Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5599
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
The only problem is we only have one SS ship in the fleet so can't afford to use her with anything other than the carriers
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
True, where we are today does not allow this. However, as people look to assess the future, and the construct of these potential Littoral Response Groups, I think a combination of a Multirole AOR with a LPD plus a couple of Littoral Escorts (T31s or MHPCs etc) is the right one. The BMT Ellida went some way towards this but needs to be bigger (in terms of hangar space).Tempest414 wrote:The only problem is we only have one SS ship in the fleet so can't afford to use her with anything other than the carriers
”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
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
The current plans see the Littoral Strike Group comprising of a LSS and a T-31e when required. This would be followed by a Amphibious Support Group comprising of a Albion, a Bay and escorted by a T-26 all covered by a Carrier Strike Group, with the Carrier escorted by two T-45 and two T-26 with a SSN possibly in the area.
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- do you have any references outside of the RUSI paper? My feeling is that that idea has died when the Littoral Strike Group became the Littoral Response Group.Lord Jim wrote:Amphibious Support Group
”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
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Well checking my sources they all appear to be quoting Naval Officers who themselves are referring to the RUSI paper and how it dovetails into the reconfiguration of the Royal Marines and the Royal Navy's Littoral Strategy moving forward. So it appears the RUSI paper was not simply a research piece, but a piece of work aimed at helping the Navy work out how it needed to operate in a certain environment.
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
How large do you reckon? From the STRN article there was some suggestion that you could increase the helo capacity considerably from the proposed:Repulse wrote:Tempest414 wrote:The BMT Ellida went some way towards this but needs to be bigger (in terms of hangar space).
1x Merlin hangar
3x 'medium helicopters' in the storage space that runs the length of the superstructure.
Anything more than six and I'd start to think your might as well go for a flat-top design.
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Agreed, six would be the max unless in Ferry mode - lots of analysis was done in this area in the late 89s/90s.Jensy wrote:Anything more than six and I'd start to think your might as well go for a flat-top design.
Would say up to 4 Merlins or a mix of 5 Merlins / Wildcats would be sufficient, given the number of helicopters and anything larger would bring in a carrier.
”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
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Lord Jim, that would be interesting and would certainly require the LPDs to remain or be replaced with similar sized ships. I’d still see the need for a large RFA to complement either as part of the ASG or LRG.
The RUSI article also mentions the use of Bays and Points to bring in the Army - if this is what is happening then focusing these vessels back to Army logistics is a good move IMO.
The RUSI article also mentions the use of Bays and Points to bring in the Army - if this is what is happening then focusing these vessels back to Army logistics is a good move IMO.
”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
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
The FSSS design should be circa similar in size to the Tides and the MRSS does appear to be in the right place. The MARS concept of being able to support Land operations, Air operations and Afloat operations might sound like jack of all trades master of none but in this case is it?
The concept needs to be able to support the soldier and their equipment and enable them to get to shore with their supplies. The deck and hangars should be on par with San Antonio (i.e. four spots and MV22 capable). Although we can't afford to kit these with MK41 and CAMM I would build ffbnw.
Whenever I hear about the helicopters on the carriers I frequently feel they should be based on the support and escort ships. That must be more efficient.
The concept needs to be able to support the soldier and their equipment and enable them to get to shore with their supplies. The deck and hangars should be on par with San Antonio (i.e. four spots and MV22 capable). Although we can't afford to kit these with MK41 and CAMM I would build ffbnw.
Whenever I hear about the helicopters on the carriers I frequently feel they should be based on the support and escort ships. That must be more efficient.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1714
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
The “NEED” is the capability to support Carrier operations by providing replenishment of Munitions, Spare Parts and Solid Stores.
The addition of “NICE TO HAVE” capabilities of supplying support to the soldier and their equipment and getting them to shore is not essential and once fully considered should be regarded as a very bad idea.
If the two distinct roles can be provided by the same basic hull, It is likely to increase the cost of each vessel, which is likely to reduce the number of vessels available. A small number of vessels having a dual role would be the worst outcome of all. Of course, if we had five such vessels, then two of them carrying out the “Nice to Have” roles would not be a problem, but providing the “bells and whistles” on those vessels to be used for their primary purpose iwould be a complete waste of money.
Unfortunately, we are only looking at a maximum of three SSS (just enough to carry out their primary role and they should be built at the lowest cost that will provide the capability NEEDED.
The addition of “NICE TO HAVE” capabilities of supplying support to the soldier and their equipment and getting them to shore is not essential and once fully considered should be regarded as a very bad idea.
If the two distinct roles can be provided by the same basic hull, It is likely to increase the cost of each vessel, which is likely to reduce the number of vessels available. A small number of vessels having a dual role would be the worst outcome of all. Of course, if we had five such vessels, then two of them carrying out the “Nice to Have” roles would not be a problem, but providing the “bells and whistles” on those vessels to be used for their primary purpose iwould be a complete waste of money.
Unfortunately, we are only looking at a maximum of three SSS (just enough to carry out their primary role and they should be built at the lowest cost that will provide the capability NEEDED.
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
I think it would be far better to allow the FSSS to concentrate on delivering stores, so RAS rigs and Vertrep facilities only, please. If you want Air features, then a simple vessel like the Prevail partners LSS proposal would answer, also replacing Argus (in both roles), as well as covering the SF/ Sea base role (it might be interesting to see if the ramp/ steel beach could support the use of hovercraft as well). For Land, then a batch 2 Bay-class would probably be better, with a slightly larger dock (2 LCU/LCACs) than the current and the davit-launched LCVPs of the Johan de Witt. They would be taking on the LPD role, though, so might need major improvements in damage control etc.
Three of each would be rather excellent, if unlikely, replacing the Albions, Bays, Argus and the Forts
Three of each would be rather excellent, if unlikely, replacing the Albions, Bays, Argus and the Forts
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5599
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
As things stand today we have the two carriers one LPD three LSD's RFA Argus four Point class this is the naval core which every thing else is built around i.e escorts , tankers , SSS , survey , MCM. For me going forward we need new ships that will allow the navy and the UK to scale as needed using the as much standard logistics as possible so this could mean replacing the LPD , 3 LSD's and Argus with 4 new Enforcer 10000 180 x 28 meter LSD's and a Enforcer 18000 LHD with a 210 meter x 36 meter flight deck all using the same engines and gen set well docks ramps and so on and so on. Allowing the navy to send one LSD or scaling up to two or one LSD and a LHD or as we saw in 2018 when we ran a Ex in the gulf with 1 LPD , 2 LSD's and a Point you could send 1 LHD , 2 LSD's and a Point
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
The RUSI paper is probably a good guide to current thinking in that there will be:
- Littoral Strike (or Response) Groups; based around a Vanguard RM Company
- Amphibious Strike Group; based around a 500 RM Cdo
- Joint Strike Group; an ASG plus a carrier group for helicopter lift, ground strike and air cover.
- Additional follow up Army units bought in by Point RoRos or Bays (pg 36).
The requirement seems to be 2 LSGs forward deployed plus one ASG/JSG at Mid readiness (say 30 days) plus (my view) the ability to ship an Army Brigade as a follow up at low (say 60-90 days) readiness. I’ll call the latter an Amphibious Manoeuvre Group (AMG).
So we know the the ASG will fit in an LPD plus supplies from an RFA - you need redundancy so we need both Albions or similar. No need for aviation facilities as they sail with the JSG if needed. Thinking it through, based on this the RN can still argue to have the 2nd LPD in reserve.
The AMG would require all of the 4 Points plus the 3 Bays and other chartered STUFT shipping as needed.
That leaves the LRGs - which also needs redundancy so we need three. Any aviation support needs to be embedded as does the ability to support small landing craft. The paper also states it should be “non threatening” - this worries me a bit as it can only be used in a low threat maritime environment - but as such what could be better than a Multirole RFA ship. You could argue that a Bay could do this role, except that means no viable AMG capability, and limited aviation.
Not necessarily what I think should happen but if Lord Jim, is correct and RUSI is a key part of the thinking, it is exactly what the discussion could be. Hence the BMT Ellida rumour a few months ago.
This may be less about new ships than we all dream about, but more about maximising what we have.
- Littoral Strike (or Response) Groups; based around a Vanguard RM Company
- Amphibious Strike Group; based around a 500 RM Cdo
- Joint Strike Group; an ASG plus a carrier group for helicopter lift, ground strike and air cover.
- Additional follow up Army units bought in by Point RoRos or Bays (pg 36).
The requirement seems to be 2 LSGs forward deployed plus one ASG/JSG at Mid readiness (say 30 days) plus (my view) the ability to ship an Army Brigade as a follow up at low (say 60-90 days) readiness. I’ll call the latter an Amphibious Manoeuvre Group (AMG).
So we know the the ASG will fit in an LPD plus supplies from an RFA - you need redundancy so we need both Albions or similar. No need for aviation facilities as they sail with the JSG if needed. Thinking it through, based on this the RN can still argue to have the 2nd LPD in reserve.
The AMG would require all of the 4 Points plus the 3 Bays and other chartered STUFT shipping as needed.
That leaves the LRGs - which also needs redundancy so we need three. Any aviation support needs to be embedded as does the ability to support small landing craft. The paper also states it should be “non threatening” - this worries me a bit as it can only be used in a low threat maritime environment - but as such what could be better than a Multirole RFA ship. You could argue that a Bay could do this role, except that means no viable AMG capability, and limited aviation.
Not necessarily what I think should happen but if Lord Jim, is correct and RUSI is a key part of the thinking, it is exactly what the discussion could be. Hence the BMT Ellida rumour a few months ago.
This may be less about new ships than we all dream about, but more about maximising what we have.
”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
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5599
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
This makes me LOL as how do you make a ship with 120 to 200 RM plus support non threatening and the whole point of them is to have a presence ( here we are and we have 200 blokes with balls so big we needed a ship this big to carry them )Repulse wrote:The paper also states it should be “non threatening” -
-
- Member
- Posts: 520
- Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
This is where the Rusi paper is surprisingly... opaque!Repulse wrote:The RUSI paper is probably a good guide to current thinking in that there will be:
- Amphibious Strike Group; based around a 500 RM Cdo
...
So we know the the ASG will fit in an LPD plus supplies from an RFA - you need redundancy so we need both Albions or similar. No need for aviation facilities as they sail with the JSG if needed.
In talking about "multiple companies" of marines [plus] "multiple batteries" of Himars.
With never a mention of logistics/signals/engineering/mobility/etc.
i.e. all the things that when bolted onto a battalion (of multiple companies...?), would otherwise be knows as a 'battlegroup'. Imagine that.
No, instead we invited to imagine this relentless iron-man challenge as 500 marines yomp around after a half dozen artillary batteries as they constantly fire>relocate (because presumably they're in a deeply hostile A2AD environment).
I don't want to say "disingenuous", but "opaque" is being generous: "Look here now. I want you to invent me a new concept of operations for the Marines, but you can't whatever you do suggest any continuity with the existing Amphibious Task Groups! New and sexy, yes, but also low-key and unthreatening in budgetary terms. You got that?"
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4073
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
If the Challenger 2's are mothballed in the SDSR could the next step be to mothball both Albion's as well?
Are the LCU's or their proposed replacements even required if the Challenger and Warriors go?
It seems like a cut way too far to me but I am left wondering if there could be a theme here that is going to run right through the SDSR binning all the heavy equipment and the associated logistical support in a massive reorganisation going forward.
Is there a pattern beginning to form?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... ime-tanks/
Are the LCU's or their proposed replacements even required if the Challenger and Warriors go?
It seems like a cut way too far to me but I am left wondering if there could be a theme here that is going to run right through the SDSR binning all the heavy equipment and the associated logistical support in a massive reorganisation going forward.
Is there a pattern beginning to form?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... ime-tanks/
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
It’s a theme developing for quite some time as Uk forces have returned to being based in the UK and the logistical elements to move and systain them over distance reduces.Poiuytrewq wrote:If the Challenger 2's are mothballed in the SDSR could the next step be to mothball both Albion's as well?
Are the LCU's or their proposed replacements even required if the Challenger and Warriors go?
It seems like a cut way too far to me but I am left wondering if there could be a theme here that is going to run right through the SDSR binning all the heavy equipment and the associated logistical support in a massive reorganisation going forward.
Is there a pattern beginning to form?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... ime-tanks/
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5599
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Here is a new idea for the SDSR all MP's first born have to do 3 years conscription in the forces that will focus there minds
-
- Member
- Posts: 520
- Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
I'm reliably informed that the secret to success of amphibious operations is initial surge capacity followed by sustained throughput (to support ongoing operations off the beach).Poiuytrewq wrote:If the Challenger 2's are mothballed in the SDSR could the next step be to mothball both Albion's as well?
Are the LCU's or their proposed replacements even required if the Challenger and Warriors go?
It seems like a cut way too far to me but I am left wondering if there could be a theme here that is going to run right through the SDSR binning all the heavy equipment and the associated logistical support in a massive reorganisation going forward.
Is there a pattern beginning to form?
I'm equally informed that the major threat to amphibious operations is missiles targeting the critical point of failure (thus forcing the amphibs that sustain this activity further offshore).
The value of the LCU's is not that they can [theoretically] carry a 70tonne C2, it is that vessels of that size can be built to deliver ~50tonnes of vehicles/stores at 30knots (allowing the amphibs to operating from OTH).
A general note not related to this - I get a little lary whenever I hear people talk about binning the albions with their four LCU docks... "because the reduced ambition means we can do everything we need with LCVP's from davits."
LCVP's seem to have no use in modern amphibious operations, as they cannot be affordably scaled up to achieve the speeds of LCU's (and so will not achieve the throughput for OTH at scale). with davits being used solely for for CB90's in support of the raiding/riverive Commando.
If we want to argue for keeping LCVP's in storage, fine, but I don't see them coming out of storage for anything other than hurricane season.
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
jedibeeftrix, completely agree we should not be rushing to got rid of our LCUs - whilst I see the mix of craft in a LPD well dock changing (becoming more mission dictated), the LCUs are still needed.
Not so sure about LCVPs. Having smaller landing craft able, also deployable from smaller ships, to land smaller vehicles, quad bikes and UGVs like Titan is I think a strong requirement for the Future Commando concept.
Not so sure about LCVPs. Having smaller landing craft able, also deployable from smaller ships, to land smaller vehicles, quad bikes and UGVs like Titan is I think a strong requirement for the Future Commando concept.
”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
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4073
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
I do not disagree with anything that you have written but my main point is how deep the cuts could go if the C2's and Warriors are indeed scrapped?jedibeeftrix wrote:the value of the LCU's is not that they can [theoretically] carry a 70tonne C2, it is that vessels of that size can be built to deliver ~50tonnes of vehicles/stores at 30knots (allowing the amphibs to operating from OTH).
If the decision is taken to remove the C2's, Warriors and possibly Ajax then RN/RFA amphibious capability could be dramatically altered especially if an over the beach/opposed landing capability is also deemed surplus to requirements. Is this a way to cut the LPD's by the back door as the front door hasn't worked thus far?
If the maximum weight of any British Army armored vehicle was reduced to 45t could transport from ship to shore be achieved by LCAC's rather than LCU's removing the need for costly well docks and making cheap Point based Littoral Support Vessels acceptable to the planners to provide the UK's Amphibious capability backed up by the Points/Bays?
Mothballing the Albion's and the LCU's would save a lot of money especially if they are replaced by Littoral Support Ships that are cheap to build/convert and without the well dock, cheap to maintain. The LCAC's would not be so cheap however but if it allowed the second CVF to remain active perhaps RN would swallow hard and accept the change. The threat to RM over the longer term would be very real IMO but the effectiveness of the Future Commando Force is probably vital to securing their long term future anyway not necessarily the LPD's.
Basically what I am saying is if the Army lose the argument on the heavy armour it may result in the loss of the LPD's by association rather than RN's design.
-
- Member
- Posts: 520
- Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
I accept the point in theory, but wonder if in practice the high maintencance cost of docks won't be equalled by the higher maintenance cost of LCAC's...?Poiuytrewq wrote:If the maximum weight of any British Army armored vehicle was reduced to 45t could transport from ship to shore be achieved by LCAC's rather than LCU's removing the need for costly well docks and making cheap Point based Littoral Support Vessels acceptable to the planners to provide the UK's Amphibious capability backed up by the Points/Bays?jedibeeftrix wrote:the value of the LCU's is not that they can [theoretically] carry a 70tonne C2, it is that vessels of that size can be built to deliver ~50tonnes of vehicles/stores at 30knots (allowing the amphibs to operating from OTH).
I have to say that I view the Navy practice of mothballing vessels in a similar vein to the army/airforce [reducing] fleets as a cost-saving measure. It doesn't actually end up saving much cost - as the real savings come from [deleting] fleets - all it does is absorb budget that could be better utilised elsewhere.Poiuytrewq wrote:Mothballing the Albion's and the LCU's would save a lot of money especially if they are replaced by Littoral Support Ships that are cheap to build/convert and without the well dock, cheap to maintain. The LCAC's would not be so cheap however but if it allowed the second CVF to remain active perhaps RN would swallow hard and accept the change. The threat to RM over the longer term would be very real IMO but the effectiveness of the Future Commando Force is probably vital to securing their long term future anyway not necessarily the LPD's.
Except in very specific circumstance where you really do intend a gap to be temporary - and the 'seed-corn' costs are intended to be reaped in the near future - it is otherwise better to recognise the capability is not required and excise the cost entirely.
If we 'mothball' the LPD's, are we really intending to revive the capability by reactivation or are we just paying to maintain the vessel for a decade before selling it off to South America for a song? in MoD/Treasury parlance; is it considered a 'sunset capability'?
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Putting aside the LCUs which can be used to move a number of vehicles and loads - surely if the argument is that if the Army no longer needs tanks then the RN no longer need LPDs, it’s pretty flawed.Poiuytrewq wrote:Basically what I am saying is if the Army lose the argument on the heavy armour it may result in the loss of the LPD's by association rather than RN's design.
The Albions can carry a maximum of 6 CR2s, but much more likely to carry smaller RM vehicles and trucks. What should be cut is the Bay Class which are effectively Army Logistic Ships capable of carrying six times as many CR2s each?
”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
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4073
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Its impossible for us to quantify the cost of the LCAC's accurately but as the Littoral Support Ships are already on the cards for the Future Commando Force it's unlikely four or six medium sized LCAC's would cost more than operating the Albions and replacing the LCU's with Caimen 90's for example.jedibeeftrix wrote:I accept the point in theory, but wonder if in practice the high maintencance cost of docks won't be equalled by the higher maintenance cost of LCAC's...?
Mothballing is just a way for politicians to cover their tracks until they are well and truly out of office. Just in case the sh*t hits the fan.jedibeeftrix wrote:If we 'mothball' the LPD's, are we really intending to revive the capability by reactivation or are we just paying to maintain the vessel for a decade before selling it off to South America for a song? in MoD/Treasury parlance; is it considered a 'sunset capability'?
IMO nothing should be cut until a thoroughly well thought out and fully costed plan is produced to ensure the nation's security for decades to come. The current review is all about cutting costs and balancing books not safeguarding the nation's security.Repulse wrote:What should be cut is the Bay Class
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
I have no problem to make sure we have a clear plan before we make changes, but there is not the luxury of time as even delay costs. Also, I do not believe mothballing is a sensible way of to delay neither.Poiuytrewq wrote:IMO nothing should be cut until a thoroughly well thought out and fully costed plan is produced to ensure the nation's security for decades to come. The current review is all about cutting costs and balancing books not safeguarding the nation's security.
”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