Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

[Caribbean]

We need to remember that we now have the CIC program running with a 200 million budget

Yes - good point. If we do acquire a fast craft capable of running in from 150 miles out, I presume that it will require something fairly substantial as a sea base/ mother ship - certainly much larger than the P2000s (at least 9-10,000 tonnes & upwards, I would have thought).

Should a P2000 replacement be closer to the Skjold-class - < 50m, stealthy, fast & capable of running in with the CICs to provide local fire support & basic air defence?

[jedibeeftrix]

We need to remember that we now have the CIC program running with a 200 million budget

Yes - good point. If we do acquire a fast craft capable of running in from 150 miles out, I presume that it will require something fairly substantial as a sea base/ mother ship - certainly much larger than the P2000s (at least 9-10,000 tonnes & upwards, I would have thought).

Should a P2000 replacement be closer to the Skjold-class - < 50m, stealthy, fast & capable of running in with the CICs to provide local fire support & basic air defence?

Problem with that size is that it’s too small to be able to efficiently move with a task group in deep waters, and too large to be carried. By default I’d argue if it’s coming from a well dock something the size of the LCU is the largest you get - though could you get something twice the length - e.g 60m? If you get to that point it would be interesting as it’s something that could operate independently deployed either from a “LPD” or from a forward base (e.g. Norway / Baltics scenario).

[Caribbean]

Problem with that size is that it’s too small to be able to efficiently move with a task group in deep waters, and too large to be carried. By default I’d argue if it’s coming from a well dock something the size of the LCU is the largest you get - though could you get something twice the length - e.g 60m? If you get to that point it would be interesting as it’s something that could operate independently deployed either from a “LPD” or from a forward base (e.g. Norway / Baltics scenario).

So closer to a compact Visby-class, then? I think that would be rather too expensive for the P2000 replacement budget.
It's worth noting that we have been deploying the 20m P2000s at quite some distance. Weren't they in the Arctic Circle recently? I'm sure that a 47m 250t vessel would cope with the North Sea & the Norwegian coast, though there is logic behind a smaller (say) 30m vessel, if you needed to transport it in a well dock

[Poiuytrewq]

Don’t discount a FloFlo as part of the MRSS procurement.

A low profile 60m X 7.5m low profile vessel that could be transported in the Albions is a tempting prospect especially if designed to accept PODs.

A realistic alternative is a large FloFLo which could also be a highly effective addition for RM deployments in the Baltic and Fjords etc.

It could be as simple or complicated as the budget allows but a FloFlo would have the ability to transport a greater number of much larger vessels thereby making any OTH Assault more realistic and credible.

DAB5B95D-7201-453C-8E8C-07851994C21B.jpeg

[donald_of_tokyo]

Problem with that size is that it’s too small to be able to efficiently move with a task group in deep waters, and too large to be carried. By default I’d argue if it’s coming from a well dock something the size of the LCU is the largest you get - though could you get something twice the length - e.g 60m? If you get to that point it would be interesting as it’s something that could operate independently deployed either from a “LPD” or from a forward base (e.g. Norway / Baltics scenario).

So closer to a compact Visby-class, then? I think that would be rather too expensive for the P2000 replacement budget.
It's worth noting that we have been deploying the 20m P2000s at quite some distance. Weren't they in the Arctic Circle recently? I'm sure that a 47m 250t vessel would cope with the North Sea & the Norwegian coast, though there is logic behind a smaller (say) 30m vessel, if you needed to transport it in a well dock

It’s not just the length and breadth, the killer is the draught / height which rules out a number of designs.

[Repulse]

Agreed, there are some very interesting float on / float off designs

[Caribbean]

the killer is the draught / height which rules out a number of designs.

A point that I hadn't got around to, but which is a good one. The Skjold actually has a shallower draught that an LCU at 1m vs 1.5m as it's a surface effect design. Perhaps a 30m boat based on the same principle could carry (say) a 57mm gun, some ASuW missiles and a light AAW system - I believe it's possible - though I suspect it would be quite expensive

[Repulse]

Good point, but I think you could get a smaller USV design (something davit / mission bay launched) to ride shotgun for amphibious insertion / resupply OTH, especially when combined with other air assets / capabilities from the task group.

Still thinking about NaBs comments on the challenges of travelling fast for long distances OTH, I think insertion would still be using small craft closer to shore, in relatively small numbers, possibly from the T26 mission bay.

Having a craft that can do the OTH logistics bit and also act as a littoral RM base (operating from a land forward base) should be where the focus is. Something in the order of 60m x 10m feels about the right size.

[Poiuytrewq]

the killer is the draught / height which rules out a number of designs.

The Skjold actually has a shallower draught that an LCU at 1m vs 1.5m as it's a surface effect design. Perhaps a 30m boat based on the same principle could carry (say) a 57mm gun, some ASuW missiles and a light AAW system - I believe it's possible - though I suspect it would be quite expensive

If RM are looking for a modest sea base with a LCU level of vehicle/cargo capacity which is transported in an Albion dock then the Birdon LMV-M looks promising. At 50m it could be extended by another 10m, possibly by adding stern ramps for 2 RHIBs whilst simultaneously enlarging the UAV flight deck or superstructure.

98D4ACB0-D6E7-48B5-9481-881CD850F0BC.jpeg

Add in the possibility of PODs with Patria NEMO 120, and HMT mounted Brimstone and GMLRS and the NGS requirement is reached also.

[shark bait]

Don’t discount a FloFlo as part of the MRSS procurement.

I like the concept, but the US navy do not and has applied to scrap them, but that got refused. I believe that's because its very difficult to transfer vehicles between ships in all but the calmest weather.

Would it be possible to do something similar with the future sealift ships? Perhaps a vehicle ramp that is also cleared for a hovercraft?

[Tempest414]

and once ashore

[Caribbean]

Rather difficult to shoot 'n scoot with that, wouldn't you say?

[Poiuytrewq]

Rather difficult to shoot 'n scoot with that, wouldn't you say?

Depends what you mount it on.

[Tempest414]

Rather difficult to shoot 'n scoot with that, wouldn't you say?

it can be fire of the back of the pickup

[Poiuytrewq]

Don’t discount a FloFlo as part of the MRSS procurement.

Would it be possible to do something similar with the future sealift ships? Perhaps a vehicle ramp that is also cleared for a hovercraft?

Only if RN go for another LCAC? The ship to shore connectors are the crucial element but what if heavy lift drones become the standard ship to shore connector? The aviation capacity would need to be enormous and the floodable dock less important.

This shows once again why fleet balance is paramount. The MRSS, LSV, T32, plus RB1, Point and Wave replacements should be part of one coherent program as the amount of overlap is huge. That way strength in depth can be improved and a realistic rate of attrition overcome in the event of a serious conflict.

I expect the T32 program to go nowhere until after the election but a modest second batch of 2-3 T31B2 is plausible to maintain the drumbeat. Rosyth need to cut steel in 2026 so waiting for SDSR25 would be foolish.

The LSV and RB1 replacement programs look like a match made in heaven so RN should hopefully be deep into the concept work by now. Or is absolutely nothing of substance currently happening?

IMO the Amphib, Point and Wave replacements are all so intertwined that it should be treated as one 15 year project. The fact that a joined up concept has not materialised shows a probable lack of both vision and resources within the MoD.

With ~£750m per annum to procure ships outside of Govan/Scotstoun the possibilities are virtually endless.

It’s not a lack of money this time, IMO there is simply no clear sense of direction other than protecting the CVFs. The FCF concept is still adapting and the headcount issues are limiting the options. Much could be achieved if some decisiveness was introduced into the decision making process.

Starting in 2026 a £11bn, 15yr shipbuilding program (£750m pa) could commence to entirely rebuild RN’s fleet outside of the CSG capability.

Starting at Rosyth in 2026, with H&W joining in 2030 the fleet would be transformed, with a steady drumbeat by 2040.

By 2030 Rosyth could have completed 3x LSV’s and 4x HiCap OPV’s both based on the Vard 7 series hull.

From 2030 to 2034 Rosyth and Belfast could jointly build two £1.5bn LHD’s, similar to Trieste for a total of £3bn. A LHD Alliance.

From 2035 to 2040 Rosyth could build the 5x T32 for £2.5bn or £500m per hull.

From 2035 to 2040 Belfast could build 3x MRSS to support the LHD’s for a total of £1.2bn and 4x Point replacements for £750m.

So between 2025-2040 the £750m annual drumbeat for non Tier1 escorts builds:

5x T32s
3x LSVs
4x HiCap OPVs
2x LHDs
3x MRSS
4x Point replacements

Fleet balance repaired for a generation. All within budget and plenty of time to sort out the headcount issues.

If the feet dragging continues the log jam will become insurmountable for UK yards and much of the above will be build abroad.

The alternative is to not build any ships but where is the defence budget being spent if 2% can’t be allocated every year to build ships in the UK?

It’s time for an all encompassing vision of the non CSG oriented fleet by 2035.

[SW1]

Don’t discount a FloFlo as part of the MRSS procurement.

Would it be possible to do something similar with the future sealift ships? Perhaps a vehicle ramp that is also cleared for a hovercraft?

Only if RN go for another LCAC? The ship to shore connectors are the crucial element but what if heavy lift drones become the standard ship to shore connector? The aviation capacity would need to be enormous and the floodable dock less important.

This shows once again why fleet balance is paramount. The MRSS, LSV, T32, plus RB1, Point and Wave replacements should be part of one coherent program as the amount of overlap is huge. That way strength in depth can be improved and a realistic rate of attrition overcome in the event of a serious conflict.

I expect the T32 program to go nowhere until after the election but a modest second batch of 2-3 T31B2 is plausible to maintain the drumbeat. Rosyth need to cut steel in 2026 so waiting for SDSR25 would be foolish.

The LSV and RB1 replacement programs look like a match made in heaven so RN should hopefully be deep into the concept work by now. Or is absolutely nothing of substance currently happening?

IMO the Amphib, Point and Wave replacements are all so intertwined that it should be treated as one 15 year project. The fact that a joined up concept has not materialised shows a probable lack of both vision and resources within the MoD.

With ~£750m per annum to procure ships outside of Govan/Scotstoun the possibilities are virtually endless.

It’s not a lack of money this time, IMO there is simply no clear sense of direction other than protecting the CVFs. The FCF concept is still adapting and the headcount issues are limiting the options. Much could be achieved if some decisiveness was introduced into the decision making process.

Starting in 2026 a £11bn, 15yr shipbuilding program (£750m pa) could commence to entirely rebuild RN’s fleet outside of the CSG capability.

Starting at Rosyth in 2026, with H&W joining in 2030 the fleet would be transformed, with a steady drumbeat by 2040.

By 2030 Rosyth could have completed 3x LSV’s and 4x HiCap OPV’s both based on the Vard 7 series hull.

From 2030 to 2034 Rosyth and Belfast could jointly build two £1.5bn LHD’s, similar to Trieste for a total of £3bn. A LHD Alliance.

From 2035 to 2040 Rosyth could build the 5x T32 for £2.5bn or £500m per hull.

From 2035 to 2040 Belfast could build 3x MRSS to support the LHD’s for a total of £1.2bn and 4x Point replacements for £750m.

So between 2025-2040 the £750m annual drumbeat for non Tier1 escorts builds:

5x T32s
3x LSVs
4x HiCap OPVs
2x LHDs
3x MRSS
4x Point replacements

Fleet balance repaired for a generation. All within budget and plenty of time to sort out the headcount issues.

If the feet dragging continues the log jam will become insurmountable for UK yards and much of the above will be build abroad.

The alternative is to not build any ships but where is the defence budget being spent if 2% can’t be allocated every year to build ships in the UK?

It’s time for an all encompassing vision of the non CSG oriented fleet by 2035.

If there was 11b pounds to spend acquiring new thing for the navy and I’m not sure there is would you spend it like that. What if you said I’ll take 5.5 billion of that and increase the attack submarine fleet to 11.

[Repulse]

the Birdon LMV-M looks promising.

Agree, an interesting find and was along the lines to what was on my mind. Perhaps also add a retractable LCVP style vehicle deck cover to allow for more covered space for PODs and modular accommodation.

EDIT: Also, was thinking why not a “backwards” layout - e.g. the ramp and vehicle deck at the back to allow for a better bow arrangement/traditional gun placement with a small heli deck at the back of the bridge.

[Poiuytrewq]

If there was 11b pounds to spend acquiring new thing for the navy and I’m not sure there is would you spend it like that. What if you said I’ll take 5.5 billion of that and increase the attack submarine fleet to 11.

Intetesting question but the numbers are pretty clear.

Overall defence spending is due to be between £51bn to £53bn until 2025. This is roughly 2.1% GDP so it can’t realistically fall by a huge amount or the NATO target will be missed.

As the headcount reduces the equipment spend is increasing and is projected to stay above £20bn per annum going forward.

The total Defence spend (unadjusted for inflation) in the period from 2025 to 2040 as discussed above is due to be over £750bn. Therefore the £11bn over the same time period is roughly 1.5% of the total. That’s total spending on replacing the entire fleet outside of the CSG (all of which need replaced in the next 15 years) with 1.5% of defence funding.

If this is too high what would you expect to spend? It’s a fraction and it’s perfectly proportionate, if fact it could be argued that it should be substantially higher.

The SSN argument is a good one. The UK needs more SSN’s and a likely future design will cost more than £2bn. So what’s proportionate?

12x SSN should be the target but that’s approximately £24bn. Even just replacing the Astutes could cost £14bn.

If Barrow managed to launch a SSN every 2 years that would cost £15bn and produce around 7x SSN.

So adding it all together over a 15 year period that amounts to around £32bn.

Tier1 escorts - £7bn
All other shipbuilding- £11bn
Submarines- £15bn
Total - £33bn

That’s 11% of the equipment budget or just over 4% of the defence budget (unadjusted for inflation).

Which part are you disagreeing with?

[Poiuytrewq]

Agree, an interesting find and was along the lines to what was on my mind. Perhaps also add a retractable LCVP style vehicle deck cover to allow for more covered space for PODs and modular accommodation.

Good idea.

EDIT: Also, was thinking why not a “backwards” layout - e.g. the ramp and vehicle deck at the back to allow for a better bow arrangement/traditional gun placement with a small heli deck at the back of the bridge.

Its the Albion dock dimensions that preclude a bridge forward design. The seakeeping qualities will be improved with the bridge aft.

It would be a fantastic capability but do RM actually want such a vessel?

The FCF concept is so vague it’s impossible to say.

[Repulse]

It would be a fantastic capability but do RM actually want such a vessel?

The FCF concept is so vague it’s impossible to say.

It’s all speculation, but I did read somewhere the RMs have been trialling using LCUs as forward bases.

[Jake1992]

Are we not best to have the amphib replacements be as flexible as possible to allow for a future change in doctoring back to larger scale ops.

I mentioned up thread my idea of 4 LPD/LSD hybrids partnered with 2 Karl Doorman’s, such a set up would allow for larger scale ops should the doctoring change again but with the right ship to shore connector and other assets could be the mother ships for conducting raids from or controlling the literal zone.

What’s really needed IMO is not 60m odd vessels as “mother ship” platforms but fast LCVP, LCU and CB90 type vessel like can be laurnch from the 150 mile mark.

[Repulse]

What’s really needed IMO is not 60m odd vessels as “mother ship” platforms but fast LCVP, LCU and CB90 type vessel like can be laurnch from the 150 mile mark.

LCUs less so (though they are slow), but the ride in even moderate seas would result in significant degradation of fighting capabilities once they finally arrive after hours at sea.

[SW1]

If there was 11b pounds to spend acquiring new thing for the navy and I’m not sure there is would you spend it like that. What if you said I’ll take 5.5 billion of that and increase the attack submarine fleet to 11.

Intetesting question but the numbers are pretty clear.

Overall defence spending is due to be between £51bn to £53bn until 2025. This is roughly 2.1% GDP so it can’t realistically fall by a huge amount or the NATO target will be missed.

As the headcount reduces the equipment spend is increasing and is projected to stay above £20bn per annum going forward.

The total Defence spend (unadjusted for inflation) in the period from 2025 to 2040 as discussed above is due to be over £750bn. Therefore the £11bn over the same time period is roughly 1.5% of the total. That’s total spending on replacing the entire fleet outside of the CSG (all of which need replaced in the next 15 years) with 1.5% of defence funding.

If this is too high what would you expect to spend? It’s a fraction and it’s perfectly proportionate, if fact it could be argued that it should be substantially higher.

The SSN argument is a good one. The UK needs more SSN’s and a likely future design will cost more than £2bn. So what’s proportionate?

12x SSN should be the target but that’s approximately £24bn. Even just replacing the Astutes could cost £14bn.

If Barrow managed to launch a SSN every 2 years that would cost £15bn and produce around 7x SSN.

So adding it all together over a 15 year period that amounts to around £32bn.

Tier1 escorts - £7bn
All other shipbuilding- £11bn
Submarines- £15bn
Total - £33bn

That’s 11% of the equipment budget or just over 4% of the defence budget (unadjusted for inflation).

Which part are you disagreeing with?

Im not disagreeing with the headline defence budget or its percentage of gdp.

I’m just not sure what budget is there for new ships we don’t get detailed budgets anymore and things are hard to pinpoint for the 2030s. You may wish more allocation to people/support/ infrastructure and stocks in that timeframe

As for the submarine fleets it is imo the only peer war fighting asset that is survivable and the principle asset we would contribute to a war with China if it ever happened subs and stand-off weapons.

The rest would largely be defensive in nature and by that I mean used to stop china/Russia taking territory we already have and for contributing to maintaining the peace. I would allocate budget accordingly.

[Tempest414]

For me the need is a little different and so something like

1 x LPH = 700 million
4 x type 31-B2 = 1.6 billion
4 x MRSS = 1.5 billion
8 x MHPC = 1.1 billion
4 x Point replacements = 700 million

21 ships total cost 5.6 billion

As for ship to shore connectors we already PACSCAT up and working with plus 30 knots unloaded and plus 20 loaded with a 55 ton load



this along with the new CIC would be a very good out come

[Poiuytrewq]

…You may wish more allocation to people/support/ infrastructure and stocks in that timeframe

That sounds like feast and famine. Maintaining a sovereign shipbuilding capability is not a discretionary spend unless supporting the shipbuilders is less important than supporting the aviation industry. Without a regular drumbeat efficiency will not improve. A proper industrial strategy that is fully funded over the longer term is crucial.

The fact remains that the majority of the fleet is nearing replacement. The shipbuilding sector is rejuvenated but it must now be supported.

If 4% of the UK defence budget can’t be earmarked for construction of ships and submarines clearly the priorities are all wrong.

As for the submarine fleets it is imo the only peer war fighting asset that is survivable and the principle asset we would contribute to a war with China if it ever happened subs and stand-off weapons.

No argument but the fleet can’t be balanced with the CASD, CSG and SSN’s alone.

There are many other reasons to have a balanced surface fleet apart from preparing for a conflict with a peer.

The rest would largely be defensive in nature and by that I mean used to stop china/Russia taking territory we already have and for contributing to maintaining the peace. I would allocate budget accordingly.

That’s great but the equipment budget is rising again in 2023/2024 and stabilising at over £20bn per annum. That’s an increase of over £4bn more each year when compared with the pre Covid 2015 to 2020 period.

Therefore the entire annual shipbuilding requirement for surface vessels of £1.2bn is only around 25% of the recent increase in spending on equipment.

In overall terms that amounts to around 6% of the annual equipment budget.

66993CB4-0FC0-4588-9765-6BCE7A8CF0B6.jpeg

Are you suggesting this is still too much?