Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Pongoglo
Member
Posts: 231
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 10:39
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Pongoglo »

This is the relevant bit from Williamson's speech;

"Take the Royal Navy. They are exerting British influence through greater forward presence. I want to capitalise on that. Investing now to develop a new Littoral Strike Ship concept. And, if successful, we will look to dramatically accelerate their delivery. These globally deployable, multi-role vessels would be able to conduct a wide range of operations, from crisis support to war-fighting.

They would support our Future Commando Force. Our world-renowned Royal Marines – they’ll be forward deployed, at exceptionally high readiness, and able to respond at a moment’s notice bringing the fight from sea to land.

Our vision is for these ships to form part of 2 Littoral Strike Groups complete with escorts, support vessels and helicopters. One would be based East of Suez in the Indo-Pacific and one based West of Suez in the Mediterranean, Atlantic and Baltic. And, if we ever need them to, our two Littoral Strike Ships, our two aircraft carriers, our two amphibious assault ships Albion and Bulwark, and our three Bay Class landing ships can come together in one amphibious task force. This will give us sovereign, lethal, amphibious force. This will be one of the largest and best such forces anywhere in the world.

In 1940, Winston Churchill said: “Enterprises must be prepared with specially-trained troops of the ‘Hunter Class’, who can develop a reign of terror down enemy coasts.” Our actions mean that we will deliver on Churchill’s vision for our Royal Navy and for our Royal Marine Commandos. "

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 »

There's a thread dedicated to these

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:dedicated to these
Can you be more specific?
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 »

Well the discussion is moving more and more towards the Littoral Strike ship and we have a thread for that don't we :)

Pongoglo
Member
Posts: 231
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 10:39
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Pongoglo »

I'm aware of that and that's why I posted it here. There's more to Williamson's speech and future amphibious capability than just the LSS, welcome as it is. It returns amphibious capability to the center of Defence thinking whereas only a year ago with the reported loss of Albion and Bulwark and the downscaling of 42 Commando we were bemoaning it's demise. Surely the LSS thread concerns the ships themselves, this thread should remain focused on capability as a whole?

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 »

Pongoglo wrote:Surely the LSS thread concerns the ships themselves, this thread should remain focused on capability as a whole?
Quite. And if we append a "News only" post-fix the that thread title... we would be in for a long wait
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 »

I don't see the LSS as an Amphibious platform though but more as a mobile forward base for SF that can if needed be used for such operations. They give you a sovereign base from which to carry out various types of activity, reducing the need to request the use of the facilities of other nations.

During the speech the use of both Albions was mentioned and how long would it take to achieve that, and yes these LSS could be part of an enlarged ARG but they are more likely to be used as superior alternatives to the Bays as motherships that anything else.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Lord Jim wrote:I don't see the LSS as an Amphibious platform though but more as a mobile forward base for SF that can if needed be used for such operations. They give you a sovereign base from which to carry out various types of activity, reducing the need to request the use of the facilities of other nations..
This is exactly how I see them as a mobile SF base designed to provide everything needed for all the SF needs, with the added benefit off being able to deploy up to say 250 RM for raiding ops and or part of a larger amphibious op.

This is why I think we should be looking at what the SF need first when designing these vessels and then look at adding a good troop capacity and large helo facility.

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 »

Jake1992 wrote: as a mobile SF base designed to provide everything needed for all the SF needs
Let's just factor in the new Chinooks, in SF spec. Quite a factor in sizing the ships and after that the accommodation part will probably slot in neatly, as long as ship's services are scaled, err, to scale up.
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)

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Jake1992 wrote: as a mobile SF base designed to provide everything needed for all the SF needs
Let's just factor in the new Chinooks, in SF spec. Quite a factor in sizing the ships and after that the accommodation part will probably slot in neatly, as long as ship's services are scaled, err, to scale up.
Well if we go off the large RORO vessel depicted on the LSS thread with it being 225m by 32m at a perchase price of £70m odd would be the perfect size to handle chinooks with out folding rotars.

We see that Karel Doorman being 205m by 30m has a comfortable hanger for 6 x merlins or 2 x chinook blades open.

For me something of the aforementioned size may sound over the top big but if it could be got for less than a £100m new purchase then they’d be spot on for what being asked and would make a very nice base hull for convertion.

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 »

Jake1992 wrote:205m by 30m has a comfortable hanger for 6 x merlins or 2 x chinook blades open.
That (2 Chinooks) is a good benchmark. The same spots could be used by smaller helos brought up by a lift, from the deck below
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 »

Would it not just be cheaper and more efficient in the long run to just bite the bullet and pay for the development of automatic folding rotors on the Chinooks. Got to be cheaper than continually building bigger and bigger ships to accommodate the CH-47's.

It worked well enough with the CH-46's.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Would it not just be cheaper and more efficient in the long run to just bite the bullet and pay for the development of automatic folding rotors on the Chinooks. Got to be cheaper than continually building bigger and bigger ships to accommodate the CH-47's.

It worked well enough with the CH-46's.
I think it’d be good to build the hangers with the idea of 2 chinooks blades open and the down the line look at folding blades as I bet you could possibly fit 3 chinooks folded in a sand that can handle 2 chinooks open blades.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Jake1992 wrote:I think it’d be good to build the hangers with the idea of 2 chinooks blades open and the down the line look at folding blades as I bet you could possibly fit 3 chinooks folded in a sand that can handle 2 chinooks open blades.
I don't disagree with your 2 Chinook or 6 Merlin spec. It seems pretty optimum to me. Dimension wise, a folded Chinook and a folded Merlin aren't drastically different. If you allow a hanger space of roughly 20m X 8m both will fit but the Merlin will just have a bit more room for maintenance clearances.

Its unfolded that creates the problems. Just look at the fun they have on QE's lift :wtf:
RAF_Chinook_helicopter_HMS_Queen_Elizabeth_hangar_1.jpg

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:I think it’d be good to build the hangers with the idea of 2 chinooks blades open and the down the line look at folding blades as I bet you could possibly fit 3 chinooks folded in a sand that can handle 2 chinooks open blades.
I don't disagree with your 2 Chinook or 6 Merlin spec. It seems pretty optimum to me. Dimension wise, a folded Chinook and a folded Merlin aren't drastically different. If you allow a hanger space of roughly 20m X 8m both will fit but the Merlin will just have a bit more room for maintenance clearances.

Its unfolded that creates the problems. Just look at the fun they have on QE's lift :wtf:
RAF_Chinook_helicopter_HMS_Queen_Elizabeth_hangar_1.jpg
That’s why I say as it stands we only have unfolded so if we have a hanger like on the Karel Doorman that can take 2 chinooks unfolded I have a good feeling ( havnt got the mesurments to hand ) that this sane space could take 3 chinooks with blades folded.

This should be the base line helo wise for the LSS IMO

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 »

Just out of interest have we modified any of our Chinooks to be able to operate for extended periods at sea? You know basic things like corrosion prevention and tie down points.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Lord Jim wrote:Just out of interest have we modified any of our Chinooks to be able to operate for extended periods at sea? You know basic things like corrosion prevention and tie down points.
Not as far as I know but this for me is one of the things we need to do say 15 odd of them with corrosion prevention and folding blades.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

How much would this "Marinisation" cost? Is that one reason for not doing it? Could a possible second reason for not doing it be that the Chinooks will only be a short term solution to the heavy lift from QEC & Amphibs and that before long we will be looking at the MV22 Osprey for this role (which of course already does have folding rotors and is designed to operate in the Marine environment)?

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Scimitar54 wrote:How much would this "Marinisation" cost? Is that one reason for not doing it? Could a possible second reason for not doing it be that the Chinooks will only be a short term solution to the heavy lift from QEC & Amphibs and that before long we will be looking at the MV22 Osprey for this role (which of course already does have folding rotors and is designed to operate in the Marine environment)?
It most likely is cost but with the chinook being one of the most numorus helo in the forces it makes sense to marinise a % of the fleet.

I’d love a good number of V-22s for a number of reasons ( AEW AAR COD ) but heavy lift isn’t one of them as they can lift what a chinook can that’s why the USMC have the sea stallion

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 »

We are probably more likely to see a small % of the Merlin HC4s upgraded to act as SF support helicopters.

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 »

For Norway deployment, RM used Point class to send LCVPs and ORCs. Dutch Marines used FLO-FLO ship to send their LCU and other equipments. So I guess this deployment did not required LPD/LSD. Bays are not used not because it was not available, but simply not needed?


Pongoglo
Member
Posts: 231
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 10:39
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Pongoglo »

For those who are UK based could be an interesting watch tonight, ITV 1s ' Tonight ' programme 19.00 -'19.30 'Can we defend ourselves? '. The preview suggests a heavy focus on RM , forward deployment , and quote ' the Governments ambitious plans to keep the UK a world leader' . Should be a nice break from Brexit at least :-)

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 »

Pongoglo wrote:Should be a nice break from Brexit at least :-)
Sorry to spoil it, but when the land element of the 'sovereign' & immediate response force (between ourselves and France) was set at 13k and the joint force (supporting air & sea) pushing it up to 50k
... where are we/ will be now, in that sort f respect; outside of the 'more delegated' powers of the SACEUR - maxing out at 55k

I always spoil the fun :( before the party even starts
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 »

Pongoglo wrote:' the Governments ambitious plans to keep the UK a world leader'
Maybe in the areas of Ideas and Spin Doctoring.


Post Reply