Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Lord Jim wrote:The Platforms based on the Enforcer hull are the right compromise for the UK as future replacements for both the Bays and Albions and would negate the need for one of the carriers to act as an LHA.
I think it’s more a case of if the second carrier isn’t acting as a LHA it would be mothballed as there’s nothing to fly off it, the reality is, there is simply insufficient fixed wing and grey merlins to have them deployed on both carriers one year after the next let alone at the same time, it’s pushing the fleets to the extremes to deploy on one once.

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

That's the main reason i believe that if we got a 3rd F35b capable flat top one would definitely be mothballed, whare as if we replaced the Albions/bays with non fixed wing capable ships ( enforcer or BAE/mistral maybe ) there will be less chance of it....fingers crossed !

I think in the mid to late 2020's when the whole Carrier group is the norm for the RN/RAF/AAC their will be a few more platforms available, mainly rotary & a few USMC as been suggested, i'm optimistic but time will tell...

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Lord Jim wrote:The San Antonios are a Rolls Royce option and again too expensive but very capable platforms and too big for what we are aiming for, being able to land at most a reinforced Commando and even then not all at once as the logistics would be landed by the Bays. The area our existing amphibious platforms are lacking is aviation, but the half sisters to the Bays solve that and would be a very cost effective solution to providing the UK with a balanced and more flexible force.

The Platforms based on the Enforcer hull are the right compromise for the UK as future replacements for both the Bays and Albions and would negate the need for one of the carriers to act as an LHA. They would provide significant hospital facilities and could easily cover the training role also carried out by Argus. Being operated by the RFA but the high readiness platform also having RN and RM personnel aboard would make them efficient to operate and we would have between four and five common platforms to rotate through the maintenance cycles.

As for the cost of the Italian platform, like the FREMMs, they seem to be able to build warships in a very efficient and cost effective manner, possibly due to the fact that the same yards have a substantial civilian shipbuilding business that is very profitable. Building such a platform in the UK would be more expensive simply due to that reason alone.
I’m not surgesting the San Antonio classic it’s self but something similar based on the Karel Doorman hull or the BEA SSS if chosen as below.
I can’t see how you say the San Antonio is too big when the Albion is 176m by 28m with out a hanger, to keep the twin chinook filling deck and roughly the same accommodation an extension will be needed.

What I go for is a vessel base on one of these hulls say
205m-210m by 30m
Twin chinook / triple merlin flight deck
5-6 merlins / 2 chinook hanger
4 LCU well Dock
4 LCVP dividens
400-500 troop standard
750 troops overload
2 x phalanx / SeaRAM
2 x 30mm

If only 4 vessels then I’d have them all as LPDs as above, if 5 vessels I’d have 2 as LPDs as above and 3 as LSDs with reduce hange to 3 merlin, reduced flight deck to 2 merlin and reduced well dock to 2 LCUs, so that a larger stores and work deck with 2 x 30-40t crains can be acomidated. The LPDs and LSDs would have different build standards as is.

As you say either of these options would nigate the need for a QE to act as and LPH. I also don’t think this would be unatanible it’s a one for one replacement.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4580
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Assuming that the FLSS design comes out as expected then the idea of a 3rd flattop in the current fiscal environment is dead. Given the OTH or benign landing environment realistic capability then 4 RFA LPDs is now probably the best course for the RN.

Assuming the 2 FLSS are conversions, personally I’d start by building 2 FSS (keeping RFA Fort Victoria) in the U.K. and then using it to build skills for the 4 LPDs before coming back to a final
FSS and then 2 Wave class replacements- enough work there for 15-20 years.
”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:Assuming that the FLSS design comes out as expected then the idea of a 3rd flattop in the current fiscal environment is dead.
Sorry to be blunt, but did it ever have a life? Outside these pages
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)

Online
Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7247
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

SW1 wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:The Platforms based on the Enforcer hull are the right compromise for the UK as future replacements for both the Bays and Albions and would negate the need for one of the carriers to act as an LHA.
I think it’s more a case of if the second carrier isn’t acting as a LHA it would be mothballed as there’s nothing to fly off it, the reality is, there is simply insufficient fixed wing and grey merlins to have them deployed on both carriers one year after the next let alone at the same time, it’s pushing the fleets to the extremes to deploy on one once.
Typical RAF, only wants to go to sea once every 2 years. Nelson spins in his grave.

Fly Navy.

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by R686 »

Ron5 wrote:


Typical RAF, only wants to go to sea once every 2 years. Nelson spins in his grave.

Fly Navy.
One must remember if one wanted to go to sea they would have joined Navy, remember they just cant take off for that dirty weekend when they feel like it being stuck on that tin can,

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4580
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Sorry to be blunt, but did it ever have a life? Outside these pages
I thought there was a good chance to get a large LHD, and a some normally reliable resources like Warship World had reported it was being considered.

A return to the combined LPD / Aviation Support Ship (renamed FLSS) model now looks most likely.
”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:some normally reliable resources like Warship World had reported it
Ohh? Is this more recent than the BAES design that was 'floated' abt 10 yrs ago?
- a genuine question as I don't read those things
- BTW, for anyone interested, the Navy News can be subscribed for £30/ yr
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: 4580
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

ArmChairCivvy, it was in the Nov / Dec 2018 edition published at the beginning of Dec on page 15. So before the FLSS announcement.

”The Royal Navy is reviewing options for the next generation of amphibious warships with the main focus being on the procurement of an advanced multi-functional platform, such as the the US Navy’s Wasp-Class, which can deliver rotary and fixed wing aviation and support assault operations across the beach well into the 21st century.
”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:deliver rotary [and fixed wing] aviation and support assault operations across the beach
Thanks. Now :!: I know who LJ is debating with, denouncing any such
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: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

I still feel the best way forward for the Amphibious fleet is to replace the 3 Bays with 3 200 meter Enforcer class and then replace the 2 Albion's ( 1 active ) with 1 200 meter Enforcer LHD. this would allow us to always have a strike carrier and a LPH/ LHD plus 2 LPD's and a FLSS

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Repulse wrote:ArmChairCivvy, it was in the Nov / Dec 2018 edition published at the beginning of Dec on page 15. So before the FLSS announcement.

”The Royal Navy is reviewing options for the next generation of amphibious warships with the main focus being on the procurement of an advanced multi-functional platform, such as the the US Navy’s Wasp-Class, which can deliver rotary and fixed wing aviation and support assault operations across the beach well into the 21st century.
It's also worth remembering that the Defence Select Committee has recommended that the Albions are replaced with LHD's in the 2030's. How much weight that will carry in a decades time is debatable.

First things first, F35 capable or not, everything else can flow from there.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Ron5 wrote:
SW1 wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:The Platforms based on the Enforcer hull are the right compromise for the UK as future replacements for both the Bays and Albions and would negate the need for one of the carriers to act as an LHA.
I think it’s more a case of if the second carrier isn’t acting as a LHA it would be mothballed as there’s nothing to fly off it, the reality is, there is simply insufficient fixed wing and grey merlins to have them deployed on both carriers one year after the next let alone at the same time, it’s pushing the fleets to the extremes to deploy on one once.
Typical RAF, only wants to go to sea once every 2 years. Nelson spins in his grave.

Fly Navy.
You only have 1 carrier air wing. If you deploy the same Sqn every year for 7 months bet it won’t have too many members before too long especially in a force struggling with retention like the grey merlin one.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:First things first, F35 capable or not, everything else can flow from there.
For me we have 2 strike carriers so no any new LHD / LPH should be rotor capable only as I say one or two 200 to 210 meter Enforcer LHD's set up like the Mistral class would be great. This would always allow 1 strike carrier and one LHD backed up by RFA LPD's and Point class

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote:You only have 1 carrier air wing. If you deploy the same Sqn every year for 7 months bet it won’t have too many members before too long especially in a force struggling with retention like the grey merlin one.
For me this is why the F-35 force should go to squadrons of 10 jets with 3 RN units and 3 RAF units. This would allow HMS QE to deploy with 20 jets made up of two RN units and POW to deploy with 20 made up of one RN unit and one RAF or USMC unit

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Tempest414 wrote:
SW1 wrote:You only have 1 carrier air wing. If you deploy the same Sqn every year for 7 months bet it won’t have too many members before too long especially in a force struggling with retention like the grey merlin one.
For me this is why the F-35 force should go to squadrons of 10 jets with 3 RN units and 3 RAF units. This would allow HMS QE to deploy with 20 jets made up of two RN units and POW to deploy with 20 made up of one RN unit and one RAF or USMC unit
Yes but back in real world were the fastjet is struggling to get to 9 units and unlikely to change configuration for more a decade it ain’t going to happen. But your ignoring the asw helicopter element there is only 1 merlin Sqn assigned to carriers and 1 assigned to escorts and ssbn.

Ultimately why one is now a big lha both were never supposed to be in service at the same time. And as it progresses I bet it will look much like a wasp with probably 9 jets and a dozen helicopters.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote:Yes but back in real world
In the real world as you like to call it US navy operate more Carriers and fix wing jets than the UK can dream of and they operate 10 jet squadrons add to this that the USMC f-18 units are 10 jet squadrons to match. the USMC F-35b units will have 16 jets so they can split the unit in two and have half the jets aboard a wasp class lhd at one time

At this time the UK Typhoon force has 7 sqns of 12 jets = 84 if it really pushed it self it could have 9 sqns of 10 jets = 90 jets making deployment and retention easier

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: change configuration for more a decade it ain’t going to happen.
2030 (Tr1s) is, but only just, more than a decade away
SW1 wrote:a wasp with probably 9 jets and a dozen helicopters
That is a JC1 - Harriers swapped for a plane that belongs to this century
Tempest414 wrote:they operate 10 jet squadrons add to this that the USMC f-18 units are 10 jet squadrons to match. the USMC F-35b units will have 16 jets so they can split the unit in two and have half the jets aboard a wasp class lhd at one time
that is good point about splitting, but :
why do you count in sqdrns when the USN has carrier air wings (one more than carriers)?
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 »

And how long does a normal USN Carrier deployment last? How long does the assigned CAW stay with the Carrier? We are going to have to accept that a single squadron will be the most deployed routinely and a surge will increase that to two unless WWIII breakout, but then everything is screwed.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Lord Jim wrote:We are going to have to accept that a single squadron will be the most deployed routinely
I do not believe we have to accept anything of the sort. As said if all the F-35 Squadron were given 10 jets we could end up with 3 FAA Sqns and 3 RAF Sqns plus a OCU using 70 jets from say 100 jets giving HMS QE 2 RN Sqns = 20 jet and HMS POW 1 RN Sqn =10 jets leaving the RAF 30 jets to do as they please with

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 »

But the F-35 Squadrons aren't being given 10 airframe each and until the late 2020s we will only have two frontline F-35 Squadrons supported by an OCU and small OEU. We will probably end up with only four frontline squadrons in total plus the above support units with the remainder in storage as part of the fleet sustainment programme.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: with the remainder in storage as part of the fleet sustainment programme
This is not a national prgrm where a minimum batch size will have to be reached, but rather you can order (the ever cheaper ;) planes) in small batches off the line, as required

;)
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 »

If things follow past progression, as later batches arrive those bought initially will go into storage. At a later date these would be updated and brought out to allow other to be stored. This allows the fleet to be sustained and hours spread across the fleet. The other option is to scrap older planes when they are out of hours and replace then with new ones. Either way they active fleet would remain around four squadrons.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote:Either way they active fleet would remain around four squadrons.
Yes, mathematically you end up with the same result whether you do it through rotation (husbanding of hrs) or incremental purchases
- one would think (aside from the unit cost, sitting on a decreasing trend) that factory fit extras - the new engine coming soon :!: - would be cheaper than buying planes just for ripping them apart for upgrades in a couple of yrs' time
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)

Post Reply