Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

[SW1]

…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?

You can balance and support a sustainable build sequence without doing what you suggest.

I’m not suggesting current spend is too much but the equipment budget is more than just buying hulls. There isn’t a definitive allocation available for future years and their certainty isn’t a definition around programs projected beyond the current 10 year budget horizon like most mentioned here never mind multiple changes of government.

[new guy]

The renewal contract for the point class for 4 hulls, 7 years is £625m.

That is £22-23m each , every year.

Whould it be cheaper to operate them ourselves?

[wargame_insomniac]

The renewal contract for the point class for 4 hulls, 7 years is £625m.

That is £22-23m each , every year.

Whould it be cheaper to operate them ourselves?

Do RFA have the manpowr to add crewing the 4 point class?

I guess it could only work if and only if the cost savings obtained from operating the Points directly (versus the current contract) were then used to pay higher salaries and bonuses to all the RFA crew sufficient to be able to attract additional extra crew firstly for the Points (and then hopefully secondly the Waves too but that is currently a pipedream).

[Repulse]

The seakeeping qualities will be improved with the bridge aft.

Another interesting concept - not exactly what would be needed for a FCF forward operating base, but I can see a variant doing a good job.

https://www.ex2.com.au/news/stern-landi ... challenge/

[SW1]

The seakeeping qualities will be improved with the bridge aft.

Another interesting concept - not exactly what would be needed for a FCF forward operating base, but I can see a variant doing a good job.

https://www.ex2.com.au/news/stern-landi ... challenge/

We’ve been here before HMAV Ardennes royal logistics corp.

It’s alright driving tanks onto a beach it’s how u support them in a shooting war.

[Repulse]

We’ve been here before HMAV Ardennes royal logistics corp.

It’s alright driving tanks onto a beach it’s how u support them in a shooting war.

Bit bigger than that as these are seen as blue water vessels - but in some ways there are similarities. However, not thinking about tanks, more PODs, FCF forward operations and logistics.

EDIT: like the heli-deck mock-up version also: https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/us-co ... s-warship/

@£100mn a vessel - an interesting option for LRG(N) IMO

[new guy]

The renewal contract for the point class for 4 hulls, 7 years is £625m.

That is £22-23m each , every year.

Whould it be cheaper to operate them ourselves?

Do RFA have the manpowr to add crewing the 4 point class?

I guess it could only work if and only if the cost savings obtained from operating the Points directly (versus the current contract) were then used to pay higher salaries and bonuses to all the RFA crew sufficient to be able to attract additional extra crew firstly for the Points (and then hopefully secondly the Waves too but that is currently a pipedream).

Salery per hull is gonna be ~£2.5m,
+ £5-10m operating costs,
still significant savings.

[R686]

We’ve been here before HMAV Ardennes royal logistics corp.

It’s alright driving tanks onto a beach it’s how u support them in a shooting war.

Bit bigger than that as these are seen as blue water vessels - but in some ways there are similarities. However, not thinking about tanks, more PODs, FCF forward operations and logistics.

EDIT: like the heli-deck mock-up version also: https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/us-co ... s-warship/

@£100mn a vessel - an interesting option for LRG(N) IMO

Port Macquarie (NSW) based Birdon Marine are also throwing its hat in the ring. they are even building a prototype in WA

https://www.birdon.com.au/media-release ... australia/

https://madrigal.com.au/birdons-bid-for ... cle-lmv-m/

[Tempest414]

We’ve been here before HMAV Ardennes royal logistics corp.

It’s alright driving tanks onto a beach it’s how u support them in a shooting war.

Bit bigger than that as these are seen as blue water vessels - but in some ways there are similarities. However, not thinking about tanks, more PODs, FCF forward operations and logistics.

EDIT: like the heli-deck mock-up version also: https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/us-co ... s-warship/

@£100mn a vessel - an interesting option for LRG(N) IMO

How do you see them working within LRG-N ?. Clearly they are to big to operate from a well dock so what is there speed range will they need RAS what other ship will they work with

[Tempest414]

Just to step aside what do we want / need to move a army brigade from ship to shore

[Poiuytrewq]

Just to step aside what do we want / need to move a army brigade from ship to shore

IMO this main question has two sub questions.

1: What will it require Pre 2035
2: What will it require Post 2035

RN has the hulls for thorough experimentation but without an Albion taking part, landing a Brigade with ship to shore connectors looks inefficient to say the least.

IF there is a clear plan, work can start on the Amphib replacements in 2026 at Rosyth if the T32 program is postponed until the 2030’s. Otherwise Rosyth can build the LSV’s, RB1 replacements and the 2nd MROSS until 2030 when H&W will be ready to start on the Amphibious replacement program.

If it is to be 2026 then contracts need signed next year. If it’s 2030 then RN have about 2 years to formulate a coherent plan (SDSR25), secure the funding and stick to it. Contracts 2028, steel cut 2030.

The FCF concept needs to mature rapidly now to allow a watertight direction of travel before the next-gen Amphib designs are finalised. The MoD now has to decide if landing an Army Brigade via ship to shore connectors is even a requirement anymore and if it isn’t, is 3 Cdo more or less relevant as currently and/or previously configured.

If the 16AAB derived global response force becomes the UK’s high readiness force and RM instead concentrate on LRG (N) & (S) which are effectively well supported Company sized forces AND landing an Army Brigade via ship shore connectors is NOT required then the entire composition of the fleet is up in the air.

It could go either way but a change of government could, quite plausibly, ditch the LRG/MRSS concept altogether and reinstate a single UK based ARG.

[SW1]

Just to step aside what do we want / need to move a army brigade from ship to shore

IMO this main question has two sub questions.

1: What will it require Pre 2035
2: What will it require Post 2035

RN has the hulls for thorough experimentation but without an Albion taking part, landing a Brigade with ship to shore connectors looks inefficient to say the least.

IF there is a clear plan, work can start on the Amphib replacements in 2026 at Rosyth if the T32 program is postponed until the 2030’s. Otherwise Rosyth can build the LSV’s, RB1 replacements and the 2nd MROSS until 2030 when H&W will be ready to start on the Amphibious replacement program.

If it is to be 2026 then contracts need signed next year. If it’s 2030 then RN have about 2 years to formulate a coherent plan (SDSR25), secure the funding and stick to it. Contracts 2028, steel cut 2030.

The FCF concept needs to mature rapidly now to allow a watertight direction of travel before the next-gen Amphib designs are finalised. The MoD now has to decide if landing an Army Brigade via ship to shore connectors is even a requirement anymore and if it isn’t, is 3 Cdo more or less relevant as currently and/or previously configured.

If the 16AAB derived global response force becomes the UK’s high readiness force and RM instead concentrate on LRG (N) & (S) which are effectively well supported Company sized forces AND landing an Army Brigade via ship shore connectors is NOT required then the entire composition of the fleet is up in the air.

It could go either way but a change of government could, quite plausibly, ditch the LRG/MRSS concept altogether and reinstate a single UK based ARG.

There is no capability or requirement to land an army brigade using ship to shore connectors.

[Repulse]

How do you see them working within LRG-N ?. Clearly they are to big to operate from a well dock so what is there speed range will they need RAS what other ship will they work with

They can either operate independently from the U.K., within a CSG, or more likely forward based somewhere in Norway operating up and down the coastline and into the Baltics. For the UK, it will be less about delivering tanks, more about PODs, small boats, light vehicles and logistics.

No need for LSDs/LHDs/LPDs.

[Jake1992]

We’ve been here before HMAV Ardennes royal logistics corp.

It’s alright driving tanks onto a beach it’s how u support them in a shooting war.

Bit bigger than that as these are seen as blue water vessels - but in some ways there are similarities. However, not thinking about tanks, more PODs, FCF forward operations and logistics.

EDIT: like the heli-deck mock-up version also: https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/us-co ... s-warship/

@£100mn a vessel - an interesting option for LRG(N) IMO

How do you see them working within LRG-N ?. Clearly they are to big to operate from a well dock so what is there speed range will they need RAS what other ship will they work with

These look good as an addition to the USMC but for an LSG conducting raids how will they work ?

A relitivly large ship having to get to sure with no organic aviation doesn’t sound smart to me. IMO any form of amphipious assault whether that me large scale or raiding will need to be done from OTH, with this in mind what’s needed is large vessels with large docks and fast ship to shore connectors and fast helos/tilt rotors.

[Tempest414]

How do you see them working within LRG-N ?. Clearly they are to big to operate from a well dock so what is there speed range will they need RAS what other ship will they work with

They can either operate independently from the U.K., within a CSG, or more likely forward based somewhere in Norway operating up and down the coastline and into the Baltics. For the UK, it will be less about delivering tanks, more about PODs, small boats, light vehicles and logistics.

No need for LSDs/LHDs/LPDs.

So once this large landing craft has dropped off its ( in real terms small ) load it has to return to the UK or the coast of Norway to pick up more kit

What if we want to operate LRG-N out side the North Sea / Baltic

[Poiuytrewq]

There is no capability or requirement to land an army brigade using ship to shore connectors.

No need for LSDs/LHDs/LPDs.

Whats that based on?

If a maximum effort scenario occurred the UK still has enormous sea-lift capacity.

2x Albions
3x Bays
4x Points
Argus
Plus a CVF acting as LHA or LPH.

9x LCU’s and plentiful mexeflotes ensure efficient ship to shore connectors albeit slow.

Current planning suggests 6x MRSS which would ensure 12x LCU equivalents and nobody is suggesting deleting the mexeflotes.

Six MRSS and four Points could potentially be more capable than what is currently in the water depending on the chosen design.

[SW1]

There is no capability or requirement to land an army brigade using ship to shore connectors.

No need for LSDs/LHDs/LPDs.

Whats that based on?

If a maximum effort scenario occurred the UK still has enormous sea-lift capacity.

2x Albions
3x Bays
4x Points
Argus
Plus a CVF acting as LHA or LPH.

9x LCU’s and plentiful mexeflotes ensure efficient ship to shore connectors albeit slow.

Current planning suggests 6x MRSS which would ensure 12x LCU equivalents and nobody is suggesting deleting the mexeflotes.

Six MRSS and four Points could potentially be more capable than what is currently in the water depending on the chosen design.

You don’t base capability on max effort theories. It needs to be trained and at readiness.

If the untied states with an embarrassment of riches in the amphibious domain have deemed they can’t support heavy armour over the beach how can we? It would be interesting to know when we last operated at brigade level in a realistic brigade combined arms manoeuvre exercise.

That leaves 16 air assault and 7 mech brigade. Neither of which have a requirement to deploy over a beach.

A point will not be used to deliver a brigade over a beach it will be delivered thru a port.

The only brigade in the U.K. designed to be used over a beach was 3 commando brigade which no longer have the ability to operate at brigade level.

None of that however means we don’t need a dock capability nor that we should not have a brigade trained in that type of warfare so I disagree with repulses idea that we don’t need them. It’s just the powers that be want other things instead.

[Repulse]

How do you see them working within LRG-N ?. Clearly they are to big to operate from a well dock so what is there speed range will they need RAS what other ship will they work with

They can either operate independently from the U.K., within a CSG, or more likely forward based somewhere in Norway operating up and down the coastline and into the Baltics. For the UK, it will be less about delivering tanks, more about PODs, small boats, light vehicles and logistics.

No need for LSDs/LHDs/LPDs.

So once this large landing craft has dropped off its ( in real terms small ) load it has to return to the UK or the coast of Norway to pick up more kit

What if we want to operate LRG-N out side the North Sea / Baltic

All comes back to requirements and priorities.

We are saying that the FCF operating off the Norwegian coast and in the Baltics is a high priority requirement, and ro a lesser extent also in Mediterranean. My view is that there is no need for LPDs/LSDs/LHDs for this role given the size and composition of the force and also that supporting air assets can either come from land bases or from a CSG/ASS. Ideally, these would be forward based with no need to resupply in the UK. 4 of these would suffice to deploy a force upto 2 RM reinforced companies and be probably cheaper than a single MRSS.

The question is then what is required out of region which goes back to priorities and requirements. Personally, I would say having the ability to transport two RM companies with fast boats / light kit in a CSG (using all ships in the group) and have a forward based ASS EoS with one company is a realistic capability. These assets can and will of course be used on operations closer to home also.

The Points are for Army logistics.

[Jake1992]

How do you see them working within LRG-N ?. Clearly they are to big to operate from a well dock so what is there speed range will they need RAS what other ship will they work with

They can either operate independently from the U.K., within a CSG, or more likely forward based somewhere in Norway operating up and down the coastline and into the Baltics. For the UK, it will be less about delivering tanks, more about PODs, small boats, light vehicles and logistics.

No need for LSDs/LHDs/LPDs.

So once this large landing craft has dropped off its ( in real terms small ) load it has to return to the UK or the coast of Norway to pick up more kit

What if we want to operate LRG-N out side the North Sea / Baltic

All comes back to requirements and priorities.

We are saying that the FCF operating off the Norwegian coast and in the Baltics is a high priority requirement, and ro a lesser extent also in Mediterranean. My view is that there is no need for LPDs/LSDs/LHDs for this role given the size and composition of the force and also that supporting air assets can either come from land bases or from a CSG/ASS. Ideally, these would be forward based with no need to resupply in the UK. 4 of these would suffice to deploy a force upto 2 RM reinforced companies and be probably cheaper than a single MRSS.

The question is then what is required out of region which goes back to priorities and requirements. Personally, I would say having the ability to transport two RM companies with fast boats / light kit in a CSG (using all ships in the group) and have a forward based ASS EoS with one company is a realistic capability. These assets can and will of course be used on operations closer to home also.

The Points are for Army logistics.

Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t the whole premise of the LSGs and the reforming of the RM to under take raiding operations ?

To my knowlage you do not need to undertake raiding ops in friendly controlled arrears, so if said op will be done where a threat is posed do we really want one of as you surgest only 4 amphib rolling up to the beach as a big ass target ???
From what I’ve read the USMC thinking around using this type of vessel is for them to be expendable to an extent if needed, if we went with your proposal we wouldn’t be able to use them in such a way but the risk to them would be as such.

I also do not see what they offer over dock and LCU / LCVP set other than load size.
With the proliferation of shore based AShW any amphib op large or raiding will surely need to be done from OTH, this will by its nature will in-tale the need of a large dock and fast ship to shore connectors and organic fast aviation.

My proposal would be as I said up thread of 4 x LPD/LSD hybrid style vessel and 2 Karl Doorman’s forming LSG-N and LSG-S, each could operate up to -
14 medium helos/tilt rotors
4 to 8 fast LCU ( I’d evolve the PASCAT design ) depending on dock size chosen
10 fast LCVP / CB90
900 odd troops if larger scale ops are required.

With the right ship to shore connectors and aviation chosen this set up would offer the flexibility for raiding but also for larger ops if the doctorin changes, remember these vessels would be in service in to the 2060s so things have the time to change more than once over the time frame from design to build to end of life.

[Tempest414]

I have to say for me having 1 x LPH and 4 MRSS plus 20 x CIC and 10 x PACSCAT's would allow us to do what we needed where we needed within reason

1 x MRSS = 4 x CIC from davits , 2 x PACSCAT's well dock , 2 x helicopters , Maybe 6 x ORC plus 2 x LSU's in overload

2 x MRSS = 8 x CIC , 4 x PACSCAT's , 4 x Helicopters and maybe 12 ORC

[Poiuytrewq]

If the untied states with an embarrassment of riches in the amphibious domain have deemed they can’t support heavy armour over the beach how can we?

The idea that planning should expect a suitable port will always be available is extremely unwise.

One of the reasons why ship to shore connectors are still relevant is to ensure a force can be landed in damaged ports from slipways etc, not necessarily over the beach.

Ships with a 5m to 7m draft may not be able to access a port if ships have been scuttled in the entrances but landing craft with a 1m draft could safely dock but perhaps only at high tide.

The widest possible range of options must be maintained within reason. The most realistic scenario is never the perfect one.

[wargame_insomniac]

Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t the whole premise of the LSGs and the reforming of the RM to under take raiding operations ?

I think we are all working out what is the role of the FCF, “global raiding” does seem to be one of the key requirements, but that isn’t the only role if they are to remain the UK’s Artic force assigned to NATO covering Norway and to a degree the coasts of the Baltic.

To my knowlage you do not need to undertake raiding ops in friendly controlled arrears, so if said op will be done where a threat is posed do we really want one of as you surgest only 4 amphib rolling up to the beach as a big ass target ???
From what I’ve read the USMC thinking around using this type of vessel is for them to be expendable to an extent if needed, if we went with your proposal we wouldn’t be able to use them in such a way but the risk to them would be as such.

To perform the NATO role the FCF will need to be able to manoeuvre and control the Littoral region - this will be done in small groups. I see these ships more sea bases with option to land heavy stores / vehicles over the beach rather than they will always act as traditional landing craft. By having a larger number of dispersed vessels operating near shore it avoids the need for large vulnerable ships and task groups having to get close to shore.

I also do not see what they offer over dock and LCU / LCVP set other than load size.
With the proliferation of shore based AShW any amphib op large or raiding will surely need to be done from OTH, this will by its nature will in-tale the need of a large dock and fast ship to shore connectors and organic fast aviation.

To be safely operating OTH they need to be 100nm+ out - firstly I can’t see many conditions where an amphib would stop and flood its well dock that far out. Second any surface ship to shore connectors need to be larger and fast - forget LCUs and LCVPs.

My proposal would be as I said up thread of 4 x LPD/LSD hybrid style vessel and 2 Karl Doorman’s forming LSG-N and LSG-S, each could operate up to -
14 medium helos/tilt rotors
4 to 8 fast LCU ( I’d evolve the PASCAT design ) depending on dock size chosen
10 fast LCVP / CB90
900 odd troops if larger scale ops are required.

With the right ship to shore connectors and aviation chosen this set up would offer the flexibility for raiding but also for larger ops if the doctorin changes, remember these vessels would be in service in to the 2060s so things have the time to change more than once over the time frame from design to build to end of life.

I personally think LSDs/LPDs is the wrong answer for LRG(N) which is tasked to defend NATOs flank. The need to get a task group close to shore and also the fact that FCF is not about Brigade or even Cdo level ops means we need more numerous smaller ships. The fact that we are operating in allied waters means they can be forward based - very different problem to rocking up the other side of the world and launching a raid. Also, if I understand correctly Norway has changed its position on having foreign troops based in its country which makes the way we did things in the past more so out of date.

For me Global Raiding means at a low level Argus or its replacement, but anything larger is CEPP and the CVFs.

[SW1]

If the untied states with an embarrassment of riches in the amphibious domain have deemed they can’t support heavy armour over the beach how can we?

The idea that planning should expect a suitable port will always be available is extremely unwise.

One of the reasons why ship to shore connectors are still relevant is to ensure a force can be landed in damaged ports from slipways etc, not necessarily over the beach.

Ships with a 5m to 7m draft may not be able to access a port if ships have been scuttled in the entrances but landing craft with a 1m draft could safely dock but perhaps only at high tide.

The widest possible range of options must be maintained within reason. The most realistic scenario is never the perfect one.

It’s the only option for us. If there’s no port we don’t go. Certainly not at brigade level with mechanised forces which is probably why the statement has been made the army’s mechanised forces are for nato.

Which isn’t a problem as long as we have a mindset is of defence of territory that’s our or our allies. Not of intervention.

Anything else the only unit available is 16 air assault.

[Poiuytrewq]

For me Global Raiding means at a low level Argus or its replacement…

How do you launch and recover 4x CIC from Argus?

[SW1]

Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t the whole premise of the LSGs and the reforming of the RM to under take raiding operations ?

I think we are all working out what is the role of the FCF, “global raiding” does seem to be one of the key requirements, but that isn’t the only role if they are to remain the UK’s Artic force assigned to NATO covering Norway and to a degree the coasts of the Baltic.

To my knowlage you do not need to undertake raiding ops in friendly controlled arrears, so if said op will be done where a threat is posed do we really want one of as you surgest only 4 amphib rolling up to the beach as a big ass target ???
From what I’ve read the USMC thinking around using this type of vessel is for them to be expendable to an extent if needed, if we went with your proposal we wouldn’t be able to use them in such a way but the risk to them would be as such.

To perform the NATO role the FCF will need to be able to manoeuvre and control the Littoral region - this will be done in small groups. I see these ships more sea bases with option to land heavy stores / vehicles over the beach rather than they will always act as traditional landing craft. By having a larger number of dispersed vessels operating near shore it avoids the need for large vulnerable ships and task groups having to get close to shore.

I also do not see what they offer over dock and LCU / LCVP set other than load size.
With the proliferation of shore based AShW any amphib op large or raiding will surely need to be done from OTH, this will by its nature will in-tale the need of a large dock and fast ship to shore connectors and organic fast aviation.

To be safely operating OTH they need to be 100nm+ out - firstly I can’t see many conditions where an amphib would stop and flood its well dock that far out. Second any surface ship to shore connectors need to be larger and fast - forget LCUs and LCVPs.

My proposal would be as I said up thread of 4 x LPD/LSD hybrid style vessel and 2 Karl Doorman’s forming LSG-N and LSG-S, each could operate up to -
14 medium helos/tilt rotors
4 to 8 fast LCU ( I’d evolve the PASCAT design ) depending on dock size chosen
10 fast LCVP / CB90
900 odd troops if larger scale ops are required.

With the right ship to shore connectors and aviation chosen this set up would offer the flexibility for raiding but also for larger ops if the doctorin changes, remember these vessels would be in service in to the 2060s so things have the time to change more than once over the time frame from design to build to end of life.

I personally think LSDs/LPDs is the wrong answer for LRG(N) which is tasked to defend NATOs flank. The need to get a task group close to shore and also the fact that FCF is not about Brigade or even Cdo level ops means we need more numerous smaller ships. The fact that we are operating in allied waters means they can be forward based - very different problem to rocking up the other side of the world and launching a raid. Also, if I understand correctly Norway has changed its position on having foreign troops based in its country which makes the way we did things in the past more so out of date.

For me Global Raiding means at a low level Argus or its replacement, but anything larger is CEPP and the CVFs.

Defining 100 miles as the horizon suggests observation from 10k ft. From 350 ft it’s around 22 miles. Interesting what the definition of over the horizon is.