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.
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1243
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 07 Jan 2019, 10:54

shark bait wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:What I have proposed is affordable at the 2% GDP level.

Not its not. You're proposing more ships from the same budget, so what are you going to cut to afford it?


There is something in this when I sit down and think about the replacement of the amphibious fleet my starting point is what active ships we have now and what crew do have so for me we are looking at replacing

1 x Albion class crew 325
3 x Bay class Crew 80 per ship
4 x Point class Crew 22 per ship

I do think that we need a 3rd flat top if for no other reason than we can not afford to put a 3 billion pound highly prized carrier at that much risk so with this in mind I still come back to needing

1 x LPH/ LHD
3 x LSD/ LPD
4 or 5 Point class as they are ( I feel we can afford 1 more Point as they are cheap to build and have a very small crew)

with the capability to move 2500 troops a there kit plus support them

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5747
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 07 Jan 2019, 11:01

Poiuytrewq wrote:and Argus.

There is the problem. Argus does not get a replacement, and its a bit of a stretch to replace the lightly used Argus with two amphibious platforms.

Look at the MOD's 30 year shipbuilding forecast, the future afloat medical capability comes in 2035.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1528
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 07 Jan 2019, 11:35

Tempest414 wrote:...my starting point is what active ships we have now and what crew do have so for me we are looking at replacing

1 x Albion class crew 325
3 x Bay class Crew 80 per ship
4 x Point class Crew 22 per ship
Its clear that these vessels have very little aviation capacity hence the modest crew allocations but realistically if we did introduce a large LHD to replace the Albions the extra crew comes from QE or Pow. All three will not be at sea at the same time unless something really extraordinary has happened.

We need to be much more flexible with crewing vessels. A core crew allocation for general patrol/HADR deployments should be the norm, but it needs to be able to rapidly increase right up to a surge allocation for peer on peer conflict.

I would look to man all three vessels with core crew allocations at all times with the ability to surge 2 at short notice. If the USMC want to help take up the slack it's fine with me.

If Defence spending rises, ambition can also rise. Until then we have to make the best of what we have and what we can afford.
I do think that we need a 3rd flat top if for no other reason than we can not afford to put a 3 billion pound highly prized carrier at that much risk so with this in mind I still come back to needing

1 x LPH/ LHD
3 x LSD/ LPD
4 or 5 Point class as they are ( I feel we can afford 1 more Point as they are cheap to build and have a very small crew)

with the capability to move 2500 troops a there kit plus support them
Everyone has their own preferred way of achieving it. Modified Points are massive force multipliers. The vehicle capacity is already huge but with a few basic modifications they could be better still.

Just my opinion.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10178
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 07 Jan 2019, 12:36

Poiuytrewq wrote:We need to be much more flexible with crewing vessels. A core crew allocation for general patrol/HADR deployments should be the norm, but it needs to be able to rapidly increase right up to a surge allocation for peer on peer conflict.

Could not agree more.

This has not (?) come out since 2017 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... _Brief.pdf but by that reading (Figure 9) there has bee a positive development in the retention of RN ratings
- relative to the other categories
- is it that the new accommodation stds are having an effect?

Comment to the 2016 edition: the biggest shortfalls were for submariners and loggies. Going back to the beginning of this decade, nuclear safety had a yawning gap of 36% (of posts not filled)
- "pinch trades" are more regularly listed across the services; can't remember how prominently the Navy figured in those stats

But going back to the thread headline: the biggest relative outflow was in RM squaddies
- has the restructuring of one of the CDOs made the Royal Marines a less appealing choice (for staying on)?

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1243
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 07 Jan 2019, 13:59

Poiuytrewq wrote:Its clear that these vessels have very little aviation capacity hence the modest crew allocations but realistically if we did introduce a large LHD to replace the Albions the extra crew comes from QE or Pow. All three will not be at sea at the same time unless something really extraordinary has happened.


90% of aviation capability is held in the squadrons embarking let remember that HMS Ocean had a crew of 285 + 180 FAA & RAF so when you take Ablions 325 crew and put it on a LHD what new skills do we need flight Deck handlers and Flyco in the most part

I agree with the core crew thing if we take a LPD it should have a core crew of 100 with logistics come from the Royal Logistics Corps and assault coming from 9 commando and Aviation form the FAA

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3178
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 07 Jan 2019, 18:38

With regards to coastal raiding operations, yes some of these could be based off of a T-26, but the majority would be launched either form an LPD or from the shore. I refer to them as "Raids", as they would be small in scale with the maximum force size being company strength, and the mission would not be to take and hold territory but cause disruption to the enemy though various means. To achieve this the RM need a platform along the lines of the CB-90 which has greater capacity, range and firepower than those traditionally used by the RM for such missions.

Online
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1277
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 07 Jan 2019, 19:40

Lord Jim wrote:With regards to coastal raiding operations, yes some of these could be based off of a T-26, but the majority would be launched either form an LPD or from the shore. I refer to them as "Raids", as they would be small in scale with the maximum force size being company strength, and the mission would not be to take and hold territory but cause disruption to the enemy though various means. To achieve this the RM need a platform along the lines of the CB-90 which has greater capacity, range and firepower than those traditionally used by the RM for such missions.


I completly agree that the RM need a vessel like the CB-90 especially if they are to be once again more involved in NATOs norther flank, but they need to retain the ability to take make safe and hold a port at the very minimum.
If we can not take and hold a port then the delivery of any troops or kit anyways by ourself is dead.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3178
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 07 Jan 2019, 20:35

Securing a port is not an issue, to land say an Army Brigade, as that will take place back from the front lines with the RM providing security. I cannot se us ever trying to seize an entry point behind enemy lines to disembark from. I know this is going to bring out comments regarding GW2, but that was the exception to the rule and will probably not be repeated, at least not on that scale. Then again I see us once again concentrating our resources on NATO and operations in the Nordic countries.

Sending troops to the Far east, unless say a battalion deployed to prevent hostilities breaking out, as something we cannot afford to do properly, or even attempt to. We are still a top tier player in NATO, but the forces we could send east would be a token and unable to operate without substantial allied support.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3152
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 13 Jan 2019, 00:40

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:The reason why Bay-class LSD is used for APT-N and not Albion-class LPD is clear = much efficient.
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.
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.
Related to old posts.
USNS Mercy class has a plastic hangar. Surely a fixed/solid one is better, but for "filling shortfalls", a candidate solution (for Albion).
12m wide, 14.5 m deep. https://www.rubbusa.com/united-states-n ... er-hangar/
usns-feature-img.jpg

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10178
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 14 Jan 2019, 06:37

Lord Jim wrote:Then again I see us once again concentrating our resources on NATO and operations in the Nordic countries.

Sending troops to the Far east, unless say a battalion deployed to prevent hostilities breaking out, as something we cannot afford to do properly, or even attempt to.


The above would be somewhat aligned with what SW1 said on the escorts thread about ships (other than those that constitute the MTF) and the broader ASW capability (throw in some boats and MPAs). As for how the RM will be used, in addition to the lead Cdo Group and the 43 Cdo is put in the last paragraph of this: https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9aSEId9XkHU/ ... 1800_n.jpg
- which leaves the force quite stretched (though I have not seen cuts to their overall numbers)
- there is quite a good sentence in there, saying that the RM operates at the seam of SF and conventional forces... a bit like the USMC saying "at the confluence of sea, air and land" which of course makes them a self-contained 'army' reflecting the rather different scale of resourcing

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5747
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 14 Jan 2019, 07:50

Lord Jim wrote: I know this is going to bring out comments regarding GW2, but that was the exception to the rule and will probably not be repeated


How can you justify that?
@LandSharkUK

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 122
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby jedibeeftrix » 14 Jan 2019, 08:08

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:Then again I see us once again concentrating our resources on NATO and operations in the Nordic countries.

Sending troops to the Far east, unless say a battalion deployed to prevent hostilities breaking out, as something we cannot afford to do properly, or even attempt to.


The above would be somewhat aligned with what SW1 said on the escorts thread about ships (other than those that constitute the MTF) and the broader ASW capability (throw in some boats and MPAs). As for how the RM will be used, in addition to the lead Cdo Group and the 43 Cdo is put in the last paragraph of this: https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9aSEId9XkHU/ ... 1800_n.jpg
- which leaves the force quite stretched (though I have not seen cuts to their overall numbers)
- there is quite a good sentence in there, saying that the RM operates at the seam of SF and conventional forces... a bit like the USMC saying "at the confluence of sea, air and land" which of course makes them a self-contained 'army' reflecting the rather different scale of resourcing

can we infer anything interesting in terms of composition from the phrase "theatre entry lead commando"?

i.e. it means an supported and mechanised battle group, or a 600 underwater knife fighters with nothing but what they can clench between their teeth?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10178
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 14 Jan 2019, 09:17

jedibeeftrix wrote:composition from the phrase "theatre entry lead commando"?


(Unfortunately) I don't think so, ie. will be exactly the same as now:
- 2 Coy's over the beach with their vehicles (lightly protected)
- 2-3 others vertically, some from the carrier
- only light support (e.g. LG airliftable by Chinook)
- perhaps a rgmntl HQ sqdrn from the follow-on force landed by LCUs. Coincidentally the number of Ch2's when this sort of thing has been done on exercises on the golden-sand beaches of Wales is the same as in this pic (with even more sand) https://i.imgur.com/jlf4MH8.jpg (add the few camping inside the protectively circled 'wagons').

The new term just subtly highlights the fact that the whole of 3 CDO is not going to be going in as one - which has been the case for a while.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3178
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 15 Jan 2019, 06:18

After all the talk above about how the RM Commandos will be used, I thought I would have another look at the current organisation of 3 Commando Brigade. This currently comprises two Commandos 40, 45. in addition 43 Commando Fleet Protection Group has been assigned to 3 Commando Brigade after losing one of its squadrons in 2012 to 42 Commando which is now independent of the Brigade and operates as 42 Maritime Operations Commando, being deployed on both RN and RAF vessels. 3 Commando Brigades also includes various support units such as the Landing Force Command Support Group, and other units such as 29 Commando Regiment Royal Artillery. A recently added support unit is 30 Commando Information Exploitation Group which provides the Brigade with integral ISTAR capabilities.

Under the Commando 21 programme 40 and 45 Commando in were restructured to comprise of six companies. These were a Command Company, two Close Combat Companies, two Stand Off Companies and a Logistics Company. This has made each Commando more self sufficient, but also points to the idea that the Brigade as a whole will rarely if ever be deployed in its entirety. In fact it seems that the majority of future operation will be in company sized units, whilst retaining the ability to land a single Commando together with supporting units, over the beach if needed, this being referred to as the Lead Commando Group.

Like the Parachute Regiment, the Commandos now fill the gap between Regular Army Formations and Special Forces, more akin to the US Army's Ranger Battalions. The Commandos however have unique skill sets, namely Arctic and mountain warfare, and moving forwards these will be utilised more fully.

The Company sized units will mainly operate as part of Special Purpose Task Groups (SPTG) conduction raiding and intelligence gathering missions as well as more convnetioal land warfare roles utilising their sunique skills as mentions above. A unit this size could also act as a Threatre Entry Force if needed and this role is also assigned to he Lead Commando Group (LCG). This role is secure a point of entry for follow on units, achieved by securing a port or such like to allow the rapid disembarkation of other units. Obviously this means the idea is not to carry out a 21st century Dieppe style operation, but either locate a port that has very limited defence like in GW2 or to use a friend port. In both cases the Force would set up a defensive perimeter to secure the location.

So getting back to the title of this thread, what amphibious Capability do we need. Well the core capability is going to be to deploy Company sized units, landing them by sea and air or a combination of the two as part of SPTGs. We are talking of no more than 200 personnel here, usually less. As a result LPDs such as the Rotterdam and Johan de Witt individually could land, support and retrieve multiple units. Two such LPDs could land and support a full LCG including the helicopters needed to lift troops, equipment and supplies. Currently we are having to plan on using one of our Carriers to provide the aviation assets due to the lack of such facilities on the Albions or Bays. Smaller Units could even be landed form the RN's planned T-26s if needed, utilising their "Mission Bays" to carry the necessary water craft.

So what this shows is that the RN/RFA could replace the Albions and Bays with an evolved Enforcer design based on the Johan de Witt/Rotterdam classes and have more than enough capacity to meet the planned needs of 3 Commando Brigade. We would not even have to replace them on a one to one basis. In addition because of their integral Aviation and Medical facilities these vessels could also carry out the roles currently carried out by RFA Argus. It also shows that he RN does not need a third "Flat Top", as there would be sufficient capacity within the LPDs to provide the required aviation support especially when backed up by the new Carriers.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10178
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 15 Jan 2019, 08:50

Great summary, so let me try to nuance (these points are in no way meant as criticism):
Lord Jim wrote: after losing one of its squadrons
Since that transfer another Cdo has lost its heavy weapons, so I wonder if they, too, now have squadrons as opposed to companies?
Lord Jim wrote:also points to the idea that the Brigade as a whole will rarely if ever be deployed in its entirety
Can't be landed at once (shipping), but the LCG can be augmented by several company-sized groups, as you say (to facilitate entry by 'early entry').
Lord Jim wrote: seems that the majority of future operation will be in company sized units
Majority, as in frequency, but then there's also 'major' as in severity... which is actually easy to define: when follow-on forces will be required
Lord Jim wrote:locate a port that has very limited defence like in GW2
Into that same class falls a port that has been incapacitated (by OpFor) or has such limited capacity that it will need to be rapidly improved. The great piece by TD on this aspect was just days ago linked here, can't remember now by whom.
Lord Jim wrote:Currently we are having to plan on using one of our Carriers to provide the aviation assets due to the lack of such facilities on the Albions or Bays.
This is the negativity which for me is difficult to fully comprehend. Littoral Ops against any kind of serious or semi-serious opposition are feasible only with "a" carrier in presence. So it needs to be there, anyway, and the negativity is really about by how much can we allow the airwing to be reduced for the aux. amph. capacity? My view:
- not by more than having a Coy and some recce elements onboard
- the Chinooks, crews & maintainers needed to make the other amph. vessels effective will, as such, eat to "the" airwing and its manning, anyway. This is of course hidden by calling the totality a "flexible" airwing.
Lord Jim wrote: because of their integral Aviation and Medical facilities these vessels could also carry out the roles currently carried out by RFA Argus. It also shows that he RN does not need a third "Flat Top"
Exactly, and that is the direction where we should be headed. The timing gaps, as noted many times on these pages, are the ones (together with stretched shipbuilding budgets) that make it a thorny issue.

Going back to that TD piece,
- for enhanced Repairing and Augmenting the Port -capability the relevant rgmnt (17?) with its core manning, sponsored reserves and heavy plant could all be packed into one Bay
- we "give" Penny M her first Hospital Ship by painting another Bay white ( a nice piccie of that one; was it on Save the Royal Navy site? Yes, it was: https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/the-pl ... l-support/)
- keep the third one for landing one company complete with its Vikings (the first mentioned of the three Bays can, of course, switch into this role if and when that takes the priority)
... now we are in a position to start the build for Argus replacement as outlined by LJ above. A tad earlier :thumbup: than the mid '30s

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1528
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 15 Jan 2019, 12:01

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Exactly, and that is the direction where we should be headed. The timing gaps, as noted many times on these pages, are the ones (together with stretched shipbuilding budgets) that make it a thorny issue.
The perfect reason to make the most of what we have in the water now.

- we "give" Penny M her first Hospital Ship by painting another Bay white ( a nice piccie of that one; was it on Save the Royal Navy site?
image.jpg
Personally I think this would be a waste of a Bay. Not much different to having them stuck on APT(N) and Kipion. If HMG decides the UK requires addional HADR vessels then fine, but extra capability and capacity requires additional funding or something elsewhere will get cut. Simple choice.
- keep the third one for landing one company complete with its Vikings (the first mentioned of the three Bays can, of course, switch into this role if and when that takes the priority)
Where do the Albions fit in? The 3 Bays only have a maximum of 3 LCU's = inefficient transfer. The Albions are crucial even though they are badly compromised by the lack of embarked aviation. Adapting the Albions is even more of a priority than the Bay's IMO. Dropping the second landing spot and installing a Rubb hanger would the cheapest way to proceed.
... now we are in a position to start the build for Argus replacement as outlined by LJ above. A tad earlier than the mid '30s
Maybe, but first let's take a look at what we have in the water that could potentially contribute to this conundrum.
Argus
2x Albions
3x Bays
2x Waves

With one Albion in mothballs and the Waves hanging by a thread and Argus due to decommission in 2024 are we in danger of playing the 'two out, one in' game again?

Personally I'm pretty relaxed about Serco taking over the aviation training requirement but we can't lose the capability of Argus from the fleet. Happily I think there are plenty of cost effective ways to remedy that.

My proposal:

1. Reactivate both Albions.
- One in unaltered LPD role with full C&C.
- Second in Patrol/HADR role. Install Rubb hanger and transfer C&C to PoW. Try to reduce core crew down to 120 with single wildcat, 1 LCU and 2x LCVP's.

2. Refit all 3 Bays
- Replace the working deck on 2 of the Bays with 1000sqm garage capable of embarking 6 Merlins and add Role 2 medical facility.
- Upgrade 3rd Bay with extended superstructure to allow for Role 3 medical facility and 1000sqm hanger. This would satisfy the PCRS requirement and also retain Argus's aviation capacity within the fleet.
- The 3 reconfigured Bays would have a comparable aviation capacity as Ocean/Argus combined.

3. Refit Waves into LSV configuration.
- Reduce fuel capacity and increase space for vehicles, stores and a Role 2 medical facility.
- Enlarge hanger to embark 2 Merlins and add 2 davit deployed LCM's for HADR role.
- The increased logistic capacity would offset the loss of the working decks on the Bays.

Possibly a good template for the Waves to follow,
image.jpg


By maximising what we have in the water it may help to make better decisions as to what is required when the fleet is replaced in the 2030's.

When Argus decommissions, a rejuvenated fleet could easily take the stain and hand over the aviation training requirement to Serco. Bringing the second Albion and Wave Ruler out of Mothballs would also ensure an increase in available vessels.

Just my opinion.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3178
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 15 Jan 2019, 12:42

My reference to the Carriers had a sense of negativity because at present both the Albions and Bays have little or no aviation facilities and so any required by the LCG or SPTG would have to be carried by the Carrier. Of course one will be present (I am still unconvinced both will be available at any given time), but this situation must be rectified with the next generation of amphibious platforms, and should be simple to do without costing the earth.

As for a Commando losing it heavy weapons, are we talking about 40 or 45? This is because with its new role 42 did lose its heavy weapons but is no longer part of 3 Commando Brigade, unlike 43 which was transferred in but retains its original organisation minus a squadrons. Regarding the latter unit type, both 42 and 43 Commando use Squadrons for their assignment onboard ships as part of the ships company. 40 and 45 retain the Company structure as pre Commando 21

Does anyone have costing data so that we can compare the cost of building an Albion and a Bat verses the Rotterdam and Johan de Witts so we can have some idea of what things could cost in the future?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10178
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 15 Jan 2019, 12:52

Poiuytrewq wrote:Personally I think this would be a waste of a Bay. Not much different to having them stuck on APT(N) and Kipion. If HMG decides the UK requires addional HADR vessels then fine
Yes, but as long as we have all the three, there won't be anything new built... for a goo'od while
Poiuytrewq wrote:Where do the Albions fit in?
Bigger docks, smaller vehicle decks. So without combining Bays and Albions (starting from the 1+1 scale) it will be difficult to get a balanced force ashore without undue delay. This sort of eliminates the possibility of making one of the Albions into a 'patrol boat'
Poiuytrewq wrote:- Replace the working deck on 2 of the Bays with 1000sqm garage capable of embarking 6 Merlins and add Role 2 medical facility.
- Upgrade 3rd Bay with extended superstructure to allow for Role 3 medical facility and 1000sqm hanger. This would satisfy the PCRS requirement and also retain Argus's aviation capacity within the fleet
This is a good plan and a perfect alternative to the path I was trying to lay for getting LJ's ideal vessels built (at least :) one).

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10178
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 15 Jan 2019, 13:00

Lord Jim wrote:both 42 and 43 Commando use Squadrons for their assignment onboard ships as part of the ships company. 40 and 45 retain the Company structure as pre Commando 21
Thanks, this is what I was after

Does anyone else see any ominous signs in that units that have to do with force protection (mainly staying on water or near the facilities they protect) have the same terminology as in the RAF Rgmnt?
- are we headed towards a commando-ranger force (the two Cdos with heavy weapons +the paras), and
- a 'force protection' force (the two more specialised Cdos + the RAF Rgmnt sqdrns)? The 'easy' explanation could be that a company size (150-200) is just too cumbersome for most of the tasks

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1243
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 15 Jan 2019, 13:34

When we talk about the Carriers in the Amphibious role if it is a NATO thing then even if both carriers are able to be at sea at the same time I can't see them being together it is to big a risk for NATO commanders. However when we look at NATO Europe it has

3 x Large Carriers
2 x small carriers
4 x LHD
12 x LPD/LSD

I think it is time That NATO takes a good look at how it would be best to use these assets

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3152
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 15 Jan 2019, 13:40

From Argus thread, cross-post by myself.

The point is, I think Waves and Bays are NOT wasted in Caribbean nor Perusal gulf, but is "pooled", for war. Without these "peace-time part time job", they will be cut, I'm afraid.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Problem is that "RFA core activities" will double or triple in real war. Just imagine how much fuel and bombs the F35B fleet will consume in strike role. It will be 10-times larger than in peace time, and even several times larger than in the days with SeaHarriers.

At the same time, RFA vessels need to "move-around", to keep the RFA (and RN) crew themselves well-trained and prepared for the tasks. So, "peace-time tasks" must be defined, I guess.

- For me, APT-N is a "good pool" for RFA fleet to keep themselves busy in peace time (sorry Caribbean-san). If war breaks out, a Wave (for winter) or a Bay (for summer) assigned to APT-N can both rush to war, leaving the district almost vacant. (I think a River B2 shall be sent to fill "a fraction of" the gap. For more sever situations, just rely on allies. Note that, I assume here UK is in war).

- I understand, the Bay at Persian Gulf is doing MCMV mother ship tasks also as a "peace-time part time job". It must be replaced by Echo/Enterprise, which are the MCMV mother ship as built when war breaks out.

- Similarly, helicopter training could be a good "peace time tasks" for a Wave or Tide (or even Bay) stationed around British water. Out sourcing it to Serco (or alike) will save the money HOW? Yes, in such a way that banning a Wave tanker and cutting 50-80 RFA crews. Only if UK is NOT thinking about war and thinking only about peacetime tasks, it is OK.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3152
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 15 Jan 2019, 14:10

Poiuytrewq wrote:... My proposal:

1. Reactivate both Albions.
- One in unaltered LPD role with full C&C.
- Second in Patrol/HADR role. Install Rubb hanger and transfer C&C to PoW. Try to reduce core crew down to 120 with single wildcat, 1 LCU and 2x LCVP's.

2. Refit all 3 Bays
- Replace the working deck on 2 of the Bays with 1000sqm garage capable of embarking 6 Merlins and add Role 2 medical facility.
- Upgrade 3rd Bay with extended superstructure to allow for Role 3 medical facility and 1000sqm hanger. This would satisfy the PCRS requirement and also retain Argus's aviation capacity within the fleet.
- The 3 reconfigured Bays would have a comparable aviation capacity as Ocean/Argus combined.

3. Refit Waves into LSV configuration.
- Reduce fuel capacity and increase space for vehicles, stores and a Role 2 medical facility.
- Enlarge hanger to embark 2 Merlins and add 2 davit deployed LCM's for HADR role.
- The increased logistic capacity would offset the loss of the working decks on the Bays.
Interesting. If the requirement for aviation capability could be a bit smaller than those for HMS Ocean, my plan will be

1. Keep the 2 Albions as is.
- spend no money.

2. Keep all 3 Bays
- spend no money.

3. Refit one of the Waves into Aviation support ship.
- like a "Merchant aircraft carrier", or more specifically, much like a Argus itself, to carry up to 9 Merlin HC4, with 5 landing spots (one spot astern, and three ahead).
- (see also Commencement Bay class aircraft carriers, based on tanker; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commencem ... rt_carrier)
- This ship will be coupled with Albion to provide airborne support, in amphibious warfare.

Much simple, I think. But, Role 3 Medical Facility needs to be funded from DfID as a (pure) hospital ship.
スクリーンショット 2019-01-15 23.06.07.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1528
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 15 Jan 2019, 17:47

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Where do the Albions fit in?
Bigger docks, smaller vehicle decks. So without combining Bays and Albions (starting from the 1+1 scale) it will be difficult to get a balanced force ashore without undue delay. This sort of eliminates the possibility of making one of the Albions into a 'patrol boat'.
An Albion, even with a reduced crew allocation would be a lot more than a 'patrol boat'.

For example:

What would be more use conducting APT(S), an Albion with up to a Merlin and a Wildcat or a T31 with a Wildcat?

Which one would you rather be aboard in the Winter in the South Atlantic? A T31 at 117m with a 14m beam would be a lot less comfortable than a 176m vessel with a 29m beam.

Would a T31 or an Albion be more impressive for port visits in friendly countries?

It's only one example but the point I am making is why are we building more £250m frigates when we have perfectly good vessels sitting tied up slowly rusting away. I am not proposing doing anything to the Albion acting as the LPD, I am suggesting it would be better to put the mothballed Albion to good use rather than leave it rusting away in extended readiness.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:
1. Keep the 2 Albions as is.
- spend no money.

2. Keep all 3 Bays
- spend no money.

3. Refit one of the Waves into Aviation support ship.
- like a "Merchant aircraft carrier", or more specifically, much like a Argus itself, to carry up to 9 Merlin HC4, with 5 landing spots (one spot astern, and three ahead).
- (see also Commencement Bay class aircraft carriers, based on tanker;
That's quite a re-fit Donald :thumbup:

Have you an estimated cost for such a conversion?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3178
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 15 Jan 2019, 18:26

Someone got their landing spots mixed up between the Ocean and the Waves. :D

SW1
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 15 Jan 2019, 18:54

just think instead of spending 1.25 billion on a group of ships, we could of used that money to fully man and crew the Albion and bay ships and purchase both manned and unmanned systems to allow them to act as fwd deployed presence and martime security assets while still retaining the amphibious capability like Albion has demonstrated in the Far East. Any cash left over could of even been spent on fully equipping type 26 weapons systems from build. But we must just build more ships even though the ones we do have are mothballed.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bob_Cat_Bob, Jake1992, mr.fred, PHamm and 18 guests