Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

[SW1]

I thought they operated on a 2:1 crewing ratio for 6 months on 6 months off?

[donald_of_tokyo]

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

I understand RFA does crew rotation. So, it is very tight.

[wargame_insomniac]

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

Building on Poiuytrewq's suggstion, if both Albion and Bulwark (rather than just one in rotation) are kept inactive, at least until QNLZ goes into first big refit, then Bulwark's crew could be moved to the 3 Bays, which should free up enough RFA crew to bring Fort Victoria and both Waves back into active service. It may only be a temporary solution until the 3*FSS come into service at the end of this decade.

That would allow one Wave to joing Argus and Lyme Bay for LRG(S). Ideally needs an escort but, according to that vessel status, we have 3 of both T45 and T23 in refit, plus two more T23 in maintenance and Westminster inactive.....

Assuming that the Tides are rotated so that 2 are available for each carrier, with Fort Victoria kept for longer CSG deployments, then the last Wave could be based at Gibralter, ready to deploy further afield when required. Or simply used to rotate with other Wave in LRG(S).

[Poiuytrewq]

Tag

I've merged your LRG topic with this one. Feel free to resume your discussion here.

[shark bait]

then Bulwark's crew could be moved to the 3 Bays

To achieve what?

The Bay Class and crew spend the most time at sea of any in UK service. They're a rare example of what a high performance navy should look like.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

[new guy]

then Bulwark's crew could be moved to the 3 Bays

To achieve what?

The Bay Class and crew spend the most time at sea of any in UK service. They're a rare example of what a high performance navy should look like.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

because it looks like the bays are heading towards a world where they are being used less and less as
Landing Ship Dock (Auxiliary) / Auxiliary Landing Ship Logistics
as was their original classification,
and instead being used as Littoral Strike Ships

Instead of being the equivalent of nice and far more capable points they are now being used as the head of the Amphibious force.
Going from auxiliary to front-line is a key difference.
IMHO if we still had Largs bay we wouldn't have Argus.

[Poiuytrewq]

They're a rare example of what a high performance navy should look like.

The RFA model as currently configured is completely unsustainable. The threat of strikes is just too limiting.

Are the 6x MRSS, 3x LSV and second MROSS going to be RFA alongside 3x FSS and 4x Tides?

Totally unrealistic IMO.

The hybrid MROSS crew structure may be the way forward but even then it’s difficult to see how the numbers would work.

Permanently crewing both CVFs is putting massive strain across the rest if the fleet.

[new guy]

They're a rare example of what a high performance navy should look like.

The RFA model as currently configured is completely unsustainable. The threat of strikes is just too limiting.

Are the 6x MRSS, 3x LSV and second MROSS going to be RFA alongside 3x FSS and 4x Tides?

Totally unrealistic IMO.

The hybrid MROSS crew structure may be the way forward but even then it’s difficult to see how the numbers would work.

Permanently crewing both CVFs is putting massive strain across the rest if the fleet.

No pouiuytrewq, we can't semi-crew the carriers.

[SW1]

They're a rare example of what a high performance navy should look like.

The RFA model as currently configured is completely unsustainable. The threat of strikes is just too limiting.

Are the 6x MRSS, 3x LSV and second MROSS going to be RFA alongside 3x FSS and 4x Tides?

Totally unrealistic IMO.

The hybrid MROSS crew structure may be the way forward but even then it’s difficult to see how the numbers would work.

Permanently crewing both CVFs is putting massive strain across the rest if the fleet.

Strike action in the RFA is different to normal strike action so I don’t see it as a particular problem.

The RFA run the ship the RN man the guns, military systems and helicopters is not unique to MROSS I think that is standard practice.

Absolutely it is not sustainable to man both CVFs that has to chance.

[new guy]

then Bulwark's crew could be moved to the 3 Bays

To achieve what?

The Bay Class and crew spend the most time at sea of any in UK service. They're a rare example of what a high performance navy should look like.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

because it looks like the bays are heading towards a world where they are being used less and less as
Landing Ship Dock (Auxiliary) / Auxiliary Landing Ship Logistics
as was their original classification,
and instead being used as Littoral Strike Ships

Instead of being the equivalent of nice and far more capable points they are now being used as the head of the Amphibious force.
Going from auxiliary to front-line is a key difference.

Completely agree until we get to this point:

IMHO if we still had Largs bay we wouldn't have Argus.

They are completely different ships, if we had four we would be looking to sell one to keep Argus.

[shark bait]

The threat of strikes is just too limiting.

How is it?

Landing Ship Dock (Auxiliary) / Auxiliary Landing Ship Logistics as was their original classification, and instead being used as Littoral Strike Ships

What's the meaningful difference? Politicians have changed a name, nothing else has changed. They Bay Class is still delivering humans, vehicles and stores in the same way they always have.

[Repulse]

then Bulwark's crew could be moved to the 3 Bays

To achieve what?

The Bay Class and crew spend the most time at sea of any in UK service. They're a rare example of what a high performance navy should look like.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

Good one

I assume you aren’t serious as if you were you would be ignoring how f*d up the rest of the RFA fleet are, the potential strike action and the fact that it will definitely be broke when you add in the FSSs

[shark bait]

The root cause of the RFAs problems has nothing to do with the Bay Class.

The root cause is one of people management, especially in technical roles where employment benefits are abysmal compared to other offshore roles. The Royal Navy also have the same issue, a problem that is not fixed by changing a blue ensign to a white ensign.

[new guy]

The threat of strikes is just too limiting.

How is it?

Landing Ship Dock (Auxiliary) / Auxiliary Landing Ship Logistics as was their original classification, and instead being used as Littoral Strike Ships

What's the meaningful difference? Politicians have changed a name, nothing else has changed. They Bay Class is still delivering humans, vehicles and stores in the same way they always have.

Note the emphasis on Landing Ship Dock (Auxiliary) / Auxiliary Landing Ship Logistics

The bays where built to be an auxiliary, supporting ship.
Now they are moving towards being the head of the amphibious force.
A crew change from an organisation designed to support to one being forefront is needed.


Instead of being the equivalent of nice and far more capable points they are now being used like Littoral Strike Ships.
Going from auxiliary to front-line is a key difference.

[new guy]

The root cause of the RFAs problems has nothing to do with the Bay Class.

The root cause is one of people management, especially in technical roles where employment benefits are abysmal compared to other offshore roles. The Royal Navy also have the same issue, a problem that is not fixed by changing a blue ensign to a white ensign.

I completely agree on the underlying issues, but what I don’t agree with is the interesting take that the Bay class are perfectly run because they have been prioritised above other platforms. By the same token the T45 fleet could be perfectly run by holding 40% of the fleet in reserve. Doesn’t make sense.

[Repulse]

Politicians have changed a name, nothing else has changed. The Bay Class is still delivering humans, vehicles and stores in the same way they always have.

Whilst nothing publicly has changed, almost everything has changed. There is no LPD, so within the current LRG(S) force construct, the Bays are performing all boat operations. Also, the group are operating at a RM Coy level not Cdo, so unless it’s doing HADR, the logistics need is a lesser part of its role.

Would I prefer an Albion LPD to a Bay doing this role, absolutely. Is it sustainable and affordable, no it’s not.

[wargame_insomniac]

then Bulwark's crew could be moved to the 3 Bays

To achieve what?

The Bay Class and crew spend the most time at sea of any in UK service. They're a rare example of what a high performance navy should look like.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

Did you even read until the end of that very sentence that I had written before leaping in with the equivalent of a two footed airborne tackle?

[Poiuytrewq]

…Bulwark's crew could be moved to the 3 Bays, which should free up enough RFA crew to bring Fort Victoria and both Waves back into active service. It may only be a temporary solution until the 3*FSS come into service at the end of this decade.

Are the Albions coming back? If the answer is no then that is a MASSIVE cut and RN will need to explain why it is in the national interest to cut all of RN’s Amphibious Assault ships.

Suggesting that 2 CVFs are suitable replacements for Invincible, Illustrious, Ark Royal, Ocean, Albion and Bulwark is just not credible. Trying to fill the gaps with unaltered LSDs for what would amount to almost two decades is plain ridiculous.

When QE goes in for refit next year things will look very different. PWLS will be the only game in town and if global events continue to worsen, RN will suddenly have very limited options. Therefore on the balance of probability I think Bulwark will return but if so it begs the question….why?

If RN have decided that the next-gen Amphibs are to be a larger number of small craft deploying a single RM Company then why plod on with the Albions for another decade at least? It has absolutely no rational logic.

Therefore IMO RN has a number of options but current planing doesn’t appear to provide the optimal outcome and is in many ways disjointed and incoherent.

Here is an option for RN that remains within the current budget envelope, remains within the current headcount parameters and solves the FSS crew allocation issue around the end of the decade. It also solves the third flattop conundrum and gives RN real capability enhancements between now and the end of the decade.

• Dispose of both Albions.

• Use funds from Albion disposals to add 3x £50m LSS conversions to the Bays. Add a permanent hanger and 4x 15m davits for CIC. Purchase both LCX and Caiman 90 style landing craft for use in Bays.

• Split Bulwarks crew allocation across the 3x Bays

• Use RFA crews from the Bays to reactivate the Waves and fill any gaps across the fleet.

• Pospone T32 program indefinitely.

• Transfer £2.5bn T32 budget to builds at Rosyth between 2026 and 2033.

• Build 3x T31 (£1.2bn) and one Trieste style 45,000t LHA (£1.2bn) at Rosyth between 2026-2033.

• Use crews from decommissioning T23’s to crew T26/T31.

• Use crew allocation for T32s to crew LHA.

IMO this gives RN a much better balance within the existing budget envelope.

• 22 Escorts

• LRG(N) comprised of 1x LSS Bay.

• LRG(S) compromised of 1x LSS Bay, Argus and 1x Wave.

• UK ARG comprised of 1x LHA and 1x Wave primarily used to reinforce LRGs as required.

• 1x LSS Bay and 1x RB2 based at Gibraltar for APT(N), APT(S), West Africa etc.

This would provide a fantastic level of forward presence, ample scope for utilising off-board systems including XLUUVs whilst also providing widely distributed opportunities to operate the FCF.

The LHA could be lean crewed to primarily operate as a standard LHD with drones and helicopters and then surged when a CVF goes into refit.

The Bays, Argus and the Waves could then be replaced in the 2030s with the MRSS budget of around £2.4bn reduced down to around £2bn. A meaningful saving.

RN could then revisit the T32 program in the late 2030s if required.

I think it’s worthy of consideration.

[SW1]

…Bulwark's crew could be moved to the 3 Bays, which should free up enough RFA crew to bring Fort Victoria and both Waves back into active service. It may only be a temporary solution until the 3*FSS come into service at the end of this decade.

Are the Albions coming back? If the answer is no then that is a MASSIVE cut and RN will need to explain why it is in the national interest to cut all of RN’s Amphibious Assault ships.

Suggesting that 2 CVFs are suitable replacements for Invincible, Illustrious, Ark Royal, Ocean, Albion and Bulwark is just not credible. Trying to fill the gaps with unaltered LSDs for what would amount to almost two decades is plain ridiculous.

When QE goes in for refit next year things will look very different. PWLS will be the only game in town and if global events continue to worsen, RN will suddenly have very limited options. Therefore on the balance of probability I think Bulwark will return but if so it begs the question….why?

If RN have decided that the next-gen Amphibs are to be a larger number of small craft deploying a single RM Company then why plod on with the Albions for another decade at least? It has absolutely no rational logic.

Therefore IMO RN has a number of options but current planing doesn’t appear to provide the optimal outcome and is in many ways disjointed and incoherent.

Here is an option for RN that remains within the current budget envelope, remains within the current headcount parameters and solves the FSS crew allocation issue around the end of the decade. It also solves the third flattop conundrum and gives RN real capability enhancements between now and the end of the decade.

• Dispose of both Albions.

• Use funds from Albion disposals to add 3x £50m LSS conversions to the Bays. Add a permanent hanger and 4x 15m davits for CIC. Purchase both LCX and Caiman 90 style landing craft for use in Bays.

• Split Bulwarks crew allocation across the 3x Bays

• Use RFA crews from the Bays to reactivate the Waves and fill any gaps across the fleet.

• Pospone T32 program indefinitely.

• Transfer £2.5bn T32 budget to builds at Rosyth between 2026 and 2033.

• Build 3x T31 (£1.2bn) and one Trieste style 45,000t LHA (£1.2bn) at Rosyth between 2026-2033.

• Use crews from decommissioning T23’s to crew T26/T31.

• Use crew allocation for T32s to crew LHA.

IMO this gives RN a much better balance within the existing budget envelope.

• 22 Escorts

• LRG(N) comprised of 1x LSS Bay.

• LRG(S) compromised of 1x LSS Bay, Argus and 1x Wave.

• UK ARG comprised of 1x LHA and 1x Wave primarily used to reinforce LRGs as required.

• 1x LSS Bay and 1x RB2 based at Gibraltar for APT(N), APT(S), West Africa etc.

This would provide a fantastic level of forward presence, ample scope for utilising off-board systems including XLUUVs whilst also providing widely distributed opportunities to operate the FCF.

The LHA could be lean crewed to primarily operate as a standard LHD with drones and helicopters and then surged when a CVF goes into refit.

The Bays, Argus and the Waves could then be replaced in the 2030s with the MRSS budget of around £2.4bn reduced down to around £2bn. A meaningful saving.

RN could then revisit the T32 program in the late 2030s if required.

I think it’s worthy of consideration.

You have 22 combat vessels in the RN 17 escorts 2 LPDs and 2 carriers almost half are either laid up or in deep refit. With the 2 new RFAs you have 13 vessels with 5 laid up or in refit. You have in common with the other two services got more people leaving than is being recruited. I’m not sure how building more or larger vessels and either keeping commitments or increasing fwd deployments helps. The material state of the fleet is poor

Commitments need to be reduced and a rebalance of the fleet or it will get worse.

[new guy]

Commitments need to be reduced and a rebalance of the fleet or it will get worse.

Nooo.

We can't run away from the problem. That is ignoring the personnel crisis which is more unsustainable than any other plan anyone else has had. You are actively saying we should continue with whatever numbers we are left with, instead of trying to get more people in.


It has reached a point where even the core of the RFA fleet, the Tides, are having to lay up, RFA Tiderace in particular.
that is with 25% of the tide fleet in refit,
The SSS on a skeleton crew or even not,
the 2 additional tankers laid up,
And we still have a crisis.

This is unsustainable. We can't decrease our ambition, because the ambition isn't ambitious. The ambition is minimal.
you are neglecting the root cause.

[SW1]

Commitments need to be reduced and a rebalance of the fleet or it will get worse.

Nooo.

We can't run away from the problem. That is ignoring the personnel crisis which is more unsustainable than any other plan anyone else has had. You are actively saying we should continue with whatever numbers we are left with, instead of trying to get more people in.


It has reached a point where even the core of the RFA fleet, the Tides, are having to lay up, RFA Tiderace in particular.
that is with 25% of the tide fleet in refit,
The SSS on a skeleton crew or even not,
the 2 additional tankers laid up,
And we still have a crisis.

This is unsustainable. We can't decrease our ambition, because the ambition isn't ambitious. The ambition is minimal.
you are neglecting the root cause.

The ambition is too ambitious. We run away from the problem by saying continue as is.

People will tell you one of the reasons they’re leaving is because they are being deployed too much not enough home life and time off, constant demands.

They also tell us skill sets are diminishing because units are deploying too much and not doing all the training needed at the scale and complexity required frequently enough.

The total package and conditions they work and live in are another and that requires more money to fix which means spending less in other areas or overall head count being lower. But this again requires less commitments and fewer deployments.

If you are unwilling to grasp the nettle of the problem and do less with the same then it will not improve.

[Tempest414]

As said the RFA has 1700 staff removing 400 of them for shore based duties leaves 1300 sea going crew. Now as said the RAF needs 850 crew to man all 13 ships in the current fleet if we except that 1 x Tide and 1 x Wave will always be in refit not crewed that means we have 1300 crew between 11 ships.

Now if we work on a 1.5 model with crews working 4 months on and 4 off we would need 1064 crew leveling 236 crew to cover sickness and sudden shore leave

with all this said there must be a hidden reason we have so meany ships laid up

[donald_of_tokyo]

Commitments need to be reduced and a rebalance of the fleet or it will get worse.

Nooo.

We can't run away from the problem. That is ignoring the personnel crisis which is more unsustainable than any other plan anyone else has had. You are actively saying we should continue with whatever numbers we are left with, instead of trying to get more people in.

It’s all about money, and it’s clear that the government, or any future government, can not spend more. Perhaps a realistic way forward is to accept the Navy will be 20% smaller and increase wages and benefits (including accommodation) spend by 20%.

Its not just the RN that has issues, just look at the Irish Naval Service…

[Repulse]

As said the RFA has 1700 staff removing 400 of them for shore based duties leaves 1300 sea going crew. Now as said the RAF needs 850 crew to man all 13 ships in the current fleet if we except that 1 x Tide and 1 x Wave will always be in refit not crewed that means we have 1300 crew between 11 ships.

Now if we work on a 1.5 model with crews working 4 months on and 4 off we would need 1064 crew leveling 236 crew to cover sickness and sudden shore leave

with all this said there must be a hidden reason we have so meany ships laid up

Sorry, unless the RFA is completely incompetent, which I doubt, the current position is the real position and any back of a fag packet estimation of ratios is a waste of time.

Yes, we should be looking to improve, but that will take time and will be much more modest than we care to admit.

[SW1]

https://www.nautilusint.org/en/news-ins ... s-of-duty/

The Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) will introduce drastically shorter tours of duty onboard two ships brought in to support Ministry of Defence (MOD) outputs.

RFA personnel will deploy on a dual crewing model for approximately 36 days on, 36 days off, compared with a typical four-month deepsea deployment.

Following many years of disinvestment in the RFA, it now has a pipeline of ships coming into service over the next 10 years including three new fleet solid support ships recently signed off by the Secretary of State for Defence Ben Wallace.

The RFA will need to grow by about 400 civilian seafarers over the next decade, taking its current workforce from approximately 1,800 to 2,200.



People can make there own judgements about how like the growth is.