Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

[Keithdwat579]

For landing craft replacement, I see the BMT Caimen designed ideal, if we want a modern like for like replacement.
Caimen 90 for LCU replacement.
Caimen 60 for LCVP replacement.
http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/bmt-design-port ... ing-craft/
they are definitely eying up this order, they put MK11 on the side of them in the graphics.

[Poiuytrewq]

When working with the designs of the Amphibious vessels it quickly becomes clear that 2 decisions are paramount.

1. Well dock or no Well Dock.

2. To install a hanger deck and associated lifts etc or not.

If the decision is no Well Dock and no hanger deck/lifts then the design should be relatively straightforward and space for the vehicle deck(s) will be maximised.

If the decision is to include a Well Dock, space on the vehicle deck will be reduced by a large percentage and build costs as well as operating and/or maintenance costs will also increase.

If the decision is to include a hanger deck the associated lifts etc will raise costs and the size of the vehicle deck will also decrease unless extra decks are added.

If the decision is to include both a Well Dock and a hanger deck with the associated lifts etc, the vehicle deck is again reduced by a large percentage and the overall height of the vessel with have to rise by at least 2 if not 3 decks. Consequently the costs also rise by a LOT.

Other considerations are how to get everything and everyone ashore.

Will LCU's, LCAC's, LCVP's and/or mexefloates be carried?
Will a CB90 capability be required in the future?
Will these craft be carried internally or externally?
How many Helicopters are required and how many Landing Spots?
Are deck cranes necessary and if so how many and with what SWL?
What will be the armament/radar specification?
CAMM?
Artisan?
How many Phalanx?
Is a medium calibre gun necessary?
What is the size of the EMF requirement?
Built to Naval or Commercial standards or a mixture of both?
Medical facilities?
C&C requirements?


Lots of options but in effect it is one big compromise especially when funds are limited. It's all a question of priorities.

Once the priorities have been balanced with the compromises it is then time to work out how big the vessel needs to be to fit it all in and what effect this will have on length, beam, speed, range and endurance.

I think most would agree that POW is not ideally suited to the LPH role and if Ocean is to be replaced in the future with an LPH or LHD what would this look like and how much would it cost?

BAE has a pretty straightforward design that certainly doesn't stretch the bounds of innovation but I suspect it would perform extremely well.

image.jpg

BAE Landing Helicopter Dock

Length: 210 metres
Breadth flight deck: 32 metres
Draught design: 6.3 metres
Displacement: 23,000 tonnes
Top speed: 22 knots
Range: 7,000 miles
Crew size: approx 300
Embarked forces: up to 800
Vehicle deck area: 2000 m2
Flying spots: 6 Merlin

Looking at the spec it isn't immediately clear were the compromises have been made here. This BAE LHD concept has 6 Merlin landing spots and a large EMF capacity very similar to Ocean but it also has a very respectable 2000sqm vehicle deck. It is 3 or 4 knots faster than Ocean or the Albions, has a decent range and endurance and can carry 4 LCU's in the Well Dock and 4 LCVP's in davits.

So where's the compromise?

The compromise is that this vessel although boasting a flight deck with 6 landing spots can only embark 6 Merlins with maintenance clearances That equates to hanger space of around 1000sqm minimum.

It's clear that the Ocean LPH design chose a different compromise and maximised hanger space in preference to a Well Dock and 4 LCU's.

I think this a good example of why some think most LHD's are trying to do too much. You can't have it both ways, compromises have to be made. Especially when considering that LHD's tend not to come cheap. I suspect if built to an Ocean type spec this BAE LHD concept would probably come in around £500m+. If built to full Naval standards it would be much closer to £1bn.


Here are the specs for Ocean and Albion for comparison.

Ocean LPH

Length: 203.4 metres
Breadth flight deck: 35 metres
Draught design: 6.6 metres
Displacement: 21,700 tonnes
Top speed: 19 knots
Range: 8,000 miles
Crew size: 285 + 206 aircrew
Embarked forces: 830
Vehicle deck area: 1000 m2 + 2200 m2 (hangar)
Flying spots: 6 Merlin

Albion LPD

Length: 176 metres
Breadth flight deck: 28.9 metres
Draught design: 7.1 metres
Displacement: 14,600 tonnes
Top speed: 18 knots
Range: 8,000 miles
Crew size: 325
Embarked forces: 305 + 405 overload
Vehicle deck area: 1000 m2 + 325 m2 (hangar)
Flying spots: 2 Merlin

I think the specs clearly show how good a design Ocean was (and still is) and also how well Ocean and the Albions complemented each other. It also shows how big a reduction in capacity occurs when a full size Well Dock is included in the design.

A good example of this is how much a vessel like the Patrol Bay 155 Concept can pack in if the Well Dock is deleted.

Patrol Bay 155 Mk2 (Low Threat)

image.jpg

Length: 155metres
Breadth flight deck: 27metres
Draught design: 5.8metres
Displacement: 10,500 tonnes
Top speed: 21knots
Range: 10,000miles @15knts
Crew size: 85 (core) Accomodation for 240
Embarked forces: 240
Vehicle deck area: 2250m2 + 950m2 (hangar)
Flying spots: 2 Chinook

For such a modestly sized vessel the vehicle deck area is impressive but that is simply down to removing the Well Dock and creating a second vehicle deck/storage under part of the flight deck. Although the hanger size is similar to the BAE LHD concept above the maximum helicopter load for a Patrol Bay 155 Mk2 is 4 Merlins and 2 Wildcat/Apaches.

I believe that this concept, in this configuration, if produced in numbers, could be built in the UK for £200m or less. A lot of capability for the money.

Getting the balance right when the Amphibious fleet starts to get replaced won't be easy and compromises will have to be made but in the end I suspect the biggest compromise of all will be a financial one.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Poiuytrewq-san, nice read!

Although I will happily omit well-dock from LHD and make it LPH, all the rationale is very nicely summarized. Thanks a lot.

A simple and only partly related question to all.

I think most would agree that POW is not ideally suited to the LPH role

I still do not understand this point.
- adding C&C is very easy.
- modifying to carry "Ocean equivalent" EMF is not that difficult.
- LCVP really needed? Other than HADR, I think there is no need.
- And if needed in HADR, why not simply carry it in the hangar or flight deck? I see almost no problem here.

Then what else makes PoW "not good" for 2ndary-LPH-role role?

Because it is very precious? Why you think PoW with 600 crew and 300 EMF, with 16 Merlin, is much more precious than a LPH with 250 crew and 300 EMF, with 16 Merlin? For me both is precious and will never place it near the shore. Therefore, I have no idea of using landing crafts in amphibious operations.

On HADR, yes, LCVP is needed. And it can be carried on decks. Better have a steel beach, which is lacking in PoW and I agree this is the only "drawback" of using PoW for LPH role.

[EDIT] IF RN get 1 LPH, then,
2/3 of the time, when the LPH is "ready", the LPH will do it. It is only in the 1/3 timing PoW will need to be used as a stop-gap-LPH. PoW will also be used as strike carrier in another 1/3 timing, when QLNZ is not ready for strike carrier task.

I see no big problem here. This is why I push a single LPH to be orders as a high priority around 2030s included in Albion and Bay (+Argus?) replacements.

[Tempest414]

the biggest thing is POW's passage way are not wide enough for troops too move around fully kitted up for ops the ship was not designed for this role. Can it carry out the LPH role yes but it has limitations.

I am a fan of LHDs however if the new B2 Bays had well dock big enough to take 2 LCUs each plus could carry 2 -4 LCVPs I would be happy with a slightly larger Ocean type design say 220 meters long deck width 38 meters able to carry 20 + helicopters - 4 LCVPs - 850 troops

[R686]

the biggest thing is POW's passage way are not wide enough for troops too move around fully kitted up for ops the ship was not designed for this role. Can it carry out the LPH role yes but it has limitations.

I am a fan of LHDs however if the new B2 Bays had well dock big enough to take 2 LCUs each plus could carry 2 -4 LCVPs I would be happy with a slightly larger Ocean type design say 220 meters long deck width 38 meters able to carry 20 + helicopters - 4 LCVPs - 850 troops

I thought that they modified POW so it can handle equipped troops, wider more sloped ladder wider hallways etc and QE was going to get the same mods in refit

[Tempest414]

movement of troops in POW was only one of the problems put forward in Dec 2017 by the CDC it was said that 2 fully kitted Marines ( i.e with bergens ) could not pass in passage way as they could on Ocean , Albions and Bays. So yes they can move in in POW as long as they are all going the same way and no one want to go the other

[Repulse]

I thought the LPH RM mods to POW never really happened as expected and the money is more focused on extending things such as helo spots on both CVFs?

If for most HADR operations, the main criteria is to be able to carry sufficient supplies, operate 3-4 Merlins, carry a small detachment of RMs and a couple of LCVPs, perhaps an additional FSS would be better?

We need a 3rd flattop for lots of things - keeping it cheap will be the key to getting it. For the Amphibious force focus on a couple of forward RM/SF platforms, plus a RFA fleet to move a Strike Brigade.

[Repulse]

Is it just me, or does the direction of travel for the UK Amphibious forces now is the same as what was being discussed before the last minute SDSR 2010 changes?

Could have saved a lot of money keeping the Harriers and Carrier Strike, the 4th Bay and not cutting the RN so deep...

[Poiuytrewq]

I think most would agree that POW is not ideally suited to the LPH role

I still do not understand this point.

HMS Prince of Wales could be the finest LPH in the world but also the most expensive. Why is the UK building an LPH for more than £3bn when the rest of the fleet is barely hanging together and further cuts will come without a financial injection in the near future? The decision has been made so as to keep POW in the fleet almost at any cost not because POW is perfectly suited to the LPH role.

I am in favour of keeping POW in the role it was initially designed for and I think the UK can afford both QE and POW without any difficulty even within current budget restrictions. The penalty for keeping both CVF's operational is to remove the LPH platform from the fleet. Is it ideal no, but it is better than selling or mothballing POW. Actually I think basing the Amphibious fleet around POW is not a bad idea but that's not the same as using POW in the LPH role.

Is it putting pressure on the rest of the fleet? Undoubtably.

Can the loss of Ocean be mitigated by adding enhanced aviation capabilities to the rest of the Amphibious fleet? Absolutely, and all within current budgets, even without building any new vessels.

Why you think PoW with 600 crew and 300 EMF, with 16 Merlin, is much more precious than a LPH with 250 crew and 300 EMF, with 16 Merlin?

I think this question almost answers itself, why the extra crew? Those extra 350 crew could ease a lot of the manning bottle-necks across the fleet.

...if the new B2 Bays had well dock big enough to take 2 LCUs each plus could carry 2 -4 LCVPs I would be happy with a slightly larger Ocean type design say 220 meters long deck width 38 meters able to carry 20 + helicopters - 4 LCVPs - 850 troops

Is this at the expense of Albion? So in effect 4x B2 Bays with a maximum of 8 LCU's and 8/16 LCVP's plus 8 mexefloates and another 4 LCVP's on the LPH?

If reconfigured in a different way by reducing the vehicle deck and extending hanger space the BAE LHD design looks like it would fit your LPH requirements fairly well if a F35 capability is not required.

So yes they can move in in POW as long as they are all going the same way and no one want to go the other

Hopefully one of the alterations made was a traffic light system to ensure the Royal Marine one-way system on POW works perfectly

[donald_of_tokyo]

HMS Prince of Wales could be the finest LPH in the world but also the most expensive. Why is the UK building an LPH for more than £3bn when the rest of the fleet is barely hanging together and further cuts will come without a financial injection in the near future? The decision has been made so as to keep POW in the fleet almost at any cost not because POW is perfectly suited to the LPH role.

I am in favour of keeping POW in the role it was initially designed for and I think the UK can afford both QE and POW without any difficulty even within current budget restrictions. The penalty for keeping both CVF's operational is to remove the LPH platform from the fleet. Is it ideal no, but it is better than selling or mothballing POW. Actually I think basing the Amphibious fleet around POW is not a bad idea but that's not the same as using POW in the LPH role.

Is it putting pressure on the rest of the fleet? Undoubtably.

Can the loss of Ocean be mitigated by adding enhanced aviation capabilities to the rest of the Amphibious fleet? Absolutely, and all within current budgets, even without building any new vessels.

Really? Timing is important in both heli-born and amphibious operations. As I think this two operations will go nearly independently, I think having an asset for heli-born operation, and another assets for amphibious operation may be better. And, PoW can do this perfectly, I think.

# Speed of Helos are so fast that "synchronization within a minute" with LCU/LCVP is very difficult. On the other hand, Heli-born operation must be synchronized within a minute, as I understand. And to do this, a single LPH must be better.

Note, I am not saying PoW can be used as a 65000t LPH in full manner. It's 65000t hull is there to cover carrier strike, when QNLZ is not available. Paired with ~30000t LPH, I ask PoW to just work as good as a ~30000t LPH, not more.

Why you think PoW with 600 crew and 300 EMF, with 16 Merlin, is much more precious than a LPH with 250 crew and 300 EMF, with 16 Merlin?

I think this question almost answers itself, why the extra crew? Those extra 350 crew could ease a lot of the manning bottle-necks across the fleet.

As stated above, there are no extra crew. I am just proposing to use the "back-up strike carrier" also as a "back-up LPH".

This is because there will never be 2 CV air wings, and therefore when QNLZ is "ready", PoW has nothing to do. Of course, not "nothing". PoW can work as ASW carrier and/or LPH, depending on the requirements. It may also work as a secondary F35B carrier, carrying ~12 "remaining" F35Bs.

[EDIT] I shall note that I still could not understand your (optimistic) costing estimation of Patrol Bays, Tactical Bays, and Strike Frigates. This could be the cause of our different conclusion. If assumption differs, naturally conclusion differs.

[jedibeeftrix]

Why is the UK building an LPH for more than £3bn when the rest of the fleet is barely hanging together and further cuts will come without a financial injection in the near future? The decision has been made so as to keep POW in the fleet almost at any cost not because POW is perfectly suited to the LPH role.

I am in favour of keeping POW in the role it was initially designed for and I think the UK can afford both QE and POW without any difficulty even within current budget restrictions. The penalty for keeping both CVF's operational is to remove the LPH platform from the fleet. Is it ideal no, but it is better than selling or mothballing POW. Actually I think basing the Amphibious fleet around POW is not a bad idea but that's not the same as using POW in the LPH role.

Agreed.

The effectiveness of amphibious operations is determined by the capacity to surge followed by the capacity to sustain.
volume of materials requires LCU followed by mexe.

If we're binning L(P/S/H)D's then lets just be honest, chop 3cdo down to a marine infantry regiment deployed in penny-packets on ships via helicopter or cb90. Personally, i think binning LCU's (and thus the marines as a combined-arms mobile force) is criminal foolishness, but that's just me.

Maybe we don't need four LCU spots on a future LHD as Albion:
Does the additional capability of the caimen90 over lcu10 make up for half the numbers when operating at twice the distance from shore?
Does a future LHD really need LCVP's, and would deleting them recover valuable space in the iron triangle of amphibs, i.e hanger/LIMs?

[Tempest414]

Is this at the expense of Albion? So in effect 4x B2 Bays with a maximum of 8 LCU's and 8/16 LCVP's plus 8 mexefloates and another 4 LCVP's on the LPH?

yes the LPH would replace Aldion . At this time the 1 Albion and 3 Bays can carry 7 LCU , 4 LCVP , 6 Mexeflotes or 4 LCU, 10 LCVP , 6 Mexeflotes so the mix above would be plus

[Poiuytrewq]

This is because there will never be 2 CV air wings, and therefore when QNLZ is "ready", PoW has nothing to do. Of course, not "nothing". PoW can work as ASW carrier and/or LPH, depending on the requirements. It may also work as a secondary F35B carrier, carrying ~12 "remaining" F35Bs.

This is really important. When POW is acting as LPH what else can be done on the F35 front without over crowding the flight deck? I don't think anyone knows the answer yet but I'm sure USN and USMC experience will be helping greatly.

If POW in the end focuses on the LPH role at least initially, what would the crew allocation actually need to be? A lot depends on this.

I shall note that I still could not understand your (optimistic) costing estimation of Patrol Bays, Tactical Bays, and Strike Frigates. This could be the cause of our different conclusion. If assumption differs, naturally conclusion differs.

At some point we will have to get to the bottom of this.

I will post all the info I can on the various concepts and we can have a go at hammering out agreed costings for each vessel.

[Poiuytrewq]

Is this at the expense of Albion? So in effect 4x B2 Bays with a maximum of 8 LCU's and 8/16 LCVP's plus 8 mexefloates and another 4 LCVP's on the LPH?

yes the LPH would replace Aldion . At this time the 1 Albion and 3 Bays can carry 7 LCU , 4 LCVP , 6 Mexeflotes or 4 LCU, 10 LCVP , 6 Mexeflotes so the mix above would be plus

Let's be clear from were we are today this would be a good outcome, possibly better than we can hope for with current planning especially considering the Bay in the Gulf should have been relieved by then with the next generation of MCMV's.

My concern is IF the force you propose had non strategically sensible cuts applied by a future Government we would basically move to a token Amphibious capability unable to act in an independent way without Allies.

Adding an Amphibious capability to the Patrol and Tier2 Escort vessels is my way of offsetting that risk.

[serge750]

I think saying one of the QEC as a backup LPH is a good analogy, "Overcrowding" the 4 acre flightdeck! the way I see it you get the RM etc in their slowish merlins/cchinocks, launch them to Lillly pad with the Albions or straight to the target, then launch the fast F35b ( that's been fuelled & armed on another part of the 4 acre deck well out of the way of the helicopters ) for CAS that will catch up the hellicopters before they are on target?

I do really like the BAE LHD design, fingers crossed in the 2030's to replace the Albions...

[Repulse]

Question: What would be the optimal / required RFA fleet to move a Strike Brigade (5,000 men, plus vehicles and stores) to a safe / secured port?

[shark bait]

the biggest thing is POW's passage way are not wide enough for troops too move around fully kitted up for ops the ship was not designed for this role

I feel this is a bit of a myth, all the pictures I've seene are of massive corridors on the carrier.

LCVP really needed? Other than HADR, I think there is no need.

At a basic level an amphibious commander wants to lay down as much mass as fast as possible before the enemy can counter attack. Adding landing craft doubles the rate people can be transferred.

After the marines are on the ground, those landing craft can then work with the bays to shift supplies quicker. More landing craft is a good thing, and if deployed like on HMS Ocean its possible with little penalty to flight ops.

[Aethulwulf]

Question: What would be the optimal / required RFA fleet to move a Strike Brigade (5,000 men, plus vehicles and stores) to a safe / secured port?

Four Point class ships, plus a comercial container ship, plus 18 trips from Voyager aircraft (or similar comercial charter). No RFA required.

[R686]

Could have saved a lot of money keeping the [ ], the 4th Bay and not cutting the RN so deep...

Nah, you really needed to cut that 4th bay Thank you

[R686]

Question: What would be the optimal / required RFA fleet to move a Strike Brigade (5,000 men, plus vehicles and stores) to a safe / secured port?

Four Point class ships, plus a comercial container ship, plus 18 trips from Voyager aircraft (or similar comercial charter). No RFA required.

could replace the points with 1 of these,

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... kr-300.htm

put it to work while not needed moving cars and heavy equipment

[Aethulwulf]

Question: What would be the optimal / required RFA fleet to move a Strike Brigade (5,000 men, plus vehicles and stores) to a safe / secured port?

Four Point class ships, plus a comercial container ship, plus 18 trips from Voyager aircraft (or similar comercial charter). No RFA required.

could replace the points with 1 of these,

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... kr-300.htm

put it to work while not needed moving cars and heavy equipment

The 4 Points were purchased by MOD under a 22-year PFI charter from Foreland Shipping, who own, operate and crew the ships, utilising them as merchantmen when they are not required for military service.

This contract expires in 2024.

While these 4 ships could be replaced with a single T-AKR 300, this may not be an advantage. The T-AKR 300 is about 100m longer than a Point. This might make it difficult to use Marchwood military port in the UK, or Mare Harbour in the Falklands, or many other ports around the world.

Also, replacing the 4 Points with a single ship would introduce a potential single point of failure. The loss of this one ship would be extremely disruptive for UK ops.

[R686]

[quote="Poiuytrewq"]
HMS Prince of Wales could be the finest LPH in the world but also the most expensive. Why is the UK building an LPH for more than £3bn when the rest of the fleet is barely hanging together and further cuts will come without a financial injection in the near future? The decision has been made so as to keep POW in the fleet almost at any cost not because POW is perfectly suited to the LPH role.
[quote]

And herein lies the problem under the current budget


[quote="Poiuytrewq"]
I am in favour of keeping POW in the role it was initially designed for and I think the UK can afford both QE and POW without any difficulty even within current budget restrictions. The penalty for keeping both CVF's operational is to remove the LPH platform from the fleet. Is it ideal no, but it is better than selling or mothballing POW. Actually I think basing the Amphibious fleet around POW is not a bad idea but that's not the same as using POW in the LPH role.
[quote]

Don't get me wrong id love for the UK to keep her in the intended role as she was designed Fleet Carrier. But we all know that once both ships have reached FOC its most likely she will be tied up while QE is the ready ship and comes in foe extended docking cycle


[quote="Poiuytrewq"]
Can the loss of Ocean be mitigated by adding enhanced aviation capabilities to the rest of the Amphibious fleet? Absolutely, and all within current budgets, even without building any new vessels.
[quote="Poiuytrewq"]

I agree as an interim until the Albion's and Bays are replaced a modified Point can provide some of that flexibility


[quote="Poiuytrewq"]
Those extra 350 crew could ease a lot of the manning bottle-necks across the fleet.
[quote="Poiuytrewq"]

Core crew requirements of the Queen Elizabeth class is 679 that certainly will make a difference

Don't get me wrong if you can keep both CV's plus the capability that the Albion's and Ocean brought to the party all well and good. but what happens when you singleton LPH needs to go into an extended docking cycle and the government is committed to only operating one CV at a time because of her expensive operating costs.

QECV have a crewing requirement of 679, the Canberra's have a core requirement of 358, there's your crew for 2x LHD with the exception of 37 members, Ocean and Albion has core crew of 610 combined.Standard troop accommodation for Canberra is 1046 Ocean and Albion combined was 1235. Combined both Ocean and Albion can move approx. the same amount of stores and light/heavy vehicles as Canberra. Aviation on Ocean was up to 18 rotary aircraft the same for Canberra.

What I'm getting at here is you don't need too cut your amphibious capability and your strike capability, 1 LHD provides 80% of your amphibious needs all the time whilst reducing cost of operating 3 ships, with prudent planning around 2x LHD and 1x CV you can have 2 ships available which becomes 80% amphibious capability and 100% strike, when the fleet carrier goes off line that strike capability reduces to around 40-50% while still retaining 80% of amphibious capability

[donald_of_tokyo]

LCVP really needed? Other than HADR, I think there is no need.

At a basic level an amphibious commander wants to lay down as much mass as fast as possible before the enemy can counter attack. Adding landing craft doubles the rate people can be transferred.
After the marines are on the ground, those landing craft can then work with the bays to shift supplies quicker. More landing craft is a good thing, and if deployed like on HMS Ocean its possible with little penalty to flight ops.

If so, I proposed to just carry 4 (or more) LCVPs on the flight deck or in the hangar. I think there is little problem here. LCVP on the flight deck is a penalty on light operations, but the flight deck itself is 4(?) times larger than that of Ocean.

[Repulse]

Question: What would be the optimal / required RFA fleet to move a Strike Brigade (5,000 men, plus vehicles and stores) to a safe / secured port?

Four Point class ships, plus a comercial container ship, plus 18 trips from Voyager aircraft (or similar comercial charter). No RFA required.

Probably the most likely scenario there is - I have no problem with this.

Would say that you’d want a force of Army Engineers and Soldiers to provide security and expand / start to build facilities also, which is where the RFA comes with the 3 Bays.

Initial air cover and helo lift can come from the supporting flat top and escorts.

Now with through that lense, why not have two or three “cheap” Ocean 2.0 LPHs doubled up as RM/SF platforms...

[Aethulwulf]

Question: What would be the optimal / required RFA fleet to move a Strike Brigade (5,000 men, plus vehicles and stores) to a safe / secured port?

Four Point class ships, plus a comercial container ship, plus 18 trips from Voyager aircraft (or similar comercial charter). No RFA required.

Probably the most likely scenario there is - I have no problem with this.

Would say that you’d want a force of Army Engineers and Soldiers to provide security and expand / start to build facilities also, which is where the RFA comes with the 3 Bays.

Initial air cover and helo lift can come from the supporting flat top and escorts.

Now with through that lense, why not have two or three “cheap” Ocean 2.0 LPHs doubled up as RM/SF platforms...

No. Yet again you are talking rubbish.

1. You said the port was safe and secure. No need for UK soldiers to provide security.

2. If the port already can be used to off load the Points, no need for extra facilities.

3. Air cover and helo lift will be flow in and operate from the same airfield as used by the Voyagers, or others if available.

4. SF will be flow in and operate from the same airfield as used by the Voyagers, or others if available.

This is a believable scenario, but requires host nation support.

This IS NOT amphibious assault.

But if you want to do something similar in hostile nation, then you would need to conduct a amphibious assault by a RM battlegroup (or two) on an lightly defended area. And then have the RM battlegroup move to take the Port by force (and airfield). And then bring in the Strike Brigade, in the Points, through the newly secure RoRo port.

The chances of being able to take and secure an enemy held RoRo port by a RM 'raiding party' are zero.

The first scenario is credible and believable, but not always. A friendly nation and port is not always going to be available.

The second scenario does not rely on a friendly nation. This is the type of scenario that future amphibious assault forces should be based around.

It is stupid to try to base amphibious assault forces around the first scenario. They are not needed in that scenario - which would falsely lead to thinking they are not needed for any scenario.