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 »

Small VDS have been fitted to small craft for decades, the Russians fitted systems based on Helicopter dipping sonars onto the multitude of small ASW vessels.

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 »

Lord Jim wrote:Small VDS have been fitted to small craft for decades, the Russians fitted systems based on Helicopter dipping sonars onto the multitude of small ASW vessels.
But the technology has vastly move forward. See this "fishery" sonar movie. Fishery, not military... but surely if a SSK happens to be within sonar range, it can be clearly visualized. The only remaining matter is the power of the sonar itself, which we can chose as we like. Not saying small sonar is great, but saying the technology is evolving.

https://www.simrad.com/www/01/nokbg0240 ... enDocument

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 »

LCX information.
https://cnim.com/en/businesses/defense- ... x-missions
see also
https://cnim.com/sites/default/files/me ... LCX_GB.pdf
Looks like another family of "stern landing vessel".
LCX-Landinf-Craft-missions-amphibious-(c)-CNIM_0.jpg
LCX-well-deck-NATO-(c)-CNIM.jpg
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 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:Small VDS have been fitted to small craft for decades, the Russians fitted systems based on Helicopter dipping sonars onto the multitude of small ASW vessels.
But the technology has vastly move forward. See this "fishery" sonar movie. Fishery, not military... but surely if a SSK happens to be within sonar range, it can be clearly visualized. The only remaining matter is the power of the sonar itself, which we can chose as we like. Not saying small sonar is great, but saying the technology is evolving.

https://www.simrad.com/www/01/nokbg0240 ... enDocument
I agree totally, I was trying to make the point that small vessels have carried VDS of a long time and it is a viable option. One area I am interested in would be a ASW evolution of the German Troika Mince clearing system with the "Unmanned" platforms using Towed arrays etc to cover a very large area and a Mothership with three or four ASW Helicopter and VL-ASROC to prosecute any hostile contact. The platforms could even have their own ASW torpedoes for close in contacts.

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 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:LCX information.
https://cnim.com/en/businesses/defense- ... x-missions
see also
https://cnim.com/sites/default/files/me ... LCX_GB.pdf
Looks like another family of "stern landing vessel".
On the LCX concept.

1: How to avoid torpedo? It is manned system, and it is large = not so cheap.
Location of active sonar such as CAPTAS-1 is surely known to enemy SSK much earlier than the sonar knows the location of SSK. So, the vessel must be capable of avoiding torpedo attack.
- LCX in light load is as fast as 40knots, but CAPTAS-1 can only survive up to 30 knots. If CAPTAS-1 is modified to be capable up to 40 knots, I think LCX can avoid enemy torpedo by agility.
- if not, LCX must carry also ship-torpedo-defense system (STDS, soft kill decoys)

Or LCX shall be cheap enough and shall be deployed in number, so that SSK thinks is it not worth attacking, risking the location of the SSK.


2: Network is also important.
To perform multi-static ASW, the asset needs broad-band data link, to send their active pinging information (small) and TASS data (large). With a antenna on LPD (~30 m high = 21 km horizon) and on LCX (may need extending mast up to 20m = 17 km horizon), the LCX can deploy out to 38km (= 21 nm) from LPD if they rely on line-of-sight communication. In other words, LPD is not safe enough. A UAV will solve it? (If 1 ship is stationed for relay, it can reach 72km. Not bad)


Imagine a squadron of 4 LCX, equipped with CAPTAS-1 and STDS. Always two will be deployed. If coupled with T45/T26/(or even T31), it will provide good "pinger" to the fleet. Of course, it will be not much effective in deep blue water, because of sea-keeping, but in "brown water", they may work well.

Interesting concept worth considering. Mother ship can be not only LCX, but also Caimen90 (BMT fast ship-to-shore connector), I guess.

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by inch »

You never know the budget tomorrow might announce they want a replacement for ocean and funds are going to be allocated from the treasury all special like ,to give the back benchers something to cheer for the defence budget ,and it's going to have a 6 pink elephant landing spots ,and then we can all cheer and say who knew

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by R686 »

inch wrote:You never know the budget tomorrow might announce they want a replacement for ocean and funds are going to be allocated from the treasury all special like ,to give the back benchers something to cheer for the defence budget ,and it's going to have a 6 pink elephant landing spots ,and then we can all cheer and say who knew
Well being optimistic is good for your health :angel:

just don't read the outcome look for the snippets of good news for which your aura of optimism will continue, peace mate

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

R686 wrote:
inch wrote:You never know the budget tomorrow might announce they want a replacement for ocean and funds are going to be allocated from the treasury all special like ,to give the back benchers something to cheer for the defence budget ,and it's going to have a 6 pink elephant landing spots ,and then we can all cheer and say who knew
Well being optimistic is good for your health :angel:

just don't read the outcome look for the snippets of good news for which your aura of optimism will continue, peace mate
Iv heard rumours that the budget is going to give an extra £500m per year to deffence, if that's the case abd the back hole is as bad as feared then more cuts are coming

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 »

£500M of new funding means slightly less will be cut, that is all.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Being reported as £500m for this year only to take defence up to the next departmental spending review. Or a sticking plaster pushing the decision down the road!

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4584
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Keeps bad news cuts out of the press, but solves nothing. Only a real hard nosed strategic review making real choices and matching aspirations / priorities to funds can do that. The days of being a mini US died 10 years ago and they haven’t acknowledged it.

Does it mean scrap the carriers / F35Bs no, but does it mean limiting the UKs ability to fight on land at scale globally, maybe.
”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: The days of being a mini US died 10 years ago
I wonder how you picked the number as the 1998 review was the last one doing real restructuring of the force mix, and by cutting something also funded new capabilities?
... ever since we have seen salami slicing, where each successive round of cuts has an impact on capability that is disproportionate to the % saving.
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: 4584
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:I wonder how you picked the number as the 1998 review was the last one doing real restructuring of the force mix, and by cutting something also funded new capabilities?
The crunch point for me was when we ran out of money in the financial crisis - up to that point if the funds that had gone into land locked wars had gone into the broader armed forces a mini broad spectrum force was still possible 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

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 »

About making LPD a multi-purpose shallow water warfare asset. I think it is attractive and has some proposals.

<reference design>
- LCX concept; L29.5xW6.4 with 1.3m Draft. Shallow draft is essential for LPD operations.
https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.p ... -2018.html
Carrying CAPTAS-1, it will be a good option for shallow water ASW tasks.
Also, sonobuoys coupled with active nodes, working in multi-static tactics will be a very important tool in shallow water ASW. But, sonobuoy is not reusable and thus must be cheap. Especially, the active node needs high-power and cannot operate long, and also will be too precious to "dispose". So, a small boat with CAPTAS-1 is a good idea.

<how about developing a high-speed version of CAPTAS-1?>
One important thing will be to reinforce CAPTAS-1 to be capable to be towed up to 40 or 45 knots. (Note that, of course, sonar operation speed will not increase). Now it is up to 30 knots. With 1.5 times faster speed, the structure will be required to be (at least) 1.5^3 = 3.4 times stronger.

<UAV capable of sonobuoy transceiver>
To operate sonobuoy, we need a multi-channel transceiver. As sonobuoy will be hidden in waves, carrying it on an air asset will be very helpful. As Wildcat cannot fly long, and Merlin is so expensive, how about carrying RQ8C on LPDs. It can fly 12hours continuously. Even longer than P-8A. Sonobuoy itself can be deployed from UAV or even the fast boat itself. Multi-static ASW analysis system shall be carried on the mother ship = LPD.

<armaments>
Detection is important, and if the high-speed boat can escape enemy torpedo, the LPD can call P-8 or Merlin to kill SSK later. On the other hand, as a shallow water asset, ASW granade will be good candidate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elma_ASW-600



<conclusion>
So, a LPD with a few fast boats with high-speed-capable-CAPTAS-1, coupled with (at least three) UAV (for 24 hour coverage) with sonobuoy transceiver, will be a good shallow water ASW asset, at least on paper.


<< Alternatives >>
- High-speed boats.

1: Shaldag Mk.5; L24.8xW6.0 with 1.2m Draft will be a good candidate.
https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.p ... -2018.html
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ShaldagMK5.jpg
Buy 8, and share with Gibraltar squadron? 4 for LPD ASW team, 2 for Gib, 2 for training/maintenance. I also think Shaldag Mk.5 will be more stable in rough sea than LCX. On the other hand, LCX has a merit that it can be used for logistic landing or HADR support.

2: BMT Caimen90 LCU.
https://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/6098037/ ... imen90.pdf
Primarily a LCU, not sure how it works as a utility ship for ASW.

3: Mark VI patrol boat; L25.8xW6.2 with 1.2m Draft
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_VI_patrol_boat

- Sonar
1: ST2400 VDS
https://www.km.kongsberg.com/ks/web/nok ... ion_lr.pdf
More shallow-water oriented VDS. But, it is only capable up to 16knots....

2: Canadian TASS
https://gdmissionsystems.ca/anti-submar ... rray-sonar
Without fish, it could be better for high-speed and low man-power operations. But, I'm not sure it is good for shallow water ASW.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Donald

I’ve thought of using an lpd like this for a while they can be used a fwd deployed strategic base ship.

Using a bay for smaller scale operations and for more demanding areas a lpd coupled with more commando oriented marine units would be a interesting concept.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:<UAV capable of sonobuoy transceiver>
To operate sonobuoy, we need a multi-channel transceiver. As sonobuoy will be hidden in waves, carrying it on an air asset will be very helpful. As Wildcat cannot fly long, and Merlin is so expensive, how about carrying RQ8C on LPDs. It can fly 12hours continuously. Even longer than P-8A. Sonobuoy itself can be deployed from UAV or even the fast boat itself. Multi-static ASW analysis system shall be carried on the mother ship = LPD.
the RN seem to be going with Hero as its RUAV option which is a lot cheaper than MQ-8c we should be able to get 25 Hero's for 1 MQ-8c however say we were to go for MQ-8c what is the big gain over say 4 hero's from a ops point of view

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 »

Tempest414 wrote:the RN seem to be going with Hero as its RUAV option which is a lot cheaper than MQ-8c we should be able to get 25 Hero's for 1 MQ-8c however say we were to go for MQ-8c what is the big gain over say 4 hero's from a ops point of view
Hero's max-payload is only 70 kg, and of course, helicopters normally do not carry full load.
https://www.leonardocompany.com/en/-/sd150-hero-ruav
Can Hero carry sonobuoy transceiver? On paper, yes, ARR-502(v)1 is 21.4 kg. But it needs antenna array, data-link to ship, and with all those carried, how long can it fly?
http://www.ultra-fei.com/uploads/_produ ... 2-DW_B.pdf

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Tempest414 wrote:the RN seem to be going with Hero as its RUAV option
The Hero may well be picked as a small system, but I think it is quite possible that the SW-4 Solo could also be selected (it seems to have been the primary focus, up to now), in optionally manned form. That brings a payload of 470 kg and up to 6 hours endurance.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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 »

Caribbean wrote:quite possible that the SW-4 Solo could also be selected (it seems to have been the primary focus, up to now), in optionally manned form. That brings a payload of 470 kg and up to 6 hours endurance.
I fully agree.

At this particular juncture, it is so clear that the "kit/ hardware focussed" threads as in

- this (Amph)
- MCM (without the "P")
- and the low-end / lighter frigate (NEWS ONLY), with the supporting act by the "General Discussion"

are duplicating and FAR BEHIND the way in which the DE&S was reorganised. Exactly to avoid such a thing (duplicating blns of expenditure for the same, or overlapping capability, which is of course "one order" more serious than us, here, wasting a lot of hot air)

Let's carry on. Regardless. It is in the genes :D Glorious "muddle through" though unlike with the thoughts for tomorrow, mud will not need to be involved.
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)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

ACC

I don’t think we’re taking about duplication of capability it’s means that offboard systems have now reached or are reaching a point we’re they can conduct the missions you emphasise without the need for dedicated traditional ships the system of systems approach, a big large ship to carry all the options maybe a better alternative to what we’re doing. Someone will put all this together and try it, it just won’t be us.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

When the time does come to replace the Albion's would it be a good idea to go smaller but more multi role?
(I was actually thinking cutting the T31 to build these instead & then replace the albion's with more )

what I was thinking about 12ooo t looking a bit like the mistral but a smaller
200-250 troops, 6 MBT 20 or so other vehicles, a smaller well deck for a couple of landing crafts, 4 helicopter landing spots and hanger for 6 maybe,

Armament would be 8? x mk 41 for a mix of ASROC quad packed CAMM dependent on mission CIWS maybe a 76mm gun?

Could be used as a mini LPH or ASW platform
i realise being smaller it would be less capable but would they blend in more to the navy by being less specific to the assault role and maybe harder to cut in the future ?

Also by being smaller, a smaller yard could build these ships & with a smaller short term budget being required maybe more than 2 could be built by justifying the multi role nature & a increase the ASW capability of the RN at the same time.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

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.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

By the looks of it serge750 was thinking more long the lines of the new Algerian LPD that Italy has just built.

Something like this but maybe abit larger?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

Jake, think that what I was thinking of, obviously not as good as a "proper" LPH but...versatily maybe key.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

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

Post Reply