Future RN Amphibious Shipping

[donald_of_tokyo]

But it means lots of automation which is very expensive

No it isn't, through life costs are lower, that's what's important, and leadership does recognise this.
If automation was expensive no one would be doing it. In reality everyone is doing it.

Yes, by applying automation, they will cut the manpower in place, naturally. Without doing it, the total cost will never be cheaper. This means the manpower for Albions will be reduced in its replacements, because MOD is spending a lot for the automation.

[marktigger]

part of the disappointment in argus was it was to stable as a training platform in many sea states.

Its been a very flexible ship being used for roles it wasn't really converted for it had never the infrastructer on board to support large numbers of people I have heard water and sewage have always been an issue. TBH like the LPD(A) Argus should be replaced with an LPH(A) that can still perform the PCRS role, Aircraft support and transport ship role.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Interesting idea, but is an argus replacement suitable for aviation support? Even in the 90's the RN was unhappy with the performance.

I am thinking to use Argus replacements to "support" the (even single deployed) CVF in helicopter support. For example, if the Argus replacement can carry 12 Merlin, I will ask the CVF to be "80% filled with the strike role" and to provide support for 4 Chinooks in the "20% left". If the Argus can only have 8 Merlins, the CVF "70% filled with strike role" will provide 6 Chinooks.

Of course, in a "happy 4 month a year", when the 2nd CVF is available, we can use it as an LPH, no problem. There is not much difference to locating America class 100 km from the landing point, and locating the 2nd CVF at the same distance.

[shark bait]

I don't think it will be available for those 4 month's, that really should be training and building up to readiness. I don't think an entire carrier can come out of rest straight into a deployment.

As for the argus replacement, how do we afford an auxiliary LPH capable of sustaining a helicopter fore in war, if you're so sure we can't afford LPH's to replace Albion?

[donald_of_tokyo]

I don't think it will be available for those 4 month's, that really should be training and building up to readiness. I don't think an entire carrier can come out of rest straight into a deployment.

Fair comment I agree. But, in Falkland war, RN did that. Sending 2 out of 2 LPDs and 2 out of 2 CVSs. So I think they will do it.

As for the argus replacement, how do we afford an auxiliary LPH capable of sustaining a helicopter fore in war, if you're so sure we can't afford LPH's to replace Albion?

I am talking about replacing RFA Argus, currently active. I have a bit confused about the hangar size of Argus. But some report says her hangar is BIGGER than those of Invincible CVS. So, yes, Argus can be a good helicopter carrier. On the other hand, I am not sure it can be a good LPH, because "carrying" helicopters and "operating" them are a bit different.

But, yes, I am proposing to use Argus and its replacements as a "moving hangar" to support the single CVF (if in the unhappy 8 months). Note it is RFA vessel, and never be a real "luxury" LPH. This means, no large commando hotel, no large arsenal for Apache nor commandos, and low level of self defense, and shall better be located a bit far. Maintenance activity can be supported by the CVF's crew.

Will it work? I am not sure, but to save the unhappy 8 months, I think it is worth thinking. Strongest point is that it is the Argus replacement. QE is Lusty replacement, PoW is Ocean. Argus is the "hope left". And if it is, it is NOW. (while the LHD discussion can be done 2-3 years later).

[donald_of_tokyo]

But it means lots of automation which is very expensive

No it isn't, through life costs are lower, that's what's important, and leadership does recognise this.
If automation was expensive no one would be doing it. In reality everyone is doing it.

Yes, by applying automation, they will cut the manpower in place, naturally. Without doing it, the total cost will never be cheaper. This means the manpower for Albions will be reduced in its replacements, because MOD is spending a lot for the automation.

Sorry, to add, for clarity. This means, saying automation for lean manning, and also saying using the Albion crews to man the 2 replacement vessel, DO need clear increase in resource. It added significant automation = expensive, while not releasing the man power cost = no change. This is why I say, automation is expensive.

[marktigger]

But, yes, I am proposing to use Argus and its replacements as a "moving hangar" to support the single CVF (if in the unhappy 8 months). Note it is RFA vessel, and never be a real "luxury" LPH. This means, no large commando hotel, no large arsenal for Apache nor commandos, and low level of self defense, and shall better be located a bit far. Maintenance activity can be supported by the CVF's crew.

Will it work? I am not sure, but to save the unhappy 8 months, I think it is worth thinking. Strongest point is that it is the Argus replacement. QE is Lusty replacement, PoW is Ocean. Argus is the "hope left". And if it is, it is NOW. (while the LHD discussion can be done 2-3 years later).

the problem with Argus is her other main role of PCRS which has major legal limitations on what she can/cannot do as well

[arfah]

............

[ArmChairCivvy]

, Merlin can deploy from there, and just make round trips between the LPDs/LPD(A)s and the land. For maintenance, they go back to CVF, 500 km away. CVF's hangar is ~3 times larger than Ocean (if we cut the elevator space), and using 1/3 of it for Commando operation helicopter is "not that bad".

Even Chinooks, and the 1/3 equals an Ocean as for vertical ops is exactly the point.

[ArmChairCivvy]

LHDs (except for light air strike). But, I have no confidence it can be cheaper than Albion (lean manned? But it means lots of automation which is very expensive). Neither I can imagine large resources allocated for amphibious fleet around 2030, almost "doubled" compared to what RN has now, to realize a fleet of 2 Canberra (even with light air strike?) and 4 Bay-like. It looks "fantasy" for me.

The original plan (2 SSS plus 3 Karel Doorman -lookalikes, plus the Bays for some proper docks, rather than just steel beaches, is starting to sound good to me)
- knock the first two into shape with commercial stds; always sailing with protection
- get the next 3 @ £300m apiece, like the Dutch did
- LEP the Bays to make them last

Just a snippet from another forum, how the last two classes are "kindred spirits" as for costs:
"the total cost of ownership is the best thing about it, its designed with a high level of automation in mind, so it can be sailed of a crew of only 102 for its regular tactical transport and replenishment at sea role.

This increases offcourse when its used in its sea basing role supporting amphibious operations."

I have my doubts, before I see the facts, about some sort of design "mongrel" emerging for the SSS role (with three of them, to do jobs of any kind arising).

[marktigger]

right so SSS ships are to supply the carrier battle group....could those vessels then be spared to land the cdo brigade and support the off load and be out supporting the CBG?

[ArmChairCivvy]

When the moon is in the 7th house, and Jupiter is in line with Mars
- yes!

[ArmChairCivvy]

... but I would not bet on it

There has been no mention so far that when one SSS is with the carrier, another one is probbly making the round trip to replenish... itself!

[shark bait]

The sea base element of the MARS program was suppose to support amphibious ops. However that element was dropped and merged with the solid support ship. We can only assume that requirement still exists, we have seen renders showing extensive aviation facilities, a RORO ramp and even a well deck.

Presumably once marines have been ferried from the Carrier they will need something to supply their equipment. There is no vehicle deck on the carriers so perhaps the SSS will have a vehicle deck to support marines after a landing and resupply.

[marktigger]

The sea base element of the MARS program was suppose to support amphibious ops. However that element was dropped and merged with the solid support ship. We can only assume that requirement still exists, we have seen renders showing extensive aviation facilities, a RORO ramp and even a well deck.

Presumably once marines have been ferried from the Carrier they will need something to supply their equipment. There is no vehicle deck on the carriers so perhaps the SSS will have a vehicle deck to support marines after a landing and resupply.

given the Carriers and their supporting ships won't be allowed anywhere near the beach head the whole idea of using the CVFs as an LPH and the SSS to support both the CBG and AAG is now being shown up for what it is total bollocks!

[marktigger]

^point class RORO modified as PCRS and HADR hippy ship

what happens if something goes wrong with a helicopter landing on? It ends up in the superstructure!

[R686]

I understand all of you talking about LHDs (except for light air strike). But, I have no confidence it can be cheaper than Albion (lean manned? But it means lots of automation which is very expensive). Neither I can imagine large resources allocated for amphibious fleet around 2030, almost "doubled" compared to what RN has now, to realize a fleet of 2 Canberra (even with light air strike?) and 4 Bay-like. It looks "fantasy" for me. It is better to discuss it AFTER we see the UKs economy go well or bad, CVF draining how many resources, as well as Successer, T26/31 and F35B itself.

.

Sorry Donald, I think your making a mountain out of a molehill.

Whilst the RN struggle for member, we are talking 20 odd years away a lot can happen by then. And I imagine they will get something between CBR and Wasp.

If the RAN can do it with 14000 reguler members I think the RN can also with 32000 plus

[shark bait]

given the Carriers and their supporting ships won't be allowed anywhere near the beach head the whole idea of using the CVFs as an LPH and the SSS to support both the CBG and AAG is now being shown up for what it is total bollocks!

Yes its is bollocks, the carriers should be well over the horizon from the landing.

It sounds like leadership intends to use the carriers to insert marines over the horizon, which I assume will need supplying once landed because they cant fly much equipment with them. The SSS is intended to help sustain an amphibious operation, which to me means supporting a force after the initial landing is completed by the Albion and aircraft.

what happens if something goes wrong with a helicopter landing on? It ends up in the superstructure!

Same thing that happens on any other platform.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The SSS is intended to help sustain an amphibious operation, which to me means supporting a force after the initial landing is completed by the Albion and aircraft.

Quite right, but let's not forget about the Bay's or it will be a v light force indeed (as for vehicles, artillery ...) as the secondwave, in between.

I am aware that the shapes in the SSS renders are quite different from Karel Doormans (which is a JSS):

http://marineschepen.nl/schepen/images/jss2.jpg

In the above image of the over 200m long ship you can see that all that's left for transfers over the beach (after superstructure and the RAS stations, that the SSS is not likely to have located that much forward) is:
- 2 Chinook sized landing spots (good)
- the steel beach (only one LCU at a time, and I wonder what sea state would cause a pause in operating it)

Then we have the Points, of course, but the discussion of how long it will take not just to take but also to clear a harbour can draw on a fairly recent example.

[shark bait]

The Dutch don't have carriers to support, so their solution will naturally look very different. It seems like a nice platform for them, but apparently they are not happy with all the compromise, and it's unlikely to achieve the high performance the Royal Navy will demand for supporting two huge carriers.

That being said if we could recreate some of the features, like the extensive aviation support and steel beach they could certainly help sustain an amphibious force.

• RE steel beach - could we not just drive vehicles straight off the back and have them self deploy?
• RE Point class - what conditions do they need to offload? I guess they arrive once a shore facility has been established? I have seen transferring to Mexeflote, but that needed very flat seas.

[ArmChairCivvy]

RE steel beach - could we not just drive vehicles straight off the back and have them self deploy?

That's something that is being done within the protective walls of a well dock, but again I wonder if it were to be done straight off the steel beach, how many would (in sea state x) keel over straight away, and self deploy to the bottom
- we could get some of the USMC AAV-7s with their better shape, more enclosed design and better boyonce reserve http://olive-drab.com/idphoto/id_photos_aav7.php but they might be a bit more of a tortoise on land than the ones the RM are now using

[seaspear]

There is certainly a convincing argument that amphibious shipping has to be multi role ,there could be an argument that to be effective a proposed ship would have to be larger than the Canberra class to have an effective amount of all the elements to be carried for deployment , perhaps something approaching Wasp class in size ,Im not suggesting a copy but certainly innovations that the Queen Elizabeth class have introduced to reduce manning levels could be looked at .
Certainly the main argument against this would be cost ,but if the ship is built to last it would be cheaper in the long term

[ArmChairCivvy]

@seaspear, very true! But after the Atlantic Conveyor effect (at least the Harriers had already been transferred to the carriers; how would the campaign have ended without that having been the sequence) I think the RN will handle the "all eggs in the same basket" situations very carefully.

I hope the examples I draw from Karel Doorman (because she exists and the size, manning and cost are all known and can be useful benchmarks) don't bore the folks around here, but you only get this much from a full-load displacement of "about 27,800t. It can carry 175 crew and 125 specialist personnel. It can also accommodate two operating theatres and a quarantine complex.

The vessel features a large helicopter flight deck to facilitate take-off and landing of two Chinook helicopters with fully spread blades or six medium weight helicopters with folded blades.

The vessel is also equipped with two davit-launched Landing Craft Vehicle Personnel (LCVP) units. It can carry 2,350m² roll-on roll-off cargo deck, 7,700m³ of fuel, 400m³ of fresh water and 1,000m³ of helicopter fuel. It is capable of transporting 5,000t of heavy rolling armoured materiel using a crane and lift."

I have in a simplistic way bolded the items for "land battle" and what is left for replenishing other ships (from the overall capacity) is in italics. I assume the hospital facilities can't be concurrent, but would need to be carried and then erected when some of the cargo has been put ashore.
- it is not that much; so for that reason alone a relook at having both sea-basing types and SSS types should be revisited. The mix (2+2?) can only be decided, within the RN overall budgetary parameters, when the designs are roughly known

[rec]

@seaspear, very true! But after the Atlantic Conveyor effect (at least the Harriers had already been transferred to the carriers; how would the campaign have ended without that having been the sequence) I think the RN will handle the "all eggs in the same basket" situations very carefully.

I hope the examples I draw from Karel Doorman (because she exists and the size, manning and cost are all known and can be useful benchmarks) don't bore the folks around here, but you only get this much from a full-load displacement of "about 27,800t. It can carry 175 crew and 125 specialist personnel. It can also accommodate two operating theatres and a quarantine complex.

The vessel features a large helicopter flight deck to facilitate take-off and landing of two Chinook helicopters with fully spread blades or six medium weight helicopters with folded blades.

The vessel is also equipped with two davit-launched Landing Craft Vehicle Personnel (LCVP) units. It can carry 2,350m² roll-on roll-off cargo deck, 7,700m³ of fuel, 400m³ of fresh water and 1,000m³ of helicopter fuel. It is capable of transporting 5,000t of heavy rolling armoured materiel using a crane and lift."

I have in a simplistic way bolded the items for "land battle" and what is left for replenishing other ships (from the overall capacity) is in italics. I assume the hospital facilities can't be concurrent, but would need to be carried and then erected when some of the cargo has been put ashore.
- it is not that much; so for that reason alone a relook at having both sea-basing types and SSS types should be revisited. The mix (2+2?) can only be decided, within the RN overall budgetary parameters, when the designs are roughly known

I think they would make an excellent Argus replacement, buy 2 (one with overseas aid budget as a hospital/disaster relief ship, and one as an Ocean/Argus replacement ie aviation training and LPD. Then eventuall replace the Bays with similar, and Albion and Bulwark with 2 LPHDs

[shark bait]

one with overseas aid budget

Strict rules against purchasing military equipment with the foreign aid budget. Rightly so too.

The base KD is excellent at nothing, it is a true jack of all trades.