Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

[SW1]

2030 (Tr1s) is, but only just, more than a decade away

Longer than that, mid 2030s to be replaced by what tempest turns out to be.

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

Where and when exactly are we transitioning 2/3rds of the entire fast jet fleet to f35bs? The force has 2 operational units anything beyond that in any time frame worth considering (decade +) is highly speculative. Uk a/c numbers assigned to a Sqn are notional the numbers to worry about are combat trained pilots and qualified engineers not the number of a/c on each unit.

The rotary winged assets are even thinner on the ground than fixed ones, you will likely have around 18 asw merlins assigned to the carrier and ships flights unit and 12 commando merlins for amphibious capability. You cannot expect the same unit to deploy for extended periods year on year. If you deploy you lha carrier with 12 merlins I no idea what theses fwd deployed strike groups will have.

[Tempest414]

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.

4 Sqns of 12 jets = 48 jets plus 5 jets each for the OCU & OEU = 58 jets
5 sqns of 10 jets = 50 jets plus 5 jets each for the OCU & OEU = 60 jets (it is not going to upset things to much) allowing 3 RAF & 2 RN

This would allow QE to deploy with 20 jets 1 RN sqn and 1 RAF sqn this could be followed the following year by POW deploying with 1 RN sqn as a base line and maybe with 8 or more USMC jets. This would mean that each of the RAF units would only need to deploy on the carrier once every 6 years

[ArmChairCivvy]

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
2030 (Tr1s) is, but only just, more than a decade away

Longer than that, mid 2030s to be replaced by what tempest turns out to be.

As you point out, it is all about transition planning. And with the high level of budget uncertainty, saying that the MoD has maintained "constructive ambiguity " around that would be probably both polite and accurate?

My view is that upping the numbers of F-35s will be the Tr1 replacement and Tempest will start to come in (if at all?) when the other tranches of Typhoons will be starting to 'fall off'.

[ArmChairCivvy]

you will likely have around 18 asw merlins assigned to the carrier and ships flights unit and 12 commando merlins for amphibious capability.

A good point, and in view of that having AEW biting into the ASW airframe numbers may not be so wise (but cheaper than buying new).
- explains why using Wildcats for self-defence by singletons that are not of ASW specialist type(s) has been trialled
- the 12 troop lifters make for a Company in one lift
- the requirement for the other one (practically simultaneously) will have to be filled by Chinooks; some of those will be needed anyway, so as to avoid the landed companies being totally devoid of support assets

[Tempest414]

Where and when exactly are we transitioning 2/3rds of the entire fast jet fleet to f35bs? The force has 2 operational units anything beyond that in any time frame worth considering (decade +) is highly speculative. Uk a/c numbers assigned to a Sqn are notional the numbers to worry about are combat trained pilots and qualified engineers not the number of a/c on each unit.

The rotary winged assets are even thinner on the ground than fixed ones, you will likely have around 18 asw merlins assigned to the carrier and ships flights unit and 12 commando merlins for amphibious capability. You cannot expect the same unit to deploy for extended periods year on year. If you deploy you lha carrier with 12 merlins I no idea what theses fwd deployed strike groups will have.

The balance for UK fast jets units in 2030 IMO ( and with my RAF Officer hat on) should be

6 Typhoon Sqn's RAF ( Replacement by what ever starting in 2035 )
3 F-35b Sqn's RAF
2 F35b Sqn's FAA

As for the ASW Merlin's we are not going to see 18 ASW helicopters on a carrier at the same time. As for the HC4's you are bang on and I have pointed this out before but as I have also pointed out before this is where the Puma replacement could help if we went for say something like NH-90 troop carrier with power folding rotor head

[SW1]

Where and when exactly are we transitioning 2/3rds of the entire fast jet fleet to f35bs? The force has 2 operational units anything beyond that in any time frame worth considering (decade +) is highly speculative. Uk a/c numbers assigned to a Sqn are notional the numbers to worry about are combat trained pilots and qualified engineers not the number of a/c on each unit.

The rotary winged assets are even thinner on the ground than fixed ones, you will likely have around 18 asw merlins assigned to the carrier and ships flights unit and 12 commando merlins for amphibious capability. You cannot expect the same unit to deploy for extended periods year on year. If you deploy you lha carrier with 12 merlins I no idea what theses fwd deployed strike groups will have.

The balance for UK fast jets units in 2030 IMO ( and with my RAF Officer hat on) should be

6 Typhoon Sqn's RAF ( Replacement by what ever starting in 2035 )
3 F-35b Sqn's RAF
2 F35b Sqn's FAA

As for the ASW Merlin's we are not going to see 18 ASW helicopters on a carrier at the same time. As for the HC4's you are bang on and I have pointed this out before but as I have also pointed out before this is where the Puma replacement could help if we went for say something like NH-90 troop carrier with power folding rotor head

If you delete 2 of those f35 sqns and reduce the notional a/c numbers to 9 in the other 3 I would agree that balance is likely.

The 18 asw merlins is your lot to equip both the carriers and the 8 type 23 asw frigates

[Poiuytrewq]

This is really worth a look.

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/up-clo ... -partners/



Excellent job, well done @savetheroyalnavy

[Tempest414]

If you delete 2 of those f35 sqns and reduce the notional a/c numbers to 9 in the other 3 I would agree that balance is likely.

no need to cut sqns and that is the last thing you or anyone wants to do

6 Typhoon Sqn's RAF ( Replacement by what ever starting in 2035 )
3 F-35b Sqn's RAF
2 F35b Sqn's FAA

By making all UK fast jet units 10 jet unit you have two typhoon wings of 30 jets each and a RAF F-35 wing of 30 jets plus the two FAA units

[SW1]

This is really worth a look.

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/up-clo ... -partners/

Excellent job, well done @savetheroyalnavy

Good show case of a commando raid. Replace the lcvp with something like a combat boat littoral strike in action.

[Poiuytrewq]

Good show case of a commando raid. Replace the lcvp with something like a combat boat littoral strike in action.

Absolutely a useful and up-to-date example of a multi-national, short endurance, littoral strike Op. It would appear this is exactly what the FLSS vessels are designed to facilitate but even if a new combat boat is procured such a raid is not something a FLSS could manage alone without a Bay or an Albion accompanying. If a couple of flank mounted mexefloates and one or two davit or deck crane deployed LCM's were added it would remove the need for the accompanying LPD or LSD(A). No sign of these additions so far.

If as many suggest that any Littoral Strike Group will comprise something along the lines of a FLSS/Wave/T31/RB2 and never include an Albion or Bay then even if only a single LCU is needed it will involve mobilising part or all of the LitM Group including an Albion, Bay, PWLS, FSS, Tide and T26's/T45's. How much will that lot cost? It won't be cheap and it will need a very good reason to do it. Is it even going to be possible if the CSG is deployed elsewhere? Not guaranteed. I think we need to be much more flexible to avoid unduly impacting the CSG given the low T26 numbers.

If a FLSS is designed to operate in low threat environments and the full LitM Group is designed to operate in the most complex high threat environments where is the middle ground for the Littoral Strike Group? Everyone will have their own opinion but I would say IF and its a big IF the T31's were properly equipped the LSG's could handle the majority of littoral Strike Ops without impacting on the availability of the CSG. Adding a Spear3 facility for example to the T31's wouldn't be a TLAM substitute but it could prove useful in the Littoral environment. This would allow the T31's escorted LSG's to operate in all areas that didn't require anything other than a basic AAW/ASuW/ASW capability. This is the first credible argument for upgrading the T31's over and above a basic £250m that I have yet encountered.

Lots to consider but I think a Littoral Strike Group without the ability to deploy even a single LCU or mexefloate isn't really credible long term in my opinion. We need to be much more flexible going forward and retain the ability to tailor each Littoral Group to the given deployment rather than try and stick to rigid force structures, especially as we try to utilise a 65,000t CVF as a LPH and juggle only eight Tier1 Frigates.

[jedibeeftrix]

i don't think it would be anything like as doctrinaire as all that.

inevitably, the LSG and the LitM will flex their composition to suit the mission, just as the army is reputed to do with its endless depsoke permutations of the battlegroup.

i can well see that a Bay might be a good fit as a bolt-on to the LSG, and it is easy to imagine a top-end LitM effort that would benefit from the FLSS boats.

on a separate note:
why 3x RAF F35 squadrons and 2x FAA F35 squadrons?
seems to be a poor use of limited resources to match the enormous investment already made in the carrier capability...

[ArmChairCivvy]

without the ability to deploy even a single LCU or mexefloate

If it is a quick in & out raid, what could not be made available by means of a Chinook sling-load?
- were the ships to be Point conversions, is the current crane hefty enough for handling a mexeflote? The "steel beach" for driving something onto it is already there

[SW1]

Absolutely a useful and up-to-date example of a multi-national, short endurance, littoral strike Op. It would appear this is exactly what the FLSS vessels are designed to facilitate but even if a new combat boat is procured such a raid is not something a FLSS could manage alone without a Bay or an Albion accompanying. If a couple of flank mounted mexefloates and one or two davit or deck crane deployed LCM's were added it would remove the need for the accompanying LPD or LSD(A). No sign of these additions so far.

We don’t know what the configuration of what a flss will look like. But if it were me I would be using what we currently have in this role and investing any transformation funds in refitting the bays and Albion’s for the role and in acquiring the unmanned and small craft needed to make the concept work.

[Lord Jim]

Personally I would rather see the funding available from the Transitional Fund used to modify one of the Bay's to test out the LSS idea as well as what configuration of platform could be seen when it comes to replace the Albions and/or Bay or simply to modify the remaining two bays as an interim solution. The need in improve or gain an aviation capability on the Bays should be a priority regardless.

As for where we end up with F-35b numbers ad other platforms, I can see us having one wing of Typhoon tranche 3(+) at Lossiemouth with four Squadrons able to generate 24 aircraft for deployment and another wing of F-35Bs at RAF Marham again with four squadrons and the ability to generate 24 aircraft for deployment either on land or the available carrier.

I still have serious doubts as to whether we will ever see both QE and PoW operating as Carriers at the same time. In fact we should be looking to improve the aviation capability of the Amphibious Group as I have suggested above to remove the need for the second carrier to operate as a LHA except when large numbers of helicopters need to be ferried into theatre over ranges too great for them to self deploy.

[SW1]

and another wing of F-35Bs at RAF Marham again with four squadrons and the ability to generate 24 aircraft for deployment either on land or the available carrier.

Can’t see that many at Marham with the ocu there. I don’t see us ordering more than 60 across the life of the program unless it becomes the manned element of tempest. Anything beyond that already ordered is for the post 2030 timeframe. Sdsr2020 will be the clear signal which way it’s going.

[Lord Jim]

Marham has the capacity, it expanded when it took in the Tornados returning from Germany and had four operational squadrons. These were to older larger squadrons at the time.

[Tempest414]

The MOD said on the 1st Feb 2019 that the F-35 program remains on track and on budget and we remain committed to purchasing 138 F-35's

[SW1]

The MOD said on the 1st Feb 2019 that the F-35 program remains on track and on budget and we remain committed to purchasing 138 F-35's

Hahaha and such a reliable source on program numbers and cost they are too.

[Poiuytrewq]

inevitably, the LSG and the LitM will flex their composition to suit the mission, just as the army is reputed to do with its endless depsoke permutations of the battlegroup.....i can well see that a Bay might be a good fit as a bolt-on to the LSG, and it is easy to imagine a top-end LitM effort that would benefit from the FLSS boats.

I think it's this flexibility that is key to the idea of two separate LSG's. It's scalable and cost effective, easily tailored to each individual Operation. Taken to the extreme, I think a lot could be achieved without interfering with the availability of the CSG by forming the LitM group.

An example of the sliding scale from a single routine patrol vessel all the way up to forming the LitM group.

1. FLSS
2. FLSS, RB2
3. FLSS, T31
4. FLSS, Wave, T31
5. FLSS, Wave, Bay, T31
6. FLSS, Wave, Albion, T31
7. 2x FLSS, Wave, FSS, 2x T31's
8. 2x FLSS, Wave, FSS, Bay, 2x T31's
9. 2x FLSS, Wave, FSS, Albion, 2x T31's
10. LitM Group

The options are virtually endless especially if Allies slot in but the above list gives a flavour of the possible combinations. Done properly the LSG concept could be a very clever way of returning a LPH type capability without building another Ocean or needing to use PWLS if the CSG is active.

If it is a quick in & out raid, what could not be made available by means of a Chinook sling-load?

Not exactly the most subtle form of entry It's certainly possible but the lack of hanger space is problematic for combat Ops, less so for HADR deployments. These are the kinks that need ironed out of the FLSS concept. A more balanced platform is clearly the way to go.

- were the ships to be Point conversions, is the current crane hefty enough for handling a mexeflote? The "steel beach" for driving something onto it is already there

Depends on the size of the mexefloate, the 30t crane on the MRV would cope but where is the mexefloate going to be stored? On the flight deck?

image.jpeg

A working deck aft of the superstructure with a stern mounted deck crane is the obvious solution. Much more useful than a raised UAV flight deck with no obvious hanger facilities as in the image above.

We don’t know what the configuration of what a flss will look like. But if it were me I would be using what we currently have in this role and investing any transformation funds in refitting the bays and Albion’s for the role and in acquiring the unmanned and small craft needed to make the concept work.

Personally I would rather see the funding available from the Transitional Fund used to modify one of the Bay's to test out the LSS idea

I think converted Bay's are the ideal outcome. Adding a 1000sqm deck garage/hanger to hold six Merlins is straightforward. This would still maintain two Chinook capable landing spots. The well docks could contain much larger combat boats for the RM's than could be davit deployed and the two existing mexefloates are a given. DFID could still procure 2 or 3 MRV type vessels with extensive PCRS facilities and these could slot into the LSG's as and when necessary.

If organised correctly this would allow 2 independent LSG's to operate either side of Suez based around a enhanced Bay/Wave/T31 and/or RB2. To form the LitM group either side of Suez it would then just be a case of reinforcing the LSG with PWLS/Albion/FSS/Tide/T26/T45. Forward basing the second Albion EoS, even if only crewed as and when need would be better still.

[Tempest414]

The MOD said on the 1st Feb 2019 that the F-35 program remains on track and on budget and we remain committed to purchasing 138 F-35's

Hahaha and such a reliable source on program numbers and cost they are too.

See this is the sort of post that really pisses me off.

Is it true that F-35 is on track/ budget and we will end up buying 138 jets who knows but this is the official line at this time from the department running the program. just because it dose not meet your only 48 jets idea of what will happen

[SW1]

The MOD said on the 1st Feb 2019 that the F-35 program remains on track and on budget and we remain committed to purchasing 138 F-35's

Hahaha and such a reliable source on program numbers and cost they are too.

See this is the sort of post that really pisses me off.

Is it true that F-35 is on track/ budget and we will end up buying 138 jets who knows but this is the official line at this time from the department running the program. just because it dose not meet your only 48 jets idea of what will happen

I glad u believe it. I go with what’s actually been ordered!

Because we were absolutely definitely getting 232 eurofighter, 12 type 45s, 13 type 26 and absolutely definitely were not selling HMS Ocean, mod were absolutely adamant that was what was happening right before it wasn’t!

[Tempest414]

I glad u believe it. I go with what’s actually been ordered!

Did I ever say I believed it no. You are right to go with what has been ordered which at this time is 35 jets by 2022 however it also has be said that all but the T-45 have been cut under this government ( and Hammond's Watch )

[Lord Jim]

The Armed Services rarely get the amount envisaged as the beginning of a programme. Cost over runs, changes in priorities, and so on often lead to reductions.

But back to the Bays, and I am glad the idea of testing out the whole LSS concept by modifying a Bay seems t have traction here. AS I have posted in the past I personally see an Enforcer based platform as the future of the LitM Group. A managed evolution, first modifying out three existing bays and then introducing a new build to replace the Albions and then eventually the revised Bays would probably the most cost effective way forward as well as providing the most flexible solution.

[Tempest414]

Enforcer based platform as the future of the LitM Group.

I agree with what you say and I put forward some time ago add a full width hangar to the Bays and then move to three 200 meter Enforcer class and a 200 meter Enforcer LHD. These 4 ships along with 4 Point class could move more than we have at this time

[ArmChairCivvy]

I am glad the idea of testing out the whole LSS concept by modifying a Bay seems t have traction here.

Me. too, because all that "we want" fits in so easily.

However, consider the opportunity cost at the same time. Assuming that we will go the conversion route, how much greater is the lost capability in the case of taking 2 Bays (of 3) out, compared to 2 Points (of 4)? Esp, when you can buy Point-lookalikes from the trade if deemed urgent, but you would have to build any further Bays... weren't the ozzies lucky when they did not need to embark on building a class of one