Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

[Caribbean]

Was it the NAO stated that the program had grown to 11.5 billion for 13 ships I don't think there was a approved budget might be wrong

£11.5b was what it was reduced to once Cameron had nibbled bits off. Then it was split into two, with £2.5b going to the T31, £8.5b to T26 and another £0.5b going elsewhere

[Poiuytrewq]

Therefore the kit required by RM would be very different to what is proposed above.

Make a proposal then - I completely agree traditional thinking for this region has gone out of the window.

The clearest way to illustrate the radically altered strategic landscape is to look at a map of the region.

0C411D2D-3AF2-48E9-B36E-3866824BDAE3.gif

The “reinforcing the northern flank” requirement was clearly necessary if Sweden stayed neutral in the event of a conflict and Finland chose not to get involved. Fighting up through Norway in a conventional way would have been atrocious.

If an incursion happened now, multiple NATO armoured divisions could push up from the south through Norway, Sweden and Finland and reinforce as necessary or even expel any hostile forces pretty rapidly.

If a hostile force landed in central Norway by ways of an Amphibious incursion before Sweden and Finland opted to join NATO it would have been extremely difficult to eject it, especially if another inclusion came over the border simultaneously. Now any amphibious landing would be tactically unthinkable.

Therefore IMO, the security of Norway, Sweden and Finland should be the Army’s main NATO commitment now with RM playing a lesser role in the Littoral. As said previously, a 3 Battlegroup commitment in Norway, Finland and Estonia is proportionate.

The need for a dedicated LRG(N) based around an Albion to operate in the JEF region looks weak IMO but an enduring presence along the Norwegian coast as well as cooperating with other NATO members in the Baltic is crucial to provide a credible deterrent.

My proposal would be to operate the FCF from HiCap OPV’s such as the Vard 7 313. The Vard design has everything required whilst maintaining affordable operating costs.

- 2x 15m craft plus 2x RHIBs on davits
- 2 spot flight deck or single Chinook
- Hanger for 4x medium helos
- EMF of up to 300
- Extensive medical facilities
- Sizeable RoRo capacity
- Stern and side ramps (ideally palfinger)

With a Palfinger stern ramp added multiple craft could be operated from the vehicle deck. Thereby acting as mothership for perhaps up to six 15m craft.

Two of these HiCap OPVs is all that is required for routine patrols along the Norwegian coast and the Baltic. Operating 3 HiCap OPVs as LRG(N) with 2 deployed at any one time and the 3rd in refit/reserve would be a fantastic and cost effective contribution.

A permanent ARG could be based in the UK to provide support to LRG(N) or to LRG(S) if required. This would be ideally formed around a LHD plus joint logistics MRSS.

By streamlining the RM land contribution in Norway a permanent UK ARG is viable along with a forward based but routinely disaggregated LRG(S).

Just my opinion.

[Jake1992]

Therefore the kit required by RM would be very different to what is proposed above.

Make a proposal then - I completely agree traditional thinking for this region has gone out of the window.

My proposal would be to operate the FCF from HiCap OPV’s such as the Vard 7 313. The Vard design has everything required whilst maintaining affordable operating costs.

- 2x 15m craft plus 2x RHIBs on davits
- 2 spot flight deck or single Chinook
- Hanger for 4x medium helos
- EMF of up to 300
- Extensive medical facilities
- Sizeable RoRo capacity
- Stern and side ramps (ideally palfinger)

With a Palfinger stern ramp added multiple craft could be operated from the vehicle deck. Thereby acting as mothership for perhaps up to six 15m craft.

Two of these HiCap OPVs is all that is required for routine patrols along the Norwegian coast and the Baltic. Operating 3 HiCap OPVs as LRG(N) with 2 deployed at any one time and the 3rd in refit/reserve would be a fantastic and cost effective contribution.

A permanent ARG could be based in the UK to provide support to LRG(N) or to LRG(S) if required. This would be ideally formed around a LHD plus joint logistics MRSS.

By streamlining the RM land contribution in Norway a permanent UK ARG is viable along with a forward based but routinely desegregated LRG(S).

Just my opinion.

While I like the look of these where do you see you money coming from for them and the ARG made up of an LHD plus MRSS you prosed ? I do not see these are a viable replacement for the whole amphib set up on there own.

You mention these for LSG-N so what do you propose for LSG-S and again where to you see the monkeying coming from ?

[SW1]

Therefore the kit required by RM would be very different to what is proposed above.

Make a proposal then - I completely agree traditional thinking for this region has gone out of the window.

The clearest way to illustrate the radically altered strategic landscape is to look at a map of the region.
0C411D2D-3AF2-48E9-B36E-3866824BDAE3.gif

The “reinforcing the northern flank” requirement was clearly necessary if Sweden stayed neutral in the event of a conflict and Finland chose not to get involved. Fighting up through Norway in a conventional way would have been atrocious.

If an incursion happened now, multiple NATO armoured divisions could push up from the south through Norway, Sweden and Finland and reinforce as necessary or even expel any hostile forces pretty rapidly.

If a hostile force landed in central Norway by ways of an Amphibious incursion before Sweden and Finland opted to join NATO it would have been extremely difficult to eject it, especially if another inclusion came over the border simultaneously. Now any amphibious landing would be tactically unthinkable.

Therefore IMO, the security of Norway, Sweden and Finland should be the Army’s main NATO commitment now with RM playing a lesser role in the Littoral. As said previously, a 3 Battlegroup commitment in Norway, Finland and Estonia is proportionate.

The need for a dedicated LRG(N) based around an Albion to operate in the JEF region looks weak IMO but an enduring presence along the Norwegian coast as well as cooperating with other NATO members in the Baltic is crucial to provide a credible deterrent.

My proposal would be to operate the FCF from HiCap OPV’s such as the Vard 7 313. The Vard design has everything required whilst maintaining affordable operating costs.

- 2x 15m craft plus 2x RHIBs on davits
- 2 spot flight deck or single Chinook
- Hanger for 4x medium helos
- EMF of up to 300
- Extensive medical facilities
- Sizeable RoRo capacity
- Stern and side ramps (ideally palfinger)

With a Palfinger stern ramp added multiple craft could be operated from the vehicle deck. Thereby acting as mothership for perhaps up to six 15m craft.

Two of these HiCap OPVs is all that is required for routine patrols along the Norwegian coast and the Baltic. Operating 3 HiCap OPVs as LRG(N) with 2 deployed at any one time and the 3rd in refit/reserve would be a fantastic and cost effective contribution.

A permanent ARG could be based in the UK to provide support to LRG(N) or to LRG(S) if required. This would be ideally formed around a LHD plus joint logistics MRSS.

By streamlining the RM land contribution in Norway a permanent UK ARG is viable along with a forward based but routinely desegregated LRG(S).

Just my opinion.

The purpose of reinforcing Norway was not about a soviet amphibious landing in central Norway it was about ensuring that Murmansk was a target held at risk. That would have been done by the American Striking fleet moving to fjords along the coast around narvik and using them as a base, the job was to protect those fjords from a soviet force pushing west from Murmansk as they attempted to secure Murmansk and to provide and Soviet umbrella over the Norwegian Sea as they attempted to secure the route to the Atlantic for there submarine fleets.

The role today would still be to hold Murmansk at risk but more likely by moving long range surface to surface missile systems to within range of it and stopping Russia trying to counter. They have less need to move their submarine fleets to the Atlantic as their missile technology has improved. They still need to find our missile boats so it’s more attack submarines they want to move.

Moving armoured divisions that far north would be extremely difficult I don’t see that’s how they would be used.

[serge750]

Just my opinion.

Thanks both good contributions. Having a specialised fleet optimised to the littoral environment working and traversing the fjords for me is a no brainer - we can argue what that is, but IMO it’s clear the game has changed and doing the same as before isn’t the answer.

Equally, I agree that limited amphibious capability (probably based on a single ship) based EoS is advisable, as long as the limits are clear. Having a globally deployable amphibious capability is a no brainer also, it has to be based on CEPP and the debate is what is in that group (LPD or no LPD ultimately l).

[Tempest414]

Just my opinion.

Thanks both good contributions. Having a specialised fleet optimised to the littoral environment working and traversing the fjords for me is a no brainer - we can argue what that is, but IMO it’s clear the game has changed and doing the same as before isn’t the answer.

Equally, I agree that limited amphibious capability (probably based on a single ship) based EoS is advisable, as long as the limits are clear. Having a globally deployable amphibious capability is a no brainer also, it has to be based on CEPP and the debate is what is in that group (LPD or no LPD ultimately l).

For me we can't get away from the need for a third flattop as one carrier can not carry out CAP , Strike , ASW , AEW and Amphib tasks all at the same time having a globally deployable amphib fleet will require a flattop and LPD supported by a CSG as needed

As for the Nordic / Baltic question it is going to be about speed and Logistics so new kit like the CIC program are good to see I will quote the German naval chief

" All of the Batlic sea can be effected from the land and all the land can be effect from the sea "

As a side this is the same for the Black Sea and to a degree the Med

[Repulse]

need for a third flattop as one carrier can not carry out CAP , Strike , ASW , AEW and Amphib tasks all at the same time having a globally deployable amphib fleet will require a flattop and LPD supported by a CSG as needed

It all comes down to money, but I think this is where the Argus replacement comes interesting as this only really becomes an issue when there is a significant conflict.

As a side this is the same for the Black Sea and to a degree the Med

We aren’t going to put amphibious forces in the Black Sea, and even if we were the Montreux Convention on restrictions on tonnage would kick in.

[Poiuytrewq]

While I like the look of these where do you see you money coming from for them and the ARG made up of an LHD plus MRSS you prosed ? I do not see these are a viable replacement for the whole amphib set up on there own.

You mention these for LSG-N so what do you propose for LSG-S and again where to you see the monkeying coming from ?

Thanks Jake.

Firstly the revised figures for the current UK Defence budget is now £55bn. Allocating 2% of this budget annually to secure a UK sovereign shipbuilding industry is perfectly reasonable. That amounts to roughly £1.2bn per year or £12bn per decade unadjusted for inflation.

Regardless, current planning has two programs in the pipeline, T32 and MRSS. Based on 6x£400m MRSS, 5x£500m for the T32, results in a combined total of around £5bn. That’s a huge amount so it must be spent as efficiently as possible.

My opinion is not changing that medium altitude long endurance drones will revolutionise both short endurance littoral strike, ISTAR and ASW capabilities. RN must add extra flattops to the fleet and stop worrying about cuts to the CVFs. Within a decade or so flattops are going to start to widely proliferate to maximise the new drone tech so it will be less controversial to have multiple flattops in a fleet than it is today.

To make the most of this emerging drone tech RN needs to introduce at least one but ideally two substantial LHDs. There is a perfectly reasonable argument to say that all six MRSS should be flattop’s but IMO they would be too small to maximise the potential unless further funding appears. However a 3x (Drone optimised) LHDs plus 3x Joint Replenishment Vessel option should be fully considered as part of the decision process.

So IMO keeping Rosyth busy is not enough of a justification for the introduction of the T32, for which the case has not yet been made and the MRSS programme looks to be a completely missed opportunity.

Therefore I would amend current planning to:

• Replace the T32 programme with a much less costly HiCap OPV programme to procure 7x vessels for £1.5bn. Ideally based on a UK adapted 138m Vard7 313 hull with an uprated propulsion setup and a Palfinger stern ramp/dock.

• Amend the MRSS programme to either build
  
  Option1
  - 2x Juan Carlos LHDs @£900m each
  - 3x Ellida MRSS with solid and liquid replenishment @£400m each
  
  Option2
  - 1x 45,000t LHA with full F35 capability but routinely operating maritime MALE drones @£1.8bn
  - 3x Ellida MRSS with solid and liquid replenishment @£400m each

In total that amounts to around £4.5bn so ballpark current planning or perhaps a slight saving of around £500m. Enough for a sixth T31.

The effect of this change on fleet balance would be immense.

- LRG(N): 2x HiCap OPVs
- LRG(S): 3x HiCap OPVs, 1x T31, 1x MRSS, (possible 2nd LHD plus Kipion T31 and LSV)
- Gibraltar: 1x HiCap OPV, 1x MRSS, 1x RB2
- UK ARG: 1LHD, 1x MRSS

* 3x RB2s UK EEZ, 1x RB2 Falklands
** 7th HiCap OPV in refit/reserve

LRG(N) would operate persistently along the Norwegian and Baltic coastlines and be comprised of 2x HiCap OPVs each embarking a company of FCF, up to 6x CIC/RHIBs, 1x LCM and up to 2x Merlin plus 2x Wildcat. Highly effective, highly versatile and highly cost effective.

LRG(S) would be forward based at Duqm and would be comprised of 1x T31, 3x HiCap OPVs and one MRSS with or without a LHD depending on if the second LHD was built. This would be in addition to the LSV and T31 conducting Kipion. The first 2 OPVs would effectively replace the RB2s in the Indo Pacific and the 3rd OPV with the MRSS would concentrate primarily on East Africa hence the disaggregated nature of LRG(S). When combined the LRG would be a substantial force with hanger space for up to 18x helos and 10x landing spots. An EMF of over 1200 RM could be embarked if surged, along with ample capacity for vehicles and small craft. This is without the LHD. Add the LHD and the group becomes a modest but perfectly formed, forward deployed ARG. The maritime MALE drones would be an amazingly useful capability EoS for ISTAR, ASuW, SELS and ASW etc. A true game changer if the operating costs were deemed to be manageable.

Gibraltar
The 3 vessels forward deployed in Gibraltar (HiCap OPV, RB2, MRSS) would conduct APT(N) & (S) plus patrol the West African coast.

UK ARG
This would be the UK’s main Amphibious force based around a single highly capable LHD and supported by a MRSS with a joint replenishment capability. Effectively this would be a 45,000t UK version of a Trieste LHD (unless a twin LHD procurement was selected). Fully F35b capable but operated routinely with maritime MALE drones, the capacity would be approximately 12x MALE drones, 6x F35, 18x helos and 6x Heavy Lift UAV. The EMF capacity would be around 800 with 4x CIC on davits and 2x 30m craft in the floodable well dock. An amazingly versatile vessel for multiple roles including ASW in the North Atlantic when supporting the LRGs was not required. Adding the ARG to either of the LRGs would result in a formidable Amphibious force but one that could routinely operate extremely cost effectively. This is important.

A few considerations:

- The six active HiCap OPVs would require a lower core crew allocation than 5x T31/32.

- Adding a solid/liquid replenishment capability to the MRSS would effectively replace the Bays and the Waves simultaneously. A big win for both RN and HMT. It would also ensure the LRGs were self sufficient to allow the Tides/FSS to primarily concentrate on supporting the CSG(s).

- 7x HiCap OPV, 3x MRSS and 1x LHD would embark 8x LCU and 7x LCM. This would be double the ship to shore connectors compared to the current 1x Albion and 3x Bays.

- Operating a HiCap OPV would routinely only require:
> 75 core crew
> ~ 25 flight crew
> 50 EMF
> 1x Wildcat HMA2, 1x Wildcat AH1
> 2x CIC
> 2x RHIBs
> 1x LCM

- By minimising the cost of LRG(N) & (S) whilst simultaneously increasing effectiveness, a more substantial UK ARG can be formed and sustained. This is predicated by the Army doing more in Norway.

- The F35 capable 3rd flattop would be procured and sustained without further funding.

- The 6x T31s could be maximised thereby giving RN 20x credible escorts for the first time in decades.

- Replacing 3x Bays, Argus and the 2x Waves with only 3x MRSS would reduce the pressure on the RFA headcount.

IMO it’s a better direction of travel for RN. Hopefully this fleshes out the details and answers your questions.

[Jake1992]

While I like the look of these where do you see you money coming from for them and the ARG made up of an LHD plus MRSS you prosed ? I do not see these are a viable replacement for the whole amphib set up on there own.

You mention these for LSG-N so what do you propose for LSG-S and again where to you see the monkeying coming from ?

Thanks Jake.

Firstly the revised figures for the current UK Defence budget is now £55bn. Allocating 2% of this budget annually to secure a UK sovereign shipbuilding industry is perfectly reasonable. That amounts to roughly £1.2bn per year or £12bn per decade unadjusted for inflation.

Regardless, current planning has two programs in the pipeline, T32 and MRSS. Based on 6x£400m MRSS, 5x£500m for the T32, results in a combined total of around £5bn. That’s a huge amount so it must be spent as efficiently as possible.

My opinion is not changing that medium altitude long endurance drones will revolutionise both short endurance littoral strike, ISTAR and ASW capabilities. RN must add extra flattops to the fleet and stop worrying about cuts to the CVFs. Within a decade or so flattops are going to start to widely proliferate to maximise the new drone tech so it will be less controversial to have multiple flattops in a fleet than it is today.

To make the most of this emerging drone tech RN needs to introduce at least one but ideally two substantial LHDs. There is a perfectly reasonable argument to say that all six MRSS should be flattop’s but IMO they would be too small to maximise the potential unless further funding appears. However a 3x (Drone optimised) LHDs plus 3x Joint Replenishment Vessel option should be fully considered as part of the decision process.

So IMO keeping Rosyth busy is not enough of a justification for the introduction of the T32, for which the case has not yet been made and the MRSS programme looks to be a completely missed opportunity.

Therefore I would amend current planning to:

• Replace the T32 programme with a much less costly HiCap OPV programme to procure 7x vessels for £1.5bn. Ideally based on a UK adapted 138m Vard7 313 hull with an uprated propulsion setup and a Palfinger stern ramp/dock.

• Amend the MRSS programme to either build
  
  Option1
  - 2x Juan Carlos LHDs @£900m each
  - 3x Ellida MRSS with solid and liquid replenishment @£400m each
  
  Option2
  - 1x 45,000t LHA with full F35 capability but routinely operating maritime MALE drones @£1.8bn
  - 3x Ellida MRSS with solid and liquid replenishment @£400m each

In total that amounts to around £4.5bn so ballpark current planning or perhaps a slight saving of around £500m. Enough for a sixth T31.

The effect of this change on fleet balance would be immense.

- LRG(N): 2x HiCap OPVs
- LRG(S): 3x HiCap OPVs, 1x T31, 1x MRSS, (possible 2nd LHD plus Kipion T31 and LSV)
- Gibraltar: 1x HiCap OPV, 1x MRSS, 1x RB2
- UK ARG: 1LHD, 1x MRSS

* 3x RB2s UK EEZ, 1x RB2 Falklands
** 7th HiCap OPV in refit/reserve

LRG(N) would operate persistently along the Norwegian and Baltic coastlines and be comprised of 2x HiCap OPVs each embarking a company of FCF, up to 6x CIC/RHIBs, 1x LCM and up to 2x Merlin plus 2x Wildcat. Highly effective, highly versatile and highly cost effective.

LRG(S) would be forward based at Duqm and would be comprised of 1x T31, 3x HiCap OPVs and one MRSS with or without a LHD depending on if the second LHD was built. This would be in addition to the LSV and T31 conducting Kipion. The first 2 OPVs would effectively replace the RB2s in the Indo Pacific and the 3rd OPV with the MRSS would concentrate primarily on East Africa hence the disaggregated nature of LRG(S). When combined the LRG would be a substantial force with hanger space for up to 18x helos and 10x landing spots. An EMF of over 1200 RM could be embarked if surged, along with ample capacity for vehicles and small craft. This is without the LHD. Add the LHD and the group becomes a modest but perfectly formed, forward deployed ARG. The maritime MALE drones would be an amazingly useful capability EoS for ISTAR, ASuW, SELS and ASW etc. A true game changer if the operating costs were deemed to be manageable.

Gibraltar
The 3 vessels forward deployed in Gibraltar (HiCap OPV, RB2, MRSS) would conduct APT(N) & (S) plus patrol the West African coast.

UK ARG
This would be the UK’s main Amphibious force based around a single highly capable LHD and supported by a MRSS with a joint replenishment capability. Effectively this would be a 45,000t UK version of a Trieste LHD (unless a twin LHD procurement was selected). Fully F35b capable but operated routinely with maritime MALE drones, the capacity would be approximately 12x MALE drones, 6x F35, 18x helos and 6x Heavy Lift UAV. The EMF capacity would be around 800 with 4x CIC on davits and 2x 30m craft in the floodable well dock. An amazingly versatile vessel for multiple roles including ASW in the North Atlantic when supporting the LRGs was not required. Adding the ARG to either of the LRGs would result in a formidable Amphibious force but one that could routinely operate extremely cost effectively. This is important.

A few considerations:

- The six active HiCap OPVs would require a lower core crew allocation than 5x T31/32.

- Adding a solid/liquid replenishment capability to the MRSS would effectively replace the Bays and the Waves simultaneously. A big win for both RN and HMT. It would also ensure the LRGs were self sufficient to allow the Tides/FSS to primarily concentrate on supporting the CSG(s).

- 7x HiCap OPV, 3x MRSS and 1x LHD would embark 8x LCU and 7x LCM. This would be double the ship to shore connectors compared to the current 1x Albion and 3x Bays.

- Operating a HiCap OPV would routinely only require:
> 75 core crew
> ~ 25 flight crew
> 50 EMF
> 1x Wildcat HMA2, 1x Wildcat AH1
> 2x CIC
> 2x RHIBs
> 1x LCM

- By minimising the cost of LRG(N) & (S) whilst simultaneously increasing effectiveness, a more substantial UK ARG can be formed and sustained. This is predicated by the Army doing more in Norway.

- The F35 capable 3rd flattop would be procured and sustained without further funding.

- The 6x T31s could be maximised thereby giving RN 20x credible escorts for the first time in decades.

- Replacing 3x Bays, Argus and the 2x Waves with only 3x MRSS would reduce the pressure on the RFA headcount.

IMO it’s a better direction of travel for RN. Hopefully this fleshes out the details and answers your questions.

Interesting and I’m not against it just a few points that I disagree with.

1 - the T32s were/are meant to increase the escort numbers with the funds for them being used else where that is killed all while needing more escorts for this plan. I do believe though the T32 could be a more flexible ship than just a batch 2 T31.

2 - like mentioned above where are the escorts coming from for this ARG ? The T31s of up armed could be useful here but not something you want escorting 1 of your 3 only battle groups.

3 - I do not see us being able to build 2 JC1s at £900m each here in the UK, IMO the cost would be more like £1.2bn+ each.

4 - while I can see the improvement in the updated Ellida design I still think it’s lacking compared to the Karel Doorman design.

[Tempest414]

need for a third flattop as one carrier can not carry out CAP , Strike , ASW , AEW and Amphib tasks all at the same time having a globally deployable amphib fleet will require a flattop and LPD supported by a CSG as needed

It all comes down to money, but I think this is where the Argus replacement comes interesting as this only really becomes an issue when there is a significant conflict.

As a side this is the same for the Black Sea and to a degree the Med

We aren’t going to put amphibious forces in the Black Sea, and even if we were the Montreux Convention on restrictions on tonnage would kick in.

I did not say the navy were going anywhere it was in context to how both land and sea are effected

as for money we know we have the money as a nation we just have to spend it

[SW1]

While I like the look of these where do you see you money coming from for them and the ARG made up of an LHD plus MRSS you prosed ? I do not see these are a viable replacement for the whole amphib set up on there own.

You mention these for LSG-N so what do you propose for LSG-S and again where to you see the monkeying coming from ?

Thanks Jake.

Firstly the revised figures for the current UK Defence budget is now £55bn. Allocating 2% of this budget annually to secure a UK sovereign shipbuilding industry is perfectly reasonable. That amounts to roughly £1.2bn per year or £12bn per decade unadjusted for inflation.

Regardless, current planning has two programs in the pipeline, T32 and MRSS. Based on 6x£400m MRSS, 5x£500m for the T32, results in a combined total of around £5bn. That’s a huge amount so it must be spent as efficiently as possible.

My opinion is not changing that medium altitude long endurance drones will revolutionise both short endurance littoral strike, ISTAR and ASW capabilities. RN must add extra flattops to the fleet and stop worrying about cuts to the CVFs. Within a decade or so flattops are going to start to widely proliferate to maximise the new drone tech so it will be less controversial to have multiple flattops in a fleet than it is today.

To make the most of this emerging drone tech RN needs to introduce at least one but ideally two substantial LHDs. There is a perfectly reasonable argument to say that all six MRSS should be flattop’s but IMO they would be too small to maximise the potential unless further funding appears. However a 3x (Drone optimised) LHDs plus 3x Joint Replenishment Vessel option should be fully considered as part of the decision process.

So IMO keeping Rosyth busy is not enough of a justification for the introduction of the T32, for which the case has not yet been made and the MRSS programme looks to be a completely missed opportunity.

Therefore I would amend current planning to:

• Replace the T32 programme with a much less costly HiCap OPV programme to procure 7x vessels for £1.5bn. Ideally based on a UK adapted 138m Vard7 313 hull with an uprated propulsion setup and a Palfinger stern ramp/dock.

• Amend the MRSS programme to either build
  
  Option1
  - 2x Juan Carlos LHDs @£900m each
  - 3x Ellida MRSS with solid and liquid replenishment @£400m each
  
  Option2
  - 1x 45,000t LHA with full F35 capability but routinely operating maritime MALE drones @£1.8bn
  - 3x Ellida MRSS with solid and liquid replenishment @£400m each

In total that amounts to around £4.5bn so ballpark current planning or perhaps a slight saving of around £500m. Enough for a sixth T31.

The effect of this change on fleet balance would be immense.

- LRG(N): 2x HiCap OPVs
- LRG(S): 3x HiCap OPVs, 1x T31, 1x MRSS, (possible 2nd LHD plus Kipion T31 and LSV)
- Gibraltar: 1x HiCap OPV, 1x MRSS, 1x RB2
- UK ARG: 1LHD, 1x MRSS

* 3x RB2s UK EEZ, 1x RB2 Falklands
** 7th HiCap OPV in refit/reserve

LRG(N) would operate persistently along the Norwegian and Baltic coastlines and be comprised of 2x HiCap OPVs each embarking a company of FCF, up to 6x CIC/RHIBs, 1x LCM and up to 2x Merlin plus 2x Wildcat. Highly effective, highly versatile and highly cost effective.

LRG(S) would be forward based at Duqm and would be comprised of 1x T31, 3x HiCap OPVs and one MRSS with or without a LHD depending on if the second LHD was built. This would be in addition to the LSV and T31 conducting Kipion. The first 2 OPVs would effectively replace the RB2s in the Indo Pacific and the 3rd OPV with the MRSS would concentrate primarily on East Africa hence the disaggregated nature of LRG(S). When combined the LRG would be a substantial force with hanger space for up to 18x helos and 10x landing spots. An EMF of over 1200 RM could be embarked if surged, along with ample capacity for vehicles and small craft. This is without the LHD. Add the LHD and the group becomes a modest but perfectly formed, forward deployed ARG. The maritime MALE drones would be an amazingly useful capability EoS for ISTAR, ASuW, SELS and ASW etc. A true game changer if the operating costs were deemed to be manageable.

Gibraltar
The 3 vessels forward deployed in Gibraltar (HiCap OPV, RB2, MRSS) would conduct APT(N) & (S) plus patrol the West African coast.

UK ARG
This would be the UK’s main Amphibious force based around a single highly capable LHD and supported by a MRSS with a joint replenishment capability. Effectively this would be a 45,000t UK version of a Trieste LHD (unless a twin LHD procurement was selected). Fully F35b capable but operated routinely with maritime MALE drones, the capacity would be approximately 12x MALE drones, 6x F35, 18x helos and 6x Heavy Lift UAV. The EMF capacity would be around 800 with 4x CIC on davits and 2x 30m craft in the floodable well dock. An amazingly versatile vessel for multiple roles including ASW in the North Atlantic when supporting the LRGs was not required. Adding the ARG to either of the LRGs would result in a formidable Amphibious force but one that could routinely operate extremely cost effectively. This is important.

A few considerations:

- The six active HiCap OPVs would require a lower core crew allocation than 5x T31/32.

- Adding a solid/liquid replenishment capability to the MRSS would effectively replace the Bays and the Waves simultaneously. A big win for both RN and HMT. It would also ensure the LRGs were self sufficient to allow the Tides/FSS to primarily concentrate on supporting the CSG(s).

- 7x HiCap OPV, 3x MRSS and 1x LHD would embark 8x LCU and 7x LCM. This would be double the ship to shore connectors compared to the current 1x Albion and 3x Bays.

- Operating a HiCap OPV would routinely only require:
> 75 core crew
> ~ 25 flight crew
> 50 EMF
> 1x Wildcat HMA2, 1x Wildcat AH1
> 2x CIC
> 2x RHIBs
> 1x LCM

- By minimising the cost of LRG(N) & (S) whilst simultaneously increasing effectiveness, a more substantial UK ARG can be formed and sustained. This is predicated by the Army doing more in Norway.

- The F35 capable 3rd flattop would be procured and sustained without further funding.

- The 6x T31s could be maximised thereby giving RN 20x credible escorts for the first time in decades.

- Replacing 3x Bays, Argus and the 2x Waves with only 3x MRSS would reduce the pressure on the RFA headcount.

IMO it’s a better direction of travel for RN. Hopefully this fleshes out the details and answers your questions.

It’s not 2% of 55 billion for new equipment if you use 2022 accounts it’ 8.5 billion for equipment per year so 2% of that is a lot less.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... 02020%2F21.

[Poiuytrewq]

It’s not 2% of 55 billion for new equipment if you use 2022 accounts it’ 8.5 billion for equipment per year so 2% of that is a lot less.

The total equipment budget is over £20bn per year and is due to stay at that level until at least 2025. It can be spent on whatever the MoD/RN chooses to spend it on.

61B214AA-107D-4D5A-A0FC-7FF580ED9C99.jpeg

The headcount is being purposefully reduced to fund an increase in capital investment.

For an island nation like the UK a 2% spend on shipbuilding should be the bare minimum. What are proposing 1% or less?

The UK is currently spending £800m-£900m per year on surface vessels. If the T32 program follows the T31 the UK will be spending £1.2bn per year between 2026-2032 on the T26/T32 and FSS. If the T32 doesn’t happen Rosyth will go pop without an alternative program being substituted and funding allocated.

All I am suggesting is to maintain that level of funding going forward. Nothing more.

[SW1]

It’s not 2% of 55 billion for new equipment if you use 2022 accounts it’ 8.5 billion for equipment per year so 2% of that is a lot less.

The total equipment budget is over £20bn per year and is due to stay at that level until at least 2025. It can be spent on whatever the MoD/RN chooses to spend it on.

61B214AA-107D-4D5A-A0FC-7FF580ED9C99.jpeg

The headcount is being purposefully reduced to fund an increase in capital investment.

For an island nation like the UK a 2% spend on shipbuilding should be the bare minimum. What are proposing 1% or less?

The UK is currently spending £800m-£900m per year on surface vessels. If the T32 program follows the T31 the UK will be spending £1.2bn per year between 2026-2032 on the T26/T32 and FSS. If the T32 doesn’t happen Rosyth will go pop without an alternative program being substituted and funding allocated.

All I am suggesting is to maintain that level of funding going forward. Nothing more.

Not that old island nation chestnut. You could also say we are a maritime nation but we don’t want to do that type of role either.

2% of what though?

I don’t know what we are currently spending on surface vessels but type 32 probably will follow type 31 but I think it will be a type 31 batch 2 if it does.

[Poiuytrewq]

1 - the T32s were/are meant to increase the escort numbers with the funds for them being used else where that is killed all while needing more escorts for this plan. I do believe though the T32 could be a more flexible ship than just a batch 2 T31.

Its a question of priorities.

The T26/T45 escorts will cover the CSG and CASD but the T31’s aren’t Patrol Frigates anymore. They are now being upgraded to become credible escorts with a meaningful strike potential.

Therefore is another 5 escorts really the priority?

2 - like mentioned above where are the escorts coming from for this ARG ? The T31s of up armed could be useful here but not something you want escorting 1 of your 3 only battle groups.

Great question but if the T31 aren’t capable enough to act as escorts what are you proposing for the T32?

Adding much more capability to T32 and it will end up in T26 territory. Even at £500m each five T32 is equivalent to 3 T26.

3 - I do not see us being able to build 2 JC1s at £900m each here in the UK, IMO the cost would be more like £1.2bn+ each.

Adjusted for inflation at £900m each that would be 50% more than what the Spanish Gov paid.

The FSS are big complex vessels built for £600m. A 50% increase to build a Juan Carlos LHD seems perfectly plausible.

What have you based £1.2bn on?

4 - while I can see the improvement in the updated Ellida design I still think it’s lacking compared to the Karel Doorman design.

In what way?

That big hanger is impressive but the KD has no floodable well dock. Changing the design to add one will not be free.

Is it really sensible to have one all encompassing vessel which contains the EMF, hospital facilities, bulk ammo storage and liquid replenishment? This is one of the reasons why IMO the MRSS should be a joint replenishment vessel with a well dock and a modest EMF. The LHDs and the HiCap OPVs should embark the bulk of the EMF and the hospitals.

If you accept that an unaltered UK KD would cost around £600m or the equivalent of 3x £200m HiCap OPVs based on the Vard 7 313.

It’s absolutely clear that 3x Vard 7 313 would be much more capable than a single KD. The EMF would be three times larger. The hanger capacity is 12x medium helos vs 6x for KD. The Vards would have 6 landing spots vs 3x for KD. The RoRo capacity and core crew allocation are within 30% and the range is similar although the Vards are faster.

What impresses you so much about the KD?

[Poiuytrewq]

I don’t know what we are currently spending on surface vessels but type 32 probably will follow type 31 but I think it will be a type 31 batch 2 if it does.

Very simply, if Govan, Rosyth and Belfast are building concurrently the three programs combined will be costing around £1.2bn per year.

All I am suggesting is maintaining this level of funding and if HMG does that the yards will flourish and the fleet will be rebuilt within the broad parameters of current planning.

If the funding reduces or gaps appear it will all fall apart again.

It will take £1.2bn per year to maintain the three yards over the longer term.

[wargame_insomniac]

Firstly the revised figures for the current UK Defence budget is now £55bn. Allocating 2% of this budget annually to secure a UK sovereign shipbuilding industry is perfectly reasonable. That amounts to roughly £1.2bn per year or £12bn per decade unadjusted for inflation.

Regardless, current planning has two programs in the pipeline, T32 and MRSS. Based on 6x£400m MRSS, 5x£500m for the T32, results in a combined total of around £5bn. That’s a huge amount so it must be spent as efficiently as possible.

My opinion is not changing that medium altitude long endurance drones will revolutionise both short endurance littoral strike, ISTAR and ASW capabilities. RN must add extra flattops to the fleet and stop worrying about cuts to the CVFs. Within a decade or so flattops are going to start to widely proliferate to maximise the new drone tech so it will be less controversial to have multiple flattops in a fleet than it is today.

To make the most of this emerging drone tech RN needs to introduce at least one but ideally two substantial LHDs. There is a perfectly reasonable argument to say that all six MRSS should be flattop’s but IMO they would be too small to maximise the potential unless further funding appears. However a 3x (Drone optimised) LHDs plus 3x Joint Replenishment Vessel option should be fully considered as part of the decision process.

So IMO keeping Rosyth busy is not enough of a justification for the introduction of the T32, for which the case has not yet been made and the MRSS programme looks to be a completely missed opportunity.

Therefore I would amend current planning to:

• Replace the T32 programme with a much less costly HiCap OPV programme to procure 7x vessels for £1.5bn. Ideally based on a UK adapted 138m Vard7 313 hull with an uprated propulsion setup and a Palfinger stern ramp/dock.

• Amend the MRSS programme to either build
  
  Option1
  - 2x Juan Carlos LHDs @£900m each
  - 3x Ellida MRSS with solid and liquid replenishment @£400m each
  
  Option2
  - 1x 45,000t LHA with full F35 capability but routinely operating maritime MALE drones @£1.8bn
  - 3x Ellida MRSS with solid and liquid replenishment @£400m each

In total that amounts to around £4.5bn so ballpark current planning or perhaps a slight saving of around £500m. Enough for a sixth T31.

The effect of this change on fleet balance would be immense.

- LRG(N): 2x HiCap OPVs
- LRG(S): 3x HiCap OPVs, 1x T31, 1x MRSS, (possible 2nd LHD plus Kipion T31 and LSV)
- Gibraltar: 1x HiCap OPV, 1x MRSS, 1x RB2
- UK ARG: 1LHD, 1x MRSS

* 3x RB2s UK EEZ, 1x RB2 Falklands
** 7th HiCap OPV in refit/reserve

LRG(N) would operate persistently along the Norwegian and Baltic coastlines and be comprised of 2x HiCap OPVs each embarking a company of FCF, up to 6x CIC/RHIBs, 1x LCM and up to 2x Merlin plus 2x Wildcat. Highly effective, highly versatile and highly cost effective.

LRG(S) would be forward based at Duqm and would be comprised of 1x T31, 3x HiCap OPVs and one MRSS with or without a LHD depending on if the second LHD was built. This would be in addition to the LSV and T31 conducting Kipion. The first 2 OPVs would effectively replace the RB2s in the Indo Pacific and the 3rd OPV with the MRSS would concentrate primarily on East Africa hence the disaggregated nature of LRG(S). When combined the LRG would be a substantial force with hanger space for up to 18x helos and 10x landing spots. An EMF of over 1200 RM could be embarked if surged, along with ample capacity for vehicles and small craft. This is without the LHD. Add the LHD and the group becomes a modest but perfectly formed, forward deployed ARG. The maritime MALE drones would be an amazingly useful capability EoS for ISTAR, ASuW, SELS and ASW etc. A true game changer if the operating costs were deemed to be manageable.

Gibraltar
The 3 vessels forward deployed in Gibraltar (HiCap OPV, RB2, MRSS) would conduct APT(N) & (S) plus patrol the West African coast.

UK ARG
This would be the UK’s main Amphibious force based around a single highly capable LHD and supported by a MRSS with a joint replenishment capability. Effectively this would be a 45,000t UK version of a Trieste LHD (unless a twin LHD procurement was selected). Fully F35b capable but operated routinely with maritime MALE drones, the capacity would be approximately 12x MALE drones, 6x F35, 18x helos and 6x Heavy Lift UAV. The EMF capacity would be around 800 with 4x CIC on davits and 2x 30m craft in the floodable well dock. An amazingly versatile vessel for multiple roles including ASW in the North Atlantic when supporting the LRGs was not required. Adding the ARG to either of the LRGs would result in a formidable Amphibious force but one that could routinely operate extremely cost effectively. This is important.

A few considerations:

- The six active HiCap OPVs would require a lower core crew allocation than 5x T31/32.

- Adding a solid/liquid replenishment capability to the MRSS would effectively replace the Bays and the Waves simultaneously. A big win for both RN and HMT. It would also ensure the LRGs were self sufficient to allow the Tides/FSS to primarily concentrate on supporting the CSG(s).

- 7x HiCap OPV, 3x MRSS and 1x LHD would embark 8x LCU and 7x LCM. This would be double the ship to shore connectors compared to the current 1x Albion and 3x Bays.

- Operating a HiCap OPV would routinely only require:
> 75 core crew
> ~ 25 flight crew
> 50 EMF
> 1x Wildcat HMA2, 1x Wildcat AH1
> 2x CIC
> 2x RHIBs
> 1x LCM

- By minimising the cost of LRG(N) & (S) whilst simultaneously increasing effectiveness, a more substantial UK ARG can be formed and sustained. This is predicated by the Army doing more in Norway.

- The F35 capable 3rd flattop would be procured and sustained without further funding.

- The 6x T31s could be maximised thereby giving RN 20x credible escorts for the first time in decades.

- Replacing 3x Bays, Argus and the 2x Waves with only 3x MRSS would reduce the pressure on the RFA headcount.

IMO it’s a better direction of travel for RN. Hopefully this fleshes out the details and answers your questions.

I think the Spanish Juan Carlos class LHD are too big for what RN can hope for, and a 45,000t LHA is pure fantasy. Whilst the Italian San Giorgio class at 8,000t and 133m are too small, I hope that something slightly smaller than French Mistral class / Japanese Dokdo class might be achievable in the 18,000t-20,000t and 190m-195m range. If Damen came up with a detailed design, then I could see RN pushing for 2, one for each LRG(N) and (S).

I like the Bay class and my preference remains for an updated Damen son-of -Enforcer design, which I stilll think is highly likely given the RN has eventual goal to replace all 3*Bays and the RNLN to replace their 2*Enforcer ships.

I don't hate the combination of Vard High Cap OPV and BMT Ellida MRSS - it fits in well with the theme of disaggregation of RM Commando forces under FCF based on the little that we know so far (the return to raiding roots). I expect Damen to come up with at least two designs to meet both RN and RNLN requirements. I still think larger Damen design is more likely to be an Enforcer LPD rather than an Enforcer LHD, but it COULD happen. Maybe the smaller Damen design could end up as their equivalent to Vard 7313 High Cap OPV. I am not averse to 4 such smaller ships, with 2 apiece to each LRG (N) and (S).

I have admitted before that I would like to see the RN Budget for 5*T32 to intially be used for build one extra of both T26 and T31, with half of the T31s upgraded with sonar, 8*NSM containers and either additional CAMM and/or some Mk41 VLS - three such upgraded T31 batch 2s would be ideal spread out with one apiece for both LRG(N) and (S) and one for FRE, whilst 3 un-upgraded T31 would be kept in patrol missions in Med / Oman / Persian Gulf.

Then I would get 4*smaller OPV, more basic cheaper commercial design for UK waters. 80m long, 1*40mm and 2*12.7mm guns, two+ RIBs and a hangar purely for smaller UAV / USV.

Any remaining funds could then buy either additional High Cap OPV's and/or BMT Ellida for service on either coast of Africa.

[Poiuytrewq]

I think the Spanish Juan Carlos class LHD are too big for what RN can hope for, and a 45,000t LHA is pure fantasy.

Simple question, why?

[SW1]

I don’t know what we are currently spending on surface vessels but type 32 probably will follow type 31 but I think it will be a type 31 batch 2 if it does.

Very simply, if Govan, Rosyth and Belfast are building concurrently the three programs combined will be costing around £1.2bn per year.

All I am suggesting is maintaining this level of funding and if HMG does that the yards will flourish and the fleet will be rebuilt within the broad parameters of current planning.

If the funding reduces or gaps appear it will all fall apart again.

It will take £1.2bn per year to maintain the three yards over the longer term.

I’m not sure they are spending that at present per year nor that they should be setting budget like that spending profiles within programs are very complex things. There is absolutely a need to maintain a military ship building capacity but that can be done in many ways and it very much is set around what the government wishes the navy to do to achieve its strategic vision for the state.

The yards cannot or I believe are planning on solely being reliant on MoD orders to sustain themselves.

[Poiuytrewq]

I’m not sure they are spending that at present per year nor that they should be setting budget like that spending profiles within programs are very complex things. There is absolutely a need to maintain a military ship building capacity but that can be done in many ways and it very much is set around what the government wishes the navy to do to achieve its strategic vision for the state.

Here is the strategic pipeline. It’s a bit out of date but it’s still mostly accurate

C0632BD7-D479-42D4-AB01-338AC515EF4C.jpeg

Out to 2040 it will take at least £1bn per year to achieve this.

[Tempest414]

If five billion is the budget for type 32 and MRSS then I would adapt it like so

3 x Type 31 B2's @ 400 million each = 1.2 billion
1 x LPH 220 by 40 meters with a steel beech = 700 million
4 x MRSS 200 by 30 meter with dock for 2 x 30 x 8 FLC & full width T hangar @ 400 million = 1.6 billion
4 x Vard-7 313 @ 130 million each = 520 million
4 x 90 meter SLV's @ 100 million each = 400 million

Total 4.42 billion

[TinyTonyStark]

If five billion is the budget for type 32 and MRSS then I would adapt it like so

3 x Type 31 B2's @ 400 million each = 1.2 billion
1 x LPH 220 by 40 meters with a steel beech = 700 million
4 x MRSS 200 by 30 meter with dock for 2 x 30 x 8 FLC & full width T hangar @ 400 million = 1.6 billion
4 x Vard-7 313 @ 130 million each = 520 million
4 x 90 meter SLV's @ 100 million each = 400 million

Total 4.42 billion

Sounds lovely but that would end up costing the British government at least double due to their Steller record on procurement.

[new guy]

The current plan is for 2 littoral groups (LRG+ + miscellaneous.
considering that it is 3 per group, take-away response factor, and you get 6.

6 MRSS.

add a few more OPV/GPV's and it will be solid



The NAO has said that T32 is unfunded.
Reinforce MRSS before T32.
T32 is just putting a class name to the RN desire for a bigger combatant fleet.

[Tempest414]

If five billion is the budget for type 32 and MRSS then I would adapt it like so

3 x Type 31 B2's @ 400 million each = 1.2 billion
1 x LPH 220 by 40 meters with a steel beech = 700 million
4 x MRSS 200 by 30 meter with dock for 2 x 30 x 8 FLC & full width T hangar @ 400 million = 1.6 billion
4 x Vard-7 313 @ 130 million each = 520 million
4 x 90 meter SLV's @ 100 million each = 400 million

Total 4.42 billion

Sounds lovely but that would end up costing the British government at least double due to their Steller record on procurement.

Hello and welcome now come up with something that works but just to say everything above I over priced on purpose and is all well within the build capability of the UK yards

[wargame_insomniac]

I think the Spanish Juan Carlos class LHD are too big for what RN can hope for, and a 45,000t LHA is pure fantasy.

Simple question, why?

1) How much would a UK built 45,000t LHA cost?
2) How many crew would a RN 45,000t LHA require?
3) Stupid politicians. If RN build a 45,000t LHA that COULD carry F35 Lightnings, then afore mentioned stupid politicians will look at it as a carrier. Then they have they have bright idea for a "cost saving without any reduction in capability" and scrap 2nd carrier & relace with 45,000t LHA.....

[Scimitar54]

OK then …. Simples! Just build a 3rd QEC carrier instead. Let some (clever?) politician try and argue no reduction in capability if proposing to sell or scrap one of the carriers then!