Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

Poiuytrewq wrote:It will have to be more concentrated from now on. We can't afford the current fleet that why one Albion is in extended readiness
If the force becomes even more concentrated the RN can do fewer tasks, earning less exposure to the world. There is simply not many jobs that require a Wasp style assault platform. It is too big to use in day to day life. Smaller packages like the Bay class that can be distributed and applied to a wide range of tasks are much more usable for 90% of its service life, offering greater value for money.

We can't afford the fleet we have at the moment because it is centred on two huge LPD's with a huge crew requirement. That can be slimmed down into something simpler, for example the French assault platforms go to sea with half the crew of the Brits.
Poiuytrewq wrote:Why could we not do something similar for around £1.25b to £1.5bn?
Doesn't sound feasible for the Brits. That is a 60% scaled down QE, plus a well dock and your expecting it for 30% of the price. Unless their is something fundamentally different, there is nothing that suggests that's achievable.

Based of British and American carrier/LHD build experience, a UK designed and 1 off built, F35 capable LHD is likely to cost around the 2 billion mark.

60% of QE = 3,000m * 0.6 = £1,800m
Cost of an america class = £2,600m
@LandSharkUK

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

shark bait wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:Why could we not do something similar for around £1.25b to £1.5bn?
Doesn't sound feasible for the Brits. That is a 60% scaled down QE, plus a well dock and your expecting it for 30% of the price. Unless their is something fundamentally different, there is nothing that suggests that's achievable.

Based of British and American carrier/LHD build experience, a UK designed and 1 off built, F35 capable LHD is likely to cost around the 2 billion mark.

60% of QE = 3,000m * 0.6 = £1,800m
Cost of an america class = £2,600m
Why can't we ? Iv seen over time most on here accept that British ship building is around 30% more expensive than our French or Italian counterparts.
It is also widely accepted that the flip flopping with cats and trap and the political slow down to the build added £1bn plus to the QE project, if not for this the QEs would be around £2.6bn each. There is no current reason to believe that the LHD project would slowed down to such an extent due to it being only a single Veseel and not and costly as the QEs.

When looked at like this 30% more than the Italian project ( £900m ) and around 50% of a QE capabilty ( I say 50% as tonnage and capability are not dicrectly linked ) at £2.6bn a 35,000-40,000tn LHD costed at £1.25bn-£1.5bn seems very doable

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3956
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

shark bait wrote:If the force becomes even more concentrated the RN can do fewer tasks, earning less exposure to the world......Smaller packages like the Bay class that can be distributed and applied to a wide range of tasks are much more usable for 90% of its service life, offering greater value for money.
RN doesn't need £1bn Frigates and Destroyers to enhance its worldwide exposure. That's why I maintain RN should introduce 4 to 5 Global Patrol Vessels to fill the gaps around the world as the UK's naval strategy transitions across to Carrier Strike.

These GPV's need to be big and multi-role but also cheap to build, operate and maintain. Something like a 150m Bay would be ideal if the beam was reduced to enable a 21knt top speed. I would also remove the well dock in favour of a steel beach add a triple Merlin hanger and maximise the medical facilities.

Even at a light Frigate length of 120m this enforcer design is still a very capable vessel.
https://products.damen.com/-/media/Prod ... series.pdf
image.jpg
image.jpg
I believe the important thing is to build a balanced fleet that the UK can afford going forward. A fleet that can stay within its budget allocation based on the UK maintaining its 2% of GDP commitment to NATO. The Treasury is unlikely to push for cuts if RN is living within its means. RN needs to work out what this balance is.
Is 2 CVF's sustainable in the longer term?
Do we need to be spending an average of £1bn on a Frigate?
Have we maximised the platforms that are in the water before building more?
Can RN sustain a dedicated 5 ship Amphibious fleet going forward?

My answer to these questions would be in order to sustain the 2 CVF's the Amphibious fleet will have to drop to 3 dedicated vessels, backed up by cheaper logistics and patrol vessels. We shouldn't be spending more than about £500m to £600m on our Frigates and we should upgrade our destroyers to make them as good as they can be.

Once again it's a question of priorities.
shark bait wrote:We can't afford the fleet we have at the moment because it is centred on two huge LPD's with a huge crew requirement. That can be slimmed down into something simpler, for example the French assault platforms go to sea with half the crew of the Brits.
The Albions aren't that big in comparison to a Mistral, Canberra, San Antonio or even a Bay but the crew allocation is very high mainly due to the extensive C&C facilities. It doesn't matter where you put the C&C, that crew allocation will have to go somewhere.

The Mistrals are impressive but also compromised in lots of areas, sometimes paper specs don't match reality. The Canberra is a better balanced all round platform.
shark bait wrote:Doesn't sound feasible for the Brits. That is a 60% scaled down QE, plus a well dock and your expecting it for 30% of the price. Unless their is something fundamentally different, there is nothing that suggests that's achievable.
Sorry, that's too simplistic for me. What would a third QE have cost with all the political interference and costly delays removed? I would suggest a figure closer to £2.5bn. Scale it down from there.
shark bait wrote:Based of British and American carrier/LHD build experience, a UK designed and 1 off built, F35 capable LHD is likely to cost around the 2 billion mark.
60% of QE = 3,000m * 0.6 = £1,800m
Cost of an america class = £2,600m
How much would a QE cost to build in America?

A lot more than in the UK. It's not a realistic comparison. I would suggest we are slightly less efficient than the Italians but if they can build a 33,000t, F35 capable LHD for around £900m then the Aircraft Carrier Alliance should be able to produce a very nice 40,000t LHD for around £1.25 to £1.5bn.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Poiuytrewq wrote:120m this enforcer design is still a very capable vessel.
https://products.damen.com/-/media/Prod ... series.pdf
That's TD's ' a ship that is not a frigate' :)
Poiuytrewq wrote:Do we need to be spending an average of £1bn on a Frigate?
No.
But we already have the answer (for the 'in-between' that is still a frigate): Arrowhead 140. Get cracking with them, and accelerate the T-26 somewhat so that ASW by surface vessels is not totally crashing, while the other components in ASW will help to take up some of the slack in the interim.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

Poiuytrewq wrote:What would a third QE have cost with all the political interference and costly delays removed?
This is not buying and additional pre-engineered solution, we're discussing a one off design and build which comes with massive start up costs. Also let's not compare directly to the state assisted European shipyards please.

However it's framed, a complex assault platform with fast jet and well dock capabilities is going to cost a lot to build and operate. Its becomes a massive force package that is difficult to use in peace time, and is straying far too close to QE's territory. Therein lies the problem, it is spending a lot of precocious resources to increase fast jet capacity within a navy that already has an over capacity for fast jets.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5551
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

when we talk about spending 1.5 billion on a LHD I think that we could get more for the money. As I said earlier if we built another Ocean and added 30 meters to the length this would in turn give 900 sqm cross XY&Z decks for more troops more helicopter a C&C cell it could have 8 landing spots plus its 4 davits. I feel it could be built for around 750 million giving that Ocean her self cost 154 million that was = to 300 million in 2016. As I have also said in the past building 3 new B2 Bays 200 meters with a full width Hangar for 2 Merlins or 3 Wildcats or Apache able to carry 550 troops 2 LCU's and 2 LCVP plus up to 4 LCVP's CB-90s on the working deck. I would look to get these for 250 million each this could give us

1 x LPH
3 x LSD's

Able to carry between them

2650 troops
Up to 34 Helicopters
10 x LCVP
12 X CB-90
6 X LCU s
Mexeflotes
350 to 450 vehicles

for the cost of 1.5 billion to be funded in the 2027 - 2037 budget

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by R686 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: - JC for the Spanish allows for (the much smaller) Harriers; Oz investigated the F-35 and came to... the "far too expensive " conclusion
I put that statement in the same category of converting QE into cat traps for 2B, Also the Japanese Izumo class will need modifying to accommodate F35B don't see anyone saying its cost prohibitive for them

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

R686 wrote:the Japanese Izumo class will need modifying to accommodate F35B don't see anyone saying its cost prohibitive for them
I was under the impression those ships were designed and built to accommodate F-35's. Is my memory at fault again?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

R686 wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote: - JC for the Spanish allows for (the much smaller) Harriers; Oz investigated the F-35 and came to... the "far too expensive " conclusion
I put that statement in the same category of converting QE into cat traps for 2B, Also the Japanese Izumo class will need modifying to accommodate F35B don't see anyone saying its cost prohibitive for them
It is indeed in the same class, but the investigations and flip-flopping cost much less:
"Prime Minister Tony Abbott's proposal to put F-35 fighter jets on the Navy's two 27,000-tonne troop transport assault ships has been quietly dropped ahead of the government's defence white paper after it was found the ships would require extensive reworking and the project was too costly."
https://www.afr.com/news/politics/pms-f ... xj?stb=twt
- further commentary defines "too costly" as harming the navy's other plans
- I am sure the Japanese have a bigger purse (as they are currently spending only 1 % of GNP), too
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ron5 wrote: Is my memory at fault again?
I don't think so, but it was kept fairly "quiet".
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

I was under the impression the increase in size over the previous class to cover such an option.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

A single Wasp sized LHD is exactly what is needed.

Why? I used to think that the RN should focus on Singleton forward deployments coupled with multiple amphibious groups capable of deploying single Cdos. Fact is the world has changed over the last few years and continues to do so. To have real global power, forget single ship deployments the RN needs to operate with extreme force with heavy weight assets either alone or coupled with partners such as the US, RAN or RCN. The rest is flag waving which is ok, but not something to base your defence on.

Coupled with 2-3 LSDs it gives a scale that only other countries other than the US can dream of and redundancy when the LSDs are coupled with a CVF.

Having one always deployed CSG with one in reserve in the UK is affordable and attainable. Having a third flat top capable of F35 operations is just sweating the assets already paid for.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by R686 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
R686 wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote: - JC for the Spanish allows for (the much smaller) Harriers; Oz investigated the F-35 and came to... the "far too expensive " conclusion
I put that statement in the same category of converting QE into cat traps for 2B, Also the Japanese Izumo class will need modifying to accommodate F35B don't see anyone saying its cost prohibitive for them
It is indeed in the same class, but the investigations and flip-flopping cost much less:
"Prime Minister Tony Abbott's proposal to put F-35 fighter jets on the Navy's two 27,000-tonne troop transport assault ships has been quietly dropped ahead of the government's defence white paper after it was found the ships would require extensive reworking and the project was too costly."
https://www.afr.com/news/politics/pms-f ... xj?stb=twt
- further commentary defines "too costly" as harming the navy's other plans
- I am sure the Japanese have a bigger purse (as they are currently spending only 1 % of GNP), too
Fair dinkum the bloody thing was built in mind for F35 STOVL operations in the first place, the only alterations done below the flight deck were at the behests of Lloyds Naval regulations which were a bulkhead in the magazine, all bulk liquid storage is the same as JC1. The only changes the RAN did do was to the superstructure for greater C&C and battleplaning rooms. The only major things that will need doing is to intergrate a more comprehensive radar fit for fast jet operations and cost the deck with more heat resistant coating no different to the QE class of ships, the change are relatively minor and can be completed in an MLU, do you really believe half the spin government put out.
Hangar and garage deck for light vehicles. This continuous deck is divided as required based on both aircraft hangar and garage for light vehicles necessities. Light vehicle area is located in the forepart and it can be stowed vehicles up to 16 tons, aircraft and/or containers up to that weight. The ability to use the whole deck stowage is up to 19 AV-8B Harrier II Plus or F-35B JSF, up to 30 mid-size helicopters, or up to 10 helicopters CH-47D Chinook or a combination of 12 mid-size helicopters and 11 aircraft AV-8B Harrier II Plus. CH-47D helicopters Chinook can be transported alongside this deck with their blades removed. Hangar area has a 1-ton monorail crane, and in the cargo area (port side) there is a bridge crane with 16 tons of capacity.

Flight Deck. The flight deck of the "LHD Juan Carlos I" is 202.3 by 32 meters with a surface of 5,440 square meters. It has a 12 degrees sky-jump at bow-port side to facilitate the launch of STOVL (Short Take Off and Vertical Landing) aircraft. The flight deck allows for both day and night operations and has six SPOT for mid-size or four for larger helicopters (CH -47D Chinook helicopter type), and another aft SPOT heavy reinforced especially for the Bell-Boeing MV-22 Osprey or CH-53 Super Stallion. Aircraft transport from the hangar to the flight deck is delivered with two elevators, one aft, cantilevered bay (13.3 x 11.2 meters), in the style of the aircraft carrier Principe de Asturias and another forward-starboard side of the island (17 x 11.2 meters) with capacity for just over 27 tons. It has also an ammunition hoist of 2 ton (4.2 x 1.9 meters) which access to the island via an elevator for 2 stretchers communicating with the hospital. It is found, forward of the bow aircraft elevator, a 20-ton crane.
https://www.buquesdeguerra.com/index.ph ... 92&lang=en

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3956
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

You make some good points here and I am not disagreeing with your proposal but I will add some observations for consideration.
Tempest414 wrote:when we talk about spending 1.5 billion on a LHD I think that we could get more for the money. As I said earlier if we built another Ocean and added 30 meters to the length this would in turn give 900 sqm cross XY&Z decks for more troops more helicopter a C&C cell it could have 8 landing spots plus its 4 davits.
Spending £1.25bn+ on a single vessel is a massive amount of money but a lot of lives are at risk.

Building a RN LPH to Ocean standards is probably now almost politically impossible and by the mid to late 2020's it will be almost unthinkable in my opinion. The QE's are the new RN standard and I suspect this will be one reason why the planners are now looking at a Wasp type option.

I could be wrong but I believe building RN Assault vessels with a crew allocation and EMF of over 1400 that is full of commercial standards has had its day but it is highly likely that another batch of Bay like vessels could enter service with the RFA. Even so, I would expect the build standards and costs of any new RFA Bays to rise in the next generation.
I feel it could be built for around 750 million giving that Ocean her self cost 154 million that was = to 300 million in 2016.
Building an LPH with full naval standards in the UK for less than £1bn is of course possible but it all depends on what capabilities you are building in. Oceans top speed was around 18knts, while the Wasp class can hit 22knts. That's effectively a doubling of the propulsion system which doesn't come cheap.

The BAE Ocean replacement LHD posted previously only has space for 6 Merlins. That's a good way of reducing costs but is nowhere near enough capacity in the OTH era.

This lack of Aviation capacity is due to the inclusion of a large well dock. Well docks just eat space. This is one reason why Ocean at around 205m was so effective. No space was lost to a well dock, the LCVP's where deployed from davits and the pontoon was carried on deck. LPH's are highly effective platforms but there is a reason why USN is adapting the America Class back to LHD's. An LHD is so much more versatile. This is why I think a small well dock, only large enough to embark 2 LCU's side by side is the best way forward. Building a 235m Ocean replacement with a well dock and a large Aviation capacity to full naval standards in the UK for around £700m is impossible in my opinion. Building a 235m LPH to Ocean standards for around £700m is possible but will RN accept Ocean standards in the 2030's? I don't think so.

One of the biggest determining factors cost wise will be F35 compatibility. Maybe not a big priority now but by 2035 or 2040 many nations will be putting their F35's on their LHD's and LPH's in my opinion. In a major conflict situation RN will want to get as many F35's afloat as possible especially if one of the QE's are unavailable. In my view the bare minimum must be a F35b capable design with a clear and fully costed future conversion plan even if it is not enacted initially.

The idea of the OTH doctrine and fast landing craft is to keep the Amphibs well out of harms way. Is RN really going to offload an LPH with mexefloates 20+ miles out? No chance, so the Bays would have to provide LCU's to offload any LPH. Not very efficient if trying to offload the Bay at the same time. One solution is to replace the LCVP's with an LCM sized craft which can be davit deployed and carry up to a 60t load. This option would be worth exploring and would certainly take the pressure off of the limited number of LCU's.

For a good example of Ocean standards vs full naval standards It's worth comparing how much the Albions cost compared to Ocean. The inclusion of full naval standards and a large well dock is clearly very expensive.
As I have also said in the past building 3 new B2 Bays 200 meters with a full width Hangar for 2 Merlins or 3 Wildcats or Apache able to carry 550 troops 2 LCU's and 2 LCVP plus up to 4 LCVP's CB-90s on the working deck. I would look to get these for 250 million each...
I would say if built to current Bay standards £250m is possible. Around £300m may be more realistic. If standards have to rise, costs will also rise.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

Repulse wrote:Having one always deployed CSG with one in reserve in the UK is affordable and attainable. Having a third flat top capable of F35 operations is just sweating the assets already paid for.
If a third carrier group is the goal, build a third carrier (plus buy a shit load more F35).
@LandSharkUK

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Like the Army's aspiration to still be able to deploy an "Effective" Division, the Royal Navy's aspiration to deploy a whole commando in the amphibious assault role is becoming more and more a paper exercise. We have discussed this time and time again, but many refuse to accept that the UK's expeditionary experiment is dead. The force necessary has been broken up and unless there is a massive increase in funding, there are far greater priorities for the MoD's resources. The Navy has put all its eggs in the Carrier Strike basket, which will curtail the majority of single vessels deployments when it comes to escorts and RFA replenishment vessels. What the MoD needs to do is ensure it has enough capacity to lift a Brigade form one country to another, not conduct medium scale amphibious assaults. Simply suggesting the RN needs a platform like the USS Wasp Class is basically Sci Fi thinking. You might as well suggest the Royal Navy also purchases two San Antonio class and the LCACs, MV-22s and Amphibious combat vehicles as well and form the equivalent of a USMC formation. As a fighting force the Royal Marines have few equals but they will move the formations into theatre like the Army are except for smaller operations by units no bigger then company size, be this raiding or securing the entry point for the following units to unload, be they additional Marines or an Army unit. If we want to talk about the Royal Navy getting a large LHD then we need to put "Fantasy" in the title of this thread.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3956
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Lord Jim wrote:If we want to talk about the Royal Navy getting a large LHD then we need to put "Fantasy" in the title of this thread.
Thats pretty clear, what is your prediction for the future Amphibious setup?

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

Poiuytrewq wrote:I. In a major conflict situation RN will want to get as many F35's afloat as possible ... In my view the bare minimum must be a F35b capable design
A single QE class carrier has a capacity greater than anything the RN or RAF has deployed in the last half century, and we know combat mass has not been increasing over that time. That is such a massive over capacity it really is ridiculous to suggest increasing it.

QE has future proofed fast jets at sea.
@LandSharkUK

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3956
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

shark bait wrote:That is such a massive over capacity it really is ridiculous to suggest increasing it.
Completly disagree, just because you have future proofed a design doesn't mean you have to regularly use a capability. If some more foresight had of been used when putting together our current Amphibious fleet we wouldn't have the same disjointed force that we have now.

Do you really believe RN will build more Ocean standard vessels in the 2030's?

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

I'd prefer to describe it as "Fantastic, exactly what is needed". If people keep suggesting that Less is More, then should we be surprised if our politicians follow the "Opinion Poll" so provided. If the Defence Select Committee were suggesting an inadequate solution, then we should be critical and state what we think is required. They are not, they are recommending that the Albion class should be replaced with LHD's (More than 1). To suggest anything less is to encourage a "RACE TO THE BOTTOM". Be careful what you say you wish for. :shock:

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Completly disagree, just because you have future proofed a design doesn't mean you have to regularly use a capability
That doesn't make sense. There is no need for more runways at sea, QE has more space than needed.
Poiuytrewq wrote:Do you really believe RN will build more Ocean standard vessels in the 2030's?
Yes. Amphibious assault will always rely on RFA shipping, and the system is only as strong as the weakest link, so its fully reasonable to build an assault platform similar to how we build a auxiliary, they both operate in exactly the same environment.
@LandSharkUK

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3956
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

shark bait wrote:That doesn't make sense.
It makes perfect sense, build a platform with an F35 capability but there is no need to use it until required. Feel free to explain how an LHD without the F35's embarked and the associated aviation element costs more to operate than a platform without such a capability.
shark bait wrote:Yes. Amphibious assault will always rely on RFA shipping, and the system is only as strong as the weakest link, so its fully reasonable to build an assault platform similar to how we build a auxiliary, they both operate in exactly the same environment.
I am lost with your reasoning. Ocean is gone without direct replacement. That in itself should tell us something.

In the 2030's we will be replacing the Albions not Ocean, incorporating some of Oceans capabilities in the replacements is not the same as replacing Ocean. The Albions are built with standards in excess of naval standards. They are an unusual but extremely solid design mainly because the design process was compromised by cuts along the way.

Why would RN replace want to replace extremely solidly built LPD's with a commercially derived design? The short answer is they won't.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

Poiuytrewq wrote:It makes perfect sense, build a platform with an F35 capability but there is no need to use it until required
In today climate its impossible to justify doubling the cost of a platform to add a capability that is available in abundance.
Poiuytrewq wrote: Ocean is gone without direct replacement. That in itself should tell us something.
Yes. There is no spare money.
Poiuytrewq wrote:Why would RN replace want to replace extremely solidly built LPD's with a commercially derived design?
Because there is no spare money.

Also lets not pretend Ocean wasn't brilliant, she racked up more operations than Albion and Bulwark combined. That's not something the RN should be afraid to replicate.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Poiuytrewq wrote: Ocean her self cost 154 million that was = to 300 million in 2016
We paid £40+m just to extend her from the pocket carriers going to QE2 coming in. And Brasil paid twice that just to have a reasonable service life expectation. Not to mention the constant refurbs along the way, just to keep her usable. Ocean was a quick plug to correct for earlier cuts, and was put together on top of an already designed warship hull, which was a blessing (of course a coincidence that the pocket carriers were of similar size) and the lesson to be drawn is: enough attention to be paid to the desired mode of operating (STOMP came in) and getting the asset mix to fall in line. By design; not by 'quick fixes' again.
Poiuytrewq wrote:Building a 235m Ocean replacement with a well dock and a large Aviation capacity to full naval standards in the UK for around £700m is impossible in my opinion. Building a 235m LPH to Ocean standards for around £700m is possible but will RN accept Ocean standards on the 2030's? I don't think so.
I agree
Poiuytrewq wrote:The inclusion of full naval standards and a large well dock is clearly very expensive.
+
Poiuytrewq wrote:the design process was compromised by cuts along the way
To use the Albions as an example (quote 1) is not fully conclusive as quote 2 gave rise to build problems (cost increases) in 'equal measure'
- can't remember all the details, so 'equal measure' is short hand for that
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5551
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: And Brasil paid twice that just to have a reasonable service life expectation. Not to mention the constant refurbs along the way, just to keep her usable.
Just to be clear are saying that Brazil paid 80 million on a refit after paying 84 million to buying Ocean or that they paid 84 million to buy her which also covered the standard 5 yearly
.

Also as for the constant refurbs as far as I remember she had 2 normal 5 yearly's and the third one was a mid life (which is standard for all RN ships) and was retired before her forth 5 yearly which was paid for by her new owners

Post Reply