Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

[Poiuytrewq]

Easy to draw comparisons with the 'lightning carrier' concept and the future role of HMS PWLS.

https://news.usni.org/2019/10/23/marine ... le-amphibs

Being vastly larger it is reasonable to expect a CVF to perform even better in this role than a LHA.

Also interesting about the interoperability between the LHA and LPD in the 'lightning carrier' role.

Given how the wider doctrine of Amphibious Assault is changing rapidly, how realistic is it to assume that any future UK LHD or LPH will be designed from the outset to have a zero F35B capability?

[Tempest414]

the QE's do fit nicely between the LHA's and the US big deck carriers as for any new UK flat top for me I would like to see a 240 x 40 meter LPH or LHA would I like to see it F-35 capable yes should it be at this point no

[Jake1992]

the QE's do fit nicely between the LHA's and the US big deck carriers as for any new UK flat top for me I would like to see a 240 x 40 meter LPH or LHA would I like to see it F-35 capable yes should it be at this point no

Iv always said the QEs are what you’d expect to get if a Nimitz and a Wasp class had a child but leaning more towards Nimitz genes.

I still don’t feel comfortable using the QEs in the LPH /LHA role long term, even more so if we go down the LST / LSL route due to a reduction in aviation capacity from other routes that could be taken.

[ArmChairCivvy]

questions for me as starters are:
- What capability should the UK maintain and what does it need to support it?
- How will the RN adapt it's SOPs to use a CVF in the HMS Ocean role without putting it in extreme risk?
- Does the RN still have the right mix of amphibious ships, or should it go to fewer more capable ships (e.g. LHDs like France)?
- Has the RN anything to learn from the USN Sea Basing concept and Mobile Landing Platform Ships (MLPs)?
- What is the future role of the RFA in this area?
- How should capabilities such as the Primary Casualty Receiving Ship (PCRS) evolve in the near future as vessels come to the end of their lifetime?
- Is the Combined Joint Expeditionary Force with France still valid, and if so how should the RN adapt to it?

A good opening for this thread, and as for capabilities, a lot of points and alternatives have been brought up. But as for (required) capacity, we seem to be of as many opinions as when the thread was started?

[serge750]

The USS America in a lightning carrier role does look a bit chocka !!! IMO it advocates the UK not going for a similar size vessel instead of the QEC, (minimum 50,000tonnes 20/24 x F35 + helicopters) but as a LHA the QEC probably not as good, so we defo do need something to replace the Albions, hope whatever the replacement (S) are, please have a hanger !!!

[Lord Jim]

I still don’t feel comfortable using the QEs in the LPH /LHA role long term, even more so if we go down the LST / LSL route due to a reduction in aviation capacity from other routes that could be taken.

I also have major reservation regarding using the QEs in this role except in benign circumstances, but these are going to become less and less frequent as the use of AShMs increases even by non governmental forces for example.

One solution could be the design of the successors to the Bays, ensuring they have a modular aviation capability that can be increased if needed. Having two spots for helicopters up to the size of a Chinook and the hanger space for up to four Merlin sized or two Chinooks would give the necessary aviation support of the scale of amphibious operations we are likely to undertake.

Another would be to conversion of say two civilian platforms into auxiliary aviation ships through the use of containerised/modular infra-structure. The idea is not new but having a platform able to transport say four Chinooks or a combination of smaller platforms would be ideal for moving these assets into theatre. By using modular/containerised components, it would also be possible to berth a number of Troops together with their equipment and initial logistics at the cost of reducing the number of helicopters embarked, allowing these vessels to carry out the direct insertion of troops form sea to land. In addition being modular there could be a case for using such platforms as auxiliary ASW platforms operating Merlin HM2s free up space on the QEs for other assets.

Both of these options remove the need for the QEs to be used in the amphibious role allowing them to concentrate on what should be their primary mission of carrier strike. In addition these platforms should be far cheaper than high end dedicated large amphibious platforms. Their modular nature would also allow them to undertake the roles planned for the FLSS.

[Jake1992]

I still don’t feel comfortable using the QEs in the LPH /LHA role long term, even more so if we go down the LST / LSL route due to a reduction in aviation capacity from other routes that could be taken.

I also have major reservation regarding using the QEs in this role except in benign circumstances, but these are going to become less and less frequent as the use of AShMs increases even by non governmental forces for example.

One solution could be the design of the successors to the Bays, ensuring they have a modular aviation capability that can be increased if needed. Having two spots for helicopters up to the size of a Chinook and the hanger space for up to four Merlin sized or two Chinooks would give the necessary aviation support of the scale of amphibious operations we are likely to undertake.

Another would be to conversion of say two civilian platforms into auxiliary aviation ships through the use of containerised/modular infra-structure. The idea is not new but having a platform able to transport say four Chinooks or a combination of smaller platforms would be ideal for moving these assets into theatre. By using modular/containerised components, it would also be possible to berth a number of Troops together with their equipment and initial logistics at the cost of reducing the number of helicopters embarked, allowing these vessels to carry out the direct insertion of troops form sea to land. In addition being modular there could be a case for using such platforms as auxiliary ASW platforms operating Merlin HM2s free up space on the QEs for other assets.

Both of these options remove the need for the QEs to be used in the amphibious role allowing them to concentrate on what should be their primary mission of carrier strike. In addition these platforms should be far cheaper than high end dedicated large amphibious platforms. Their modular nature would also allow them to undertake the roles planned for the FLSS.

For a hanger to house 2 chinooks your looking at something similar to the aviation set of the KD, but I can’t see how it can be any more modular than a hanger / flight deck set up already is ?

The conversion route while the cheapest yes but what your essentially saying is let’s put the personal and expensive helos in a floating match box that makes Oceans survivability look high. I just cant see it in today’s thinking.

I can’t see the logic of the LST / LSL route my self, yes your having more vessels reducing the impact of the lose of any ( if it can get past the bean counters ) but what your doing if putting a super sized LCU with a lot more troops and equipment right on the shore making them a prime target.

IMO the best answer for our budget is larger faster LCUs which in turn means larger vessels for housing them. Say something that is around 30% larger than the LCU mk10s can do 30+ knots full load and 40+ empty that has a small short range air defence like star streak. This mean fewer faster journeys allowing the mother ship to sit further back and move off quicker all while under there own little bubble.

To carry the above I’d look at something in the 200-210m by 30 range. 5 of these based on a common hull with 2 optimised as LPDs and 3 as LSDs.
The LPDs having an aviation set up similar to what you’ve suggested above and a 4 “new LCU” well dock and the LSDs sacrificing some of the aviation capacity and only a 2 LCU well dock for a logistics work deck and space.

This would free up the need for a QE in the LPH role, whilst not having a sole concentrate aviation facility has its disadvantages it also has its advantages for flexibility in the wider fleet. This flexibility along with the very large well docks could allow the use of vessels like the Mk6 patrol boat in a littoral control set up in a way that LSTs couldn’t deliver.

[ArmChairCivvy]

something that is around 30% larger than the LCU mk10s can do 30+ knots full load and 40+ empty that has a small short range air defence like star streak. This mean fewer faster journeys allowing the mother ship to sit further back and move off quicker all while under there own little bubble.

To carry the above I’d look at something in the 200-210m by 30 range.

Ignore Trieste for now, but I wonder how the other three, from the Italian navy strat plan (Linee Di Indirizzo Strategico 2019-2034, compliments of xav, though can't remember having seen the piece on these pages)
4 Amphibious vessels (L9890 LHD Trieste + 3 LXD) would relate to the above dimensions and required (larger) ship-to-shore connectors?

[Repulse]

Another would be to conversion of say two civilian platforms into auxiliary aviation ships through the use of containerised/modular infra-structure

This for me sums up the problem, if we are not willing to put a CVF in harms way, why would we be putting a civilian ship in the front line?

[Repulse]

Very sketchy and light on detail on the new Italian LXD concept from 2018.



Latest rumours are that there would be 3 LXD, about at least 16.000 t, with the capability of carrying 700 troops, with 4 helicopters spots and wet dock for 4 LCM or 1 LCAC, in order to replace 3 LPD San Marco class.

[Jake1992]

something that is around 30% larger than the LCU mk10s can do 30+ knots full load and 40+ empty that has a small short range air defence like star streak. This mean fewer faster journeys allowing the mother ship to sit further back and move off quicker all while under there own little bubble.

To carry the above I’d look at something in the 200-210m by 30 range.

Ignore Trieste for now, but I wonder how the other three, from the Italian navy strat plan (Linee Di Indirizzo Strategico 2019-2034, compliments of xav, though can't remember having seen the piece on these pages)
4 Amphibious vessels (L9890 LHD Trieste + 3 LXD) would relate to the above dimensions and required (larger) ship-to-shore connectors?

I was thinking of something similar in size wise to a San Antonio class but to British needs, if something like the old SSS concept it chosen for the SSS then maybe this could be adapted to allow even greater commonality.

San Antonio’s sit at 207m by 32m coming in at around 25,000t

The Albion’s sit at 176m by 28m coming in at around 20,000t

So if we go for larger faster LCUs that are around 30% larger in turn the well dock needs to be 30% larger than an Albion’s. To me a San Antonio sized vessel is much closer to the mark than the planned Italian ones.

[Repulse]

If the capability is to land a RM Cdo to secure a landing area / port in a environment with A2D, the one combination would be say 4 of the Damen 120m Landing Ship Transport vessels.

RMs would land OTH from helicopters and fast LCVPs from these vessels. With the ships docking as part of the second wave.



https://products.damen.com/-/media/Prod ... rt_120.pdf

Would require top cover and escorts.

[SW1]

Will merlin still be in service when we get round to any potential amphibious ship replacement? Or will it of been replaced by something else.

Also if the idea is to deliver an army brigade to a relatively secure port then you don’t need large landing craft to deliver heavy vehicles over a beach especially if there main roles are littoral interdictions and raid.


If we’re not willing to put the carrier into harms way it was pointless building them.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Damen 120m Landing Ship Transport vessels.

Exactly as the Russian Ivan Gren class (just that the next two, for the Pacific fleet, were modified to be bigger)
Length: 120 m (393 ft 8 in)
Beam: 16 m (52 ft 6 in)
Propulsion: Kolomna 10D49 diesel engine
Speed: 18 knots (33 km/h)
Range: 3,500 nmi (6,500 km) at 16 knots (30 km/h)
Capacity: 13 main battle tanks 40 BTR or IFV and 300 troops

[Jake1992]

Will merlin still be in service when we get round to any potential amphibious ship replacement? Or will it of been replaced by something else.

Also if the idea is to deliver an army brigade to a relatively secure port then you don’t need large landing craft to deliver heavy vehicles over a beach especially if there main roles are littoral interdictions and raid.


If we’re not willing to put the carrier into harms way it was pointless building them.

It might be coming to the end of its life but I’d suspect it’s replacement would be of similar size.

If the plan would be to only land at a port then it’s very limiting, if you get rid of landing craft then you may as well get rid of any amphibious vessels and stick to point style vessel and troop transports.

The carrier would be put in harms way in any operation but it’s about not putting it in unnecessary danger by having to go closer to shore.

[Repulse]

if the idea is to deliver an army brigade to a relatively secure port then you don’t need large landing craft to deliver heavy vehicles over a beach

Would agree with this, I’d also say that effectively we are talking about motherships for LCVP sized fast raiding craft (so perhaps the 120m landing ship transport I suggested without the ramps to keep it cheap).

[Repulse]

Fantasy alert #2 - but a hybrid warship / LPH would be a solid option for operating close to hostile shores. When I look at something similar it’s weird (and totally unaffordable) but the Kiev Class does standout. A RM company and a mixture of attack and assault helicopters what is not to like...

[Jake1992]

So let me see if I understand this right, the idea of how to use an LST / LSL set up on here is that first the commando of RM would be sent in by helo presumedly from a QE sitting further out. They would land with only there hand held equipment and are expected to clear and make safe the landing zone, for then large 120m odd LSTs to come not just come close to shore but all the way up to shore to land all the vehicles and other equipment ?

For one this is all assuming we could get a numerous number of LSTs past the bean counters ( which o doubt )
But for two how is this any different than having the same method used with LCUs landing the equipment from LPDs ? How is it any more distributed or less risk avers ?
I see it as less distributed as you’d be looking at 6 120m LSTs at most coming up to shore instead of 8 plus LCUs.
It also means the first wave wouldn’t be able to get any vehicle to meet them until they’ve made safe where as fast LCUs would be seen as a more acceptable risk. Along with the fact it’d still require a QE for aviation support.

All this and the LSTs offer less flexibility in an over fleet us out side of amphibious ops.

Please tell me if I’m missing something here as it seems what if being suggested is a group of super sized LCUs to operate with out a mother ship as that is basically what an LST is.

[SW1]

Merlins replacement won’t be as big cost will ensure that.

Possibly something like a San Giorgio maybe an interesting. Or one of the mrss configurations doing the rounds. I think it will be important to have a 2 spot flight deck. Though I struggle to see past a bay to be honest in size and flexibility for the role.

[SW1]

If the plan would be to only land at a port then it’s very limiting, if you get rid of landing craft then you may as well get rid of any amphibious vessels and stick to point style vessel and troop transports.

Limiting perhaps but realistic for the uk in any near peer conflict. No I think having a dock on a ship offers a lot of flexibility particularly in using manned and unmanned craft in the security role.

[Lord Jim]

The bulk of the logistics would still be carried by two or three Bay replacements with aviation facilities. As for how the RM are equipped, that is another programme the MoD seriously needs to look at. Both the RM and the infantry in 16AA need a serious step up in fire power to remain relevant in a peer conflict. They need UGVs that can be flown in inside either a Merlin of Chinook that can be used to transport heavier equipment than that can be carried on a soldiers back. In addition they both need integral air support in the form of attack helicopters separate in the case of the RM from the AAC. For me I would take twelve of the AAC's Wildcats, transfer them to the FAA, marinized them and equip than as light attack/recce platforms with LMM, Brimstone 2 and door mounted gun(s) together with the relevant sensors etc.

[Jake1992]

If the plan would be to only land at a port then it’s very limiting, if you get rid of landing craft then you may as well get rid of any amphibious vessels and stick to point style vessel and troop transports.

Limiting perhaps but realistic for the uk in any near peer conflict. No I think having a dock on a ship offers a lot of flexibility particularly in using manned and unmanned craft in the security role.

I can’t see it being any more realistic for the UK than a RM commando taking and securing a unprotected or low protected beach. If you intend it to be a friendly port then it drops the options so low it’s almost pointless.
Yes docks come in very handy for that but to me that would come under a secondary use not a primary one.

If the plan would be to only land at a port then it’s very limiting, if you get rid of landing craft then you may as well get rid of any amphibious vessels and stick to point style vessel and troop transports.

Limiting perhaps but realistic for the uk in any near peer conflict. No I think having a dock on a ship offers a lot of flexibility particularly in using manned and unmanned craft in the security role.

I don’t know it’s replacement is going to want to have similar lift and troop capacity along with ASW, if we did it on our own I’d tend to agree but again Italy might be a very likely partner here.

Would we need to look towards tilt rotors or twin head rotors to allow for greater speeds that appear to be needed down the line ?
We are also talking 10 years away yet really do budgets could change, priorities could change.

[Lord Jim]

This for me sums up the problem, if we are not willing to put a CVF in harms way, why would we be putting a civilian ship in the front line?

Well being brutal we could afford to lose such a RFA but not a CVF. Also the vessels would be say 100km off shore for the initial landings, and protected by a full escort group with the CVF further out providing CAP and air support for the landing.

However, these landings are probably only gong to be company strength in the majority of cases with operations on NATOs northern flank, where at least a full commando would be landed to operate in the land role with other RM units operating more in the raider role. Moving an Army Brigade into theatre vis a port would be part two of any operation in this area with the Aux LHA transporting the helicopter assets of this formation into theatre.

Unless funding is greatly increased and the Government decides that we are to once again increase out amphibious forces, future platforms are going to have to be cheaper and smaller than those currently in service, and also even more flexible. The LST/LSL would have a major HADR capability able to land heavy equipment straight onto a beach rather than requiring a port, which may or may not be available after a natural disaster. The Aux LHAs would also have a substantial HADY capability, but could also function as aviation training and maintenance platforms or even Aux ASW platforms. As for the replacement LSDs, like the bay they would be very flexible vessels though this time with substantial aviation facilities as well as increased medical and other options through the use of modules and containerised facilities.

If we tried to build an amphibious flotilla like that of the Italian Navy with current funding, the RN would probably lose at least two T-26 just for starters. Of course if there is by some miracle a decent increase in the Defence Budget above simply filling the existing holes, then anything is possible but the Rn and RFA will still have to get in line as the other two services also have long wish lists, some of which should be considered a higher priority.

[ArmChairCivvy]

operations on NATOs northern flank, where at least a full commando would be landed to operate in the land role with other RM units operating more in the raider role.

Yes, but we tend to forget that OpFor may also field "raiders" and hence mobile anti-raiders (RM, and their boats, in addition to amphibs) are very valuable (and scarce specialists).
- one only needs to look at the green 'blobs' on this map https://www.regjeringen.no/en/topics/de ... id2520659/ as they are the key bases, receiving most investment... and almost invariably close to the coastline

[jedibeeftrix]

am not really seeing how LST's are the right choice for a global navy.
jake is right to look at larger faster LCU's and amphibs with enough docks to deploy them at scale.