Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

[Poiuytrewq]

Perhaps just selling 1 x LPD & using the remaing one as the third - 2 x QEC +1 x LPD used as a place holder until a LHD can be built, a Mistral or BAe design would be my preferance, then as you suggest cutting the MRSS, they will probably be cut anyway to save money... . & then at least it's partial cover for when a QEC goes in for a refit....

Lots to unpick.

Firstly, if money is tight, why? The budget is effectively fixed at the NATO minimum, the fleet has been decimated, the headcount slashed and RN is currently spending barely £650m per annum on new surface vessels. Where is the money going? If it’s the CASD renewal then HMG really needs to consider if gutting RN to pay for it is wise or if it should be funded separately as a essential national security asset.

Second, if the LPDs are cut RN will have one of the least capable Amphibious fleets in Europe never mind globally. That is completely unjustifiable and the all eggs in one basket CSG strategy needs to be examined extremely thoroughly to ensure it’s worth the virtual destruction of any remaining coherent fleet balance.

Thirdly, what happens when a CVF goes into deep refit? The second CVF will not be able to maintain high readiness for an extended period. It’s completely non sensical and the outcome is totally predictable. The only rational way forward is to build a highly capable LHD which can perform the LHA role and rotate 2 crews through the 2x CVFs and the LHD.

If the LPDs are deleted now this LHD should be built in Rosyth from 2026 to 2030. Unfortunately this would require additional funding as once the T31 builds finish, H&W use the in-year funding to build the FSS whilst the T26 builds continue.

Effectively RN needs to secure ~£300m per annum from HMT for 3-4 years to make it happen. Don’t hold your breath!

It’s a total car crash and current planning suggests it’s virtually guaranteed to get worse within the next 3-5 years.

[Repulse]

Who’s going to operate those UAVs they tend to need a lot of manpower?

This is where the RAF / FAA tie up on fixed wing aircraft should be extended for to fixed wing UAVs. The only affordable solution is Purple in a broad range of areas.

[Repulse]

…if the LPDs are cut RN will have one of the least capable Amphibious fleets in Europe never mind globally…

Not sure I agree with this, with an Aviation Support Ship, 3 LSDs and 2 very flexible large flat tops it is definitely different from the late 90s vision, but hardly least capable, especially if optimised for OTH ops. The main thing is to replace the three LSDs with more optimal, but lean, RN LPDs and also to purchase a Argus replacement.

[inch]

You've got to remember that once cut it's just going one way,they never do adequate replacements or numbers of replacements , sorry but I blame not just the government and MOD civil service but the admiralty also for bad decisions,one day and one day soon I think this countries armed forces are going to get well and truly spanked big style,we are an island for Pete's sake ,we need a adequate number of properly armed vessels with redundancy,and someone needs to think worse case if America does go all isolationist ,and never say never the way things are going,are we even thinking about building our own defense security ,I think not because I don't think there's anybody incharge with the right where with all the,

[new guy]

Yes, I am bias to believe what I want to be true, yet in all honesty I trust Gabriele more than Tabloids with some of the dumbest defence reporters touting up un-sourced rumors.

[Poiuytrewq]

You've got to remember that once cut it's just going one way,they never do adequate replacements or numbers of replacements…

No argument from me but that’s why I believed RN were retaining the LPDs. Simply an effort to guarantee the replacement(s) before disposal.

This logic holds but if the initial replacement vessel(s) takes the 2026 to 2030 Rosyth slot now is the time to negotiate the required funding and move T32 to the right.

If the headcount is so tight where is the 600+ crew coming from for the T32 anyway?

[wargame_insomniac]

Yes, I am bias to believe what I want to be true, yet in all honesty I trust Gabriele more than Tabloids with some of the dumbest defence reporters touting up un-sourced rumors.

I hoped we could keep Bulwark operational at least until QNLZ has FNISHED her upcoming first big refit.

Ideally both Albion and Bulwark should be replaced by more modern, less crew-intensive amphibs. But with Govan busy with T26, Rosyth busy with T31, and Belfast busy with FSS, we don't have a suitable shipyard free for building new amphibs immediately anyway.

[Poiuytrewq]

….we don't have a suitable shipyard free for building new amphibs immediately anyway.

Without a further order H&W will start scaling up from next year and Rosyth will start scaling down in 2026.

Rosyth needs something else to build now within 30 months. If the headcount crisis persists then building more escorts is pointless.

A F35 capable LHD crewed with the CVF crews is the best of only a few viable options IMO.

The other options are 3x RB1 replacements, the 3x LSVs and the 2nd MROSS. Pretty thin but enough to keep the lights on at Rosyth until 2030.

Everyone should be on no doubt - these are cuts dressed up as recruitment issues. If HMT provides the funding, all of this goes away.

Clearly the spreadsheet effect has started to kick in.

[wargame_insomniac]

I have said before that an "F35 capable LHD" is not realistic IMO, even before the recent round of RN news stories and rumours.Plus we need a suitable design and the Damen Enforcer LHD seems to have been little more than a quick drawing.

I agreed with you previously about your pproposal of selling Albion and Bulwark (our only difference on that was more matter of timing), using their crew to (at the very least temporarily) release the 3*Bays from RFA to RN, and then use the RFA crew for all 3*Bays to man Fort Victoria (which we need to keep operational but also used sparingly until the first FSS is ready), and one or both Waves. This is the sort of temporary juggling the RN are going to need to do in the short term, until the new, more cew-efficient Frigates enter service in the latter part of this decade.

I would nt get Rosyth to build the River B1 replacements as I have said before they should be kept as smaller OPV (i.e. 80m long as minimum length for good sea keeping in UK's rough seas) and these would be best suited to be made in H&W Appledore. For a 2nd MROSS, I probably would just simply buy Vard ship MV Topaz Tiamat to keep maintenanc and upkeep simple for the two sister ships.

That just leaves the MCM USV support ship, of which RFA Stirling Castle was the trial platform - i.e. what I suspect you were referring to as LSV. We do need at least 4-6 such ships to replace the remaining Hunt and Sandown class MCMV in both UK waters and in the Persian Gulf (and freeing up RFA Cardigan Bay to be an amhib again). I am sure we could probably get a good off-the-shelf MCMV design from the likes of Damen or Vard from their large existig portfolio. so long as we can licence the design for a UK build. In which case this IMO is the best bet

[Tempest414]

Firstly as said Bulwark will come back on line as QE goes in for refit

Next just by having 2 carrier this gives our allies options so for me if the EU wants to up it carrier capability its first step should be to form 2 joint F-35b squadrons this would allow them to operate from the 2 Italian carriers , JC-1 , the french carrier or 2 UK carriers

As for the UK we should form 4 squadrons of 10 jets plus a OCU of 14 jets with the view to having 1 carrier in strike mode with 20 jets and 1 in LHA with 10 jets and 10 Apache the remaining jets would be land based able to surge if needed

As for the future I would like to see a LPH with steel beech allowing us to maintain 2 flattops at all times for me the LPH should be 230 by 40 meters we should then have 4 200 by 28 meter MRSS

[Poiuytrewq]

I have said before that an "F35 capable LHD" is not realistic IMO, even before the recent round of RN news stories and rumours.Plus we need a suitable design and the Damen Enforcer LHD seems to have been little more than a quick drawing.

I completely agree that your view is mainstream, but for how long?

When QE goes in for the first deep maintenance period and PWLS is the only game in town, how long will it take for the penny to drop in defence planning that two U.K. flattops are not enough. It won’t be long IMO. You could write the tabloid headlines now, especially if PWLS encounters a problem.

Current planning is based around lackadaisical peacetime certainties including the endless assumption that NATO will provide all of the answers and that the U.K. will always fight as part of a multinational coalition. It’s just an excuse for politicians to do defence on the cheap. In recent years the funding has been diverted to more attractive and vote winning policies and now the politicians are hesitant to go back to the future even when it’s clearly obvious that it’s necessary.

What happened to: When the threat level rises the level of defense spending will rise accordingly? Worthless rhetoric. Simple.

SDSR 2025 must confront these hard choices and rapidly build mass and redundancy back into the U.K. armed forces including RN and the RFA.

Ideally RN would start confounding the critics by immediately announcing a coherent plan that doesn’t involve waiting on more “jam tomorrow” which is always at least ten years away.

I agreed with you previously about your pproposal of selling Albion and Bulwark (our only difference on that was more matter of timing), using their crew to (at the very least temporarily) release the 3*Bays from RFA to RN, and then use the RFA crew for all 3*Bays to man Fort Victoria (which we need to keep operational but also used sparingly until the first FSS is ready), and one or both Waves.

This is still the best short term policy IMO.

Alternatively, if the Albions are to be immediately deleted then there is absolutely no reason not to start the MRSS builds in 2026 at Rosyth.

The reason it won’t happen is purely down to a lack of funding. These outcomes are directly related to the previous DS’s failure to secure the required funding from HMT.

The outcome is that the UK will now have a smaller Amphibious fleet than the Dutch and a smaller surface fleet than Italy. Only a few years ago HMG was assuring the country that the U.K. would become the “foremost naval power in Europe”. https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-to-b ... e-says-pm/

Interesting way to achieve it.

[SW1]

I have said before that an "F35 capable LHD" is not realistic IMO, even before the recent round of RN news stories and rumours.Plus we need a suitable design and the Damen Enforcer LHD seems to have been little more than a quick drawing.

I completely agree that your view is mainstream, but for how long?

When QE goes in for the first deep maintenance period and PWLS is the only game in town, how long will it take for the penny to drop in defence planning that two U.K. flattops are not enough. It won’t be long IMO. You could write the tabloid headlines now, especially if PWLS encounters a problem.

Current planning is based around lackadaisical peacetime certainties including the endless assumption that NATO will provide all of the answers and that the U.K. will always fight as part of a multinational coalition. It’s just an excuse for politicians to do defence on the cheap. In recent years the funding has been diverted to more attractive and vote winning policies and now the politicians are hesitant to go back to the future even when it’s clearly obvious that it’s necessary.

What happened to: When the threat level rises the level of defense spending will rise accordingly? Worthless rhetoric. Simple.

SDSR 2025 must confront these hard choices and rapidly build mass and redundancy back into the U.K. armed forces including RN and the RFA.

Ideally RN would start confounding the critics by immediately announcing a coherent plan that doesn’t involve waiting on more “jam tomorrow” which is always at least ten years away.

I agreed with you previously about your pproposal of selling Albion and Bulwark (our only difference on that was more matter of timing), using their crew to (at the very least temporarily) release the 3*Bays from RFA to RN, and then use the RFA crew for all 3*Bays to man Fort Victoria (which we need to keep operational but also used sparingly until the first FSS is ready), and one or both Waves.

This is still the best short term policy IMO.

Alternatively, if the Albions are to be immediately deleted then there is absolutely no reason not to start the MRSS builds in 2026 at Rosyth.

The reason it won’t happen is purely down to a lack of funding. These outcomes are directly related to the previous DS’s failure to secure the required funding from HMT.

The outcome is that the UK will now have a smaller Amphibious fleet than the Dutch and a smaller surface fleet than Italy. Only a few years ago HMG was assuring the country that the U.K. would become the “foremost naval power in Europe”. https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-to-b ... e-says-pm/

Interesting way to achieve it.

Defence spending has increased. We spend more in cash terms than any other country in Europe. We spend more than Japan and about double what Australia does. Japan for example won’t reach 2% of its gdp being spent on defence until 2027.

You say the statements that the UK will always fight as part of a coalition is a peacetime luxury. It is not the UK has always aspired to fight as part of a coalition. Throughout its history it has been the default position from wellington through world wars it has always fought as part of coalitions. There isn’t one operation we are currently on were we aren’t part of a coalition.

We do not need to spend more on defence. We do need to be very clear in what we want to do be more focused in ensuring what we do spend contributes most to uk strategy and national security and ensure there sufficient redundancy within those areas and a robust defence infrastructure base to support it. It’s not mass for the sake of mass if that were a winning strategy Russia would have long since annexed Ukraine and the west would still be in Afghanistan.

We have had been devoid of strategy for a very long time there has been a lot of short termism dressed up as strategy and I have little sense any change coming anytime soon.

The MoDs eyes are consistently bigger than its belly no matter how many procurement reforms, clever contortions of paper orbats or consultant lead initiatives the same jam is always just around the corner with the same excuses. It’s we’re all the money goes chasing unicorns, I’m amazed they continually rinse and repeat and wonder why nothing changes.

[Phil Sayers]

Yes, I am bias to believe what I want to be true, yet in all honesty I trust Gabriele more than Tabloids with some of the dumbest defence reporters touting up un-sourced rumors.

If the government are scrabbling around for potential options should the Houthis just shrug-off airstrikes and continue attacking commercial shipping even after the Gaza fighting ends, then RM / SF commando raids on the Yemeni coast would come into consideration. May well be rejected as too dangerous but to even have the option requires a way to base those commandos at sea. Until MRSS is built the LPDs are the best way to do that.

[Repulse]

…if the Albions are to be immediately deleted then there is absolutely no reason not to start the MRSS builds in 2026 at Rosyth…

Whether they are visibly deleted or just quietly absent doesn’t make a big difference, the writing is on the wall - best to focus on maximising funds on the three LSDs as interim LPDs focused solely on amphibious operations.

Also, no matter what happens in the General Election, defence will not become a priority, so no new funds. For it to be so, there will need to be a very visible and present danger to the UK itself - and that will happen too late. The MOD needs to think about how it can have a force that can protect and buy time to scale. Every penny counts, and would say an Argus replacement ahead of a LHD falls into that category.

[Repulse]

If the government are scrabbling around for potential options should the Houthis just shrug-off airstrikes and continue attacking commercial shipping even after the Gaza fighting ends, then RM / SF commando raids on the Yemeni coast would come into consideration. May well be rejected as too dangerous but to even have the option requires a way to base those commandos at sea. Until MRSS is built the LPDs are the best way to do that.

Apart from small groups of “invisible” SFs assisting in intel and targeting there is zero chance of boots on the ground for the UK.

Would argue a better contribution for the UK would be to support air dominance and use Apaches and UAVs for surgical strikes against confirmed targets, with training and weaponary for the official Yemeni armed forces.

[Repulse]

As for the UK we should form 4 squadrons of 10 jets plus a OCU of 14 jets with the view to having 1 carrier in strike mode with 20 jets and 1 in LHA with 10 jets and 10 Apache the remaining jets would be land based able to surge if needed

I agree with the direction, given the CVFs will never be USN style strike carriers, I think four frontline squadrons of 9 a/c are sufficient, like the Invincible class. This would allow the designated strike carrier to have 2 sqds, and the 2nd carrier in a secondary LHA/ASW role to have 1 sqd, with the other squadron capable of other RAF tasking from land bases or surging to one of the carriers - 72 a/c in total is sufficient. Outside of this the immediate focus is to ensure all UK helicopter assets can be operated from the carriers (CHF, Apaches and Chinooks), and then a big investment in Purple carrier enabled UAVs.

[Ron5]

given the CVFs will never be USN style strike carriers

They won't?

[Phil Sayers]

If the government are scrabbling around for potential options should the Houthis just shrug-off airstrikes and continue attacking commercial shipping even after the Gaza fighting ends, then RM / SF commando raids on the Yemeni coast would come into consideration. May well be rejected as too dangerous but to even have the option requires a way to base those commandos at sea. Until MRSS is built the LPDs are the best way to do that.

Apart from small groups of “invisible” SFs assisting in intel and targeting there is zero chance of boots on the ground for the UK.

Would argue a better contribution for the UK would be to support air dominance and use Apaches and UAVs for surgical strikes against confirmed targets, with training and weaponary for the official Yemeni armed forces.

I think very unlikely rather than zero chance but without the ability to base RMs at sea then it is impossible. That alone could prompt a re-think about mothballing the LPDs - if not for potential use with regards the Houthis but a realisation that other similar situations may emerge in which we would be willing to risk incurring casualties through conducting raids but find ourselves without the ability to do so.

One might ask 'what is the point of transitioning the RMs to becoming a raiding force if the only political circumstances in which we would risk raids are in outright wars?' Yemen has a huge coastline and the Houthis are spread thinly along it, seems to me that this is exactly the sort of scenario that the direction of travel is envisaging.

[Phil Sayers]

I think very unlikely rather than zero chance but without the ability to base RMs at sea then it is impossible. That alone could prompt a re-think about mothballing the LPDs - if not for potential use with regards the Houthis but a realisation that other similar situations may emerge in which we would be willing to risk incurring casualties through conducting raids but find ourselves without the ability to do so.

One might ask 'what is the point of transitioning the RMs to becoming a raiding force if the only political circumstances in which we would risk raids are in outright wars?' Yemen has a huge coastline and the Houthis are spread thinly along it, seems to me that this is exactly the sort of scenario that the direction of travel is envisaging.

I think in this case it’s just that there would be multiple targets distributed across a wide area. If there was a threat that could be removed by landing a few hundred Commandos for a few days max (in and out style) then it could become an option, but this doesn’t look to be that scenario. It will require a prolonged engagement, effectively hammering things as they show themselves, better done from the air.

[Poiuytrewq]

….the UK has always aspired to fight as part of a coalition. Throughout its history it has been the default position from wellington through world wars it has always fought as part of coalitions.

That simply doesn’t hold true at sea.

Where was the coalition at Trafalgar, Nile, River Plate, North Cape, Jutland, Falklands, Spanish Armada, Chesapeake, Sluys, Taranto, Quiberon Bay, St Nazaire or even Dunkirk? The list is virtually endless.

Defense spending must be based on risk. It is currently based on what the minimum NATO spend will provide.

That is unacceptable when the global security is rapidly deteriorating.

[Poiuytrewq]

Whether they are visibly deleted or just quietly absent doesn’t make a big difference, the writing is on the wall - best to focus on maximising funds on the three LSDs as interim LPDs focused solely on amphibious operations.

What are you proposing?

Also, no matter what happens in the General Election, defence will not become a priority, so no new funds.

Current planning is based on defense spending to 2.5% by the end of the next parliament.

If that doesn’t materialise huge cuts to current planning will be required. In this climate such cuts may not be politically expedient.

[SW1]

….the UK has always aspired to fight as part of a coalition. Throughout its history it has been the default position from wellington through world wars it has always fought as part of coalitions.

That simply doesn’t hold true at sea.

Where was the coalition at Trafalgar, Nile, River Plate, North Cape, Jutland, Falklands, Spanish Armada, Chesapeake, Sluys, Taranto, Quiberon Bay, St Nazaire or even Dunkirk? The list is virtually endless.

Defense spending must be based on risk. It is currently based on what the minimum NATO spend will provide.

That is unacceptable when the global security is rapidly deteriorating.

You’re talking about individual tactical battles. Are you going to suggest we didn’t fight as a coalition at sea in ww1 or 2. Or that New Zealanders weren’t at the battle of the river plate if you wish to take it too individual battles.

Defence spending around the western world is based on the premise that spending 2%of your GDP on defence provides collective security. The majority arent even close to that target.

[new guy]

BMT once had a LPD/ASS design before ellida, seen on the front page here:
https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/ ... e-services

[wargame_insomniac]

What are you proposing?

On the basis that this interim solution will be in place for 10 years, I would focus on:
- Replacing the Bay in the Gulf to free it up for amphibious operations (another RFA Sterling Castle).
- Transferring all three Bays to the RN - doesn’t free up as many crew for the Escort fleet, but relieves pressure on the RFA and is appropriate given they will be put in harms way.
- Keeping the Argus + Bay combination EoS, with the other two actively operating in a task group alongside a CVF.
- Upgrades to each Bay to add 2 LCVP capable davits, additional C&C facilities, enhanced self defence countermeasures and potentially lifts to the vehicle deck.
- Key investments in new the new FCF force, new landing craft and light vehicles (LVCP / Helicopter mobile) and modular / POD capabilities (hospital facilities, accommodation etc)

Current planning is based on defense spending to 2.5% by the end of the next parliament.

Relatively modest, but a clear direction, most of which is either already in planning or cost neutral if funds are wasted on holding the Albions at low readiness/ in mothballs.

If that doesn’t materialise huge cuts to current planning will be required. In this climate such cuts may not be politically expedient.

With inflation, and the money needed to improve terms and conditions for personnel, IMO this is already a reality.

[shark bait]

I have said before that an "F35 capable LHD" is not realistic IMO

Not in the slightest. It is totally unreasonable to analyse the abysmal state of the Royal Navy and conclude another carrier is the way to fix it.

On the equipotent side the RN needs nothing extra. The surface fleet needs stability and that can come from a rapid introduction of new frigates that actually work, fixing the existing destroyers, and flexing those carrier groups the Navy has almost consumed itself to achieve. On the personnel side the RN/MOD need to completely overhaul their offering, its abysmal and they're suffering because of it.

Unfortunately the LPD's don't fit in well width the above. They're being squeezed by the more important carrier and submarine operations to the point of popping and disappearing. For the last few years, the Albion's have been more of a hinderance than a help, and that trend looks set to continue. It's preferable to quit now, rather than squeeze out another decade of nothingness from the LPDs.

When the dust settles the Commando Force needs an overhaul, and actually create a plan that is supported in the MOD and financially deliverable. They've not found this post Afghanistan, which is why the Marines have been wafted around like a bad smell.