Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

[new guy]

Interesting update on the FSS design with relevance to this thread.

https://www.navylookout.com/refining-th ... ip-design/

Adaptability

Besides the core requirement to provide solid stores to the aircraft carrier and supporting warships, the design is intended to be ‘adaptable’ for other roles and ‘sustainable’ to meet emissions reduction targets. The adaptability involves allocating space, weight and power provision to support these other capabilities such as a role 2 maritime hospital that could be installed in Fleet Time. Additional space has been added to the port side boat bay to allow the embarkation of large RIBs for special forces. There is also a dedicated planning and command space for SF and commando operations. FSS will also have some signals intelligence gathering capabilities and will have a SIGINT office. Besides the thousands of tonnes of stores that can be held in the main hold, up to 25 TEU containers can be carried on the upper deck to allow the rapid embarkation of disaster relief supplies as well as supporting future containerised capabilities/PODS such as an autonomous mine warfare system.

The large and almost square flight deck will accommodate helicopters up to Chinook size. The hangar has space for two Merlin-size helicopters plus at least one UAV. The RN would have preferred more hangar space but enlarging it further would have impacted on the size and cost of the vessel.

FSS will have a core RFA crew of 101 plus up to 57 augmentees all accommodated in comfortable single en-suite cabins. There is more austere sleeping accommodation for another 21 personnel if needed.

So a CSG could carry @600 RMs/SFs without an additional amphib and without overloading:

- 1 x CVF: 250 troops
- 1 x FSS: 57 troops
- 1 x Tide: 46 troops
- 2 x T45: 2 x 60 troops
- 2 x T26: 2 x 50 troops
- 1 x SSN: 10 troops

Will the carriers want to be bottled up with extra RM, when they could use that extra capacity to improve crew efficiency, extra flight crew that the crash showed we needed, USMC, e.c.t?
Likewise we won't want the aux filled up too much.
I doubt the escorts can fill up that much.

[SW1]

Now you’re talking about combined warfare operations against an highly competent enemy so I would assume you’re sanitising as best you can an area in which to conduct operations, so in that regard operating traditional amphibious vessels would be entirely valid.

In some areas of the world you would find it difficult to operate over 100nm from a coast. Your not going to do it in the gulf or Red Sea for example.

It seems to me the marines are being configured to conduct guerrilla warfare in an enemy’s rear.

Given the proliferation of missile, UAV, submarine and satellite technologies the selective group of “ competent enemies” is much bigger, and we get even bigger with Russia try to regain a degree of influence on the world stage.

I agree, it does require sanitising the area of operation, and that’s why the CEPP makes a lot of sense - the CSG can do this, a few T31s close to shore cannot.

I do not believe traditional LSDs/LPDs/LHDs are optimal for this especially for the scale envisaged for the FCF - there is no requirement to transport large numbers of troops, kit and supplies by boat.
JSBLs combined with CVFs and LPHs/ASS for a force primarily inserted by air is much more optimal.

I think the FCF is being configured for unconventional war fighting, behind the line guerrilla warfare / raids is part of this so is I believe things like hit-and-run attacks on advancing forces and securing/ destroying key strategic lines of comms.

The proliferation of missiles, uav and commercial satellite tech yes you still need to be trained competently to use them.

There is not a proliferation of submarines, I would go further and say there has been a degradation in submarine competency used by states hostile to us as most are old and rarely used.

I’m not sure why you would suggest using a type 31 to attack a hostile coast on it own that would seem a weird choice. The U.K. can have a single high readiness group similar to a U.S. expeditionary strike group as the high water mark of its surface capability to achieve such a task at a limited scale but it is only one.

If the fcf is air delivered why is buying 70 new Viking armoured vehicles unless your using a fleet of chinooks you’re not moving them by helicopter and the logs to support them will be over a beach.

[jedibeeftrix]

how are they deployed?
how are they supplied?
how are they recovered?

nothing against other assets having a EMF facility, but there's a reason why USMC calculate amphibious capability in Lane Metres, as ultimately the scale of an operation is defined by how much material can be put on a beach sustained over time.

[new guy]

Will the carriers want to be bottled up with extra RM, when they could use that extra capacity to improve crew efficiency, extra flight crew that the crash showed we needed, USMC, e.c.t?
Likewise we won't want the aux filled up too much.
I doubt the escorts can fill up that much.

The escorts have been designed for EMFs and the carrier has more space than is being used already.

[Repulse]

I’m not sure why you would suggest using a type 31 to attack a hostile coast on it own that would seem a weird choice. The U.K. can have a single high readiness group similar to a U.S. expeditionary strike group as the high water mark of its surface capability to achieve such a task at a limited scale but it is only one.

If the fcf is air delivered why is buying 70 new Viking armoured vehicles unless your using a fleet of chinooks you’re not moving them by helicopter and the logs to support them will be over a beach.

The T31 reference was regarding it protecting an amphibious group close to shore given we lack T26/T45s.

Agree, the UK can only have one high readiness task group and that’s based around a CVF - there is no capacity to have a second high readiness (or even medium readiness) amphibious task group that some dream of.

In regard to the Vikings, again two core requirements for the FCF - most of these are for use in Norway, so why I argue for LSLs for the region. Further afield they can be used, but as you pointed out they can be lifted by Chinooks which the task groups are being equipped for.

[Repulse]

how are they deployed?
how are they supplied?
how are they recovered?

nothing against other assets having a EMF facility, but there's a reason why USMC calculate amphibious capability in Lane Metres, as ultimately the scale of an operation is defined by how much material can be put on a beach sustained over time.

Helicopter, helicopter, helicopter (with a limited number of small long range fast boats).

IMO when talking about global power projection we need to get over the FCF trying to be a mini USMC and the obsession with beaches.

[jedibeeftrix]

and at what scale and duration will these forces operate?
company scale and 72hrs...

that is [an] option, but it is not one that i feel is appropriate or useful - given the cost of maintaining 3Cdo.

ergo, you'd reduce the cost, and the decline from 7.500 to 5,500 would rapidly accelerate down to ~2,500.
no need for CS and CSS as well as an armour group in this future, and 3Cdo itself disolves to become a naval infantry conversion course operated out of catterick.

[jedibeeftrix]

and at what scale and duration will these forces operate?
company scale and 72hrs...

that is [an] option, but it is not one that i feel is appropriate or useful - given the cost of maintaining 3Cdo.

ergo, you'd reduce the cost, and the decline from 7.500 to 5,500 would rapidly accelerate down to ~2,500.
no need for CS and CSS as well as an armour group in this future, and 3Cdo itself disolves to become a naval infantry conversion course operated out of catterick.

Globally without other reinforcements (e.g. paras by secured airfield or other units by port) or allies, I think up to 2 companies for 72hrs is a reasonable assumption.

For Norway/Baltics, no I think it needs to be up to 4 companies for an enduring operation with sustained logistics with 30 days notice.

[Tempest414]

the game changes if and when type 31 gets 32 MK-41 VLS as it could in time carry 32 CAMM-ER and ether 24 TLAM / FCASW meaning it could attack targets 250 miles in land from 600 miles out at sea or it could carry 96 Spear-3 allowing coastal targets to be hit from 100km's out to sea

so a mix of 3 type 31's sitting 50 kms apart and 100 kms off the coast could hit 96 coastal targets and 48 deep targets using Spear-3 and FCASW / TLAM and at the same time carrying 96 air defences missiles and maybe 24 NSM. Maybe also add in a Type 45 for extra air defence

[SW1]

I’m not sure why you would suggest using a type 31 to attack a hostile coast on it own that would seem a weird choice. The U.K. can have a single high readiness group similar to a U.S. expeditionary strike group as the high water mark of its surface capability to achieve such a task at a limited scale but it is only one.

If the fcf is air delivered why is buying 70 new Viking armoured vehicles unless your using a fleet of chinooks you’re not moving them by helicopter and the logs to support them will be over a beach.

The T31 reference was regarding it protecting an amphibious group close to shore given we lack T26/T45s.

Agree, the UK can only have one high readiness task group and that’s based around a CVF - there is no capacity to have a second high readiness (or even medium readiness) amphibious task group that some dream of.

In regard to the Vikings, again two core requirements for the FCF - most of these are for use in Norway, so why I argue for LSLs for the region. Further afield they can be used, but as you pointed out they can be lifted by Chinooks which the task groups are being equipped for.

The type 31 is better equipped to protect ships closer to shore and counter small drones than other ships in fleet especially as missiles lose some effectiveness the closer to shore you get. So there perfectly acceptable for the task as part of the taskgroup.

The cvf is simply a USS America in the task group it and an lpd the sole task group configuration.

[Poiuytrewq]

….the UK can only have one high readiness task group and that’s based around a CVF - there is no capacity to have a second high readiness….

So basically what you are saying is that a single CVF within a CSG has to perform virtually every task to ensure the complete control of the surrounding air and sea domains including the cluttered and highly dangerous littoral zone, suppress or destroy any nearby sophisticated air defence networks, launch and recover the Amphibious Assault element including the provision of the associated command and control structure?

You also appear to have unilaterally disbanded the UK’s two LRGs, which are both currently operating independently of the CVFs or have I missed something?

[Repulse]

The type 31 is better equipped to protect ships closer to shore and counter small drones than other ships in fleet especially as missiles lose some effectiveness the closer to shore you get. So there perfectly acceptable for the task as part of the taskgroup.

The cvf is simply a USS America in the task group it and an lpd the sole task group configuration.

If it gets all the is promised, then yes as part of a task group it could be useful, but only as part of an integrated task group with T45/T26s not independently escorting an amphibious task group, which was my point.

LPDs with the CSGs will depend on money and requirements - I’m in doubt on both.

[SW1]

The type 31 is better equipped to protect ships closer to shore and counter small drones than other ships in fleet especially as missiles lose some effectiveness the closer to shore you get. So there perfectly acceptable for the task as part of the taskgroup.

The cvf is simply a USS America in the task group it and an lpd the sole task group configuration.

If it gets all the is promised, then yes as part of a task group it could be useful, but only as part of an integrated task group with T45/T26s not independently escorting an amphibious task group, which was my point.

LPDs with the CSGs will depend on money and requirements - I’m in doubt on both.

A type 45 or a type 26 cannot independently escort an amphibious task group in a high end conflict either so I’m not sure of the point but never mind.

[Repulse]

A type 45 or a type 26 cannot independently escort an amphibious task group in a high end conflict either so I’m not sure of the point but never mind.

Not “a” ship, but as a class the T26 could, the T31 could not.

[Repulse]

So basically what you are saying is that a single CVF within a CSG has to perform virtually every task to ensure the complete control of the surrounding air and sea domains including the cluttered and highly dangerous littoral zone, suppress or destroy any nearby sophisticated air defence networks, launch and recover the Amphibious Assault element including the provision of the associated command and control structure?

No, not just a CVF, but a CVF, or two in extremes, with its escorts and auxiliaries in a task group yes.

You also appear to have unilaterally disbanded the UK’s two LRGs, which are both currently operating independently of the CVFs or have I missed something?

No, I’ve changed what is considered a LRG.

- LRG (N - Norway) would be a group of 4 LSLs forward based operating with land based air assets, deploying up 4 reinforced RM Companies - and could be supported by the LRG(G) also.

- LRG (S) would be a single replacement for Argus with ideally a couple of davits for LCVP sized craft, operating one 200 RM company, for low threat Ops and HADR.

- LRG(G - Global) would be a CSG based on a CVF with its escorts / auxiliaries with the ability to deploy 600 RMs OTH.

[Poiuytrewq]

Describe the LSL please.

[Repulse]

Describe the LSL please.

Here - I’ve used Landing Ship Logistics (LSL) to avoid confusion with a Landing Ship Tank (LST), but really I mean a multi-role landing ship that can act as a RM forward base and land kit / supplies as needed.

[wargame_insomniac]

5- We can't afford two classes, if we could then why did we join with the RNLN?

The RNLN has similar differing requirements, by joining forces two classes is more possible / affordable not less.

I think two classes of amphibs with collaboration of RN and RNLN are all but inevitable, in that not only are the Dutch looking to replac their two larger amphibs based off Damen Enforcer class (i.e. some similarities to 3* RN Bay Class), the Dutch also want to replace their 4*Damen Holland class Patrol Vessels.

I do think that if Damen come up with a revised son-of-Holland class Patrol Vessel, that could be ideal for the smaller scale raiding that seems to be the direction of FCF (albeit everything official so far that we have heard about FCF has been vague other than them returning to their WW2 Commando roots). It could well end up as Damen's equivalent to Vard 7313 that some have referred to as an OPV Max.

The RNLN Holland class Patrol Vessels are 108m and 3,750t displacement, with 1*76mm & 1*30mm gun, 3 boats and 1 medium helicopter. If Damen came up with a son-of-Holland class Patrol Vessel that stretched that design to 115m-120m and 4,000t - 4,500t displacement, it maybe that could strcth the helicopter hangar to fit 2* medium or 1*large helicopter. I could see main armenent for RN ships replaced with 1*57mm and 1*40mm guns, so that they share the same logistics with T31 frigates. I could definitely see a use for at least 1 of these to cover west Africa and at least 1 in Indian Ocean to cover east Africa.

I would be looking for the budget for these smaller amphibs above to come out of T32 budget, as I consider these more of a luxury than a necessity (with IMO the necessity being to replace both Albions and Argus, as covered below). But these could be very useful covering a wide range of tasks in low-intensity areas, able to carry a variety of UAV and USV in addition to manned RIBs and helicopters. These would be ideal to use the RN PODS for flexibility of missions, including deploying RM and SF, patrolling and ISTAR, as well as HADR.

Then if Damen also come up with a reworked son-of-Enforcer class LPD with better hangar facilities, that could easily work as the main amphib for LRG(N) and if RN ordered 3 off these larger amphib that could replace both Albions and Argus. Maybe dedicate 1 of the 3 for both Aviation Support and PCRS to replace two main roles of Argus to lead LRG(S).

I would keep the Bays in use in current configuration with their Rubb temporary hangars, as they have proved so useful for any tasks.

[new guy]

5- We can't afford two classes, if we could then why did we join with the RNLN?

The RNLN has similar differing requirements, by joining forces two classes is more possible / affordable not less.

I think two classes of amphibs with collaboration of RN and RNLN are all but inevitable, in that not only are the Dutch looking to replac their two larger amphibs based off Damen Enforcer class (i.e. some similarities to 3* RN Bay Class), the Dutch also want to replace their 4*Damen Holland class Patrol Vessels.

I do think that if Damen come up with a revised son-of-Holland class Patrol Vessel, that could be ideal for the smaller scale raiding that seems to be the direction of FCF (albeit everything official so far that we have heard about FCF has been vague other than them returning to their WW2 Commando roots). It could well end up as Damen's equivalent to Vard 7313 that some have referred to as an OPV Max.

The RNLN Holland class Patrol Vessels are 108m and 3,750t displacement, with 1*76mm & 1*30mm gun, 3 boats and 1 medium helicopter. If Damen came up with a son-of-Holland class Patrol Vessel that stretched that design to 115m-120m and 4,000t - 4,500t displacement, it maybe that could strcth the helicopter hangar to fit 2* medium or 1*large helicopter. I could see main armenent for RN ships replaced with 1*57mm and 1*40mm guns, so that they share the same logistics with T31 frigates. I could definitely see a use for at least 1 of these to cover west Africa and at least 1 in Indian Ocean to cover east Africa.

I would be looking for the budget for these smaller amphibs above to come out of T32 budget, as I consider these more of a luxury than a necessity (with IMO the necessity being to replace both Albions and Argus, as covered below). But these could be very useful covering a wide range of tasks in low-intensity areas, able to carry a variety of UAV and USV in addition to manned RIBs and helicopters. These would be ideal to use the RN PODS for flexibility of missions, including deploying RM and SF, patrolling and ISTAR, as well as HADR.

Then if Damen also come up with a reworked son-of-Enforcer class LPD with better hangar facilities, that could easily work as the main amphib for LRG(N) and if RN ordered 3 off these larger amphib that could replace both Albions and Argus. Maybe dedicate 1 of the 3 for both Aviation Support and PCRS to replace two main roles of Argus to lead LRG(S).

I would keep the Bays in use in current configuration with their Rubb temporary hangars, as they have proved so useful for any tasks.

sounds like an arrowhead 120-similar.

[Jake1992]

5- We can't afford two classes, if we could then why did we join with the RNLN?

The RNLN has similar differing requirements, by joining forces two classes is more possible / affordable not less.

I think two classes of amphibs with collaboration of RN and RNLN are all but inevitable, in that not only are the Dutch looking to replac their two larger amphibs based off Damen Enforcer class (i.e. some similarities to 3* RN Bay Class), the Dutch also want to replace their 4*Damen Holland class Patrol Vessels.

I do think that if Damen come up with a revised son-of-Holland class Patrol Vessel, that could be ideal for the smaller scale raiding that seems to be the direction of FCF (albeit everything official so far that we have heard about FCF has been vague other than them returning to their WW2 Commando roots). It could well end up as Damen's equivalent to Vard 7313 that some have referred to as an OPV Max.

The RNLN Holland class Patrol Vessels are 108m and 3,750t displacement, with 1*76mm & 1*30mm gun, 3 boats and 1 medium helicopter. If Damen came up with a son-of-Holland class Patrol Vessel that stretched that design to 115m-120m and 4,000t - 4,500t displacement, it maybe that could strcth the helicopter hangar to fit 2* medium or 1*large helicopter. I could see main armenent for RN ships replaced with 1*57mm and 1*40mm guns, so that they share the same logistics with T31 frigates. I could definitely see a use for at least 1 of these to cover west Africa and at least 1 in Indian Ocean to cover east Africa.

I would be looking for the budget for these smaller amphibs above to come out of T32 budget, as I consider these more of a luxury than a necessity (with IMO the necessity being to replace both Albions and Argus, as covered below). But these could be very useful covering a wide range of tasks in low-intensity areas, able to carry a variety of UAV and USV in addition to manned RIBs and helicopters. These would be ideal to use the RN PODS for flexibility of missions, including deploying RM and SF, patrolling and ISTAR, as well as HADR.

Then if Damen also come up with a reworked son-of-Enforcer class LPD with better hangar facilities, that could easily work as the main amphib for LRG(N) and if RN ordered 3 off these larger amphib that could replace both Albions and Argus. Maybe dedicate 1 of the 3 for both Aviation Support and PCRS to replace two main roles of Argus to lead LRG(S).

I would keep the Bays in use in current configuration with their Rubb temporary hangars, as they have proved so useful for any tasks.

I have often said on here that the ideal T32 and over all replacement to an early sale T31 is the Crissover 139, not only could this do all the roles the current T31 is envisioned for but be perfect for small scale raiding or SF ops or even deploying unmanned systems in higher threat arrears.

[wargame_insomniac]

5- We can't afford two classes, if we could then why did we join with the RNLN?

The RNLN has similar differing requirements, by joining forces two classes is more possible / affordable not less.

I think two classes of amphibs with collaboration of RN and RNLN are all but inevitable, in that not only are the Dutch looking to replac their two larger amphibs based off Damen Enforcer class (i.e. some similarities to 3* RN Bay Class), the Dutch also want to replace their 4*Damen Holland class Patrol Vessels.

I do think that if Damen come up with a revised son-of-Holland class Patrol Vessel, that could be ideal for the smaller scale raiding that seems to be the direction of FCF (albeit everything official so far that we have heard about FCF has been vague other than them returning to their WW2 Commando roots). It could well end up as Damen's equivalent to Vard 7313 that some have referred to as an OPV Max.

The RNLN Holland class Patrol Vessels are 108m and 3,750t displacement, with 1*76mm & 1*30mm gun, 3 boats and 1 medium helicopter. If Damen came up with a son-of-Holland class Patrol Vessel that stretched that design to 115m-120m and 4,000t - 4,500t displacement, it maybe that could strcth the helicopter hangar to fit 2* medium or 1*large helicopter. I could see main armenent for RN ships replaced with 1*57mm and 1*40mm guns, so that they share the same logistics with T31 frigates. I could definitely see a use for at least 1 of these to cover west Africa and at least 1 in Indian Ocean to cover east Africa.

I would be looking for the budget for these smaller amphibs above to come out of T32 budget, as I consider these more of a luxury than a necessity (with IMO the necessity being to replace both Albions and Argus, as covered below). But these could be very useful covering a wide range of tasks in low-intensity areas, able to carry a variety of UAV and USV in addition to manned RIBs and helicopters. These would be ideal to use the RN PODS for flexibility of missions, including deploying RM and SF, patrolling and ISTAR, as well as HADR.

Then if Damen also come up with a reworked son-of-Enforcer class LPD with better hangar facilities, that could easily work as the main amphib for LRG(N) and if RN ordered 3 off these larger amphib that could replace both Albions and Argus. Maybe dedicate 1 of the 3 for both Aviation Support and PCRS to replace two main roles of Argus to lead LRG(S).

I would keep the Bays in use in current configuration with their Rubb temporary hangars, as they have proved so useful for any tasks.

sounds like an arrowhead 120-similar.

I forget what differences were between initial arrowhead 120 and eventual arrowhead 140.

But compared to the arrowhead 140, this Damen son-of-Holland would be
1) NOT a warship
2) 1,500t - 2,000t lighter
3) less guns (only 1*40mm instead of 2*40mm)
4) NO missiles

So in my opinion, this Damen son-of-Holland is NOT similar to arrowhead 140 at all.

If you did in fact mean the arrowhead 120, then apologies but I can;t remember enough about it.

[Poiuytrewq]

If you did in fact mean the arrowhead 120, then apologies but I can;t remember enough about it.

https://www.babcockinternational.com/wp ... IGITAL.pdf

[Repulse]

If you did in fact mean the arrowhead 120, then apologies but I can;t remember enough about it.

https://www.babcockinternational.com/wp ... IGITAL.pdf

If we had to buy Babcock why the hell didn’t we buy something like this instead of the T31.

If we need to keep the pretence to be able to support two yards, let’s sell 2 T31s (to RNZN or whoever) and taking the LSV budget build 5 of these to operate in UK EEZ, North Atlantic, Baltic waters, and Kipion.

[Tempest414]

If you did in fact mean the arrowhead 120, then apologies but I can;t remember enough about it.

https://www.babcockinternational.com/wp ... IGITAL.pdf

If we had to buy Babcock why the hell didn’t we buy something like this instead of the T31.

If we need to keep the pretence to be able to support two yards, let’s sell 2 T31s (to RNZN or whoever) and taking the LSV budget build 5 of these to operate in UK EEZ, North Atlantic, Baltic waters, and Kipion.

Simple the RN did not want it they wanted there Global Patrol Frigate and they are going about making it happen and if type 31 gets its Mk-41's they would have pull off a blinder to get a ship that has a 30 knot top speed , 9000 Nmi range , 1 x 57mm , 2 x 40mm , 32 Mk-41 VLS , 2170 SSTD , Chinook capable flight deck , hangar capable of taking 2 x Wildcats or a Merlin.

[new guy]

If you did in fact mean the arrowhead 120, then apologies but I can;t remember enough about it.

https://www.babcockinternational.com/wp ... IGITAL.pdf

If we had to buy Babcock why the hell didn’t we buy something like this instead of the T31.

If we need to keep the pretence to be able to support two yards, let’s sell 2 T31s (to RNZN or whoever) and taking the LSV budget build 5 of these to operate in UK EEZ, North Atlantic, Baltic waters, and Kipion.

Because T31 basically existed before, is much better, and has potencial for weapons growth into a strong platform. an actual frigate.