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
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1455
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 03 Jan 2019, 22:08

Tempest414 wrote:
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
Thanks. I remember you stating that in the past but I think with a 24m stretch in that area you will actually end up with 2 landing spots as the funnels will be relocated in the new hanger and also around an extra 400sqm on the tank deck.

The bit I still don't understand is how a stretch in the area you propose will enlarge the EMF capacity by 150? An extra 150 marines will take up a lot of space.

This graphic might help illustrate what I mean.
image.jpg
Loads of options to increase the EMF to 500 but a 24m amidships stretch won't achieve it without an internal reconfiguration forward of the tank deck or an enlargement of the superstructure.

The one thing that would be pretty straightforward would be to enlarge the well dock to 4 LCU capacity.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1150
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 03 Jan 2019, 22:21

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:
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
Thanks. I remember you stating that in the past but I think with a 24m stretch in that area you will actually end up with 2 landing spots as the funnels will be relocated in the new hanger and also around an extra 400sqm on the tank deck.

The bit I still don't understand is how a stretch in the area you propose will enlarge the EMF capacity by 150? An extra 150 marines will take up a lot of space.

This graphic might help illustrate what I mean.
image.jpg
Loads of options to increase the EMF to 500 but a 24m amidships stretch won't achieve it without an internal reconfiguration forward of the tank deck or an enlargement of the superstructure.

The one thing that would be pretty straightforward would be to enlarge the well dock to 4 LCU capacity.


Wouldn't using the karldoorman hull as the base for tempest design be a better fit ? It's already 205m by 30m so closer fits the desired size.
Say remove the replenish Equiment, put a twin LCU well dock in and if more room is needed for troops extend the super structure back to where the current replenishment equipment sits and in doing so move the hanger in to this new area.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2968
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 04 Jan 2019, 01:35

This is sort of reinventing the wheel here, look at the Johan de Witt and Rotterdam platforms and you have what you have been suggesting, both based on the Enforcer hull. Both these designs are very versatile platforms and basically able to do everything an Albion or Bay can do and then some but cheaper than the former by quite a margin I believe. Either would make an excellent new platform for the RN or RFA, replacing both the previously mentioned classes. Four of these vessels, either one type or the other or a combination for both, when combined with the Points would give the UK great Amphibious/Sea Lift capability. One they could also be utilised as a replacement for Argus, especially the Rotterdam class.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 04 Jan 2019, 04:21

Poiuytrewq wrote:to enlarge the well dock to 4 LCU capacity.


Until this is done, they will stay LSA(L)s.

And with the above step, they still won't be of the naval std designed to take several punishment
... so only for OTH then. Or, second wave, which type of staging of an Op may not be acceptable?
- which means that we will need to invest in faster ship-to-shore connectors. of LCU dimensions, for interchangeability (on the fly, and between ships while on ops)

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 1695
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Location: Australia

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby R686 » 04 Jan 2019, 05:01

From memory the PPP for the Point class finishes in 2024, only five years away. Is their any indication on that outcome?

Does that mean an extension to the contract or is another build in the pipe?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 04 Jan 2019, 05:34

R686 wrote:Does that mean an extension to the contract or is another build in the pipe?


I don't think it means anything in itself; remember how smoothly 2 of the original 6 were released from the contract.

Along with the ships the great asset is their crew: they are not RFA, but sponsored reserves. Which means that their work contract has that contract embedded
- we haven't heard of anything like the recruitment/ retention crisis in the wider RFA
- also, the number (4) makes it easy to take one out of water, for any of the modifications proposed on these pages... even if such a thing would only constitute baby steps towards an improved design later, when the time comes for a new-build

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1697
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 04 Jan 2019, 10:03

My view is that without significantly more first rate escorts (T26 like not T31) then any amphibious operations that are not OTH will be restricted to scenarios where there is either a secured port or the enemy is a very small (and reducing) number of third world countries without any defence relationship to Russia or China (who will provide A2/AD weapons like in Syria).

Even then we need strong anti A2/AD capabilities, delivered though new standoff weapons, unmannned vehicles and SFs.
"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: 5715
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 04 Jan 2019, 10:51

Lord Jim wrote:This is sort of reinventing the wheel here, look at the Johan de Witt and Rotterdam platforms

They are some fine examples, they would do everything we need them to. They need different sized LCU, but that should be little issue because the Marines need new faster ones any way.

A modernised Ocean plus a handful of modernised Johan-de-Witt could make an effective and flexible assault / general purpose fleet.

Repulse wrote:My view is that without significantly more first rate escorts (T26 like not T31) then any amphibious operations that are not OTH will be restricted to scenarios where there is either a secured port or the enemy is a very small


Yes, that is the benefit of mobility by sea, is gives the freedom to land where the enemy is small.

Plus coming soon the UK will have a greater ability to reduce the enemies A2/AD than ever before.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 04 Jan 2019, 11:32

shark bait wrote:Plus coming soon the UK will have a greater ability to reduce the enemies A2/AD than ever before.


What :angel: Christmas not over yet :) ? Tell us more

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1151
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 04 Jan 2019, 11:54

Just a side step I was looking at images of the Rotterdam class and came across pics of the Nov 1 2018 Norway Ex with a amphibious task group made up of SNMG-1 the 2 Rotterdam's + a Mistral would be interesting to know how that went

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1455
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 04 Jan 2019, 14:47

The Johan De Witt shows how big and bulky a truly balanced platform needs to be to fit in all those troops, helicopters and vehicles.


Johan De Witt
176m X 29m
EMF: 550
2x LCU plus 4x LCVP
4 Merlin Hanger
2 Landing spots
Extensive C&C facilities
Role 2 Medical facility
image.jpg
A very impressive vessel.

I believe designs like the Johan De Witt prove that RN doesn't need 3 dedicated LPD's going forward. In my opinion 2 large LPD's plus a 40,000t LHD backed up by modified Points is the most efficient and cost effective way forward.

How capable is a 200m LPD?


Johan De Witt 200
200m X 29m
EMF: 650
4x LCU plus 4x LCVP/CB90
6 Merlin Hanger
3 Landing spots
Extensive C&C facilities
Role 2 Medical facility
Raised working deck/ flight deck with direct access to medical facilities

image.jpg

As raised previously, would RN accept Enforcer type build standards for its next generation of LPD's? I'm not sure.

Is the radar profile simply too large?

If these issues rule out the Albions being replaced with Enforcer derived designs then we are probably looking at 2 strongly built but fairly basic LHD in RN service backed up by 2 next generation RFA Bays. Not a bad outcome.

The other alternative is to add the C&C facilities to PoW and the single very large LHD and introduce two RFA 200m Johan De Witt type vessels. This could be the way planning is now heading. I believe this is the cheapest credible option.

Of course a Wasp and 2 San Antonio's would solve all the problems :D
image.jpg
image.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1150
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 04 Jan 2019, 15:12

Poiuytrewq wrote:The Johan De Witt shows how big and bulky a truly balanced platform needs to be to fit in all those troops, helicopters and vehicles.


Johan De Witt
176m X 29m
EMF: 550
2x LCU plus 4x LCVP
4 Merlin Hanger
2 Landing spots
Extensive C&C facilities
Role 2 Medical facility
image.jpg
A very impressive vessel.

I believe designs like the Johan De Witt prove that RN doesn't need 3 dedicated LPD's going forward. In my opinion 2 large LPD's plus a 40,000t LHD backed up by modified Points is the most efficient and cost effective way forward.

How capable is a 200m LPD?


Johan De Witt 200
200m X 29m
EMF: 650
4x LCU plus 4x LCVP/CB90
6 Merlin Hanger
3 Landing spots
Extensive C&C facilities
Role 2 Medical facility
Raised working deck/ flight deck with direct access to medical facilities

image.jpg

As raised previously, would RN accept Enforcer type build standards for its next generation of LPD's? I'm not sure.

Is the radar profile simply too large?

If these issues rule out the Albions being replaced with Enforcer derived designs then we are probably looking at 2 strongly built but fairly basic LHD in RN service backed up by 2 next generation RFA Bays. Not a bad outcome.

The other alternative is to add the C&C facilities to PoW and the single very large LHD and introduce two RFA 200m Johan De Witt type vessels. This could be the way planning is now heading. I believe this is the cheapest credible option.

Of course a Wasp and 2 San Antonio's would solve all the problems :D
image.jpg
image.jpg


Would you be able to show a Karl doorman vessel with replenishment equipment replaced with an extended super structure like you have above. I believe this would be a more suitable hull design to start with as its already suitable dimensions wise, it also has a lower radar footprint than the enforcer classes due to its sloppong sides.
It already has a twin chinook flight deck so could easily handle 3 or even 4 Merlin spots abd already has a hanger large enough for 6 merlins or 2 chinooks blades unfolded ( maybe 3 with folding blades ).
Moving the hanger and flight control rooms further back would free up a large amount of space for accommodation, with its length and beam being greater than the Albions a 4 lcu well dock would fit nicely.

A San Antonio is just too man power intensive where as the above would offer about the same but with a much reduced crew.
This is the same reason a wasp class would be out of the question but something similar to the new Italian design would be spot on.
The big thing though is I couldnt see us ever choosing a foreign design if we ever went the LHD rout, a vessel of that prouese in the fleet would have to be a britsh design.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1697
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 04 Jan 2019, 15:52

A large LHD plus 2 large RFA LPDs would do it (just), but would go for 3 slightly smaller LPDs as it would give the redundancy of either LHD + 2 LPDs or CVF + 3 LPDs.

I also think the RN needs also to be more creative about how it can part fund civilian ships that can be used as STUFT and investing more in the Merchant Navy.
"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
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1697
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 04 Jan 2019, 16:16

An interesting alternative / supplementary model that the USN is trialling which is a DD+LPD package.

https://news.usni.org/2019/01/03/navy-t ... deployment

Wouldn’t think the RN has the funds to copy in addition to supporting the ability to land a larger 2,000 RM battlegroup. Also, I guess a similar RN combination would require a LPD + T45 AAW + T26/T23 ASW force.
"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
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1455
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 04 Jan 2019, 17:23

Jake1992 wrote:Would you be able to show a Karl doorman vessel with replenishment equipment replaced with an extended super structure like you have above. I believe this would be a more suitable hull design to start with as its already suitable dimensions wise, it also has a lower radar footprint than the enforcer classes due to its sloppong sides.
The Karel Doorman JSS isn't an Amphibious vessel it's a logistics vessel. It's an attractive design but I don't think it's clear yet that an Amphibious version is even viable.

The refreshed Enforcer designs are very similar and can be scaled up if required.

Karel Doorman JSS
image.jpg

Enforcer 13000
image.jpg

Enforcer 10000
image.jpg


The initial concept for the UK's FSS were very Enforcer like and did contain a well dock which would have been a massive step in the right direction.
image.jpg
image.jpg
image.jpg
If this design had of been carried forward the RFA could of had a scalable and reconfigurable design with high levels of commonality that could have been built in fairly decent numbers. The beam looks to be in excess of 30m and with RAS rigs removed and the hanger pushed forward it would have been an excellent addition to the Amphibious fleet. Let's keep our fingers crossed that sense prevails :thumbup:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1150
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 04 Jan 2019, 18:40

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:Would you be able to show a Karl doorman vessel with replenishment equipment replaced with an extended super structure like you have above. I believe this would be a more suitable hull design to start with as its already suitable dimensions wise, it also has a lower radar footprint than the enforcer classes due to its sloppong sides.
The Karel Doorman JSS isn't an Amphibious vessel it's a logistics vessel. It's an attractive design but I don't think it's clear yet that an Amphibious version is even viable.

The refreshed Enforcer designs are very similar and can be scaled up if required.

Karel Doorman JSS
image.jpg

Enforcer 13000
image.jpg

Enforcer 10000
image.jpg


The initial concept for the UK's FSS were very Enforcer like and did contain a well dock which would have been a massive step in the right direction.
image.jpg
image.jpg
image.jpg
If this design had of been carried forward the RFA could of had a scalable and reconfigurable design with high levels of commonality that could have been built in fairly decent numbers. The beam looks to be in excess of 30m and with RAS rigs removed and the hanger pushed forward it would have been an excellent addition to the Amphibious fleet. Let's keep our fingers crossed that sense prevails :thumbup:


Oh I complety understand that the Karl doorman isn't an amphibious set up as is but I was more thinking that the basic design of the hull and superstructure lay out would be a very good starting point for an LPD, as already said it already has the perfect hanger size and flight deck size for what's needed and with its current length and beam would suit very well for the necersary changes to be made.

I do really like the look of the enforcers 10,000 design there Iv never seen that version before, the only thing that is lacking is a double chinook deck instead of double merlin.

Yes I complety agree wth what you are saying about the original SSS concept design, if the dimension are in the area of 205m-215m in length and 30m-32m in beam a set of 3 different classes could be formed from the one basic design
1 - a fast solid store ship as shown above

2 - a LPD, by getting rid of all rass kit englarging and pushing the hanger back to allow a double chinook flight deck, enlarge the well dock to 4 lcu and enlarge the forward super structure to meet the new position of the hanger.

3 - an LSD remove the rass kit and replace with a work deck with 2 large cranes, maybe enlarge the well dock to 2 LCUs

The LPD version would have to be built to a higher standard but it could be a very useful and versitle design.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1455
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 04 Jan 2019, 22:21

Jake1992 wrote:....I was more thinking that the basic design of the hull and superstructure lay out would be a very good starting point for an LPD, as already said it already has the perfect hanger size and flight deck size for what's needed and with its current length and beam would suit very well for the necersary changes to be made.
I agree it's a good configuration but it would need major adaptations to convert to an LPD..
image.jpg
With the RAS rigs removed, the amount of deck space is vast so an increase in superstructure is perfectly possible. Personally I would add a large deck garage, big enough to hold 6 Merlins.
image.jpg
This structure would double as a raised working deck above the garage. The current hanger in the superstructure is using up over 3000sqm of space that could be used for troop accommodation or medical facilities.
I do really like the look of the enforcers 10,000 design there Iv never seen that version before, the only thing that is lacking is a double chinook deck instead of double merlin.
Its a great design, simple, straightforward and cost effective. The modular construction also helps with the scalable nature of the design.
image.jpg
image.jpg
image.jpg
image.jpg

.....a set of 3 different classes could be formed from the one basic design
1 - a fast solid store ship as shown above

2 - a LPD, by getting rid of all rass kit englarging and pushing the hanger back to allow a double chinook flight deck, enlarge the well dock to 4 lcu and enlarge the forward super structure to meet the new position of the hanger.

3 - an LSD remove the rass kit and replace with a work deck with 2 large cranes, maybe enlarge the well dock to 2 LCUs

The LPD version would have to be built to a higher standard but it could be a very useful and versitle design.
Exactly. By introducing a class of vessels such as you describe compromises would have to be made but due to the economies of scale it may lead to more vessels in the water and reduced operating costs going forward.

As you say removing the RAS rigs would open up a large space amidships for a working deck.
image.jpg
This design seems to offer so much its mystifying (at least to me) why it's not being considered more seriously. A large order of these vessels would help secure large parts of UK shipbuilding for decades and the economies of scale would give RN/RFA what they need at a price the country can afford.

I think savings such as this are important and with a bit of forethought and planning the same format could bring similar results in the T26 and MHPC programmes.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1697
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 04 Jan 2019, 22:57

Controversial idea, but thinking about how keeping the RFA LSDs as OTH support ships for a the initial phase along with a new LHA for aviation Assault, but additionally build 3-4 large @120m fast LSTs that would act as the ship to shore connectors. Each with the ability to land a couple of companies of RMs / Stike troops on a beach with vehicles, 4 LCVPs and hangar for a couple of Wildcats. Add in a medium gun and CAMM and you’ve got a good all rounder able to get to the shore without a significant number of escorts. Something like a modern version of the Shardul class - being 120m long would be able to sail independently with any task force.
"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: 2968
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 04 Jan 2019, 23:16

I must admit I am bemused by the obsession here for any amphibious vessel to be able to operate the Chinook. The primary ship to shore amphibious helicopter we would use is the Merlin HC4 not the Chinook. Yes we would use them once ashore and lily padding from the Carrier to collect loads from a LPD to move ashore would probably happen, but a flight deck able to accommodate two Merlins should easily be able to handle single Chinook operations.

I also think we are over thinking all this. As pointed out there are designs for what we need out there and actually ships in service. Having one Rotterdam and three John de Witt replace out two Albions and the Bays, with the Former manned by the RN and the latter three by the RFA would meet all our needs, especially when supplemented by the Points. One of the Johan de Witts could also act as a replacement for HMS Argus When required, with its crew supplemented with RN and FAA personnel.

They are large ships with corresponding large RCS but as mentioned they are large ships. Trying to incorporate low vis characteristics into any vessel this large will dramatically increase costs. Then again the whole idea is to land either at a friendly port or other benign location not into the face of the enemy.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1150
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 04 Jan 2019, 23:29

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:....I was more thinking that the basic design of the hull and superstructure lay out would be a very good starting point for an LPD, as already said it already has the perfect hanger size and flight deck size for what's needed and with its current length and beam would suit very well for the necersary changes to be made.
I agree it's a good configuration but it would need major adaptations to convert to an LPD..
image.jpg
With the RAS rigs removed, the amount of deck space is vast so an increase in superstructure is perfectly possible. Personally I would add a large deck garage, big enough to hold 6 Merlins.
image.jpg
This structure would double as a raised working deck above the garage. The current hanger in the superstructure is using up over 3000sqm of space that could be used for troop accommodation or medical facilities.
I do really like the look of the enforcers 10,000 design there Iv never seen that version before, the only thing that is lacking is a double chinook deck instead of double merlin.
Its a great design, simple, straightforward and cost effective. The modular construction also helps with the scalable nature of the design.
image.jpg
image.jpg
image.jpg
image.jpg

.....a set of 3 different classes could be formed from the one basic design
1 - a fast solid store ship as shown above

2 - a LPD, by getting rid of all rass kit englarging and pushing the hanger back to allow a double chinook flight deck, enlarge the well dock to 4 lcu and enlarge the forward super structure to meet the new position of the hanger.

3 - an LSD remove the rass kit and replace with a work deck with 2 large cranes, maybe enlarge the well dock to 2 LCUs

The LPD version would have to be built to a higher standard but it could be a very useful and versitle design.
Exactly. By introducing a class of vessels such as you describe compromises would have to be made but due to the economies of scale it may lead to more vessels in the water and reduced operating costs going forward.

As you say removing the RAS rigs would open up a large space amidships for a working deck.
image.jpg
This design seems to offer so much its mystifying (at least to me) why it's not being considered more seriously. A large order of these vessels would help secure large parts of UK shipbuilding for decades and the economies of scale would give RN/RFA what they need at a price the country can afford.

I think savings such as this are important and with a bit of forethought and planning the same format could bring similar results in the T26 and MHPC programmes.


In regards to the Karl doorman part this is exactly what I was thinking moving the current hanger in to the new super structure area free up space for the extra troops it would be the European version of a San Antonio class really.

Yes I am too very bemused at the seemingly lack of intreast from the RN in regards to that certain SSS concept design as it offers so much and such a flexiblity for the over all fleet.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3000
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 05 Jan 2019, 02:51

Damen Enforcer Design

https://products.damen.com/-/media/Prod ... _Docks.pdf
スクリーンショット 2019-01-05 10.32.01.jpg
スクリーンショット 2019-01-05 11.51.53.jpg
Note that Enforcer 7000-10000 with narrow beam (24.8m) carries 2 LCM, not LCU.

I regard;
- Bay class (beam 26.5 m) is similar to "Enforcer 15000" (slightly larger beam for tilted side wall?).
- HNLMS Johan de Witt (beam 29 m) will be "Enforcer 18000", and Rotterdam (beam 27m) "Enforcer 13000".
- Spanish Garcia (beam 25m) will be also "Enforcer 13000", but with narrower beam.

I also understand RN LCU Mk.10 (30x7.7 m) cannot be embarked in Rotterdam. Netherlands' LCU is much narrower and longer (36x6.9 m).

Also, we can see Bay class is particularly efficient but less capable. It has less crew (core RFA 70 + RN additional + RM), smaller well-dock (but anyway Bay might not be able to have 2 LCU-wide dock), and no helo hangar.

<< Personally opinion>>
A: Efficiency is the key
As German ship builder guy was saying in some exhibition, "landing ships is starving for peace time operations". The reason why Bay-class LSD is used for APT-N and not Albion-class LPD is clear = much efficient. Bays are "spot on" for Caribbean operation AND logistic landing support. If we make it "HNLMS Johan de Witt", I think UK will not be able to have the same hull number as Bays.

Bay class is very versatile because it is cheap to operate = less capable. Capability sacrifices efficiency. Efficiency is essential as a "damage control" against harsh budgetary condition. If the ship saved hundreds of live last year in HADR at Caribbean sea, it is politically very difficult to disband her. But, it the ship is moored on the port because of lack of crew and fuel, she is very vulnerable. For example, Bulwark (and Albion) was on big danger for disbanding last year, but little was discussed about disbanding Bays.

B: My proposal
I understand the plan to have a large LHD and 2 large LPDs (cost will not allow more). But I personally think 1 LPH and 3 Bay-like (but with 2 LCU and 1-2 Merlin hangar and 2 Mexefloats) will be better.

1: LHD vs LPH

The LHD will be need to have high level of damage control because it must go near ashore to use her well-dock. On the contrary, the LPH will not be needed to have such damage control because it does NOT need to go near ashore. Also, this ship will be at least 5000t smaller than LHD (no well dock). Combined, LPH will be considerably cheaper than LHD, allowing more resource left for LPD/LSD replacements.

Also, are we going to operate LHD like LPD? (go near ashore for LCU/LCVP/ORC assault ?) I do not think so. At the initial phase, LHD will be operated as LPH, no well-dock operations. Only in the second wave, it's well-dock will be used.

This is NOT the same for US Navy/Marine. They have significant numbers of LCAC. RN do not and will not. LCAT or Carmen 90 is not as fast as LCAC (QinetiQ PACSCAT is dead, as I understand)

2: LPD/LSD
My proposal will be 3 Bays with enhanced damage control (and therefore only 3 will be there). It can be based on Enforcer 20000, but we seriously need to consider how to operate them with smaller crew.

Personally, I think 1 ship shall be "fully-manned" with crew of 170 RN, while the other 2 with reduced crew of 100 RFA (+RN added). This "2 crew plan" needs to be implemented in the design. Not easy, but doable I think.

Less armaments, less landing crafts, letting some of the damage control system with no crew (keep the redundancy control room vacant), only use half of the water pumps for well-dock to reduce maintenance load, less watch crew, less fire fighting (rely on firewalls), etc...

3: C&C systems
These systems will be onboard the LPH and PoW CV. This will reduce the crew need onboard the LSDs significantly.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 05 Jan 2019, 04:10

Jake1992 wrote: seemingly lack of intreast from the RN in regards to that certain SSS concept design

Jake, how do we know that (as SSS industry days have been held behind closed doors)?

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1151
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 05 Jan 2019, 10:05

I have to say I would be happy if we got 3 Enforcer 10,000's and as said before a good sized LPH

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1150
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 05 Jan 2019, 10:31

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Jake1992 wrote: seemingly lack of intreast from the RN in regards to that certain SSS concept design

Jake, how do we know that (as SSS industry days have been held behind closed doors)?


That's why I said seemingly

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1697
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 05 Jan 2019, 11:08

donald_of_tokyo, would agree that a LHA (LPH) plus three RFA enlarged Bays would on reflection be best, but would remove the fixed aviation facilities - I cannot see justification of the cost. A third flattop gives much better value for money IMO.

These ships combined with the 2 CVFs resolves the requirement for a 100% ability to insert a RM company by helicopters and act as a 50nm+ OTH platform for the broader 2,000 RM battlegroup.

However, in combination with fast insertion craft (LCVP replacements) and faster LCUs, it feels that some more heavily armed / smaller LST / multi-role platforms able to operate closer to shore would be a very good addition.

This is where a good T31 design could give some benefit - something like:

- 5,000t: 125m x 18m
- 25kts, max range 5,000nm
- Medium gun for NFGS
- CIWS and CAMM
- Merlin capable flight deck and hangar for 2 Wildcats
- Space for 1 company of RMs with associated vehicles
- Davits for 4 LCVP sized boats
- Rear ramp for off loading to LCVPs from vehicle deck
"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


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests