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 »

As Iv mentioned a few times on here we could have a very nice set up by using the proposed DFID money to replace the waves and argus with 2 x karldoorman vessels with the role 2 upgraded to role 3 medical.

Then replaced the 2 LPDs with LPDs varients of the karldoorman and the 3 bays with 3 enforcer class.

Or 2 x LPD and 3 x LSD varrients of the SSS concept design going round.
Either way with 2 x large 6 helo hanger and 3 x 2-3 helo hanger we might get away with out needing a 3rd flat top ( I personal my would like to see a 3rd flat top ) but at max we could be able to deploy 21 helos between 5 vessels, more than we could be ocean and more flexible over all.

We add to this the 2 karldoormans with role 3 medical and we end up keeping the waves tanker role, increasing over medical by always having a role 3 avalible and another increase in helos and vehicle transport with another set of 6 helo vessels

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 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:I am still trying to find an Amphibious vessel with a well dock and a role 3 medical facility. No luck so far...
Mistral class
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

there we have it a role 3 hospital on a LHD I would say the Wasp class with there 6 operating tables are close to role 3 as well

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

The “role” of a hospital is not dependant on size it is on the specialties that is offered. There is a question mark if the uk has the medical personnel to deploy a full role 3 facility on its own.

The US facilities on there amphibious vessels are bigger than what’s available on Argus.

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 »

SW1 wrote:The “role” of a hospital is not dependant on size it is on the specialties that is offered
It is actually both, combined.

Someone fighting for his/ her life can't be thrown about in seastate X, or more exactly: that can happen , but on a bigger ship (and that ward being appropriately located), can make all the difference.
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
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

I think it is safe to say that a 200 meter long by 28 meter beam Enforcer Hull with a well dock can take a role 2/3 medical unit on par with Argus

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote:I think it is safe to say that a 200 meter long by 28 meter beam Enforcer Hull with a well dock can take a role 2/3 medical unit on par with Argus
Easily.

The Mistral example is interesting.

The entire medical facility appears to fit into 700-800sqm. This can be augmented by a containerised system on the vehicle deck. This seems very compact and unobtrusive when compared to the size of the vessels discussed.

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 »

What is the going rate for a Mistral?

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Lord Jim wrote:What is the going rate for a Mistral?
Around €450m in 2012

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 »

Stirring the pot, but why don't we cancel the T-31e, buy one of these and spend what left on other important items for the Navy like a new AShM for example.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

I can't see us ever buying a mistral off the French, the idea that such I high profiel vessel for the RN would be built outside the uk would never get traction, I doubt we'd even use a Forgain design for a vessel like this.

You have to think any LHD a pair or just one will be second only to the carriers for the RN in public eyes so much be uk design and build.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

shark bait wrote:big flexible platform such as the above would be a fine outcome to the T31, but no way is it reasonable to use that to cut the assault platforms without replacement. A best there would be two platforms available, which doesn't provide much capacity.
Why only 2? Relatively simple craft should allow a much higher availability rate than 1:3, any reason why we couldn’t operate like the Survey ships? 80% availability would give 4 available, one WIGS plus one EoS plus two with or available for the CSG - coupled the Bays gives the possibility of surging 3 LPDs plus 2 LSDs plus a LHA, gives a lift capability not seen since before 2010.
”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 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: The entire medical facility appears to fit into 700-800sqm
going by 60 mtrs, the most critical dimension, that is only 13.3 sideways... if containerised, there would need to be a wide corridor in between?
- 3 mtrs height... loadsa 'ship's services' to run anything like that needed
Poiuytrewq wrote:Around €450m in 2012
Don't be fooled like that. The Italian carrier did not come for a mere e 1 bn; nor did the Mistral (avg) cost
- other ministries chipped in (whatever the allowable EU emoluments are)
- used to refer to payment to a miller for grinding corn – derived from the word emolere, meaning “to grind up,”
- in the EU vocabulary (not Merriam Webster :lol: ) to keep the wheels turning... no subsidies... of course NOT :lol:
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)

Meriv9
Member
Posts: 185
Joined: 05 Feb 2016, 00:19
Italy

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Meriv9 »

1.1 BLN € was the definitive final price for the Trieste...

853mln for Fincantieri
273mln for Leonardo.

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 »

Meriv9 wrote:1.1 BLN € was the definitive final price for the Trieste...

853mln for Fincantieri
273mln for Leonardo.
When you are looking too close up... the trees do not look like a forest
- look again ;)
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)

Meriv9
Member
Posts: 185
Joined: 05 Feb 2016, 00:19
Italy

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Meriv9 »

The price hike there has already been from 844 to 1126 mln. From the initial parlament budget to the Fincantieri Budget.

For now the ship is at this stage, no bad news yet.
https://upload.forumfree.net/i/ff403149 ... 0368_n.jpg
https://upload.forumfree.net/i/ff403149 ... 7568_o.jpg
(Photos from Forum difesa)
So please show some proof of things going badly.

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 »

Sorry, I overlooked the fact that you were talking about the future ;)

I was talking about the past... I think what is translated as the Dept of 'Works' chipped in to the the tune of a third of a bln towards the carrier?
- the French figures are better documented, as they relate to discrete 'builds'
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)

Meriv9
Member
Posts: 185
Joined: 05 Feb 2016, 00:19
Italy

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Meriv9 »

Understood, yes if i remember correctly the Development Ministry chipped in for 880 for the fleet renovations.
1612. Role 2 support is normally provided at larger unit level, usually of Brigade or larger size, though it may be provided farther forward, depending upon the operational requirements. In general, it will be prepared to provide evacuation from Role/Echelon 1 facilities, triage and resuscitation, treatment and holding of patients until they can be returned to duty or evacuated, and emergency dental treatment. Though normally this level will not include surgical capabilities, certain operations may require their augmentation with the capabilities to perform emergency surgery and essential post-operative management. In this case, they will be often referred to as Role 2+. In the maritime forces, Echelon 2 is equivalent to the land forces' Role 2+, as a surgical team is integral to this echelon. Maritime echelon 2 support is normally found on major war vessels and some larger logistics or support vessels, and at some Forward Logistics Sites (FLS).

1613. Role/Echelon 3 support is normally provided at Division level and above. It includes additional capabilities, including specialist diagnostic resources, specialist surgical and medical capabilities, preventive medicine, food inspection, dentistry, and operational stress management teams when not provided at level 2. The holding capacity of a level 3 facility will be sufficient to allow diagnosis, treatment, and holding of those patients who can receive total treatment and be returned to duty within the evacuation policy laid down by the Force Surgeon for the theatre. Classically, this support will be provided by field hospitals of various types. Maritime Echelon 3 is equivalent to land/air forces Role 3, though it will normally have increased specialty capabilities. Echelon 3 is normally found on some major amphibious ships, on hospital ships, at Fleet Hospitals, at some FLS, and at a few Advanced Logistics Support Sites (ALSS).
On medical level, i would go for a level 2/2+, why? because i think the most easy financeable and acceptable project for the EU would be Hospital ships, 2-3 of them, would make happy shipyards and a lot of civilian industries around the continent. Plus it is an easy to use soft power tool and one that has big returns (IMHO) specially thinking all the cooperation money that flows towards Africa from Europe.

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 »

Meriv9 wrote:specially thinking all the cooperation money that flows towards Africa from Europe.
Totally separate :!: from your contribution, we do need to keep the African dictators attired in their original croc-leather shoes
... not just their bullet-proof Mercs

Lots of money has been sent...
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:Why only 2? Relatively simple craft should allow a much higher availability rate than 1:3, any reason why we couldn’t operate like the Survey ships?
They would have to be equipped to self escort, since the proposal trades in 5 escorts for for 5 assault platforms. That makes the ship much more complex, and makes the survey fleet model much more difficult. How would you get around that?
@LandSharkUK

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

shark bait wrote:
Repulse wrote:Why only 2? Relatively simple craft should allow a much higher availability rate than 1:3, any reason why we couldn’t operate like the Survey ships?
They would have to be equipped to self escort, since the proposal trades in 5 escorts for for 5 assault platforms. That makes the ship much more complex, and makes the survey fleet model much more difficult. How would you get around that?
But the T31e is not a real escort - it is supposed to operate solo only in lower threat environments. If it’s equipped with a self contained medium calibre gun (e.g 57mm) plus a couple of 40mms and 1-2 Phalanx with either a Artisan or Terma Scanter 4100 then it’s sufficient for the requirements. I see little chance the T31e getting CAMM tbh in the price range.
”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 »

Repulse wrote:a self contained medium calibre gun (e.g 57mm) plus a couple of 40mms
Why are weapons that are not part of the RN arsenal being bandied around?
- e.g. Goalkeeper was perfectly good, and still it was withdrawn for logs reasons. Phalanx 1B antisurface capability is a poor substitute, but we have 'enough' of them (and as self-contained, they can easily be rotated through the fleet, according to mission rqrmnt)
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: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Repulse wrote:a self contained medium calibre gun (e.g 57mm) plus a couple of 40mms
Why are weapons that are not part of the RN arsenal being bandied around?
- e.g. Goalkeeper was perfectly good, and still it was withdrawn for logs reasons. Phalanx 1B antisurface capability is a poor substitute, but we have 'enough' of them (and as self-contained, they can easily be rotated through the fleet, according to mission rqrmnt)
Sorry typo on 40mm should have been 30mm. On the 57mm I’d see this as the right future gun for MHC and OPV replacements.
”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 »

Repulse wrote:the 57mm I’d see [this] as the right future gun for MHC and OPV replacements.
It would be the best choice, but I see it being added to the inventory to be unlikely.
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)

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

I think what ends up being installed on the T-31e will have an impact on what options are available for future platforms. I think the 5" is both too expensive and too much gun for the T-31e, and using old Mk8s would be a mistake, so an intermediate calibre will be looked at.

Anyhow, this is supposed to be the Amphibious thread not one for discussing Escorts and Patrol/Survey vessels.

Post Reply