Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Tempest414 wrote:
SW1 wrote:serge750

The US have had a proposal to use the San Antonio hull for doing something along the lines of what your thinking

https://news.usni.org/2014/11/21/navys- ... -look-like


http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20 ... roga-class

If you went for something of this size maybe a lpd, lsd, type 31 and stores ship all from the same base hull could be interesting.
And that next gen ship looks like what I would do with a Batch 2 Bay as seen in option 1 on page 44 of this thread
Not far off. We’ll wait until the Americans do it then fall overselves trying to copy when it’s too late.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Latest edition of Warship World believes one reason why the Albion LPDs have been saved was to avoid giving the wrong signal to Argentina after they performed a “paper exercise” on retaking the Falklands.

Another article suggests that the RN is looking at a Wasp style platform for a future LPD replacement. I personally think this now would be the best approach given expected funds (one “Wasp” for two Albions) coupled with ultimately replacements for the Bays on a one for one basis, which could take 2 LCUs per ships. It would give the RN a proper rotation of 3 CSGs (1 deployed, 1 in UK waters and 1 training/in refit) and also a backup of a CVF + Bays v2 combo for the large LHD.
”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

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 »

Repulse wrote: would give the RN a proper rotation of 3 CSGs (1 deployed, 1 in UK waters and 1 training/in refit) and also a backup of a CVF + Bays v2 combo for the large LHD.
Would go for that. Count in the French carrier into the rotation (so that we can do all that with two) and prioritise the money accordingly: to get the rest in place?
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: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Repulse wrote:Latest edition of Warship World believes one reason why the Albion LPDs have been saved was to avoid giving the wrong signal to Argentina after they performed a “paper exercise” on retaking the Falklands.
Interesting. The crucial thing is that the right decision was made :thumbup:
Repulse wrote: Another article suggests that the RN is looking at a Wasp style platform for a future LPD replacement.
I came to the same conclusion some time ago. Albions replacement should also incorporate Oceans role as much as possible. It needs to be 250m LOA minimum, 40,000t+ and F35 capable. A very small well dock that can only just take 2x LCU's side by side, concentrating on the aviation capability due to the move to OTH doctrine.
I personally think this now would be the best approach given expected funds (one “Wasp” for two Albions) coupled with ultimately replacements for the Bays on a one for one basis, which could take 2 LCUs per ships. It would give the RN a proper rotation of 3 CSGs (1 deployed, 1 in UK waters and 1 training/in refit) and also a backup of a CVF + Bays v2 combo for the large LHD.
This might be a bit ambitious going forward without something getting binned in an SDSR. I think 2x large Bays is now enough. I would make them 190m+ and able to embark 2x LCU's side by side and up to 6x Merlins. I would also make them capable of operating 3x Chinooks simultaneously and embark an EMF of around 500.

I would back these up with 2x LSV's and 4 or 5 large GPV's of around 150m LOA. These vessels would replace the Waves and the RB2's.

This strength in depth would allow APT(N) and Kipion to be conducted without tying up either of the Bay's and also allow wiggle room for cuts down the line if necessary. Sacrificing some of the LSV's or GPV's to protect the LHD and the Bay's would be manageable.

Overall it sounds positive if true. Could we finally be heading in the right direction?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

I’d say 6 LCU sized or 4 LCAC sized craft would be the minimum for an OTH operation - 1 Wasp + 3 Bay2 LSDs would give 20-25% contingency when one ship isn’t available. Whilst a small 1-2 Merlin sized hangar or ability to connect to the vehicle deck for storing / basic maintenance the main aviation facilities should be focused on the LHD or escorting CVFs.
”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

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 »

Repulse wrote:I’d say 6 LCU sized or 4 LCAC sized craft would be the minimum for an OTH operation
Was it an omission, or did you knowingly discount the half-way house between those two 'different modes of transportation'?
- as France, the US and Japan are all buying them (but we are not, as for now)
- since this http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/1056784/B ... asheet.pdf was published in 2012 things have moved ahead with speed (pun intended :) )
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)

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

ArmChairCivvy, omission, but would expect hovercraft to play a role as speed with be of the essence.
”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

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:RN is looking at a Wasp style platform for a future LPD replacement
Far too expensive, if leadership pursue that fantasy it will only drive the nail further into the Marines coffin.

Adding F35 capability is an unnecessary distraction for a navy with a massive fixed wing over capacity already. Fast jet operations at sea do not come cheap, it is simply not worth the extra expense.

What's needed is a HMS Ocean replacement, cheap and cheerful that gets the job done.
@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 »

How much did the Italian Trieste cost?

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by R686 »

shark bait wrote:
Repulse wrote:RN is looking at a Wasp style platform for a future LPD replacement
Far too expensive, if leadership pursue that fantasy it will only drive the nail further into the Marines coffin.

Adding F35 capability is an unnecessary distraction for a navy with a massive fixed wing over capacity already. Fast jet operations at sea do not come cheap, it is simply not worth the extra expense.

What's needed is a HMS Ocean replacement, cheap and cheerful that gets the job done.
JC1/Canberra is a Wasp style vessel are they too expensive?

3B AUD for two ships what did you just spend on the QE again..............you get what you pay for

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

shark bait wrote:
Repulse wrote:RN is looking at a Wasp style platform for a future LPD replacement
Far too expensive, if leadership pursue that fantasy it will only drive the nail further into the Marines coffin.
Adding F35 capability is an unnecessary distraction for a navy with a massive fixed wing over capacity already. Fast jet operations at sea do not come cheap, it is simply not worth the extra expense.
What's needed is a HMS Ocean replacement, cheap and cheerful that gets the job done.
How would that fit in with the rest of the Amphibious fleet? Would it actually be cheaper over the longer term?

A Wasp Class can embark in excess of 1650 marines. Even if that dropped to around 1400 with RN habitability requirements that's effectively Albion and the 3 Bays all rolled into one but the crewing allocation could be a lot less with QE style automation. Run the figures, I think over a twenty year period the Wasp Class is cheaper than the Ocean/Albion type alternative.

Around £2bn should provide a 40,000t UK designed LHD, two large Bays and 2 cheaper logistic support vessels. I think this would be affordable and sustainable over the long term.

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 »

shark bait wrote:a massive fixed wing over capacity already
[...]

What's needed is [...] cheap and cheerful that gets the job done.
While agreed, that does dot exclude 'big'. And the below agree [appeared! these online things are challenging :D ] as I was typing:
Poiuytrewq wrote:1650 marines [...] effectively Ocean, Albion and the 3 Bays all rolled into one but the crewing allocation could be a lot less with QE style automation.
... while one will have to deal with the "all eggs in one basket" objection
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
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Gabriele »

Lord Jim wrote:How much did the Italian Trieste cost?
Around 1,1 billion Euro.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Not if there are 2 of them

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:... while one will have to deal with the "all eggs in one basket" objection
I've amended my original post as it wasn't supposed include Ocean :crazy:

The 'all the eggs in one basket' theory is interesting. With the move to OTH ops I think everything has changed. An Ocean, 2 Albions and 4 Bay setup doesn't really provide maximum efficiency any more, and the UK can't afford it. We have to be realistic.

How is one LHD, 2 larger improved Bays, 2 Logistic Support Vessels and 4 Points all our eggs in one basket?

If the LHD is not available then PoW and the 2 Bays (190m, 6 Merlin hanger, 3 Chinook landing spots, 500 Marines) along with the LSV's and Points should be able to cope.

It would still be a massively capable force but also affordable going forward.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

I feel a bigger Ocean could work well if we took Ocean at 203 meters and made it longer to 230 meters kept the ramp on the stern and the 4 davits squared off the front flight deck to allow another landing spot/ more deck parking plus swap to side lifts she could carry 1000-1200 troops , 25 helicopters , 100 vehicles. If we add to this 3 new larger 200 meter B2 Bays as in option 1 on page 44 of this thread able to carry 550 troops , 2 Merlins or 3 Wildcats / Apache , 2 LCVP on davits , 2 LCU from the dock and if needed extra LCVP's / CB-90's could be carried on the working deck and lowed into the water using the 30 ton cranes. This for me would a great out come

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:capable force but also affordable going forward
That is where we have to be coming from as the RM are not always, not even most often, a projectile launched from their shipping
- but when they are (needed), it is a capability that there is no substitute for
Poiuytrewq wrote:The 'all all our eggs in one basket? the eggs in one basket' theory is interesting. With the move to OTH ops I think everything has changed.
I agree, when we are talking "in the 1st derivatives". Let's move the analysis to cover also the "2nd derivatives" ie. Ops when there is a peer on the OpFor side... too late to change our mix
Poiuytrewq wrote:How is one LHD
WITH
Poiuytrewq wrote:1650 marines. Even if that dropped to around 1400 with RN habitability requirements
Poiuytrewq wrote:all our eggs in one basket?
QUITE A BIG basket when you consider the current set-up, of 1800-1850, which includes the supporting helicopter force (~400)... so the quoted number is about the same that we would, under current arrangements, plan to land.
- BTW, what was the fraction that Canberra carried, out of the total landed force in the Falklands? Things went well (save for the Welsh Guards, when the concept was still "to beach"; has been changed since) but lucky once ... is not the guide for future investments/ Ops.
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 »

Tempest414 wrote: longer to 230 meters kept the ramp on the stern and the 4 davits squared off the front flight deck to allow another landing spot/ more deck parking plus swap to side lifts she could carry 1000-1200 troops , 25 helicopters , 100 vehicles.
I don't have to hand how close that would be to the blueprint (design) that BAES pitched as a replacement for HMS Ocean?
- would be a nice reality check (don't think it ever went as far as being costed)
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: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
I don't have to hand how close that would be to the blueprint (design) that BAES pitched as a replacement for HMS Ocean?
Is it this one?
https://www.baesystems.com/en/download- ... 568205.pdf

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: that's effectively Albion and the 3 Bays all rolled into one
That's not a good thing, the amphibious force then becomes too concentrated and less flexible.
Poiuytrewq wrote:Around £2bn should provide a 40,000t UK designed LHD, two large Bays and 2 cheaper logistic support vessels. I think this would be affordable and sustainable over the long term.
Building a carrier 60% the size of QE for 30% of the cost, that doesn't add up.
Poiuytrewq wrote:How would that fit in with the rest of the Amphibious fleet?
RN Operate a pair of HMS Ocean replacements; a big, simple and cheap LPH.
RFA operate slightly bigger Bay Class replacemen; a big, simple and cheap dock.

That gives the UK a flexible and scaleable package, where no one platform is too big to loose (to politics or the enemy). Importantly all off those types can be applies to roles other than amphibious assault, just like we see today, releasing pressure from elsewhere in the RN.
R686 wrote:JC1/Canberra is a Wasp style vessel are they too expensive?
Baby wasps! And yes, Canberra is probably be too expensive, certainly if fixed wing aviation is built in. Whist the RN my fancy a Wasp style, the reality is they can only afford a Mistral style.
@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:Is it this one?
Yes: 20 meters less. 3 LC from davits ( a welldock? expensive. a deck crane? for mexeflotes)
- 800 RM
= a full Cdo
= bring the rest (with heavy kit, plus more RM Coy's on wheels) on any number of Bays that can be mustered
shark bait wrote:Canberra is probably be too expensive, certainly if fixed wing aviation is built in.
- JC for the Spanish allows for (the much smaller) Harriers; Oz investigated the F-35 and came to... the "far too expensive " conclusion
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)

Clive F
Member
Posts: 176
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 12:48
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Clive F »

The bigger / more "flat toppy" the Ocean replacement is, (not that we will ever get a direct replacement,) the more likely one or both QE /POW will be sold. A simple (thus cheaper) "helicopter Carrier" with NO well decks, NO Ski Ramps etc will offer the best sustainable solution. It may not be the best military solution but it will stand the best chance of resisting cuts to it and the big flat tops.

If either QE or POW will be present in any future amphibious landing (even OTH), which I believe is the current theory, all the command and control will be done from that (please correct me if that is not correct). It would seem logical to me that this function will not be required on the Albions / replacements. Could this area be changed to accommodation / Hospital? Any Albion replacement would not require these facilities thus making them cheaper? / smaller crew?

Looking forward to being torpedoed for these musings.

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 »

Given the resource constraints on the navy at the moment, the closer the replacement looks to HMS Ocean the better. I'd only suggest a modest improvement to her vehicle ramp.

However I'm unsure if the carrier would be the right place to put the command and control node. That means the carriers would have to be present for every amphibious training exercise, and that's probably far too expense. In a real operation the carrier and assault platform will likely be separate by 100 miles, which further complicates things. Its probably better to keep C2 integrated into one well oiled package.

The facilities on the LPD's are an ops room with around 50 consoles, and 2 other big planning / briefing rooms. I don't know if HMS Ocean had similar, and I don't think it would be too difficult to fit that into a big fat LPH.
@LandSharkUK

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

shark bait wrote: That's not a good thing, the amphibious force then becomes too concentrated and less flexible.
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 we are too ambitious when replacing the fleet, it will get cut again and the balance will be lost again.

This is why I believe we should invest heavily in 3 main assets backed up by cheap logistic and patrol vessels.
shark bait wrote:Building a carrier 60% the size of QE for 30% of the cost, that doesn't add up.
Look at what the Italians are doing for around £900m and its F35 capable.
image.jpg
Why could we not do something similar for around £1.25b to £1.5bn?

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

shark bait wrote: RFA operate slightly bigger Bay Class replacemen; a big, simple and cheap dock.

That gives the UK a flexible and scaleable package, where no one platform is too big to loose (to politics or the enemy). Importantly all off those types can be applies to roles other than amphibious assault, just like we see today, releasing pressure from elsewhere in the RN.
What are your predicted costs for this. I don't think a modern Ocean replacement can be built in the UK for less than around £500m. Bigger more capable Karel Doorman sized Bays are going to be at least £250m to £350m. That's around £2bn for 2x Oceans and 3x Bays. Where is the saving?

Let me be clear, your proposal would not be a bad outcome but I hink it's unaffordable going forward. The 5 vessel option is highly likely to be cut. If one Ocean and a Bay gets cut we will end up with another lopsided fleet. I think starting with 3 main Amphibious vessels backed up by cheaper logistics and patrol vessels is a more sustainable way forward.

Just my opinion.

Post Reply