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.
User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1735
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 28 May 2019, 18:59

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
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


You are probably right, just feels we are very close to being able to have a 100% ARG capability - just hope HMG stumps up the extra cash.
"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
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5741
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 29 May 2019, 09:08

Jake1992 wrote: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.

You mean like HMS Ocean?

Jake1992 wrote:Iv always liked the idea of 2 Karel Doormans to replace the 2 waves

A ships the Dutch like so much they're palming it off on the Germans and starting a project to build a new supply ship.

The Karel Doorman has hit the sweet spot of being incredibly complicated tanker, and terrible amphibious platform at the same time. Avoid.

The Bay Class is already excellent, the Navy already know they work well, why not a new generation of those?
@LandSharkUK

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1186
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 29 May 2019, 10:01

shark bait wrote:
Jake1992 wrote: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.

You mean like HMS Ocean?

Jake1992 wrote:Iv always liked the idea of 2 Karel Doormans to replace the 2 waves

A ships the Dutch like so much they're palming it off on the Germans and starting a project to build a new supply ship.

The Karel Doorman has hit the sweet spot of being incredibly complicated tanker, and terrible amphibious platform at the same time. Avoid.

The Bay Class is already excellent, the Navy already know they work well, why not a new generation of those?


HMS Ocean was only ever meant to be a cheap short term stop gap that ended up serving a lot long due to the politicians, if your planing to replace the 2 current height build standards assault ships they should be built to the same standard not cut.

With regards to karel doorman class I was trying to think of a way to keep the capability the waves offer while giving us what we’re looking for in the FLSS, yes they are more complex than either of the formers but they offer more while also reducing over crew by reducing 2 vessels.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1735
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 29 May 2019, 10:03

shark bait wrote:The Bay Class is already excellent, the Navy already know they work well, why not a new generation of those?


Have no issue with a new Bay Class as long as the hanger capacity allows for @6 Merlins. The reason I linked a “JSS” to the FSS was that there is budget free and a ship that could double as a (limited) reserve FSS would address some of the concerns with going down to 2 for the CSG.

I guess if two FLSS were purchased with limited aviation capability, then with a CVF as a LPH then a single JSS could do it, but having two parallel sizeable ARGs (ensuring a 100% capability) is a significant arrow weapon in the RNs armoury that few others have.
"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
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5741
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 29 May 2019, 10:08

Jake1992 wrote:HMS Ocean was only ever meant to be a cheap short term stop gap that ended up serving a lot long due to the politicians,

Whats wrong with doing that again?

HMS Ocean worked brilliantly, taking part in three wars and loads of other noncombat missions. The French are happy with their Mistral class which appear very similar to Ocean.

Repulse wrote:as long as the hanger capacity allows for @6 Merlins

Why?

I'm a big fan of keeping things simple, it's part of the reason why the Bay class is excellent. That density of aviation requires a dedicated ship. I don't know any example of a ship operating 6 helicopters without being a big flat top, there's probably a reason for that.
@LandSharkUK

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3061
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 29 May 2019, 11:06

I would suggest that we modify one of the Bays with a true aviation capability for four to six Merlin sized platforms to provide a platform able to provide limited support for amphibious operations when a Carrier is not available and to provide data on what the next generation of amphibious platforms should be. It would possible also give us a superior HADR platform to the standard Bay and even operate as a LSS when required. In addition it could be used as an aviation training vessel, and should be able to support a modular medical facility as well. This would allow it to act as a replacement for Argus, though not as capable.

As for funding, well I would scrap the actual FLSS programme for a start, as I see it as a capability that has been created more to satisfy political needs than those of the military. At best the two platforms fall into the nice to have category, but there are many other items in the need to have one that need to be filled first. Giving the ARG an integral aviation capability is one of those in my book, even if it is only limited.

I have doubts about the RN having a permanent beyond the Gulf and even there I am not sure. Having facilities around the globe is one thing and this would support operational deployment in those areas when they are undertaken, allowing the prepositioning of stores and munitions and possibly facilities to conduct repairs. The personnel station at these bases could be military or civilian contractors with a limited military presence.

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 » 29 May 2019, 11:17

shark bait wrote:example of a ship operating 6 helicopters without being a big flat top

Admittedly only two, rather than "three Tiger cruisers" were converted and "would in some way replace the anti-submarine warfare role provided in the past provided by Aircraft Carriers, in theory providing twelve dipping-sonar and torpedo equipped helicopters (4 x 3) in a 30kt hull with considerable self-defense capability. In theory even, one Tiger might be available to threaten nuclear depth charge use and free space on aircraft carriers like Hermes and Victorious for Strike and Air Warfare aircraft."

They should have gone one step further and have smaller (6 :D ) dipping sonar helos for detection, and done the persecution in a fire-and-forget way envisaged for the Type 82 destroyers= fitted with nuclear Ikara anti-submarine missiles could have been a more reliable nuclear deterrent [not to come anywhere near x-Atlantic troop convoys], but the British Ikara missile was ultimately fitted only to carry conventional Mark 46 torpedoes"
... and then we got "through-deck cruisers" instead :( .

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1186
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 29 May 2019, 11:19

shark bait wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:HMS Ocean was only ever meant to be a cheap short term stop gap that ended up serving a lot long due to the politicians,

Whats wrong with doing that again?

HMS Ocean worked brilliantly, taking part in three wars and loads of other noncombat missions. The French are happy with their Mistral class which appear very similar to Ocean.

Repulse wrote:as long as the hanger capacity allows for @6 Merlins

Why?

I'm a big fan of keeping things simple, it's part of the reason why the Bay class is excellent. That density of aviation requires a dedicated ship. I don't know any example of a ship operating 6 helicopters without being a big flat top, there's probably a reason for that.


Ocean worked as part of a group with the Albion’s, the Albion’s came in close ( built to higher standards for this ) Ocean her self sat further back, what you put forward with the dekdo class was to replace the Albion’s ( the forward part of the group ) with a vessel built to much lower standards. Don’t get me wrong I like them and think a slightly larger version would be spot on for but they’d need to be built to Albion’s standard which built in the UK I bet would come in at £800m at least.

Just because the French are happy doesn’t mean we should be, take a look at the Canberra class for example they are based on the Spanish JC1 which is built to similar standards as Ocean that didn’t mean the Aus’s were happy with that just because the Spanish were, no they had theirs built to higher standards.


I believe the US San Antonio class can operate up to 6 merlin size helos.
For me this would be the way to go with the current budget, have 5 vessels base on the same hull ( ideal the same base as the SSS ) with2 built as LPDs 6 helo hanger twin chinook flight deck 4 LCU well dock, and 3 build as LSDs like the bays but with a 3 merlin hand 2 merlins flight deck and 2 LCU hanger.
This set would give us a helo capacity of 21 yet allow each to do there own thing while maintaining organic aviation.
I also believe it’d be the easiest to get past the treasury as it’d almost a like for like

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5741
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 29 May 2019, 11:49

Lord Jim wrote: limited support for amphibious operations when a Carrier is not available

Which will never happen. The UK will never engage without air cover.

Lord Jim wrote:scrap the actual FLSS programme for a start, as I see it as a capability that has been created more to satisfy political needs than those of the military

I thought so too. But nope, the requirement came from within the Navy, not the MOD.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Admittedly only two, rather than "three Tiger cruisers"

And weren't they terrible?
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5741
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 29 May 2019, 12:00

Jake1992 wrote: they’d need to be built to Albion’s standard

Why do they? Whats the point in hardening 10% of the assault ships?

Ocean was not hardened against attack and she still performed well where required. Any replacement would be used the same way, i.e. no direct combat.

Jake1992 wrote:I believe the US San Antonio class can operate up to 6 merlin size helos.

But they don't. No navy operates that many aircraft without having a missive flat top, that is not a coincidence.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1735
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 29 May 2019, 12:33

shark bait wrote:don't know any example of a ship operating 6 helicopters without being a big flat top


RFA Argus can operate up to 6 Merlins and RFA Victoria up to 5 Merlins. Admittedly, the most I can find deployed is 4 Merlins / Apaches, but originally she was designed to ferry 12 Harriers before the conversion. It is not a flattop, and whilst it failed as LPH my understanding that this was in accommodating/loading RMs rather than the aviation facilities- this to me isn’t a problem given the RM capacity and large flat decks of the LPD and LSD in the ARG.

Would love a third flattop of course but really can’t see it happening and any like for like Ocean replacement would just see PoW sold or mothballed.
"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

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1478
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 29 May 2019, 12:35

shark bait wrote:But they don't. No navy operates that many aircraft without having a missive flat top, that is not a coincidence.

Also tend to agree - I would see numbers like that on anything other than a flat-top as a ferry capability only. Also I think that I read somewhere that trials have shown that a Bay-style hull (superstructure & hangar forward) can't efficiently/ effectively operate more than two landing spots, so envisaging using it as a "mini helicopter carrier" is probably not that practical. Low tempo operations of 2-3 aircraft probably OK (and extremely useful in the right type of operation), ferrying more, also probably OK, but operating 6 at a time at normal tempo, probably won't work. Now, if anyone is proposing a small, simple, flat-top ASV for the RFA, to replace Argus then I can get behind that, but I'm not sure where the money is coming from.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1186
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 29 May 2019, 12:45

shark bait wrote:
Jake1992 wrote: they’d need to be built to Albion’s standard

Why do they? Whats the point in hardening 10% of the assault ships?

Ocean was not hardened against attack and she still performed well where required. Any replacement would be used the same way, i.e. no direct combat.

Jake1992 wrote:I believe the US San Antonio class can operate up to 6 merlin size helos.

But they don't. No navy operates that many aircraft without having a missive flat top, that is not a coincidence.


As said Ocean would always sit back while the Albion’s went in close so to an extent it was allowable for ocean to be built to lesser standards ( again she was only a stop gap ) what your proposing is the main assault ships that will be going close built to lesser standards to me this is not acceptable.

The US don’t operate 6 from them due to the fact they have the wasp and America class LHDs, but this does not mean they cant operate that number, there a big difference to what one does and what one can do. If memory serves me right I read that the San Antonio class can operate up to 5 V-22s that are significantly larger than a merlin. There is also the Karel doorman that you don’t like can operate up to 6 merlin size helo lol


Am I safe to assume that your idea during this discussion is to have 2 Dekdo style vessels built to Ocean standards ( to replace the Albion’s ) and 3 next gen bay class with out hanger ?

Price wise this could be doable.
Politically this might be hard due to bringing in 2 new big flat tops.
Personally I think it’ll once again limit the LSDs in the same fashion the bays our now, as we see one all has what is meant to be a temporary hanger showing a hanger would be much appreciated. The lesser build standards of the primary assault ships would put personal in an unnecessary and unacceptable risk. I do see a bonus of the flat tops being able to operate as ASW carriers as and when needed though.

Me I have 2 differing ideas for amphibious replacement -

1 - would be 2 slightly larger Dekdo style vessels built to Albion standards with 2 next gen bay with hangers.
Price wise I believe this could be out of our reach with current budget
Politically as I said with your idea this could be hard due to them being 2 new large flattops
Personally I believe it could be a well balanced and flexible force.

2 - would be 5 vessels base on the same base design 2 LPD and 3 LSD, these would be like the US is doing with the San Antonio class and replacement LSDs.
LPD would be a 6 merlin twin chinook hanger, 3/4 merlin twin chinook flight deck, 4 LCU well dock and 4 LCVP dividends.
LSD would be a 3 merlin single chinook hanger, twin merlin single chinook flight deck, 2 LCU well dock and 4 LCVP dividends.
Each would carry up to 700 troops in over load.
Price wise I think it could be just doable
Politically I think it’d be the easiest to get through due to it looking like a like for like on paper.
Personally I think this route would give use greater flexibility of combined or single operations but could be more limited it getting helos in the air at the fastest pace compared to a flattop.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1199
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 29 May 2019, 12:45

For me we need to keep any new Amphib group simple in terms of building and operating. So we need look at what we are replacing which is

2 x Albion ( but we only operate 1 )
3 x Bay
RFA Argus

For me with all the capability these ship offer they are lacking aviation which is proven by the need to fit rubs on the Bays . So as I have said before I would look to replace the 3 Bays ( an Mk1 enforcer design) and Argus with 4 new 200m Enforcer fitted out to carry 2 LCUs in the well dock and 4 LCVP on davits plus a hangar for 3 Merlins operating off of 2 spots. These ships would have a role 11 med centre and be able to carry 450 troops. next I would simply add to this build program a 210m Enforcer LHD using the same hull the same power plants the same role 11 med centre the same well dock the same troop carrying but adding a hanger deck and a flat top able to operate 20 aircraft form 8 spots

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5741
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 29 May 2019, 13:19

Caribbean wrote:Also I think that I read somewhere that trials have shown that a Bay-style hull (superstructure & hangar forward) can't efficiently/ effectively operate more than two landing spots, so envisaging using it as a "mini helicopter carrier" is probably not that practical.

Exactly! The landing spots are the limiting factor, not the hangar.
@LandSharkUK

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1186
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 29 May 2019, 13:25

shark bait wrote:
Caribbean wrote:Also I think that I read somewhere that trials have shown that a Bay-style hull (superstructure & hangar forward) can't efficiently/ effectively operate more than two landing spots, so envisaging using it as a "mini helicopter carrier" is probably not that practical.

Exactly! The landing spots are the limiting factor, not the hangar.


Would say 5 ships with 10-12 merlin spots between them be able to get 20 odd merlins in the air at the same rate of 2 flat tops with 5 merlin spots each ?

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5741
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 29 May 2019, 13:36

Perhaps with practice it could reach a similar rate. However it sounds much more intensive because it looses the economies of scale.

Jake1992 wrote:As said Ocean would always sit back while the Albion’s went in close ... what your proposing is the main assault ships that will be going close built to lesser standards to me this is not acceptable.

Who is proposing that?

HMS Ocean offered great value, the Navy would be well served by a modernised Ocean, used in exactly the same way.
(i.e. not going toe to toe)
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1735
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 29 May 2019, 14:23

Jake1992, completely agree - you have one ship with a hangar for 6 Merlins (excluding Helos on the Escorts which would be a mixture of ASW Merlins and Wildcats) and then use the landing spots also on the Albion and Bay - that’s what they have been designed for. Not as neat as a LPH no, but cost effective and would give the RN the ability to have a (limited) separate ARG from the CVFs (both of which cannot be guaranteed to be available most of the time).

I get the argument for replacing all these with Bays mk2s (with hangars), but each ship has a different role and consolidating all three roles into a single design would ultimately make each more expensive so fewer ships overall, and lead to a (admittedly probably small) small hit to overall capability.
"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: 1186
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 29 May 2019, 14:33

shark bait wrote:Perhaps with practice it could reach a similar rate. However it sounds much more intensive because it looses the economies of scale.

Jake1992 wrote:As said Ocean would always sit back while the Albion’s went in close ... what your proposing is the main assault ships that will be going close built to lesser standards to me this is not acceptable.

Who is proposing that?

HMS Ocean offered great value, the Navy would be well served by a modernised Ocean, used in exactly the same way.
(i.e. not going toe to toe)


What I’m saying is that the former set up had the main assault ship built to better standards to allow them to come close and a cheap flat top that could sit off and yes it worked well, and yes I agree when not part of that group Ocean did a great service no question.
But what is being suggested is that the Albion’s the 2 main assault ships be replace with 2 Ocean standard vessels but unlike Ocean they will have to come close to conduct the assault role, this puts the crew at an unnecessary and unacceptable risk IMO.

Now if the Dokdo style vessels were to just replace oceans role and the Albion’s replaces separately then I’m all for it, but it’d never get by the political road block or cause PoW to be sold off.

The proposal I put forward about the 5 vessels based on the same base design is me trying to find a way to give the amphibious force that much needed organic helo capacity that can get through politically and with out risking the loss of PoW or being reliant on the QEs ( to free them up for the strike role )

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1186
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 29 May 2019, 14:41

Repulse wrote:Jake1992, completely agree - you have one ship with a hangar for 6 Merlins (excluding Helos on the Escorts which would be a mixture of ASW Merlins and Wildcats) and then use the landing spots also on the Albion and Bay - that’s what they have been designed for. Not as neat as a LPH no, but cost effective and would give the RN the ability to have a (limited) separate ARG from the CVFs (both of which cannot be guaranteed to be available most of the time).

I get the argument for replacing all these with Bays mk2s (with hangars), but each ship has a different role and consolidating all three roles into a single design would ultimately make each more expensive so fewer ships overall, and lead to a (admittedly probably small) small hit to overall capability.


My thinking is each of the Albion’s and bays replaced 1 for 1 with 5 vessels based on the same base design ( 2 LPD and 3 LSD ) all 5 would have hangers ( 6 merlin on the LPD ) but the LSD would have a smaller 3 merlin hanger and smaller flight deck to free up space for a reinforced work deck with 2 40t cranes. In effect just think of a bay class as is today but with a 30m plug to allow a hanger as the LSD ( look at what the US is doing using the San Antonio design as the base for future LSD ) I cant see adding a hanger to a bay style vessel putting out of budget.

Between these 5 vessels you’d have up to 20 odd merlin size helos and 10-12 merlin spots, this matches Ocean for helos and gives and matches PoW for spots yes it wouldn’t be as efficient as an LPH but it gets the job done with out putting PoW at risk and allows for each vessel to be more flexible in single use.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1735
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 29 May 2019, 14:56

Jake1992, but by spreading out your hangar space you end up needing more crew / kit (cost) to cover the same number of helicopters. It also makes each LPD/LSD more expensive and less capable in other areas.

Caribbean wrote:Also I think that I read somewhere that trials have shown that a Bay-style hull (superstructure & hangar forward) can't efficiently/ effectively operate more than two landing spots


Argus has 3 spots (being reduced from 4 when it was converted to be primarily a PCRS). Nice pick below, where there are 6 Sea Kings on deck:

Image

Good read here on Argus’s history on the RFA Historical site, interesting to see it transferred 10 Sea Kings to Turkey for Operation Haven in the early 90s.

http://www.historicalrfa.org/rfa-argus
"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
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5741
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 29 May 2019, 15:18

Jake1992 wrote: but unlike Ocean they will have to come close to conduct the assault role

Whats changed? Why are the RN now required to place their LPH close to shore?
@LandSharkUK

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 » 29 May 2019, 15:19

Jake1992 wrote:Ocean worked as part of a group with the Albion’s, the Albion’s came in close ( built to higher standards for this ) Ocean her self sat further back
A good doctrine, helping to move to STOMP (straight to objective manoeuvre...?)
Jake1992 wrote:Canberra class for example they are based on the Spanish JC1 which is built to similar standards as Ocean that didn’t mean the Aus’s were happy with that just because the Spanish were, no they had theirs built to higher standards.
The Spanish were designing an "intervention"ship for something like Sierra Leone; The ozzie version is for a "real war"
shark bait wrote:And weren't they terrible?
You mean the looks :D ?
Caribbean wrote:a Bay-style hull (superstructure & hangar forward) can't efficiently/ effectively operate more than two landing spots, so envisaging using it as a "mini helicopter carrier" is probably not that practical.
Well,depends on the size, but for our 3, yes. Just that they are big enough to take two Chinooks, churning and turning (but hopefully not firing)
shark bait wrote:Exactly! The landing spots are the limiting factor, not the hangar.
A truth.
Repulse wrote:have one ship with a hangar for 6 Merlins (excluding Helos on the Escorts which would be a mixture of ASW Merlins and Wildcats) and then use the landing spots also on the Albion and Bay - that’s what they have been designed for. Not as neat as a LPH no, but cost effective and would give the RN the ability to have a (limited) separate ARG from the CVFs
... and the counter (an operational concept, as opposed to leaving everything to "design"
Repulse wrote:Nice pick below, where there are 6 Sea Kings on deck

Ohh-no :shock: I shrunk the 4 to get six, just to prove a point (from SeaKings to lighter, detection only helos)

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1186
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 29 May 2019, 15:27

Repulse wrote:Jake1992, but by spreading out your hangar space you end up needing more crew / kit (cost) to cover the same number of helicopters. It also makes each LPD/LSD more expensive and less capable in other areas.

Caribbean wrote:Also I think that I read somewhere that trials have shown that a Bay-style hull (superstructure & hangar forward) can't efficiently/ effectively operate more than two landing spots


Argus has 3 spots (being reduced from 4 when it was converted to be primarily a PCRS). Nice pick below, where there are 6 Sea Kings on deck:

Image

Good read here on Argus’s history on the RFA Historical site, interesting to see it transferred 10 Sea Kings to Turkey for Operation Haven in the early 90s.

http://www.historicalrfa.org/rfa-argus


Yes it require more crew and equipment but everyone here agrees the key weakness to the bays and Albion’s is their lack of aviation facilities, I don’t know of any other operator of LPDs / LSDs that don’t have hangers. I would think the RN has learnt it’s lesson here.
Makes them more expensive maybe but I doubt very much that the total extra on all 5 would equate to a separate LPH / LHD / LHA.
It’d only reduce its capabilities in other areas if you make them small, 5 x 200m-210m by 30m vessels could accommodate a hanger and everything the bays do in the case of a LSD or the Albion’s in the case of LPD. To make it clear I am not suggesting that all5 can do both the roles of an LPD and an LSD rather a spilt of 2 and 3 but based on the same hull and basic design stating points only change what’s needed in the designs as and where required.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1186
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 29 May 2019, 15:36

shark bait wrote:
Jake1992 wrote: but unlike Ocean they will have to come close to conduct the assault role

Whats changed? Why are the RN now required to place their LPH close to shore?


What was suggested is for the Albion’s to be replace with 2 Dekdo style LHDs built to ocean standards. The fact that they’ll be operating LCUs would require them to come closer and not be able to stand off like Ocean did.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:Ocean worked as part of a group with the Albion’s, the Albion’s came in close ( built to higher standards for this ) Ocean her self sat further back
A good doctrine, helping to move to STOMP (straight to objective manoeuvre...?)
Jake1992 wrote:Canberra class for example they are based on the Spanish JC1 which is built to similar standards as Ocean that didn’t mean the Aus’s were happy with that just because the Spanish were, no they had theirs built to higher standards.
The Spanish were designing an "intervention"ship for something like Sierra Leone; The ozzie version is for a “real war”)


Exactly and the discussion was about replacing the Albion’s ( real war fighting ) with 2 Dekdo style LHDs but built to Ocean standards ( similar to JC1 ). Any Albion replacement expected to go close for LCUs should be built to similar standards.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Caribbean, RunningStrong and 13 guests