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

[Old RN]

The level of accomodation is also a function of the accomodation standards. When I was on HMS Tenby in 1972 with hammocks (double slung) we got 40 of us in one messdeck! I suspecg that if there was a Falklands II one could overload QE by at least 500 over the design figure. I must point out that in 1972 someone wrote to Farmers Weekly with the size of the mess deck and asked how many pigs could be reasonably housed in it. The answer IIRC was less than 10!

[marktigger]

the appalling conditions troops were expected to live under on argus in 1992 when the commons defence comittee visited the vessel of the coast of Yugoslavia led to the building of Ocean . Troops were being expected to sleep on top of vehicles and amongst equipment. Because Argus was being used as an Ad Hoc LPH. The committee demanded the government do something and Ocean was built. If troops are accommodated in sub optimal conditions for long periods their health and efficiency suffer. Cut Price Conversions may not always be the best solution.

[whitelancer]

For combat troops at least living somewhere warm and dry with hot water and hot food available is a step up from living in the field!

[marktigger]

yes it is a step up from the field, the MP's weren't impressed with that argument

[R686]

While having a nose around the net I came across this 2008 document on a possabile future amphibious ship for the USMC primary focus on the ACE ( Air Combat Element), but it also has room for 1800 troops and there equipment and room for 3 LCAC 

http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA510278

http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l163/ ... can002.jpg


I was thinking jeez what an Intersting design, meets a lot of strategies for not only the USMC but the RM. admittedly   it appears to be a non- starter on design and cost ground. But then I saw a lot of similarities with CVF in overall size and shape. It's not intended to emulate the CVF but as a worst case scenario it could be used in multi- role like CVF but much more 

It's also interesting to note that with the MV-22 and F35B space has become a bit of a premium on LHA(R) LHA 6&7, as at one time there were considerations for a plug plus design. But this full length DTL ( Dual Tram Line) is intriguing to say the least for the UK, but at approx 4B USD it's definitely   in CVF league and off with the fairy's. 

My thinking was this ship would replace Ocean Albion & bulwark and being accompanied by additional smaller more armed LPD a mix of the Singaporean Endurance Class LPD and Danish Absalon Class support vessel with its 5' gun and perhaps a single 8 cell MK41VLS

So instead of CVF swing between a strike carrier as its core role and amphibious as the secondary,  the LH?(R) (Majestic class?) will swing between amphibious as its core role and strike as the secondary role.

I'd like to think you could get away with one and then have more 4 multi-role LPD of between 10000& 12000t

[shark bait]

A very interesting concept, not one I've come across before. Certainly a novel way of separating operations. I wonder what the sortie rate would be compared to a QEC.

As for using it as a replacement for Ocean Albion & bulwark it seems a little on the big and expensive side. We would be lucky to get a single unit, which is not much good for availability.

I do agree that we should have a swing role amphibious / strike carrier in the fleet. That saves us from wasting our highly expensive, specialist assets on tasks that other use cheap ships for. It is a bit of a waste using out three billion pound assets for work that can be done with a 400 million pound asset.

My money would be on a Juan Carlos I / Canberra class type, that would fit the swing role amphib carrier quite nicely. Unfortunately I suspect that is well over 15 years away for us.

[ArmChairCivvy]

It's also interesting to note that with the MV-22 and F35B space has become a bit of a premium on LHA(R) LHA 6&7, as at one time there were considerations for a plug plus design.

Yes, the fact is that the airwing has grown in the good old way "your eyes can eat more than your stomach". That is, there is not enough space to operate all assets at a peak (changes of course when you transition from a landing to supporting the force already onshore).

Ocean was £250m and the two LPDs £600m. Even if you inflation adjust that and then FX it, the $4bn does sound pricey (Ospreys not included, and looks like we can't afford them anyway).

[marktigger]

If we swing role the carriers and have little of no surface transport from ships to shore we slow down follow up logistic build ups and cut the ability to manouver as helicopters are tied up moving supplies. And that build up will take longer with out bulk capacity LCU, LCVP and MEXEfloat offers and without larger transport capability like trucks.

We need LPH capability with LCU & LCVP capability and force protection craft like CB90.

[shark bait]

We need LPH capability with LCU & LCVP capability and force protection craft like CB90

We do, and with that we also need LCU & LCVP replacements.

As much as I would like to see us focusing on regenerating amphibious capabilities after we have finished regenerating carrier operations, I cant see it happening for a long while now.

Perhaps I should add some davits onto my Argus replacement / point class modification;

[marktigger]

we need the specialist shipping. not converted Ro-Ro ferries which is what the Point class are and haven't they been sold off? There were trials of a fast LCU by the Royal Marines along side CB90.



http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot ... cscat.html

CB90 is faster but you loose some of the utility and could be useful in inserting some troops and providing force protection.

I agree about the regenerating the carrier capacity and operation but if we are keeping the expeditionary model we need both.

[shark bait]

Points are sill operational. Haven't sold them off because the MOD don't own them, its a PFI. Originally for 6, but now 2 have been released from that contract. My concept is to purchase those 2 and convert them into an LPH, as an Ocean and Diligence replacement in the interim, until we can replace the Albions with fully aviation capable vessels.

As and expeditionary force we do indeed need both. With the Bays and Albions we do still have a great amphibious capability, its just we loose the aviation support, which will become more and more critical as times goes on. We do have the carriers for aviation support but they need to be a very long way over the horizon which limits there effect.

[marktigger]

we should never have sold the bay class to Australia. But we should look at replacing the LPD's with LPH with same assualt capability minimum. IE 4 LCU & 4 LCVP but would also say we should add 2x CB90's and also fit the Bay's for LCVP & CB90 (Davits can be used for both).

Are the Points cranes capable of lifting & handling LCVP's or CB90's so the could be carried as deck cargo?

[shark bait]

Agree we shouldn't have sold the bay, but even if we had another it wouldn't fix the aviation problem. I understand from our Australian friend their is little chance of them selling it back either. I believe they find her quite useful and is going to work along side the Canberra's.

Your right we should look at replacing the LPD's with LPH, but I cant see it happening until into the 30's. If this SDSR had put a start to a LPH programme, it would be looking at construction in the mid 20's, which clashes nicely with the ramp up of T26, lighter frigate, MHPC, and successor builds. That is a very busy period where there wont be any additional resources for another major programme. As much as I would like to sell off the Albions early, and replace with more modern capable vessels, I just cant see any way it is going to happen until into the 30's.

That's why I thought there might be an opportunity with the Diligence replacement, to follow the same model again and go for a civilian conversion to cover the gap until the 30's. The Americans are doing the exact same thing with a point class vessel, perhaps we could to provide some interim LPH capabilities.

RE using the crane for landing craft, I have no idea. They have extensive vehicle decks underneath the top deck, perhaps cut some doors in the side and build in some davits.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Ocean was £250m and the two LPDs £600m. Even if you inflation adjust that and then FX it, the $4bn does sound pricey (Ospreys not included, and looks like we can't afford them anyway).

Resource for Ocean replacement has already been dissolved into the 2nd CVF. Zero remaining. What RN has now is 2 Albion LPDs and 3 Bay LPDs. The vessel in discussion here is more like "3rd CVF", which can absorb 2 Albions AND 1-3 Bays, remaining only 0-2 Bays in your fleet.

I do not understand many of the comments here to pursuit for "additional strike" capability to be added to next generation Amphibious vessels. As you all know, large CV is much effective than smaller one. That's why you have 2 of 70,000t CVFs. RN puts almost all resources available for vessels to support air strike in the 2 CVFs (they even ripped it off from Ocean replacement).

So the issue is to how to reorganize your resources of 2 Albions and 3 Bays in 15-20yrs future, combined with 2 CVFs.

If properly operated, 2 CVF will provide 1 strike carrier and 1 "very large LPH" for amphibious operation for 33% of the time. I agree gapping that capability for 66% of the times may be an issue.

That's why I propose, bare-born LPH 25,000t (Ocean-like), as the 3rd flat-top. This will fill the remaining 66% gap, with capability slightly increased compared to current Ocean. This ship shall be built using the resources planned for the 2+3 LPDs replacements. So I think 1 LPH (25,000t) and 4 "common" LPDs, slightly enlarged Bay-like, will be a choice. (The latter will have a dock to handle either 1-2 LCAC or 2-4 LCUs). Please note that the 25,000 t LPH is almost equivalent to Italian Cavour, with less speed (28kt --> 19kts), less sensor (only 997), but the similar size of hanger (no GT = smaller funnel) and helicopter desk (do not waste there for ski-jump).

Another idea will be adding flat top to Albion replacements, i.e. building LHD. But, as you know, it is not for free. So it is highly possible you end up with only 2 "Juan Carlos I-like" LHD (26,000t, upgraded with RN standard), and 2 Bay-like simple LPDs (I think this is even a bit optimistic.). I cannot imagine there are any resource to add any more Bays. Considering the relatively small flight deck of the LHD (it is smaller than that of Ocean), I even propose to rip-off the ski-jump to enlarge helicopter operation space.

In addition, considering the very small hanger of "Juan Carlos I", it cannot be used for strike force. In other words, Mistral class will be much better.

You have CVF. The largest as possible assets you build for strike capability. If you ask more strike for your LPH/LHD, you will eat many of the resources left for your well-docks (LPDs). I do not think it is good.

[marktigger]

I would agree about LHD replacement for LPD (Bulwark class) and if its possible at refit to fit the Bays with a permanent hanger instead of the tent they have on some patrols.

[marktigger]

Royal Marines were trialing these

http://www.qinetiq.com/media/news/relea ... nched.aspx

[ArmChairCivvy]

Perhaps I should add some davits onto my Argus replacement / point class modification;

What do you mean? You just put a bloody big crane to the opposite side of the funnel (to keep the ship in balance ) and then line up LCVPs and CB90s (and a few with a NEMO; AMOS called for a bigger platform, as was found out in the trials).
- there is that nice flat space for them, all free

LCVP & CB90 (Davits can be used for both)

- the Swedes were keen to export some more, and therefore obliged with the driver training
- the boat to do the trials with davits was on loan from the Dutch Marines

[shark bait]

I do not understand many of the comments here to pursuit for "additional strike" capability to be added to next generation Amphibious vessels. As you all know, large CV is much effective than smaller one.

Any future helicopter platform will undoubtedly be a big flat top vessel. Since we operate the F35b it would be a tremendous waste not to put a ski jump on the end giving little extra flexibility.

It won't excell as a carrier, it won't sustain fixed wing operations, it won't take F35b's very often, but it offers extra capabilities and an option of sending in a cheaper vessel to an area too dangerous to risk our precious carriers.

The Royal Navy managed to do great things with STOVL on helicopter carrier's in the past, I'm sure they could repeat that if they had too. However the carrier's would very much be the main strike package, the amphibs more of a reserve capability.

(Also, 4 aircraft carriers )

So it is highly possible you end up with only 2 "Juan Carlos I-like" LHD (26,000t, upgraded with RN standard), and 2 Bay-like simple LPDs

I think that is a highly reasonable option to pursue when it comes to renewing amphibious capabilities 15 years down the line .

You just put a bloody big crane to the opposite side

I've always been uncomfortable with launching landing craft with a crane, seems like an easy way to loose they payload in choppy water's.

[rec]

In terms of additional helicopter capacity, if we could get a good deal on MARS SSS then why not build 4 with the 4th one being used to provide helicopetr lift. How effective would a converted point be? I agree with the risks of using a crane, rather than a flooded dock.

[ArmChairCivvy]

I've always been uncomfortable with launching landing craft with a crane, seems like an easy way to loose they payload in choppy water's.

At least you can turn the ship, and choose to which side. With davits the side is a given, so a lot of turns to get the show on the road (when it is choppy)

[shark bait]

In terms of additional helicopter capacity, if we could get a good deal on MARS SSS then why not build 4 with the 4th one being used to provide helicopetr lift. How effective would a converted point be? I agree with the risks of using a crane, rather than a flooded dock.

We're still unsure what aviation facilities the solid support ship will have, but undoubtedly they won't be extensive enough to provide enough helicopter support. It certainly won't be more than space for 4.

I think a converted point could be a useful capability. The Americans are converting a point to do a very similar things, so the concept must be feasible.

The point's are big ships, with room for a big flight deck on the front, a fairly Large hangar on the back and lots of vehicle decks below for landing craft and equipment. If feeling particularly adventurous, add an aircraft lift giving access to a massive hanger, but I feel that might be a step too far.

A converted point is much more of an argus replacement than one for ocean. Argus is a LHP converted from a civilian vessel after all. Operated by the RAF they could deploy in conjunction with the Albion's to provide the aviation facilities they lack during an amphibious assault.

[ArmChairCivvy]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... rapaho.htm

Ship to shore... with aviation, but keeping the facilities ready at all times, without the need to transition them, too?

[marktigger]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... rapaho.htm

Ship to shore... with aviation, but keeping the facilities ready at all times, without the need to transition them, too?

didn't we try that back in the 80's with RFA Reliant ?

http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/pho ... id=1531368
http://www.rickspage.co.uk/FacesinPlace ... 01983.html

[ArmChairCivvy]

Was it "helicopter support" as in ferrying in stuff, and the coptering it in?
... or, helicopter support for a much bigger fleet of helos, part ship based , part shore based (so that the turnarounds can happen anywhere (with basic support) and the "work shop" has been centralised?

[marktigger]

"‘‘Arapaho’ and Reliant During the 1970s the USN tried to develop a containerised kit (‘ Arapaho’) for fitting to a merchant ship in 3 days and to support four Sea Kings for 15 days. Progress was slow due to lack of funds and the project was recast in 1980. This scheme was followed with interest by the RN and when an urgent requirement came forward in 1982 for a helicopter ship, arrangements were made to lease the US kit. Negotiations were complete early in 1983 but the gear was not yet ready. However, by May, some eighteen containers and sixty-nine modules forming the hangar and flight deck arrived. Fifty-five more containers had to be fitted out in the UK providing accommodation, water and sewage plant, stores, etc. These were fitted by the end of September and, after two months setting to work, trials began in December 1983. The ship chosen was the Astronomer, which had served as an aircraft transport during the Falklands War, now renamed Reliant. She served satisfactorily for several years but the concept of a rapid-fit kit built in advance and installed in an emergency was seen to be impractical. Ships varied too much and the kit would have to be designed to fit a particular class, while the ships would need advance preparation. As demonstrated during the Falklands War, quick conversions of container ships as transports can be most valuable but they can never equate to a true helicopter carrier."



Brown, D. K.; Moore, George (2012-07-30). Rebuilding the Royal Navy: Warship Design Since 1945 (Kindle Locations 4648-4654). Seaforth Publishing. Kindle Edition.