Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

I also see the current LSS as a stop gap. to provide a platform around which to form our initial forward deployed LSG and allow the capability to be further explored. For this a "Cheap" conversion will probably do but work on a specialised platform designed for this role must be begun at the same time. The list of capabilities required from this platform means ay conversion will be substantial and may mean that new build will have to be considered.

The future operating doctrine for the Royal Marines, and our whole future amphibious strategy will also require the replacement of the Albions and Bays together with the ship to shore connectors they will carry. These legacy platform were designed to be part of an integrated ARG with each having a distinctive role and the loss of HMS Ocean has unbalanced the forces structure. The replacement platforms will have to be a single class of flexible, possible modular platforms, able to act as a jack of all trades, whilst being cost effective. As always we will have to make do and work with what we have got until this happens but this will mean we will not be able to operate in this area as we aspire to.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: a "Cheap" conversion will probably do but work on a specialised platform designed for this role must be begun at the same time.
Yes, if we put together little snippets over the last year or so, the difference in time will be 10+ yrs
Lord Jim wrote: each having a distinctive role and the loss of HMS Ocean has unbalanced the forces structure
That is so true, and the fact that Ocean was "a single" class meant that 'now you see it; now you don't' which is a major difficulty for readiness planning
- if we get two (never mind them being 'jacks') then the minimum of helicoptering can be on the scene, early enough - even if flown in, rather than carried at all times - and importantly: independent of the carriers. One of those (at least) can steam in 'at its leisure' which would also conform with the need for calibrated escalation.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Lord Jim wrote: a "Cheap" conversion will probably do but work on a specialised platform designed for this role must be begun at the same time.
Yes, if we put together little snippets over the last year or so, the difference in time will be 10+ yrs
Lord Jim wrote: each having a distinctive role and the loss of HMS Ocean has unbalanced the forces structure
That is so true, and the fact that Ocean was "a single" class meant that 'now you see it; now you don't' which is a major difficulty for readiness planning
- if we get two (never mind them being 'jacks') then the minimum of helicoptering can be on the scene, early enough - even if flown in, rather than carried at all times - and importantly: independent of the carriers. One of those (at least) can steam in 'at its leisure' which would also conform with the need for calibrated escalation.
As much as I’d like it I just can’t see a LPH / LHD / LHA ( or two ) coming into service unless HMG really change the way they look at defence in that they lock in at a minimum percent of GDP by law then set out their goals and leave it to the force to determine what equipment is best needed with in the budget to achieve those goals.
No more of the PM or other politician deciding we get ride of ships or cut the number of MBT and so on.

For the reasons above I believe the safest option for the RN would be a class of 5 or 6 larger LPDs base on a common hull split in to two sub classes.
Sub class 1 would be 2 of the 5-6 having a large well dock, large flight deck ( twin chinook at least ) and large hanger ( 6 merlin odd )
Sub class 2 would be 3-4 of them would have a smaller well dock smaller hanger and flight deck than the above ( twin merlin deck triple merlin hanger ) but have a large reinforced work deck and great lane meterage.

This would give flexibility for single ops from raiding to small scale amphibious op to HADR while also allow them to form a larger group for the big ops. The only down side is it being a more difficult task in organising the flight op than if it was from a single ship.
I believe it’s the best route to take to regain the amphibious and aviation capabilities separate from the carrier while also protecting the carrier from any political driven cuts.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Jake1992 wrote:they lock in at a minimum percent of GDP by law then set out their goals and leave it to the force to determine what equipment is best needed with in the budget to achieve those goals.

That is what happens today. Min 2% gdp up To the services to propose force structure options that lives within that budget. Ministers sign off the preferred option.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

SW1 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:they lock in at a minimum percent of GDP by law then set out their goals and leave it to the force to determine what equipment is best needed with in the budget to achieve those goals.

That is what happens today. Min 2% gdp up To the services to propose force structure options that lives within that budget. Ministers sign off the preferred option.
The 2% minimum is not written in to law and could be changed at whim by the incumbent government or the next, it is much harder on the public front for a PM to say they will change the law to actively weaken UK defence. It also very easy at the moment for the government to add bits here and there to fill out that 2% as we saw in 2010, if a set perimeters was in law then the forces going forward could have much more confidence in long term planing.

Ministers and PMs have had far more say over that past 2 decades over what is done equipment wise than just signing off what the forces top brass put forward. We saw this with disposal of one of the Invincibles followed by the early pay off of the other two, we saw it with the sell of of the T22s and 3 T23s these were decisions made by politicians not the brass.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Jake1992 wrote:
SW1 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:they lock in at a minimum percent of GDP by law then set out their goals and leave it to the force to determine what equipment is best needed with in the budget to achieve those goals.

That is what happens today. Min 2% gdp up To the services to propose force structure options that lives within that budget. Ministers sign off the preferred option.
The 2% minimum is not written in to law and could be changed at whim by the incumbent government or the next, it is much harder on the public front for a PM to say they will change the law to actively weaken UK defence. It also very easy at the moment for the government to add bits here and there to fill out that 2% as we saw in 2010, if a set perimeters was in law then the forces going forward could have much more confidence in long term planing.

Ministers and PMs have had far more say over that past 2 decades over what is done equipment wise than just signing off what the forces top brass put forward. We saw this with disposal of one of the Invincibles followed by the early pay off of the other two, we saw it with the sell of of the T22s and 3 T23s these were decisions made by politicians not the brass.
The parameters are already set. There set out by NATO what can and can’t be included towards the 2% target that all parties in the UK are signed up to.

No the service chiefs put fwd a list of options to meet the budget requirement. The preferred options are signed off by the PM. The services lobby as they do (we all read the leaks for the soap box campaigns which is why support to military families, maintenance and support gets chopped rather than flashy new equipment)but ultimately if you can’t pay your bills something goes.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

SW1 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:
SW1 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:they lock in at a minimum percent of GDP by law then set out their goals and leave it to the force to determine what equipment is best needed with in the budget to achieve those goals.

That is what happens today. Min 2% gdp up To the services to propose force structure options that lives within that budget. Ministers sign off the preferred option.
The 2% minimum is not written in to law and could be changed at whim by the incumbent government or the next, it is much harder on the public front for a PM to say they will change the law to actively weaken UK defence. It also very easy at the moment for the government to add bits here and there to fill out that 2% as we saw in 2010, if a set perimeters was in law then the forces going forward could have much more confidence in long term planing.

Ministers and PMs have had far more say over that past 2 decades over what is done equipment wise than just signing off what the forces top brass put forward. We saw this with disposal of one of the Invincibles followed by the early pay off of the other two, we saw it with the sell of of the T22s and 3 T23s these were decisions made by politicians not the brass.
The parameters are already set. There set out by NATO what can and can’t be included towards the 2% target that all parties in the UK are signed up to.

No the service chiefs put fwd a list of options to meet the budget requirement. The preferred options are signed off by the PM. The services lobby as they do (we all read the leaks for the soap box campaigns which is why support to military families, maintenance and support gets chopped rather than flashy new equipment)but ultimately if you can’t pay your bills something goes.
Yes and what we choice out of those peramiters to include for the whole life of NATO changed at the whim of the 2010 government.

The budget before 2010 while less than the mid 90s was still stead compared to after 2010 the choice to sell 7 escorts and drop an carrier was political.

But my wider point was that I can’t see the RN getting a flat top or 2 for the amphibious force out of fear of risking the QEs that the politicians will just see flat tops.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Jake1992 wrote:
SW1 wrote: Yes and what we choice out of those peramiters to include for the whole life of NATO changed at the whim of the 2010 government.

The budget before 2010 while less than the mid 90s was still stead compared to after 2010 the choice to sell 7 escorts and drop an carrier was political.

But my wider point was that I can’t see the RN getting a flat top or 2 for the amphibious force out of fear of risking the QEs that the politicians will just see flat tops.
Or bringing us into line with the rest of NATO during a period of severe financial stress.

As that was the least worse choice for defence. The preferred option was to cancel the aircraft carrier program but contractually that proved impossible.

The past is not the future we know the budget will be 2% from here on. We need to budget accordingly with no consideration to achieving additional money thru “efficiency savings”

The amphibious forces have 2 flat tops already. The two carriers. If the intention is to assign 4 green merlin and a company of marines to the duty carrier that is about 40% of the deployable commando helicopter capability assigned.

It maybe that amphibious operations are simply not practical against a peer enemy and that there is funding assigned for amphibious operations against non peer enemy’s.

It may also be an option to consider that there is not a need for heavy stores to be transferred from ship to shore from over the horizon as that will only happen in a secondary role were a port or mexifloat maybe an adequate means.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

SW1 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:
SW1 wrote: Yes and what we choice out of those peramiters to include for the whole life of NATO changed at the whim of the 2010 government.

The budget before 2010 while less than the mid 90s was still stead compared to after 2010 the choice to sell 7 escorts and drop an carrier was political.

But my wider point was that I can’t see the RN getting a flat top or 2 for the amphibious force out of fear of risking the QEs that the politicians will just see flat tops.
Or bringing us into line with the rest of NATO during a period of severe financial stress.

As that was the least worse choice for defence. The preferred option was to cancel the aircraft carrier program but contractually that proved impossible.

The past is not the future we know the budget will be 2% from here on. We need to budget accordingly with no consideration to achieving additional money thru “efficiency savings”

The amphibious forces have 2 flat tops already. The two carriers. If the intention is to assign 4 green merlin and a company of marines to the duty carrier that is about 40% of the deployable commando helicopter capability assigned.

It maybe that amphibious operations are simply not practical against a peer enemy and that there is funding assigned for amphibious operations against non peer enemy’s.

It may also be an option to consider that there is not a need for heavy stores to be transferred from ship to shore from over the horizon as that will only happen in a secondary role were a port or mexifloat maybe an adequate means.
It was used as a smoke screen to avoid the appearance of large defence cuts as they could still give the sound bite of spending 2% while the average joe wouldn’t know that its was only around 1.6% if measured the same way as only couple of months before, but this is getting of the main point of my original comment.

My original comment was in respond to discussion on any future LPH / LHD / LHA in respond to the unbalancing of the current force structure left by the lose of Ocean. I put it forward that I believe it very unlikely the RN would go down this route out of fear of risking the QEs due to in politicians eyes flat tops are flat tops and are not seen as different.

The above is why I put forward the idea of a fleet of 5-6 LPD types based on a common hull split 2 assault and 3-4 logistic but all having organic aviation to allow individuals ops but also large scale aviation when coming together to free up the QE for strike.

I agree for the near future the QEs will be used in a swing role but I don’t believe this should be seen as a long term solution so again this is why I put forward what I mention above. It would free up the QEs from this obligation while also not putting them at risk as they will remain the only flat tops in the fleet.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

With the Political aspiration to have the UK return to the Far East and have forces permanently deployed forward on a far greater scale that that done at present, the Royal Navy is in a position to leverage greater resources. With Carrier Strike a work in progress and the Royal Marines being reconfigured and a need for additional assets, we could see in the next SDSR, the other two services having their resources cut.

The RAF could see the E-7 programme delayed for example and/or one of the two shadow Tranche 1 Typhoon squadron go. A halt could be put on orders for further F-35s until after 2030 could be another option or the Puma force being disbanded without replacement.

The Army could see programmes like the Challenger 2 modernisation cancelled and only the minimum number of Warriors upgraded to equip the Infantry Companies in the four Armoured Infantry Battalions, with other roles carried out by existing vehicles with little or no modification. Troop number could be cut or the Wildcat force sold or scraped.

So thing could look bright for the RN and its amphibious capability but the other two services will pay the price. It's just politics.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote:The RAF could see the E-7 programme delayed for example and/or one of the two shadow Tranche 1 Typhoon squadron go. A halt could be put on orders for further F-35s until after 2030 could be another option or the Puma force being disbanded without replacement.
The point you are making must be considered, but the above examples come across as a bit 'haphazard'. With the E-7 order it was acknowledged that the current AWACS planes are simply too expensive to keep uptodate... and which modern airforce could "afford" (not a money term) to delete the whole line item from "their inventory"?

The Tr1s are kept exactly for the reason of being able to slow down F-35 purchases. Sensible from both the money (year-to-year cash constraints) and maturity (VFM) points of view.

Gapping the Puma fleet might, however, be a realistic alternative as in that size class of rotorcraft technology is changing (er, progressing) at an incredible speed. So the argument could be to delay the replacement for something that is about to turn obsolete... with something that might very soon face obsolescense
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
Old RN
Member
Posts: 226
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:39
South Africa

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Old RN »

"..... or the Wildcat force sold or scraped...."

Is it ot more likely (useful?) that the Army Wildcats be transfered to the FAA?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Whilst the current equipment plan is clearly challenging and unaffordable without additional cash, the Future Royal Marines is as much about a statement of strategy and direction than an immediate need to replace kit wholesale.

A significant step could be taken by getting both LPDs in service (manpower costs I admit, @£50mn p.a.), chartering of 2 point type conversions (along with the Point refinance mid 2020s, again a relatively small cost) and ordering some additional fast craft (18 CB90s is approx £50mn) that could operate alongside the current LCVPs (keeping the LCUs mothballed).

What is more likely are things like the F35B order being cut at @60, and either the funds go into the F35A or more Tiffies being bought/maintained with the promise of “Tempest“ jam tomorrow.
”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

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Yes the examples I gave were a bit haphazard, but were simply shot at what could happen. Imaging the E-3s being retired and an extended capability gap put in place as the E-7 programme is delayed. Crew go the Australia to retain skills until 2030 at the earliest. With the Tr1 Typhoons, the RAF has to take a hit on squadron numbers and accept a reduction in size down to what was the accepted future strength not long ago of only a total of six fast jet squadrons. Remember there were press releases by the then RAF Chief saying how he was Ok with only six squadrons and could work with that number.

The recent cash injection barely allowed the MoD to tread water regardless to the Government championing its record on defence spending. Something is going to have to give moving forward and the Global Strategy and the role the Royal Marines are to have in this future means they and the RN/RFA are likely to be at the front of the line for funding meaning others will lose out. There are only finite resources out there.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Lord Jim wrote:Something is going to have to give moving forward and the Global Strategy and the role the Royal Marines are to have in this future means they and the RN/RFA are likely to be at the front of the line for funding meaning others will lose out
In what world does a global strategy mean more navy it’s the 21st century not the 19th. In fact I’ve yet to see defined what this “global” strategy is and how it differs from we’re currently doing other than it’s a catchy phrase for doing trade deals with individual countries post Brexit.

As for the marines yes if there heading for a more special forces styled role it means less not.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Well as far as the Government stands, "Global Strategy" seem to have a foundation based on forward deployed military assets in Bahrain and Singapore, comprising of Royal Navy and RFA vessels and contingents of Royal Marines up to Company size. To do this effectively and in a meaningful way, all three of these need additional investment period. We are not going to forward deploy RAF Squadrons or Army Regiments, but we will need to ensure we have the means to move these and support them, and in the case of the latter again investment in maritime assets needs to be maintained if not increased.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Lord Jim wrote:Well as far as the Government stands, "Global Strategy" seem to have a foundation based on forward deployed military assets in Bahrain and Singapore, comprising of Royal Navy and RFA vessels and contingents of Royal Marines up to Company size. To do this effectively and in a meaningful way, all three of these need additional investment period. We are not going to forward deploy RAF Squadrons or Army Regiments, but we will need to ensure we have the means to move these and support them, and in the case of the latter again investment in maritime assets needs to be maintained if not increased.
You mean not Like the army air corp and infantry battalion permanently stationed in the Far East and has been for decades.

Army and airforce assets permanently deployed in the south Atlantic.

Army battalions and airforce assets permanently deployed in the eastern Mediterranean.

Army assets permanently deployed in the Caribbean

And army assets semi permanently deployed in Africa.

Beyond the facility in Bahrain I haven’t seen any formal change to Gavin Williams hopes for new bases overseas. We are today globally engaged and always have been

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

The assets deployed in Brunei could be useful if properly supported but the are there to man the training centre and provide support to the local Government if called upon. As for the AAC assets those are a few leased Bell Helicopters, nothing much to write home about.

Yes there is a Company strength garrison in the Falklands backed up by a flight of Typhoons, but they are exactly that a garrison.

We do have a Battalion on Cyprus for contingencies in the area but again it is not supported. The aviation assets again are leased helicopters. Cyprus has major benefits for the UK in that it is an unsinkable aircraft carrier in the eastern Med.

And yes we have numerous trained teams deployed in Africa doing a good job.

None of the above is what the Government is aspiring to. Their aim is to have forward deployed combat forces that are balances and able to conduct operations from combat to peacekeeping. These are to based around Naval and Royal Marine contingents. So these need a base of operations. AS for assets the bare minimum will likely be;
Platform to move the Combat Troops from A to B.
Platform to carry the logistics to support the Troops and carry heavier equipment.
Platform(s) able to protect the above and provide a level of fire support to the Troops.
Platform to provide logistics to the above naval platforms.

So the will involve both FLSS, two Bays, Two T-31s and both Waves. Oh and don't forget this ties up almost a third of the available Royal Marines plus a number of the Merlin HC4s. This stretches the Royal Navy too thin, and impacts on how efficiently it can carry out its NATO commitments. More importantly it will work what assets we have too hard, causing in planned for wear and tear increasing support costs and reducing the service life of equipment we cannot afford to refurbish or replace under current plans and funding.

I have no doubt the Royal Navy and Royal Marines will perform to their usual high standard and deliver a level of capability beyond what should be expect given the assets available, but this will put a strain on men and machine that can only be maintained for a limited time period. We already have a procurement bow wave making the existing EP unaffordable, we do not want to worsen this by necessitating additional spending on new equipment through over working what we have. The Government needs to accept that it needs to spend more money now to increase the mass of the Royal Navy, both in ships and personnel. This means beginning programmes to bring into service Amphibious platforms and related assets that match up to their aspirations and the new operating doctrines of the branches now in the hope these will arrive in the latter part of the next decade.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Lord Jim

The brunei garrison was deployed to both Helmand and East Timor.

It remains to be seen exactly what the governments thinking is but there seems to be a lot of talk of intelligence, technology, space and not much on numbers and logistics so we will see if the next sdsr follows your interpretation of what a fwd deployed force should look like and what actually transpires given that budgets will not see any significant change.

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by inch »

It's all well and good I won't argue but just to say it's all down to which way people vote I'm thinking how it will go

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

SW1 wrote:The brunei garrison was deployed to both Helmand and East Timor.
Thanks for the info, you learn something new and wipe the egg from ones face all at the same time. :D

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by inch »

Just a very quick one but do folks think that we will end up with a trieste type lpd /LHD someday ,just been looking at its Trieste a handsome ship for sure ,the Italians should be rightly proud ,was kind of hoping we would get one one day also , replacement for Albion/bulwark

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

inch wrote:Just a very quick one but do folks think that we will end up with a trieste type lpd /LHD someday ,just been looking at its Trieste a handsome ship for sure ,the Italians should be rightly proud ,was kind of hoping we would get one one day also , replacement for Albion/bulwark
IMO it depends if the RN feel that it’d put the QEs at risk of political cuts. If not I think 2 of these plus 3-4 modern Bays would give us flexibility and force so could see it if the above isn’t a worry.
If they do fear political cuts to the QEs then can see 5-6 LPDs / LSDs based on one hull family.

I do agree it is a good looking ship and looks very capable. They are ineffecte a European version of the wasp class much more so than JC1 or Mistral.

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

Your right it definitely looks like a 2/3 scale modal of the wasp class LHA/LHD, also I think your bang on the money about the concern of the RN loosing a QEC if a large LHD was built, personally I prefer the look of the mistrals

Maybe a smaller LHD like the mistral could be pushed past the bean counters :thumbup:

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

serge750 wrote:Your right it definitely looks like a 2/3 scale modal of the wasp class LHA/LHD, also I think your bang on the money about the concern of the RN loosing a QEC if a large LHD was built, personally I prefer the look of the mistrals

Maybe a smaller LHD like the mistral could be pushed past the bean counters :thumbup:
I’d love 2 British version of the Trieste I think coupled with modern LSDs is what the RN needs but can’t see it happening.
I can see any LHDs risking the QEs bean counters will just see flat tops, I think a large LPD a British version of the San Antonio class would offer just as much as a Mistral with out the risk.
Iv mentioned up thread how a class of 5-6 of these of 2 different types based on the same hull would give the most flexibility along with the punch needed with out risking the QEs. The US are doing similar with the San Antonio class and the new LSD version based on the same hull LPX

Post Reply