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 »

Looking to the future, and following on from what I said above, I can easily see the sole platform designated for amphibious assault with the actual RN being the RN's active carrier. This would be supported by between three and five platforms that would replace the bays with greater facilities and modularity, backed up by three to four Ro-Ro platforms of which one or two would be operated by the RFA and the remained chartered when needed. This force is designed to move troops from A to B in formation up to Brigade size and including there supporting assets and stores in one lift. The RN would retain a limited over the beach assault capability, using smaller formation up to company size and only light vehicles. Of course the Carrier and the flight decks of the other ships would allow a reasonable vertical lift capability and with the introduction of the MRV(P) there should be reasonable mobility for the troops on the ground. Smaller raids could be launched from one of the RN's planned T-26 escorts. In a nut shell the RN will retain a limited assault capability, but sea lift should become the priority led by the RFA.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Lord Jim wrote: I can easily see the sole platform designated for amphibious assault with the actual RN being the RN's active carrier.
You could be right but how long is it going to be before someone in the Treasury works out how much it costs to operate PoW as an LPH? The costs will be eye-watering.

This could be another reason why operating a Wasp style platform is starting to look 'cheap'.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

A few points a large LHD for two LPDs (and probably RFA Argus) is not fantasy, it is actually a pragmatic approach that reflects priorities and capabilities.

1) Having the ability to deploy a RM Cdo OTH is needed but cannot be afforded as a full time capability and probably is held at 30+ days notice. Having a single LHD gives that part time priority along with a “plan B” option of a CVF + LSD option
2) There are not enough escorts to have two CVF and two LPD groups in rotation. The current suggestion of having two CSG with combined CVF + LPD assets is an option, but puts the CVF at significant risk. Adding another 2 T26s and a LHD gives the option of 3 Carrier Groups, or one real CSG + one real ARG in a real conflict.

Singleton deployments of Frigates and RFAs has worked up to now, but the world is changing very fast and becoming more dangerous- is the RN has real global effect it has to be either deploying a carrier group or supporting an ally’s one.
”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

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 »

To clarify, I was suggesting that it would be the active carrier, taken off carrier strike duties to temporarily become an LPH not activating the second carrier for the role.

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:There are not enough escorts to have two CVF and two LPD groups in rotation. The current suggestion of having two CSG with combined CVF + LPD assets is an option, but puts the CVF at significant risk.
That is, rather than over-egging it (that many groups), overspeccing the need for escorts.
The two CSGs would be overlapping with any amph. TF and the latter would sail with one or the other... so the critical calculation comes for the short period of time when the two physically separate:
- amph. for OT Ops 20+ nm off the shoreline
- and the carriers about 10x that far out

The two 'LPD groups' can also be read as one ship and the supporting act... which is another (1) ship, one of the two Bays nor permanently tasked to the Gulf.
- so reduce that just to 'one' and , with luck, you can send 1+2
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 »

Repulse wrote:Having a single LHD gives that part time priority
One is none. Better off not bothering at all than having one, it makes us way to predictable.
ArmChairCivvy wrote:amph. for OT Ops 20+ nm off the shoreline
20 miles? Do you think the Marines will be equipped to operate that far out?
@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 »

shark bait wrote:Do you think the Marines will be equipped to operate that far out?
Define OTH
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:
shark bait wrote:Do you think the Marines will be equipped to operate that far out?
Define OTH
Does this help?

- Standing on the ground with h = 1.70 m (5 ft 7 in), the horizon is 4.7 km (2.9 mi).
- Standing on the ground with h = 2 m (6 ft 7 in), the horizon is 5 km (3.1 mi).
- Standing on a hill or tower of 100 m (330 ft) in height, the horizon is 36 km (22 mi).
- Standing at the top of the Burj Khalifa (828 m (2,717 ft) in height), the horizon 103 km (64 mi).
- For an observer atop Mount Everest 8,848 m (29,029 ft), the horizon is 336 km(209 mi).

In Over The Horizon Amphibious Assault terms its between 20nm and 50nm.

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: a hill or tower of 100 m (330 ft) in height, the horizon is 36 km (22 mi)
A good thing that (without being a lawyer) I inserted the "+" in there:
22 Miles =
19.117477 Nautical Miles
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)

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

I can see the attraction of a "wasp" style very large LHD or LHA, I just can't get out of my head thinking it would be a big sitting target close to shore with lots of soul's on board if she didn't have really comprehensive defensive measures on board & do the UK really need something that large ?

I do like the look of the BAE design though, or even a mistral type.


When we have a QEC with F35B on board to provide aircover with a huge amount of aviation facilitys why would we need F35 on board the LHD? ( unless your going to use her as a third aircraft carrier, but that won't be her role? ) even a large hanger would not be needed,more vehicles & stores, surely it would be best just for rotary lift operations with maybe a few apaches's - maybe Lilly padding from the QEC?

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 »

For the size of operations we will probably conduct in the future, a platform the size of a Wasp class is too big and far too expensive. Trying to get a third "Flat Top" through the back door simply ain't going to happen. The UK is more likely to build a moon base on its own. We have not the need, resources or cash to even consider such a project. Yes countries like Italy are building shiny new Amphibious Assault platform but we are building two super carriers. It is fine to have a view on the matter but it must be accepted that we are talking about Fantasy ships here when discussing LHAs or LHDs for the RN.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by R686 »

Lord Jim wrote:. It is fine to have a view on the matter but it must be accepted that we are talking about Fantasy ships here when discussing LHAs or LHDs for the RN.
How can you call it a fantasy when no RFI/ RFT has been announced, the RAN has/had a wish list that included a fourth AWD and aviation enhanced LHD. The requirement is most likely there in the future it’s just not been articulated via Navy as yet. :roll:

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Lord Jim wrote:....countries like Italy are building shiny new Amphibious Assault platform but we are building two super carriers. It is fine to have a view on the matter but it must be accepted that we are talking about Fantasy ships here when discussing LHAs or LHDs for the RN.
I am intrigued with your certainty as to RN procurement policy 15 years from now when the budgetary, strategic and geopolitical situation could be entirely different. How can you be so sure that LHD(s) are fantasy, especially when the Defence Select Committee is calling for our two Albions to be replaced with 2 LHD's?

Can we agree that it will cost £2bn minimum (at today's prices) to replace the Amphibious fleet in the mid 2030's?

Replacing the Amphibious fleet is far from fantasy. If the replacement vessels are to enter service around 2033/2034 onwards, RN really needs to start formulating a plan within the next 3 to 4 years if we are to avoid another capability gap.

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 »

Lord Jim wrote:For the size of operations we will probably conduct in the future
This is a leading-n sentence that repeats and repeats? Let's test it:
- we have an 'Arctic Strategy' - finally. Without the RM and manoeuvre support for it the only place where the strategy would exist is on a shelf, gathering dust
- even if we allocate just one Cdo to the first part, surely we are not leaving ourselves totally denuded of this sort of capability (say, just a 'NEO' somewhere, at short notice) in the Rest of the World (RoW, we have a minuscule presence in the wider Gulf Region, so for the purposes of this discussion, to be included in the RoW).
- so we get an ARG with supporting arms (onboard 1850) and a Cdo-in-their-boots(mainly) ARG 'Light' of appr. 1400 (both with helicopter support). Hence one could calculate the need for shipping - though not the types of units it will consist of - with relative ease. Hence "me too" as for the below quote
Poiuytrewq wrote:I am intrigued with your certainty as to RN procurement policy 15 years from now
and therefore
Poiuytrewq wrote:Replacing the Amphibious fleet is far from fantasy.
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: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Can we agree that it will cost £2bn minimum (at today's prices) to replace the Amphibious fleet in the mid 2030's?
I think this is a fair budget to keep a working Amphibious fleet

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

shark bait wrote:One is none. Better off not bothering at all than having one, it makes us way to predictable.
One with no “Plan B” is v.risky, though as I’ve said many times “Plan B” would be to purchase LSD upgrades that can carry 2 OTH Connectors combined with a CVF. Having said that the French still have a lot of impact with 1 CVN, and putting boots on the ground needs much more planning and preparation than an air strike, so you’d argue that a lower readiness is possible.

Also, for those arguing that if “you have one you have nothing”, the current approach seems to suggest any serious amphibious assault requires a CVF in Carrier Strike mode and the other in LPH mode - so does that not mean we have one of each so are equally buggered?
”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: so does that not mean we have one of each so are equally buggered?
No, as they are (each; jointly and severally) configurable to the task at hand.

But, if we allow the amph fleet to wilt, so that we, at some point, are down to Logistics Ships (Aux) that was the original 'call sign' for the Bays... then we are starting to get to a 'yes'.
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 »

Yes we finally have an "Arctic" strategy and this is what I am trying to get at. For this we need to move say 3 Commando Brigade and add one of the new Strike Brigades to Norway. Both these formations would fight on land, but the former would also be able to conduct small scale raids up and down the coast if needed to disrupt the opposition. How these formations get to Norway is what is important. To rapidly move two Brigades in two lifts we need to increase the sea lift of the RFA. We do not need LPDs and LHAs for this. Rotary assets can either move themselves into theatre of a single run by one of the carriers can achieve this. We would not be fighting our way ashore and in all probability the force would be off loaded at Bergen or another similar port and make their way further north via road.

So what new platforms to we need, we in a nutshell two, an evolution on the Bay design and a "Grey" Ro-Ro platform based on the type already under charter, with sufficient to transport a Brigade with all its baggage in one lift anywhere. Of the former one or two would possibly be manned by the RN and be better equipped to defence itself. These would be the platforms from which raids of Company sized would be launched and co-ordinated. Small raids could either use a T-26 or the RM's own inshore craft depending on range. All vessels would have basic self defence capabilities such as decoy launchers and ECM transmitters.

This force structure is also applicable for RoW operation, but the distances involved would limit the embarked ground forces available for operations to a single Brigade. Again this formation is not there to fight its way ashore though can still manage smaller offensive over the beach operations.

Why I am so against the RN obtaining a LHA is that the argument around Amphibious Capability is being used to actually obtain a third Flat top. On top of that the RM have never true trained for a Beach assault larger than a Commando and usually trained at company level. I would rather train and equip out forces to do what they are actually capable of than what people aspire for them to do. In my mind this comprises of small scale landing to facilitate to disembarkation of a follow on larger force as we did in the Falklands and Iraq.

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 »

Lord Jim wrote: in all probability the force would be off loaded at Bergen or another similar port and make their way further north via road.
We tried that in WW2... did not go well (Norway has a v particular geography, with which I am sure you are v familiar with)
Lord Jim wrote:would also be able to conduct small scale raids up and down the coast if needed to disrupt the opposition.
The Ruskies have a whole bde of Marines for "flank turning"?
Lord Jim wrote:the argument around Amphibious Capability is being used to actually obtain a third Flat top.
On that one I am in agreement with you.

But evolved Bays and repainting the Points... it does not sound right (on its own).
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)

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by abc123 »

Lord Jim wrote:Yes we finally have an "Arctic" strategy and this is what I am trying to get at. For this we need to move say 3 Commando Brigade and add one of the new Strike Brigades to Norway. Both these formations would fight on land, but the former would also be able to conduct small scale raids up and down the coast if needed to disrupt the opposition. How these formations get to Norway is what is important. To rapidly move two Brigades in two lifts we need to increase the sea lift of the RFA. We do not need LPDs and LHAs for this. Rotary assets can either move themselves into theatre of a single run by one of the carriers can achieve this. We would not be fighting our way ashore and in all probability the force would be off loaded at Bergen or another similar port and make their way further north via road.

So what new platforms to we need, we in a nutshell two, an evolution on the Bay design and a "Grey" Ro-Ro platform based on the type already under charter, with sufficient to transport a Brigade with all its baggage in one lift anywhere. Of the former one or two would possibly be manned by the RN and be better equipped to defence itself. These would be the platforms from which raids of Company sized would be launched and co-ordinated. Small raids could either use a T-26 or the RM's own inshore craft depending on range. All vessels would have basic self defence capabilities such as decoy launchers and ECM transmitters.

This force structure is also applicable for RoW operation, but the distances involved would limit the embarked ground forces available for operations to a single Brigade. Again this formation is not there to fight its way ashore though can still manage smaller offensive over the beach operations.

Why I am so against the RN obtaining a LHA is that the argument around Amphibious Capability is being used to actually obtain a third Flat top. On top of that the RM have never true trained for a Beach assault larger than a Commando and usually trained at company level. I would rather train and equip out forces to do what they are actually capable of than what people aspire for them to do. In my mind this comprises of small scale landing to facilitate to disembarkation of a follow on larger force as we did in the Falklands and Iraq.

If Norway is the goal, then maybe JHSV?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spearhead ... _transport
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by abc123 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:....countries like Italy are building shiny new Amphibious Assault platform but we are building two super carriers. It is fine to have a view on the matter but it must be accepted that we are talking about Fantasy ships here when discussing LHAs or LHDs for the RN.
I am intrigued with your certainty as to RN procurement policy 15 years from now when the budgetary, strategic and geopolitical situation could be entirely different. How can you be so sure that LHD(s) are fantasy, especially when the Defence Select Committee is calling for our two Albions to be replaced with 2 LHD's?
Maybe because now, in time of oh so horrible Russian-Hordes-Coming-From-The-East (TM)- type of threat, UK Government is probably reducing the number of tanks to 150 and cyber defence and anti-terrorism are getting the new money, not tanks. Not to mention full fat number of 8 ASW Type 26 frigates. More than enough to shut GIUK gap, right. Same thiing with maybe 9 P-8. Etc.
So, I don't see why would it be any different in the future?
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

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 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Lord Jim wrote: in all probability the force would be off loaded at Bergen or another similar port and make their way further north via road.
We tried that in WW2... did not go well (Norway has a v particular geography, with which I am sure you are v familiar with)
Lord Jim wrote:would also be able to conduct small scale raids up and down the coast if needed to disrupt the opposition.
The Ruskies have a whole bde of Marines for "flank turning"?
Lord Jim wrote:the argument around Amphibious Capability is being used to actually obtain a third Flat top.
On that one I am in agreement with you.

But evolved Bays and repainting the Points... it does not sound right (on its own).
Not sure how to split quote so I will do in all in one.

As you mentioned, the Norwegian coast has some v particular geography, but that mean you really need one of the port to unload heavy or medium equipment fast. Since WWII however the road network has improved dramatically, unlike the UK and it potholes, so once ashore moving north is not a major issue. Also in WWII we were try to stop the Germans moving north in reality as the forces were not kitted out to go on the offensive and move south. As for the Russian Naval Infantry, stopping them is one of the primary roles of the NATO naval forces, which would include out Carrier Group. They intention would be more USMC style operations with the exception of Spetznaz units. The RM would be operation more like the latter in this theatre. Finally the Points and Bay Mk2s. The former painted grey are the necessary means to move large amounts of kit into theatre. But given how fast things could move, they need to be more than simply chartered civilian vessels. What the Bay Mk2 brings is improved aviation facilities and the means to utilise more austere port facilities. They also can act as motherships for longer range raiding being the mothership to CB-90s or similar platforms and provide logistics up and down the coast. But is the sea lift capacity that is crucial here. NATO aims to put blocking forces in place in Northern Norway to stop Russia creating a Bastion to protect the Kola Peninsular. Our forces together with the Canadians and reintegrated USMC Brigade would be there to support the Norwegians. This was the reasoning behind this years major NATO exercise, the largest for quite a while. The emphasis was on clearing the seas to allow the troops to get ashore and more north into blocking positions. There was small scale raiding operations by Swedish, Norwegian and US troops. As a side note, the Dutch Marines are getting back into Arctic warfare to allow them to properly integrate with the RM once again and of course they bring with them two LPDs, so the UK/Dutch fore will have access to assets other than what the UK brings to the party. Having a force comprised ot Bay Mk2s and "Grey" Points would be sufficient for the UKs needs for independent operation on the scale we remain capable of, especially when there is the option to utilise the carrier as a partial LHA. Just spotted the post on the JHSV. These are impressive platforms but can they handle the condition that exist up north? In addition if we want to go further afield do they have the range and are they more expensive than the Points.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by abc123 »

Lord Jim wrote: post on the JHSV. These are impressive platforms but can they handle the condition that exist up north? In addition if we want to go further afield do they have the range and are they more expensive than the Points.
Yes, I agree, sea keeping is definitly the problem, but I don't think that you can make amphibious operations either in really bad weather from any platform, except for ro-ro. About range, that would have to be improved, agreed.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Following the recent convo Iv seen a couple on here surgest that an LHD LHA LPH the "3rd flattop" is not needed as the QEs will do the vertical lift role. Now this is all well and good but what happened when inevitabley the S**T hits the fan and our second QE is in refit ?
Iv seen some surgest that air cover and vertical lift could be done from one QE but there's 2 problems with that
1 - there would not be enough space on a single QE to conducted both with out serverly cutting the numbers in both to the point that it's not workable
2 - to conduct each task the QE would need to be different place at the same time not possible.

The idea of improved bays with out a 3rd flattop would mean they would need large aviation capabilties, something along the lines of a twin chinook flight deck and a 5-6 merlin or twin chinook hanger. This would be needed on them to allow for cover when the second QE is not avalible.

The whole idea of using the T26s for small scale raids to me is just laughable, there will barely be enough to cover the carrier group and CASD let alone raids.
If a vessel for this role is required then this is where the T31 should become an absolan style vessel.

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 »

Lord Jim wrote: What the Bay Mk2 brings is improved aviation facilities and the means to utilise more austere port facilities. They also can act as motherships for longer range raiding being the mothership to CB-90s or similar platforms and provide logistics up and down the coast. But is the sea lift capacity that is crucial here.
That is a good 'gist' for building up the 'biz case'
Jake1992 wrote: improved bays with out a 3rd flattop would mean they would need large aviation capabilties, something along the lines of a twin chinook flight deck and a 5-6 merlin or twin chinook hanger.
I think the Dutch shipping that LJ mentioned can take
- two Chinooks on the deck
- 4 Merlin/ NH90 in the hangar
... so we would be talking about 'pretty big' ships for Edition 2 of the Bays?
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)

Post Reply