Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

[SW1]

I would suggest if your doing maritime interdiction in the littoral it will likely fall on type 31 with commandos embarked hence the 4 boat bays for special forces ribs,

If you doing larger littoral security/raiding/strike it would be a type 31 and a bay. This will encompass the whole anti access operation, eg fast boat attack, mines, shore based anti ship missiles with operations to disrupt and destroy such things.

If your doing something bigger it maybe 2 of these groups operating in the same place and if it a huge operation the carrier group would be involved too.

[ArmChairCivvy]

likely fall on type 31 with commandos embarked

If you doing larger littoral security/raiding/strike it would be a type 31 and a bay.

If your doing something bigger it maybe 2 of these groups operating in the same place

No place for FLSS? The helicopters here would be 2-4 Wildcats, the half of that number sheltered from bad weather, sand storms included?, under a tarpaulin

These sorts of things are not likely to happen under full steam from Portsmouth, but rather you would have to loiter in the likely, broader area

[SW1]

likely fall on type 31 with commandos embarked

If you doing larger littoral security/raiding/strike it would be a type 31 and a bay.

If your doing something bigger it maybe 2 of these groups operating in the same place

No place for FLSS? The helicopters here would be 2-4 Wildcats, the half of that number sheltered from bad weather, sand storms included?, under a tarpaulin

These sorts of things are not likely to happen under full steam from Portsmouth, but rather you would have to loiter in the likely, broader area

Not at present as it’s not been ordered or even configured however I see a FLSS as a replacement for rather than addition to vessels currently in service.

[ArmChairCivvy]

I see a FLSS as a replacement for rather than addition to vessels currently in service.

Where we see it similarly is that T31/ FLSS can substitute for each other a lot (depending on threat assessment) and then pull together, if there is one of each in the general area.

Whereas I do not subscribe to the replacement "theory"... which ones are they for? Assume two, as that has been 'the talk on the street/ in the town'

[SW1]

I see a FLSS as a replacement for rather than addition to vessels currently in service.

Where we see it similarly is that T31/ FLSS can substitute for each other a lot (depending on threat assessment) and then pull together, if there is one of each in the general area.

Whereas I do not subscribe to the replacement "theory"... which ones are they for? Assume two, as that has been 'the talk on the street/ in the town'

Greatly depends on budget and configuration. None of the parties have mentioned any more money for defence as far as I can see and we’re already way over budget on whets currently in the budget. So for me LPDs/LSDs/Argus/waves/stores ships all up for discussion as are a number of minesweepers especially if new vessel procurements are likely.

[Repulse]

If you doing larger littoral security/raiding/strike it would be a type 31 and a bay. This will encompass the whole anti access operation, eg fast boat attack, mines, shore based anti ship missiles with operations to disrupt and destroy such things

A Bay LSD over an Albion LPD? Why on earth would we want to do that?

[SW1]

If you doing larger littoral security/raiding/strike it would be a type 31 and a bay. This will encompass the whole anti access operation, eg fast boat attack, mines, shore based anti ship missiles with operations to disrupt and destroy such things

A Bay LSD over an Albion LPD? Why on earth would we want to do that?

Because as far as I know the bays are fwd deployed and the type 31 will be fwd deployed and the ideas was to have the littoral groups fwd deployed, and the lpds are generally mothballed.

[Repulse]

Because as far as I know the bays are fwd deployed and the type 31 will be fwd deployed and the ideas was to have the littoral groups fwd deployed, and the lpds are generally mothballed.

Fair enough. There is chat about getting both LPDs active, possibly a dream, but would make a better LSG fit. Two LSGs based around a LPD plus FLSS with a RFA Wave would be a reasonable capability for the next 15 years.

[Scimitar54]

SW1

We don’t have any Minesweepers and neither have we had any since the demise of the “TON” class. Not too different from saying that the RAF should give up it’s “V- Bombers”. !!!

[ArmChairCivvy]

Since May 2018 we are back in the sweeping game: https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/the-ro ... ng-system/

ARCIMS boats (for sweeping it takes two - of them - to tango) can be configured for both hunting and sweeping.
"The ATLAS Remote Combined Influence Minesweeping System (ARCIMS) uses towed Coil Auxiliary Boats (CABs) that simulate acoustic or magnetic signatures of ships in order to trigger mines or confirm none are present."
- the operative word here is "trigger" as opposed to "destroy" once a mine is located in mine hunting, so unmanned capability has been key for sweeping's Come Back...being pretty dangerous

[ArmChairCivvy]

Now, as LJ is still drafting his future vision I feel duty bound to put my propeller-head hat back on and investigate how Ponts-type hulls could be better utilised in amph. ops by making them more versatile... less dependent on port availability and more configurable... without necessarily going "full FLSS", at least not for all of them.

Davits (and the capacity of each station) will always be at a premium, so the ro-ro back of the Points could be utilised as a steel beach - as is done already with slow and sea-state restricted mexeflotes when the preferred option via a port is not available. LCVP Mk5 can take a platoon as a formed unit, ready to fight at respectable speed (24 knots) over a good distance (210 nm). They are a fit with davits, too, but what if those are better utilised for ARCIMS boats for securing the planned littoral zone against underwater threats?
- perhaps LCVPs fit into the Points deck used for rolling on and off sideways and perhaps they can be loaded on the steel beach and then launched by, say, the type of outward extending arrangement used in a T26 mission bay for 4 x 12M Boats + 1 x 9.5m Boat (not sure if the 9.5m boat has its own davits, or is brought in line with the bigger ones, for launching). Not sure what the weight limit is either but for FSSS 20t capacity has been specced... not proposing any specific arrangement, just looking for the limits with repurposing current/ already available kit

Let's look at minimum performance next: limit transit time afloat to a maximum of one hour while meeting the aim for OTH by standing 25 nm off shore, then speed requirement of around 25-30 kts arises - and will be 'about' met with our current LCVPs. But you could have much higher speed by redoing a classic https://www.militaryfactory.com/ships/d ... -Boat-LCVP with modern water jets (and packing a bit more fire support than the original 50 cal's - the positions of which are showing on the linked front page picture - by putting an autocannon there. Now just one, in lieu of the two HMGs as fire support would eat rounds like candy - calling for a largish autofeed and space for installing it).
... better get some more lazy Sunday coffee, rather than getting any more 'carried away'

[jedibeeftrix]

i don't think lcvp's have any real utility in future. too slow and low capacity to deploy and support any meaningful force from a safe distance with the reduction in resources available for amphibious war.
that seems like it can can only usefully be done with something with high speed and high capacity, like caiman 90 - from a well dock.

not to say that davits are out of fashion; plenty of call for them for CB90 boats for raiding and area sanitisation via USV packages as you suggest.

[ArmChairCivvy]

seems like it can can only usefully be done with something with high speed and high capacity, like caiman 90 - from a well dock.

not to say that davits are out of fashion; plenty of call for them

Both agreed, it is only a matter of cost (and transformation speed, to the desired capability). Hence I was trying to think out of the box, and get something like what we had with HMS Ocean , but then even that was a make shift arrangement, with a narrow gangway to a floating pontoon, which pontoon itself first had to be got into water by a crane.

[Repulse]

i don't think lcvp's have any real utility in future.

I’m not sure, the ability to land independently small loads and light vehicles (manned and unmanned), will have value.

[Scimitar54]

ACC

Sorry to take a while to respond. A trip to watch a Prince’s homecoming intervened.

We were still capable of Minesweeping after the demise of the “TON” class, as the “HUNT” class, although not minesweepers retained the ability to Sweep for some time before the gear was removed. The capability to Sweep for Mines does not however indicate that the RN possesses “Minesweepers”.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The capability to Sweep for Mines does not however indicate that the RN possesses “Minesweepers”.

OK?

As for the Hunts and removal of the gear, I remember how with that the 'end of mine sweeping' was officially announced by the RN at that point... and it wasn't that long ago

[jedibeeftrix]

i don't think lcvp's have any real utility in future.

I’m not sure, the ability to land independently small loads and light vehicles (manned and unmanned), will have value.

sure, it might be useful to keep a pair handy on each LSS for precisely that reason, but they have no purpose or utility in the connector role for any future amphibious role supporting combined arms maneuver formations.

too small, too slow.
future amphibs of whatever lsd/lpd/lhd combination we arrive at need docks, they don't [need] davits.

[SW1]

SW1

We don’t have any Minesweepers and neither have we had any since the demise of the “TON” class. Not too different from saying that the RAF should give up it’s “V- Bombers”. !!!

We do like being pedantic don’t we, I would think you and anyone else for that matter would know, which ships one would be referring to in the RN when we talk about minesweepers.

[SW1]

i don't think lcvp's have any real utility in future.

I’m not sure, the ability to land independently small loads and light vehicles (manned and unmanned), will have value.

sure, it might be useful to keep a pair handy on each LSS for precisely that reason, but they have no purpose or utility in the connector role for any future amphibious role supporting combined arms maneuver formations.

too small, too slow.
future amphibs of whatever lsd/lpd/lhd combination we arrive at need docks, they don't [need] davits.

And yet all the major use of amphibious forces by the UK since the end of the Cold War Veritas, pallister, telic that supported combined arms manoeuvre warfare didn’t used an RN dock.

[jedibeeftrix]

i don't think lcvp's have any real utility in future.

I’m not sure, the ability to land independently small loads and light vehicles (manned and unmanned), will have value.

sure, it might be useful to keep a pair handy on each LSS for precisely that reason, but they have no purpose or utility in the connector role for any future amphibious role supporting combined arms maneuver formations.

too small, too slow.
future amphibs of whatever lsd/lpd/lhd combination we arrive at need docks, they don't [need] davits.

And yet all the major use of amphibious forces by the UK since the end of the Cold War Veritas, pallister, telic that supported combined arms manoeuvre warfare used an RN dock.

i don't think it is news to anyone here that the vast proliferation of long-range anti-access weapons is pushing amphibious assets further over the horizon.

at that point it is just maths to work out that operating twice as far out requires going twice as fast to achieve the same effects in LIMS onto the beach in deployment phase and tonnes over the beach in support phase.

we have off the shelf solutions for getting LCU sized payloads zipping along at thirty knots in high sea states, no such solution exists for LCVP sized payloads. with the likes of Caiman90 we still have a cost-effective method of power projection via combined-arms manoeuvre warfare.

LCVP's are a legacy capability... which it could be worth hanging onto for LSS as a sunk cost that may still provide some marginal utility.

[SW1]

i don't think lcvp's have any real utility in future.

I’m not sure, the ability to land independently small loads and light vehicles (manned and unmanned), will have value.

sure, it might be useful to keep a pair handy on each LSS for precisely that reason, but they have no purpose or utility in the connector role for any future amphibious role supporting combined arms maneuver formations.

too small, too slow.
future amphibs of whatever lsd/lpd/lhd combination we arrive at need docks, they don't [need] davits.

And yet all the major use of amphibious forces by the UK since the end of the Cold War Veritas, pallister, telic that supported combined arms manoeuvre warfare used an RN dock.

i don't think it is news to anyone here that the vast proliferation of long-range anti-access weapons is pushing amphibious assets further over the horizon.

at that point it is just maths to work out that operating twice as far out requires going twice as fast to achieve the same effects in LIMS onto the beach in deployment phase and tonnes over the beach in support phase.

we have off the shelf solutions for getting LCU sized payloads zipping along at thirty knots in high sea states, no such solution exists for LCVP sized payloads. with the likes of Caiman90 we still have a cost-effective method of power projection via combined-arms manoeuvre warfare.

LCVP's are a legacy capability... which it could be worth hanging onto for LSS as a sunk cost that may still provide some marginal utility.

One could argue that anti access is pushing over the beach landings so far off shore it is not a new connector that is required but the idea to go the way of the dodo.

[ArmChairCivvy]

to achieve the same effects in LIMS onto the beach in deployment phase and tonnes over the beach in support phase.

We used to have good spreadsheet support for these thing from Simon on TD... wonder if the Simon around here is the same contributor?

[jedibeeftrix]

i don't think it is news to anyone here that the vast proliferation of long-range anti-access weapons is pushing amphibious assets further over the horizon.

at that point it is just maths to work out that operating twice as far out requires going twice as fast to achieve the same effects in LIMS onto the beach in deployment phase and tonnes over the beach in support phase.

we have off the shelf solutions for getting LCU sized payloads zipping along at thirty knots in high sea states, no such solution exists for LCVP sized payloads. with the likes of Caiman90 we still have a cost-effective method of power projection via combined-arms manoeuvre warfare.

LCVP's are a legacy capability... which it could be worth hanging onto for LSS as a sunk cost that may still provide some marginal utility.

One could argue that anti access is pushing over the beach landings so far off shore it is not a new connector that is required but the idea to go the way of the dodo.

i recognise the threat, but i am far from convinced that:
1. it will be realised, such that amphibious maneuver warfare will lack utility
2. a raiding function can be deemed a valid substitute for the outcomes #1 provided
3. strike actually works as a foreign policy tool of power projection outside of the baltic theatre without #1

Hence why i'm looking at the ill-defined plans for 3 Commando [brigade] and anticipating that alongside a raiding function there very much is a continuing role for Battlegroup formations with all those CS and CSS supporting units.

[SW1]

i don't think it is news to anyone here that the vast proliferation of long-range anti-access weapons is pushing amphibious assets further over the horizon.

at that point it is just maths to work out that operating twice as far out requires going twice as fast to achieve the same effects in LIMS onto the beach in deployment phase and tonnes over the beach in support phase.

we have off the shelf solutions for getting LCU sized payloads zipping along at thirty knots in high sea states, no such solution exists for LCVP sized payloads. with the likes of Caiman90 we still have a cost-effective method of power projection via combined-arms manoeuvre warfare.

LCVP's are a legacy capability... which it could be worth hanging onto for LSS as a sunk cost that may still provide some marginal utility.

One could argue that anti access is pushing over the beach landings so far off shore it is not a new connector that is required but the idea to go the way of the dodo.

i recognise the threat, but i am far from convinced that:
1. it will be realised, such that amphibious maneuver warfare will lack utility
2. a raiding function can be deemed a valid substitute for the outcomes #1 provided
3. strike actually works as a foreign policy tool of power projection outside of the baltic theatre without #1

Hence why i'm looking at the ill-defined plans for 3 Commando [brigade] and anticipating that alongside a raiding function there very much is a continuing role for Battlegroup formations with all those CS and CSS supporting units.

Size and protection, range of every unit and formation seems to be increasing. Which suggests it is real.

Number 2 is not a substitute for one it is simply a change in emphasis and priorities and arguably an area we have neglected for to long and has been an increasing requirement (eg covert or semi covert operations to destroy and disrupt)


Does the UK need to deploy a armoured or mechanised brigade outside of the nato area?

[Jake1992]

i don't think it is news to anyone here that the vast proliferation of long-range anti-access weapons is pushing amphibious assets further over the horizon.

at that point it is just maths to work out that operating twice as far out requires going twice as fast to achieve the same effects in LIMS onto the beach in deployment phase and tonnes over the beach in support phase.

we have off the shelf solutions for getting LCU sized payloads zipping along at thirty knots in high sea states, no such solution exists for LCVP sized payloads. with the likes of Caiman90 we still have a cost-effective method of power projection via combined-arms manoeuvre warfare.

LCVP's are a legacy capability... which it could be worth hanging onto for LSS as a sunk cost that may still provide some marginal utility.

One could argue that anti access is pushing over the beach landings so far off shore it is not a new connector that is required but the idea to go the way of the dodo.

i recognise the threat, but i am far from convinced that:
1. it will be realised, such that amphibious maneuver warfare will lack utility
2. a raiding function can be deemed a valid substitute for the outcomes #1 provided
3. strike actually works as a foreign policy tool of power projection outside of the baltic theatre without #1

Hence why i'm looking at the ill-defined plans for 3 Commando [brigade] and anticipating that alongside a raiding function there very much is a continuing role for Battlegroup formations with all those CS and CSS supporting units.

Does the UK need to deploy a armoured or mechanised brigade outside of the nato area?

I’d argue it depends on UK policy going forward, if it’s to have global influence then yes this type of requirement is needed. Whether this be to deploy to the Middle East as of the last 20 years odd or to Europe as the prior 30 or maybe to the Far East possibly in the next 20 years.

Strike brigade if done right would be a perfect first response force so delivering it where needed would be key.

If the UK policy going forward is to concentrate on Europe then I’d then the answer is no, but it’s very much leaning towards the former than the later.