Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

[SW1]

Can anyone list the disadvantages of fitting permanent hangers to the Bay's?

Every other Enforcer derived design has permanent hangers, most capable of embarking 4 to 6 medium sized helicopters.

If we are right why has every other nation gone down a different route?

This the type of space I would add.

Full width and room for 6 Merlins or 6 Chinooks with rotors folded or 2 Chinooks with rotors unfolded.

image.jpg

image.jpg

For the Dutch vessels this is there primary means of deploying aviation assets at sea like our carriers. For the bay there primary mission is logistics with large cranes and work deck.

[ArmChairCivvy]

image.jpg, that is jpg2

I wonder how those dimensions would compare with
https://u0v052dm9wl3gxo0y3lx0u44wz-wpen ... oint-1.jpg using one of the two cargo handling openings on the Points - not the one under the bridge, as I would imagine that is for the main flow thru the levels and then out through the aft (when the crane is simply not lifting the containers stacked on the deck).
- even one Chinook rotors unfolded, and the other one behind it (folded, until the first bird has flow away, out of the way)

[Repulse]

Apparently the choice of the Enforcer design as a basis of the Bay Class was way in excess of the requirements - for example the well dock was an additional bonus.

Agree the Bays were primarily Logistics ships - fewer crew and optimised for carrying kit.

A new variant I’d argue should keep the same large flight deck with a better layout so to be able to operate two chinooks at the same time like the Albions.

[Poiuytrewq]

For the Dutch vessels this is there primary means of deploying aviation assets at sea like our carriers. For the bay there primary mission is logistics with large cranes and work deck.

Agreed, but due to the consolidation of the Amphibious fleet should the Bay's now have a wider role rather than purely logistical?

There are lots of ways to rebalance the fleet if the Bay's where relieved from APT(N) and Kipion and given a wider multipurpose role.

Could the Waves play a more important logistical support role by reducing fuel capacity and enlarging the space allocated for stores and vehicles?

Should the numbers of Point type vessels go back up to six to help further with logistics?

Could the third FSS ship be a more multi role vessel and incorporate some of Argus's role?

Should the replacement for Argus be more ambitious design with a joint logistics role?

Should the the T31's have a wider role with a design based more on the Absalon rather than the Iver Huitfeldt?

There are a multitude of ways forward but at a point when the FSS contracts are being awarded, a decision on an Argus replacement needs to be made and the future of the Waves appears to be hanging in the balance, this would seem like an ideal time to take a breath and establish if the current balance of the fleet is based on sound strategic logic or whether it's just what we have been left with after all the cuts.

I am not suggesting spending a load of money but the assets we have now or are about to receive will have to produce the goods through to at least the 2030's.

[Poiuytrewq]

image.jpg, that is jpg2

I wonder how those dimensions would compare with
https://u0v052dm9wl3gxo0y3lx0u44wz-wpen ... oint-1.jpg using one of the two cargo handling openings - not the one under the bridge, as I would imagine that is for the main flow thru the levels and then out through the aft (when the crane is simply not lifting the containers stacked on the deck).

They are very similar. The Point class has massive potential for adaptation. The biggest drawback with the current design is the lack of accommodation for the flight crews if the aviation capacity was increased.

Of course increasing capability increases costs but if a couple of commercially sourced replacements for the Caribbean and Gulf deployments were to be authorised then an adapted Point class would be top of my list. The amount of untapped potential in the Point design is impressive.

[SW1]

For the Dutch vessels this is there primary means of deploying aviation assets at sea like our carriers. For the bay there primary mission is logistics with large cranes and work deck.

Agreed, but due to the consolidation of the Amphibious fleet should the Bay's now have a wider role rather than purely logistical?

There are lots of ways to rebalance the fleet if the Bay's where relieved from APT(N) and Kipion and given a wider multipurpose role.

Could the Waves play a more important logistical support role by reducing fuel capacity and enlarging the space allocated for stores and vehicles?

Should the numbers of Point type vessels go back up to six to help further with logistics?

Could the third FSS ship be a more multi role vessel and incorporate some of Argus's role?

Should the replacement for Argus be more ambitious design with a joint logistics role?

Should the the T31's have a wider role with a design based more on the Absalon rather than the Iver Huitfeldt?

There are a multitude of ways forward but at a point when the FSS contracts are being awarded, a decision on an Argus replacement needs to be made and the future of the Waves appears to be hanging in the balance, this would seem like an ideal time to take a breath and establish if the current balance of the fleet is based on sound strategic logic or whether it's just what we have been left with after all the cuts.

I am not suggesting spending a load of money but the assets we have now or are about to receive will have to produce the goods through to at least the 2030's.

My ideas for this maybe far to radical and classed as fantasy and the thread would be shut down, I don’t believe it should exist in anything like it current configuration or size, we’ve become a mini me us mairnes sea borne infantry the marines need to go back to there roots they need be commandos again.

[Poiuytrewq]

My ideas for this maybe far to radical and classed as fantasy and the thread would be shut down, I don’t believe it should exist in anything like it current configuration or size, we’ve become a mini me us mairnes sea borne infantry the marines need to go back to there roots they need be commandos again.

Care to elaborate? Genuinely interested.

[SW1]

My ideas for this maybe far to radical and classed as fantasy and the thread would be shut down, I don’t believe it should exist in anything like it current configuration or size, we’ve become a mini me us mairnes sea borne infantry the marines need to go back to there roots they need be commandos again.

Care to elaborate? Genuinely interested.

Purely due to cash constraints I say we keep the 2 Albion’s and 3 bays and leave a 5 ship replacement to later. The vessels are refitted to become fwd deployed crisis response command ships. The marines go back to ww2 esq independent commando company’s 8 off and move under the command of director special forces. The idea to conduct low profile, martime and riverine security tasks against assymetric forces, offensive gurellia warfare and counter anti access operations. Cuts would need to be made elsewhere to pay for the move up the sophistication scale. We would no longer do over the beach landings.

[Repulse]

Poiuytrewq, your point about getting balance with what we have now and will be ordering in the near future is a key one. Another is number of ships that are currently laid up due to lack of resources.

My thoughts are that we should question anything in reserve that cannot be made useful in 3 months or less. If we can’t afford to man it and keep it ready for active service probably means we can’t afford it and any money put in is a waste.

Could it be within the current budget the RFA is too big. Would by dropping a FSS and 2 Wave Tankers ensure that all other ships are manned and maintained?

Would increasing the Points back to 6 allow the kit for a Strike Brigade to be quickly moved to mainland Europe without drawing on assets that would be needed to strengthen the northern flank or be globally deployed elsewhere?

Dropping a Bay and moving both LPDs to the RFA and free up funds for a third flattop would be my ideal - this would need some injection of cash but still would be worth it IMO.

[Lord Jim]

Those are some interesting points, pardon the pun. From my point of view the issue of manning and providing sufficient to allow the Royal Navy to maximise the availability of what it already has is the top priority for the near term. After that it is ensuring that the platforms the Royal Navy has are kitted out to maximise their potential, this meaning that with the possible exception of those operating in home waters. all platforms are full outfitted. The recent series about HMS Duncan and her visit to the Black Sea was interesting as the vessels was never shown carrying Harpoon for example. Whether this was to make her look less frightening to the Russians I do not know but in my view Duncan should have been fully outfitted.

So what about the Royal Navy's Amphibious Platforms. Well I am going to still stick to my argument that its priority is the ability to move a Brigade with supporting units in one lift. Bringing the number of Points back up to six is a must for this. Next the Albions should be transferred to he RFA and used in a similar way to the Bay's especially in the HADR role where their superior capabilities would be put to good use. Regarding the RFA, it must be scaled to meet the needs and roles of the planned Royal Navy, so its primary role will be to support the new Carrier Group, with its secondary one being that mentioned above, providing sea lift for the Army and Marines. This means the third FSS can probably be cancelled with the funding going towards modernising the at least some of the current Bays.

This would involve adapting the deck to allow the installation of prefab structures such as a hanger able to accommodate between two and four Merlin sized helicopters, to a Hospital, facilities to operate and maintain up to four CB-90 boats, or even a command facility. This would involve the relocation of some existing features like the cranes and possibly upgrading these to allow them to lift greater weights. Such a programme would also involve the vessels being fitted with the same level of defensive measures as the Albion class. In addition to increasing the capabilities of the current Bays, the above programme would greatly aid the design of the replacement for both them and the Albions with a class of six vessels. These would again be based on the Enforcer platform and in addition to lessons learned form the Bay modification programme, attention should be given to the vessels used by other navies based on the same platform.

I would like to see this new platform built as a modular vessel. In its basic form its role and capabilities would be similar to the existing Bays but with a integral hanger able to handle two Merlins. This would be able to be expanded back along the deck to increase its capacity or for other uses as mentioned above. The vessel would have a permanent flight deck with spots for two Merlins to operate simultaneously. These extensions would be prefabs, able to be "Flat packed" and broken down into loads able to be carried b the C-17 and some even by the A400. This will allow a vessel forward deployed to be reconfigured at any friendly port with the minimum of on shore facilities. It would not be essential for all vessels to have a full set of all the prefab modules but a pool systems would be put in place. As a result the RFA would have a platform able to carry out a large number of roles covering Amphibious warfare, Logistics, Hospital ship, HADR, Aviation Support, Littoral Mothership, and more. Depending on the given role a portion of the crew would be Royal Navy personnel, and the actual fitted defensive suite would also be mission dependant, though there should be a minimum level fitted at all times.

In the amphibious role, these vessels would allow the Royal Marines to carry out all the roles currently envisaged and could even expand their role. Two could carry out a OTH operation to lift a reinforce company by helicopter to make an initial landing and follow up securing a point of entry or the Brigade being carrier by the Points. Reconfigures they could then provide logistics to support these forces, transport additional aviation assets, provide medical support, Command and Control of the operation off shore or act as a mothership of coastal raiding, the list goes on and on.

They would provide a superior HADR platform than any current platform, with their improved aviation and other capabilities, and their ability to operate s a mothership high performance smaller craft together with their aviation capabilities would make then ideal interdiction platforms to combat drug smugglers, pirates and so on. In fact they would be capable of carrying out some of the roles currently envisaged for the planned T-31e, possibly resulting in the need for that platform to be cancelled and the funding going towards both the Bay replacement programme or Future Multi-role Logistics platform and the construction of a ninth T-26.

[ArmChairCivvy]

we keep the 2 Albion’s and 3 bays and leave a 5 ship replacement to later. The vessels are refitted to become fwd deployed crisis response command ships. The marines go back to ww2 esq independent commando company’s 8 off and move under the command of director special forces. The idea to conduct low profile, martime and riverine security tasks against assymetric forces, offensive gurellia warfare and counter anti access operations.

This kind of thinking is in line with some of the thoughts that came out of the review that Bob Gates ordered into the USMC operating concept:
"Forcible entry will require the use of forces conducting distributed operations

able to operate below the enemy's targeting threshold

and create a mitigation zone
= an area denied to the enemy
[then] unable to employ effectively anti-access or area denial weapons
...
allowing for the transition of follow-on forces
---------------------------------------------------------
With the shipping listed we are already organised close to company level (esp. considering capacity for simultaneous lift, by various means, to different objectives)
- but what we are missing is sea-basing facilities to sustain such distributed ops (initially, as a firm lodgement is not created at that stage)

OK, here come the follow-n forces:

I am going to still stick to my argument that its priority is the ability to move a Brigade with supporting units in one lift.

and their arrival will need more assets for force protection/ beach recce:

facilities to operate and maintain up to four CB-90 boats

Such a programme would also involve the vessels being fitted with the same level of defensive measures as the Albion class

... which they are designed for (but not fitted with, ie. Phalanx cum 30mm's - at the time of the design (=RN modifications) I guess the latter were still operated manned

would like to see this new platform built as a modular vessel.

- so far we have managed to make do with existing shipping (add a few Force Protection boats... which were "a project" anyway - before being cancelled!)
- this modularitu and learning from the modifications is well in line with what Damen has done: they have 4 flavours, off the shelf, for further exports. More often to do with economies than capability enhancements... BUT isn't that exactly how our Bay design came about?

[ArmChairCivvy]

the review that Bob Gates ordered into the USMC operating concept

The deliverable that came out is called USMC Vision and Strategy 2025... if anyone wants to look it up.

However, it was incorporating ideas that had already been tested in experiments, like
General Michael Hagee's
"A
Concept
for
Distributed
Operations"
published
by
Marine
Corps
Warfighting
Lab
in
2006.
= must break free from the [then] current paradigm of fighting as battalions,
and recognize that it [USMC] needs to flatten its structure and begin to [train to]
fight as companies and platoons.

BTW: the later doc attributed the ability to already do this to... who else but the RM

[Tempest414]

Yes we will have to agree to disagree rubs have their uses and are a good thing as they allow quick and easy aircraft shelters to be put up and yes they have allowed limited ops on the Bays but I for one would still like to see a proper hanger on the replacement even if it is for a single helicopter

Rubb offer temporary semi perminant and perminant structures all using the same basic methodology. EasyJet are using them as MRO overhaul hangers at Gatwick

The RFA ones
https://www.rubbuk.com/a-p-falmouth-shi ... -building/

As I said we will just have to agree to disagree as my view point in formed from working in said units which offered 100% improvement over nothing but had limitations even on a large airfield. As I said anything can be done if it needs to but this should not become the norm

[Repulse]

HMS Duncan and her visit to the Black Sea was interesting as the vessels was never shown carrying Harpoon

Agree with general thrust of the point, but the pictures I saw HMS Duncan was armed with Harpoon.

Moving on with my read of the book “White Flag?”, it has a good fictional scenario of how the a UK Strike Brigade would be used to prevent Russian aggression in Romania in 2025. In essence moving quickly from the UK to through the Channel Tunnel & Ports to Europe in small convoys, buying fuel and supplies as they go, to the destination.

The point I’m making is that the requirement for amphibious assault/lift is changing, and perhaps we should look at this through the three main requirements we have:

- Moving a Strike Brigade to Europe: Commandeering ships to move this force would take too long, so here the Points have a real role. There is no need for traditional LPD/LSD amphibious in this model.
- Landing and supporting an enforced Cdo for small global stability, raid & rescue missions: This is where a flat top and a LPD capability is needed - I’d say 1 CVF/LPA plus two RFA LPDs and a FSS would cover it operating OTH.
- HADR missions of the size of the Ebola outbreak / Caribbean Hurricane season: I’d say a FSS (with 3-4 Merlins) plus a RFA LPD.

Sure there are more scenarios like transporting a division etc, but if the RN cover these three everything else would be an extreme case requiring a longer period to build up to and STUFT.

[Tempest414]

Regarding the RFA, it must be scaled to meet the needs and roles of the planned Royal Navy, so its primary role will be to support the new Carrier Group, with its secondary one being that mentioned above, providing sea lift for the Army and Marines.

I don't see the sea lift role as a secondary one I feel it should be seem as a equal role. At this time the RFA has

4 x Tide class ( 4 x 63 crew needed )
2 x Wave class 2 x 80 crew needed)
3 x Fort class ( with Fort Victoria be a larger class ship) 1 x 95 crew & 2 x 125 crew needed
3 x Bay class ( 3 x 80 crew needed )
RFA Argus ( 80 crew needed )

The Point class are a full time MOD contract and not part of the RFA. At this time it would take 1085 RFA personnel to crew these ships and it has 1850 in total for me I think we should look to keep the Wave class and use them to support allied operations in the Asian- Pacific with each ship undertaking 6 month deployments allowing the UK to be in region with a much need asset plus the new RFA should look like

4 x Tide class ( 4 x 63 crew )
2 x Wave Class ( 2 x 80 crew )
3 x SSS ( 3 x 100 crew )
4 x B2 Bay class ( 4 x 80 crew )

plus a new MOD contract for 5 Point class ships

[cyrilranch]

The

The recent series about HMS Duncan and her visit to the Black Sea was interesting as the vessels was never shown carrying Harpoon for example. Whether this was to make her look less frightening to the Russians I do not know but in my view Duncan should have been fully outfitted.

I think in the last of the 4 episodes of Duncan. The Harpoon firing console was show on tv ,ready to fire. Abit she may have only 4 of 8 possible missiles fitted at the time.

[Caribbean]

Agree with general thrust of the point, but the pictures I saw HMS Duncan was armed with Harpoon.

Wasn't she also accompanied (at least part of the way) by other ships? I'm sure I saw at least two other frigates (Turkish?) and a fleeting glimpse of what looked like a destroyer (possibly Spanish) in the background of some of the shots. At another point she was in company of Romanian ships. She may have been alone for some of it, but not all.

[Repulse]

the new RFA should look like

4 x Tide class ( 4 x 63 crew )
2 x Wave Class ( 2 x 80 crew )
3 x SSS ( 3 x 100 crew )
4 x B2 Bay class ( 4 x 80 crew )

plus a new MOD contract for 5 Point class ships

If it can be afforded for sure - but the absolute requirements to me would be only 2 FSS, 3 LPD Bay 2s and the 2 Waves would be nice to have.

Anyone know how many Points it would take to transport a Strike Brigade, 5 seem ok but little room for coping with availability issues.

[Tempest414]

RFA should look like

4 x Tide class ( 4 x 63 crew )
2 x Wave Class ( 2 x 80 crew )
3 x SSS ( 3 x 100 crew )
4 x B2 Bay class ( 4 x 80 crew )

plus a new MOD contract for 5 Point class ships

If we look at this in terms of a task groups it should allow a group looking like this

1 x Strike carrier
1 x LPH
3 x B2 Bays
1 x SSS
2 x Tide
4 x Point
4 x Type 45
4 x type 26
3 x type 31

and if we look at it as just sea lift 3 x Bay and 4 x Points could move a strike brigade

[shark bait]

Can anyone list the disadvantages of fitting permanent hangers to the Bay's?

It will likely cost more, and it will likely compromise it's main role.

A platform built with the Bay's hull, and the Karel Doorman's super structure it would be epic. However can the additional cost be justified with such a overcapacity in the RN? And can it be achieved without reducing it main role, logistics.

Logistics should be the design driver, not aviation.

[Caribbean]

Logistics should be the design driver, not aviation.

Unless it's an Argus replacement, perhaps?

[Repulse]

Logistics should be the design driver, not aviation.

Unless it's an Argus replacement, perhaps?

A third RN flattop would be my preference with RFA OTH Amphibious LPD Bays - get the DFiD to pay for a hospital ship.

[shark bait]

Unless it's an Argus replacement, perhaps?

Even then no, these ships need to transfer things from ship to shore as efficiently as possible, that needs to be the design driver, nothing else.

Also, Argus will not get a like for like replacement.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Yes we will have to agree to disagree rubs have their uses and are a good thing as they allow quick and easy aircraft shelters to be put up and yes they have allowed limited ops on the Bays but I for one would still like to see a proper hanger on the replacement even if it is for a single helicopter

Can anyone list the disadvantages of fitting permanent hangers to the Bay's?

Sorry for late response.

I would like to make thing a bit clearer. For example, "full width hangar for Bay" itself is nothing bad. Updating Point-class is also nothing bad. But, it must be optimized as a fleet, not as individual vessels.

- Point-class has a huge cargo capacity, and it can be operated by only ~20 crew. Its sea going days = deployable ratio is very high (I understand nearly 70%). Extremely efficient.

To deploy a single Wildcat onboard, we need 3-4 Wildcat flight teams. Thus, "adding a Wildcat" means more than doubling the man-power load, significantly decreasing the "efficiency". This argument does not contradict with saying "adding a helo to Points will make it very capable for HADR/patrol". But, for me, there are other assets (e.g. Bays) to fill those tasks and thus I love Points as it is now.

- Bay class has perfect capability as a logistic landing ship, and also perfect match as HADR asset when carrying a Wildcat (even within the rubber hangar). It is also very efficient ship. Adding more larger hangar will be "very nice", but not "must".

For now, PoW will replace HMS Ocean. Good. But when QNLZ and PoW needs mid-life refit, the 3rd-flat top becomes "must". If it is not going to happen, larger hangar on Bay will become "must" as a compensation. (I have little hope on Argus replacement, at least as an aviation ship.)

- In the "hangar" issue, I think Albion is more problematic. This year's Asian deployment was done "without" any helo. If there is a need for hangar in UK fleet, I think Albion does.

Ol-class oiler had a 3 SeaKing capable hangar. I think 2 Merlin-capable (tandem) hangar is possible onboard Albion, with similar arrangement, by sacrificing space for 1 LCVP and 1 RHIB. Doable, I think.

スクリーンショット 2018-12-30 16.12.02.jpg

[Repulse]

For now, PoW will replace HMS Ocean. Good. But when QNLZ and PoW needs mid-life refit, the 3rd-flat top becomes "must".

Completely agree, even in the current budget limitations it is affordable with some hard decisions. A Mistral class sized ship, without the well deck could cost @£500mn and act as an light carrier (CVL) with a crew the size of approx 2 T31es (without the air group). Assuming a total T31e budget of @£1.5bn, then replacing this programme with a CVL, another T26 and 2 additional Rivers (to make 10) would be the way to go.