shark bait wrote:Under none of the circumstances above would the marines be directly confronting a well equipped state army whilst landing.
Lord Jim wrote:I cannot see us landing a Commando based battlegroup over the beach. A reinforced company possibly but nothing larger.
Jake1992 wrote: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.
Lord Jim wrote:...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.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:The reason why Bay-class LSD is used for APT-N and not Albion-class LPD is clear = much efficient.
donald_of_tokyo wrote: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.
donald_of_tokyo wrote: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.
donald_of_tokyo wrote: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)
donald_of_tokyo wrote:It can be based on Enforcer 20000, but we seriously need to consider how to operate them with smaller crew.
I think it is more the issue of 330-strong crew size = very very inefficient. Adding a "for Wildcat plastic hangar" is very easy on Albion. Also, replacing the one LCVP davits with a "Wildcat capable fixed hangar" is also doable. Actually, very easy; Wildcat is significantly smaller than LCVP Mk.5.Poiuytrewq wrote:The reason Albion isn't used for APT(N) is due to its lack of Aviation. It's a massive oversight with the design just like the RB2's. We mustn't make the same mistakes again.donald_of_tokyo wrote:The reason why Bay-class LSD is used for APT-N and not Albion-class LPD is clear = much efficient.
Not sure, it is a matter of decision. French Mistral LHD is cheap, mainly because of its low standard.donald_of_tokyo wrote: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.
Can 1 LPH and 3 LSD's be afforded at 2% GDP? If not and one of the Bay's get cut in the future we would be a long way from Ocean, 2 Albions and 4 Bays like we used to have. I'm not convinced a 21st century Ocean will be as cheap as everyone thinks.
French CdG and Mistral is NOT built to the same standard. Why RN must build QNLZ/PoW and "Bay-replacements" in the same standard? I do not agree. The LPH might be a good discussion point, but I think the Ocean standard at last (after refit) will be the baseline.QE is now the new standard. I just don't see HMG building an LPH with 1200-1400 personnel on board mainly to commercial standards regardless of close to shore it is likely to get and that would mean the entire Amphibious fleet would be built to commercial standards.
But LCAC is very expensive, and we are in short of money. The LCU and LCVPs will surely be replaced, but I guess the LCU will be BMT Caimen 90 (adopted by US Army as "Maneuver Support Vessel (Light)") or slightly modified one, and never LCAC.The LCVP Mk5 and LCU Mk10 will soon go and the replacements could be just about gone by the time the Amphibs are replaced. It worth remembering that when the Albions hit the water the LCU's were made to fit and it's highly likely the same thing could happen again.
Agreed. But, a big hangar with extensive firefighting kits (helicopter is very easy to catch fire), big door, and long-arm gantry-crane is not cheap, when we are talking about Bay-class level of standard cheap ship. I agree a hangar is must, but I think smaller the better; 1 Merlin hangar (as we see in Tides and Waves) or 2 Merlin hangar (as Absalon/IH class Dutch ships) is the most I want. (But I understand your wish, and not much against.)Agreed. Core crew requirements need to be kept low. Just because a hanger can fit in 6 Merlins doesn't mean they need 6 Merlins at all times. Much more likely to have a single Wildcat or no helicopter at all. Being in the right place at the right time with the inherent ability to surge to full capacity, rapidly and at short notice is key.
Albion's full complement isn't needed for a deployment such as APT(N). All that C&C capability isn't necessary.donald_of_tokyo wrote:I think it is more the issue of 330-strong crew size = very very inefficient. Adding a "for Wildcat plastic hangar" is very easy on Albion. Also, replacing the one LCVP davits with a "Wildcat capable fixed hangar" is also doable. Actually, very easy; Wildcat is significantly smaller than LCVP Mk.5.
I fully understand between 2010 and 2015 a 'role' had to found for PoW to avoid it being cut and Ocean without replacement was part of the sacrifice but for how long are we going to have to keep up this charade?donald_of_tokyo wrote:1: PoW is the primary "LPH"
Standards are rising and will continue to rise. What was acceptable in the 1990's will not necessarily be acceptable in the 2030's. Can Enforcer adapt to these higher standards? I hope so.donald_of_tokyo wrote:French CdG and Mistral is NOT built to the same standard. Why RN must build QNLZ/PoW and "Bay-replacements" in the same standard? I do not agree. The LPH might be a good discussion point, but I think the Ocean standard at last (after refit) will be the baseline.
This part of the statement I doubt very much.Poiuytrewq wrote:LCU Mk10 will soon go and the replacements could be just about gone by the time the Amphibs are replaced.
Poiuytrewq wrote:We need to get much better at future proofing the new designs.
Poiuytrewq wrote:If this was possible Bulwark could be forward deployed to the Western Pacific in a general patrol/HADR/presence role.
Poiuytrewq wrote:We don't need a £3bn LPH. We could have built 10 HMS Ocean's for the same amount of money. Even if we don't have enough F35's to keep PoW in the CVF role, the USMC certainly do. Operating as a 'coalition carrier' mainly in the Indian Ocean and Western Pacific, PoW could have a major role to play.
Thanks, but not convinced.Poiuytrewq wrote:I fully understand between 2010 and 2015 a 'role' had to found for PoW to avoid it being cut and Ocean without replacement was part of the sacrifice but for how long are we going to have to keep up this charade?donald_of_tokyo wrote:1: PoW is the primary "LPH"
We don't need a £3bn LPH. We could have built 10 HMS Ocean's for the same amount of money. Even if we don't have enough F35's to keep PoW in the CVF role, the USMC certainly do. Operating as a 'coalition carrier' mainly in the Indian Ocean and Western Pacific, PoW could have a major role to play.
Lord Jim wrote:What is the base line for the maximum size and type of amphibious assault operation people think the UK should be capable of conducting by itself?
Jake1992 wrote: the core of this must be based around having no access to a safe port
Jake1992 wrote:retake any of our BOT if ever needed
Repulse wrote:Jake1992 wrote:retake any of our BOT if ever needed
A laudable aim, but can never be funded in peacetime. Spain would never invade Gibraltar without EU blessing, and Argentina will never try Falklands again without serious Chinese support.
We should aim for what I stated above, plus the ability to reinforce our BOT defences quickly either via a RM Cdo or a Para Btn air lifted in.
Lord Jim wrote:Problem is a system called risk assessment and unless a threat is so high and obvious, and is only aimed at the UK or its BOTs and is imminent, it doesn't really count. In all other circumstances the threat is countered in the way that has the lowest effect on the Treasury and the Government's other more politically important programmes. If Defence really mattered to the Government and the General Public we would be spending at least 3% of GDP on it but it doesn't. So reality is that if something happens that is a UK only issue we will cobble together what we can and try to deal with it.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests