Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Repulse wrote:Looking at similar ships for other navies that could be good models for a new ship class for global RN Company level operations, IMO the Cheon Wang Bong-class of South Korea is very interesting.

- Capable of transporting 200 marines
- upto 3 LCM sized landing ships
- 8 large vehicles
- Range of 8,000nn
- Twin 40mm gun as a CIWS
- landing platform for two helicopters

Ok, no hangar but as the RUSI report said that this is less important, and if required could be provided OTH from a CVF or ASS.

Also, not just global operations- would also be good ships to move around the Norwegian Fjords as part of the NATO commitment to protect the Northern flank.

Image

Image

Add 3-4 to the fleet and combine with 2 Aviation Support Ships (similar to RFA Argus) and the 2 LPDs, then you have a solid amphibious force.

The Bays and Points are then allocated to the Army to transport the on call Strike Brigade.

Affordable? I’d say yes if the UK ambition and focus is CEPP, SBEPP (Strike Brigade Enabled Power Projection) rather than Divisional level operations and smaller operations delivered by SFs supported by RMs & Paras.
I don’t agree here, the lack of hanger is a big detrement IMO. It limits what the vessel on its own can do, do you really want to have to send your only active carrier to these when ever they need even slight aviation capabilities.

A hanger for helos and UAVs comes in handy in so many sercustances it’s almost daft not to have it. We have to remember the only reason the Albion’s today don’t have hangers is because penny pinching.

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 »

Rather than having to rely on LCUs and to some extent LCVPs to land the heavier equipment during an operation I would prefer to see a 21st century version of the Round Table LSTs, along the line of the rear ramp vessel mentioned above. With its ability to operate helicopters as well and also act as a ASS with the lift on the flight deck, these vessels could be the way forward for the level of operations that the Royal Marines are planning to move to. These vessels would be very flexible, with a multitude of peace time roles both civilian and military. The Bays would still provide the logistical support for operations and the Points would be tasked, as now, with bringing in more substantial Army replacements. The Royal Marines would of course retain their smaller craft and a number of the LCVPs whist could be carried on the decks of the LSTs and craned into and out of the water when a ship was not required to land on a beach itself during smaller scale operations. Helicopters form the CSG would "Lilly Pad" to the LSTs prior to launching an operation allowing the Carrier Group to remain far off shore.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Jake1992, The recent RUSI report’s view, which I share, is that having a hangar on a close-to-shore LSG vessel is not a must. However the importance of at least one Aviation Support Ship (like RFA Argus) can’t be understated. The flexible combination of ships will be key to the future strategy.

The recent RFA Argus+B2 River operations show that for a large number of scenarios a combination of an ASS plus a ship like I describe plus supporting frigates / patrol vessels is a strong capability. An appropriate level of helicopter lift can be provided at reasonable cost without a CVF.

Anything larger than a company operation, involving an Albion that needs more lift support will undoubtedly need a CVF to support.

Separating landing ships from aviation ships has long been the case for the RN, and I think this flexible “pick-n-mix” approach and ensuring vessels are capable to operate in the optimal location for an operation (e.g. close-to-shore or OTH) is a good one.
”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

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Jake1992 wrote:We have to remember the only reason the Albion’s today don’t have hangers is because penny pinching.
This and the fact they were to operate with the LPH HMS Ocean

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Tempest414 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:We have to remember the only reason the Albion’s today don’t have hangers is because penny pinching.
This and the fact they were to operate with the LPH HMS Ocean
With the loss of HMS ocean we’ve seen the weakness of that thinking though.
Planning a new vessel in the same way ( that it’ll mostly be part of a group ) will restrict not only what they can do but where and how we use the QEs.

I can’t think of a situation that an LPD type vessel would be used in where and hanger wouldn’t of good benefit.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Lord Jim, Having a joint Aviation and Logistics support role ship isn’t a bad idea - in some ways RFA Victoria goes towards this. A future “Amphibious Support Ship” which is RFA manned, capable of operating 6 Merlin sized helicopters plus offloading of stores / kit via a rear ramp isn’t a bad one. My only point is that it would be replicating a Argus / Bay combination we have today. And if we got some ships that are similar to those I’ve described the need is lower.
”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
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Jake1992 wrote:I can’t think of a situation that an LPD type vessel would be used in where and hanger wouldn’t of good benefit.
Sure, having a hanger can always be useful, but is it the best way to spend the money - having hangars and support crew is not cheap and takes up space / means the design is a compromise, reducing its capability in its primary role.

Both CVFs are capable of playing the Aviation Support Ship role Lilly-Padding from the LPDs, add in a couple of cheaper ASSs and a few smaller amphibious ships then we will end up with a flexible and more increased capability.

I’m strongly against LHDs for the RN as they would be a compromise based on fewer hulls - the complete opposite of what is required IMO.
”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

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Repulse wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:I can’t think of a situation that an LPD type vessel would be used in where and hanger wouldn’t of good benefit.
Sure, having a hanger can always be useful, but is it the best way to spend the money - having hangars and support crew is not cheap and takes up space / means the design is a compromise, reducing its capability in its primary role.

Both CVFs are capable of playing the Aviation Support Ship role Lilly-Padding from the LPDs, add in a couple of cheaper ASSs and a few smaller amphibious ships then we will end up with a flexible and more increased capability.

I’m strongly against LHDs for the RN as they would be a compromise based on fewer hulls - the complete opposite of what is required IMO.
A hanger doesn’t compromise the design or its main mission most modern western LPDs have hangers.

The most likely situation is we will only have one QE available at any one time, with no hangers on the other vessels this one flat top would be compromised in having to take all the task forces helos plus in its positioning to deliver that first wave.

The key thing for me though is their use out side of a large task force from smaller scale amphibious ops to literal control to HADR organic aviation is not just helpful but almost a must, we wouldn’t want to have to send our only carrier everything a few helos are needed would we ? It’s all about how each vessel can act individually not just as a large group.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote:I’m strongly against LHDs for the RN as they would be a compromise based on fewer hulls - the complete opposite of what is required IMO.
The RN is in the middle between the US navy that has 10 LHD/LHA's plus LPD/ LSD's and other navies that have 1 to 3 LHD/LPD's . At this time the UK has 1 active LPD , 3 LSD's plus Argus and Fort Vic that can be used for aviation support both able to carry 4 Helicopters.

For me I still maintain we need 1 more flat top a LHA or LPH and 3 LSD's capable of carrying up to 3 helicopters this said I am coming around to having 4 to 5 of the rear load LST's

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote: For me I still maintain we need 1 more flat top a LHA or LPH and 3 LSD's capable of carrying up to 3 helicopters this said I am coming around to having 4 to 5 of the rear load LST's
We have 3 LSDs that can operate a helicopter each - albeit a Wildcat in a temporary hanger. That is ok in my view.
Tempest414 wrote: plus Argus and Fort Vic that can be used for aviation support both able to carry 4 Helicopters.
Agree, and if this capability is retained and enhanced to say 6 Merlins (like Argus) then it will full the gap in a Navy that will be struggling for funds.
Jake1992 wrote:A hanger doesn’t compromise the design or its main mission most modern western LPDs have hangers.
But are not essential, especially as we will have 2 CVFs and I’m proposing two RFA ASS’s, the latter more than capable of covering HADR commitments.
”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

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 »

Tempest414 wrote:plus Argus and Fort Vic that can be used for aviation support both able to carry 4 Helicopters.
The value of this ( 8 in all) is often overlooked. Compare to HMS Ocean, off Libya, having an initial complement of three Apaches, bolstered by a fourth soon after and later a fifth. And three USMC CSAR helos (which birds could, if needed, fly back to their own "mothership" for maintenance and not place any burden on the use of the small-ish hangar.
- having those eight available, in a sustained way, was counted as a great success
- of course having only medium helos for use with our LPDs/LSDs is suboptimal compared to Chinooks, but the practicalities for having sustained use of Chinooks boil down to the carrier being their "base". Even Ocean's lifts could not take these bigger birds

The key weakness with all this is the nearing OSD for both of the "auxiliaries"
... so the 'band aid' will stop working (if the FSSs do not get bigger hangars than the fleet oilers; and they will also need to get ordered :( ). A small but important detail.
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)

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:...if the FSSs do not get bigger hangars than the fleet oilers; and they will also need to get ordered...
If CEPP is the name of the game, then the FSSs should not have large hangars as they will always be sailing with the CSG. Personally, I see no reason not to convert a couple of ships like they did with Argus - ok, they will not be optimally designed, but would be cheaper and also give work to a few yards in parallel to building new ships. A global recession might be an opportune time to buy them...
”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

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

I’m ok with the 3 - 4 (to be added to the Fleet). However I think we know that the so called “politicians” would see this as an opportunity to divest the RN of Albion/Bulwark and/or their replacement with 2 LHD’s.

With the number of Marines that can be carried limited to 200, would you send just this size force halfway around the World, that could not be reinforced in a timely fashion if the 200 should prove insufficient. I would rather send an LHD and deploy a detachment, knowing that I had “reserves on the spot”.

The costs of operating more vessels would increase the costs of deployment, as they a QEC close by.becomes essential. More escorts are required for a greater number of (less capable) vessels. If we retained Albion/Bulwark, they would almost certainly be tied up alongside and they would deteriorate and become unavailable even if they were required.

Regrettably, the only way to keep ships in the Fleet in the current Political/Financial environment is to do the best with what we have numbers wise and by Multi-Roleing. We do not have enough Carriers anyway (we should have 3), so the replacements for the LHAs need to be “Air Capable” and yes that does include being “F35 capable”, even if that is only planned as a contingency. That may in fact strengthen the argument for the acquisition of 3 x LHDs when Albion and Bulwark are replaced. :mrgreen:

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

If it was down to me I’d go with something along these lines.

First I’d cancel the T31s as they are and restart it with the aim being 5 Absalon style vessels. These would be able to do the current “frigate” work envisioned for the T31s while giving them a secondary small scale amphibious raiding capability along with making them more flexible in off board systems use.

When it comes to the main amphibious replacements on the 2030s I’d go down this route.
I’d be looking to get 5-6 LPDs / LSDs based on the same hull design of around the 200m by 30m Mark, similar one how the USN are doing with the San Antonio class and the LPX project.

This would be split in to 2 LPDs and 3-4 LSDs with them featuring something like this -
LPDs
- twin chinook / triple merlin flight deck
- twin chinook / 6 merlin hanger
- 4 x LCU size well dock
- 4 x LCVP size dividend
- similar sized vehicle deck to current Albion’s
- standard troop of 500 with room for over load

LSDs
- single chinook / double merlin flight deck
- single chinook / triple merlin hanger
- larger mid ship work deck with 2 x 50t crane
- 2 x LCU size well dock
- 4 x LCVP size dividend
- similar size vehicle deck to current Bays
- mexefloat on the side like with Bays
- standard troop 350 with room for over load

A mix of the above would give an over helo hanger capacity of 21-24 merlin / 7-8 chinook or a mix. It give up to 12-14 merlin / 7-8 chinook flight deck spots. This is greater than what we had with HMS Ocean while also allow protection and maintenance to the chinooks, its also greater than the current planned set up for a QE.

What’s key to this route for me though is it allow each vessel to be more capable individually so offering greater flexibility the the fleet as a whole while also not putting either of the QEs at risk.

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 »

Using the carriers in an amphibious role as LHAs is akin to the Army using the Ajax in the Shrike Brigades, it is a square peg in a round hole which the MoD is determined to make fit because it hasn't any other option.

I have mentioned this before, but in my mind the RN/RFA need a modular platform to replace the Albions and Bays, that can easily be reconfigured to operate as and Helicopter Carrier, Aviation Support & Training Ship, Littoral Support Vessels, Hospital, HADR Vessel, a well as transport and unload troops, supplies and heavy equipment in an austere port. The modules could be simply modified standard shipping containers with a few specialised mission modules. These sale vessels could ship these modules to other locations to allow vessels already deployed to be reconfigured in any friendly port if necessary. In their basic configuration they would most likely match the Bays in capability.

As for our preference for using the Chinook in these type of operation, it must be pointed out that these helicopters are not equipped for anything but very short term maritime operations, and if we wish to use them at sea for longer operations on a regular basis we are going to have to put the Chinook Fleets through a fairly intensive modernisation programme to make them fit for the role. The same also applies to the Apache by the way.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

The only way the MOD can use the QEC Carriers as both LPH and Strike Carrier, having one ship in each role continuously is: BY THE ACQUISITION OF A 3rd QEC! :mrgreen:

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: basic configuration they would most likely match the Bays in capability.
If you check back to the LSS thread, just doing that much more limited functionality required going a big step up in size from what we have in our Points (still with that same basic design).
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)

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Scimitar54 wrote:The only way the MOD can use the QEC Carriers as both LPH and Strike Carrier, having one ship in each role continuously is: BY THE ACQUISITION OF A 3rd QEC! :mrgreen:
But, in most case, only one of them is needed (Sierra Leone, Mali for LHA, Gulf war and Afgan for strike). Or, one ship can do both (Bosnia). I totally agree "3rd flat top" is good to have. But, it is not a thing RN now needs when buying such ship will mean banning other ships.

But contradictory, I also fell a cheap "3rd flat top" (like HMS Ocean) maybe of good use, even by banning LPD (if a few LSD remains). The LHA must not have F35B capability (even Argus-like orientation is OK), nor high-end self defense, of course no well-dock (will not be located near shore in war time). Two mexefloats with "steel beach" is good enough for peace-time HADR role.

Cheap, cheaper, cheapest is better.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

It is not about the RN having to choose this over that, It is about the Government providing adequate funding for the RN, rather than seriously underfunding it! :mrgreen:

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Scimitar54 wrote:The only way the MOD can use the QEC Carriers as both LPH and Strike Carrier, having one ship in each role continuously is: BY THE ACQUISITION OF A 3rd QEC! :mrgreen:
But, in most case, only one of them is needed (Sierra Leone, Mali for LHA, Gulf war and Afgan for strike). Or, one ship can do both (Bosnia). I totally agree "3rd flat top" is good to have. But, it is not a thing RN now needs when buying such ship will mean banning other ships.

But contradictory, I also fell a cheap "3rd flat top" (like HMS Ocean) maybe of good use, even by banning LPD (if a few LSD remains). The LHA must not have F35B capability (even Argus-like orientation is OK), nor high-end self defense, of course no well-dock (will not be located near shore in war time). Two mexefloats with "steel beach" is good enough for peace-time HADR role.

Cheap, cheaper, cheapest is better.
Could a RO-RO rear end work used like the points with mexefloats work on a LHA. As said I would like to see 220 x 40 meter LHA with say 8 landing spots and I think a RO-RO rear end could work well allowing the ship to load and unload kit at small ports fast or as said using a Mexefloat

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: But, it is not a thing RN now needs when buying such ship will mean banning other ships.
I’d put an Aviation Support Ship ahead of the T31 and a third new FSS; for a modest cost it balances the fleet of what we have and gives maximum flexibility. One option would be to build only two FSSs that are focused explicitly on CEPP, and keeping RFA Fort Victoria running for another 10 years, using the budget to convert another Argus replacement. Manning constraints in the RFA needs to be resolved also - so with keeping RFA Fort Victoria would allow both Wave class to be released and the 4 Tides allocated to sailing with the CSGs.

I know I will not persuade people to scrap the T31, but given the likely outcome that the only regular Frigate deployment outside of the CSG to be Kipion, and with the B2 Rivers covering the other bases, perhaps a delay in the T31 build should be considered before cutting anything else.
”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

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

So you obviously want to keep the T23 GPs running on for how much longer then? Maintenance, Refits and extra Crewing costs, not to mention the need to retain the headcount, when it is likely to be badly need elsewhere! :mrgreen:

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 »

Coastal Forces Squadron
- RB1s seem to be gaining in longevity
The establishment of the Overseas Patrol Squadron for the management of the Batch 2 River class points the no substitution of RB2s for the older ones in any time soon
- as the T31s will not be arriving any time soon

This 'holding pattern' could last out to 2026, when
1. CEPP ISD is due, and
2. T31s will start to enter service (not just be 'in water')
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
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

Repulse wrote:I’d put an Aviation Support Ship ahead of the T31
This is fixing the problem that doesn't exist. The Royal Navy is in the midst of an escort availability crisis, and at the same time it has more aviation capacity than it has had in decades.
@LandSharkUK

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Scimitar54 wrote:So you obviously want to keep the T23 GPs running on for how much longer then? Maintenance, Refits and extra Crewing costs, not to mention the need to retain the headcount, when it is likely to be badly need elsewhere! :mrgreen:
:D No. I’d scrap atleast 3 of them without delay. The future is forward based OPVs/Sloops/Corvettes with a Gulf based frigate, also roaming smaller amphibious ships; plus CEPP, TAPS/North Atlantic Frigate & FRE.

Personally, I’d go for 3 CEPP groups, 2 CSGs plus 1 Flexible ASW/Amphibious group based around a RFA Aviation Support Ship. With the Gulf based Frigate, I’d focus on 6 T45s and 10 T26s.
”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

Post Reply