Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

[Lord Jim]

If we took things in stages, trial then hopefully upgrade the Bays first. Then using the lessons learned build two new possibly more capable platforms that to replace the Albions whilst being more efficient to run. Finally build at a later date build two or three more of the same platform but more focused on logistics to replace the modified Bays, basically a Bay 2.0. With this the UK would have a far more capable and flexible LitM Group, that would probably far cheaper to operate. Doing it in logical stages spreads the cost over a workable timeframe whilst reducing the impact to the availability of the LitM Group.

As for the Points, leave them as is as they need to be concentrating on their prime role of sea lift for the Army. Providing they with some sort of roll on self defence capability such as ECM and decoys would not be a bad idea though.

[Jake1992]

If we took things in stages, trial then hopefully upgrade the Bays first. Then using the lessons learned build two new possibly more capable platforms that to replace the Albions whilst being more efficient to run. Finally build at a later date build two or three more of the same platform but more focused on logistics to replace the modified Bays, basically a Bay 2.0. With this the UK would have a far more capable and flexible LitM Group, that would probably far cheaper to operate. Doing it in logical stages spreads the cost over a workable timeframe whilst reducing the impact to the availability of the LitM Group.

As for the Points, leave them as is as they need to be concentrating on their prime role of sea lift for the Army. Providing they with some sort of roll on self defence capability such as ECM and decoys would not be a bad idea though.

Iv said it up thread I’d follow this same route but with the SSS design as the base for them ( if the design below is chosen ), old reports have it that this design would be around 210m by 30m as can be seen it’s a very flexible design that could very easily lend its self to the LSD role to replaced the bays or the LPD role to replace the Albion’s ( the LPD version would have to be built to higher standards ) if done right this could lead to 7-8 vessels of varying version based on the same hull.

If not this design then I’d go for the Karel Doorman as the base hull, as far as I see it this it the next stage of the enforcer design evolution ( larger, smaller radar foot print )

I wouldn’t say 5 of either of these would be too much to ask for with the LPD hangering up to 6 merlin / 2 chinook and the LSDs hangering up to 3 merlin / 1 chinook.

[Scimitar54]

I'm OK with most of this. However, I still think that the Albion replacements will be a pair of LHDs (circa 35k Tonnes) with maximum automation to reduce the manning requirements as far as is sensible.

[Lord Jim]

With four or five Enforcer based LPD/LSDs we will have more than enough aviation capacity for our available Merlin HC4s and other platforms. There is no need for any LHDs unless we increase our Helicopter fleet or modify the Chinooks etc for maritime operations which they are not able to do at present except for short duration one offs.

[ArmChairCivvy]

With four or five Enforcer based LPD

We had 4 (now 3) and decided to prioritise other things than aviation (carried by the ships themselves)
- that was predicated on the premise that the rotary a/c would come from somewhere else
- that still holds (just the "from where" has changed)
- against that background it is easy to see A. why LitM is seen as an adjunct to a CTF (we call it with another name), and B. why the MoD is keen to have assets that can be present in more places and operate without such an umbilical cord (but only in "lighter scenarios).

[Tempest414]

With four or five Enforcer based LPD/LSDs we will have more than enough aviation capacity for our available Merlin HC4s and other platforms. There is no need for any LHDs unless we increase our Helicopter fleet

As I have said many times the Puma replacement holds the key. For me the RAF helicopter fleet is unbalanced with 60 Chinooks and 25 Pumas I feel that we need to address this with the Puma replacement and have a fleet of say 50 Chinooks and 35 to 40 NH-90s with sea going air-frames and power folding main rotor heads . I feel that a Enforcer LHD would give us that important 3rd flat top without the need to try and put F-35 on it which allows us to have a Strike carrier and LPH / LHD at all times

[Lord Jim]

With the two Enforcer LPDs and three LSD we would have hanger space for 24 Merlin sized helicopters within the LitM, which should be sufficient for our needs. We then of course have a Carrier available to ferry a large number of Chinooks to where the action is and disembark them so they can operate from the FOB established by the Ready Commando and its support assets.

[Tempest414]

However if the Puma fleet was replaced by NH-90 then with three Enforcer LPD/ LSD and a Enforcer LHD the group could carry 18 Merlin's , 10 NH - 90 and 10 Apache leaving the Carrier to carry up to 24 F-35 ,8 Merlin ASW , 4 Merlin AEW and 5 or 6 Chinook

[Lord Jim]

That would be nice but we only have around 12 or so Merlin HC4s available at any one time with the rest in maintenance or training. If we replace the Puma, and that is not certain, we could end up with a contractor run operation to provide helicopters for UK training freeing up the Chinooks for other duties. The other elephant in the room is that all the helicopters in the JHC or whatever it is called these days, besides the Merlin HC4/4A are not capable of sustained maritime operations and would be wrecked by such a deployment. However 12 Merlin HC4/4As is enough to support the Lead Commando with 4 to 6 Apache Guardians along for fire support. Again this is easily handled by the LPDs and LSDs

Just out of interest have anyone got accurate costings for the various Enforcer designs, because if the LHD is more expensive than the LPD then the argument is moot. If not it could be in contention.

[Jake1992]

Just out of interest have anyone got accurate costings for the various Enforcer designs, because if the LHD is more expensive than the LPD then the argument is moot. If not it could be in contention.

Is there any point looking at the costing of the current enforcer designs as we are talking 10+ years away so not only would inflation put thirds number way out but surely the designs them selfs would change a lot over that time, as Iv mentioned above I believe that the Karel Doorman hull is the next evolution of the enforcer design and we could see big changes still.

Another thing that’s got me thinking is if we go down the route of 4-5 identical hulls ( LPDs only not LSDs ) would the RN accept a reduction in build standards ?

[shark bait]

There is no need for any LHDs unless we increase our Helicopter fleet

Apart from the need to isolate the carrier from the amphibious assault, and apart from the need to save space for the F35.

Without a helicopter platform the carriers are a bodge job, that needs fixing.

[Tempest414]

If we replace the Puma, and that is not certain,

I believe that a Puma replacement is well in the RAF mind set due to the Lesson's learnt in the Balkan's where Chinooks were to big to operate in the small spaces and also in Nepal where the Chinooks were sent home as not being usable due to the large down draft.

As for Merlin HC-4 being the only JHC type able to operate at sea for long periods this is why I say replacing Puma with NH-90 MTT ( Maritime Tactical Transport ) around 2025 - 2030 would be the best out come

[Lord Jim]

So who would operate these? As they are operating off maritime platforms then the FAA could lay claim to them as a way to supplement the Merlin HC4 fleet. I know that in principle all transport helicopters are gathered under JHC, but historically those at see are flown by the FAA.

Therefore would it be better to order additional Merlin HC4s to improve the maritime lift capacity? They can always operate on land as the Sea Kings did in Afghanistan.

[Lord Jim]

Is there any point looking at the costing of the current enforcer designs as we are talking 10+ years away

Well yes because if the LHD version is more expensive now than the LDP, there is little chance it will not be in the future.

[Poiuytrewq]

I say replacing Puma with NH-90 MTT

would it be better to order additional Merlin HC4s to improve the maritime lift capacity?

Are there any other options? I don't have a view on this yet apart from ensuring that the Puma's are replaced with a capable but also highly cost effective design.

Helicopter numbers are way too low now and this needs addressed ASAP, even if they aren't the absolute pinnacle of aviation excellence. Robust, reliable in all environments and economical to procure and maintain will be enough. It's time to build some mass back into the UK armed forces and the Puma replacements would be a good place to start.

[Poiuytrewq]

Is there any point looking at the costing of the current enforcer designs as we are talking 10+ years away

Well yes because if the LHD version is more expensive now than the LDP, there is little chance it will not be in the future.

I understand the commonality argument but I don't think an enforcer derived LHD would be any cheaper than an Ocean Mk2.

I would expect both to be in the £400m region minimum.

[Tempest414]

So who would operate these? As they are operating off maritime platforms then the FAA could lay claim to them as a way to supplement the Merlin HC4 fleet. I know that in principle all transport helicopters are gathered under JHC, but historically those at see are flown by the FAA.

The NH-90 MTT would be operated by the RAF with the ability to go to sea as needed in support of the Merlin force

The only reason I am putting NH-90 MTT is because it is here now ready to go off the self

[Jake1992]

So who would operate these? As they are operating off maritime platforms then the FAA could lay claim to them as a way to supplement the Merlin HC4 fleet. I know that in principle all transport helicopters are gathered under JHC, but historically those at see are flown by the FAA.

The NH-90 MTT would be operated by the RAF with the ability to go to sea as needed in support of the Merlin force

The only reason I am putting NH-90 MTT is because it is here now ready to go off the self

Wouldn’t the merlin make more sence here giving commonality of platforms and keeping a British manufacturing line going longer ?

[Tempest414]

I may be wrong but I feel the RAF would want something about the same size as puma which NH-90 is. Merlin is a fair bit bigger than both of these and I just feel that a good mix for JHC would be

35 x NH-90 MTT
25 x Merlin HC-4
55 x Chinook

[Poiuytrewq]

35 x NH-90 MTT
25 x Merlin HC-4

Have you any idea about the cost difference between the two?

[Jake1992]

35 x NH-90 MTT
25 x Merlin HC-4

Have you any idea about the cost difference between the two?

You also have to take in to account the cost of setting up a new logistics and training line as well as the lose in tax to the treasury that merlin would give

[Tempest414]

I do get cost and budgets but there is more to it than just cost alone like you can fit one Merlin into a C-17 but can get two NH-90's into a C-17 and so on. Now I am not saying NH-90 is the best fit but there is a lot to take into account but my main point is what ever replaces the Puma fleet should be able to go to sea on board Carriers , LPH / LHD , LPD's as a back up to CHF Merlin's

[SW1]

The french deploy the puma at sea and I think USN sealift ships do too.

Given in hot and or high puma mk2 will lift more than merlin in combat configuration might be an interim option.

The CHF wanted chinook got merlin due to lack of cash.

[Lord Jim]

What I think we need is not a Puma sized platform but rather a stripped out Wildcat (AH-2?) to be used as a direct replacement for the old Lynx AH-9s and operated by the AAC in direct support of 16 Air Assault. A smaller number could be allocated to directly support the Royal Marines.

Going one stage further I would increase the armament options for the Naval Wildcat to make it more capable of engaging land targets, allowing it to carry two Brimstone and a fixed Cannon for example and allowing them to act a light Recce/Attack platforms to support the Royal Marines when necessary. Then next stage would be to upgrade the AAC Wildcat AH-1s to have the same option to operate in the Recce/Light Attack role to supplement the Apache Guardians.

This wold give the Royal Marines back their integral aviation support and reduce the need to deploy Apache Guardians off warships, a task for which, though capable, are not really suited to.

[serge750]

Well in these times of needed VFM from the treasury the Puma should really be replaced by either merlins or wildcats to ease the logistic burden IMO, & the inevitable cut that the politician of all flavours will demand !!!

But having said that I would quite like to see the bell Valour or something similar bought. ok a different league but I think it could be very useful, especially if it get marinized, maybe a crowsnest version? sorry to go of on a different tangent...