Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

[Lord Jim]

The RN operating its both its carriers at the same time will only happen when the First Sea Lord breaks the glass on the display case listed as "Only in time on national emergency".

[donald_of_tokyo]

The RN operating its both its carriers at the same time will only happen when the First Sea Lord breaks the glass on the display case listed as "Only in time on national emergency".

Agreed.
Although there will be only 6+8=14 hi-end escorts, there will also be only 2 CVs.

For example, we can attach 2 T45 and 2 T26 to each CV (leaving 2 T45 and 4 T26 for other tasks). When we cannot provide 2nd escort group, it means we cannot provide 2nd CV. If we provide 2nd CV (on surge), escorts will follow. And, after the deployment, RN will lack both CV and escorts to be deployed for several months.

Simple.

[Tempest414]

I feel you are both missing the point. Both UK carriers will be fully crewed meaning they can be deployed in rotation the limiting factors will be the escorts and the air-wing and given the importance of the carriers to NATO and other operations it can only make sense that NATO builds a carrier group around POW they could even pull the escorts from SNMG1 for 6 months of the year to form NATO Carrier group 1 for 6 months of the year meaning each carrier would deploy for 6 month with a 1 month work up also meaning 1 carrier would be in home waters / port at anyone time this a lined with the French Carrier would give NATO Europe more control of the Atlantic and Med

[donald_of_tokyo]

I feel you are both missing the point. Both UK carriers will be fully crewed meaning they can be deployed in rotation the limiting factors will be the escorts and the air-wing and given the importance of the carriers to NATO and other operations it can only make sense that NATO builds a carrier group around POW...

Sorry, I could not understand your point.
- 2 CVFs can be deployed in rotation = yes
- the limiting factors will be the escorts = why?

Even if we retain 2 T26s for TAPS, there are 6 T45 and 6 T26 in RN.
- When QNLZ is deploying with "2 T45 and 2 T26", the second CVF (PoW) is at rest. Also, the second-set of "2 T45 and 2 T26" will be at rest.
- PoW will deploy ~9 months layer, with the second-set of "2 T45 and 2 T26", and QNLZ is of course at rest with her set of "2 T45 and 2 T26".
- (as you can see, there are another set of 2 T45 and 2 T26, which can be used for other tasks. Also, there could be 5 T31s)

Deployment ratio is somewhere around 25%-33%, not only for escorts, but also for CVFs. Therefore, if 2 CVF can deploy at some pattern, their escort-sets can also deploy as well.

Am I missing something?

[Lord Jim]

In theory, yes we could deploy both carriers, but would we? As I jokingly put, it would only be in the worst case scenario like Russia totally losing the plot and crossing the border from north to south. It is the same as all four CASD platforms going to sea at once. Yes all four have crews etc, but if all four go to sea at once, all four are also down for maintenance at the same time later on.

[Scimitar54]

Deployment of two CSG will be theoretically possible for 4 months of the year, whilst maintaining an operational CSG all year round, subject of course to the availability of sufficient aircraft! Whether the "High Readiness" CSG will be alongside or at sea is another matter.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Deployment of two CSG will be theoretically possible for 4 months of the year

You seem to be close to the 1.4 carriers (on a moving 7-yr average) available - momentarily eg. for one year can be higher - but was wondering where you pulled the figure from?

Mine ( the 1.4) comes from a RAND report

[jedibeeftrix]

I think they were deemed to provide 17(?) months availability per year between the two of them (within the 7 year deep refit cycle).

p.s. on a separate note - i entirely disagree with:
1. Ditching LCP's and turning 3Cdo into comany strength boat raiders.
- They need to be able to deploy as an amphibious combined arms battlegroup
-- To support in a mobile way the strike brigade that has rolled off RFA lims, or, to seize the port that will allow the strike brigade to deploy
2. Keeping the carriers and by extension the RN locked into a N Atlantic role
- If Britain wishes to maintain an activist foreign policy in support of P5 membership then it needs to go where the action is
-- That means Carrier Task Groups regularly (every other year?) going east of Suez, so local actors know participation is more than smoke

[Tempest414]

I feel you are both missing the point. Both UK carriers will be fully crewed meaning they can be deployed in rotation the limiting factors will be the escorts and the air-wing and given the importance of the carriers to NATO and other operations it can only make sense that NATO builds a carrier group around POW...

Sorry, I could not understand your point.
- 2 CVFs can be deployed in rotation = yes
- the limiting factors will be the escorts = why?

Even if we retain 2 T26s for TAPS, there are 6 T45 and 6 T26 in RN.
- When QNLZ is deploying with "2 T45 and 2 T26", the second CVF (PoW) is at rest. Also, the second-set of "2 T45 and 2 T26" will be at rest.
- PoW will deploy ~9 months layer, with the second-set of "2 T45 and 2 T26", and QNLZ is of course at rest with her set of "2 T45 and 2 T26".
- (as you can see, there are another set of 2 T45 and 2 T26, which can be used for other tasks. Also, there could be 5 T31s)

Deployment ratio is somewhere around 25%-33%, not only for escorts, but also for CVFs. Therefore, if 2 CVF can deploy at some pattern, their escort-sets can also deploy as well.

Am I missing something?

If the type 31s were real escorts then yes you are bang on the two carriers could work with 2 & 2 type 45/26 leaving 9 other escorts to share the the other tasks. however with the 2 type 26s held back for TAPS that only really leaves 1 type 45 & 26 operating as the other 2 will be in the refit cycle and the type 31s are not high threat escorts meaning that we would have to step away from a number of NATO roles.

[Poiuytrewq]

Ditching LCP's and turning 3Cdo into comany strength boat raiders.

I agree but I would also add that it is highly likely that a short endurance littoral strike capability will be called upon much more often than a conventional large scale Amphibious Assault capability. The important thing will be to restructure the fleet so that RN has both capabilities if called upon. This restructuring will need to be pretty radical to maintain what Amphibious capability we have today (or had up until fairly recently) within an achievable cost envelope.

Keeping the carriers and by extension the RN locked into a N Atlantic role
- If Britain wishes to maintain an activist foreign policy in support of P5 membership then it needs to go where the action is
-- That means Carrier Task Groups regularly (every other year?) going east of Suez, so local actors know participation is more than smoke

I struggle to see how this is going to be possible without neglecting the North Atlantic which must be the UK's main priority?

If HMG really is serious about a larger footprint east of suez it will require more money. Is that going to be made available? If not it means cuts elsewhere.

Even properly policing the EEZ after Brexit is going to use up a lot more of RN's limited resources. Asking RN to do more with the same or less will lead to inevitable consequences, another blown budget and canceled programmes further down the line.

Obviously co-operating closely with Allies would be vital but how often are the French or Italians likely to send a carrier to the Asia Pacific region? Would it not be more sensible to rotate the European carriers between the Med and the North Atlantic (helping to relieve 1 USN CSG) with only occasional deployments to the Asia Pacific region? That would seem like a realistic approach for European defence cooperation.

image.jpg

If the extra funding to facilitate an increased UK presence in the Asia Pacific region was allocated, what would be the most cost effective way to achieve it? As a third QE class is highly unlikely the only realistic option is a very large LPH/LHD and the necessary escorts to go with it. In effect this would need to be either a mini QE class or something similar to an America Class if it's going to be F35 capable. It's clear major new funding would need to be allocated and it would result in a massive realignment of UK defence and foreign policy.

A mini 40,000t QE class would make a fantastic LPH and would be well suited to North Atlantic deployments if loaded with Merlins enabling QE and PoW to deploy elsewhere. I am not a fan of large LPH/LHD's for Amphibious operations but in this role I think a 21st century, F35 capable, modern Invincible class may have a role to play if HMG is going to get serious about the A-P region.

How likely is this?

Personally I think it's highly unlikely but it's worth highlighting that HMG cannot solve the North Atlantic problem, secure the EEZ after Brexit, maintain the standing commitments and increase the RN presence in the Asia Pacific in any meaningful way without a large increase in funding. It simply isn't credible for HMG to suggest otherwise.

[donald_of_tokyo]

If the type 31s were real escorts then yes you are bang on the two carriers could work with 2 & 2 type 45/26 leaving 9 other escorts to share the the other tasks. however with the 2 type 26s held back for TAPS that only really leaves 1 type 45 & 26 operating as the other 2 will be in the refit cycle and the type 31s are not high threat escorts meaning that we would have to step away from a number of NATO roles.

Agreed. As you proposed "2nd CVTF paired with NATO escort", I think you are already proposing for "(UK-escorts) step away from a number of NATO roles". In your proposal, "2nd CVTF" is defined as a NATO roles, and UK escort is not supporting it. What I said is, RN can support both CVFs, but it does not mean all other tasks can be met as now covered.

Deployment of two CSG will be theoretically possible for 4 months of the year

You seem to be close to the 1.4 carriers (on a moving 7-yr average) available - momentarily eg. for one year can be higher - but was wondering where you pulled the figure from?
Mine ( the 1.4) comes from a RAND report

"Available" and "can deploy" is far different. Generally, escorts are "available" for ~70% of the time, while they deploy only ~30% of the time. Remaining 40% is for training, port-visiting, short travels around Britain water, and so on. The "40%" is very important to keep up the skills, and keep the ship at top performance.

When it is about deployment, I understand 2 CVFs will provide "6-8 months deployment per year". (each 3-4 months per year = actually 6-8 months per 2 years).

As the averaged escort number deploying "far from Britain" in 2015-2016 was "3.7" hulls (with 19 hulls), the 14 hi-end escorts will provide only 2.7 hulls on average. In other words, if UK CVTF deploys with 4 hi-end-escorts 6 (or 8) months a year, there will be only 1.4 (or 0.2 !!) escorts deployed in the other 6 (or 4) months. So, as Tempest414-san says, UK-escort number will be quite limited.

However, contribution of a CVTF is much much higher than those from "two or three hi-end escorts", so NATO (including US) will be happy to cover the gap.

Where to deploy: They will go anywhere, as we see Albion steaming around East Asia, but I do not think it will be the routine deployment. As someone has suggested, providing 3 "European" CV (2 UK and 1 French), to relieve the USN's Atlantic fleet's CVNs to Pacific ocean, will be a good solution.

[Scimitar54]

A.C.C.

Same source I think! It was a long time ago ......... I rounded it down to a more useful, practical and descriptive "Whole Number". This also fits in with the (expected) Eight Month Deployments.

[Tempest414]

Agreed. As you proposed "2nd CVTF paired with NATO escort", I think you are already proposing for "(UK-escorts) step away from a number of NATO roles". In your proposal, "2nd CVTF" is defined as a NATO roles, and UK escort is not supporting it. What I said is, RN can support both CVFs, but it does not mean all other tasks can be met as now covered.

agreed what I also meant to say was we would have to step away from NATO and other tasks. I just feel if POW was to go to sea in the Atlantic with SNMG1 and a NATO air wing making it NATO Carrier group 1 when the carrier is at sea it could free up RN escorts for duties East of Suez

[donald_of_tokyo]

A.C.C.
Same source I think! It was a long time ago ......... I rounded it down to a more useful, practical and descriptive "Whole Number". This also fits in with the (expected) Eight Month Deployments.

I understand it means,
- 1 CV will be ready for 70% of the time = ~8 months of 1 year.
- With 2 CVs, this number means "in ~4 months of a year two CV is ready", and "in ~8 months of a year one CV is ready".
- Because "deployed" is nearly a half of a "ready", this number means, "~8 months of a year one CV will be deployed".

This means, there will be only 1 CV-Task-Force at any time in normal operations = 2 CVTFs will NOT be formed at the same time, other than in a case of surge.


P.S. Coming back to amphibious issues, this means if we have 1 LPH = the 3rd flat top, RN will be able to always keep 2 flat-tops (one for Strike and one for Amphibious) "ready", and always deploy one TF formed upon a flat top.

[Tempest414]

P.S. Coming back to amphibious issues, this means if we have 1 LPH = the 3rd flat top, RN will be able to always keep 2 flat-tops (one for Strike and one for Amphibious) "ready", and always deploy one TF formed upon a flat top.

This is what I feel is needed a new larger Ocean type LHP ( I would like HMS Glorious or Courageous) with a flight deck 230 meters by 38 meters beam 28,000 to 30,000 tons able to support 30 aircraft and 900 Marines. Add to this 4 new 200 meter long Batch 2 Bays able to deploy 450 Marines 2 Helicopters , 2 LCU and 2 LCVP and 5 new Point class to form the core of the Amphib group

[Lord Jim]

To operate within our means the UK needs to seriously consider returning to the how it prioritised its missions after its withdrawal from east of Suez. For all the Politicians love of the Expeditionary type warfare they have never funded it. Remember it mainly came about due to the need to find a role for the military after then cold war was won and the threat to Europe was seen to have gone away. As a result we elected to involve ourselves in Iraq and Afghanistan and now eyes are on the Asia Pacific region where it appears our allies cannon survive without a major commitment of UK forces.

The situation has changed quite dramatically though over the last decade or so, and there are far more pressing threats in our own backyard. They require the RN in particular, to rediscover its historical missions it carried out during the cold war. It is no longer fantasy to imagine Russia taking advantage of increased tensions in the AP region to undertake its own operations in the Baltic or northern area. This has been realised by many and NATO is beginning to take steps with regards to training and reorganisation but it needs forces committed to supporting these areas and the UK is the second biggest player in this region, especially with regards to naval matters. The size of out military means we can really only commit to one area of operations at any one time. The trouble the Army got into in Basra when its presence was reduced to enable to increases in Afghanistan are a lesson to be learned. The same goes for the counter to the Governments statements that the T-45 is twice as effective as the T-43 do we only need six of them, but a ship can only be in one place at any one time. The RN still has manning issues that mean we cannot operate all the warships we currently have at even a peacetime tempo let alone a wartime one.

We should not abandon the AP region but very careful consideration needs to be taken as to when we send force there and to their size. NATO must be out top priority including the UK's EEZ.

[jedibeeftrix]

Ditching LCP's and turning 3Cdo into comany strength boat raiders.

I agree but I would also add that it is highly likely that a short endurance littoral strike capability will be called upon much more often than a conventional large scale Amphibious Assault capability. The important thing will be to restructure the fleet so that RN has both capabilities if called upon. This restructuring will need to be pretty radical to maintain what Amphibious capability we have today (or had up until fairly recently) within an achievable cost envelope.

Keeping the carriers and by extension the RN locked into a N Atlantic role
- If Britain wishes to maintain an activist foreign policy in support of P5 membership then it needs to go where the action is
-- That means Carrier Task Groups regularly (every other year?) going east of Suez, so local actors know participation is more than smoke

I struggle to see how this is going to be possible without neglecting the North Atlantic which must be the UK's main priority?

If HMG really is serious about a larger footprint east of suez it will require more money. Is that going to be made available? If not it means cuts elsewhere.

Even properly policing the EEZ after Brexit is going to use up a lot more of RN's limited resources. Asking RN to do more with the same or less will lead to inevitable consequences, another blown budget and canceled programmes further down the line.

Obviously co-operating closely with Allies would be vital but how often are the French or Italians likely to send a carrier to the Asia Pacific region? Would it not be more sensible to rotate the European carriers between the Med and the North Atlantic (helping to relieve 1 USN CSG) with only occasional deployments to the Asia Pacific region? That would seem like a realistic approach for European defence cooperation.

image.jpg

If the extra funding to facilitate an increased UK presence in the Asia Pacific region was allocated, what would be the most cost effective way to achieve it? As a third QE class is highly unlikely the only realistic option is a very large LPH/LHD and the necessary escorts to go with it. In effect this would need to be either a mini QE class or something similar to an America Class if it's going to be F35 capable. It's clear major new funding would need to be allocated and it would result in a massive realignment of UK defence and foreign policy.

A mini 40,000t QE class would make a fantastic LPH and would be well suited to North Atlantic deployments if loaded with Merlins enabling QE and PoW to deploy elsewhere. I am not a fan of large LPH/LHD's for Amphibious operations but in this role I think a 21st century, F35 capable, modern Invincible class may have a role to play if HMG is going to get serious about the A-P region.

How likely is this?

Personally I think it's highly unlikely but it's worth highlighting that HMG cannot solve the North Atlantic problem, secure the EEZ after Brexit, maintain the standing commitments and increase the RN presence in the Asia Pacific in any meaningful way without a large increase in funding. It simply isn't credible for HMG to suggest otherwise.

The indo-pacific is non-negotiable for the UK and france:

https://henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-cont ... ic-WEB.pdf

http://isdp.eu/turning-tide-anglo-frenc ... o-pacific/

[ArmChairCivvy]

The indo-pacific is non-negotiable for the UK and france

Err, it is Henry Jackson Society,
but they set the scene right:

"GLOBAL BRITAIN IN THE INDO-PACIFIC

•
A Chinese grand strategy has emerged over the past decades, which sees
China is no longer a status-quo power, and instead has revealed itself
as a limited-aims challenger.
Due to insecurities caused by
the opaque
nature of China’s
domestic system and
grand strategy, regional and extra-
regional
states are beginning to align
in loose security groupings "

+

"A sort of Great Game 2.0
is in development, with
a number of new security
relationships developing over the past decade, including the Us - Japan-Australia
Trilateral and the India-Japan-US-
Australia Quadrilateral.

+

These alignments are
often built on the bedrock of traditional US
alliances but
link up states that had
previously weak security ties.
If
the Indo-
Pacific is
indeed
a new Great Game, the
stakes are impressive. The
Indian Ocean is rapidly becoming the world’s largest
energy trade route, with
50%
of the
world’s oil supply crossing the Indian Ocean "


And there we go: As the use of energy "superiority" is now a weapon in the professed US military strategy
... The EU (with or without the UK) lacks such a thing

Discuss!

[serge750]

If the manning issues etc could be budgeted for a third flat top would be great but I am still concerned that if we got 30k tonne type that is F35 capable that the bean counters would see it as a mini aircraft carrier proper ( like the Italian Cavour-which I do like a lot ) and try to cut one in the future...

I hope that in the 2030's when the Albions need replacing we would get a Bae/mistral type LHD, ( helicopter size lifts) maybe with a emergency landing spot for F35b in the ferry role if needed...could also use her as a ASW helicopter base if needed like hms ocean experimented with.

[shark bait]

Solution to that problem is build a helicopter carrier that is not F35 capable.

As soon as the fast jet requirement is added the cost doubles, so keep things simple and build another HMS Ocean. (Also simpler = greater chance of getting two)

[Repulse]

What is needed are 2-3 small Sea Control Carriers that can either self escort or operate with say a single T26. Primary role would be ASW/ASuW helo operations with limited F35B VTOL Air Defence, but secondary HADR, PCRS and Littoral RM roles - personally to maximise numbers id forego heavy lift (LCU) and just go for davit LCVPs and a steel beach, to maximise numbers. Each would have a level of AAW and ASuW defence.

[SW1]

I’m afraid this is fast moving to fantasy land. Any notion of LHDs and the like disappeared when the Rn committed to two 60k tonne aircraft carriers. It had a choice and it made it. Repeated announcements have underscored the tasks the RN have committed to, that is to deploy a carrier strike group and maintain a continuous at sea deterrent. The navy will fundamentally change its deployment schedule centred on a carrier group.

Any future amphibious capability will launch from their decks. Instead of worrying about future LHDs we need to worry about how we will crew and support the vessels we already have and how to get as many aircraft and helicopters on there decks because by any historical uk aircraft deployability measure the numbers we will generate from any current or projected future force structure the numbers will be small.

[Scimitar54]

Well those in SW1 had better fund the navy and manpower that we need and not the one that they are getting for an inadequate sum.

[SW1]

Scimitar

Then I would suggest that 38b pounds is far from an inadequate or trivial sum to spend annually on defence. There is also a marked difference between what we need for defence and what we wish we had.

[Scimitar54]

We are not responding to "Increasing Threat Levels" .......... That is inadequate and indefensible! Wake-up while there is still time