italian design are the only real options as they would give you equal capability to 2 LPDs and 2 ocean size LPHs

[Clive F]

The closer the Ocean / Albion replacement looks to a "flat top"/ QE the more likely a politician is to cut it. Albions look nothing Like a flat top.

[Jake1992]

Yes the Albions look nothing like a flat top and they can't provide the air born lift ocean did for the amphibious operations

And I know the response will be well the QEs give a great air born lift they're doing oceans job, but as pointed out by a lot of people in the know having a QE do both role at the same time gives you the worse of each as well as both rolls needing the vessel in a different possion.

The simple fact is the QEs doing Ocean roll is a short term bodge, ocean will need replacing one way or another and from everything Iv read on it 2 LHDs replacing the Albions is the cheapest and most efficient way of doing it.

And just to remind people ocean wasn't the only LPH that the amphibious ops have lost lusty use to do the roll as well. So what really will need replacing is 2 LPDs and 2 LPHs

[marktigger]

2 LHDs is a realistic target.

• If they are two simple Mistral type that could be achieved on the same resources as today, and maybe get both into service properly.
• If they are two big F35 platforms that is a little unrealistic for the time being, requiring greater resources than we have now.
• Could another option be a single huge platform? that brings us to the three big flat tops we need.

I would agree with you about the F35 capability but could see it creep into the program.

I disagree about the Mistral basis, having seen a piece by an Australian navy source a while ago who wasn't impressed with the build quality of the Mistrals. As an off the shelf pruchase which I think we should go for with only minor changes currently the Juan Carlos I/Canberra design I think offers the best solution. No Doubt there will be other entries including from local designers/builders. So something better could be on the table by the time we hit that point. hopefully part of it will be Fast ship to shore craft and Osprey capable.

[Repulse]

If you get two LHDs, all that will happen is that one would be put in extended readiness. Having a large 3rd flat-top allows the UK to maximise the assets it already has for helicopter lift, and future F35B investment. It would also open the possibility of having 2 active at one time giving a broader global reach / influence.

[Jake1992]

The simple thing is when the Albions go their well docks will need replacing, so the so called 3rd flat top would need to a "super" LHD. The problem in that is that we won't have that well dock avalible 100% of time and the 2nd QE would need to take its place, that would be a big drop in what the amphibious group could do and mean putting 1 of only 2 capital ship in real harms way

The old set up was 2 flat tops as commando carrier and 2 as strike carriers, that is what's needed again to give 100% capability in CSG and ARG. 2 good size LHDs are the only way that can be achieved ( JC1, the new Italian design or one of our own )

If the LHD is made F35B capable that would give the ability for it to act as a carrier for limited time like the US or Spanish

[shark bait]

Or extra bay class, probably the best value platform's at our disposal.

[Digger22]

Its been reported that she is going to Brazil to replace their unreliable French Clemenceau thing. 80.3M Apparently. Not sure how old or reliable that news is though.

[Jake1992]

The bay class are very good vessels and an updated version when they go would be brill but as good as the bay's are their well docks are much smaller than the Albions ( only able to hold 1 lcu compared to 4 on the Albions I believe ) that's why a large LHD such as JC1 or our own design would be best as it would replace Albions well dock capacity almost like for like while also replacing ocean lift capacity like for like or better

[shark bait]

Bays have twice as much space for vehicles. Plus mexeflote. Plus 25% the price.

[Jake1992]

But a mexeflote is no good in getting vehicles or stores to the shore quickly things like pacscat are needed for that that unfortunately the bay's can't hold many of.

Don't get me wrong I think the bay's are great vessels but not what's needed to replace the Albions

[shark bait]

The last time we actually did that, 75% of the kit was transferred by mexeflote.

Have to challenge that last statement, there are other options for replacing the Albions beyond Canberra type platforms.

[R686]

Not without great extra cost.

IMG_20170420_123000.jpg

From The Australian Strategic Policy Institute Limited 2014

Yes the Canberra's do need minor additions to enable them to use F35B on a more permanent basis( both CBR& JC1 are comparable in both fuel and EO storage and below the flight deck, hotel service are different) , but that statement that you highlighted is also a reflection on the JC1 capabilty towards the Spanish ability to conduct CEPP, you have to remember these are not traditional aircraft carriers, they are amphiboius assualt ships first, strike carriers second.

From Navantia own website and the section in bold highlights this.

The ship as being designed with four mission profiles:

(1)AMPHIBIOUS SHIP: Capable of transporting a Marine Infantry Force to carry out landing , supporting operations on land.

(2)FORCE PROJECTION SHIP: Transporting forces of any army to a theatre of operations.

(3)AIRCRAFT CARRIER: A temporary platform for carrier-based naval aircraft, acting as a flight deck for strategic projection airborne vectors (Navy’s Air Wing), capable of becoming a temporary platform to substitute the aircraft-carrier, “PRINCIPE DE ASTURIAS”, when she is not available due to downtime (repairs, modifications, etc.).

(4)HUMANITARIAN AID OPERATIONS SHIP: NON-WAR operations, humanitarian assistance, evacuation of crisis areas, hospital ship in areas affected by natural disaster, etc.

[ArmChairCivvy]

they are amphiboius assualt ships first, strike carriers second.

Quite right; that's why the Spanish naming for them is "Intervention Ships".

[Repulse]

The last time we actually did that, 75% of the kit was transferred by mexeflote.

Have to challenge that last statement, there are other options for replacing the Albions beyond Canberra type platforms.

Completely agree. I'm refining my view slightly - I think the UK should focus on:

- "Commando Carriers" to kick the door in via air assault and secure a port / harbour
- Escorts / MHPCs to cleanse / secure the landing area
- RFAs to deliver the Army land force once all is secured

Buying another Bay would make sense as would a third "Commando Carrier" flattop (optimised for large scale helicopter ops). Scrap the LPDS.

[Jake1992]

I agree another bay would be great and maybe in there replacement try to push for 5 as originally planed.

The talk of a 3rd massive flat top ( 3rd QE ) would be very expensive, a QE is priced at £2.5bn surely for that amount we could get 2 large LHDs witch would give extra to any amphibious op