Ocean Class Helicopter Carrier (LPH) (1998-2018) (ex RN)

[Repulse]

I suppose what I meant by a specialist ship is a ship that is not a frigate or destroyer. A ship that isn't a surface combatant, that isn't designed to stick up for it's self, rather a ship that specialises in moving a lot of mass from the UK, to a hostile beach.

I think that can be classed as a specialism, a big flat top and a big well dock don't come naturally to other naval designs. It just so happens those features enable the use of many off board assets, so the LPH can take on some multirole qualities. However it is not the platform, rather the off board equipment that enables these multirole qualities.


I guess I'm saying a ship that specialises in landing stuff. Unlike the Absalon-class support ship, or the Karel Doorman support ship, which look a bit like jack of all trades, master of none. The Royal Navy is big enough not to need crossover's.

As my previous comment, I'm not saying that the RN shouldn't have specialist vessels, its just that the heavy lift should be RFA based and not parked initially close to shore as part of the initial assault.

Of course we are talking about 6 ships with 1 RM Cdo (and light armoured support), plus OTH assets, attacking a lightly defended beach. Forget anything more defended, as it'll mean the RN has landed in the wrong place.

[Repulse]

Sounds more like a candidate for the lite frigate to me which has constable duties as well, or in other words a Absolon class

It was one of my suggestions to a potential role of the Frigate class, but on reflection id see these as a separate class. The reason being is that these need to be larger and the compromise in design would be too difficult balancing a small Frigate to effectively an armed small amphibious assault ship. I'd also go for the Cross Over design over the Absalon as they have a better layout and the launching of the LCVPs is straight forward. Also the rear ramp would allow for additional kit to be loaded and AAVs launched.

For armament, I'd see a 76mm gun (or 2), CAMM, 40mm Sigma and a CIWS.

They could also form the core of a RFA ARG escort group, covered by broader CBG, ASW, SSN and MPA assets.

[shark bait]

These crossover designs really don't sit well for me, they are nice designs but not right for the Royal Navy.

In a small businesses a single employee will have multiple roles, whereas in a big business each of those small roles grows into a full time job, and is better with dedicated employee applied to it. Now replace employee with platform and you quite accurately reflect the situation. In a small navy the amphibious role may be applied to half a ship, but as the navy grows in size, so does the amphibious requirements untill it demands a dedicated platform.

I think these crossover designs are for the smaller navy where there is a requirement for half an amphibious platform, so it has to be mixed with another design. In our big navy we have a requirement for more like 3 amphibious platform's, so now a specialist platform looks more sensible. Similar to how smaller navy's cross over frigate and patrol vessel designs, whereas we are better placed separating those roles.

I also seriously doubt the financials would make sense. Our surface combatants are big expensive and highly credible. The problem is delivering a frigate crossed with a LHD that matches the Royal Navy's high standard whilst remaining affordable. That won't be possible, especially since we will need a whole fleet of them to properly replace the assets we have now.

The role's are just too different to put together effectively. Multi role is great, but has its limits before slipping into jack of all trades, master of none territory.

[ArmChairCivvy]

As it stands now we need both LHD supported by HMAS Choules for the Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) 2200 per

OK, HMAS Choules was a "steal" but what do the two Canberras, with that small addition on top, add up to, in the way of shipping for an ARG?

The 2+4 (now 3) RN vessels with a dock originally came in at just over a £ 1bn, and as an afterthought (due to penny pinching on the aviation facilities, to keep those designs within "parameters"), HMS Ocean was added, with the cost of a quarter bn in today's pounds.
- the first bn does not need inflation adjustment as all the combined cock-ups and subsequent cost overruns cover for that (in comparisons)

I can see the attractiveness of Absalon-type to the Australian (rather, Pacific islands) circumstances as two of them could Command a patrol fleet
of smaller craft along the huge stretch of what is the Greenland coast line.

And if more than that would be needed (for flag showing), each of them can land a half of an army recce bn with their equipment. In extremis, that could include a couple of Leopard tanks - if a suitable pier is found in the vicinity of the required landing.
- based on the capacity quoted, the recce bn sounds very small in size (but I have taken the quote from original Danish sources)

PS
SB's 2nd paragraph above, which appeared while I was typing, sums it up very well, outside the special circumstances I have referred to in this piece. The Philipino police actions on their southern islands could be another one, but a combination of helos and smaller craft will probably do the job there as the expanses of water in between are not of the same magnitude

[Repulse]

@SB: To be clear, I'm not proposing a joint role, but more numerous / smaller, fighty amphibious assault ships that can look after themselves to a larger degree than the current LPDs.

The fact is that the RN is not what it was even 10 years ago. It is smaller and the funds are much more limited, as such we need to get used to thinking more like a small navy, to maximise what we can do.

[Engaging Strategy]

I think these crossover designs are the smaller navy where there is a requirement for half an amphibious platform, so it has to be mixed with another design. In our big navy we have a requirement for more like 3 amphibious platform's, so now a specialist platform looks more sensible.

I've actually had the privilege of being allowed to take a look around an Absalon in person. Everything I saw confirmed that while it was a nice idea, pretty well executed, it's a very limited design in terms of the amphibious mission. The Danish navy did their best, and honestly got more capability for a force that size than you'd expect. Absalon is certainly not for the UK though, it's a very compromised design born out of necessity rather than strategy. For the Danes it was a case of "Absalon or no amphibious capability at all.".

I also seriously doubt the financials would make sense. Our surface combatants are big expensive and highly credible. The problem is delivering a frigate crossed with a LHD that matches the Royal Navy's high standard whilst remaining affordable. That won't be possible, especially since we will need a whole fleet of them to properly replace the assets we have now.

Considering that limited manpower is going to be the biggest issue the RN has to deal with for the forseeable future the numbers just don't add up. Even if you had the money to build say six amphibifrigates you're going to be using substantially more manpower than 2 Juan Carlos style LHDs for a capability not half as good.

The role's are just too different to put together effectively. Multi role is great, but has its limits before slipping into jack of all trades, master of none territory.

It's the intractable problem we now face, because the RN is underfunded and overworked we're constantly looking for novel new ways to get more frigates and destroyers. You can see it in the light frigate/2 tier navy enthusiasts and now it's coming up in the future amphibious platform debate. In my opinion both are massive red herrings, the Royal Navy needs big, capable and credible capital units. Why? Because the Royal Navy still aspires to lead coalitions (or grab the 2IC slot after the US Navy) rather than simply tag along and get told what to do. In order to do this you need first rate people operating first rate kit, simple.

The fact is that the RN is not what it was even 10 years ago. It is smaller and the funds are much more limited, as such we need to get used to thinking more like a small navy, to maximise what we can do.

This is precisely the wrong way of looking at the situation. The UK is still an enormously wealthy and economically successful country, however HMG currently chooses not to prioritise defence over other areas of spending. Thinking like a small navy will get you the same poor results as most small navies: no blue water ambition, locked into coalitions where they have little influence, unable to protect their national interests. Thinking like a big navy, with fewer but thoroughly capable platforms, buys you blue water capability and influence.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Considering that limited manpower is going to be the biggest issue the RN has to deal with for the forseeable future the numbers just don't add up. Even if you had the money to build say six amphibifrigates you're going to be using substantially more manpower than 2 Juan Carlos style LHDs for a capability not half as good.

That's the bottom line.

It is the RM that are multi-role; the amhibs are not and hence the opportunity cost (manning the rest of the navy) must be minimised
- it is NOT as if we could not afford to build the ships

PS The assumption here is that we build and maintain a navy for warfighting

[shark bait]

@SB: To be clear, I'm not proposing a joint role, but more numerous / smaller, fighty amphibious assault ships that can look after themselves to a larger degree than the current LPDs.

The fact is that the RN is not what it was even 10 years ago. It is smaller and the funds are much more limited, as such we need to get used to thinking more like a small navy, to maximise what we can do.

My problem with more numerous ships is these won't be the cheap Absalon's they will cost as much as a frigate, in both cash and man power, which are resources we can't afford to spend on a platform that has a quarter the capability of a frigate, and a quarter the capability of a LHD.

Whilst the Royal Navy is undoubtably smaller, it is still one of the larger and most credible naval forces in the world. This had been achieved by pursuing high quality assets every time, a method I think we should follow.

The current situation is an interesting dilemma, do we have a less capable but more numerous navy, or a highly capable more compact force.

I think the issue with the more numerous options, is the Royal Navy will have more assets that look just like the inventory of every other navy. Instead of standing out in a coalition, we will just blend in with all of the smaller navy's in Europe.

The problem in Europe is not quantity, but quality. If we can bring the quality to the coalition we can lead it and that is the best way to protect British interests. For me, we have to maintain the highly credible compact force.

[Repulse]

For me, we have to maintain the highly credible compact force.

In a nutshell that sums up the disagreement I have with the approach taken by the RN. Sure its great having the latest shiniest kit, but you end up spending 80% of your budget on getting a 20% technology advantage. It would be great of things worked that way, but they don't. All it takes is one accident or one lucky shot and a substantial loss has been inflicted.

If you look back, more often than not the RN has not had the best kit, but numbers, ingenuity and most importantly the best trained personnel to win the day.

Also, where does this spiral for the "best" end? When you have a single "death star" that you cannot afford to lose so you keep in port?

Lastly, if the RN went for a Amphibious ship with around 70-80 crew, then with 6 ships the crew numbers would be about the same as now (granted that specialism's would be different). The fact is currently, that with both CVFs there is not enough to crew both LPDs, which makes the whole approach daft in my view.

[arfah]

............

[ArmChairCivvy]

The fact is currently, that with both CVFs there is not enough to crew both LPDs, which makes the whole approach daft in my view.

I agree that there is no end for the race to the "best"; one USAF proc person postulated how long it would take, at this rate, for them to end up with one single plane
- don't remember his name or the year that he came up with, for now

But as for the quote, it is not daft at all. Let's rely on official numbers (hey! there aren't any other available):
- LPD in use costs £17-33m pa; one kept "warm" costs a third of a mill
- 300 crew (allowing for a couple of dozen of a skeleton crew) becomes available... isn't that abt half a carrier's worth?

The good news is that the LPD isn't lost. Whereas for fighting ships the RN seems to have given up such a policy... may be because the reality of bringing them back was laid bare by our last cruisers not making it to the Falklands (from their extended readiness).

[Pseudo]

What about two direct Bay replacements and two of something along the lines of the Karel Doorman JSS?

[ArmChairCivvy]

What about two direct Bay replacements and two of something along the lines of the Karel Doorman JSS?

I do like the KD concept, esp. the aviation side of it. However, before knowing how much support features for forces on shore go into the SSS design, it would be premature to try to answer that
- it is noteworthy, though, that the RM (part of the navy) is evaluating all ship-to-shore connectors (LCU was left out, so I read it as it being a given well into the future)
- my interpretation is that such a wide study (without any direct orders flowing out of it, exc. perhaps confirming the BV successor) is done to inform ship design. So, what the SSS will not do, will be incorporated in the nxt-gen amphibs (none of which will appear before 20 years will be up)

[Engaging Strategy]

In a nutshell that sums up the disagreement I have with the approach taken by the RN. Sure its great having the latest shiniest kit, but you end up spending 80% of your budget on getting a 20% technology advantage. It would be great of things worked that way, but they don't. All it takes is one accident or one lucky shot and a substantial loss has been inflicted.

That 20% technological advantage is an inherent byproduct of the the way the RN operates, it's the difference between navies that project their power regionally and navies that project their power globally. Why does the RN require longer range from its platforms than almost anybody else, or far better individual platform survivability, or carriers and amphibious shipping?

The fundamental truth of the matter is that the RN is a global cruising navy, which is comparatively large by European standards. It is designed to project UK power effectively at extreme range from its bases. Why do you think the RFA accounts for such a significant proportion of European support shipping? We pay a premium, as the US Navy also does, for ships that can project power at range. That 20% advantage is what allows us to continue doing that.

If you look back, more often than not the RN has not had the best kit, but numbers, ingenuity and most importantly the best trained personnel to win the day.

That's all well and good, but the reality is you don't want to have to rely on ingenuity (read skill mixed with a substantial chunk of luck) to give you a fighting chance. I am reminded of the quote: "If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn't plan properly", in war you don't want your enemy to stand a chance. When it's down to having to pull a masterstroke out of the bag, because you don't have the kit to simply crush your enemy, something's gone wrong and you're walking a very fine line between success and disaster.

Also, where does this spiral for the "best" end? When you have a single "death star" that you cannot afford to lose so you keep in port?

The decline in surface escort numbers has as much to do with declining defence budgets as it does with them being increasingly expensive. If we spent ~4% of GDP on defence, as we did in the 80s, then we'd probably still have around 50 frigates and destroyers rather than 19.

Lastly, if the RN went for a Amphibious ship with around 70-80 crew, then with 6 ships the crew numbers would be about the same as now (granted that specialism's would be different). The fact is currently, that with both CVFs there is not enough to crew both LPDs, which makes the whole approach daft in my view.

How can you suggest that an Absalon-like ship with improved self-defence capabilities would have 70-80 crew? The Absalons have ~100 basic, plus people to operate the mission modules that actually add your defensive systems. The fact is that HMG made a very stupid mistake in 2010 by cutting 5,000 people out of the RN. A mistake that they will have to rectify sooner or later. That'll mean enough people to man the kit we buy, both the carriers and the amphibs.

[WhitestElephant]

This is precisely the wrong way of looking at the situation. The UK is still an enormously wealthy and economically successful country, however HMG currently chooses not to prioritise defence over other areas of spending. Thinking like a small navy will get you the same poor results as most small navies: no blue water ambition, locked into coalitions where they have little influence, unable to protect their national interests. Thinking like a big navy, with fewer but thoroughly capable platforms, buys you blue water capability and influence.

Hear, hear. This country really needs to stand up and see itself for what it is. Though what is blue water capability, really? Never liked the term.

The Royal Navy has been a power projection navy for centuries, it is the norm, the de facto state of our navy. We don't need fancy buzzwords.

[Engaging Strategy]

Hear, hear. This country really needs to stand up and see itself for what it is. Though what is blue water capability, really? Never liked the term.

The Royal Navy has been a power projection navy for centuries, it is the norm, the de facto state of our navy. We don't need fancy buzzwords.

Currently writing an article about this. The UK is a large and very rich maritime great power that far too often behaves like it's a small poor continental power. Stupid people look at maps and see big countries and assume they're powerful and smaller countries and assume they're weak.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The fact is that HMG made a very stupid mistake in 2010 by cutting 5,000 people out of the RN. A mistake that they will have to rectify sooner or later. That'll mean enough people to man the kit we buy, both the carriers and the amphibs

So true. But as we have a team in place that does not have an inclination to admit mistakes, the 5000 will come back by merging the RM into the army and adding enough sailors.
- please note that this is not my opinion, I am just reading the tea leaves, based on past behaviours
- prestidigitation: army numbers maintained, more sailors... nothing happened!

[Engaging Strategy]

So true. But as we have a team in place that does not have an inclination to admit mistakes, the 5000 will come back by merging the RM into the army and adding enough sailors.
- please note that this is not my opinion, I am just reading the tea leaves, based on past behaviours
- prestidigitation: army numbers maintained, more sailors... nothing happened!

Somehow I doubt it. The RM are just too valuable as an independent capability. They're about as close to the ideal force for modern short sharp interventions as you can get. I should think that there are people in the RM, RN and MoD who can see that. If a merger was going to happen it would've already. With a stable budget trending towards modest increases I just don't see the impetus for something so radical that wouldn't go down well with Joe public. It'd be about as toxic as cutting historic army regiments.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Though what is blue water capability, really? Never liked the term.

The Royal Navy has been a power projection navy for centuries, it is the norm, the de facto state of our navy. We don't need fancy buzzwords

Blue water: carrier task force in isolation
- enough to break windows with guineas, but that's it (forgetting the sea denial ability of SSNs, which is as or actually more strategic)

RE: "has been a power projection navy for centuries"
- was going the other way rapidly, with the ASW specialisation (now reversed) and the scaling down of the amphibs component (a BG is not much in way of power projection; add the rest of 3 CDO and some of army on the Points... still not strategic)

So... looking forward to that article by ES

[ArmChairCivvy]

Anyone notice,when the SSBNs came into the defence budget, at that time they put the boats at £20bn.
- £10bn more, and voila, the defence budget could not take it anymore - and it's almost all still in the future!
- so where exactly is this new contingency held?

[shark bait]

Also, where does this spiral for the "best" end? When you have a single "death star" that you cannot afford to lose so you keep in port?

That is an interesting point, there is obviously a tipping point where reach your death star situation. I don't think we're there yet and currently managing a nice balance. If you go too far you end up with a Tirpitz situation, very valuable and attracts too much enemy attention.

I think we have to continue with long range power projection, which I think means big flat top's to transport that power, protected by world class escort's. I don't think a frigate amphib hybrid will be enough on its own, it will still require those high end frigates making the whole concept rather moot.

What about two direct Bay replacements and two of something along the lines of the Karel Doorman JSS?

The basic hull is attractive, especially the aviation capabilities, but the Dutch have tried to cram too many roles into the platform and have ended up with a very confused ship. Jack of all trades master of none for sure.

Our bay class haven't been in service for 10 years yet, I don't think replacing these incredibly good value platforms needs to be on the card's for a long while yet. On the other hand there is a bit ocean sized hole that the carriers don't really fit too well.

[Pseudo]

The basic hull is attractive, especially the aviation capabilities, but the Dutch have tried to cram too many roles into the platform and have ended up with a very confused ship. Jack of all trades master of none for sure.

To be honest, I was thinking that their greatest use would be as a single platform for disaster relief more than anything since it looks like we'll be doing a lot more of that in the foreseeable future. Maybe we could get DfID to buy a couple along with a couple of hospital ships.

Our bay class haven't been in service for 10 years yet, I don't think replacing these incredibly good value platforms needs to be on the card's for a long while yet.

You're right of course, no doubt they'll still be running in to the 2040's.

On the other hand there is a bit ocean sized hole that the carriers don't really fit too well.

There is indeed, but it is a round hole that will almost certainly have the massive square peg of PoW stuffed in to it until the Albion's need replacing in the mid-2030's.

[shark bait]

There is indeed, but it is a round hole that will almost certainly have the massive square peg of PoW stuffed in to it until the Albion's need replacing in the mid-2030's.

Short term that will suffice.

However longer term it is a waste of a very valuable asset. I'm hoping Albion's can be sold and replaced early. I think long term they will struggle with their lack of aviation facilities and will cease to be truly effective. At that point they should be replaced, which at the same time will give us a true ocean replacement.

I'm unsure how realistic an early replacemet will be. Mid to late 20's we will be building T26's, light frigates, successor and MHPC. I'm not sure there is room for a LHD.

[Repulse]

That 20% technological advantage is an inherent byproduct of the the way the RN operates, it's the difference between navies that project their power regionally and navies that project their power globally. Why does the RN require longer range from its platforms than almost anybody else, or far better individual platform survivability, or carriers and amphibious shipping?

The fundamental truth of the matter is that the RN is a global cruising navy, which is comparatively large by European standards. It is designed to project UK power effectively at extreme range from its bases. Why do you think the RFA accounts for such a significant proportion of European support shipping? We pay a premium, as the US Navy also does, for ships that can project power at range. That 20% advantage is what allows us to continue doing that.

Not sure exactly what you are arguing here. I never said that we shouldn't have first class assets, I'm a big fan of the 100% available RN CBG and Astute SSNs which can go anywhere in the world, what I am saying is that like anything there needs to be a balance. Also, let's open our eyes to the fact that the Navy is not big enough to do everything 1st class, so it has to focus on certain capabilities and be inventive elsewhere. I'm sure that China and Russia are quaking in their boots with the thought of 1,800 RMs running over a moderately defended beach via slow / exposed LPDs.

That's all well and good, but the reality is you don't want to have to rely on ingenuity (read skill mixed with a substantial chunk of luck) to give you a fighting chance. I am reminded of the quote: "If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn't plan properly", in war you don't want your enemy to stand a chance. When it's down to having to pull a masterstroke out of the bag, because you don't have the kit to simply crush your enemy, something's gone wrong and you're walking a very fine line between success and disaster.

Again not sure on your point. Are you saying that the forces with the highest technology has always won the day? Scale has its own value, also if a major war did happen I'd rather have 3 Frigates I could quickly upgrade with latest kit and trained crews, than 1 super Destroyer in refit or in the wrong place.

The decline in surface escort numbers has as much to do with declining defence budgets as it does with them being increasingly expensive. If we spent ~4% of GDP on defence, as we did in the 80s, then we'd probably still have around 50 frigates and destroyers rather than 19.

Yep, but pretending it's not happening and believing that the government and public will wake up before its too late is ignoring the facts. Defence does not win votes. We need to make best with what we have.

How can you suggest that an Absalon-like ship with improved self-defence capabilities would have 70-80 crew? The Absalons have ~100 basic, plus people to operate the mission modules that actually add your defensive systems. The fact is that HMG made a very stupid mistake in 2010 by cutting 5,000 people out of the RN. A mistake that they will have to rectify sooner or later. That'll mean enough people to man the kit we buy, both the carriers and the amphibs.

I never said Absalon, I said a fighty Amphibious Assault ship. No Harpoon, no long range radar, no mission modules - the numbers I quote are given by Damen for the Cross Over. Sure they may be higher, but the proportions still stand.

[Engaging Strategy]

Not sure exactly what you are arguing here. I never said that we shouldn't have first class assets, I'm a big fan of the 100% available RN CBG and Astute SSNs which can go anywhere in the world, what I am saying is that like anything there needs to be a balance. Also, let's open our eyes to the fact that the Navy is not big enough to do everything 1st class, so it has to focus on certain capabilities and be inventive elsewhere. I'm sure that China and Russia are quaking in their boots with the thought of 1,800 RMs running over a moderately defended beach via slow / exposed LPDs.

Except the RN is big enough to have a first class amphibious capability. Frankly if it comes to the point where 1800 RM are storming Chinese or Russian beaches alone something's gone very, very, wrong.

Again not sure on your point. Are you saying that the forces with the highest technology has always won the day? Scale has its own value, also if a major war did happen I'd rather have 3 Frigates I could quickly upgrade with latest kit and trained crews, than 1 super Destroyer in refit or in the wrong place.

No, but it helps. If a major war happened you wouldn't have time to upgrade your frigates. Modern war isn't like WW2 where you can produce, replace and upgrade your kit as it goes. You go with what you've got and hope it's enough. One of the major reasons why NATO would have had to go nuclear if the Cold War went hot was that after 7 days of fighting they'd have run out of ammunition. There's no industrial capacity standing by to provide your upgrades in the event of a real war.

Yep, but pretending it's not happening and believing that the government and public will wake up before its too late is ignoring the facts. Defence does not win votes. We need to make best with what we have.

I think there is a slow realisation that we can't keep relying on the Americans to such an unhealthy degree. As their budgets are cut and they become ever more entangled in competition with China we're going to have to learn to look after our patch again. It's not a matter of votes, it's a matter of realities. We either demonstrate that we're willing and able to defend our allies and interests or we step back from the world and accept that means we'll lose what control and influence we have.

I never said Absalon, I said a fighty Amphibious Assault ship. No Harpoon, no long range radar, no mission modules - the numbers I quote are given by Damen for the Cross Over. Sure they may be higher, but the proportions still stand.

I accept the need for amphibs with more self defence capability, I don't see why that means you need a combined frigate/amphib. I think adding CAMM to our future amphibious shipping is a perfectly reasonable way of protecting them against most threats they could expect to face.