Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

[Poiuytrewq]

Don't you start, you can't add 50% width onto a hull.

You don’t need to if you can go from clean sheet to a single hull class for £115m

[new guy]

Don't you start, you can't add 50% width onto a hull.

You don’t need to if you can go from clean sheet to a single hull class for £115m

This is a completely design to one for amphibious operations.

[donald_of_tokyo]

...
https://www.damen.com/vessels/defence-a ... port-ships

Thanks, great info.

Many discussion is already done, MRSS, not MRSS etc, which already covered most of me 1st impression.

Then, my second impression.

Is this the OPV+ we were discussing in other threads?
- needs only 45 crew
- 100m + length
- Can carry Wildcat
- Can carry 40mm 3P (9000t version does)

But, (negative)
- it is totally a merchant ship standard hull, I guess (region why cheap)
- must be with the highest speed option of 20kt (doable, just a matter of generator size, looks like)

But, (coming back to positive)
- Very good at HADR, regardless of with or without the LCM-sized small well-dock
- with its capacity, it looks like a perfect match for Caribbean tasks.
- with LCVP davits added, can also be a MCM-USV mother ship?

As an option, I would like to re-arrange the superstructure a bit fatter and shorter. This will enable second heli-pad at the bow, and make the hangar capable of 2 Merlin (or 1 Merlin + 4-6 UAVs, or 4 Wildcats).

Just my thought.

[Poiuytrewq]

I would like to re-arrange the superstructure a bit fatter and shorter. This will enable second heli-pad at the bow, and make the hangar capable of 2 Merlin (or 1 Merlin + 4-6 UAVs, or 4 Wildcats).

What would be the advantage over a more traditional design such as a Vard 7 313 if a MALE STOL drone capability isn’t possible?

[donald_of_tokyo]

I would like to re-arrange the superstructure a bit fatter and shorter. This will enable second heli-pad at the bow, and make the hangar capable of 2 Merlin (or 1 Merlin + 4-6 UAVs, or 4 Wildcats).

What would be the advantage over a more traditional design such as a Vard 7 313 if a MALE STOL drone capability isn’t possible?

Nothing special, actually. Actually I think this design is a serious contender to Vard 7 313 .

One thing is that, it will all depend on smallish UAV operation dream, like Bayraktar TB2 (not truly MALE, a but smaller (and hence cheaper and numerous) ones). But also, any UAV with longer endurance/range MUST be happy with STOL or STOVL operation than VTOL operation (a.k.a. Harrier).

[new guy]

I would like to re-arrange the superstructure a bit fatter and shorter. This will enable second heli-pad at the bow, and make the hangar capable of 2 Merlin (or 1 Merlin + 4-6 UAVs, or 4 Wildcats).

a wildcat Helicopter can already takeoff at the Bow, see below. Merlin and Chinook on the back.
The hangar of this design can't accommodate one Merlin as is, as it says below max size is a NH90 and Merlin is bigger then that.

HELICOPTER FACILITIES
Helicopter hangar Suitable for max. one NH-90 helicopter
Helicopter flight deck aft Suitable for a helicopter with a MTOW 22 ton (max. Chinook type)
Helicopter flight deck fore Suitable for a helicopter with a MTOW 11 ton (max. NH90 type)
Suitable for day and night operations (HVAS)

https://media.damen.com/image/upload/v1 ... s-9000.pdf

All the UAV's go on lifts below deck.

[donald_of_tokyo]

I would like to re-arrange the superstructure a bit fatter and shorter. This will enable second heli-pad at the bow, and make the hangar capable of 2 Merlin (or 1 Merlin + 4-6 UAVs, or 4 Wildcats).

a wildcat Helicopter can already takeoff at the Bow, see below. Merlin and Chinook on the back.
The hangar of this design can't accommodate one Merlin as is, as it says below max size is a NH90 and Merlin is bigger then that.

HELICOPTER FACILITIES
Helicopter hangar Suitable for max. one NH-90 helicopter
Helicopter flight deck aft Suitable for a helicopter with a MTOW 22 ton (max. Chinook type)
Helicopter flight deck fore Suitable for a helicopter with a MTOW 11 ton (max. NH90 type)
Suitable for day and night operations (HVAS)

https://media.damen.com/image/upload/v1 ... s-9000.pdf

All the UAV's go on lifts below deck.

Thanks. Just for clarity, I made my above comment based on the facts you stated (after reading them).

[new guy]

I would like to re-arrange the superstructure a bit fatter and shorter. This will enable second heli-pad at the bow, and make the hangar capable of 2 Merlin (or 1 Merlin + 4-6 UAVs, or 4 Wildcats).

a wildcat Helicopter can already takeoff at the Bow, see below. Merlin and Chinook on the back.
The hangar of this design can't accommodate one Merlin as is, as it says below max size is a NH90 and Merlin is bigger then that.

HELICOPTER FACILITIES
Helicopter hangar Suitable for max. one NH-90 helicopter
Helicopter flight deck aft Suitable for a helicopter with a MTOW 22 ton (max. Chinook type)
Helicopter flight deck fore Suitable for a helicopter with a MTOW 11 ton (max. NH90 type)
Suitable for day and night operations (HVAS)

https://media.damen.com/image/upload/v1 ... s-9000.pdf

All the UAV's go on lifts below deck.

Thanks. Just for clarity, I made my above comment based on the facts you stated (after reading them).

Then I don't see any need for modification. You won't be able to modify it any further than 1 Merlin, no need for the hanger to hold UAV's when they have their own storage area and 2 wildcats in the hanger should be more than suffice for the operations this platform undertakes.

[Ron5]

Bet it's cheap. The Navy should just get a couple to play with so they can figure out what they're good for

[donald_of_tokyo]

Then I don't see any need for modification. You won't be able to modify it any further than 1 Merlin, no need for the hanger to hold UAV's when they have their own storage area and 2 wildcats in the hanger should be more than suffice for the operations this platform undertakes.

Just for clarity. My proposal was to
- enlarge the "aft bridge hangar" to make it 1 Merlin capable, by slightly making it wider and a bit taller.
- at the same time, locate a "forward hanger, capable of 1 Merlin" located under the main bridge, with opening forward.
- a "Merlin capable hangar" like those onboard T45, T26 and T31, can (on paper) carry 2 Wildcats.
Just it.

[new guy]

Then I don't see any need for modification. You won't be able to modify it any further than 1 Merlin, no need for the hanger to hold UAV's when they have their own storage area and 2 wildcats in the hanger should be more than suffice for the operations this platform undertakes.

Just for clarity. My proposal was to
- enlarge the "aft bridge hangar" to make it 1 Merlin capable, by slightly making it wider and a bit taller.
- at the same time, locate a "forward hanger, capable of 1 Merlin" located under the main bridge, with opening forward.
- a "Merlin capable hangar" like those onboard T45, T26 and T31, can (on paper) carry 2 Wildcats.
Just it.

Thanks, far clearer. 2 things:

1) Front heli-pad is limited to 11 MTOW, so no merlin
2) Space for a front hanger when there is the forward gun and drone lifts? Sure, you could put a hangar further forward but then no front flight deck.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Then I don't see any need for modification. You won't be able to modify it any further than 1 Merlin, no need for the hanger to hold UAV's when they have their own storage area and 2 wildcats in the hanger should be more than suffice for the operations this platform undertakes.

Just for clarity. My proposal was to
- enlarge the "aft bridge hangar" to make it 1 Merlin capable, by slightly making it wider and a bit taller.
- at the same time, locate a "forward hanger, capable of 1 Merlin" located under the main bridge, with opening forward.
- a "Merlin capable hangar" like those onboard T45, T26 and T31, can (on paper) carry 2 Wildcats.
Just it.

Sounds somewhat along the lines of the Fassmer MPV 120.

Albeit without the thru-deck of the Damen product.


https://www.fassmer.de/en/defence/multirole

https://www.fassmer.de/fileadmin/user_u ... 20_web.pdf

[new guy]

Then I don't see any need for modification. You won't be able to modify it any further than 1 Merlin, no need for the hanger to hold UAV's when they have their own storage area and 2 wildcats in the hanger should be more than suffice for the operations this platform undertakes.

Just for clarity. My proposal was to
- enlarge the "aft bridge hangar" to make it 1 Merlin capable, by slightly making it wider and a bit taller.
- at the same time, locate a "forward hanger, capable of 1 Merlin" located under the main bridge, with opening forward.
- a "Merlin capable hangar" like those onboard T45, T26 and T31, can (on paper) carry 2 Wildcats.
Just it.

Sounds somewhat along the lines of the Fassmer MPV 120.

Albeit without the thru-deck of the Damen product.


https://www.fassmer.de/en/defence/multirole

https://www.fassmer.de/fileadmin/user_u ... 20_web.pdf

That design always gets me very vexed; Why are you having an Isolated forward pad when it could just be on the rear with the rest they you don't have to worry about your weapon systems being obscured half the time among other things.

[wargame_insomniac]

Now - what was I saying about a UK Dokdo look-alike?

These smaller assault ships share vehicle and aircraft storage space so total capacity is much lower. This makes a LCAC that can interface with strategic sea lift ships important to pick up the missing capacity in a SHTF situation.

Given that these ships would only ever carry aviation assets up to what Argus does now, then that is absolutely right IMO. LCAC, both new large purchases and recommissioning the four small units already owned would make a lot of sense, removing the need for a large well dock.

Outside of their nuclear deterrent role the FCF could then be structured into 6 units, each tailored for their role - 3 littoral strike units (each assigned to a flat top LPD), 2 air mobile strike/support units (each assigned to a CVF) and a littoral mobile unit based in Camp Viking.

Probably the wrong thread, but more I think about the likely confrontation coming (war or just hot), the more I am thinking about how the RN gets war ready and the nees to be absolutely focused on what needs to be in place as a fighting force in the next decade.

Three of these ships with the right level of self defence, enabling them to operate in high threat environments either with a T26 riding shotgun or as part of task group could be a key part of this if the design is focused (don’t worry about being LHDs or large well docks) and sacrifices is made elsewhere.

A major fighting fleet comprising of the following would be achievable by 2035.

- 7 SSNs supported by a fleet of XLUUVs
- 2 CVFs each with 2 Squadrons of F35Bs and long range strike UAVs
- 6 T45s with BMD and TLAM
- 9 T26s (we need to squeeze another in)
- 3 flat top (LPDs) with LCACs as described

This would support two CEPP groups (UK based), three small littoral groups (LPD + T26, one forward based in Oman with an additional T45) and a T26 permanently operating in the North Atlantic (also cover TAPS).

Also operating in UK / NATO waters would be the two MRoSSs and MCM OSV.

To support UK / BOT EEZ patrols and diplomacy would be the following fleet.

- 3 T31s current light specification only (24 CAMM and NSM no MK41 VLS) covering FIPS, Eastern Med & Africa and FRE. Each crewed x1.5 to ensure a high availability.
- 5 B2 Rivers covering WIGS, 2 UK EEZ and 2 EoS like now.
- 6 new MHPCs based on the Triton class design (basically replacing the Hunts one for one)

The UK would withdraw from Kipion (to focus on a forward base in Oman). Two T31s would be sold to allies such as NZ, providing funds and crew so that the three LPDs can be RN manned (freeing up RFA to be able to properly man the 3 FSSs, 4 Tides, MRoSS and OSV).

@SW1 will chuckle given my proposal to use a T31 in the Falklands and in an ideal world I would have kept a OPV there (perhaps even a B3), but if there is a conflict it will hit multiple regions at once and this is probably the best spread of assets we have or already planned.

I would keep 3rd T31 with NSM, 24 CAMM, 8*MK 41 VLS for flexibility. So build 6* & 7* new T31 (built as-is as for RNZN) for light patrol Frigate to patrol 360° for Great Southern Ocean and up to RZ BOT's.

Cost (approx ) £1.5m - £1.6m ish.

[wargame_insomniac]

I would like to re-arrange the superstructure a bit fatter and shorter. This will enable second heli-pad at the bow, and make the hangar capable of 2 Merlin (or 1 Merlin + 4-6 UAVs, or 4 Wildcats).

What would be the advantage over a more traditional design such as a Vard 7 313 if a MALE STOL drone capability isn’t possible?

Nothing special, actually. Actually I think this design is a serious contender to Vard 7 313 .

One thing is that, it will all depend on smallish UAV operation dream, like Bayraktar TB2 (not truly MALE, a but smaller (and hence cheaper and numerous) ones). But also, any UAV with longer endurance/range MUST be happy with STOL or STOVL operation than VTOL operation (a.k.a. Harrier).

Presumbly more logistics based which IMO would fit great for WIGS.

[SW1]

I don’t understand the fascination with these small amphibious support ships other than an assumption it’s possible to do it on the cheap because we’ve spent all the money elsewhere and don’t know what to do now. Not sure how much the claim about drones making it so difficult for amphibious operations stands up either, it ignores just what was ranged against such forces in the Cold War the Soviets had more than 400 missile fast attack craft or motorised torpedo boats each carrying several surface to surface missiles it’s always been contested it’s seems just an excuse as they are by design reducing capability.

If they’re talking about a company or two of marines and special forces using these ships as a sea base to attack an objective or deep reconnaissance then it will needs more helicopter support with either drones or a/c providing screening for any operation. They will prob need a min 4 chinook or 8 merlin equivalents just to move the company and if landing craft are to be used then they will need to be very different to what’s used today to cover the distance and approach more urbanised coastlines as it will be a straight to the objective style operation.

If ships are sitting 50 miles off shore and the intention is not to move or build up the logistics or artillery ashore then the ships will need to be the asset providing logistics and the fire support which will probably need to be missile based to cover the ranges involved and cheap enough to use them in numbers. I personally don’t see them doing this realistically with a vessel smaller than HMS ocean with an attending escort and I don’t see anyone suggesting we start investing in these sort of capabilities at the scale required because too many other sacred cows would need to be defunded across the services to make it happen.

[donald_of_tokyo]

I don’t understand the fascination with these small amphibious support ships other than an assumption it’s possible to do it on the cheap because we’ve spent all the money elsewhere and don’t know what to do now. Not sure how much the claim about drones making it so difficult for amphibious operations stands up either, it ignores just what was ranged against such forces in the Cold War the Soviets had more than 400 missile fast attack craft or motorised torpedo boats each carrying several surface to surface missiles it’s always been contested it’s seems just an excuse as they are by design reducing capability.

If they’re talking about a company or two of marines and special forces using these ships as a sea base to attack an objective or deep reconnaissance then it will needs more helicopter support with either drones or a/c providing screening for any operation. They will prob need a min 4 chinook or 8 merlin equivalents just to move the company and if landing craft are to be used then they will need to be very different to what’s used today to cover the distance and approach more urbanised coastlines as it will be a straight to the objective style operation.

If ships are sitting 50 miles off shore and the intention is not to move or build up the logistics or artillery ashore then the ships will need to be the asset providing logistics and the fire support which will probably need to be missile based to cover the ranges involved and cheap enough to use them in numbers. I personally don’t see them doing this realistically with a vessel smaller than HMS ocean with an attending escort and I don’t see anyone suggesting we start investing in these sort of capabilities at the scale required because too many other sacred cows would need to be defunded across the services to make it happen.

Very good point, I agree.

The point is, amphibious operation handles variety of threat levels.

1: Against peer: I cannot imagine UK RM assaulting Russian shore in singleton.

1a: In this case, RN tasks will be, how to contribute in allied operations. 1st day assault? Logistic 2nd-line? There are many options, all kinds of vessels/aircrafts can contribute, if NOT in singleton. This part is worth discussing, for me.

2: Against mid-level nations: Are UK going to think how to assault nation such as Iran? Argentina? Brazil? (not talking about isolated island, but about their main-land). I personally think, this is also out of the scope if in singleton.

3: Against remote location of peer or mid-level nations: I think this includes Norway coast (against Russia), Falkland islands (against Argentina) etc. This is what shall be discussed. Also, even if it is "Norway coast (against Russia)", UK will not be alone (cannot be), so it is an operation among barrages of allied operations = allied force will be checking other theaters. This part is worth discussing, for me.

4: Against high-level terrorists/militia : Houthi rebels, Sierra Leone, etc. This part is worth discussing, for me.

5: More lower level insertion : Solomon islands, terrorists camps in Sahara etc. This part is worth discussing, for me.

So, capabilities to 1a, 3, 4, and 5 are all within the scope. And here, we can see very wide variety of threat levels.

For example, I think a vessel like NZ's MRV Canterbury can do "5" in singleton, and can be a big contribution in "4", "3" and "1a". Similarly, the MPSS discussed recently here can surely contribute here. On the other hand, hope for large LHD can be also there. As we know, the problem is, capability vs number (or cost).

"Drone threats" is in everywhere. Even item-5 will have some. How can RN handle it? But, the "drone threats" is also there in item-1a, 3, 4, in much more serious level (like those in Red Sea). As such, the defense level required to handle these wide-variety of "drone threats" can also have a wide-variety.

Also, anyway, cheap and slow logistic support is anyway needed in ALL 5 (or 6) theaters. So, MPSS is good to be discussed here, as I understand none is talking about using it only = must be combined with more capable something.

[Repulse]

I don’t understand the fascination with these small amphibious support ships other than an assumption it’s possible to do it on the cheap because we’ve spent all the money elsewhere and don’t know what to do now.

The MRSS doesn’t make any sense to me. It seems to have been a combination of the Littoral Strike Ship concept and the idea that we still need large logistics. Personally, I think the LSS has legs, but the logistics requirement should be handled by the FSS, even if it means a redesign to ensure it has a well dock for LCUs and equivalents.

Also, for the LSS small cheap flat-tops are relatively new and therefore there is bound to an excitement on how to use them. Yes, in the past there were small VSTOL carriers, but the options for projecting off board systems has exponentially grown. They shouldn’t be ignored completely, but ultimately you are right in that we have two immensely capable flattops already and should be focused on maximising them first.

[Repulse]

3: Against remote location of peer or mid-level nations: I think this includes Norway coast (against Russia), Falkland islands (against Argentina) etc. This is what shall be discussed. Also, even if it is "Norway coast (against Russia)", UK will not be alone (cannot be), so it is an operation among barrages of allied operations = allied force will be checking other theaters. This part is worth discussing, for me.

This needs to be split into an (a) and a (b).

(a) is Norway and the Nordic region more generally, these operations should be seen more for littoral manoeuvres and securing key points quickly. It can and should be conducted from a regional base, it’s not sailing a task force, and if it was it would take a hell of a lot more kit and years to get ready.

(b) is the protection and potentially recapture of UK BOTs / allied strategic locations. This is a task group scenario, requiring it to be self sufficient at long ranges from the UK. It requires a different solution to 3 (a).

Also, we need to be clear on scope. If we are focused purely on the FCF then it’s again a world away from FCF plus significant Army units. For the latter the Royal Logistics Corps needs to get its act together as part of making the army more mobile which will take funds, some of which will likely have to come from the RN/RFA.

[SW1]

I don’t understand the fascination with these small amphibious support ships other than an assumption it’s possible to do it on the cheap because we’ve spent all the money elsewhere and don’t know what to do now.

These small cheap flat-tops are relatively new and therefore there is bound to an excitement on how to use them. Yes, in the past there were small VSTOL carriers, but the options for projecting off board systems has exponentially grown. They shouldn’t be ignored completely, but ultimately you are right in that we have two immensely capable flattops already and should be focused on maximising them first.

If your proposing using the carrier 50 miles off the coast as an equivalent to an American lha great hopefully when there in dock they can start adding the boat bays and vehicle decks required

[Repulse]

I don’t understand the fascination with these small amphibious support ships other than an assumption it’s possible to do it on the cheap because we’ve spent all the money elsewhere and don’t know what to do now.

These small cheap flat-tops are relatively new and therefore there is bound to an excitement on how to use them. Yes, in the past there were small VSTOL carriers, but the options for projecting off board systems has exponentially grown. They shouldn’t be ignored completely, but ultimately you are right in that we have two immensely capable flattops already and should be focused on maximising them first.

If your proposing using the carrier 50 miles off the coast as an equivalent to an American lha great hopefully when there in dock they can start adding the boat bays and vehicle decks required

Not by themselves no, but a carrier and a large “LPD” plus using logistical capabilities with the task group could have the same effect and more. Adding on to what we have surely is the right answer. A third “LHA/LHD’ is also attractive but completely out of the question without funds, and even then only when other priority areas are properly funded first.

BTW - doesn’t impact your point, but I hit post too early on my comment and have gone back and fleshed it out a bit.

[SW1]

I don’t understand the fascination with these small amphibious support ships other than an assumption it’s possible to do it on the cheap because we’ve spent all the money elsewhere and don’t know what to do now.

These small cheap flat-tops are relatively new and therefore there is bound to an excitement on how to use them. Yes, in the past there were small VSTOL carriers, but the options for projecting off board systems has exponentially grown. They shouldn’t be ignored completely, but ultimately you are right in that we have two immensely capable flattops already and should be focused on maximising them first.

If your proposing using the carrier 50 miles off the coast as an equivalent to an American lha great hopefully when there in dock they can start adding the boat bays and vehicle decks required

Not by themselves no, but a carrier and a large “LPD” plus using logistical capabilities with the task group could have the same effect and more. Adding on to what we have surely is the right answer. A third “LHA/LHD’ is also attractive but completely out of the question without funds, and even then only when other priority areas are properly funded first.

BTW - doesn’t impact your point, but I hit post too early on my comment and have gone back and fleshed it out a bit.

You’re now adding extra ships because the big ship is in the wrong configuration. It defeats the purpose of needing the tri-phibious capability in more than one location or making it sustainable in location for longer than a couple of months.

The designs being discussed are far smaller than vstol carriers everwhere which is odd and the bud I don’t get.


In the talk of priorities against Russia and China then more things will need to go underwater because everything above it is now viewable and ballistic missiles defence for home and deployed forces because there is now a distinct possibility they could use tactical nuclear weapons as a graduation short of total war either to create an emp or remove a tactical grouping as was the case in the Cold War.

[Repulse]

You’re now adding extra ships because the big ship is in the wrong configuration. It defeats the purpose of needing the tri-phibious capability in more than one location or making it sustainable in location for longer than a couple of months.

Different view points again, I’m very happy we have flexible platforms rather than one trick ponies, capable of combining to have an effect that is not available outside of the USN, and possibly PLAN.

I would be keeping the three LSDs going for exactly this reason and look to change late 2030s.

The three FSSs will be flexible platforms capable of carrying significant and complex stores - no need to duplicate.

The designs being discussed are far smaller than vstol carriers everwhere.

Agreed, they are and cheaper also. There’s an opportunity for the future but these things should be in addition to the core that needs to be sorted and funded first.

I would however, dig out the original lease and contractor operated LSS concept as a permanent EoS presence. That with the LSDs and a smaller tailored platforms for the RM Nordic requirement gives what we need currently, until funds allow the UK to have a bigger ambition.

In the talk of priorities against Russia and China then more things will need to go underwater because everything above it is now viewable and ballistic missiles defence for home and deployed forces because there is now a distinct possibility they could use tactical nuclear weapons as a graduation short of total war either to create an emp or remove a tactical grouping as was the case in the Cold War.

Absolutely, larger amphibious assault submarines

Joking aside I do agree with you which is why I think we don’t need to spend a lot to get a capable and coherent force (albeit more limited that the 90s vision), so we can remain at the leading edge of this offering qualitative and unique capabilities above mass.

[Poiuytrewq]

A third “LHA/LHD’ is also attractive but completely out of the question without funds, and even then only when other priority areas are properly funded first.

So what will this extra funding provide?

Lots of commentators insisting that more money is required but I have so far seen no one put together a rational plan as to how that extra funding would be spent with even ballpark figures.

If the DS gets the 2.5% of GDP he is now insisting on that amounts to roughly £100bn over the next decade.

Where is the plan to spend an uplift like that in a responsible and cost efficient way?

[SW1]

A third “LHA/LHD’ is also attractive but completely out of the question without funds, and even then only when other priority areas are properly funded first.

So what will this extra funding provide?

Lots of commentators insisting that more money is required but I have so far seen no one put together a rational plan as to how that extra funding would be spent with even ballpark figures.

If the DS gets the 2.5% of GDP he is now insisting on that amounts to roughly £100bn over the next decade.

Where is the plan to spend an uplift like that in a responsible and cost efficient way?

If the defence gets 2.5% of gdp is simply funds the current program nothing more.