UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1192
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 30 Apr 2019, 15:47

Not sure where to post this thought this might be the best place.
Looks like it could be handy for a few nations but does anyone here think something like this could come in useful for a nation like our selfs in any way ? Maybe with the RM for amphibious ops on NATOs norther flank ?


Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1206
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 20 May 2019, 10:46

So HMS Albion & Kent along with RFA Argus leave today for the NATO Baltic joint EX would be nice to see some pics of them together

Would also be good to know what helicopters Argus is carry if any

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1206
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 26 May 2019, 14:29

So Italy launch there New LHD Trieste Yesterday good video on you tube of going into the water

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1738
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 27 May 2019, 09:50

Tempest414 wrote:So HMS Albion & Kent along with RFA Argus leave today for the NATO Baltic joint EX would be nice to see some pics of them together

Would also be good to know what helicopters Argus is carry if any


For me this is a very interesting development as RFA Argus looks to be acting in the Aviation Support Ship role. Is the RN assessing what aviation features a FLSS would require or looking at a ASS/PCRS replacement. I’m hoping for the latter a “basic” small third RFA flattop would still be towards the top of my purchase list.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

Aethulwulf
Member
Posts: 827
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Aethulwulf » 27 May 2019, 10:24

Repulse wrote:Is the RN assessing what aviation features a FLSS would require or looking at a ASS/PCRS replacement.
No. It's because neither carrier is available. A situation which will change in a few short years.

Baltic Protector 19 involves a total of 3,000 military personnel and 17 vessels from nine nations. It is very much the opposite end of the scale to a Littoral Strike Group.

http://www.warfare.today/2019/05/25/exercise-baltic-protector-underway/

Online
User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 27 May 2019, 10:32

Repulse wrote:For me this is a very interesting development as RFA Argus looks to be acting in the Aviation Support Ship role. Is the RN assessing what aviation features a FLSS would require...
Working out the structure of an effective LSG perhaps?
Repulse wrote:I’m hoping for the latter a “basic” small third RFA flattop would still be towards the top of my purchase list.
Personally I'm hoping the option of upgrading the three current Bays is seriously considered before building or converting anything else. Adding a Johan deWitt sized hanger to each Bay would give each vessel a 6 Merlin capacity with 2 Chinook capable landing spots. Combined the 3 Bays would have a capacity of 18 Merlins with 6 Chinook capable landing spots. It would go a long way to offset the loss of Ocean in a pretty cost effective way.

It would seem like a better use of resources to use the Bay's as the Littoral Strike Vessels and the converted Points as Bay replacements in the Caribbean and the Gulf.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1738
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 27 May 2019, 13:59

Aethulwulf wrote:No. It's because neither carrier is available. A situation which will change in a few short years.


Maybe but with only two carriers, then a backup is only wise, and a RFA ASS is relatively cheap in the grand scheme of things.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1738
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 27 May 2019, 14:06

Poiuytrewq wrote:Adding a Johan deWitt sized hanger to each Bay would give each vessel a 6 Merlin capacity with 2 Chinook capable landing spots.


Would be great, but ultimately can’t see it happening, on both cost grounds but also not enough helicopters. What I can see is an Argus replacement and a small number (say 3) Multirole LSDs in the future to act as global MCM motherships, but even then with a hangar for 2-3 Merlins max like the FSSs.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1192
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 27 May 2019, 14:37

For me the way to go for future amphibious with the current budget is to replace the current 5 with 5 vessels based on the Mars SSS design. The concept design just posted of the SSS thread is meant to between 205m-215m by 30m-32m.

If we go for a common hull of around 210m by 30m and split it 2 LPD 3 LSD -

LPD -
2 chinook / 3-4 merlin flight deck
2 chinook / 5-6 merlin hanger
4 LCU well dock
4 LCVP dividend
70 vehicle, vehicle deck
500 troops standard / 750 over load
2 x phalanx
2 x 30mm
maybe CAMM


LSD -
1 chinook / 2 merlin flight deck
1 chinook / 3 merlin hanger
2 LCU well dock
4 LCVP dividend
1100 lane metres
Work deck 2 x 40t cranes
350 troops standard / 700 over load
2 x phalanx
2 x 30mm

5 of these sharing the same common hull as the 3 SSS could be done for the current budget and would give use a pretty flexible force.

Up to 21 helos, 2000 troops standard 3600 in over load, 14 LCUs and 20 LCVP/CB90

Aethulwulf
Member
Posts: 827
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Aethulwulf » 27 May 2019, 15:00

Repulse wrote:
Aethulwulf wrote:No. It's because neither carrier is available. A situation which will change in a few short years.


Maybe but with only two carriers, then a backup is only wise, and a RFA ASS is relatively cheap in the grand scheme of things.
An RFA ASS is a class of ship that does not exist anywhere, apart from your odd imagination.

As Argus herself demonstrated in the Balkans, a cheap LPH just does not work. And yet you continue to cling to this failed concept... <sigh>.

Scimitar54
Member
Posts: 408
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Scimitar54 » 27 May 2019, 15:34

Which is probably why the real solution to both of these problems (and as the replacements for Albion & Bulwark) is 2 x sizeable LHDs. :mrgreen:

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 27 May 2019, 16:20

Poiuytrewq wrote:Adding a Johan deWitt sized hanger to each Bay would give each vessel

Pleasehelp us with a link to that post (the designs were interesting).
Poiuytrewq wrote:It would seem like a better use of resources to use the Bay's as the Littoral Strike Vessels and the converted Points as Bay replacements in the Caribbean and the Gulf.

Why?
We need all the Bays;
We have 4 points (and 2 more that we can buy back)
Repulse wrote:Maybe but with only two carriers, then a backup is only wise

Good point; can't be everywhere
- exactly the idea of having a light (but instanteneous) response in-area
Repulse wrote: can’t see it happening, on both cost grounds but also not enough helicopters.

-helicopters are expensive
- we have too few in some special categories

However, we have quite a few of naval Wildcats
- and you can rotate them through SF support and afloat-assignments (not even touching the Army... the RM having theirs from the RN allotted number)

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1738
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 27 May 2019, 17:56

Aethulwulf wrote:An RFA ASS is a class of ship that does not exist anywhere, apart from your odd imagination.

As Argus herself demonstrated in the Balkans, a cheap LPH just does not work. And yet you continue to cling to this failed concept...


It’s a term used by DK Brown and was considered in the 70s as part of the future RN Amphibious Fleet mixture. You are right that the idea was scrapped and a LPH (Ocean) was built. However, from what I read the problem with RFA Argus was that it did not have the facilities for RMs and could not launch landing craft, the ability to operate Helicopters was never an issue.

Yes, if the money was there I’d go for a large LHA/LPH/LHD to compliment the CVFs, but it’s not and 2 aviation platforms is not enough.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1192
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 27 May 2019, 18:21

Repulse wrote:Yes, if the money was there I’d go for a large LHA/LPH/LHD to compliment the CVFs, but it’s not and 2 aviation platforms is not enough.


Yes a 3rd good size flat top to compliment the other amphibious plat forms would be ideal but with the current budget it could very well be cost prohibitive, this is where I’m leaning to a British San Antonio style LPD / LSD.
A class of 5 vessels base on one hull type split in to 2 class of LPD and LSD, with the LPDs have a 6 merlin hanger a twin chinook flight deck and the LSDs having a 3 merlin hanger and twin merlin flight deck ( sacrifice hanger and flight deck size for work deck and cranes )

Between the 5 we’d have a helo capacity similar to HMS Ocean but would be an easier sell to the treasury as your only replacing 1 for 1 and not asking for a big new flat top.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1738
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 27 May 2019, 18:27

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Good point; can't be everywhere
- exactly the idea of having a light (but instanteneous) response in-area


One option would be to build 3 FSSs, but change the third to have a larger hangar and a smaller solid stores load. A 6 helicopter capacity should be an option according to studies, one more than max RFA Fort Victoria capacity.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3068
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 27 May 2019, 20:53

Out of interest, how long were the Bay class's predecessors in service for, the Knights of the Round Table LSTs?

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1738
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 27 May 2019, 22:15

Lord Jim wrote:Out of interest, how long were the Bay class's predecessors in service for, the Knights of the Round Table LSTs?


1964 with Sir Tristan still used as a static training ship in Portland.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 27 May 2019, 23:04

Lord Jim wrote:the Knights of the Round Table LSTs?


Is the one is Brasil a newbuild, or a re-build of the bombed out one in the Falklands (of the same name)?
- that's only one of the class... but the design is still in service
- and what the Turks are building (to support the, now, burned out helicopter platform of the JC1 clan) are looking much the same (at least to me)

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1738
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 28 May 2019, 14:16

NDCC Almirante Saboia is Sir Bedivere, so over 50 years old. NDCC Garcia D'Avila is Sir Galahad commissioned in 87.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1738
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 28 May 2019, 14:30

A Joint Support Ship (JSS) like the Dutch is in the order of £400mn a piece. Making the assumption that a FSS will be in the order of £350mn a piece, then why not forget the FLSS as advertised and replace them with 2 RFA JSSs instead. Whilst each could still be forward based, effectively they could each be joined with a Albion LPD and Bay LSD, giving two solid ARGs, each capable of operating an enhanced RM Cdo globally.

Assuming the MOD have £100mn aside for the two FLSSs and £1bn for the FSS, the difference would be £400mn which should IMO come from the T31 budget (the rest being used for another T26, or 3-4 B3 Rivers/Leanders for forward basing).
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1192
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 28 May 2019, 14:52

Iv always liked the idea of 2 Karel Doormans to replace the 2 waves as and when their time comes, this way the replenishment capability of the waves is kept ( enhanced upon ), we get a boost in HADR capability and and boost to our amphibious ops all in one.

The design is almost perfect as is the only things I’d change would be to get rid of the C&C as it wouldn’t be needed and reduced the current massive lane metre-age of 2000m ( nearly double the bays ) in half to 1000m and use that space to enlarge its replenishment stores.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 28 May 2019, 15:03

Repulse wrote: why not forget the FLSS as advertised and replace them with 2 RFA JSSs instead.


You are replacing a yacht - with a couple of guys, in their seats in the back, going for Blue Marlin - with a full-blown whaling expedition
- the idea is to have these assets in regions where there are no whales

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3068
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 28 May 2019, 15:14

https://www.janes.com/article/88689/sou ... sea-trials
Does anyone have any information on how much the South Koreans paid for these two ships? I was just wondering how much it would cost us to buy a couple at some point in the future to replace the Albions and how much cheaper it could possibly be than building in the UK.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1192
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 28 May 2019, 15:49

Lord Jim wrote:https://www.janes.com/article/88689/south-korea-s-second-dokdo-class-helicopter-carrier-begins-sea-trials
Does anyone have any information on how much the South Koreans paid for these two ships? I was just wondering how much it would cost us to buy a couple at some point in the future to replace the Albions and how much cheaper it could possibly be than building in the UK.


At $296m in 2005 I can’t see them being built to the same standards the RN expects for a vessel of this sort, most likely closer to a bay class unbuild standards.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1738
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 28 May 2019, 18:58

With RFA Wave Knight joining the UK contribution to the JEF the package is looking even more impressive - with double the following the RN would be able to have a 100% deployable (not necessarily deployed) ARG:

- 1 x LPD
- 1 x LSD
- 2 x Points
- 1 x Tanker
- 1 x JSS (Ft Victoria & Argus replacements)

Obviously the last item is what I’m proposing.

The problem remains Escort Numbers - assign 2 T45 + 2 T26 to each CBG and 1 T45 + 2 T26 to each ARG would just about scrape a credible force structure, but leaves the cupboard bare for TAPS/FRE and an EoS Standing Commitment, bloody shame HMG doesn’t stump up the cash for 5 more T26s as that would solve it...
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Poiuytrewq, Qwerty and 23 guests