Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

[serge750]

Good to see we are back talking about fantasy fleets.

I’ve been looking at the Round Table class LSLs, the predecessors to the Bays, I hadn’t realised the likes of RFA Sir Bedivere was launched in 1966 and was decommissioned in 2008, and is still in service with the Brazilian navy.

Is there a reason why the Bay’s can’t have a similar lifespan? Money is tight, and why not run them for 40 years? Would mean that we need a solution by the mid 2040s, so no rush - save the money from the MRSS. The biggest issue will be crewing after the FSSs come on stream, but as discussed why not move them to the RN.

Keep all three in the UK, available to sail with the CSG enabling CEPP, and the Global Littoral Response Group we spoke about.

Instead, buy some specialist landing craft / ships specifically for Norway / Baltics say @£400mn.

For LRG(S) convert a large commercial container ship into a LPH/ASS acting as a forward base (replacing Argus) say @£300mn.

Done - ok it means more to spend in the 2040s, but there is more time for things to evolve and hopefully there will be more money for the enablers to make everything else work properly.

[wargame_insomniac]

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!

If you look back over this thread, many people were arguing for a flat deck LHD for the purpses of operating UAV. THAT I can agree with.

Start to talk about a 45,00t LHA that can carry Lightning II;s and THAT I disagree with.

Hop that is clearer for you?

[new guy]

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!

an old design too.

[new guy]

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!

If you look back over this thread, many people were arguing for a flat deck LHD for the purpses of operating UAV. THAT I can agree with.

Start to talk about a 45,00t LHA that can carry Lightning II;s and THAT I disagree with.

Hop that is clearer for you?

The thing is, I believe anything that can support MQ-9B stol can operate F-35, size wise. As in a conversion could make it F-35 capable, like in the Izumo class. bayraktar, -3, maybe. But then anything smaller, can it not be operated by a catapult and hanging wire system?

[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.

MRSS:
LRG(N) / NATO / JEF group
LRG(S) / Global / LRG

OPV/GPV:
secondary, single ship groups, for as many as can be procured. for raiding and widespread effect.

[Tempest414]

Good to see we are back talking about fantasy fleets.

I’ve been looking at the Round Table class LSLs, the predecessors to the Bays, I hadn’t realised the likes of RFA Sir Bedivere was launched in 1966 and was decommissioned in 2008, and is still in service with the Brazilian navy.

Is there a reason why the Bay’s can’t have a similar lifespan? Money is tight, and why not run them for 40 years? Would mean that we need a solution by the mid 2040s, so no rush - save the money from the MRSS. The biggest issue will be crewing after the FSSs come on stream, but as discussed why not move them to the RN.

Keep all three in the UK, available to sail with the CSG enabling CEPP, and the Global Littoral Response Group we spoke about.

Instead, buy some specialist landing craft / ships specifically for Norway / Baltics say @£400mn.

For LRG(S) convert a large commercial container ship into a LPH/ASS acting as a forward base (replacing Argus) say @£300mn.

Done - ok it means more to spend in the 2040s, but there is more time for things to evolve and hopefully there will be more money for the enablers to make everything else work properly.

the thing for me is the Bay's as good as they are and as well used as they are do have limits

1) the size of there docks ( there were only intended to support the LPD's with Logistics )
2) lack of full hangar

Also when dose the cost of refit overtake worth

I am warming to the idea of say 4 x 90 meter SLV's working with a MRSS and a Point class on LRG-N with the MRSS acting as C&C and Logistics control and the Point as Logistics Mass and the SLV's working with CIC's and PACSCAT's to deliver ship to shore this group could be supported by land based Air Power or a CSG and LPH as needed

[Repulse]

the thing for me is the Bay's as good as they are and as well used as they are do have limits

1) the size of there docks ( there were only intended to support the LPD's with Logistics )
2) lack of full hangar

In terms of deploying a light FCF force within a CSG with logistics it’s fine (not perfect but fine) - what you list here is not important IMO. What I would say is really missing is the enablers / connectors (and possibly some davits) that can be actioned quickly with even modest funds making a big difference.

Also when dose the cost of refit overtake worth

I think this can be mitigated with careful use - keep all them UK based and rotate on the standard 1:3 rotation.

I am warming to the idea of say 4 x 90 meter SLV's working with a MRSS and a Point class on LRG-N with the MRSS acting as C&C and Logistics control and the Point as Logistics Mass and the SLV's working with CIC's and PACSCAT's to deliver ship to shore this group could be supported by land based Air Power or a CSG and LPH as needed

I think looking at how we support the requirement for the FCF operations in Norway / Baltics is a must. Argus replacement must be a priority also.

My strong view is doing this in a series of smaller incremental projects is a better answer, with more chance of success, than some grand plan for a one class fits all solution or new expensive capital ships, which will inevitably run into delay, differ, overrun and partial cancellation.

[Poiuytrewq]

My strong view is doing this in a series of smaller incremental projects is a better answer, with more chance of success, than some grand plan for a one class fits all solution or new expensive capital ships, which will inevitably run into delay, differ, overrun and partial cancellation.

Are you suggesting that RN should cancel the MRSS and T32 programs?

[Repulse]

Are you suggesting that RN should cancel the MRSS and T32 programs?

MRSS yes. The T32 isn’t a programme yet, just a political banner.

I see a review as how to we ensure we have a balanced fleet to meet future requirements more useful without jumping to particular classes. Whilst I do see the need to ensure a steady drumbeat for first tier (T26 etc) warships and SSNs, we should be more agile and open to what else is built when.

[Poiuytrewq]

MRSS yes. The T32 isn’t a programme yet, just a political banner.

I see a review as how to we ensure we have a balanced fleet to meet future requirements more useful without jumping to particular classes. Whilst I do see the need to ensure a steady drumbeat for first tier (T26 etc) warships and SSNs, we should be more agile and open to what else is built when.

So in real terms that results in the closure of Rosyth, Belfast and Appledore.

All the recent investment lost, the recently created jobs and skills lost and further investment in RN outside of Tier1 escorts, FSS and SSBN/SSNs lost.

Over the next 15 years the UK will spend over £900bn on defence probably closer to £1Trillion. That’s a big number.

I think the aspiration needs to be a bit higher than a single Aviation Support Ship converted from a commercial vessel.

[Tempest414]

the thing for me is the Bay's as good as they are and as well used as they are do have limits

1) the size of there docks ( there were only intended to support the LPD's with Logistics )
2) lack of full hangar

In terms of deploying a light FCF force within a CSG with logistics it’s fine (not perfect but fine) - what you list here is not important IMO. What I would say is really missing is the enablers / connectors (and possibly some davits) that can be actioned quickly with even modest funds making a big difference.

Also when dose the cost of refit overtake worth

I think this can be mitigated with careful use - keep all them UK based and rotate on the standard 1:3 rotation.

I am warming to the idea of say 4 x 90 meter SLV's working with a MRSS and a Point class on LRG-N with the MRSS acting as C&C and Logistics control and the Point as Logistics Mass and the SLV's working with CIC's and PACSCAT's to deliver ship to shore this group could be supported by land based Air Power or a CSG and LPH as needed

I think looking at how we support the requirement for the FCF operations in Norway / Baltics is a must. Argus replacement must be a priority also.

My strong view is doing this in a series of smaller incremental projects is a better answer, with more chance of success, than some grand plan for a one class fits all solution or new expensive capital ships, which will inevitably run into delay, differ, overrun and partial cancellation.

This is the point we need a bigger dock that can carry say 2 PACSCAT's or Caiman-90 FLC and also be able to allow a SLV to load kit given a 90 meter SLV will have a beam of about 12 meters the dock needs to be 16 meters wide

It is not just the FCF but also a Army Light Mech Battle group as well

Also we can't afford to start nursing the Bays it is this type of thinking why we are in a world of hurt with T-23 we can not go there again

[Poiuytrewq]

Thank you. Very interesting.

It is a widely held view that virtually everything is unaffordable apart from current planning which is in itself extremely expensive, both to procure and to operate. Could the funding be used differently to achieve more? That’s the interesting part IMO.

Current planning is proposing 5x T32, 6x MRSS, 3x LSV before moving on to the Point replacements and the T83. The 5x T32, 6x MRSS, 3x LSV programs are likely to cost at least £5bn. It’s a huge amount.

1) How much would a UK built 45,000t LHA cost?

There is various ways of estimating that but the very best way currently is to look at what is being built in the U.K.

The FSS is a pretty complex 40,000t class vessel and we know they will cost £600m each. Would a 45,000t LHD capable of operating F35 really cost £200m more than all 3x FSS? Clearly it depends on the standard of construction but a single LHD is not going to cost 4 or 5 FSS. It’s just not credible.

HMS Ocean had a hull life of 20 years.

The CVFs have a hull life of 50 years

I am proposing a single LHD with LHA capability of 35 years or 2x LHDs with 25 year hulls.

The cheaper hulls also have lower standards of damage control and survivability. This is an important point that is often overlooked in discussion.

2) How many crew would a RN 45,000t LHA require?

Depends on the design but with increased automation and a focus on operating a modest number of helos and MALE drones 300 to 400 seems plausible. Not too dissimilar to an Albion. Trieste requires 450 crew. In the LHA role the entire F35 allocation would have to transfer across from a CVF as a unit.

• Routinely the standard load out could be 6x MALE drones, 4x Merlin, 2x Chinook, 2x Apache and 4x Wildcat. Capable but cost effective.

• The standard ASW oriented load out could be 12x MALE drones 6x Merlin and 2x Wildcat.

• Surged the max load out to support a LRG could be 6x F35, 12x MALE drones, 8x Merlin, 4x Chinook, 4x Apache, 4x Wildcat.

• Although up to 24x F35 could be embarked and operated from a 45,000t LHA in an emergency to replace a CVF the size of the magazines would dictate low intensity operations or a high dependence on the FSS for replenishment of ordinance. 12x F35, 6x Merlin and 4x Wildcat would be a realistic max.

This scalable versatility is exactly what RN requires. It gives RN the routine capability required at a cost that can be substantially maintained. It also crucially gives RN the backup for the CVFs which will be the fleets Achilles heel going forward as longer CVF refits become the norm.

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.....

Superficially that would appear to be a definite concern but here is the alternate view.

If one CVF is undergoing a major refit and the second CVF has a major event such as a collision or a serious fire or is actually damaged in a conflict or terrorist attack, what then? RN has lost the UK’s entire naval Strike capability bar TLAM until repairs are completed.

Operating PWLS as a LHA to support an Amphibious Assault in conjunction with QE and the CSG is credible planning but what if one CVF is undergoing a major refit or is damaged etc? Suddenly the planning looks far from credible.

As RN has now gone all-in on the CEPP strategy the addition of a 3rd F35 capable (but not routinely carried) flattop is now a top priority and the only realistic way to achieve that is either a LPH or LHD.

A 45,000t LHA plus two or three MRSS is not a negative outcome if the cost is comparable with 6x MRSS. Especially if a more cost effective class of Vard 7 313 replaced the T32 programme.

Therefore IMO current planning is decidedly sub-optimal and the alternatives, at no additional cost to HMT are more realistic than many appear to believe.

[SW1]

Thank you. Very interesting.

It is a widely held view that virtually everything is unaffordable apart from current planning which is in itself extremely expensive, both to procure and to operate. Could the funding be used differently to achieve more? That’s the interesting part IMO.

Current planning is proposing 5x T32, 6x MRSS, 3x LSV before moving on to the Point replacements and the T83. The 5x T32, 6x MRSS, 3x LSV programs are likely to cost at least £5bn. It’s a huge amount.

1) How much would a UK built 45,000t LHA cost?

There is various ways of estimating that but the very best way currently is to look at what is being built in the U.K.

The FSS is a pretty complex 40,000t class vessel and we know they will cost £600m each. Would a 45,000t LHD capable of operating F35 really cost £200m more than all 3x FSS? Clearly it depends on the standard of construction but a single LHD is not going to cost 4 or 5 FSS. It’s just not credible.

HMS Ocean had a hull life of 20 years.

The CVFs have a hull life of 50 years

I am proposing a single LHD with LHA capability of 35 years or 2x LHDs with 25 year hulls.

The cheaper hulls also have lower standards of damage control and survivability. This is an important point that is often overlooked in discussion.

2) How many crew would a RN 45,000t LHA require?

Depends on the design but with increased automation and a focus on operating a modest number of helos and MALE drones 300 to 400 seems plausible. Not too dissimilar to an Albion. Trieste requires 450 crew. In the LHA role the entire F35 allocation would have to transfer across from a CVF as a unit.

• Routinely the standard load out could be 6x MALE drones, 4x Merlin, 2x Chinook, 2x Apache and 4x Wildcat. Capable but cost effective.

• The standard ASW oriented load out could be 12x MALE drones 6x Merlin and 2x Wildcat.

• Surged the max load out to support a LRG could be 6x F35, 12x MALE drones, 8x Merlin, 4x Chinook, 4x Apache, 4x Wildcat.

• Although up to 24x F35 could be embarked and operated from a 45,000t LHA in an emergency to replace a CVF the size of the magazines would dictate low intensity operations or a high dependence on the FSS for replenishment of ordinance. 12x F35, 6x Merlin and 4x Wildcat would be a realistic max.

This scalable versatility is exactly what RN requires. It gives RN the routine capability required at a cost that can be substantially maintained. It also crucially gives RN the backup for the CVFs which will be the fleets Achilles heel going forward as longer CVF refits become the norm.

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.....

Superficially that would appear to be a definite concern but here is the alternate view.

If one CVF is undergoing a major refit and the second CVF has a major event such as a collision or a serious fire or is actually damaged in a conflict or terrorist attack, what then? RN has lost the UK’s entire naval Strike capability bar TLAM until repairs are completed.

Operating PWLS as a LHA to support an Amphibious Assault in conjunction with QE and the CSG is credible planning but what if one CVF is undergoing a major refit or is damaged etc? Suddenly the planning looks far from credible.

As RN has now gone all-in on the CEPP strategy the addition of a 3rd F35 capable (but not routinely carried) flattop is now a top priority and the only realistic way to achieve that is either a LPH or LHD.

A 45,000t LHA plus two or three MRSS is not a negative outcome if the cost is comparable with 6x MRSS. Especially if a more cost effective class of Vard 7 313 replaced the T32 programme.

Therefore IMO current planning is decidedly sub-optimal and the alternatives, at no additional cost to HMT are more realistic than many appear to believe.

What does the RN do with the 2nd flat top that is f35 capable but not routinely carried before we get to the 3rd…

Personally the RN has a single task group that is it. These LRGs are smoke and mirrors.

The idea you take 2 lpds the RN now and we’re designed to be operated by them scrap them. Then transfer 3 royal fleet auxiliary that aren’t designed to operated by royal naval personnel to the RN and get the RN to run them instead sound like a poster child for the last 25 years of procurement tbh.


If the RN really does wants to replace the amphibious fleet then license build two mistral LHDs and replace the lot with them and forget about the mrss and the like.

[shark bait]

The Royal Navy is a failing organisation. The proposal for the navy to operate another carrier/flattop is so flawed because it wipes away decades worth of structural failings. An origination is this much of a mess need to reconcile around its core value adding operations and scale back on the fantasy aspirations.

For the Royal Navy this means all focus goes on the Carriers, Frigates and Destroyers that can actually go to sea, and Submarines. Everything else takes a back seat or is scrapped, and that includes the amphibious fleet. Ditching the Marines is likely an irreversible action, so it needs to become a minimum intensity background task while the Navy gets back on its feet.

[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

So yesterday this is what I put forward in place of Type 32 and MRSS and now how I would see it working

LRG-N = 1 x MRSS & 1 x Vard-7
LRG-S = 1 x MRSS & 1 x Vard-7
UK ARG = 1 x LPH , 1 x MRSS & 3 x SLV's

Kipion = 1 x T-31 & 1 x SLV
UK & North Atlantic patrol = 2 x T-31 , 3 x RB2's , 1 x Vard-7
South Atlantic = 2 x T-31 , 2 x RB2's , 1 x Ice patrol ship
Indo -Pacific = 3 x T-31s and 1 x Vard-7

[Tempest414]

Thank you. Very interesting.

It is a widely held view that virtually everything is unaffordable apart from current planning which is in itself extremely expensive, both to procure and to operate. Could the funding be used differently to achieve more? That’s the interesting part IMO.

Current planning is proposing 5x T32, 6x MRSS, 3x LSV before moving on to the Point replacements and the T83. The 5x T32, 6x MRSS, 3x LSV programs are likely to cost at least £5bn. It’s a huge amount.

1) How much would a UK built 45,000t LHA cost?

There is various ways of estimating that but the very best way currently is to look at what is being built in the U.K.

The FSS is a pretty complex 40,000t class vessel and we know they will cost £600m each. Would a 45,000t LHD capable of operating F35 really cost £200m more than all 3x FSS? Clearly it depends on the standard of construction but a single LHD is not going to cost 4 or 5 FSS. It’s just not credible.

HMS Ocean had a hull life of 20 years.

The CVFs have a hull life of 50 years

I am proposing a single LHD with LHA capability of 35 years or 2x LHDs with 25 year hulls.

The cheaper hulls also have lower standards of damage control and survivability. This is an important point that is often overlooked in discussion.

2) How many crew would a RN 45,000t LHA require?

Depends on the design but with increased automation and a focus on operating a modest number of helos and MALE drones 300 to 400 seems plausible. Not too dissimilar to an Albion. Trieste requires 450 crew. In the LHA role the entire F35 allocation would have to transfer across from a CVF as a unit.

• Routinely the standard load out could be 6x MALE drones, 4x Merlin, 2x Chinook, 2x Apache and 4x Wildcat. Capable but cost effective.

• The standard ASW oriented load out could be 12x MALE drones 6x Merlin and 2x Wildcat.

• Surged the max load out to support a LRG could be 6x F35, 12x MALE drones, 8x Merlin, 4x Chinook, 4x Apache, 4x Wildcat.

• Although up to 24x F35 could be embarked and operated from a 45,000t LHA in an emergency to replace a CVF the size of the magazines would dictate low intensity operations or a high dependence on the FSS for replenishment of ordinance. 12x F35, 6x Merlin and 4x Wildcat would be a realistic max.

This scalable versatility is exactly what RN requires. It gives RN the routine capability required at a cost that can be substantially maintained. It also crucially gives RN the backup for the CVFs which will be the fleets Achilles heel going forward as longer CVF refits become the norm.

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.....

Superficially that would appear to be a definite concern but here is the alternate view.

If one CVF is undergoing a major refit and the second CVF has a major event such as a collision or a serious fire or is actually damaged in a conflict or terrorist attack, what then? RN has lost the UK’s entire naval Strike capability bar TLAM until repairs are completed.

Operating PWLS as a LHA to support an Amphibious Assault in conjunction with QE and the CSG is credible planning but what if one CVF is undergoing a major refit or is damaged etc? Suddenly the planning looks far from credible.

As RN has now gone all-in on the CEPP strategy the addition of a 3rd F35 capable (but not routinely carried) flattop is now a top priority and the only realistic way to achieve that is either a LPH or LHD.

A 45,000t LHA plus two or three MRSS is not a negative outcome if the cost is comparable with 6x MRSS. Especially if a more cost effective class of Vard 7 313 replaced the T32 programme.

Therefore IMO current planning is decidedly sub-optimal and the alternatives, at no additional cost to HMT are more realistic than many appear to believe.

What does the RN do with the 2nd flat top that is f35 capable but not routinely carried before we get to the 3rd…

Personally the RN has a single task group that is it. These LRGs are smoke and mirrors.

The idea you take 2 lpds the RN now and we’re designed to be operated by them scrap them. Then transfer 3 royal fleet auxiliary that aren’t designed to operated by royal naval personnel to the RN and get the RN to run them instead sound like a poster child for the last 25 years of procurement tbh.


If the RN really does wants to replace the amphibious fleet then license build two mistral LHDs and replace the lot with them and forget about the mrss and the like.

I can't see the French allowing us to build 2 Mistral LHD's under license without them have 60% or more of the build

How about 3 x LPH's with steel beeches plus 9 SLV's grouped into 3 groups of LPH and 3 SLV's

[SW1]

Thank you. Very interesting.

It is a widely held view that virtually everything is unaffordable apart from current planning which is in itself extremely expensive, both to procure and to operate. Could the funding be used differently to achieve more? That’s the interesting part IMO.

Current planning is proposing 5x T32, 6x MRSS, 3x LSV before moving on to the Point replacements and the T83. The 5x T32, 6x MRSS, 3x LSV programs are likely to cost at least £5bn. It’s a huge amount.

1) How much would a UK built 45,000t LHA cost?

There is various ways of estimating that but the very best way currently is to look at what is being built in the U.K.

The FSS is a pretty complex 40,000t class vessel and we know they will cost £600m each. Would a 45,000t LHD capable of operating F35 really cost £200m more than all 3x FSS? Clearly it depends on the standard of construction but a single LHD is not going to cost 4 or 5 FSS. It’s just not credible.

HMS Ocean had a hull life of 20 years.

The CVFs have a hull life of 50 years

I am proposing a single LHD with LHA capability of 35 years or 2x LHDs with 25 year hulls.

The cheaper hulls also have lower standards of damage control and survivability. This is an important point that is often overlooked in discussion.

2) How many crew would a RN 45,000t LHA require?

Depends on the design but with increased automation and a focus on operating a modest number of helos and MALE drones 300 to 400 seems plausible. Not too dissimilar to an Albion. Trieste requires 450 crew. In the LHA role the entire F35 allocation would have to transfer across from a CVF as a unit.

• Routinely the standard load out could be 6x MALE drones, 4x Merlin, 2x Chinook, 2x Apache and 4x Wildcat. Capable but cost effective.

• The standard ASW oriented load out could be 12x MALE drones 6x Merlin and 2x Wildcat.

• Surged the max load out to support a LRG could be 6x F35, 12x MALE drones, 8x Merlin, 4x Chinook, 4x Apache, 4x Wildcat.

• Although up to 24x F35 could be embarked and operated from a 45,000t LHA in an emergency to replace a CVF the size of the magazines would dictate low intensity operations or a high dependence on the FSS for replenishment of ordinance. 12x F35, 6x Merlin and 4x Wildcat would be a realistic max.

This scalable versatility is exactly what RN requires. It gives RN the routine capability required at a cost that can be substantially maintained. It also crucially gives RN the backup for the CVFs which will be the fleets Achilles heel going forward as longer CVF refits become the norm.

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.....

Superficially that would appear to be a definite concern but here is the alternate view.

If one CVF is undergoing a major refit and the second CVF has a major event such as a collision or a serious fire or is actually damaged in a conflict or terrorist attack, what then? RN has lost the UK’s entire naval Strike capability bar TLAM until repairs are completed.

Operating PWLS as a LHA to support an Amphibious Assault in conjunction with QE and the CSG is credible planning but what if one CVF is undergoing a major refit or is damaged etc? Suddenly the planning looks far from credible.

As RN has now gone all-in on the CEPP strategy the addition of a 3rd F35 capable (but not routinely carried) flattop is now a top priority and the only realistic way to achieve that is either a LPH or LHD.

A 45,000t LHA plus two or three MRSS is not a negative outcome if the cost is comparable with 6x MRSS. Especially if a more cost effective class of Vard 7 313 replaced the T32 programme.

Therefore IMO current planning is decidedly sub-optimal and the alternatives, at no additional cost to HMT are more realistic than many appear to believe.

What does the RN do with the 2nd flat top that is f35 capable but not routinely carried before we get to the 3rd…

Personally the RN has a single task group that is it. These LRGs are smoke and mirrors.

The idea you take 2 lpds the RN now and we’re designed to be operated by them scrap them. Then transfer 3 royal fleet auxiliary that aren’t designed to operated by royal naval personnel to the RN and get the RN to run them instead sound like a poster child for the last 25 years of procurement tbh.


If the RN really does wants to replace the amphibious fleet then license build two mistral LHDs and replace the lot with them and forget about the mrss and the like.

I can't see the French allowing us to build 2 Mistral LHD's under license without them have 60% or more of the build

How about 3 x LPH's with steel beeches plus 9 SLV's grouped into 3 groups of LPH and 3 SLV's

I don’t see why they would allow license build they would be paid for the design ect and Thales would be used for systems integration. But they might not.

I personally don’t see the RN having anything other than a single task group that would contain the carrier and an lph/lpd whatever you wish plus the escorts. These two vessels could operate independently but would not be fwd deployed units.

[Jake1992]

Thank you. Very interesting.

It is a widely held view that virtually everything is unaffordable apart from current planning which is in itself extremely expensive, both to procure and to operate. Could the funding be used differently to achieve more? That’s the interesting part IMO.

Current planning is proposing 5x T32, 6x MRSS, 3x LSV before moving on to the Point replacements and the T83. The 5x T32, 6x MRSS, 3x LSV programs are likely to cost at least £5bn. It’s a huge amount.

1) How much would a UK built 45,000t LHA cost?

There is various ways of estimating that but the very best way currently is to look at what is being built in the U.K.

The FSS is a pretty complex 40,000t class vessel and we know they will cost £600m each. Would a 45,000t LHD capable of operating F35 really cost £200m more than all 3x FSS? Clearly it depends on the standard of construction but a single LHD is not going to cost 4 or 5 FSS. It’s just not credible.

HMS Ocean had a hull life of 20 years.

The CVFs have a hull life of 50 years

I am proposing a single LHD with LHA capability of 35 years or 2x LHDs with 25 year hulls.

The cheaper hulls also have lower standards of damage control and survivability. This is an important point that is often overlooked in discussion.

2) How many crew would a RN 45,000t LHA require?

Depends on the design but with increased automation and a focus on operating a modest number of helos and MALE drones 300 to 400 seems plausible. Not too dissimilar to an Albion. Trieste requires 450 crew. In the LHA role the entire F35 allocation would have to transfer across from a CVF as a unit.

• Routinely the standard load out could be 6x MALE drones, 4x Merlin, 2x Chinook, 2x Apache and 4x Wildcat. Capable but cost effective.

• The standard ASW oriented load out could be 12x MALE drones 6x Merlin and 2x Wildcat.

• Surged the max load out to support a LRG could be 6x F35, 12x MALE drones, 8x Merlin, 4x Chinook, 4x Apache, 4x Wildcat.

• Although up to 24x F35 could be embarked and operated from a 45,000t LHA in an emergency to replace a CVF the size of the magazines would dictate low intensity operations or a high dependence on the FSS for replenishment of ordinance. 12x F35, 6x Merlin and 4x Wildcat would be a realistic max.

This scalable versatility is exactly what RN requires. It gives RN the routine capability required at a cost that can be substantially maintained. It also crucially gives RN the backup for the CVFs which will be the fleets Achilles heel going forward as longer CVF refits become the norm.

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.....

Superficially that would appear to be a definite concern but here is the alternate view.

If one CVF is undergoing a major refit and the second CVF has a major event such as a collision or a serious fire or is actually damaged in a conflict or terrorist attack, what then? RN has lost the UK’s entire naval Strike capability bar TLAM until repairs are completed.

Operating PWLS as a LHA to support an Amphibious Assault in conjunction with QE and the CSG is credible planning but what if one CVF is undergoing a major refit or is damaged etc? Suddenly the planning looks far from credible.

As RN has now gone all-in on the CEPP strategy the addition of a 3rd F35 capable (but not routinely carried) flattop is now a top priority and the only realistic way to achieve that is either a LPH or LHD.

A 45,000t LHA plus two or three MRSS is not a negative outcome if the cost is comparable with 6x MRSS. Especially if a more cost effective class of Vard 7 313 replaced the T32 programme.

Therefore IMO current planning is decidedly sub-optimal and the alternatives, at no additional cost to HMT are more realistic than many appear to believe.

What does the RN do with the 2nd flat top that is f35 capable but not routinely carried before we get to the 3rd…

Personally the RN has a single task group that is it. These LRGs are smoke and mirrors.

The idea you take 2 lpds the RN now and we’re designed to be operated by them scrap them. Then transfer 3 royal fleet auxiliary that aren’t designed to operated by royal naval personnel to the RN and get the RN to run them instead sound like a poster child for the last 25 years of procurement tbh.


If the RN really does wants to replace the amphibious fleet then license build two mistral LHDs and replace the lot with them and forget about the mrss and the like.

I can't see the French allowing us to build 2 Mistral LHD's under license without them have 60% or more of the build

How about 3 x LPH's with steel beeches plus 9 SLV's grouped into 3 groups of LPH and 3 SLV's

I don’t see why they would allow license build they would be paid for the design ect and Thales would be used for systems integration. But they might not.

I personally don’t see the RN having anything other than a single task group that would contain the carrier and an lph/lpd whatever you wish plus the escorts. These two vessels could operate independently but would not be fwd deployed units.

If we went down the route of LHDs I can’t see us license building any design, rightly or wrongly these vessels would be seen second only to the carriers in importance to the RN by both the media and politicians. With that in mind it’d be a media nightmare for any government not to design our own to build here solely in the UK.

[donald_of_tokyo]

MRSS yes. The T32 isn’t a programme yet, just a political banner.

I see a review as how to we ensure we have a balanced fleet to meet future requirements more useful without jumping to particular classes. Whilst I do see the need to ensure a steady drumbeat for first tier (T26 etc) warships and SSNs, we should be more agile and open to what else is built when.

So in real terms that results in the closure of Rosyth, Belfast and Appledore.

All the recent investment lost, the recently created jobs and skills lost and further investment in RN outside of Tier1 escorts, FSS and SSBN/SSNs lost.

Appledore will be closed. No problem. Rosyth as a building yard replaced Appledore (for Babcock).

For large vessel building, Rosyth or Belfast will remain as "the 3rd building yard". I think this is the "sustainable" level. I personally think, UK/MOD shall not support 5-6 "starving" shipyards.
Rather support 3 "well-earned" builders; Clyde, Barrow, Rosyth (or Belfast).
They shall be supplemented by 2 "well earned" repair yards; A&P Falmouth, Cammel Laird.
All other yards' future is up to themselves.

I think the aspiration needs to be a bit higher than a single Aviation Support Ship converted from a commercial vessel.

Uhmm. I think the aspiration "per each yards" shall be higher, not "always inefficient level of order".

Just my opinion...

[Repulse]

MRSS yes. The T32 isn’t a programme yet, just a political banner.

I see a review as how to we ensure we have a balanced fleet to meet future requirements more useful without jumping to particular classes. Whilst I do see the need to ensure a steady drumbeat for first tier (T26 etc) warships and SSNs, we should be more agile and open to what else is built when.

So in real terms that results in the closure of Rosyth, Belfast and Appledore.

All the recent investment lost, the recently created jobs and skills lost and further investment in RN outside of Tier1 escorts, FSS and SSBN/SSNs lost.

Over the next 15 years the UK will spend over £900bn on defence probably closer to £1Trillion. That’s a big number.

I think the aspiration needs to be a bit higher than a single Aviation Support Ship converted from a commercial vessel.

The aspiration should be to stop the over commitment and jam tomorrow that means we have an incoherent force structure and short term budget decisions.

Yes, a lot of money will go into defence, most of it will be on other things than new kit, starting hopefully with the people that make it work.

I am a big believer in having an industry that can scale if we need it, but it has to be sustainable and what we have is not. What’s more, these big over promised and under funded projects are exactly what kills industry with constant delays and cancellations.

Also, our fleet structure should be shaped to the requirement, not keeping shipyards busy.

Let’s start with basics.

[SW1]

If we went down the route of LHDs I can’t see us license building any design, rightly or wrongly these vessels would be seen second only to the carriers in importance to the RN by both the media and politicians. With that in mind it’d be a media nightmare for any government not to design our own to build here solely in the UK.

Not sure they would, I don’t think either politicians or the media would even know what they were.

If you taking priority only submarines need full end to end capability in the uk. Aircraft carrier’s are in the perception due to flagship ect but even then outside of the defence bubble everything else is probably just a grey ship they see being build in a yard in the uk.

[Poiuytrewq]

Yes, a lot of money will go into defence, most of it will be on other things than new kit…

Thats true, the majority will be spent on things other than new kit.

This is taken direct for the MoD equipment plan.

AC14E665-536A-427B-A85F-CB25557FCE94.png

I am suggesting 5% of this total should be allocated to building surface ships per annum.

These are HMG’s own figures. HMT has already agreed to provide the funding.

Are you calling for cuts?

[Poiuytrewq]

If we went down the route of LHDs….

Not sure they would, I don’t think either politicians or the media would even know what they were.

Its time to start considering this in a more outward looking way.

How many of the worlds top 10 navies only have 2x flattops?

RN is the outlier.

[Repulse]

Yes, a lot of money will go into defence, most of it will be on other things than new kit…

Thats true, the majority will be spent on things other than new kit.

This is taken direct for the MoD equipment plan. AC14E665-536A-427B-A85F-CB25557FCE94.png

I am suggesting 5% of this total should be allocated to building surface ships per annum.

These are HMG’s own figures. HMT has already agreed to provide the funding.

Are you calling for cuts?

No, but this is for all procurement and support if I understand correctly - it covers everything. 5% is a lot, especially given for the RN the investment going into AUKUS and SSBNs. I suggest that it’s you that will be looking at cuts elsewhere I’m afraid.

[Jake1992]

If we went down the route of LHDs I can’t see us license building any design, rightly or wrongly these vessels would be seen second only to the carriers in importance to the RN by both the media and politicians. With that in mind it’d be a media nightmare for any government not to design our own to build here solely in the UK.

Not sure they would, I don’t think either politicians or the media would even know what they were.

If you taking priority only submarines need full end to end capability in the uk. Aircraft carrier’s are in the perception due to flagship ect but even then outside of the defence bubble everything else is probably just a grey ship they see being build in a yard in the uk.

Too a lot of the politicians media and public an LHD will be seen as an aircraft carrier, a very large flat top ship operating large numbers of aircraft.

Would we see any other nation that has ship design and build capability licence build another nation design ? Would the French build a Spanish design ? Would the Italians build a USA design ? Would the Japanese build a UK design ? I think not.