Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
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:As for now I feel the 3 Bay class should be refitted with full width hangars as in option 1 on page 44 to allow them to properly operate up to 2 Merlins plus carry 2 LCVP or CB-90 on davits and what ever mix from the well dock also the new hangar block should house the embarked helicopter air and maintenance crews
Not sure. I understand Bays is logistic landing ship, and Albion is amphibious assault ship. Former put stress on cargo, and latter stress on ship-to-shore connectors.

Your proposal is to shift the Bays more to assault landing ship. In other words, degrading logistic power.

I think, if RN are to disband Bulwark (sell it), and hence reduce assault asset, then your proposal will become reasonable.

My proposal is; when Albion is in long refit, 3 Bays can cover it with your davits and hangar. When Albion is active, 2 Bays will do the job (slightly reduced logistic power, but gradely improved LCU assault capability). One out of four LPD/LSD could be in refit/extended readiness to save man-power.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414, I’m definitely in favour of a third (or fourth) flat-top, but think the best hope is to get it in the early 2030s when the current spike in SSBN, CVF, T26, T31 etc investment is done.

I’ve been thinking that the UK would still have the 1,800-1,900 RM lift requirement and possibly the need to support the deployment of a Strike Brigade. This would need a sizeable RFA force.

If the idea is that the RMs deploy in smaller numbers, the UK deploys it’s Strike Brigade via Points and airlift, and the U.K. have forward based, then the RFA lift capability becomes a lot less.

Keeping both LPDs, would be better equipped for smaller RM ops and keeps the door open in my view for larger RN ships in the future.

Ideal, no - but it’s all about priorities.
”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 »

It is reported CVF needs core ship crew of 800, 130 more than the planned 670. This mean, RN needs 130x2 = 260 more crew to handle QNLZ and PoW. With this stage, I start to severely think cutting amphibious fleet.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Option-1: (as stated above)
- Disband and sell Bulwark, and reduce the fleet to 1 Albion and 3 Bays. (this will not contribute to save crew)
- Keep one of the 4 ships always in long-refit or extended readiness. Only 3 of the 4 will be active. This will provide 325 (Albion) or 60 RFA + 30-50(?) RN crew.
- Improved the Bays with a 2-Merlin hangar and 2 LCVP-davits. When Albion is active, these will be vacant. When Albion is in refit, ~90 RN crew will shift to the 3 Bays (~30 each) to handle the LCVPs.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Option-2: more drastic.
- Disband both Albion and Bulwark.
- Move C&C to 1 Bay. Add 4-Merlin-hangar (larger), but no LCVP-davits. (1 Bay-mod.A)
- On the remaining 2 Bays, add 2-Merlin-hangar and 2 LCVP-davits. (2 Bay-mod.B)

In the latter option, PoW will be the primary LPH with C&C. When PoW is not available (needed either as Strike carrier (QLNZ in refit) or herself is in refit), the Bay-mod.A shall be active and handle C&C. With 4 Merlin hangar, it shall also work as mini-LPH.

To enable 3 Bay-mod.A/Bs to be used for amphibious operation, stop using one in Persian gulf. The other one on Caribbean is no problem, it is near enough to Britain to be used on-call. In Peruvian gulf, send one Echo in place of the Bay. In Med, send one River B2 in place of the Echo.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Option-2: more drastic.
- Disband both Albion and Bulwark.
- Move C&C to 1 Bay. Add 4-Merlin-hangar (larger), but no LCVP-davits. (1 Bay-mod.A)
- On the remaining 2 Bays, add 2-Merlin-hangar and 2 LCVP-davits. (2 Bay-mod.B)
What about the LCU's?

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 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Option-2: more drastic.
- Disband both Albion and Bulwark.
- Move C&C to 1 Bay. Add 4-Merlin-hangar (larger), but no LCVP-davits. (1 Bay-mod.A)
- On the remaining 2 Bays, add 2-Merlin-hangar and 2 LCVP-davits. (2 Bay-mod.B)
What about the LCU's?
3 LCU, one each in 3 Bays. Of course, Caimen 90 = fast one. I know it is drastic proposal, relying a lot on possible "Chinook fleet" onboard PoW. When without PoW, big reduction in capability.

My point is, where else to cut and provide 260 more crew?

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Operate the carriers like the US will operate USS America and have a bay to support a limited over the beach offload capability that is all that the uk requires.

Any uk brigade deployment capability will require access to some form off secure port to allow offload from the points, or thru the channel tunnel to Europe.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:3 LCU, one each in 3 Bays. Of course, Caimen 90 = fast one. I know it is drastic proposal, relying a lot on possible "Chinook fleet" onboard PoW. When without PoW, big reduction in capability.
Too extreme for me :shock:

I think in a nutshell this is the UK's big conundrum regarding the Amphibious fleet. Cut the Albions and you also cut the LCU's and then you might as well throw the towel in, it's that simple. Yes the Bay's can carry 3 LCU's combined but if one Bay in unavailable that gives the Amphibious fleet a grand total 2 LCU's. It's going to take a while to get 3 Cdo ashore with only 2 LCU's and a handful of CB90's. What happens if a Bay or LCU is lost or damaged? Down to one LCU? Rely on the mexefloates? It's a disaster waiting to happen in my view.

Lots of options to ensure this doesn't happen.

As Repluse says, first things first, the UK must clearly define its aspiration in the Amphibious arena but if the UK's Amphibious capability is sacrificed as well as half its escort strength to enable the 2 CVF's and the F35's the price paid will have been too great.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:My point is, where else to cut and provide 260 more crew?
Its not easy that's for sure, we have been scraping the bottom the barrel for a while and it's starting to wear thin.

Could the answer be to actually build our way out of trouble?

Could the Argus replacement solve the problem?

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 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Too extreme for me :shock:

I think in a nutshell this is the UK's big conundrum regarding the Amphibious fleet. Cut the Albions and you also cut the LCU's and then you might as well throw the towel in, it's that simple. Yes the Bay's can carry 3 LCU's combined but if one Bay in unavailable that gives the Amphibious fleet a grand total 2 LCU's. It's going to take a while to get 3 Cdo ashore with only 2 LCU's and a handful of CB90's. What happens if a Bay or LCU is lost or damaged? Down to one LCU? Rely on the mexefloates? It's a disaster waiting to happen in my view.
Not sure if it is a disaster, because I think the 6 (or 4) mexefloats, 2 each on 3 Bays (or 2 available Bays), and even 8 on 4 Points (if added), will do many of the logistic jobs. Of course, "down to 3 LCU" is a big reduction, but in PoW can carry plenty of Chinooks. What a Chinook fleet can do, will be important here. Of course, no heavy IFVs. But, the sole AFV RM has is BvS 10 Viking, which can be carried by LCVP, LCU and mexefloat.

Also, 2030 I think we can make the LCU number to 6 (2 each on 3 Bay replacements). Just (?) another "gap".
donald_of_tokyo wrote:My point is, where else to cut and provide 260 more crew?
Its not easy that's for sure, we have been scraping the bottom the barrel for a while and it's starting to wear thin.

Could the answer be to actually build our way out of trouble?

Could the Argus replacement solve the problem?
Military is reality, RN needs solution. Praying is the priest's job. Another idea is of course cutting another frigate or two, which will provide 180 or 360 crew. "Be happy with 6 T45 and 8 T26, with some OPVs" is always the fallback plan to rely on.

I'm not sure Argus will survive MDP, it is an independent issue. I remember the original Treasury proposal was to cut BOTH 3 T23 AND 2 Albions? Now it is reduced to 3 or 2 T23, which means cuts in other fields may be there.. Just speculation, I admit.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5557
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:I think, if RN are to disband Bulwark (sell it), and hence reduce assault asset, then your proposal will become reasonable.
I think right now with the current crewing issues and lack of money plus the fact that Albion only has 16 years to go we would be better selling Bulwark and refitting the Bays.

Post 2030 we could then look to replace Albion with a LPH and the 3 Bays with 4 new 200 m Batch 2 Bays meaning logistics and well docks are an all RFA affair and Helicopters and C&C are left to the RN on the LPH

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Sec Def just announced at Tory conference that lpds will both be retained and the 4th Type 26 will be hms Birmingham.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote:Sec Def just announced at Tory conference that lpds will both be retained and the 4th Type 26 will be hms Birmingham.
I’ve just read the transcript of his speech - apart from the securing of the 2 LPDs and the naming of a T26, nothing new - in fact it is quite worrying what wasn’t said. This would have been a great time to deflect the old guard by the promise of more money, but nothing - which means the UK defence budget is static and the axe is swinging...
”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

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Repulse

Oh there will be little if any new money. What we’ve witnessed is the special pleading brigade getting there way on a sacred cow. But like with any special pleading it will mean enhanced pain elsewhere and the hidden cuts that destroys deployability. See army cap badge protectionism as a example.

So what was that times story last year 5 frigates and the wildcats or the Albion’s be rest assured the piper must be paid!

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

SW1 wrote:So what was that times story last year 5 frigates and the wildcats or the Albion’s be rest assured the piper must be paid!
If the axe has to fall it has got to be on the light infantry.

To relieve the manning issues and get all T45's back to sea it will take 4 Type 23's to be decommissioned early. Is HMG brave enough to attempt something like that in this climate? I don't think so.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Option-1:
- Disband and sell Bulwark, and reduce the fleet to 1 Albion and 3 Bays

Option-2: more drastic.
- Disband both Albion and Bulwark.
Its not Option 1 or 2, what's Option 3? :D

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
SW1 wrote:So what was that times story last year 5 frigates and the wildcats or the Albion’s be rest assured the piper must be paid!
If the axe has to fall it has got to be on the light infantry.

To relieve the manning issues and get all T45's back to sea it will take 4 Type 23's to be decommissioned early. Is HMG brave enough to attempt something like that in this climate? I don't think so.

They’ve just kept light infantry in the shape of the marines! What climate? If you mean some sub activity there’s 5 type 23s without tails! You could always take type 45 numbers down. It’s the navy budget and it’s manning that is way out of kilter.

If you mean army light infantry I would agree but they need to cut those numbers just to equip the 4 mechanised brigades with armoured vehicles that were built in the 60s. It’s rumoured to be in the order of 4b a year that needs to be saved that’s an awful lot of infantry!

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

SW1 wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:
SW1 wrote:So what was that times story last year 5 frigates and the wildcats or the Albion’s be rest assured the piper must be paid!
If the axe has to fall it has got to be on the light infantry.

To relieve the manning issues and get all T45's back to sea it will take 4 Type 23's to be decommissioned early. Is HMG brave enough to attempt something like that in this climate? I don't think so.

They’ve just kept light infantry in the shape of the marines! What climate? If you mean some sub activity there’s 5 type 23s without tails! You could always take type 45 numbers down. It’s the navy budget and it’s manning that is way out of kilter.

If you mean army light infantry I would agree but they need to cut those numbers just to equip the 4 mechanised brigades with armoured vehicles that were built in the 60s. It’s rumoured to be in the order of 4b a year that needs to be saved that’s an awful lot of infantry!
The solution and cause of the problem is screaming everyone in the face the politians just have to grow the balls to implement it.

Move CASD back out of the core budget will save around £3.2 plus a year, it's a political tool not a military one.

CameronPerson
Member
Posts: 300
Joined: 09 Apr 2017, 17:03
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by CameronPerson »

SW1 wrote:

They’ve just kept light infantry in the shape of the marines! What climate? If you mean some sub activity there’s 5 type 23s without tails!
Not just the strategic climate but the political one too. Getting rid of ships may help the manning issues but the regular joe on the street is only going to see a further fall in the number of ships the RN have. They know the newspapers would crucify them. I doubt the navy will bear the brunt of any reduction, the Army however..

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo, Option 3 for me is:

8 T23s will be withdrawn by end of 2030 - only 7 crewed: 7 * 185 = 1,295

On the flip side:
- Give additional manning to both CVFs: 260
- Bring the 1 T45 in reserve back to active duties: 191
- Keep the 4 B1 Rivers in service: 130
- Bring 3 T26s into service: 3 * 118 = 354
- Bring the 2nd Albion class into permanent service: 325
Total: 1,260

In the 2030s reduce the number of MCMs / Echos by 3 to save another 90 and then add another T26 to get to a total of 9.

For the RFA, remove the Bays to ensure that all 3 FSS and 6 Tankers are fully manned and operational.

Mid 2030s replace both LPDs either with a large LHD or two smaller ones.
”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

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Jake1992

I disagree it’s a military capability. So it should be in the defence budget where it’s been since Polaris procurement and rightly so.

CameronPerson

Really you think the average joe on the street cares?? They’ll be shown a picture of an aircraft carrier with a jet or too and cha,pion the lpds. Let’s not forget the news on the carrier landings was embargoed so the BBC could run the story on the 10 o’clock news and it didn’t even make the program!!

Your right politics is all that matter hence the politicians with the lpds in there constituency wanted them saved not other reason especially not what’s best for general defence capability.

I suspect the RFA will lose a lot of ships Argus the two waves maybe the two older forts and perhaps even another bay! There will be type 23s sold and possibly some more sandown minesweepers!

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

SW1 wrote:Jake1992

I disagree it’s a military capability. So it should be in the defence budget where it’s been since Polaris procurement and rightly so.

CameronPerson

Really you think the average joe on the street cares?? They’ll be shown a picture of an aircraft carrier with a jet or too and cha,pion the lpds. Let’s not forget the news on the carrier landings was embargoed so the BBC could run the story on the 10 o’clock news and it didn’t even make the program!!

Your right politics is all that matter hence the politicians with the lpds in there constituency wanted them saved not other reason especially not what’s best for general defence capability.

I suspect the RFA will lose a lot of ships Argus the two waves maybe the two older forts and perhaps even another bay! They’re will be type 23s gone and possibly some more sandown minesweepers!
CASD serves no usable military perpouse, the whole point of CASD is the hope to never use it. It's a big stick for politiains to say to other nuclear powers that we have them too so don't use yours, I can't be used in any other way.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Jake

If you think it serves no military purpose then cut it! Just like what happened when we177 was removed and nuclear Q stood down in the 90s.

It stays because it ensures the need for large conventional forces to deter a nuclear state is not required and as such is a military capability. You could still remove it and replace it with a nuclear code share capability similar to other european nato members.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

SW1 wrote:Jake

If you think it serves no military purpose then cut it! Just like what happened when we177 was removed and nuclear Q stood down in the 90s.

It stays because it ensures the need for large conventional forces to deter a nuclear state is not required and as such is a military capability. You could still remove it and replace it with a nuclear code share capability similar to other european nato members.
I said it serves no miltary perpouse not that it serves not perpuse at all. It's perpouse is clear but out side the perpouse of deterring nukes from being used on us it can't be used in any other way.
The use of it also can't be authorised by any military personnel only the PM.
It serves as the ultimate political tool on foreigne affaires and so should be funded as such.

I'm all for the nuculear deterent and believe we should have our own, I'm not a fan of the code sharing set up as it'd make us dependent on others who political interests don't always align with our own. I just question where the funding for such a capability should come from.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Jake

All military operations are authorised by the PM or senior cabinet minister if he/she is incapacitated. All military operations are the ultimate expressions of politics by the state.

We’ll leave that particular conundrum for another time. It’s a military capability and deserves to be in the military budget so we will agree to differ. It just highlights the glaring issue with defence a failure of those in charge both civil and military to prioritise areas to allocate a finite budget to and accept capability will need to be cut.

I will add this if you wanted 2 vessels to load up with unmanned systems and combat boats as a fwd deployed mother ship to,conduct martime security and fwd presence instead of traditional frigates you’ve just got two candidates

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 »

SW1 wrote:. It’s rumoured to be in the order of 4b a year that needs to be saved that’s an awful lot of infantry!
4 bdes; how many (of light infantry) have we got?
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
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

CameronPerson wrote: but the regular joe on the street is only going to see a further fall in the number of ships the RN have.
It is also these regular Joes that join the navy - and with that sort of prospect they won't.
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