Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
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 »

Ambush and Sabotage were mentioned as they are core small unit style operations. Of course other types are valid but could a couple of platoons take and hold an airfield inside enemy territory? Holding the door open in friendly territory to ensure the unloading of follow on forces is not interrupted is another matter.

We must remember that the RM have a skill set that is unique within the UK Military, and we should use them in such a way that maximises its utility. Using them simply as light infantry would be a waste, but they do compliment the three Para Battalions and their use in support of SF should also be increased.

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 »

Submissions for the Malaysian Nay's requirement for a Multi-Role Support Ship giving a good idea of what is out there;

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 »

Lord Jim wrote:RM have a skill set that is unique within the UK Military
Which is what?
@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 »

Mountain and Arctic warfare to begin with. There is a core of highly skilled instructors but the two full Commandos are getting back into the swing of things regarding training up north on a regular basis, taking their Dutch friends with them. Just like old times.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3954
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Very interesting article on how Wasp class LHD's are being used in a more intensive way.

The images alone are worth a look.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... -of-f-35bs

Many aren't convinced about the need for a UK F35 capable LHD in the future but it's hard to deny that the sheer levels of versatility and capability make the Wasp class hard to beat.

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:make the Wasp class hard to beat.
Why did they then decide to do something else? And even that "something else" then needed some tweaking (after the first two, to try things out with)?
- aside from capabilities, Oz (in their evaluation) came to the conclusion that they could never afford to man them; I would say that QEs & Americas are the benchmark and, depending on what exact goal one wants to hit, the design is to be found somewhere "there"... in between
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)

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3954
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:make the Wasp class hard to beat.
Why did they then decide to do something else? And even that "something else" then needed some tweaking (after the first two, to try things out with)?
- aside from capabilities, Oz (in their evaluation) came to the conclusion that they could never afford to man them; I would say that QEs & Americas are the benchmark and, depending on what exact goal one wants to hit, the design is to be found somewhere "there"... in between
You could well be right. I like the Wasps a lot but it's entirely possible that a more modern design could be much more efficient in terms of manpower. A 40,000t mini QE would be a very attractive option in my view.

Firstly RN will need to decide whether to go down the multiple LHD/LSD(A) route or the LPH/LPD/LSD(A) route. Both options have merit in different ways.

Secondly RN will need to decide if any other vessel in the fleet needs a F35 capability apart from the QE's.

Long before individual designs and concepts are considered, the future direction and balance of the Amphibious fleet will need to be carefully considered to ensure it fits together in an affordable way which is properly future proofed to ensure maximum flexibility going forward. Getting what's needed without being too ambitious will be key.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

For me in an ideal world I’d like to see
2 x LHD
2 x LPD ( with hanger )
4 x LSD ( modern bay with hanger )

What I’d like to see and hoping could be done
2 x LHD
3-4 x LSD ( modern bay with hanger )

What I’d expect as a bare minimum
1 x LHD
3 x LSD ( modern bay with hanger )

I’d personally like the LHDs to be a British version of the new Italian LHD being built, similar size and capacity.

The points I’d replace like for like with a modern count apart but this is more sea lift than amphibious.

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

I really don't like the idea of a UK Amphibious ship being F35 capable. maybe just for an emergency landing but I think the core of an LHD/LHA should be landing troops, yes sure if we went down the 3 x juan carlos LHD instead of the QEC or if we had 2 X Cavour (such a good looking CVL, successor to the invicible class imo ) and a JC, but I am glad we didn't !

I do like the BAE design LHD about the same size as Ocean

http://www.naval.com.br/blog/wp-content ... ystems.jpg

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Very interesting article on how Wasp class LHD's are being used in a more intensive way.

The images alone are worth a look.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... -of-f-35bs

Many aren't convinced about the need for a UK F35 capable LHD in the future but it's hard to deny that the sheer levels of versatility and capability make the Wasp class hard to beat.
Many argued this was the ideal configuration for the uk given the deployment profile we operate and any likely available air assets from normal operations thru to war fighting ones. I believe it remains the case unfortunately we ordered QE class instead.

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

3 x Cavour's (preferably enlarged to 40000t) would of been good, 1 for 1 to replacement for the invincible class, rotate as a strike carrier, LPH in maintenance, but then would they be in service for 40-50 years? unless stupid politicians/penny pinchers have their way :evil:

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 »

We have a F-35 capable amphibious warfare platform, it is called HMS Prince of Wales and that is the only one we are going to get. I am more concerned that we actually get replacements for Albion and Bulwark and the RFAs of the Bay class. The way thing are we could end up with a number of contractor owned and run platforms painted in company colours.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Lord Jim wrote:We have a F-35 capable amphibious warfare platform, it is called HMS Prince of Wales and that is the only one we are going to get. I am more concerned that we actually get replacements for Albion and Bulwark and the RFAs of the Bay class. The way thing are we could end up with a number of contractor owned and run platforms painted in company colours.
If we had to replace them by 2025 I’d agree with you but considering it’ll be 10 years plus untill we have to start any build and the fact that carrier regeneration will be done by then I believe they’ll be replaced it’s just by what, LPD LSD LHD LPH a combination ?

Every 10 years odd there’s a big project for the RN, we’ve got the carrier now before that it was a new AAW vessel on a whole new level and before that it was the amphibious fleet. I can see them once again being the next big project one that HMG can make good head lines out of like they’ve always tried to with the carriers.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Very interesting article on how Wasp class LHD's are being used in a more intensive way.

The images alone are worth a look.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... -of-f-35bs

Many aren't convinced about the need for a UK F35 capable LHD in the future but it's hard to deny that the sheer levels of versatility and capability make the Wasp class hard to beat.
Seeing the photo, I actually thought that an LHD can never be a strike carrier. Actually, in the article they say:

It might not be possible for Wasp-class ships to ever operate as true Lightning Carriers, both because of the physical and maintenance space required and the inability of their decks to handle the increased wear and tear of those kinds of high-tempo aviation operations. But even with 10 F-35Bs, the ships would be able to provide a significant amount of air combat capability.

LHD uses large amount of buoyancy and "center of gravity" margin for accommodation, vehicle deck, well-dock, in addition to the aviation facilities. This inevitably makes their flight deck very narrow. In a youtube vid of LHD F35B operations, we can see how the F35B is jet blast affecting the flight deck. Aircrafts are too "nearly" located to the "run way".
スクリーンショット 2019-04-04 18.53.09.png
Another interesting point of the article is the LCU and LCAC handling. LHD carries LCUs, not LCACs. I think, even with LCAC high speed, the LHD is located far away for safety, and will work only as a helicopter carrier in day-1. Only after the beach is secured, LHD can reach the shore and land vehicles/equipments using her slow LCUs. Very reasonable.
image-2.jpeg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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 »

Jake1992 wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:We have a F-35 capable amphibious warfare platform, it is called HMS Prince of Wales and that is the only one we are going to get. I am more concerned that we actually get replacements for Albion and Bulwark and the RFAs of the Bay class. The way thing are we could end up with a number of contractor owned and run platforms painted in company colours.
If we had to replace them by 2025 I’d agree with you but considering it’ll be 10 years plus untill we have to start any build and the fact that carrier regeneration will be done by then I believe they’ll be replaced it’s just by what, LPD LSD LHD LPH a combination ?

Every 10 years odd there’s a big project for the RN, we’ve got the carrier now before that it was a new AAW vessel on a whole new level and before that it was the amphibious fleet. I can see them once again being the next big project one that HMG can make good head lines out of like they’ve always tried to with the carriers.
10 years to two SDSRs away and we might not even have Albion and Bulwark then. Our amphibious capability may well be PoW, 2x FLSS and 2-3 Bays.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Lord Jim wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:We have a F-35 capable amphibious warfare platform, it is called HMS Prince of Wales and that is the only one we are going to get. I am more concerned that we actually get replacements for Albion and Bulwark and the RFAs of the Bay class. The way thing are we could end up with a number of contractor owned and run platforms painted in company colours.
If we had to replace them by 2025 I’d agree with you but considering it’ll be 10 years plus untill we have to start any build and the fact that carrier regeneration will be done by then I believe they’ll be replaced it’s just by what, LPD LSD LHD LPH a combination ?

Every 10 years odd there’s a big project for the RN, we’ve got the carrier now before that it was a new AAW vessel on a whole new level and before that it was the amphibious fleet. I can see them once again being the next big project one that HMG can make good head lines out of like they’ve always tried to with the carriers.
10 years to two SDSRs away and we might not even have Albion and Bulwark then. Our amphibious capability may well be PoW, 2x FLSS and 2-3 Bays.
Could very well be but you could just as easily say we might not have PoW by then. We all know what politiants are like when it comes to cuts but at the same time the Albion’s area more high profile vessel than a single frigate of mcmv, and we are starting to see a greater use of the Albion’s in the Far East now.

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 wouldn't say a cruise by one of the Albions to the Far East means we will be using them out that way more in the future. In fact the whole Global Presence 2.0 hasn't really been thought through or funded yet. Interesting that the cruise was planned when it became obvious that both the Albions were under threat though.

Hopefully the Amphibious Group will remain and its replacements will begin surface in the late 2030s, but if you look at the Navy, where can cuts be found if it has to bear its share in order to balance the budget at a future date? The Carrier Group will be its pre-eminent commitment (CASD being sacrosanct) and any further cut to the escort fleet would be very difficult.

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

As mentioned I think we will get a replacement for Albion & Bulwark but probably will be like the Bays then maybe a couple more to replace the 3 bays we have left so we get a common hull etc, but I think the numbers will be cut to 4 from Abion,bulwark & 3 bays, maybe the first two will have the C&C function & armament or could a containerised system be made to work so they could rotate between the hull? along with weapons?

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Jake1992 wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:We have a F-35 capable amphibious warfare platform, it is called HMS Prince of Wales and that is the only one we are going to get. I am more concerned that we actually get replacements for Albion and Bulwark and the RFAs of the Bay class. The way thing are we could end up with a number of contractor owned and run platforms painted in company colours.
If we had to replace them by 2025 I’d agree with you but considering it’ll be 10 years plus untill we have to start any build and the fact that carrier regeneration will be done by then I believe they’ll be replaced it’s just by what, LPD LSD LHD LPH a combination ?

Every 10 years odd there’s a big project for the RN, we’ve got the carrier now before that it was a new AAW vessel on a whole new level and before that it was the amphibious fleet. I can see them once again being the next big project one that HMG can make good head lines out of like they’ve always tried to with the carriers.
By 2030 hms daring will be about 25 so will HMS astute and the merlin 30 years old. Up to that point it will be successor and type 26 not to mention future stores ship. We keep kicking big expenditure down the line and store future troubles in the hope of new money. The army needs a complete equipment overhaul and we’ve got the prospect of Tempest. Lots and lots of big projects!!

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Seeing the photo, I actually thought that an LHD can never be a strike carrier. Actually, in the article they say:
It can’t, but then we shouldn’t expect it to be. There is a requirement for fast-jet naval aviation at sea outside of the USN not sure there is a need for strike carriers.

If your JS Izumo could be configured for the same boat capacity as HMS Ocean it would an excellent combination for sea control

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 »

Remember what the role of USMC aviation is, especially that operated off their Amphibs. They are not providing CAP but CAS for the troops on the ground. The former is the duty of the USN, so you still have to have carriers around.

As for the RN having auxiliary carriers in the form of LHDs, dong so greatly increases the cost of the platform and you are very limited in the size of airwing unless you want to use the LHD purely as a carrier, but there are still limitation.

Yes there is going to be a bow wave of replacement platforms requiring replacement down the line for the RN and the other services, but this is how we do things for better or worse. Some platforms will have their lives extended far beyond their original OSD, just look at when the T-23 was supposed to be replaced. The T-45 for example could still be going in the 2040s.

Replacing the Albions and probably Bays with a common, more efficient platform will depend on how the Government and MoD see the need for the UK to retain an amphibious capability and at what scale. Will the need to have a certain capacity of sea lift to move an Army Brigade be more important?

Like so many issues, until we have a proper joined up threat based SDSR, we are going to have to continue to get by with what we have, not what we need, and hope our service men and women are not made to suffer the poor choices made by those we elect.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Lord Jim wrote:As for the RN having auxiliary carriers in the form of LHDs, dong so greatly increases the cost of the platform and you are very limited in the size of airwing unless you want to use the LHD purely as a carrier, but there are still limitation.
One thing that gets me thinking when this sort of quote is mentioned is what is the true cost of the new Italian LHD ?

At -
32,000tn
Length 245m
Beam 36m
It’s definitely not small and being F35B capable as said should really bump up the price, but the quoted price is a mere €1.2bn.
If this is the true price then an F35B capable LHD of this size is a bargain

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 »

Compared to the cost of HMS Ocean or a French LHD the cost is huge, and for what? Space for more aircraft than the UK will ever have.
@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:Compared to the cost of HMS Ocean or a French LHD the cost is huge, and for what? Space for more aircraft than the UK will ever have.
Oh I agree compared to them it is expensive but if I remember right both of the former are built closer to commercial standards where the later is built to full naval standards this makes a big difference in cost.

It was more of a line of thought that when I see people saying how utterly expensive and cost prohibitive a wasp class is the Italians have shown something similar can be done for a modist price ( if that is the true cost )

For me if a 3rd/4th flat top of some sort is off the table then I’d like to see 4-5 San Antonio style LPDs, a British version say based on the Karl doorman hull or the SSS hull design ( if the BAE concept is chosen ).
Each of these with a twin chinook / triple merlin flight deck and a 5-6 merlin / twin chinook hanger would give us a very well rounded amphibious force that together could deliver a greater helo force than ocean could but also be able to operate independently.

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 »

The San Antonios are a Rolls Royce option and again too expensive but very capable platforms and too big for what we are aiming for, being able to land at most a reinforced Commando and even then not all at once as the logistics would be landed by the Bays. The area our existing amphibious platforms are lacking is aviation, but the half sisters to the Bays solve that and would be a very cost effective solution to providing the UK with a balanced and more flexible force.

The Platforms based on the Enforcer hull are the right compromise for the UK as future replacements for both the Bays and Albions and would negate the need for one of the carriers to act as an LHA. They would provide significant hospital facilities and could easily cover the training role also carried out by Argus. Being operated by the RFA but the high readiness platform also having RN and RM personnel aboard would make them efficient to operate and we would have between four and five common platforms to rotate through the maintenance cycles.

As for the cost of the Italian platform, like the FREMMs, they seem to be able to build warships in a very efficient and cost effective manner, possibly due to the fact that the same yards have a substantial civilian shipbuilding business that is very profitable. Building such a platform in the UK would be more expensive simply due to that reason alone.

Post Reply