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: 1393
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 30 May 2019, 13:10

shark bait wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:With the current budget and political out look on defence I just can’t see another flat top coming with out big risk to PoW.

If the Admirals cart articulate the difference between a carrier and an LPH they shouldn't be in the job.


It’s not so much about articulating it it’s more about how thick and short sighted politicians are they will look and say well you’ve got 2 massive flat tops use them you don’t need more

shark bait wrote:It's not going to happen, QE and PWLS will not see action at the same time.

For amphibious ops a single carrier will be operating with a Hybrid air wing of F35 + Commando helicopters.


The problem with that is
1 - F35 ops would have to stop when the commando want to get going ( not the best thing really )
2 - is there really enough same to carry enough F35s to perform CAS over the carrier and the further forward ARG and hit your opponent while providing enough merlins / chinooks / wildcats / apaches ( I doubt it )
3 - the operating of F35s and commando helos will require the carrier to be in different places at the same time.

SW1
Member
Posts: 912
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 30 May 2019, 13:17

The carriers will end up operating more like a uss America than uss enterprise. Scale of assets available are divergent in a big way with what people wish for. And seaborne only operations even smaller still. Until scale is properly accepted everything else is mute.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1921
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 30 May 2019, 13:25

shark bait wrote:It's not going to happen, QE and PWLS will not see action at the same time.

For amphibious ops a single carrier will be operating with a Hybrid air wing of F35 + Commando helicopters.


It may happen if we were at war with a peer, but anything else I agree the chances of both operating together are slim - it will though allow a CVF to be available 100%.

Yes, I am advocating replacing Argus as this gives an affordable alternative when needed
"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: 5826
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 30 May 2019, 13:33

SW1 wrote:The carriers will end up operating more like a uss America than uss enterprise.

That will certainly be true for at least the first decade of service. After that who knows? Hopefully the RN can build a structure that allows the carriers to reach their potential.

Repulse wrote:Yes, I am advocating replacing Argus as this gives an affordable alternative when needed

Getting anything extra in the mid 20 is very unlikely because the MOD will have 5 classes in build at that time. The only chance for an quasi-Argus replacement is the LSS, and that depends if Mordant continues the transformation fund. (I hope she does)
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1921
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 30 May 2019, 13:53

shark bait, a conversion would be okay also.
"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

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1365
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 30 May 2019, 14:19

Just to change things up a bit there is a nice picture on Plymouth live site of the UK led Baltic task group showing

HMS Albion
HMS Kent
RFA Lyme Bay
RFA Argus
MV Hurst Point
HDMS Absalon
HNLMS Johann de Witt

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1393
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 30 May 2019, 14:49

Here’s a question I’d like see others opinions on, say a third or more flat tops is out of the question the politicians just won’t come round to it, how would you look at satisfying the amphibious need for vertical lift ?

Do you believe chinook is needed and is so do you believe it’ll need to be maintained at sea or just decked ? If the former then how ?

Do you believe LCU fast or otherwise is needed for first wave or just for logistics ? If the former then how ?

I’m asking because we all agree at least one more flat top is ideally needed and cling to the hope that it’ll come via the amphibious renewal but what if it doesn’t what others ways are there to fill the requirement ?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3379
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 30 May 2019, 16:17

We have managed to keep the Royal Marines, just and the two Albions, but the fact that they were both near the Royal Navy's list of things to axe when it was asked to makes savings says a lot about how much attention they will receive moving forward beyond the two possible FLSS. Unless the budget rises the Navy is not going to priorities either the Royal Marines or Amphibious Shipping over the Carriers, Escorts, CASD and the RFA to support them. Remember how long Intrepid and Fearless (30+ years) were kept in service as well as the LSTs (30+ years). They probably won't see their successors until the mid to late 2030s.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1393
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 30 May 2019, 16:21

Lord Jim wrote:We have managed to keep the Royal Marines, just and the two Albions, but the fact that they were both near the Royal Navy's list of things to axe when it was asked to makes savings says a lot about how much attention they will receive moving forward beyond the two possible FLSS. Unless the budget rises the Navy is not going to priorities either the Royal Marines or Amphibious Shipping over the Carriers, Escorts, CASD and the RFA to support them. Remember how long Intrepid and Fearless (30+ years) were kept in service as well as the LSTs (30+ years). They probably won't see their successors until the mid to late 2030s.


I agree but what do you think would replace them and if no extra flat tops are forthcoming what would you go for to replace what we have while giving the RM that vertical lift they need.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3379
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 30 May 2019, 16:24

Ideally three or four Rotterdam, Johan de Witt style platforms, two of the former operated by the RN and two of the latter by the RFA. That gives you enough spots and capacity to transport the entire fleet of Merlin HC4s or a combination of them and other helicopters.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1393
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 30 May 2019, 16:27

Lord Jim wrote:Ideally three or four Rotterdam, Johan de Witt style platforms, two of the former operated by the RN and two of the latter by the RFA. That gives you enough spots and capacity to transport the entire fleet of Merlin HC4s or a combination of them and other helicopters.


So I take it you believe that one of the LSDs will need to cut even with an updated like for like replacement ?

serge750
Member
Posts: 376
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby serge750 » 30 May 2019, 17:53

I would really like the RN go for a Mistral/bae concept LHD of no more than 20 000t to replace both Albion & bulwark, small enough so the politicians see that she can not operate the F35 or maybe a LPD with smallish hanger eg 1 x extended albion type? 2 x QEC + 1 x LPD ( or smallish LHD )

If we only have 1 x LPD in service with 1 in mothballs as said before they are less of a priority to the RN so having only 1 x replacement (as long as the bays are replaced) isn't much of a problem,
Use 1 x QEC class to Lilly pad extra RM to the albion replacement if more troops are needed, or if the LPD is unavailable we will be forced to use a QEC in the LPH role ( hopefully as far from the shore as possible ) and the other for the F35, 2 out of 3 should be available most of the time?

Obviously 2 replacements would be better to allow greater availability but no doubt the RN won't get them.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1393
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 30 May 2019, 18:09

serge750 wrote:I would really like the RN go for a Mistral/bae concept LHD of no more than 20 000t to replace both Albion & bulwark, small enough so the politicians see that she can not operate the F35 or maybe a LPD with smallish hanger eg 1 x extended albion type? 2 x QEC + 1 x LPD ( or smallish LHD )

If we only have 1 x LPD in service with 1 in mothballs as said before they are less of a priority to the RN so having only 1 x replacement (as long as the bays are replaced) isn't much of a problem,
Use 1 x QEC class to Lilly pad extra RM to the replacement if more troops are needed, or if the LPD is unavailable we will be forced to use a QEC in the LPH role ( hopefully as far from the shore as possible ) and the other for the F35, 2 out of 3 should be available most of the time?


I don’t understand why people would even consider the BEA design it’ll be 30 years odd old by the time it’s needed, surely a new design would be best.

So your route would be to stick with the fudge of using the QEs if an LHD can’t be got and just hope we have 2 available when needed.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10626
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 30 May 2019, 18:54

SW1 wrote:The carriers will end up operating more like a uss America than uss enterprise.

+
shark bait wrote:That will certainly be true for at least the first decade of service


That's what I tried to say on the carriers thread: they will be rattling half empty for a decade to come
- folks could try to answer the question, rather than throw insults (in wasn't a one-off, so may be I'll just use the ignore button, going forward)
Jake1992 wrote:it’ll need to be maintained at sea or just decked ? If the former then how ?
That's what the high area in QEs' hangar design is for.
Jake1992 wrote:Do you believe LCU fast or otherwise is needed for first wave or just for logistics ? If the former then how ?
https://www.mauric.ecagroup.com/media-p ... edar-4.jpg

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1393
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 30 May 2019, 19:06

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:it’ll need to be maintained at sea or just decked ? If the former then how ?
That's what the high area in QEs' hangar design is for.
Jake1992 wrote:Do you believe LCU fast or otherwise is needed for first wave or just for logistics ? If the former then how ?
https://www.mauric.ecagroup.com/media-p ... edar-4.jpg


I assume by that you mean you’d carry any chinooks on the QEs and lily pad them to the others, if so would carrying a reasonable number of chinooks on the QEs heavily impact on F35 operation and would it force them to sail where they really shouldn’t ?

Is that a image of a new LCU you’d go for ? If so can I take it you’d want several well docks amongst the fleet ? What style vessel and standard of build would you go for ?

SW1
Member
Posts: 912
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 30 May 2019, 20:02

Jake1992 wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:it’ll need to be maintained at sea or just decked ? If the former then how ?
That's what the high area in QEs' hangar design is for.
Jake1992 wrote:Do you believe LCU fast or otherwise is needed for first wave or just for logistics ? If the former then how ?
https://www.mauric.ecagroup.com/media-p ... edar-4.jpg


I assume by that you mean you’d carry any chinooks on the QEs and lily pad them to the others, if so would carrying a reasonable number of chinooks on the QEs heavily impact on F35 operation and would it force them to sail where they really shouldn’t ?

Is that a image of a new LCU you’d go for ? If so can I take it you’d want several well docks amongst the fleet ? What style vessel and standard of build would you go for ?


Will uk amphibious requirements in the future be the same as legacy amphibious operations? Will the role of our amphibious forces change in nature?

Will the uk be required to operate solely at sea against a significant threat independent from land based assets or allies? We have extremely limited air assets and without significant upscale in people, aircraft and money the answer will likely be no.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1393
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 30 May 2019, 20:08

SW1 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:it’ll need to be maintained at sea or just decked ? If the former then how ?
That's what the high area in QEs' hangar design is for.
Jake1992 wrote:Do you believe LCU fast or otherwise is needed for first wave or just for logistics ? If the former then how ?
https://www.mauric.ecagroup.com/media-p ... edar-4.jpg


I assume by that you mean you’d carry any chinooks on the QEs and lily pad them to the others, if so would carrying a reasonable number of chinooks on the QEs heavily impact on F35 operation and would it force them to sail where they really shouldn’t ?

Is that a image of a new LCU you’d go for ? If so can I take it you’d want several well docks amongst the fleet ? What style vessel and standard of build would you go for ?


Will uk amphibious requirements in the future be the same as legacy amphibious operations? Will the role of our amphibious forces change in nature?

Will the uk be required to operate solely at sea against a significant threat independent from land based assets or allies? We have extremely limited air assets and without significant upscale in people, aircraft and money the answer will likely be no.


Very good question it is something that needs to be looked at.
For me being an island nation with many over sea island terrertories we need to be able to take any of them back at any point independently, the falklands is the obvious one here, any thing larger than that should be aimed towards a coalition op with our fleet fitting in to what’s required.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10626
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 30 May 2019, 22:58

Jake1992 wrote: https://www.mauric.ecagroup.com/media-p ... edar-4.jpg



I assume by that you mean you’d carry any chinooks on the QEs and lily pad them to the others, if so would carrying a reasonable number of chinooks on the QEs heavily impact on F35 operation and would it force them to sail where they really shouldn’t ?

Is that a image of a new LCU you’d go for ?
That's the French (new) one. Also the US Army is buying three dozen fast ones, for a cool billion ($), as in:
" Vigor – together with design firm BMT, shipbuilder Gladding-Hearn, and Northrop Grumman – will spend the next four years finalizing the MSV(L)’s shape and configuration, the boats will be able to carry one M1A2 SEPv3, two Stryker wheeled armored vehicles fitted with additional armor, or four JLTVs. The LCM-8s, which they are expected to replace one for one, cannot carry any of those loads.

The goal is for the new vessels to be twice as fast and have nearly 100 miles of additional range over the older landing craft."

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3281
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 31 May 2019, 03:12

I like BMT Caimen 90, which is the mother design of "MSV(L)", as well.

22 knot fully loaded, and 40 knots light, with the same dimension as current LCU Mk. 10.

http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/6098037/A ... imen90.pdf

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5826
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 31 May 2019, 08:49

Something like the landing craft above absolutely must be part of the renewal project, or even better sooner! The Marines have to get faster to offset the increased distance they will manoeuvre across.

(Does this also apply to the land? Viking is not designed to travel great distances)
@LandSharkUK

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1393
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 31 May 2019, 09:53

shark bait wrote:Something like the landing craft above absolutely must be part of the renewal project, or even better come sooner. The Marines have to get faster to offset the increased distance they will manoeuvre across. (Does this also apply to the land? Viking is not designed to travel great distances)


I agree a new fast LCU and LCVP need to put in motion as soon as.

With Viking it’s a tricky one, they are great for artic warfare on NATOs norther flank even the USMC when practicing with them said how good they are and wanted their own but didn’t have the budget, but like you say no good at long distance.

Should we go for a split order when replacing say what 70-100 vikings mk3 and something like the USMC ACV 8x8 ?

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1921
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 31 May 2019, 10:40

Lord Jim wrote:They probably won't see their successors until the mid to late 2030s.


Important point, which I agree with and even think that really we will be looking at 2040s before any replacements arrive, by which point amphibious warfare will have evolved further.

If we actually look at what we have now, with the exception of air support it’s pretty good. I’d argue that by getting both Albions into service and replacing Argus we would remain 2nd globally in this area (behind the US, but ahead of France) until China builds its forces and expertise further. This is ultimately where the immediate focus should be plus buying additional kit such as landing craft, force protection bots, off board MCM capabilities etc.

I think the price of losing a Frigate and 3 MCMs to bring both Albions into service with this kit would be worth 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

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1921
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 31 May 2019, 13:58

According to @CdrBobBond on Twitter the UK JEF will be operating 8 Merlins - nice pic of Argus’s lift.

Image
"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: 3379
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 31 May 2019, 14:41

It is also important to remember that the MoD had launched its initial phase of the programme to find its next generation of Rotorcraft, and calling it that is deliberate as according to reports everything is on the table, from conventional to Tilt Rotor to the entries in the US Army's programme to replace the UH-60 and so on. The programme will replace the Puma HC2s as well as others, so the size and shape of what the FAA could be operating at the time the Amphibs are replaced could have a bearing on the type of platform chosen.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 5660
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby SKB » 31 May 2019, 14:44

Isn't Argus's lift the same scissors type found on the Invincible class?


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: blackandamber and 18 guests