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: 1643
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 15 Jan 2019, 19:06

SW1 wrote: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.
Exactly my point. :clap:

The proposal I listed above would cost a lot less than £1.5bn, in fact I don't think it would cost £500m. The future of the Amphibious fleet would be secured until the 2030's and the remaining £1bn could be added to the T26 pot.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5834
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 16 Jan 2019, 07:49

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

The Answer is a Bay Class.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1643
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 16 Jan 2019, 08:30

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

The Answer is a Bay Class.
Absolutely but a pool of 2x Albions, 2x Tides and 3x Bays gives HMG a lot of options to enhance the UK's global presence.

Conducting patrols such as APT(S) on a regular basis would be no problem.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1378
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 16 Jan 2019, 16:06

Poiuytrewq wrote:
SW1 wrote: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.
Exactly my point. :clap:

The proposal I listed above would cost a lot less than £1.5bn, in fact I don't think it would cost £500m. The future of the Amphibious fleet would be secured until the 2030's and the remaining £1bn could be added to the T26 pot.


I think we need to be very careful around the escort/ patrol fleet yes things can be done better and yes manpower is a problem but cutting the escort / patrol fleet to keep the amphib fleet is just robbing Peter to pay Paul. At this time if the RFA were to keep the

4 x Tide class
2 x Wave class
3 x Forts
3 x Bay class
RFA Argus

They will need 1027 core crew and at the current time the RFA has 1850 personnel and feel if they could be brought up to 2000 they could keep this fleet which would go a long way to solving some of the current problems. As for the Amphibious fleet as a whole at this time if we were to man all the ships of the fleet we would need

2 x Albion Class = 650 crew
3 x Bay class = 210 core crew
1 x Argus = 90 core crew

So for me the best compromise is take 250 million from the Type 31 budget and reduces the number of ships down to 4 with the 250 million reactivate HMS Bulwark for a top line budget of 100 million with a core crew of a 100 plus a company of RM next refit both Wave class to allow them to take 50 extra RN personnel and send Bulwark and one Wave to the Asian-Pacific once there Bulwark could take on a Commonwealth C&C and logistics staff.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1643
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 19 Jan 2019, 02:44

Interesting read on USN's attempt to introduce a common hull for their Auxiliary fleet under the Common Hull Auxiliary Multi-Mission Platform (CHAMP) program.

I think it's pretty relevant to what's been discussed here recently.

https://news.usni.org/2019/01/16/navy-w ... more-40431

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10666
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 19 Jan 2019, 04:44

Poiuytrewq wrote:pretty relevant to what's been discussed here recently.

https://news.usni.org/2019/01/16/navy-w ... more-40431


and also in line with NSS messages: mostly commercial-standard systems – which should help keep costs down. The flight deck would have to meet military specifications, and medical spaces would have to meet U.S. Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery (BUMED) standards

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1378
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 19 Jan 2019, 10:31

So how would people see this playing out in a RN/ RFA context for me if we are to go a 2 hull program I would go for the Enforcer and Point hulls with 5 of each something like this

5 x Point class hulls as they are but with capability to hang Mexeflotes from the side

5 x 200 meter long x 28 beam Enforcer Hulls

1 x LHD with a fight deck of 35 meter beam capable of operating 20 Merlin size helicopters
3 x LPDs
1 x PCR ship capable of operating 2 Chinooks in MERT fit

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10666
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 19 Jan 2019, 11:09

Tempest414 wrote:1 x PCR ship capable of operating 2 Chinooks in MERT fit

Agree that the Chinook (speed, range and internal volume) should be the starting point : size of ship, hangar for one, lift for the other?
Tempest414 wrote:Point class hulls as they are but with capability to hang Mexeflotes from the side

-is the current crane in the right position for that (and is it rated for enough over the side reach, to lower and help level a Mexeflote?

Details for the supporting act; more on the core amph. shipping later

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1929
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 19 Jan 2019, 14:25

I don’t see a lot of opportunity for a common RFA hull - maybe similar kit / engines but the force needs a number of niche classes spread out over a 30-40 year cycle.

The only place where it could be relevant would be to combine the future SSS and LSD replacements to a single hybrid class. The class would need the ability to operate 2-3 helicopters up to Chinook size and a well deck of a minimum of 2 LCU. Building 5 of these hybrids over the next 15 years would be expensive, but would also give opportunities to replace the LPDs with a single larger LHD/LPH/LHA.
"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
Senior Member
Posts: 1378
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 19 Jan 2019, 16:13

Repulse wrote:I don’t see a lot of opportunity for a common RFA hull - maybe similar kit / engines but the force needs a number of niche classes spread out over a 30-40 year cycle.


At this time the RFA has 6 tankers , 3 Forts , 3 Bays and Argus. So to myself make my self clear what I am putting forward is future 1 hull type program to replace the 3 Bays , Argus and 2 Albion's i.e 3 hulls types that there are currently this could allow us to have a RFA fleet of

6 tankers
2 to 3 SSS
4 LPD's ( 1 of which would be the PCR ship )

plus a RN LHD based on the the same hull form

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3397
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 20 Jan 2019, 01:53

The Lib Dems will have a majority Government in Westminster before the RN gets a LHD.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1929
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 20 Jan 2019, 09:51

Lord Jim wrote:The Lib Dems will have a majority Government in Westminster before the RN gets a LHD.


Given the current politics that is about the same likelihood as everything else then... :crazy:

Must admit, if more T26s rather than the T31e is never going to happen, then I think we should seriously look at the T31e design. For example adapting the RSN Endurance LPD Class to meet the T31e current GP requirements looks possible to me and falls within the budget. Buying five of these coupled with C&C facilities going to the CVFs, would allow both Albions to be retired.

Longer term then the funds saved from the Albion replacement could be spent on a LHA or more “real” warships, or if the budget is higher both. The RSN has been looking at a F35b order so perhaps would be in the market for an affordable LHA 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

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10666
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 20 Jan 2019, 10:07

Repulse wrote: For example adapting the RSN Endurance LPD Class to meet the T31e current GP requirements [...] would allow both Albions to be retired.


The smaller you go, the less you can project at distance (without just moving some of the functions/ capacity to support shipping). RSN has tested the class to the limit (not quite destruction):
"September 2017 saw three Republic of Singapore Navy (RSN) ships – including the navy’s lead LPD RSS Endurance, sail almost 5,000 km to waters off Guam in the western Pacific to participate in Exercise ‘Pacific Griffin’ with the USN, covering anti-submarine, anti-surface, and air-defence drills. According to a US 7th Fleet statement released on 5 September, the exercise was the first bilateral activity between the two navies away from Singaporean waters. One striking element was that the RSN deployed at distance once again without an auxiliary ship. The RSN has deployed ships to support Indian Ocean counter-piracy operations, including taking command of the USN-led Combined Task Force (CTF)-151. Such distant deployments demonstrate that the RSN has ocean-going capacity with its surface ships and amphibious platforms. This raises the question of if and when the RSN may procure a sovereign auxiliary capability to support its extensive area of operations."

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1378
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 20 Jan 2019, 10:23

Lord Jim wrote:The Lib Dems will have a majority Government in Westminster before the RN gets a LHD.


Better start looking at LHD designs then

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1929
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 20 Jan 2019, 11:06

ArmChairCivvy wrote:The smaller you go, the less you can project at distance (without just moving some of the functions/ capacity to support shipping).


Agree, and this is where the RFA SSS and LSDs fit in, by going this route the need for large well docks could be removed, making them cheaper. Also, coupled could be a LHA capable of carrying both aviation assets and troops.
"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: 3397
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 20 Jan 2019, 23:24

Can you explain these points further?

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5834
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 21 Jan 2019, 08:01

Repulse wrote:For example adapting the RSN Endurance LPD Class to meet the T31e current GP requirements looks possible to me and falls within the budget. Buying five of these coupled with C&C facilities going to the CVFs, would allow both Albions to be retired.

A big flexible platform such as the above would be a fine outcome to the T31, but no way is it reasonable to use that to cut the assault platforms without replacement. A best there would be two platforms available, which doesn't provide much capacity.

Lord Jim wrote:The Lib Dems will have a majority Government in Westminster before the RN gets a LHD.

I'm not convinced, I think the MOD would love another cheap flattop like the Mistral Class or another HMS Ocean.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1643
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 21 Jan 2019, 08:27

shark bait wrote:I'm not convinced, I think the MOD would love another cheap flattop like the Mistral Class or another HMS Ocean.
Current planning appears to be heading for 2 LHD's presumably backed by 2/3 LSD's. A great result if we can keep both out of mothballs.

I would rather go with a single large LHD backed up with two 200m LPD's and two modified Points but if planning maintains its current trajectory going forward I will certainly not complain.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5834
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 21 Jan 2019, 08:34

What planning is that?
@LandSharkUK

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1378
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 21 Jan 2019, 09:07

For me given that the Enforcer's are in real terms batch 2 Bay class I feel the best out come is 4 200 meter enforcer LPDs with one fitted out as a PCR ship and a 200 to 220 meter LHD based on the same hull form with all 5 ships built at Rosyth following the 2 or 3 Solid Support Ships.

Also to my mind the PCR ship should built by the MOD with its core crew coming from the RFA but its day to day running cost should met by the foreign aid budget as it would be the UK primary relief ship

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1643
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 21 Jan 2019, 09:12

Tempest414 wrote:For me given that the Enforcer's are in real terms batch 2 Bay class I feel the best out come is 4 200 meter enforcer LPDs with one fitted out as a PCR ship and a 200 to 220 meter LHD based on the same hull form with all 5 ships built at Rosyth following the 2 or 3 Solid Support Ships.
This would be a great result but is it affordable at 2% GDP?
Also to my mind the PCR ship should built by the MOD with its core crew coming from the RFA but its day to day running cost should met by the foreign aid budget as it would be the UK primary relief ship
Again based on Enforcer or something else?

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1378
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 21 Jan 2019, 09:28

Poiuytrewq wrote:This would be a great result but is it affordable at 2% GDP?


I think it is if the 2% is a real 2% and the year on year ship building budget is 1 billion pounds a 100 million pound increase per year on today's budget

Poiuytrewq wrote:Again based on Enforcer or something else?


I already put above that the UK primary relief ship / PCR ship would one of the 4 200 meter Enforcer hulls

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1643
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 21 Jan 2019, 09:57

Tempest414 wrote:I already put above that the UK primary relief ship / PCR ship would one of the 4 200 meter Enforcer hulls
I am still trying to find an Amphibious vessel with a well dock and a role 3 medical facility. No luck so far...

Maybe the PCRS vessel wouldn't need a well dock?

Would a steel beach be sufficient for this variant?

Deleting the well dock would add around 800sqm to 1000sqm to the vehicle deck on a 28m Enforcer.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1378
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 21 Jan 2019, 10:05

The Enforcer range of hull already comes with a role 2 medical option I am sure Damen could tweak this to make it a Role 3

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1643
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 21 Jan 2019, 10:10

Tempest414 wrote:The Enforcer range of hull already comes with a role 2 medical option I am sure Damen could tweak this to make it a Role 3
No doubt about that but I am not aware of any other Amphibious vessel with a Role 3 medical facility.

I am just wondering if there is a practical reason for that.

Would the process of flooding the well dock have a negative impact on the sensitive medical procedures being carried out onboard?


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests