Jake1992 wrote:I agree another bay would be great and maybe in there replacement try to push for 5 as originally planed.
I'd agree with that, we should be looking to scale to shift a Army Strike Brigade via the RFA.
Jake1992 wrote: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
What is the point to have 2 LHDS when one would go straight into reserve. Also my point is that the UK needs to be more radical and focus on what it can be good at. What is the value of landing a few hundred troops to a beach via landing craft?
Whilst I would love the UK to afford a 3rd CVF, as it would maximise commonality, I'd say a 30k tonne version of HMS Ocean would be a good start - as would keeping the big One for another few years until a replacement is available.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston
The way I see is the point of 2 LHDs is that they would be operated in the same way the QES are planned to allowing us to have 1 commando carrier at all times and one strike carrier at all times.
Yes I get that when the 3rd flats top is in maintaince the 2nd QE would take its place, but if and amphibious op was to take place during that time it would mean putting a 70,000 super carrier in unacceptable harms way
I would take 2 are LPHs like you say 30,000tn ocean types but I do believe we need 4 flat tops in one form or another so as not to have to risk a a QE as it would would be seen as politically undo able.
I keep saying 2 LHDs over anything else as that would give us the best out come, it would give us the 4 flat tops allow 1 in each role at all times as well as replacing the lost well docks of the Albions
The problem is that LHDs are more expensive to build than more simple LPHs. I'd rather spend the additional money (both build and ongoing costs) to buying more escorts as there is no way the RN can support 4 task groups and even 3 (2 active) will require a significant focus of resources.
I'd also say that using a 70,000t carrier for a Commando Carrier is OK, as it can still be far offshore- my problem is when you try to combine a CVF and a LPD in the same group as it would mean that the CVF would need to be much closer to shore.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston
Repulse wrote:The problem is that LHDs are more expensive to build than more simple LPHs. I'd rather spend the additional money (both build and ongoing costs) to buying more escorts as there is no way the RN can support 4 task groups and even 3 (2 active) will require a significant focus of resources.
I'd also say that using a 70,000t carrier for a Commando Carrier is OK, as it can still be far offshore- my problem is when you try to combine a CVF and a LPD in the same group as it would mean that the CVF would need to be much closer to shore.
which is why using the CVF as a combined CVF LPH is a non starter to provide things like CAP the CVF will need to be in a different place much further out than a it needs to be as an LPH.
The LHD is a better compromise yes its more expensive than the likes of Albion but if the Albions had been built with a hanger of suficient size it would have negated the need to build a 3rd ship at even more cost.
Marktigger that is my point people keep saying using a CVF in that role is better as it is cheaper than building LHD but they neglect that for the operation to work efficently and properly it would have to be put in a possion of unacceptable danger or be kept well out the way slowing everything down and making the whole op harder to organise.
The other big problem I see with not replacing the Albions well dock and being reliant on the bay's ( as good as they are ) is that too would slow down the op as there would be less LCUs ( or there replacement ) to move heavy vehicles as store to shore.
That why I feel that the comparmise of 2 LHDs is the best way forward.
As for having 4 active groups, there wouldn't be as only 2 would be active at all times. The spare LHD and QE will only be active 40% of the time each and if done right won't be at the same time.
HMG said the spare QE when active would be use in or near UK waters for training, if maintinence is done right we could have a flat top for training 80% of the time, and as training would be done in UK waters or very close then it would not need a full task group escorts
Jake1992 wrote:Marktigger that is my point people keep saying using a CVF in that role is better as it is cheaper than building LHD but they neglect that for the operation to work efficently and properly it would have to be put in a possion of unacceptable danger or be kept well out the way slowing everything down and making the whole op harder to organise.
The other big problem I see with not replacing the Albions well dock and being reliant on the bay's ( as good as they are ) is that too would slow down the op as there would be less LCUs ( or there replacement ) to move heavy vehicles as store to shore.
That why I feel that the comparmise of 2 LHDs is the best way forward.
As for having 4 active groups, there wouldn't be as only 2 would be active at all times. The spare LHD and QE will only be active 40% of the time each and if done right won't be at the same time.
HMG said the spare QE when active would be use in or near UK waters for training, if maintinence is done right we could have a flat top for training 80% of the time, and as training would be done in UK waters or very close then it would not need a full task group escorts
Fully agreed.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…
are we imagining that that these future LHD's would still have a 2x2 dock (two wide, two deep), so that they would be able to surge operations at a similar velocity to an Albion?
success does seem to depend on the volume of material on the beach as a function of time, and the Bay's dock simply cannot achieve this.
i don't see why we couldn't keep a 2x2 dock while still permitting the facilities for "H" element, as presumably it would be a much bigger platform.
From what Iv read both the JC1/Canberra class and the Wasp class can accommodate 4 LCUs ( hopefully pacscat for us by then ) I believe that the new Italian design will be able to aswell.
I agree that the bay are good but are not able to put the amount of store or heaven vehicles needed for any reasonable amphibious op like the Albions can.
A lot of people thing because the bay's look lik LPDs they can do the same job to the same level, but for the RN they were designed to replace the LSTs and supplement the Albions not be used in there place
Jake1992 wrote:people keep saying using a CVF in that role is better as it is cheaper than building LHD but they neglect that for the operation to work efficently and properly it would have to be put in a possion of unacceptable danger
It would sit 100 miles over the horizon and be well out of the way of danger.
Jake1992 wrote:The other big problem I see with not replacing the Albions well dock and being reliant on the bay's ( as good as they are ) is that too would slow down the op as there would be less LCUs ( or there replacement ) to move heavy vehicles as store to shore.
Can move landing craft to theatre separately, or use self deploying vehicles.
There is no perfect solution here. The UK can't afford to do a proper job, so which ever route we choose will be full compromise.
marktigger wrote:which is why using the CVF as a combined CVF LPH is a non starter to provide things like CAP the CVF will need to be in a different place much further out than a it needs to be as an LPH.
Agree for significant conflicts, but the fact the CVF can act in either role is very useful.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston
There is limited money. Yes, I'd love to have the ability to deploy a division of Commandos over the beach, but we can't afford it. Having the ability to land a few hundred people over a beach may look nice but is pretty pointless.
I do not see a LSD as a LPD. In thier amphibious mode (they have other roles) I see them as primarily troop / equipment carrying RO/ROs landing in a port.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston
The only other thing I'd consider is adding 60t cranes to the Bays like HMNZS Canterbury to operate smaller LCMs- this purely for shiPhone to shore supply not assault.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston
Yes having the CVF that's act as LPH 100 miles away does take it out of the threat but in turn slows down the whole op and devides the amphibious force making organisation harder.
Having the CVF able to operate in both roles is s good bonus to the CVF but should not be used as an excuse for not properly providing adaquate equipment for the amphibious force. It has been done as short therm bodge that is why the CVFs were not design in that way from the off and are having to be moderfied.
Just accepting that we can't afford it right now is not good enough as a principle but also legally as we have over a dozen over sea territories that we have a legal obligation to protect. These same conversations were going on in the years prior to the Falklands, saying we havnt got the money do we really need to be able to put any reasonable force over a beach
Again, how are you going to operate LHD? To use her well-dock, you need to place it near the shore. If, placing 2nd CVF near (~50nm from) the shore is "risky", placing the LHDs near (~5 km from) the shore will be "unacceptable", I guess. The LHD is filled with 1000 RMs, many precious helicopters and its air crews, and everybody knows you never need to risk these air assets in such a location. It is huge, precious sitting duck (actually golden duck), easy to be hit from land.
# In other words, I cannot agree you can much more risk LHD with 1000 RM, much easier than 2nd CVF used for LPH.
Thus, the dock of LHD will be used only after the landing point is cleared.
Using LHD in harsh environment assumes,
- many LCACs are there, to locate LHDs "over the horizon".
- many LPD/LSDs are also there, to provide landing ship operation without risking the helicopter assets.
This is what the USN is doing. Yes, LHD is good for US, but not necessarily for others.
I believe French Mistrals are not considered to go on harsh condition. For peaceful landing, large LHD is the best tool, I agree. You can locate her 2-5 km from the shore, and enjoy efficient landing from both ships and helos. But for harsh condition, I see no merit there.
If RN can afford, 2 LHDs AND 2 LPDs, supported with 6 Bay-likes, it will be perfect solution. If the resource is not enough, I shall cut "D" from these LHDs, i.e. make it 2 LPHs. Further cut, I shall cut 2nd LPHs, preparing 3 flat tops including 2 CVFs. Further cut, I shall reduce 2 LPDs, because with this further cut, there is no hope RN/RM to have LCAC (nor PASCAT.)
So, my "minimum" = realistic landing fleet will be,
- one 35000t LPH
- 4 mod-Bays, 22000t FL, capable of carrying 2 LCUs (twice the well-dock of Bay) and 2 Mexefloats each
- for LCUs, I would prefer BMT Caimens which look low risk, simple and cheaper, but still much faster than current one.
Repulse wrote:There is limited money. Yes, I'd love to have the ability to deploy a division of Commandos over the beach, but we can't afford it. Having the ability to land a few hundred people over a beach may look nice but is pretty pointless.
I do not see a LSD as a LPD. In thier amphibious mode (they have other roles) I see them as primarily troop / equipment carrying RO/ROs landing in a port.
planners like to keep options open and a RoRo port facility isn't always acailable
When conducting a harsh amphibious op the tough choice has to be made of what to risk militarily and politically and risking a 35,000tn LHD would be seen as a better option to a 70,000tn super carrier flag ship.
You say to risk an LHD carrying 1000 marines is unacceptable but placing ocean in a similar place carrying over 800 marines is see as acceptable.
I agree if funding is there 2 LHDs 2 LPDs and 4 bay's would be perfect with out a doubt.
But with funding that could be there I still believe 2 LHDs are the best way forward giving us the best combination of capability.
I would go for 2 large LHDs and 4 modern bay class LSDs
I do like your idea of a class of enlarged bay style LSDs larger well dock and better aviation facilities.
On a side note with pacscat the LHDs and LSDs would be able to be put further out due to the speed that pacscat can travel at while carrying similar loads to the LCUs
donald_of_tokyo wrote:
So, my "minimum" = realistic landing fleet will be,
- one 35000t LPH
- 4 mod-Bays, 22000t FL, capable of carrying 2 LCUs (twice the well-dock of Bay) and 2 Mexefloats each
- for LCUs, I would prefer BMT Caimens which look low risk, simple and cheaper, but still much faster than current one.
I would Agree the RFA needs 4 modified Bay class modified like this:
Agreed. Both are good options.
If the JdW hull was slightly lengthened, would it make a good basis for a Dokdo-scale LPD (or even drop the dock for an LPH). WOuld that suit the UKs needs, or would the reduction in size outweigh the benefits of commonality of design?
Edit: Just saw Jake's post - looks like we are thinking along the same lines!
Edit 2: Just realised I'm having acronym problems today - meant to type Dokdo-scale LHD, not LPD above
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Again, how are you going to operate LHD? To use her well-dock, you need to place it near the shore. If, placing 2nd CVF near (~50nm from) the shore is "risky", placing the LHDs near (~5 km from) the shore will be "unacceptable", I guess. The LHD is filled with 1000 RMs, many precious helicopters and its air crews, and everybody knows you never need to risk these air assets in such a location. It is huge, precious sitting duck (actually golden duck), easy to be hit from land.
BOOM.
I agree, I have said this before, and it went unnoticed. We all recognise our QE carriers need to be placed over the horizon, but some how its acceptable to put other assault carriers within visual range of a hostile coast. It makes no sense.
I entirely agree with the rest of your observations too.
We are NOT going to storm ashore and seize an occupied hostile port, that is what the USMC is for. We will raid coastlines and land troop at a friendly or at worst an undefended enemy port like in GW2. I know there is/was a fad for expeditionary warfare, but the scale many allude to is way beyond us now. We need large protected transportation vessels, sort of a Bay/Ro-Ro hybrid, with a helicopter deck and hanger capacity. We will use the CVs for vertical lift for initial landings to put a defensive cordon around a landing site then bring things ashore, mainly by mexefloat The navy is getting its CVs, new escorts and the CASD. It will have a hard time asking for the money for LHDs. The Albions will be around for quite a while providing any lift for heavier equipment that cannot be air lifted in the limited quantities the RM need.
To sum up any assault by the RM is going to be company sized in the first wave, whether by sea or air. The maximum assault force will be a single Commando. Follow up forces will land over a beach or port using mexefloats or onto he docks. A CV operating as an LHA with 12 F-35 plus Chinooks and Merlins, plus an Albion and 2 Bays is enough for this size of operation. That is better than we had in the Falklands, especially when you factor in the assigned Ro-Ros we now have and that extra Bays could be made available as can the second Albion if he balloon really goes up.
Ocean has done a good job but defence priorities mean she will not be replaced nor will we get any dedicated LHAs or LHDs. In fact you are more likely to see raids launched from a T-26 or two
Are 12 F35Bs from a CVF really enough to provide air cover for the carrier group and the amphibious group at the same time as providing strikes over the beach/port or where it is were landing ??
As for we havnt got the funds for 2 LHDs well yes right now we havnt, but this wont be being done for another 10 - 13 odd years. That is far after the budget imbalance caused by the QEs will be sorted. The Albion replacement will be the next big project for the RN on a similar scale to the QEs
There is no CTF and ARG, it is going to be one or the other, and depending on which it is will determine the load out of the CV. As for funding, well all the services are going to be after funding. The RAF will want a UCAV as well as ensuring it get enough F-35s and replaces the E-3s and so on. The Army still need to reequip almost its entire AFV fleet, find a replacement for the SA80 and so on. An the Navy will want funds for the T-26 and T31 and Dreadnought class. This is just what they know they want and are needed, let alone what may turn up. Sorting out he amphibious fleet is going to be on the back burner for quite a long time say 2040 at the earliest unless we have to re invade the Baltics from the sea or retake the Philippines between now and then.
AFV program is progressing Warrior update is happening, Ajax is on its way its the wheeled AFV is the next program. Challenger will be around a while longer and so will AS90
