Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by jedibeeftrix »

Lord Jim wrote:With no new money planned, and I doubt we will see any even in the nest 10 year plan either, something has got to give. For the Navy that has to be its over the beach amphibious capability in that it will need to be cut back to where it is capable of company sized operations at the most. The fact that pressure has led to the retention of both Albions is a mistake in my mind. They are a legacy from the dream that once existed of the UK having a significant amphibious capability, second only to the US within NATO.
In your opinion, right? ;)

Not in mine.
I'm happy to accept that we never fully funded the ability to operate 3Cdo over a beach as a brigade (though it was quite close in the early noughties).
That said, I've yet to be convinced that ending amphibious operations at combined-arms BG level is anything but foolish (it is the insurance policy that makes strike viable).
Equally, i've yet to be convinced that keeping a capability of deploying 1900 ATFG - less than a third of the original ambition - is unaffordable (don't need more Light Infantry).

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

jedibeeftrix wrote:I've yet to be convinced that ending amphibious operations at combined-arms BG level is anything but foolish (it is the insurance policy that makes strike viable).
Against what level of opposition do you think this is useful? Is a serria leone opposition how far up the scale to we go. If it’s a uk only operation were really not much beyond the very bottom of the scale. The uk force is less capable than a marine meu, so it certainly wouldn’t be advisable to use it against a force requiring something as capable as a strike brigade sized deployment.

It’s as simple as this in affordability terms you have continuous carrier strike or a amphib capability but you can’t have both.

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:The uk force is less capable than a marine meu, so it certainly wouldn’t be advisable to use it against a force requiring something as capable as a strike brigade sized deployment.
That is exactly it: ours is a "lead force" and a MEU has been planned for sub-bde, independent ops
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 »

That is what I am trying to work out, what size of "Lead" force is required, what should be its make up and is that affordable. Then we can work out what types and number of true amphibious shipping we need. But I still place the need to have sufficient sea lift in place within the RFA to rapidly move a brigade of any type should be the funding and capability priority.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote:It’s as simple as this in affordability terms you have continuous carrier strike or a amphib capability but you can’t have both.
While we keep making decisions based on the popular vote we can't have both i.e keeping Bulwark in reserve. However as I said before had we sold Bulwark and refitted the 3 Bays as in option 1 of this thread plus put one more Point class on contract we could still have a useful amphib capability of

1 x Albion class capable of C&C , 400 troops , 4 x LCU , 4 x LCVP + vehicles
3 x Bay class capable of 350 troops , 1 LCU , 2 x LCVP , 2 x Helicopter + vehicles
1 x Argus capable of Medical and 6 Helicopter
5 x Point class sea lift

Or 1400 troops , 7 LCUs , 10 LCVP , 12 helicopters + plus Mexeflotes from the Point class all supported by a carrier

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

To an extent this is a gd example of there being little joined up thinking. If instead of banging the carrier strike drum and considered a more expeditionary strike group arrangement with less emphasis and smaller numbers of the fixed wing element and more the rotary with buy in from an expanded Chinook force instead of green merlin (re roles the greens to grey merlin) and apache forces the carriers could operate more like the America and tripoli and had the army gone for the patria amv option you could of purchased some of the amphibious versions for the marines and then when it came to deploying a strike brigade using the point ships your marine battlegroup could of attached and manoeuvred and been a full part of the deployed brigade.

As it is we looked to the extremes and are now in a betwixt and between had we not we could then of lead to a high and low readiness meu providing defence with global Intervention force.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

If the Goverment had maintained defence spending at the level it was (and needed to be) then a choice would not be necessary. This is the result of the "Own Goals" scored by the Goverments in the period from about 2005 ( and particularly from 2010). They are still doing it by claiming a questionable 2% defence spending. Neither pensions nor the deterrent really belong within the 2%. This is putting a massive distortion in defence spending. We should be pushing the Government to do it's first duty, not accommodating their mismanagement of defence. :idea:

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Pongoglo »

Tempest414 wrote:
SW1 wrote:It’s as simple as this in affordability terms you have continuous carrier strike or a amphib capability but you can’t have both.
While we keep making decisions based on the popular vote we can't have both i.e keeping Bulwark in reserve. However as I said before had we sold Bulwark and refitted the 3 Bays as in option 1 of this thread plus put one more Point class on contract we could still have a useful amphib capability of

1 x Albion class capable of C&C , 400 troops , 4 x LCU , 4 x LCVP + vehicles
3 x Bay class capable of 350 troops , 1 LCU , 2 x LCVP , 2 x Helicopter + vehicles
1 x Argus capable of Medical and 6 Helicopter
5 x Point class sea lift

Or 1400 troops , 7 LCUs , 10 LCVP , 12 helicopters + plus Mexeflotes from the Point class all supported by a carrier
I like your thinking but less one Point (where did you get your fifth Point back from?) Isn't this exactly what the DefSec has just announced we ARE going to have? Plus having the added value of Bulwark in reserve and in extremis she could be brought back to life for a Falklands style 'surge'? In the event that's exactly what happened with Fearless and Intrepid in 1982, in fact they rotated in this manner for much of their lives, as Albion and Bulwark are doing now ?

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

There were 6 Points to start with 2 of which have been released from the contract so if the the MOD wish they could ask Foreland shipping to add another. The point are not a MOD design there are a number of this class of ship out there

Also could the LCACs be operated from the Point class using memeflotes as a steel beech

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Pongoglo »

Tempest414 wrote:There were 6 Points to start with 2 of which have been released from the contract so if the the MOD wish they could ask Foreland shipping to add another. The point are not a MOD design there are a number of this class of ship out there

Also could the LCACs be operated from the Point class using memeflotes as a steel beech
The Point class have already exercised with mexifloates, in fact they used to do it quiet a lot. Not much use over an open beach with moderate to heavy sea's but in a sheltered anchorage such as San Carlos or a Norwegian fiord can work quiet well. Do Foreland still own Point's five and six and lease them out ? Thought they had been sold...

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Some members here including myself have been advocating for the installation of a medium calibre gun and CAMM on the Amphibs to back up the Phalanx and 30mm's even if it's only FFBNW.

Looks like the French are now heading that direction.

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.p ... otlog.html

Could one of these 40mm options be used to provide a more cost effective CIWS solution rather than the current 30mm and Phalanx setup which could be rolled out on more RN and RFA vessels?

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Commonality with the army’s 40mm cannon in Ajax perhaps that will never catch on

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Some members here including myself have been advocating for the installation of a medium calibre gun and CAMM on the Amphibs to back up the Phalanx and 30mm's even if it's only FFBNW.

Looks like the French are now heading that direction
Doesn't seem to be to me. Mostly just standard autocannons with a touch of air targeting (none demonstrated to the level of CIWS and its automation though), and a couple Mistral missiles (which are basically Starstreak in terms of range).

Nothing different from most ships, and a huge step away from things like medium calibre guns and CAMM.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

RetroSicotte wrote:Doesn't seem to be to me. Mostly just standard autocannons with a touch of air targeting (none demonstrated to the level of CIWS and its automation though), and a couple Mistral missiles (which are basically Starstreak in terms of range).

Nothing different from most ships, and a huge step away from things like medium calibre guns and CAMM.
Fair enough, your view is clear.

A couple of queries

How long do you think the 2x 30mm and 2x Phalanx combination will be a sufficient defensive arrangement on the Auxiliaries and Amphibs?

With the introduction of the T31 is now not the ideal time to look at introducing a new weapon system in the 35mm to 76mm category that can double up as a secondary CIWS when the Phalanx isn't fitted?

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

Poiuytrewq wrote:How long do you think the 2x 30mm and 2x Phalanx combination will be a sufficient defensive arrangement on the Auxiliaries and Amphibs?
Given how little Phalanx has been tested in real conditions, it's difficult for us to say. In current budget reality, it's enough given their role. In peer warfare, harder to say.

The older aux. designs having provision for Sea Wolf may be an indication of how the RN thinks when given budget though; granted that was also because they had to move with surface escorts for ASW.

Given choices, I'd say something like RAM might be a good budget aware choice to protect them without needing a full SAM fitting + radar...were things not in the budget crisis they are now.
With the introduction of the T31 is now not the ideal time to look at introducing a new weapon system in the 35mm to 76mm category that can double up as a secondary CIWS when the Phalanx isn't fitted?
76mm I think has a high possibility of entering the navy due to T31, so not impossible. Especially as I've said that 2x licence built or "similar concept to" Trieste class LHDs would be the perfect replacement for the Albions/Ocean to work alongside the QEs for a 4 "big ship" fleet down from the 5-6 the RN had a decade ago. The Trieste is already fitted for 76mm space after all.

The dual island being a full fleet thing has clearly nothing to do with it, not OCD about that at all. :D

35mm, I highly doubt it. It's not that big a change from Phalanx, and actually less than it in some software aspects.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

I'd like to see 1 seaRAM and 1 phalanx system plus 2 30mm ( for now ) with maybe them replaced by the ct40 derivative to have comonality with the army.

I believe this would be surficent for RFA vessels.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.p ... -2018.html

Very fast, travelling at over 20 knots with a 65-tonne payload and over 35 knots with no cargo, the LCX – or Landing Craft Multi-Missions unveiled at Euronaval 2018 by CNIM is a dockable craft of Naval Forces specialising in the reconnaissance, preparation and execution of maritime and amphibious operations from a mothership.

With extremely high degrees of seaworthiness and manoeuvrability and designed with a 360° wheelhouse and a built-in command post, the LCX can accommodate anti-submarine and mine warfare troop detachments for conducting or joining reconnaissance, identification and threat-neutralisation operations.

Albion’s and bays a new role

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

It's quite large at just under 30m long by 6.5m wide, would we still be able to fit 4 in the Albions well dock ?

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Jake1992 wrote:It's quite large at just under 30m long by 6.5m wide, would we still be able to fit 4 in the Albions well dock ?
Yes, I think they will fit but they are without the roll on/roll off design so loading and unloading would be more difficult and time consuming.

I still think the Caiman 90 is the one to beat for an LCU replacement. At 22knts fully loaded or 40knts with a light load it's an impressive concept.

https://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/6098037/ ... imen90.pdf

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

It was the multi mission element that caught my eye more than the pure lcu one. A possible guide to the future.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Wonder if you could get a captas-4 compact sonar on to that lcu. Would be interesting if you could share the data with several of these deploying it.
Or even some of the MCM systems

Would be an interesting demonstration if we had a ship yard looking for work who fancied building a few LCU type vessels wouldn’t be the biggest expense to try.

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 »

Interesting concept, but not clear in their article.

Initiated from it, we can search several examples for sonars to be carried on it, as well as other candidate hulls. We do not need to invent it, there are some examples around the globe. They tell us the efficiency of those assets. For me, it shall be a shallow water, continuous "sneaking" ASW asset.

1: CPATAS-1
It is designed for a ship with length longer than 30m. Which means, it can be carried in LCX or even Caimen-90 based hull.
https://www.thalesgroup.com/sites/defau ... ptas-1.pdf
Problems will be the ship stability, but I think it is doable.

2: ST2400 VDS sonar can be surely carried.
Yet another candidate for sonar on such vessel. This is Swedish navy and Finnish navies' main sonar, so surely effective in Baltic Sea. Also, North Sea, Irish Sea, and Persian Gulf. Good candidate.
https://www.km.kongsberg.com/ks/web/nok ... ion_lr.pdf
Finnish_Rauma-class_missile_boat_FNS_Naantali_(PTG_73).jpg
Raahe_Kotka_2013_4.JPG
To imagine the hull size and form, not only the BMT Caimen-90 but other inshore patrol crafts can be a good example. First of all, this is a small patrol boat used for ASW.

- Swedish inshore patrol boat, Tapper-class
For super shallow water ASW. Can Albion carry them? Can they be effective in, North Sea, Irish Sea, and Persian Gulf?
Displacement: 62 tons / Length: 23 meters / Beam: 5,4 meters / Draught: 1,9 meters / Armed with SAAB Dynamics ASW-601 antisubmarine grenade, with modified SIMRAD SS576 sonars.
https://www.marinelink.com/news/kongsbe ... trol394290
600px-Tapper_Class_ships.jpg
- Another candidate like RNZN Moa-class IPV, 27m long?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moa-class_patrol_boat
HMNZS_Wakakura_(P3555).jpg
- Or, Australian Pacific forum class PC, 31m long?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific-class_patrol_boat
600px-HMPNGS_Dreger_(P02)_-_RAN-IFR_2013_D3_71.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Donald of Tokyo

I would really like to see people inovate more in this area as technology has allowed systems to be separated from tradition platforms we should be getting into this in a big way. Austerity is the mother of invention. As you’ve shown from your research we wouldn’t need to invent much the systems seem to already be there it will be getting someone to put all the bits together. For relatively limited sums we could try lots of things simply by repackaging them and using one of our dock ships to start instead keeping it tied up.

I believe ships with dock that can stay deployed will become the ships to have going fwd. We have 5 such ships time to take a calculated risks and try something new the large flexible mother ship is here.

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 »

BAE gave a good summary in the "round table" by navyrecognition:
" The main reason for having guns on board Logistic Support vessels is normally to give the ship some level of self-protection within certain ranges. The performance of Bofors 40 Mk4 match that requirement. The compact design and low weight of the gun makes it easy to install also on limited deck areas. The gun can be installed without any deck penetration.

Compared to the other gun systems mentioned we have a big advantage with our 3P munition. They all have their pros and cons also;

Leonardo Forty Light doesn't exist on the market yet so its performance and maturity is unknown
Rheinmetall (Millenium) is more of a CIWS and does not offer the range or flexibility of Bofors 40Mk4
Thales / Nexter (with a naval variant of RapidFire 40mm with 40CTA gun): This system is far from ready and will likely require a huge NRE and five more years before its ready for the market. Also the range is poor compared to 40Mk4."

We should not go looking for a new CIWS and an all-rounder in the same package (as was stated upthread, from light frigates up the medium gun + CAMM combo is already there)
- whereas for logs & amph. shipping we should up the game, and get an all-rounder onboard
- for me, the one to fit "the bill" would be the Bofors 40 (it is quite a different thing from what you could buy 10 years ago... no need to go back to WW2 :D )
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
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

Image

The French tested something similar a while bay, trialing the CAPTAS 1 form the back of their LCAT landing craft.
https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.p ... -2018.html

Can't be too much of a big deal to fit a dipping sonar to the back of any craft, they're small and light by design.
@LandSharkUK

Post Reply