UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5566
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 01 Jan 2019, 23:02

Repulse wrote:leave logistics to the Points

That creates a huge constraint, it means a force must use well developed infrastructure, is that acceptable?

The whole point of the Marines is to have the freedom to land where the enemy is not.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1533
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 02 Jan 2019, 10:29

shark bait wrote:
Repulse wrote:leave logistics to the Points

That creates a huge constraint, it means a force must use well developed infrastructure, is that acceptable?

The whole point of the Marines is to have the freedom to land where the enemy is not.


It’s all down to choices and priorities in my view - there’s no point having landing craft to deploy a brigade level force if it will get sunk on the way in, or once there is basically too weak to defend itself, so it has to be a fairly benign / well prepared landing ground in the first place. The UK cannot afford all the bits to be a mini USMC, so we have to focus on what is important and most likely. Plus working with allies like the US they value our SFs plus having “boots on the ground”.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5566
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 02 Jan 2019, 11:06

Without landing craft the Marines will have to become a lighter and turn into another air mobile brigade, or a heavier and turn into another strike brigade. Laying down a large combat mass without infrastructure remains a valuable capability, and could be key for enabling the strike brigade later on in a campaign.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1533
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 02 Jan 2019, 11:59

shark bait, I’m still in favour of 2-3 RFA LPDs to act as OTH bases to launch fast landing / insertion craft for the RMs. Including craft to land medium vehicles such as the Viking. Just any follow up force would need to be a Strike Brigade whose equipment is coming in on Points.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

Tempest414
Member
Posts: 975
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 02 Jan 2019, 12:06

The way some are talking on here I would say we could do what they are putting forward with no more than just taking over the cross channel ferries as all they want to do is get a strike brigade from one port to another. However by 2007 the Amphibious fleet was made up of

HMS Ocean = LPH
HMS Albion = LPD
3 Bay Class = LSD
4 Point Class = Sealift

So for me I would like to see the Amphib group made of

1 new LPH 230 meters by 40 meters with 8 spots
3 new LSDs 200 meters be 28 meter able to operate 2 LCUs plus 4 LCVP or CB-90s
5 Point class

This to me is the best mix of ships which allows for a number of options and would allow the 2 Carriers to get on with there main task. Plus we could still use the RO PAX ferries as well to move troops & kit on to main land Europe

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 9675
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 02 Jan 2019, 13:06

Tempest414 wrote:no more than just taking over the cross channel ferries


We could (that's not the same as should) "play it again":
" the passenger ferry Norland and Uganda were added to the P&O task force. Uganda had cut short an educational cruise disembarking 944 school children at Naples before being converted to a hospital ship at Gibraltar. With capacity for 1,243 passengers, Norland was an obvious choice as a troop carrier but there was much to be done to increase her capacity to carry fuel, fresh water and food for 60 days at sea. "
... and the "first in" http://www.poheritage.com/Upload/timeli ... orland.jpg

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1533
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 02 Jan 2019, 13:14

Tempest414, I know the line between the Bay LSDs and a LPD is slight, but if you change it to be 3 LPDs with a focus on deployment of RMs rather than logistics I agree with what you’ve laid out.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5566
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 02 Jan 2019, 13:15

That sounds about right, it allows the UK to independently land a reasonable force without any infrastructure, whilst allowing the Marines to plug into a larger US led operation. Is that a reasonable objective for the future?

I would say its still a little down on capacity, so perhaps the future sea lift should have a self supporting ramp to enable offloading onto mexeflote or other landing craft.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 9675
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 02 Jan 2019, 13:58

shark bait wrote:so perhaps the future sea lift should have a self supporting ramp to enable offloading onto mexeflote


I believe 85 tons can go over https://u0v052dm9wl3gxo0y3lx0u44wz-wpen ... ote-01.jpg
and onto a mexeflote... today

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1533
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 02 Jan 2019, 14:19

ArmChairCivvy, I think the government used to help fund some of the U.K. commercial shipping to add changes such as helicopter spots when under STUFT - perhaps some small investment in this area would help also.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

Online
User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1279
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 02 Jan 2019, 17:36

Tempest414 wrote:1 new LPH 230 meters by 40 meters with 8 spots
3 new LSDs 200 meters be 28 meter able to operate 2 LCUs plus 4 LCVP or CB-90s
5 Point class
If we could afford that, great, but I fear it might just get cut again with an unfriendly government in a time of low perceived threat. If there was a cross party commitment to a minimum of 2.5% GDP on defence spending then I think your proposal is credible and sustainable. Without an increase in funding we may be in danger of building an Amphibious fleet for the rest of the world (again).

A few questions,

The LPH would be able to embark 800 to 1000 Marines, about 16 to 18 helicopters and 4 LCVP/CB90's with 8 landing spots?

The LSD's would be able to embark 450 to 500 Marines, 2 to 3 Merlins, 2 LCU's and 4 LCVP/CB90's with 1 landing spot?

The Points would be the same design as existing and unmodified to give maximum value for money?

Just trying to weigh up what your Amphib Task force could achieve.

Jake1992
Member
Posts: 957
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 02 Jan 2019, 18:27

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:1 new LPH 230 meters by 40 meters with 8 spots
3 new LSDs 200 meters be 28 meter able to operate 2 LCUs plus 4 LCVP or CB-90s
5 Point class
If we could afford that, great, but I fear it might just get cut again with an unfriendly government in a time of low perceived threat. If there was a cross party commitment to a minimum of 2.5% GDP on defence spending then I think your proposal is credible and sustainable. Without an increase in funding we may be in danger of building an Amphibious fleet for the rest of the world (again).


The problem I have with a cross party agreement only, is that parties can drastically change over the time periods we'd be looking at just look at the Labour Party today compared to 10 12 years ago. My consern would be would the new style party stick to the agreements of the old ie would a Corby style labour really stick to agreements of a Blair style labour.

I believe a more concrete solution is needed, the budgets needs to be set in law as a minimums GDP with what is classed a defence spend set out in this law just like with the forgien aid budget. To me this is the only way to garenty long term spending on projects that need it.

Iv seen a lot of talk about drastically reducing the amphibious fleet or even just turning it in to a RoRo fleet. For me this would be a large backwards step, there is a reason loads of nations are building or increasing thier current fleets why should we do any different ?

Online
User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1279
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 02 Jan 2019, 18:48

Jake1992 wrote:I believe a more concrete solution is needed, the budgets needs to be set in law as a minimums GDP with what is classed a defence spend set out in this law just like with the forgien aid budget.
I agree, a cross party consensus leading to a law voted through with a massive majority in the Commons would be the ideal outcome.
Jake1992 wrote:Iv seen a lot of talk about drastically reducing the amphibious fleet or even just turning it in to a RoRo fleet. For me this would be a large backwards step, there is a reason loads of nations are building or increasing thier current fleets why should we do any different ?
We shouldn't but we also shouldn't build a force that we can't realistically afford going forward. If we do and it gets cut then we end up with a badly balanced fleet like what we have now.

I believe that we should aim for a modest number of dedicated high spec Amphibs and then the remaining vessels should be amalgamated into the general patrol and logistic fleets. This would make them much more difficult to cut.

Tempest414
Member
Posts: 975
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 02 Jan 2019, 19:59

Poiuytrewq wrote:A few questions,

The LPH would be able to embark 800 to 1000 Marines, about 16 to 18 helicopters and 4 LCVP/CB90's with 8 landing spots?

The LSD's would be able to embark 450 to 500 Marines, 2 to 3 Merlins, 2 LCU's and 4 LCVP/CB90's with 1 landing spot?

The Points would be the same design as existing and unmodified to give maximum value for money?

Just trying to weigh up what your Amphib Task force could achieve.


as I said before I would be looking for

1 x LPH 230 meters long 40 meters beam able to embark 1000 troops operate 25 helicopters from 8 spots plus carry 4 LCVP/ CB-90
3 x LSDs 200 meter long 28 meter beam able to embark 500 troops operate 2 helicopters from 1 spot , 2 LCUs , 4 LCVP/ CB-90s
5 x Point class as are

For me this is affordable and very much doable it also works with the crew numbers we have today . It would be my aim to able to put 2000 to 2500 troops plus there kit shore and support them.

just as a idea of what I am thinking as to helicopters I would look to go with on the LPH

4 x Chinook kept on deck
12 x Merlin HC-4
6 x Apache
and from the LSDs
2 to 3 Battle field wildcats each

SW1
Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 02 Jan 2019, 20:42

In a world of finite budgets choices have to be made or you risk spreading capability to thinly across to many areas. Many argued for the LHD route for getting aviation back to sea as it meant a more balanced option for the uk it was rejected in favour of carrier strike we made our choice, simply don’t have the budget to do both properly.

There is lots of talk of mass and numbers, we don’t have either. Our entire amphibious capability is little more than that delivered by a single US MEU but with much lighter armour and firepower. Mass or anything approaching even a capability to maneaourve against a near peer capability will require the deployment of an army armoured or strike brigade and we arent putting that over a beach and sustaining it.

It’s ultimately what you want them to do, should the marines be a littoral and riverine patrol and assault force or also a ground holding and blocking force or do you leave the later to army brigades.

Jake1992
Member
Posts: 957
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 02 Jan 2019, 21:09

As s nation we have the money and means to keep carrier strike while having a decent if not the best amphibious force out side of the USMC in west, it's down to HMG choices like prioritising things such as foreign aid and hs2 over defence.

We didn't choose carrier strike over amphibious capabilties, when the carrier projected started the idea was to still have a capable amphibious set up but when the crisis hit HMG took defence as the easiest way to save money while at the exact same time bringing in the 0.7% law for forgien aid this shows it was a political choice not financial. In fact of you look the Blair and brown governments were cutting real term defence even during the hight of the boom getting rid of the T22s, 3 T23s and a bay class if I remember rightly.

As it stands we only spend around 1.6% of GDP now compared to the around 2.4% when the carriers started build and 3-3.5% when they were first planed when messured in the same way.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2495
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 03 Jan 2019, 00:31

AS soon as we start talking about increased budget to build a better Navy with new specialised Amphibious Assault platforms we are moving into fantasy fleet territory. Everyone aggress the Military need more money but it isn't going to happen except is the odd bung here and there like happened last year. There is no way the percentage of GDP is going to be made law before the same happens to the NHS, Education and so on. We only did so with the foreign aid budget as it was seen as a small amount and fitted in with the Government's doctrine of using "Soft Power", to increase the UK's status in the world and prevent the need for the use of "Hard Power". That worked out well didn't it.

Scimitar54
Member
Posts: 274
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Scimitar54 » 03 Jan 2019, 02:04

To exert Soft Power, a Country has to have the means to back it up. Maintaining a delusion of Soft Power is what our current Politicians have been trying to do for far too long. Those in other countries know that it is just a case of "The King's New Clothes". We will only get anywhere in this world if we carry a big stick (which we must also be prepared to use) to back up our softly spoken (Soft Power) words. The "Big Stick" in this case has to be big enough to be credible, which our current (or apparent future) Fleet clearly does not. :idea:

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 9675
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 03 Jan 2019, 06:34

Lord Jim wrote: That worked out well didn't it.


Favourite phrase in politics: If facts change, I can...
- the problem is that the body politic tends to be the arbitrator for what the "facts" are

Online
User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1279
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 03 Jan 2019, 08:41

Tempest414 wrote:3 x LSDs 200 meter long 28 meter beam able to embark 500 troops operate 2 helicopters from 1 spot , 2 LCUs , 4 LCVP/ CB-90s
I think this vessel could be more capable than your specifications. Are you proposing stretching the Bays superstructure, working deck or flight deck by 24m?

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1533
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 03 Jan 2019, 11:11

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:3 x LSDs 200 meter long 28 meter beam able to embark 500 troops operate 2 helicopters from 1 spot , 2 LCUs , 4 LCVP/ CB-90s
I think this vessel could be more capable than your specifications. Are you proposing stretching the Bays superstructure, working deck or flight deck by 24m?


At that size you are looking at a RFA version of the San Antonio-class - not so many bells and whistles but gives an idea on capacity.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

Tempest414
Member
Posts: 975
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 03 Jan 2019, 17:17

Poiuytrewq wrote:I think this vessel could be more capable than your specifications. Are you proposing stretching the Bays superstructure, working deck or flight deck by 24m


As I have always said it would be between the working deck and the flight deck to house the hangar and davit for the 2 helicopters and 2 LCVP/CB-90s and as also said before it could carry as many as 4 more LCVPs on the working deck lowered in to the water using the cranes. also the Hangar would have doors opening onto both decks which could allow more helicopters to be stored on the working deck

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1533
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 03 Jan 2019, 17:55

Pretty much the Enforcer 13000 - would need to enlarge the well dock for LCUs rather than LCMs.

https://products.damen.com/en/ranges/la ... dock-13000

Maybe adding another 40m to the length would allow a flight deck for 2 Chinooks, another 200 troops and 2 more LCVPs - then we are in business :P
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2495
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 03 Jan 2019, 18:05

Might as well go for the Johan de Witt design as that covers all the bases and is in service with the Dutch.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 9675
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 03 Jan 2019, 21:06

Lord Jim wrote:Johan de Witt design as that covers all the bases

Karel Doorman being the JSS... just wondering if the same hull could cover our bases, going forward
- I am saying this without knowing how much the the two mentioned Dutch ships actually share
- while acknowledging that we decided to specialise between the Tides and the FSSs, which is the right decision
- but we also decided to knock the third leg off that stool (seabasing)


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Poiuytrewq and 21 guests