Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

[new guy]

…sustaining tonnes of material over the beach over time is the purpose, and LCU's are better at this.

But long until heavy lift UAVs take over this role?

The MRSS will not be future proofed unless the hanger space is extremely generous to allow for a future heavy lift UAV revolution when the technology matures.

For The 10 billionth time, the Future Heavy Lift UAV you seek is called a flipping HELICOPTER
Maybe a chinook.

And a chinook isn't close to the logistical power 2 LCU's bring.

[SW1]

…sustaining tonnes of material over the beach over time is the purpose, and LCU's are better at this.

But long until heavy lift UAVs take over this role?

The MRSS will not be future proofed unless the hanger space is extremely generous to allow for a future heavy lift UAV revolution when the technology matures.

How susceptible would heavy UAVs be to ew jamming and how expensive would they end up being are we just pretending to spend a whole lot of money for no benefit. How would they move fuel to support deployed trucks. Are they just attempting to use future technology as an excuse to remove a force they don’t want to fund anymore but too scared to admit it because they spent it all on something else.

And if the answer to all these issues is chinook why are commando helicopter force hobbled with merlin.

[Poiuytrewq]

How susceptible would heavy UAVs be to ew jamming and how expensive would they end up being are we just pretending to spend a whole lot of money for no benefit. How would they move fuel to support deployed trucks. Are they just attempting to use future technology as an excuse to remove a force they don’t want to fund anymore but too scared to admit it because they spent it all on something else.

Depends on the time frame.

The MRSS class will likely be in commission between 2035 and 2070.

What will the requirement look like for heavy lift UAVs from 2050 onwards?

[Repulse]

And if the answer to all these issues is chinook why are commando helicopter force hobbled with merlin.

Because the Chinook is owned by the RAF and even the cost of the last order we aren’t getting more. Also, until the RMs get something like the Osprey nothing is going to change - whilst ultimately replacing the amphibious ships is important in the future, solving the lift question is more important.

[SW1]

How susceptible would heavy UAVs be to ew jamming and how expensive would they end up being are we just pretending to spend a whole lot of money for no benefit. How would they move fuel to support deployed trucks. Are they just attempting to use future technology as an excuse to remove a force they don’t want to fund anymore but too scared to admit it because they spent it all on something else.

Depends on the time frame.

The MRSS class will likely be in commission between 2035 and 2070.

What will the requirement look like for heavy lift UAVs from 2050 onwards?

That does t answer the cost question or how well they operate in ew environments. Right now you would say if you want to operate further offshore and transport weight you would buy an LCAC but no would require a change of priorities to enable the spend.

[SW1]

And if the answer to all these issues is chinook why are commando helicopter force hobbled with merlin.

Because the Chinook is owned by the RAF and even the cost of the last order we aren’t getting more. Also, until the RMs get something like the Osprey nothing is going to change - whilst ultimately replacing the amphibious ships is important in the future, solving the lift question is more important.

They are operated by the airforce but funded through joint helicopter command.

We don’t need to buy more airframes beyond what’s on order. There is manning issues across the force so take the people in commando force and move them into the chinook force and have joint sqns like F35.

Commando helicopter force wanted chinook before it got the Merlin hand me downs.

It comes back to what you wish to prioritise

[Poiuytrewq]

That does t answer the cost question or how well they operate in ew environments. Right now you would say if you want to operate further offshore and transport weight you would buy an LCAC but no would require a change of priorities to enable the spend.

I think you are missing my point by concentrating on the here and now.

The current Amphib fleet became rapidly obsolescent because it was designed to do 1982 all over again but better.

My point is that the MRSS needs to acknowledge the UAV and UCV revolution that has already begun and will continue to accelerate into the rest of the 21st century.

The MRSS design must accommodate this or premature obsolescence is practically guaranteed.

[SW1]

That does t answer the cost question or how well they operate in ew environments. Right now you would say if you want to operate further offshore and transport weight you would buy an LCAC but no would require a change of priorities to enable the spend.

I think you are missing my point by concentrating on the here and now.

The current Amphib fleet became rapidly obsolescent because it was designed to do 1982 all over again but better.

My point is that the MRSS needs to acknowledge the UAV and UCV revolution that has already begun and will continue to accelerate into the rest of the 21st century.

The MRSS design must accommodate this or premature obsolescence is practically guaranteed.

I’m not. I’m asking how much are you going to pay to get something less effective than what we use today. Its like all the money they’re spending looking at unmanned support vehicles for the infantry to replace ATMP but with the driver standing behind it with a Xbox controller rather than sitting on front of it.

To be honest other than being a lpd with a flight deck and hanger I struggle to see what else it needs to be “ 21st century proofed” to operate aircraft and boats together theres nothing revolutionary here other than budget allocation.

Trying to be too clever for there own good hoping for lots of jam tomorrow does not work well.

[Poiuytrewq]

I’m not. I’m asking how much are you going to pay to get something less effective than what we use today. Its like all the money they’re spending looking at unmanned support vehicles for the infantry to replace ATMP but with the driver standing behind it with a Xbox controller rather than sitting on front of it.

To be honest other than being a lpd with a flight deck and hanger I struggle to see what else it needs to “ 21st century proofed” to operate aircraft and boats together theres nothing revolutionary here other than budget allocation.

Trying to be too clever for there own good hoping for lots of jam tomorrow does not work well.

I not suggesting a revolutionary design, simply that adequate space is allocated within the hull to effectively embrace new technologies as they arrive throughout the century.

For example, the FCF as part of the LRG will be a pretty widely dispersed force with a very incomplete logistical chain. Will resupply be safe with Merlin or Chinook? Would it be smarter to load ammo and water onto a UAV and accept the inevitable attritional loses?

IMO the MRSS needs a lift to the tank deck similar to Argus or a Karel Doorman sized hanger as a minimum to be properly future proofed. A flattop would be preferable and it is absolutely possible that a large hanger and flight deck becomes much more important than any design of LCU in a well dock.

[shark bait]

it is absolutely possible that a large hanger and flight deck becomes much more important than any design of LCU in a well dock

Already is. Assaults from the sea have been untenable for decades, which is a problem for the Royal Navy who built the ships they wanted to fight their last war.

Unfortunately the Royal Navy can't sustain an army over the horizon using only helicopters, so put simply they need to do both; aviation enabled assault, and resupply by sea via a forward operating base.

[SW1]

I’m not. I’m asking how much are you going to pay to get something less effective than what we use today. Its like all the money they’re spending looking at unmanned support vehicles for the infantry to replace ATMP but with the driver standing behind it with a Xbox controller rather than sitting on front of it.

To be honest other than being a lpd with a flight deck and hanger I struggle to see what else it needs to “ 21st century proofed” to operate aircraft and boats together theres nothing revolutionary here other than budget allocation.

Trying to be too clever for there own good hoping for lots of jam tomorrow does not work well.

I not suggesting a revolutionary design, simply that adequate space is allocated within the hull to effectively embrace new technologies as they arrive throughout the century.

For example, the FCF as part of the LRG will be a pretty widely dispersed force with a very incomplete logistical chain. Will resupply be safe with Merlin or Chinook? Would it be smarter to load ammo and water onto a UAV and accept the inevitable attritional loses?

IMO the MRSS needs a lift to the tank deck similar to Argus or a Karel Doorman sized hanger as a minimum to be properly future proofed. A flattop would be preferable and it is absolutely possible that a large hanger and flight deck becomes much more important than any design of LCU in a well dock.

That it needs to be relatively large is not in debate the US San Antonio isn’t small. But you can’t afford that if you’ve bought and attempt to operate two big vanity projects.

How you sustain a force ashore is an interesting one.

But if this is how drones will be deployed in future
https://en.topwar.ru/205388-pressa-ssha ... nikov.html

Do we not just need a vehicle ramp to get to a flight deck rather than a full flattop

[Tempest414]

And we come back to the fact that if assault from the sea is a airbourne job we need another flattop plus 4 MRSS with good size docks and flight decks the docks will always be needed to get larger kit and supplies ashore

The simple fact is we had the perfect balance of flight deck and dock space with Ocean , 1 x LPD and 3 LSD's and we let it go

[SW1]

And we come back to the fact that if assault from the sea is a airbourne job we need another flattop plus 4 MRSS with good size docks and flight decks the docks will always be needed to get larger kit and supplies ashore

The simple fact is we had the perfect balance of flight deck and dock space with Ocean , 1 x LPD and 3 LSD's and we let it go

The special forces, the special forces support grounp and the two fully formed fully deployable brigades of 3 commando and 16 air assault was the pre eminent ground/deterrent ground force element available to the UK. Instead of building around and prioritising it we’ve decided to dismantle it and go off on a tangent because there were taking money away from sacred cows.

I suspect because there is senior elements now that do not like their “special” or high profile nature and are struggling to kill them off due to their resonance with the public so will do it with death by a thousand cuts.

[Poiuytrewq]

The simple fact is we had the perfect balance of flight deck and dock space with Ocean , 1 x LPD and 3 LSD's and we let it go

When all things are considered a completely conventional Amphibious force may still be the way to go.

Before even beginning on the MRSS design or considering an Enforcer LPD design I would ask a simple question - what are the major drawbacks of making the entire MRSS class flatop?

[Repulse]

And if the answer to all these issues is chinook why are commando helicopter force hobbled with merlin.

Because the Chinook is owned by the RAF and even the cost of the last order we aren’t getting more. Also, until the RMs get something like the Osprey nothing is going to change - whilst ultimately replacing the amphibious ships is important in the future, solving the lift question is more important.

They are operated by the airforce but funded through joint helicopter command.

We don’t need to buy more airframes beyond what’s on order. There is manning issues across the force so take the people in commando force and move them into the chinook force and have joint sqns like F35.

Commando helicopter force wanted chinook before it got the Merlin hand me downs.

It comes back to what you wish to prioritise

My view is that CHF wanted Chinooks because there was no other option at the time. Retiring or converting the Merlin’s to another use should be a priority if it moves us from this paralysis - the whole strategy is stuck as people can’t get past the ARGs of the 90s.

The issue with the FCF is that we do not have the connectors to make it work properly. There is no need to buy ships if the connectors can operate already from the platforms we have.

[Repulse]

The simple fact is we had the perfect balance of flight deck and dock space with Ocean , 1 x LPD and 3 LSD's and we let it go

The perfect balance for a force structure that no long exists and is not deemed a priority since the days of nation building.

[SW1]

And if the answer to all these issues is chinook why are commando helicopter force hobbled with merlin.

Because the Chinook is owned by the RAF and even the cost of the last order we aren’t getting more. Also, until the RMs get something like the Osprey nothing is going to change - whilst ultimately replacing the amphibious ships is important in the future, solving the lift question is more important.

They are operated by the airforce but funded through joint helicopter command.

We don’t need to buy more airframes beyond what’s on order. There is manning issues across the force so take the people in commando force and move them into the chinook force and have joint sqns like F35.

Commando helicopter force wanted chinook before it got the Merlin hand me downs.

It comes back to what you wish to prioritise

My view is that CHF wanted Chinooks because there was no other option at the time. Retiring or converting the Merlin’s to another use should be a priority if it moves us from this paralysis - the whole strategy is stuck as people can’t get past the ARGs of the 90s.

The issue with the FCF is that we do not have the connectors to make it work properly. There is no need to buy ships if the connectors can operate already from the platforms we have.

No they wanted chinook because merlin can’t lift any of their equipment in hot places or at altitude.

[SW1]

The simple fact is we had the perfect balance of flight deck and dock space with Ocean , 1 x LPD and 3 LSD's and we let it go

The perfect balance for a force structure that no long exists and is not deemed a priority since the days of nation building.

Not a single thing to do with nation building not one.

Why is the us marines now committed to offering a brigade MAGTF to Norway? Are they planning on nation building Norway?

[Fr0sty125]

The simple fact is we had the perfect balance of flight deck and dock space with Ocean , 1 x LPD and 3 LSD's and we let it go

When all things are considered a completely conventional Amphibious force may still be the way to go.

Before even beginning on the MRSS design or considering an Enforcer LPD design I would ask a simple question - what are the major drawbacks of making the entire MRSS class flatop?

Cost/size/crewing going from a circa 150m 15,000 tonnes ship to a 200m 20,000 tonne ship like the mistral.

[Repulse]

No they wanted chinook because merlin can’t lift any of their equipment in hot places or at altitude.

Sorry that’s what I meant, they wanted Chinooks because of their lift capacity - it is still the only platform that can do this. My point is that by not spending money on ships and using the LSD/CVF combination for another 10 years allows funds to be spent on making the FCFva reality rather than a broken version of what the past looked like.

[Repulse]

The simple fact is we had the perfect balance of flight deck and dock space with Ocean , 1 x LPD and 3 LSD's and we let it go

The perfect balance for a force structure that no long exists and is not deemed a priority since the days of nation building.

Not a single thing to do with nation building not one.

Why is the us marines now committed to offering a brigade MAGTF to Norway? Are they planning on nation building Norway?

Forward basing RM commandos in Norway is now an option, in the past it wasn’t. We don’t have to replicate the USMC here.

[SW1]

The simple fact is we had the perfect balance of flight deck and dock space with Ocean , 1 x LPD and 3 LSD's and we let it go

The perfect balance for a force structure that no long exists and is not deemed a priority since the days of nation building.

Not a single thing to do with nation building not one.

Why is the us marines now committed to offering a brigade MAGTF to Norway? Are they planning on nation building Norway?

Forward basing RM commandos in Norway is now an option, in the past it wasn’t. We don’t have to replicate the USMC here.

Fwd basing anything anywhere is always an option.

Not replicating we always had the commando brigade to support the US marine and Norway briagdes. We hear a lot about not relying on the US to defend Europe. This is a prime example and not a hint of nation building about it.

To allow manoeuvre with the topography of the region they need their shipping.

[Repulse]

Fwd basing anything anywhere is always an option.

Not replicating we always had the commando brigade to support the US marine and Norway briagdes. We hear a lot about not relying on the US to defend Europe. This is a prime example and not a hint of nation building about it.

To allow manoeuvre with the topography of the region they need their shipping.

Outside of Norway, the ARGs were always about nation building, and to a degree about replaying the Falklands as it occurred (not how it would likely to be fought in the future).

In terms of Norway, if large amphibious ships are required to defend it, don’t you think Norway would have them (or atleast of version of amphibious shipping). It was always about rushing reinforcements, which with the RMs forward based in places like camp Viking, will be the Army which have the Points and more likely to fly troops there.

[wargame_insomniac]

The simple fact is we had the perfect balance of flight deck and dock space with Ocean , 1 x LPD and 3 LSD's and we let it go

When all things are considered a completely conventional Amphibious force may still be the way to go.

Before even beginning on the MRSS design or considering an Enforcer LPD design I would ask a simple question - what are the major drawbacks of making the entire MRSS class flatop?

Initially the RN wanted 6*MRSS - not clear if their preference for the number of ships has changed at since then?

I have always thought that most likely to need two separate designs. One design (in effect replacing Ocean and both Albions) would be RN manned and this would be aimed at getting RM Cammandos to shore or extracting them, via a mixture of helicopters and fast landing craft like Caiman 90. So BOTH well deck and helicopter hangar (being linked to multi-mission bay via lift) is important. The MMB will be for deploying USV & USuV separate to well deck. I have said before that these 3 ships being flat tops is a nice to have, rather than must have on grounds of cost.

The second design would be more for ongoing RFA logistics support, effectively replacing the Bays but with better helicopter support. Designs like Enforcer and initial BMT Ellida might be suitable. If they had steel ramp on bow and/or stern, that would help getting stores ashore if performing HADR or resupplying RM Commandos without needing intact port infrastructure.

The top priority is the first design so both Albions and Argus can be retired ASAP. This is because the Albions are old, require too many crew to propery man, and lack hangars.

We have options for the second design for RFA including variety of Enforcer and BMT designs.

If the first design was to replace the Albions with one of the larger Enforcer designs, then that should be an improvement on what we already have, even if not ground breaking. Obviously a properly designed Damen LHD flat top would be ideal, especially if sharing these costs with Dutch. But until then this is more of a fantasy option and any based on Mistral etc would cost way top much.

All of the above is based on my statrting assumptions that both six amphib ships still wanted and that two separate designs needed to replace eventually all current Amphibs in the RN / RFA service.

[SW1]

The top priority is the first design so both Albions and Argus can be retired ASAP. This is because the Albions are old, require too many crew to propery man, and lack hangars.

We have options for the second design for RFA including variety of Enforcer and BMT designs.

The Albion vessels are about the same age as the type 45s they commissioned around 2004. So about middle aged but not old. As for crew you could man both and probably a type 23 head count wise for what we are using for the 2nd carrier that was never supposed to be in service so why are they considered manpower heavy all off a sudden. Hangers is a problem if you want them to operate on their own, they were never meant to. They were supposed to operate with HMS ocean or one of the invincibles as a group.

Navy hierarchy aren’t interested in the marines we’ve seen that with the choices the last few sea loads have made but there too popular for them to get rid off entirely.