Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)

[Repulse]

In Army planning, the current focus is Force 2025 and War Fighting at Scale. This means being able to deploy and sustain a Division.

This is a radical change from the last 10+ years, where the focus has been medium and small scale ops. This change has been driven by a change in the perceived threat over the next decade - which I don't need to spell out.

(Small scale raiding ops are soooo yesterday... you need to get with the threat.)

Given the UK will no longer have formations based in Germany, deploying at Division strength will require use of the sea.

Without the amphibious capabilities of the LPDs, there is no guarantee of getting a Division ashore. We would be relying on other nations.

Whatever the arguments about strike brigades and their role within a Division, if you can't get your forces into theatre everything else is irrelevant.

Is deploying a poorly armed UK division to Europe really the best use of our forces, when there are other NATO nations who can do this at scale and have superior weapons? I think not.

If WW3 is brewing maritime based BMD, sea control and UK air defence is what is needed, plus the ability to strike at enemy C&C / supply lines.

[Aethulwulf]

I suggest you look at a map of the Poland Lithuania border. It is a 65 mile land border known as the Suwalki gap in NATO. It represents a tough-to-defend flat narrow piece of land, between Belarus and Russia's Kaliningrad enclave and that connects the NATO-member Baltic States to Poland and the rest of NATO.

If this gap is open, NATO forces can deploy through it. If this gap is closed, very few NATO forces have the ability to go by sea instead. The UK currently does, but wont if the LPDs are cut.

The UK's LPDs are key enablers to an number of potential ops (NATO and non-NATO). Cutting the LPDs would be a signal of a massive withdrawal from NATO and other commitments.

[donald_of_tokyo]

I agree LPD is a key enabler. But, I think NATO duties are more better covered with Bays and Points. Their logistic landing is actually fast and efficient.

On the other hand, Bays (not to mention Points) are not design for "assault".

Assault needs putting as large as possible amount of soldiers to the location, in short time, say minutes to hours. Helo and LCM/LCVP/LCAC is here. Here, LPD is needed because it can provide heavy/medium assets to shore. Many of the soldiers can be carried on Helos, but Vikings needs vessels. (putting them by helo is doable, but not efficient).

After the landing point has been secured, Bays and Points with mexefloats can send many soldiers, heavy/medium assets, fuel/water/food and many other logistics support to shore. The timeframe is "days", but in "logistic" regard, they are pretty efficient here, much better than Albion LPDs.

Note, assault and logistic landing is in different in phase.

Disbanding Albions means significantly losing the capability of the assault phase (of course, because of helo, it is non-zero. Even Bay can do some, so non-zero. But, more than halved).

I do not understand why it is not discussed more, but disbanding 2 (yet unmodified) T23GP is much more logical, sensible clear and "less-RN-harming" solution, I think.

[Aethulwulf]

I think I mostly agree with you Donald. If you only have Bays and Points, you are in reality reliant on using ports with RoRo ramps. The total number of such ports is suprisingly small; across all three Baltic states is not in double figures.

If Op Forces can deny access to these RoRo ports, using hybrid warfare or more conventional means, and there are no LPDs, then everything is forced through the Suwalki gap with nasty consequences.

With LPDs available, much of the coastline becomes a potential point of entry. This greatly complicates the task of Op Forces and they can not concentrate their focus on just a few key areas.

[benny14]

Ambition should be global maritime focused protecting SLOCs and protecting EEZ interests - not another Iraq or Afghanistan

Well that is not the focus. The military is preparing itself for large scale war fighting at the division level to contribute to a multinational force/NATO. We need assets to deploy that division, if not then what good is it.

[Gabriele]

There is no such thing as a "focus". Everybody is going mad as services get tasked to somehow find money from within their budgets without a formal SDSR.
And even before that, the "warfighting division" was a joke. Nothing that includes that half-formed abort of the Strike Brigade can possibly be taken seriously.

[Aethulwulf]

Didn't think I'd be able to use the phrase Strike Brigade with Gabriele trotting out his hobby horse.

Still, even if the Army 'comes to its senses' and gives up the 2 strike + 2 armoured brigades in favour of going back to 3 armoured brigades, it will face exactly the same difficulty in being able to guarantee their deployability if the LPDs go.

At the moment all we are hearing are leeks and rumours. Some of which are true, some are not. Of the options that are truly being discussed and debated, some will be taken and some will not. Given all that, to those on the outside at the moment, it is always going to sound like a mess.

Hopefully the final outcome will have some degree of rationality.

[Caribbean]

gives up the 2 strike + 2 armoured brigades in favour of going back to 3 armoured brigades

Or even two "heavy" armoured (C2, Ajax, Warrior) and two "light" armoured (Ajax, Warrior). If we were to use what is basically existing kit, might there sufficient be money for some direct-fire turrets for Ajax. Move the wheeled stuff down to the "light role" battalions with protected mobility vehicles

[Aethulwulf]

I'm going to have a go at explaining the idea behind the much debated Strike Brigade. However, given that I don't fully understand it myself, this explanation is going to be flawed. Oh well,...

The first thing to understand is the concept is more about a change in doctrine than it is to do with use of any particular armoured vehicles. When it comes to winning firefights, the normal rule of thumb is winning is 70% down to training, tatics and procedures (TTPs), 20% down to equipment and 10% luck. But when it comes to winning battles, doctrine is more important than TTPs or equipment. The UK started the Battles of the Atlantic and Britain using the wrong tatics and less than ideal equipment. But the doctrine was good and the doctrine triumphed.

Doctrine is about how you fight. Traditionally the Army has used a land manoeuvre approach, with a two-up-one-back linear advance to engagement. The Strike Brigade idea is instead based around a non-linear expanding web advance, which on engagement rapidly contracts around the enemy, wins the fight and starts expanding out as a web again.

Why the change?

Fundamentally, the old approach was about a linear front edge of battle where the fighting occurred. Behind the front line (apart from counter battery fire) the rear lines were unlikely to be directly targeted as the whole formation manoeuvred to make targetting by enemy forces difficult. So what has changed?

The answer is ISTAR. Previously, to engage the enemy, the two forces almost needed to be within line of sight. With anything else, the sense to shoot time was too great and the enemy had moved before they could be targetted.

This is no longer true. ISTAR has been improving and improving, on both sides. Units can be targettted and engaged almost anywhere. There is no longer going to be a safe (ish) rear area and a clear front line.

This is, I think, the concept behind the Strike Brigade. Can you fight in this new way with Challengers and Warriors? Probably. But what type of vehicles/equipment are need to optimise the new doctrine? Personally, I've no idea...


[Apologies for going way off topic.]

[Gabriele]

How is building literally the weakest mechanized infantry brigade worldwide going to deliver anything useful to that or any other concept? Even assuming it can move fast as they wish (and making half of it tracked defeats that objective from the start) it lacks everything else, beginning with firepower.

[RetroSicotte]

This is a topic for the Albions, guys, not the Strike Brigades. Take it elsewhere.

[Repulse]

I suggest you look at a map of the Poland Lithuania border. It is a 65 mile land border known as the Suwalki gap in NATO. It represents a tough-to-defend flat narrow piece of land, between Belarus and Russia's Kaliningrad enclave and that connects the NATO-member Baltic States to Poland and the rest of NATO.

If this gap is open, NATO forces can deploy through it. If this gap is closed, very few NATO forces have the ability to go by sea instead. The UK currently does, but wont if the LPDs are cut.

The UK's LPDs are key enablers to an number of potential ops (NATO and non-NATO). Cutting the LPDs would be a signal of a massive withdrawal from NATO and other commitments.

So ýou want to base a significant amount of the defence budget on getting a poorly armed brigade to a small area that has been cut off and surrounded by a much larger force of better equipped troops who are attacking? And that is your justification to keep the Albions? Fecking Hell we are screwed.

[Repulse]

Note, assault and logistic landing is in different in phase.

Disbanding Albions means significantly losing the capability of the assault phase (of course, because of helo, it is non-zero. Even Bay can do some, so non-zero. But, more than halved).

I do not understand why it is not discussed more, but disbanding 2 (yet unmodified) T23GP is much more logical, sensible clear and "less-RN-harming" solution, I think.

Donald-san your distinction is a valid one, maritime logistical support (including shifting kit ahead of a war like in the Gulf) and amphibious assault is a valid one. The logistical piece is more relevant today and when combined with HADR there is a compelling case to spend more here - though it should be primarily more RFA assets either purposely built like the Bays or converted merchant ships.

I do think however trying to do the assault bit by parking a LPD just off the coast and thinking it will be okay is niave- even medium sized armed forces now have decent land based anti-ship defensive capabilities. So it's not just about cutting its about shaping an amphibious assault capability for the future. The key bit for amphibious assault is the element of surprise attacking at a point if choosing with decisive speed/scale. Helicopters obviously pay a key role in this, but so do fast LCVPs and LCACs. LCVPs can be launched from smaller ships (such as the T31e) and LCACs (and the current LCAC(L)s) should come OTH from RFA ships.

In terms of the SDSR, for me the likely outcome is that one LPD will go (or a very slim chance Ocean will stay).

We've discussed removing 2 T23s early before, and I am supportive but the savings should go on actually the long term benefit of the surface fleet: I.e. keeping the 4 current Rivers and enhancing slightly the B2 Rivers to take over some of the standing commitments until the T31s come online.

[abc123]

Without the amphibious capabilities of the LPDs, there is no guarantee of getting a Division ashore. We would be relying on other nations.

Whatever the arguments about strike brigades and their role within a Division, if you can't get your forces into theatre everything else is irrelevant.

X

Fully agreed.

[TPC1975]

I find it disgusting that the Services are forced to choose which arm or leg to cut off to save what is merely a rounding error on social welfare spending! We either have capable fighting forces or we don't.

Amphibiousity is key plank of UK defence/Naval doctrine. To cut the LPDs is to force the RN into an act of self mutilation and is simply criminal. What a horrendous message to send out to our Allies and the public not to mention a recruitment killer.

I served in the RN 1998-2007 and joined straight from University. We lived with efficiencies but nothing like today. Who in their right mind would join today? The RN is a service of increasingly limited opportunity - how on earth can it continue to attract smart, talented people with options?

The Navy Board should turn to at the Treasury and tell them where to get off. Then the whole lot of them, including the next tier, should resign on mass. The 'Revolt of the Admirals' worked for the US Navy back in the late 40s/early 50s, saved the US defence budget and the US Navy. It might just work here and save the LPDs!??

[benny14]

I know what arm I would rather the Navy cut off. Keeping our nuclear submarines at the cost of the decline and removal of every other capability, just so we can stay in the big boy nuclear club to stay important. Canceling the program could keep all of our current assets and triple the size of the fleet, giving us the ability to keep our current commitments as well as field two carrier strike groups and an amphibious group if needed.

Unfortunately I don't think our top brass have the balls to resign on mass.



http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/p ... rities_res

[abc123]

The Navy Board should turn to at the Treasury and tell them where to get off. Then the whole lot of them, including the next tier, should resign on mass. The 'Revolt of the Admirals' worked for the US Navy back in the late 40s/early 50s, saved the US defence budget and the US Navy. It might just work here and save the LPDs!??

Yes, but then they wil not get their peerships, large pensions etc. Your'e asking of them to put interests of the country before their own interest, to show some balls...

[S M H]

I know what arm I would rather the Navy cut off. Keeping our nuclear submarines at the cost of the decline and removal of every other capability, just so we can stay in the big boy nuclear club to stay important. Canceling the program could keep all of our current assets and triple the size of the fleet, giving us the ability to keep our current commitments as well as field two carrier strike groups and an amphibious group if needed.

Nice thought but the strategic deterrent is ring fenced and removed from the defence core budget before the services get there respective budgets. George Osborne fixed it so when he put it in the defence core budget without its allocated additional budget. The chickens from S.S.D. 10 are coming home to destroy the conventual equipment budgets.

[Ron5]

George Osborne, the gift that keeps giving. Remember the cheers in Parliament when he announced that the 2% NATO spend will be kept? Lying tosser.

[Ron5]

Daily Telegraph

Britain would be 'unable to conduct major amphibious operations' after proposed sale of Navy warships to South America

Ben Farmer, Defence Correspondent

25 October 2017 • 10:30pm

Britain will lose its ability to carry out major amphibious operations under cost-cutting plans being considered to sell off warships, MPs and military leaders have warned.

Naval officials in Chile and Brazil are reported to be lining up to buy two Royal Navy amphibious landing platform ships and Type-23 frigates after UK officials told them they may be put up for sale from next year.

The two nations have been told warships including HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark could be available second hand as a result of cost-cutting plans being considered by the Forces, defence journal Jane’s reported.

The Ministry of Defence strongly denied it would cut the Navy’s overstretched fleet of frigates, and said there had been “no engagement” with Chile or Brazil.

But Naval sources confirmed retiring the two amphibious vessels is a key plank of cost-cutting proposals drawn up by the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Philip Jones. Senior officers have also suggested cutting two frigates as one way of saving money.

MPs and senior naval figures said HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark were vital to the Navy and their loss would leave Britain unable to carry out major amphibious operations.

Service chiefs yesterday met in London to discuss how to between them save up to a billion pounds this year and begin to make a total of £20bn savings over the next decade.

HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark were only launched last decade and are believed to have around 30 years life left between them.

“These ships are almost new”, said one naval source “It’s like having 12,000 miles on the clock.”
"We have to spend money on dealing with threats from cyber, as well as finding resources to storm beaches"Sir Michael Fallon, Defence Secretary

Maj Gen Julian Thompson, a retired Royal Marines officer who commanded 3 Commando Brigade during the Falklands War, said the ships were “absolutely vital”.

Without the ships, the Navy would be unable to land heavy equipment and armour on beaches, he said.

Maj Gen Thompson said the ships’ ability to load light armoured vehicles and engineering equipment onto landing craft could not be replaced by helicopters or other support ships.

He said: “If you give this capability away, you can’t get it back in a hurry.”
Royal Navy ship HMS Bulwark rescues 300 migrants Royal Navy ship HMS Bulwark rescues 300 migrants
01:46

He said other vessels, such as Royal Fleet Auxiliary support ships which provided aid in the Caribbean, were “no substitute”.

He said: “They can’t do the same job. We are giving away an amphibious capability that to my mind is absolutely vital.”

The Defence Secretary, Sir Michael Fallon, faced repeated questioning from MPs on the sale when he appeared in front of the Commons defence committee.

He dismissed the reports as “pure speculation” and said he had yet to receive any proposals from service chiefs on how to save money.

He said: “We have to consider the way in which the threats have intensified. We have to spend money on dealing with threats from cyber, as well as finding resources to storm beaches.

He went on: “The threats have intensified in other domains apart from storming beaches.”

Britain’s new 65,000 ton aircraft carriers had been designed to provide amphibious duties, he suggested.

But he was challenged by Julian Lewis MP, the chairman of the committee.

Mr Lewis said: “I am sorry Secretary of State, there is no way that a Queen Elizabeth Class carrier can substitute for the capabilities of Albion or Bulwark as a landing platform.”

Johnny Mercer MP, a former officer in the Royal Marines, said cutting the two ships would significantly limit Britain’s military options in the future.

He said no other ships could act as floating, amphibious command centres in the same way.

Lt Gen Mark Poffley, deputy chief of defence staff for military capability, told MPs: “Quite clearly Albion and Bulwark provide some very specific capability.”

He said that if the ships were to be axed, their attributes would either have to be replaced or “one would have to accept that you are taking a compromise in that part of your operational portfolio”.

Service chiefs have each been asked to draw up a list of possible savings to meet efficiency targets before the Treasury will release more money to buy warships, aircraft and vehicles.

Gen Sir Nick Carter, Admiral Sir Philip Jones and ACM Sir Stephen Hillier all met in London on Wednesday to chew over their options.

Defence chiefs have complained there is not enough money to fulfil the plans outlined in the Government’s 2015 strategic defence and security review. One source said the figures looked “ghastly”.

Defence priorities are also being redrawn because of a string of terrorist attacks in the past seven months.

A senior MOD source said that the sale of Type 23 frigates before they could be replaced next decade by new Type 26 warships “categorically won’t happen”.

An Ministry of Defence spokesman said: “We can categorically confirm that there has been no engagement with either Chile or Brazil in respect of Type 23 Frigates or the two landing platform dock ships.”

“In the face of intensifying threats, we are contributing to the cross-government review of national security capabilities and looking at how we best spend our rising defence budget to protect our country. No decisions have yet been made and at this stage, any discussion of the options is pure speculation.”

[ArmChairCivvy]

Service chiefs have each been asked to draw up a list of possible savings to meet efficiency targets before the Treasury will release more money to buy warships, aircraft and vehicles.

- Run by the Cabinet Office (they seem to be good at hiding)

Gen Sir Nick Carter, Admiral Sir Philip Jones and ACM Sir Stephen Hillier all met in London on Wednesday to chew over their options.

- The 4th one was omitted (perhaps they have not been asked to find savings?)

I do not envy Fallon in this; a lot seems to be done over his head

[marktigger]

I do not envy Fallon in this; a lot seems to be done over his head

doesn't help the chancellor has recent experience in MoD.

but the nature of the department there is also lots of unforeseen spending especially in the equipment budget

[RetroSicotte]

Watching the Defence Committee

At least thus far, I am shocked that despite them bringing up "QE cannot compare to an Albion" in terms of landing, that not a single one of them even mentioned how you get vehicles ashore with a QE carrier. Instead opting for this moronic approach of "Oh but what if you want to land quietly?"

They had an open goal, and decided to play rounders instead. What abject morons.

I direly hope as I watch more of this they actually bring this back up, because they're giving Fallon and his cronies every way out.

[RetroSicotte]

Watching further now I'm home again.

Still with this "but if you need to land quietly". For goodness sake all you need to ask is "How would you land a Challenger 2 with a QE?" and you'll have nailed Fallon to the wall in one sentence. They need to be vastly more incisive with these.

The only person making direct calls is that younger guy on the left, I'm afraid I do not know his name. He actually looks invested and sharp on this.

Fallon is just a snake though. The dodging, vagueness and twisting is beyond a level of what I even habitually expect from a politician. He has no care on this subject at all.

Edit - You know if this goes far enough, I can honestly see them cutting Bays instead so they can proudly say they didn't cut Albion or Bulwark...

[R686]

Edit - You know if this goes far enough, I can honestly see them cutting Bays instead so they can proudly say they didn't cut Albion or Bulwark...

Yes please how thick does the envolope need to be?