Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

[Caribbean]

For me I still feel 1 x new Ocean class at 220 by 40 meters at the flight deck with a steel beech is the way to go add to this 4 x MRSS

For me MRSS needs to address the short comings of the Bay class which are its small dock and lack of hangar space I feel that if the new MRSS had a full width T hangar capable of fitting a max of 5 helicopters plus a dock capable of taking 2 x PACSCAT's the ship would need to be 190 by 30 meters this could also allow for 4 Merlin spots if the flight deck was a little longer and wider than the Albion's

There's no point to having more than 3 spots on a "hangar forward" design - deck movements to the aftmost spot become difficult. It's doable, but 3 spots is really the optimum

[SW1]

Within current head count the RFA can currently crew 4 tide tankers 3 bay class ships , Argus and a couple of the new remote systems vessels.

The 3 bays and Argus equate to sea going crew requirements of about 290. In the future the 3 solid stores vessels require around 310 crew to be at sea. So within the decade unless there is a lot more crew being recruited the RFA will have its hands full with 4 tide tankers and 3 solid stores vessels it cannot crew replacement amphibious ships.

The RN within current headcount limits can’t crew 2 LPDs and the 2 carriers. Unless there is more crew going to be recruited or the composition rebalanced neither the RFA or the RN can crew a replacement for any of the 3 bays the Argus or the 2 LPDs.

If more crew are to be recruited it will mean less money for new equipment so they will not be replaced like for like in numbers.

[shark bait]

This is why I see the Enforcers as sub 145m going forward but only if RN really don’t want the 3rd flattop.

Long post so I won't quote it all, and will add it sounds like a reasonable action plan.

A works program as you've described would be a good way to rebaseline the Royal Navy with well fleshed out core capabilities. Over this period the Navy needs a new approach to its people management, with better pay and conditions to create a more stable and skilled workforce. Once this has been achieved the navy will have the credibility to act more ambitious and plan for a third flattop and more SSN.

[wargame_insomniac]

When you say that "I see any role for the Damen Enforcers as sub 145m", I am not sure I agree. Yes Damen might have some smaller amphibs in it's portfolio, no doubt in attempt to win from a number of smaller navies. From memory the likes of Malaysia, Indonesia, Phillipines and Thailand have all looked to add smaller MRSS to cover moving troops & equiment plus HADR. I am sure others can think of other smaller navies that are also following suit.

But the Damen Enforcer portfoliohas seen eight ships from 4 different designs that have actually been built and seen many years service with Spanish, Dutch and Royal Navies. They are all 160m to 176m. I assume that it would be no trouble for Damen to come with slightly stretched LPD given their past designing and building experiences.

Firstly, the info on the Dutch/Damen joint effort is thin so it’s early days but what is plausible?

Like Vard, Damen will tailor a design for the client, super fast and super cheap with no fuss. That’s what makes it a highly successful business.

We know that Damen has Enforcer concepts ranging from 120m to 200m+. It’s true that some are not in the water but Damen vessels usually perform very well even first of class.

Designing or drastically altering a design is expensive and time consuming and the end result is often suboptimal (see current Hunter ClusterF#@k) but over a larger class the extra costs associated with the design alterations are diluted to a manageable level.

So where is the opportunity for RN?

The 3 programs that are currently ongoing are MRSS, T32 and LSV. With so much crossover is a common class a realistic possibility? With around £5.2bn in the pot anything’s possible.

Current planning suggests 14 vessels:
6x MRSS (£2.4bn)
5x T32 (£2.5bn)
3x LSV (£300m)

So RN could decide that churning out hulls is the priority, the two Frigates in production are acceptable without further adaption and time is pressing as the T23’s availability is declining at an alarming rate.

Therefore to satisfy the T32 Escort requirement another T26 is slotted into the Govan drumbeat (using the extra capacity) and Babcock builds another 4x T31’s.

1x T26 (£850m)
4x T31 (£1.6bn)
Total: £2.45bn

So ultimately RN ends up with 24 escorts as planned.

6x T45
9x T26
9x T31
Total: 24 escorts as per the requirement

The T32 is kicked into the long grass, the budget remains on track and the risk of program failure or blown budgets is very low. If RN decides in the 2030’s that the T32 must happen then sell some or all of the T31’s at that point. Large classes save money.

If RN is absolutely sure a 3rd flattop is not required then the MRSS and LSV programs could merge and become a single program.

To maintain the 9 hull target of current planning that sets the budget around £300m per hull. In that ballpark should be a Damen Enforcer 14428 which is Frigate sized but packs a lot in. Extremely versatile but not huge.

https://media.damen.com/image/upload/v1 ... S4zMS4wLjA.

For the FCF a modestly sized Enforcer looks perfect:

- 4x Medium helos
- 2x Spot flight deck
- 4x CIC
- 2x RHIBs
- 2x LCU
- Larger RoRo than Albion
- An EMF of up to 370
- 35t deck crane
- Role 2 Medical facility

Although less capable than Albion the crew allocation is only around 35%. Very impressive. Increasing speed, range and endurance would be optimal for the FCF if possible without a major cost increase.

Adding more capable landing craft such as the LCX for Littoral work especially in and around the Norwegian coast and Baltic etc would be beneficial. If modular temporary accommodation could be added with a UAV flight deck included above, along with the ability to launch/recover a couple of RHIBs the FCF would have motherships within a mothership. https://cnim-groupe.com/sites/default/f ... LCX_GB.pdf

25kn to 35kn would be excellent in low sea states in the Littoral and a single Damen 14428 would deploy and impressive force.

- Company sized EMF
- 4x Wildcat
- 4x CIC
- 2x LCX each deploying 2x RHIBs
- 6x or 8x medium sized UAVs

An amazing capability for a very low cost. A mixed procurement of LCX and Caiman 90 would cover all of the landing craft requirements. It’s not clear what the LSVs are supposed to be doing but whatever the requirement a Damen 14428 style vessel achieves it easily. Clearly the crew allocation could reduce as the helo and LCU capacity would not be required but the well dock and spacious hanger could be useful for MCM and A2/AD going forward.

With 9x Damen 14428 procured within the MRSS and LSV budgets 3 could be assigned to MCM, 4 to the FCF, 1 could take on the Role3 from Argus with the remaining hull in refit/reserve.

This is why I see the Enforcers as sub 145m going forward but only if RN really don’t want the 3rd flattop.

I can agree with much of what you said. I am in favour of adding another 1 at end of production queue for both T26 & T31, to give both Govan and Rosyth longer priduction run. I am not sure personally that RN needs another 4* T31, not unless they are all going to be much upgraded into proper Frigates rather their current lightly equiped global Patrol Frigates.

I agree with merging the MRSS and LSV programmes if possible. i think that 9 identical vessels is pushing it. I can see a mix of 2 or 3 larger ships and the balance of maybe 6 smaller ships would be ideal to cover a LRG(N) based in UK and restricted to Norway and Baltics, with a smaller LRG(S) based in Oman that can deploy smaller force but globally.

I genuinely can't see the Dutch being happy with just one ship design to replace all 6 of their ships. I take it for granted that Damen will offer the RNLN at least two designs being revisions of their exisiting designs.

I do think this is a great opportunity for UK to get two amphib designs cheap with lot more detail compared to the brief pdf brochures that we have already seen for their portfolio of designs.

So I would be happy with 2-3 Enforcers with proper permanent helicopter hangar and hopefully 6*Damen 14428 or simiar designs, ideally 3 fitted out for MRSS roles (maybe with steel beach rather dock) and 3 for LSV role with MCM USV's.

[Tempest414]

For me I still feel 1 x new Ocean class at 220 by 40 meters at the flight deck with a steel beech is the way to go add to this 4 x MRSS

For me MRSS needs to address the short comings of the Bay class which are its small dock and lack of hangar space I feel that if the new MRSS had a full width T hangar capable of fitting a max of 5 helicopters plus a dock capable of taking 2 x PACSCAT's the ship would need to be 190 by 30 meters this could also allow for 4 Merlin spots if the flight deck was a little longer and wider than the Albion's

There's no point to having more than 3 spots on a "hangar forward" design - deck movements to the aftmost spot become difficult. It's doable, but 3 spots is really the optimum

I was thinking more like a San Antonio class flight deck layout which is more 4 like cabs on the flight deck 2 unfolded and running with 2 running APU's ready to unfold and start there is lots of shots of 4 cabs on 4 spots on a USN LPD's

[new guy]

We can't afford multiple classes / sub-variant classes.

as put best by NL:

It is important to note that there cannot be too much deviation in outfitting a common hull otherwise the costs start to rise and the advantages are lost. At the start of the process, there would need to be firm agreement on the Key User Requirements (KUR) that drive the overall design. This needs to be followed by a very disciplined approach to the detailed design avoiding significant changes being demanded by either party.

It is questionable to say the least that LSV and MRSS mix. They are completely different types of things.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Very interesting and hot discussion. One point I shall make is, the plan must be flexible to the large variation in possible available budget.

Assuming total of £5Bn for T32 and MRSS is within the most most optimistic case, I think. At least, we know there is no T32 budget allocated yet. Who knows if it is NOT "double booking" with MRSS = either will go, but not both.

It is OK to discuss £5Bn case. But, at the same time, I think we shall discuss £2.5Bn case. What if MOD only have £2.5Bn in total for all T32 and MRSS? Basing assumption ONLY on optimistic case often leads to disaster. We must be pragmatic.

My push will be
- Forget (or detach) increasing the escort number. Impossible in this pessimistic condition.
- Forget "feeding" both Rosyth and Belfast with shipbuilding. No way. Just keep either one of them.
- On the contrary, we may need something to "fill in" to avoid gap in shipbuilding, for Clyde and (either) Belfast or Rosyth. MHC-LSVs (which could be bought from the market for a moment, and new built for long usage) and River B1 replacements (which may or may not be needed, anyway, in cheap) will be reserved here.

Simplest way is to keep T32 program and MRSS independent. I think this is very important, and will give the most "flexible" (on budget) options.

For example, if there be only £1Bn available for T32 in addition to the MRSS budget (medium optimistic case), we can either chose between increasing MRSS with some teeth, or add one T26 and one T31. Flexible.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Within current head count the RFA can currently crew 4 tide tankers 3 bay class ships , Argus and a couple of the new remote systems vessels.

The 3 bays and Argus equate to sea going crew requirements of about 290. In the future the 3 solid stores vessels require around 310 crew to be at sea. So within the decade unless there is a lot more crew being recruited the RFA will have its hands full with 4 tide tankers and 3 solid stores vessels it cannot crew replacement amphibious ships.

The RN within current headcount limits can’t crew 2 LPDs and the 2 carriers. Unless there is more crew going to be recruited or the composition rebalanced neither the RFA or the RN can crew a replacement for any of the 3 bays the Argus or the 2 LPDs.

If more crew are to be recruited it will mean less money for new equipment so they will not be replaced like for like in numbers.

Absolutely agree - though I think rebalance is the key combined with delay of the MRSS, keeping the three LSDs longer in a revised role and formally mothballing both LPDs. Anything else IMO is a high risk fantasy - might happen but likely to fail.

The RFA is maxed out and shouldn’t be doing non logistical roles. Moving Sterling Castle to the RN and keeping both MRoSS under the RN remit, would ensure Argus and any replacement is manned.

This leaves the RN which would need to find @500 sailors, some of these should come from mothballing the LPDs, but equally the idea of 5 T32s in addition to the 5 T31s to be put in the bin.

[Tempest414]

Very interesting and hot discussion. One point I shall make is, the plan must be flexible to the large variation in possible available budget.

Assuming total of £5Bn for T32 and MRSS is within the most most optimistic case, I think. At least, we know there is no T32 budget allocated yet. Who knows if it is NOT "double booking" with MRSS = either will go, but not both.

It is OK to discuss £5Bn case. But, at the same time, I think we shall discuss £2.5Bn case. What if MOD only have £2.5Bn in total for all T32 and MRSS? Basing assumption ONLY on optimistic case often leads to disaster. We must be pragmatic.

My push will be
- Forget (or detach) increasing the escort number. Impossible in this pessimistic condition.
- Forget "feeding" both Rosyth and Belfast with shipbuilding. No way. Just keep either one of them.
- On the contrary, we may need something to "fill in" to avoid gap in shipbuilding, for Clyde and (either) Belfast or Rosyth. MHC-LSVs (which could be bought from the market for a moment, and new built for long usage) and River B1 replacements (which may or may not be needed, anyway, in cheap) will be reserved here.

Simplest way is to keep T32 program and MRSS independent. I think this is very important, and will give the most "flexible" (on budget) options.

For example, if there be only £1Bn available for T32 in addition to the MRSS budget (medium optimistic case), we can either chose between increasing MRSS with some teeth, or add one T26 and one T31. Flexible.

In which world will we get a T-26 and a T-31 for 1 Billion you can have one full fat Type 26 at say 850 million when it is built in the mid 2030's or 2 times full fat type 31's at 750 million if starting in 2027 following on from the current order but not both for 1 Billion

[shark bait]

The 3 bays and Argus equate to sea going crew requirements of about 290. In the future the 3 solid stores vessels require around 310 crew to be at sea. So within the decade unless there is a lot more crew being recruited the RFA will have its hands full with 4 tide tankers and 3 solid stores vessels it cannot crew replacement amphibious ships.

The RFA has 1,400 sailors out of a total workforce of 1,800. This means even with some ships being 'double crewed' they're still within the limit, which suggests the problems run deeper than just headcount.

One point I shall make is, the plan must be flexible to the large variation in possible available budget.

This is very true, and why opting for a simple and distributed approach makes sense. The Navy needs to have a plan that can be scaled up or down without destroying the whole concept of operations, ie the situation the Marines have right now.

[Poiuytrewq]

I agree, interesting discussion but unfortunately not much agreement I’m afraid.

Assuming total of £5Bn for T32 and MRSS is within the most most optimistic case,

This is a wide held view but here is my reasoning. Five T32 and 6 MRSS will not be cheap. Until current planning changes it is proposed government policy. Therefore it must be taken seriously until cancellation or redirection. What is the cheapest that the 11x vessels could be build for in the U.K.?

• What is the cheapest possible hybrid Frigate RN could possibly procure? Therefore what would 5x cost including design and/or RN optimisation costs?

• What is the cheapest Amphib that RN could realistically procure? What would 6x of these vessels cost again optimised for RN?

It is OK to discuss £5Bn case. But, at the same time, I think we shall discuss £2.5Bn case. What if MOD only have £2.5Bn in total for all T32 and MRSS? Basing assumption ONLY on optimistic case often leads to disaster. We must be pragmatic.

Only £2.5bn for 11x vessels simply isn’t realistic IMO. Perhaps 11x vessels isn’t realistic but that’s current planning.

Around £1.8bn for the T32 and £1.2bn for the MRSS is the absolute minimum IMO.

Total: £3bn

My push will be
- Forget (or detach) increasing the escort number. Impossible in this pessimistic condition.

I don’t think the requirement will change but cutting the steel in 2026 looking looks very unlikely.

- Forget "feeding" both Rosyth and Belfast with shipbuilding. No way. Just keep either one of them.

That requires shutting Belfast and Appledore in 2032. Totally unnecessary with a regular £1.2bn drumbeat.

Again, current planning suggests at least 18 vessels need to be built in the late 2020’s into the 2030’s excluding T26/T83. There is absolutely no way Rosyth could cope with that.

5x T32
6x MRSS
1x MROSS
3x LSV
4x Point replacements

Will the NSBS survive the election? Time will tell.

- On the contrary, we may need something to "fill in" to avoid gap in shipbuilding, for Clyde and (either) Belfast or Rosyth. MHC-LSVs (which could be bought from the market for a moment, and new built for long usage) and River B1 replacements (which may or may not be needed, anyway, in cheap) will be reserved here.

Buying from the market results in more RFA crews. With a recruitment and retention crisis in the RFA why would the UK transfer more vessels from RN to RFA?

It’s totally unsustainable.

Simplest way is to keep T32 program and MRSS independent. I think this is very important, and will give the most "flexible" (on budget) options.

I can see absolutely no justification for the T32 at all. It’s a nice to have and RN really isn’t in the position for nice to halves at present.

If the global security picture continues to worsen then RN will need more T26 and SSN than anything else.

For example, if there be only £1Bn available for T32 in addition to the MRSS budget (medium optimistic case), we can either chose between increasing MRSS with some teeth, or add one T26 and one T31. Flexible.

Where did £1bn come from? Seems a tad pessimistic, even for the more pessimistic end of the scale.

IMO low,medium and high would be £3bn, £4bn, £5bn.

[donald_of_tokyo]

In which world will we get a T-26 and a T-31 for 1 Billion you can have one full fat Type 26 at say 850 million when it is built in the mid 2030's or 2 times full fat type 31's at 750 million if starting in 2027 following on from the current order but not both for 1 Billion

Sorry, I just meant £1.1Bn = 800M + 300M for "1 T26 and 1 T31". Both shall be enjoying "learning curve". (Of course, I do not include inflation here). If you like, I can say £1.15Bn, for 850M and 300M.

[donald_of_tokyo]

I agree, interesting discussion but unfortunately not much agreement I’m afraid.

Assuming total of £5Bn for T32 and MRSS is within the most most optimistic case,

This is a wide held view but here is my reasoning. Five T32 and 6 MRSS will not be cheap. Until current planning changes it is proposed government policy. Therefore it must be taken seriously until cancellation or redirection. What is the cheapest that the 11x vessels could be build for in the U.K.?

• What is the cheapest possible hybrid Frigate RN could possibly procure? Therefore what would 5x cost including design and/or RN optimisation costs?

• What is the cheapest Amphib that RN could realistically procure? What would 6x of these vessels cost again optimised for RN?

Thanks. My point is, just "separately" discuss these two issues. Surely, MRSS has higher priority than T32. So, first "purchase MRSS with ~£2.5Bn", and then "do T32 with any money remaining". This is my proposal.

It is OK to discuss £5Bn case. But, at the same time, I think we shall discuss £2.5Bn case. What if MOD only have £2.5Bn in total for all T32 and MRSS? Basing assumption ONLY on optimistic case often leads to disaster. We must be pragmatic.

Only £2.5bn for 11x vessels simply isn’t realistic IMO. Perhaps 11x vessels isn’t realistic but that’s current planning.

Of course, when talking about separate thinking of MRSS and T32, I am NOT talking about 11 ships always.

Around £1.8bn for the T32 and £1.2bn for the MRSS is the absolute minimum IMO.
Total: £3bn

Can be on debate. And, what is important is, consider the plan so that the MRSS program does not fall into disaster, no matter their (T32 + MRSS) total cost be £2.5Bn or £5Bn.

...
- Forget "feeding" both Rosyth and Belfast with shipbuilding. No way. Just keep either one of them.

That requires shutting Belfast and Appledore in 2032. Totally unnecessary with a regular £1.2bn drumbeat.

Sorry, disagree. I am not that optimistic here. Let Rosyth and/or Belfast survive with commercial orders, and do not cast the response of "keeping two of them alive" on MOD.

MOD shall just provide enough job for one yard. Rosyth and Belfast shall compete for it, and if the looser cannot survive, just it. "Looser to disappear" is within the heart of "competition".

Appledore? I have no idea. Let it be.

Again, current planning suggests at least 18 vessels need to be built in the late 2020’s into the 2030’s excluding T26/T83. There is absolutely no way Rosyth could cope with that.

5x T32
6x MRSS
1x MROSS
3x LSV

I think this build will spread between 2026-2040, 15 years, and I'm sure it can be handled with only Rosyth (or Belfast). Delivering 15 (or less) ships (6 (or less) large MRSS, 5 to zero T32, 4 not-so-huge MROSS and MHC-LSV), must be very easy. If not, Rosyth (or Belfast) is NOT a real shipbuilder.

4x Point replacements

Fingers crossed. It is just a leased merchant ship (a RoRo ship). Shall be operated with only 18 crew = must be very simple ship. We know hundreds of them are in the market.

Available money for Point-R will be fixed. If it is cheap, MOD will order 4. If not, only 3 or 2. I think so.

If Belfast (or Rosyth) can build it cheap, it can compete in merchant ship building. This is the goal.
If it is very expensive, is MOD really going to build it in UK? To save Belfast (or Rosyth)? And, accept only having 2 Point-R? Choice must be made here.

Buying from the market results in more RFA crews. With a recruitment and retention crisis in the RFA why would the UK transfer more vessels from RN to RFA?
It’s totally unsustainable.

Sorry, I couldn't follow your point. RFA vessels shall be manned by RFA crew, RN the RN. It has nothing to do with the ship be brought from the market of built in UK?

Simplest way is to keep T32 program and MRSS independent. I think this is very important, and will give the most "flexible" (on budget) options.

I can see absolutely no justification for the T32 at all. It’s a nice to have and RN really isn’t in the position for nice to halves at present.

I can find only one justification for T32. Have more hulls when T26/T31 gets old and their availability gets low. Need to be an independent class of T32? Or can be "1 more T26 and T31"? It will depend on the total budget available.

For example, if there be only £1Bn available for T32 in addition to the MRSS budget (medium optimistic case), we can either chose between increasing MRSS with some teeth, or add one T26 and one T31. Flexible.

Where did £1bn come from? Seems a tad pessimistic, even for the more pessimistic end of the scale.

IMO low,medium and high would be £3bn, £4bn, £5bn.

Sorry I was not clear. I meant £2.5Bn for MRSS and £1Bn for T32 (£3.5Bn in total) = one of the happy scenario. (my default scenario is £2.5Bn for MRSS and nothing else, apart from LSV).

[wargame_insomniac]

...
- Forget "feeding" both Rosyth and Belfast with shipbuilding. No way. Just keep either one of them.

That requires shutting Belfast and Appledore in 2032. Totally unnecessary with a regular £1.2bn drumbeat.

Sorry, disagree. I am not that optimistic here. Let Rosyth and/or Belfast survive with commercial orders, and do not cast the response of "keeping two of them alive" on MOD.

MOD shall just provide enough job for one yard. Rosyth and Belfast shall compete for it, and if the looser cannot survive, just it. "Looser to disappear" is within the heart of "competition".

Appledore? I have no idea. Let it be.

Again, current planning suggests at least 18 vessels need to be built in the late 2020’s into the 2030’s excluding T26/T83. There is absolutely no way Rosyth could cope with that.

5x T32
6x MRSS
1x MROSS
3x LSV

I think this build will spread between 2026-2040, 15 years, and I'm sure it can be handled with only Rosyth (or Belfast). Delivering 15 (or less) ships (6 (or less) large MRSS, 5 to zero T32, 4 not-so-huge MROSS and MHC-LSV), must be very easy. If not, Rosyth (or Belfast) is NOT a real shipbuilder.

4x Point replacements

Fingers crossed. It is just a leased merchant ship (a RoRo ship). Shall be operated with only 18 crew = must be very simple ship. We know hundreds of them are in the market.

Available money for Point-R will be fixed. If it is cheap, MOD will order 4. If not, only 3 or 2. I think so.

If Belfast (or Rosyth) can build it cheap, it can compete in merchant ship building. This is the goal.
If it is very expensive, is MOD really going to build it in UK? To save Belfast (or Rosyth)? And, accept only having 2 Point-R? Choice must be made here.

I am going to assume a roughly 30 year ship life for all ship types, purely on the grounds of simplicity. Obviously I accept in reality a carrier, a tanker, a frigate and an OPV might have widely different service lives.

So assume that we are sticking somewhere close to the 30 year UK shipbuilding strategy, if Govan builds on average 1 Tier One warfighting escort (i.e. T26 or T83 or equivalent), then in 30 years Govan could build 15 such escorts. Currently we have 6*T45 in service and we have ordered 8*T26, so not far off (if you allow that I would prefer that UK scrap the T32 order and order even one more T26 then would be bang on).

If we looked at Rosyth, they are currently building 5*T31, and in 2040's would probably need to build 5*River B2 replacements or equivalent Tier Two or Tier Three escort. Therefore they do have a gap on likely shipbuilding portfolio after the last of the T31's are finished. (Again have said before that would use the funds from cancelling T32 order to order at least one more T31, which would by them a bit longer).

If we looked at H&W Belfast, they are currently building parts of 3*FSS. I would have liked them to have built a greater percentage but this time they are pretty reliant on transfer of some knowledge from Navantia. I hope this allows H&W Belfast to rebuild almost from zero, and that in future orders that they can build much, much higher proportion.

But over the 30 year shipbuilding cycle, in addition to the 3*FSS, then H&W Belfast should also be ideal for building the replacements for 4*Points and eventually the 4*Tides. If H&W Belfast also got some work on any future LHD / LPD, that could add another 2-3 amphibs. Add in any work on any future Ice Patrol Ships after the 3*FSS completed, and any commercial orders and H&W Belfast should be pretty busy.

Assuming that Damen come up with an updated revision of their own design for RNLN Holland Class patrol vessel, then this might be a perfect design for UK for 3 smaller amphibs as part of the 6*MRSS order. These OPV Plus could be ideal for deploying the smaller RM Commando forces that FCF is seeimgly leading towards. Size wise these should be fine to build in Rosyth's covered "Frigate Factory" and would help fill in gaps after T31s.

For MROSS it might be cheaper to buy commercial ships such as MV Topaz\Tangaroa / RFA Proteus. We also need some ships to deploy the autonomous USV and USuV that we are using for future MCM operations. Those could either be commercially bought or built by Rosyth.

I have nt mentioned H&W Appledore. They seem to specialise in bows and also smaller ships. I think Appledore would be ideal for building River B1 replacements with my preference for 4*80m OPV for patrolling UK EEZ. In betwen doing commrcial work and sub-contracting to build the bow sectons for larger ships (such as they did for both carriers and will be doing for 3*FSS), they should also have enough work.

So I do think if, and it is admitedly a big if, we can stick to somthing approaching the current 30 year UK shipbuilding plan, and that we order ships or batched of ships in good time, thn each of the main yards should have enough business from RN / RFA to keep a 30 year drumbeat going, especially if could win even a few export orders as hopefully British shipbuilding recovers from its previous doldrums.

[Tempest414]

So with it looking like Labour will be in power from next year the hole thing could change with NATO being there priority for me thing should not change to much from a naval point of view

For me we will still need LRG-S and say 3 Type 31's in the Indian Ocean

I still think talk of smaller Amphibs is a folly as the UK is global navy and we should be thinking in terms larger ships with base line capability that can be surged so for me having a 190 by 30 meter MRSS with a base line capability of 1 x LSU , 3 x Merlin , 3 x Wildcat , 4 x CIC , 2 x PACSCAT's which can be surged by airlift too 2 x LSU's , 5 Merlin's , 6 x Wildcat ( using 2 x T-31 escorts ) 6 x CIC's , 2 x PACSCAT's , 6 x ORC

For me this should be the aim of LRG-N & S and be the day to day RN high readiness groups with CEPP being ready to back ether of the LRG's up as needed with CEPP made up of 1 x CSG and 1 x LPH + another MRSS

I have No problem with buying say 4 to 6 100 x 13 meters SLV's that can work along side the MRSS's and if we did buy some SLV's I would give them RAS ability

From here on in we really need to push the LSU concept with the RM having 8 x LSU's built around the 8 x strike Companies of 40 & 45 Cdo and 12 Platoon size units built around the 4 companies of 42 Cdo

[xav]

Royal Navy to Deploy Response Group to Eastern Mediterranean

The task group deployment is part of wider UK military moves – which include sending Royal Air Force Poseidon P-8A maritime patrol aircraft and other surveillance assets – intended to reinforce regional stability, prevent escalation, and help mitigate humanitarian crisis, the press release said.

The RN task group consists of two auxiliary assets – the Bay-class landing ship dock (LSD) auxiliary vessel RFA Lyme Bay, and the primary casualty receiving ship RFA Argus – plus three Merlin helicopters and a company of Royal Marines Commandos. The commando capability is reported to be based around 40 Commando Royal Marines.

Earlier this week, the US government moved the USS Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group was moved to Eastern Mediterranean.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... terranean/

[Tempest414]

I really wish that when talking about the LRG's the MOD would say they are carrying the new Littoral strike uints lead by a strike company from 40 cdo and supported by another 120 cdo's of 3 Cdo brigade

[Tempest414]

Also how F-IN predicable that the LRG-N & S thread was removed what a blood joke

[Poiuytrewq]

Also how F-IN predicable that the LRG-N & S thread was removed what a blood joke

Its my fault for wording the thread wrongly. It’s in its correct location now as worded.

I wasn’t intending it to be a chronological record of LRG deployments in a news only format. The news only threads are informative but also stifle discussion if the conversation widens which is clearly counter productive.

It was supposed to be a thread dedicated to the discussion of current LRG weapons/equipment/tactics and future LRF weapons/equipment and tactics.

Perhaps there is a way to sort that.

[Poiuytrewq]

Can anyone make out what craft are under the covers on Lyme Bays working deck?

[SW1]

Can anyone make out what craft are under the covers on Lyme Bays working deck?

The old thread is still here it’s under personnel and units

[shark bait]

Looking at other images its the offshore raiding craft

[new guy]

[donald_of_tokyo]

Within current head count the RFA can currently crew 4 tide tankers 3 bay class ships , Argus and a couple of the new remote systems vessels.

Looking at the latest active RFA list even this seems a tad optimistic.

https://x.com/tbrit90/status/1713366920 ... EmCklKdgA

[Tempest414]

What I find interesting is that the RFA has some 1700 staff and they need 850 to crew every ship on current strength so even taking 450 out for shore based placements that leaves almost 400 so the ability to 1.5 crew nearly every ship so there must be more to it than just crew

We know we are nursing Fort Vic we don't really know what is going on with Waves