Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

[Tempest414]

The UK should. The current model puts far too much risk on a single point of failure sat a couple of miles off a hostile coast, which should be totally unacceptable. That risk has to be distributed.

Again I ask how many , What for and where would you base them due to there lack of range

[Tempest414]

They would be based in areas where shore-to-shore movement of Marines and gear could be needed – places like the South China Sea if China were to fight for the islands and sea space it claims as its own, or the Baltic Sea if Russia were to make another land grab against a neighboring country – and would support the movement of Marine Littoral Regiments moving quickly from one piece of land to the next to conduct missions under the Expeditionary Advance Base Operations (EABO) concept.

Yes but again these are on top of the LHD's , LPD's , LSD's and sea bases the US have and would use. Now if you were to say to me that the future UK Amphibious group was to be made up of say 1 x LHD , 2 x LSD's and 4 to 6 of these great I am all in as for me this would allow regional and global amphib operations

[SW1]

They would be based in areas where shore-to-shore movement of Marines and gear could be needed – places like the South China Sea if China were to fight for the islands and sea space it claims as its own, or the Baltic Sea if Russia were to make another land grab against a neighboring country – and would support the movement of Marine Littoral Regiments moving quickly from one piece of land to the next to conduct missions under the Expeditionary Advance Base Operations (EABO) concept.

Yes but again these are on top of the LHD's , LPD's , LSD's and sea bases the US have and would use. Now if you were to say to me that the future UK Amphibious group was to be made up of say 1 x LHD , 2 x LSD's and 4 to 6 of these great I am all in as for me this would allow regional and global amphib operations

Yeah but we bought two aircraft carriers so we’re using one of them instead.

[Tempest414]

NO NO NO a strike carrier has no place in a amphib group it needs to stay to far out to sea and if it to be used then Merlin HC-4 needs to go and be replace by MV-22 to allow the RM to be moved further faster allowing the carrier to stay out at sea

Edit my view is 1 LHD would replace the 2 Albion's and 2 x larger LSD's would replace the 3 Bays plus say 5 of the above

[SW1]

NO NO NO a strike carrier has no place in a amphib group it needs to stay to far out to sea and if it to be used then Merlin HC-4 needs to go and be replace by MV-22 to allow the RM to be moved further faster allowing the carrier to stay out at sea

Edit my view is 1 LHD would replace the 2 Albion's and 2 x larger LSD's would replace the 3 Bays plus say 5 of the above

Then the amphibious bit goes or the carriers go.

[Jake1992]

NO NO NO a strike carrier has no place in a amphib group it needs to stay to far out to sea and if it to be used then Merlin HC-4 needs to go and be replace by MV-22 to allow the RM to be moved further faster allowing the carrier to stay out at sea

Edit my view is 1 LHD would replace the 2 Albion's and 2 x larger LSD's would replace the 3 Bays plus say 5 of the above

Then the amphibious bit goes or the carriers go.

I see this talk quite abit and when looking at the current 10 year budget it’s understandable but can anyone here tell me what the next 10 year budget will be and what will get prioritised as that is what the amphibious replacements will be in.

[ArmChairCivvy]

as for me this would allow regional [and global] amphib operations

Yep, yep: the longest coastlines of nations within Europe are 1) Norway, 21,975 km of coastline 2) Greece, 13,676 km of coastline 3) UK, 12,429 km... I think we should worry about n:o1 as it somehow relates to what is (next) going to happen with n:o3
- shore-to-shore will be of equal importance to traversing the greater distances in a big amphib (= a fat target)

NO NO NO a strike carrier has no place in a amphib group it needs to stay to far out to sea and if it to be used then Merlin HC-4 needs to go

Chinook is faster than its AH escorts. Off-load rates from the overall fleet (if all of it will ever be available at the same time) are
Landing Platform Dock (LPD)4 x LCVP 4 x LCU
Land/ LOgistics Ship Dock (Auxiliary) (LSD(A) 1 x LCU

11 (slow) LCUs, but plenty of Chinook spots... and where do the Chinooks come from?
- from the carrier
- EVEN IF it is further out to sea

Then the amphibious bit goes or the carriers go.

- I think we solved that (?) above, at least for the next ten years to come
- revisit in mid-30s?

[SW1]

NO NO NO a strike carrier has no place in a amphib group it needs to stay to far out to sea and if it to be used then Merlin HC-4 needs to go and be replace by MV-22 to allow the RM to be moved further faster allowing the carrier to stay out at sea

Edit my view is 1 LHD would replace the 2 Albion's and 2 x larger LSD's would replace the 3 Bays plus say 5 of the above

Then the amphibious bit goes or the carriers go.

I see this talk quite abit and when looking at the current 10 year budget it’s understandable but can anyone here tell me what the next 10 year budget will be and what will get prioritised as that is what the amphibious replacements will be in.

Can you tell me when something slipped into the next 10 year period that anything ever arrived.

[shark bait]

Again I ask how many , What for and where would you base them due to there lack of range

One of the thousands of ports around the world.

a strike carrier has no place in a amphib group

They are one and the same. There is no way the UK can afford amphibious groups and carrier groups like the Americans do, so they Brits have to have a Hybrid arrangement.

[SW1]

as for me this would allow regional [and global] amphib operations

Yep, yep: the longest coastlines of nations within Europe are 1) Norway, 21,975 km of coastline 2) Greece, 13,676 km of coastline 3) UK, 12,429 km... I think we should worry about n:o1 as it somehow relates to what is (next) going to happen with n:o3
- shore-to-shore will be of equal importance to traversing the greater distances in a big amphib (= a fat target)

NO NO NO a strike carrier has no place in a amphib group it needs to stay to far out to sea and if it to be used then Merlin HC-4 needs to go

Chinook is faster than its AH escorts. Off-load rates from the overall fleet (if all of it will ever be available at the same time) are
Landing Platform Dock (LPD)4 x LCVP 4 x LCU
Land/ LOgistics Ship Dock (Auxiliary) (LSD(A) 1 x LCU

11 (slow) LCUs, but plenty of Chinook spots... and where do the Chinooks come from?
- from the carrier
- EVEN IF it is further out to sea

Then the amphibious bit goes or the carriers go.

- I think we solved that (?) above, at least for the next ten years to come
- revisit in mid-30s?

Possibly but I go back to my original point very much depends on what u want future commando to do.

[donald_of_tokyo]

How about
- 10 such "70m stern-landing vessels" for assault (or 6 "100m-long version" ?) with helipad atop, to li-li-pad helicopters coming from over the horizon.
- 3 Bay replacement LSD for both logistic landing (2-LCU-size) and MCM-USV handling, and can carry 2 Chinook or 4 Merlin.
- 1 syster LSD with small (1-LCU-size) dock and helicopter asset, and a landing command capability.
and nothing else.

Landing command will stay onboard CVF or the command-LSD. As the front-line "LST" is distributed, broad-band and secure network is already MUST. So, having a landing command far over the horizon will be good. These "far away" assets will be 100-300 nm away, no chance for any landing-craft to do anything from them = no need for well-dock.

Having LHD is a good dream, I agree. But, let's dream it only when the budget comes.

[EDIT] I also think these "stern-landing vessels" must have a good cranes to handle MCM-USVs in peacetime = or in wartime when there is no landing planned (=actually, most of the case). They need "2ndary job". If not, they won't survive for long... Of course, these assets are the main gear for HADR operations worldwide.

[shark bait]

Sounds reasonable Donald.

Only bit I'll pick on is 'Having LHD is a good dream'. I don't think it is. I think they're a bodge because the right time and place to operate landing craft is not the right time and place to operate helicopters.

[Jake1992]

NO NO NO a strike carrier has no place in a amphib group it needs to stay to far out to sea and if it to be used then Merlin HC-4 needs to go and be replace by MV-22 to allow the RM to be moved further faster allowing the carrier to stay out at sea

Edit my view is 1 LHD would replace the 2 Albion's and 2 x larger LSD's would replace the 3 Bays plus say 5 of the above

Then the amphibious bit goes or the carriers go.

I see this talk quite abit and when looking at the current 10 year budget it’s understandable but can anyone here tell me what the next 10 year budget will be and what will get prioritised as that is what the amphibious replacements will be in.

Can you tell me when something slipped into the next 10 year period that anything ever arrived.

That wasn’t me trying to take a dig or make a statement but a genuin question if anyone can tell me what sort of budget we’re looking at in the next 10 year round and what is looking to be prioritised as this would determin the likelihood of amphibious replacement and the possiblities of what they could be.

[Scimitar54]

The advantage of an LHD, is that one vessel can do EITHER. Saves having to have separate vessels for each. Obviously an LHD would use the most applicable method of insertion/extraction for the operation, NOT BOTH.
A classic example of a Multi-Role ship. Makes much more sense than using a Strike carrier as a Helicopter Insertion/Extraction platform!

[SW1]

That wasn’t me trying to take a dig or make a statement but a genuin question if anyone can tell me what sort of budget we’re looking at in the next 10 year round and what is looking to be prioritised as this would determin the likelihood of amphibious replacement and the possiblities of what they could be

I don’t think anyone can. Did see Bernard gray the other day say in his opinion we currently have at least 20b of stuff order that we don’t have a budget for.

[ArmChairCivvy]

I go back to my original point very much depends on what u want future commando to do.

1. CEPP is about power projection, which in turn is underpinned by these three terms: fighting power, credibility, and utility.
Here I would be with you that the British psyche that has been tickled by "Global Britain" is still looking for an answer... it will come when that geni will leave its bottle, thus determining whether CEPP - fro 2026 onwards - can deliver that which is being asked from 'it'

2. However, in the mean while we still have our Northern Flank commitments and the work emphasising the raiding function (as an early-on echelon of a larger force) can continue unabated

3. Let's not forget that as tax payers we would expect a NEO, on the double should some corner of the earth where we happen to be (say, the Gulf... or the wider Arabian Peninsula) suddenly go up in flames

[donald_of_tokyo]

The advantage of an LHD, is that one vessel can do EITHER. Saves having to have separate vessels for each. Obviously an LHD would use the most applicable method of insertion/extraction for the operation, NOT BOTH.
A classic example of a Multi-Role ship. Makes much more sense than using a Strike carrier as a Helicopter Insertion/Extraction platform!

But, RN do not have any plan to have an LHD for at least 10 years (and will not have the money to do so even after, I'm afraid), and using strike carrier as helicopter mother ship is not prohibitable. It is a multi-purpose "moving airfield". Also, with current budget/resource, not using carrier as helicopter base is a waste of money, as we all know RN will not have enough air-wings to fill BOTH carriers at full capabilities. (note I am never saying both will deploy the same time. Always one will be "ready", and the "ready" hull will deployed for about a half days = 180 day per year?). It is the maximum, if you consider training and maintenance (especially for fighters and helicopters, as well).

As someone said, if RN add a LHD some day, I'm afraid RN will lose one of the CVF within next several years. One CVF replaced Illustrious, and another replaced Ocean. That's kind of official announcement, I understand?

[Scimitar54]

These events occurred under defence blind and blinkered Governments who have treated defence as a soft target. By doing so, they have set the UK as a whole, well on the way to becoming that “Soft Target”, however much they may try to insist otherwise!

[Tempest414]

As someone said, if RN add a LHD some day, I'm afraid RN will lose one of the CVF within next several years. One CVF replaced Illustrious, and another replaced Ocean. That's kind of official announcement, I understand?

We had 3 carriers from 1982 until 1998 when we had 4 when Ocean came along this dropped back to 3 in 2005 and only dropped to 2 after the fuck up they called SDAR 2010 which should not of happened. I think 3 flat tops are the way ahead allowing 2 at all times this can be a LHD or a LHA

[serge750]

As someone said, if RN add a LHD some day, I'm afraid RN will lose one of the CVF within next several years. One CVF replaced Illustrious, and another replaced Ocean. That's kind of official announcement, I understand?

We had 3 carriers from 1982 until 1998 when we had 4 when Ocean came along this dropped back to 3 in 2005 and only dropped to 2 after the fuck up they called SDAR 2010 which should not of happened. I think 3 flat tops are the way ahead allowing 2 at all times this can be a LHD or a LHA

Would be really good if that happened, IMO a smaller LHD - not F35 capable except an emergency landing - but the bean counters seem to rule now, I think we will be lucky to get a single replacement for the Albion class in the late 2030 timeframe, maybe a enlarged Albion with a small hanger for 2 helicopters, but mainly concentrating on landing craft insertion, but can be use as a Lillipad from the carriers if needed.

As said before i'm concerned if we did have 3 flattops the bean counters would not be able to tell the difference between a QEC & a LHD !!

[Scimitar54]

A proper “Defence Savvy” politician would want 3 x LHDs!

[serge750]

A proper “Defence Savvy” politician would want 3 x LHDs!

2 x QEC and 2 x mistrals please very unlikely

[Repulse]

It clear that the Future Commando Force will be a big step away from Cdo battlegroup level operations to smaller dispersed units that can be bought together (independently) to a greater effect. As such the vessels that the RN requires needs to match this.

We also need to start with likely requirement- my understanding is light infantry units scaled from a RM troop up to 2 companies, that are capable to be deployed globally and integrated with SFs. Anything heavier would need to be a via a port using logistical ships such as the Points.

Troop level: Frigates, FSSs & OPVs/MHPC Sloops via Rhibs
Company level: RFAs via LCVPs
2 Company level: LPDs via LCVPs/LCUs and helicopter lift using helicopters from a CVF or RFA Aviation Support Ship OTH.

The Albion’s are fit for purpose for the LPD role at least till the mid 2030s; so let’s not waste our money but use what we have (get both in service). Investment is needed in LCVP and LCU replacements.

We have Frigates being built with mission bays and OPVs in service with large decks (maybe we will get some MHPC sloops soon), so the requirement here is in the connectors (like CB90s).

We have RFA Bays already, which can be used, but a smaller, more numerous class is a future option.

What is needed is a RFA Argus replacement to act as an Aviation Support Ship - @6 Merlins / Wildcats, that could operate with the other ships when a CVF (and associated battle group) is not required.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Anything heavier would need to be a via a port using logistical ships such as the Points.

I think you set the bar too low. Let's not use overload numbers

Landing Platform Dock (LPD)4 x LCVP 4 x LCU
Land/ LOgistics Ship Dock (Auxiliary) (LSD(A) 1 x LCU

and you still get a Coy +HQ off an LPD in helos and the LCUs take the support stuff.
A Bay can take all the vehicles for the two mounted Coys plus almost all the related manpower
Leaves just a Coy+ to be flown in from the carrier form further away
,,, here we have twice the strength (not quite the BG as per today, but a Cdo anyway). In this scenario the LPD LCUs will at some point divert to the Bay

2 Company level: LPDs via LCVPs/LCUs and helicopter lift using helicopters from a CVF or RFA Aviation Support Ship OTH.

whereas in this scenario the other LPD will also be operated, adding shipping cost (without adding 'teeth' to the Op on land)

[Repulse]

Looking at similar ships for other navies that could be good models for a new ship class for global RN Company level operations, IMO the Cheon Wang Bong-class of South Korea is very interesting.

- Capable of transporting 200 marines
- upto 3 LCM sized landing ships
- 8 large vehicles
- Range of 8,000nn
- Twin 40mm gun as a CIWS
- landing platform for two helicopters

Ok, no hangar but as the RUSI report said that this is less important, and if required could be provided OTH from a CVF or ASS.

Also, not just global operations- would also be good ships to move around the Norwegian Fjords as part of the NATO commitment to protect the Northern flank.





Add 3-4 to the fleet and combine with 2 Aviation Support Ships (similar to RFA Argus) and the 2 LPDs, then you have a solid amphibious force.

The Bays and Points are then allocated to the Army to transport the on call Strike Brigade.

Affordable? I’d say yes if the UK ambition and focus is CEPP, SBEPP (Strike Brigade Enabled Power Projection) rather than Divisional level operations and smaller operations delivered by SFs supported by RMs & Paras.