Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
james k
Member
Posts: 358
Joined: 31 Aug 2017, 16:51
United Kingdom

Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)

Post by james k »

When was this?

S M H wrote:
R686 wrote:Also in low sea state, ive never seen a mexe picture in the surf zone. look how calm the beachheads were in the Falkland's campaign
. Bob Brown who had years of experience as a coxswain lost a A. T. Land rover of a mexe float at Dourness bay(Cape Wrath). When the tie down eye came out of the land rover in the surf doing a beaching Using them in place of landing craft in any weather would be a none starter.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)

Post by marktigger »

[quote="james k"][/quote]


like your normandy comparrison helicopters are more noisy than Dakotas, Halifaxes and Stirlings and slightly less vulnerable to groundfire than Horsa, Hamilcars and WACO gliders!

james k
Member
Posts: 358
Joined: 31 Aug 2017, 16:51
United Kingdom

Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)

Post by james k »

We suffer from a system where changes come as the result of government, dare I suggest Treasury, policies. True situations and technology changes but so to does our amphibious force. The Royal Marines and Royal Navy, evolved steadily making use of experience, the successes and failures of their own and other nations making and ever changing technology. The only other force that comes close to following their lead is the Royal Netherlands Marine Corps with whom they worked hand in glove for decades. The USMC followed a different path as their unmatched size and resources enabled them to do so.

Other comparable formations, with the possible exception of Italy's San Marco/Lagunari/COMSUBIN who achieved a reasonably good measure of competence, never achieved any real operating capability or inovation. Until recently the French Fusiliers Marine had no operational role other than Port Defence and supporting their small Commando groups and the French Army Marines only held the title because they served "overseas". The Spanish Marines, like the Argentinians, struggled on with unwilling conscripts and equipment that was out of date when the US navy disposed of it in the 1960's.

It there are those who would undo all of those developments that the British amphibious force has created, throw away their lead and position as being the benchmark and add some rather dubious untested practices and equipment.

If left alone the Royal Marines and supporting elements of the supporting force will continue to evolve to make use of new technology and opportunities whilst retaining standards others find difficult or impossible to meet.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)

Post by marktigger »

james k wrote:We suffer from a system where changes come as the result of government, dare I suggest Treasury, policies. True situations and technology changes but so to does our amphibious force. The Royal Marines and Royal Navy, evolved steadily making use of experience, the successes and failures of their own and other nations making and ever changing technology. The only other force that comes close to following their lead is the Royal Netherlands Marine Corps with whom they worked hand in glove for decades. The USMC followed a different path as their unmatched size and resources enabled them to do so.

Other comparable formations, with the possible exception of Italy's San Marco/Lagunari/COMSUBIN who achieved a reasonably good measure of competence, never achieved any real operating capability or inovation. Until recently the French Fusiliers Marine had no operational role other than Port Defence and supporting their small Commando groups and the French Army Marines only held the title because they served "overseas". The Spanish Marines, like the Argentinians, struggled on with unwilling conscripts and equipment that was out of date when the US navy disposed of it in the 1960's.

It there are those who would undo all of those developments that the British amphibious force has created, throw away their lead and position as being the benchmark and add some rather dubious untested practices and equipment.

If left alone the Royal Marines and supporting elements of the supporting force will continue to evolve to make use of new technology and opportunities whilst retaining standards others find difficult or impossible to meet.
or will be seen as an expensive organisation with a limited role that others will claim they can do to get the budget for their pet programs leaving the Marines to wither

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)

Post by R686 »

I haven't had the chance to read it yet, might make for interesting reading

http://www.parliament.uk/business/commi ... /inquiry5/

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)

Post by R686 »

lots of interesting titbits in the Defence committee hearing, A few things that highlight the fundamental difference between the LPD and LSD(A)
Dr Roberts: Having thought about that question, can I come back with one point that I would not want you to miss? The LSD(A)s, which are the other landing ships that the Navy has, have the ability to offload and send in on a landing craft, and they can do it with heavy gear, but they can do one at a time—single operation—whereas Albion and Bulwark can do four together. This is really critical when you are putting anyone ashore on a beach that is not yours and you are not quite sure what you are going to experience. One or even two of these landing craft coming ashore presents considerable risk—far more than if you were able to land four together. All the operational theory, and all the experience going back 5,000 years to what Thucydides and Homer wrote about amphibious operations, is about the weight of the first elements going ashore. Operational analysis today would indicate that four landing craft is the minimum capability at which you should be able to land on that beach


Leo Docherty: Dr Roberts, briefly, is there an argument that the carriers could be used to deliver that amphibious capability? Could the Bay class vessels substitute for the Albion class vessels?

Dr Roberts: I think it is deeply flawed, for lots of reasons: that their command and control is not suited, and because of the number of delivery platforms that they can launch from, the type of accommodation available on board and even the design of them. The wonderful thing, if you have been on board HMS Ocean or Albion or Bulwark, is that they are not designed for normal people. They are designed for Royal Marines who carry ridiculous weights in their backpacks and carry heavy weapons as they walk through the ship, so even things like the ladders are not like you would normally find on merchant or normal naval ships. They are at a much shallower angle and have deeper treads to allow guys with bigger boots carrying enormous loads and weapons to walk up. They are designed so that, as you step on to the landing craft or the helicopter, you do it all together with your Jeep next to you for underslung loads or your ammunition pallets. All of it is absolutely designed around amphibious capability, and this is crucial to delivering it properly.
Was not aware that this was the original composition for the capability :thumbup: , pity it didn't materialise :thumbdown:
Nick Childs: In terms of it being just two ships, we must remember that this force was originally part of a package. It was a balanced package, as has been said before, with the original ambition to deliver a brigade ashore, and it was a package whose initial requirement was for two Oceans, two LPDs and I think five LSD(A)s—the Bay class—all together to provide that capability. That has been chipped away over the period, including in 2010. The ambition in terms of the size of the force to be delivered has already been reduced from a brigade to the lead commando group. That is why one of the Bays went then and why we went to extended readiness for one of the LPDs

Do the LSD(A) even have the room for such capability if the LPD are lost :?:
Major General Thompson: There is one other point, Chair, which is command and control. The LSD(A)s do not have anything like the command and control facilities that the LPD does. Somebody once rather arrogantly described amphibious operations as the scholarship level of warfare. One of the reasons is the array of communications you need to fight the various battles at various layers: the anti-submarine battle, controlling your own aircraft, anti-aircraft, controlling the task groups, surface actions; and then the managing of the landing itself, vectoring the landing craft, managing the air lift in; and of course, fighting the land battle, which is the ultimate object of the whole game. The LSD(A) has nothing like the communications that you require to do those five things, which are all going on sometimes simultaneously.

A truly balanced force brings a greater power projection than one element alone
Dr Roberts: I have two. The first would be that when you rely on assumptions, you will be unpicked and that will potentially be your undoing, particularly when those assumptions are based on the dependencies of allies being there when you expect them to be with the capabilities that you think they will bring. The second one is about logistics. Your predecessors on this Committee in 2003 did a report on the amphibious capability and elements of Operation Telic—the invasion of Iraq in 2003. They took evidence from Air Marshal Burridge, the commander of joint force operations. He said that criticality of logistics, sea lift and amphibious shipping, for him, could not be provided by air because the limitation was not the aircraft available but the landing sites available in the theatre to which they were going. The only way they could deliver the amount of kit they needed to the fight on the frontline was through shipping.

Whilst you would retain a limited capability and if you were to gap it it still a 15-20 year loss of capabilty
Johnny Mercer: Can you regenerate amphibious capability quite cheaply and quickly? Lieutenant General Fry: No, of course you can’t. First of all, you have to bring the ships into service. I would use the example of carrier air. How long is it going to be before the first of those aircraft carriers is available and it actually performs as a functioning operational platform? Something like a decade. Exactly the same period of time would be true for amphibious platforms.
Martin Docherty-Hughes: Sir Robert, you mentioned putting a carrier on the frontline. It is a lot in terms of the £3.1 billion platform. Also, when you have a carrier strike, you are starting off with one indigenous carrier, but you are trying to do it with two, so it becomes nigh on impossible. Peter, what do our allies around the world think about the UK reducing its amphibious capability?
Well he got that 100% right :thumbup:
Dr Roberts: To use very lazy language, they think we are mad. No one invests such an amount of national capital—intellectual, physical and monetary—in a huge capability and a huge number of ships—sailors, airmen, concepts, relationships—just to simply delete it on the basis of a review that might be a defence review, but without any of the coverage, discussion, or debate around it. It would do us tremendous danger in terms of our reputation as a thinking nation, as a rational actor in a military space, to make such a decision. It does not bear any relationship to the way we are talking about foreign policy or the threats that we have.

Online
abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)

Post by abc123 »

R686 wrote: Dr Roberts: To use very lazy language, they think we are mad. No one invests such an amount of national capital—intellectual, physical and monetary—in a huge capability and a huge number of ships—sailors, airmen, concepts, relationships—just to simply delete it on the basis of a review that might be a defence review, but without any of the coverage, discussion, or debate around it. It would do us tremendous danger in terms of our reputation as a thinking nation, as a rational actor in a military space, to make such a decision. It does not bear any relationship to the way we are talking about foreign policy or the threats that we have.
[/quote]

And when I say so, then I'm the enemy of the UK and FSB-agent... :thumbdown:
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

R686 wrote: they [would] think we are mad. No one invests such an amount of national capital—intellectual, physical and monetary—in a huge capability and a huge number of ships—sailors, airmen, concepts, relationships—just to simply delete it on the basis of a review that might be a defence review, but without any of the coverage, discussion, or debate around it.

It would do us tremendous danger in terms of our reputation as a thinking nation, as a rational actor in a military space, to make such a decision. It does not bear any relationship to the way we are talking about foreign policy or the threats that we have.
and the missing quote is from the very beginning of the transcript: How does all of this relate to the fact that we are about to take the leadership for NATO amph. capability over the next two years???
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)

Post by R686 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
R686 wrote: they [would] think we are mad. No one invests such an amount of national capital—intellectual, physical and monetary—in a huge capability and a huge number of ships—sailors, airmen, concepts, relationships—just to simply delete it on the basis of a review that might be a defence review, but without any of the coverage, discussion, or debate around it.

It would do us tremendous danger in terms of our reputation as a thinking nation, as a rational actor in a military space, to make such a decision. It does not bear any relationship to the way we are talking about foreign policy or the threats that we have.
and the missing quote is from the very beginning of the transcript: How does all of this relate to the fact that we are about to take the leadership for NATO amph. capability over the next two years???

Its one thing to provide leadership its another thing to show it, if the government of the day does decide to delete the capability what is that saying about leadership and the UK role within it?

Online
abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)

Post by abc123 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
R686 wrote: they [would] think we are mad. No one invests such an amount of national capital—intellectual, physical and monetary—in a huge capability and a huge number of ships—sailors, airmen, concepts, relationships—just to simply delete it on the basis of a review that might be a defence review, but without any of the coverage, discussion, or debate around it.

It would do us tremendous danger in terms of our reputation as a thinking nation, as a rational actor in a military space, to make such a decision. It does not bear any relationship to the way we are talking about foreign policy or the threats that we have.
and the missing quote is from the very beginning of the transcript: How does all of this relate to the fact that we are about to take the leadership for NATO amph. capability over the next two years???
Sounds like a good joke. :clap:
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Once in a year (hey! it's Christmas) we can agree :D
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)

Post by SKB »





User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)

Post by SKB »


User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)

Post by SKB »


Digger22
Member
Posts: 347
Joined: 27 May 2015, 16:47
England

Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)

Post by Digger22 »

Are the Albions fit for purpose?
Are they relevant?
Do we consider them of high value?
Are others envious of them?
Are they well balanced?

Then rather than plan for a New design replacement who's cost is likely to turn into Bazillions, just build a couple more of them when the time is right?

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Digger22 wrote:Are the Albions fit for purpose?
Are they relevant?
Do we consider them of high value?
Are others envious of them?
Are they well balanced?

Then rather than plan for a New design replacement who's cost is likely to turn into Bazillions, just build a couple more of them when the time is right?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Not as much as they could be

No

:thumbup:

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4585
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)

Post by Repulse »

Agree that the Albions could be better adapted to CSG ops, but that doesn’t lead to automatic assumption they should be replaced by LHDs.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)

Post by R686 »

Repulse wrote:Agree that the Albions could be better adapted to CSG ops, but that doesn’t lead to automatic assumption they should be replaced by LHDs.
Disagree, even if by some miracle the RN was able to replace the capabilty of the Albions and Ocean, it still leaves a limited capabilty when the LPH goes in for extended maintenance, it restricts the capabilty somewhat. If the Albions are replaced with a LHD, the core capabilty of all three vessels is replicated if only one was available.

The RN core amphibious warfare ships can still maintain a company plus lift capabilty whilst still moving heavy stores and equipment via landing craft, fast jet operations are a secondary capabilty if available. This would then free up the CV in its core role of strike/ASW as only one is most likely ever to be available at any one time.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)

Post by Lord Jim »

Reading one of the recent Select Committee Q&A session notes, it is interesting that the experts, whilst agreeing that the UKJ's amphibious capability had some value, it was far too vulnerable to be of any real use in a peer on peer conflict with Russia for example. The threat posed by the various capabilities possessed by Russia meant that NATO as a whole would have difficulty moving any troops via the Baltic or to the North of Norway. This leads me to consider the UK should not expand its amphibious capability but rather evolve it into force capable for effective raiding operations on a small scale from smaller platforms able to defend themselves, rather than attempting to use the current ARG. The latter would still be of use in other areas in non peer to peer situations, but given funding issues, it is peer to peer that needs to be the priority, and our re establishing out ability to fight at that level on land sea and air.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)

Post by shark bait »

Digger22 wrote:Are the Albions fit for purpose?
Are they relevant?
Do we consider them of high value?
Are others envious of them?
Are they well balanced?
The lack of aviation support is the issue with the Albion's, but the command and control spaces are invaluable, the Brits could not pull off a landing without massive foreign support if it wasnt for the Albion's.

They're not perfect, but it's definitely needed.
Lord Jim wrote:The threat posed by the various capabilities possessed by Russia meant that NATO as a whole would have difficulty moving any troops via the Baltic or to the North of Norway.
Because the Marines have only ever fought Russia.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)

Post by Gabriele »

it is peer to peer that needs to be the priority, and our re establishing out ability to fight at that level on land sea and air.
I might agree, but then the savings must come from that abomination of the fake division of six fake brigades with zero CS and CSS in the army. A huge drain of manpower and resources for far too little return.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Lord Jim wrote:The threat posed by the various capabilities possessed by Russia meant that NATO as a whole would have difficulty moving any troops via the Baltic or to the North of Norway.
What various capabilities are those that would stop NATO forces reinforcing Northern Norway?

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)

Post by jedibeeftrix »

Lord Jim wrote:Reading one of the recent Select Committee Q&A session notes, it is interesting that the experts, whilst agreeing that the UKJ's amphibious capability had some value, it was far too vulnerable to be of any real use in a peer on peer conflict with Russia for example. The threat posed by the various capabilities possessed by Russia meant that NATO as a whole would have difficulty moving any troops via the Baltic or to the North of Norway. This leads me to consider the UK should not expand its amphibious capability but rather evolve it into force capable for effective raiding operations on a small scale from smaller platforms able to defend themselves, rather than attempting to use the current ARG. The latter would still be of use in other areas in non peer to peer situations, but given funding issues, it is peer to peer that needs to be the priority, and our re establishing out ability to fight at that level on land sea and air.
Don't define the foreign policy role of defence capabilities by their Russia mission. In the 21st century Europe is a strategic backwater. Fair enough, if we've opted to merely be a regional power, but I rather hope that isn't the case.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

jedibeeftrix wrote: In the 21st century Europe is a strategic backwater. Fair enough, if we've opted to merely be a regional power, but I rather hope that isn't the case.
Well said
- however, if you stir it too much, then the tectonic plates elsewhere will be disturbed.

Hello Mr. Trump, hope yr new team is listening :problem:
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4585
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)

Post by Repulse »

Weekend question, looking at the next 10 years, and how the RN (and UK) maximises it’s influence, would sacrificing a T23 be worth it if we could get the 2nd Albion active?

I’m thinking if we could get 2 active CSGs centred a CVF, LPD and an LSD, each operating with a reinforced Cdo, then it would make the RN credible again.

I’m not discussing the OTH vs Close to Shore quandary... :)
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Post Reply