Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

[Poiuytrewq]

….I don't think UK will order 4 LHP/LHD, even 1 would be a miracle.

IMO there are two ways forward here.

1. Build a single large 40,000t LHD to replace the Albions. Add a 12x F35 capability to enable a LHA role and rotate with the 2x CVFs ensuring permanent F35 availability. Clearly the current setup can’t deliver that and when QE goes into deep refit it’s just going to become more obvious. Carry on with 4x MRSS as planned.

2. Build 2x Juan Carlos LHD virtually unaltered (similar principle as T31) with the Navantia/BMT/H&W consortium to replace the Albions. Add F35 capability to the LHDs. Operate 1x CVF and 1x LHD as LHA at high readiness with second hulls minimally crewed. Rotate every 4-6 months. Replace current amphibs and auxiliaries with similar vessels. The 3x Bays replaced by 3 new Enforcers and construct 2x BMT AEGIR platform joint support vessels with maximised hospital facilities to replace Argus and the Waves. IMO this is the best way for RN to retain both CVFs over the longer term. The construction costs will be high but the operating costs will be manageable over the longer term.

Apart from securing the carriers Option 2 also gives RN the ability to upscale very rapidly to 2x CSGs and 2x independent ARGs if the security landscape ever deteriorated to the extent that it was required. A huge strategic plus for the U.K. and NATO.

Perhaps Option 1 is very crudely the 2.5% GDP version and Option 2 is the 3% GDP version. Regardless, unless a continued policy of managed decline is preferable then something along these lines is worthy of consideration IMO.

[Tempest414]

... 3 could be ready at any time ..

Having 3 out of 4 at any time will be really challenging. Maybe at some point could happen but on consistent rate highly unlikely.

It also has been said somewhere that the RM could go with 4 x LSU's of 500 instead of 8 x 250

Total number of personal could easily reach 500 but not from one Commando unit. Both LRU are supposed to have 250 marine from either 40 or 45 Commando on rotation, basically almost a half battalion (one commando is not able to provide two 500 strong LSU as total number of men in one if just over 600). To this base force other units could/will be attached, like detachments from The Commando Logistic Regiment, 30 Commando Information Exploitation Group, 24 Commando Royal Engineers and 29 Commando Royal Artillery. The South LRG will also have some 50 Dutch marines attached, not sure if temporary or permanently.

Yes the early thinking was that a LSU would be made up of one Company from 40 or 45 Cdo plus others form supporting units making 250 as I said I think I saw somewhere not long back this has changed to two companies plus support from other units making the LSU 500 now

[Tempest414]

It also has been said somewhere that the RM could go with 4 x LSU's of 500 instead of 8 x 250

can you point me to that, please? *curious*

As I said can't remember where I saw this but this talks about LRG-N using 2 companies plus support making LRG-N's LSU 400 strong

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-l ... c-response

[new guy]

1) So if in a combined group why would it matter if each individual platform is does not accel in any particular area if the total is the same?

2) We don't have enough carriers to do continuous CSG ops so your solution is to use those vessels as a back up for your fragile amphibious strategy?

3) So your answer is No, FSS isn't designed for FSS stores. WDYM FSS design hasn't been confirmed yet?? Are you serious?

1) Absolutely it would - there is zero chance of operating all six MRSS, and the sum of the total would still be less in aviation capabilities, and cost a hell of a lot more

2) We are lucky enough in that yes absolutely we can do continuous carrier CSG Ops, adding another flat-top makes it a realistic option to have two large flattops in a single CSG.

3) Show me the specifications that have been finalised ready for build.

1) Cost a hell of a lot more, but you ask for a new 1 of 1 QE class sized vessel with capacity for vehicles and marines for less than what a QE carrier cost? Not like we have enough helicopters for it anyways...

2) You are utterly delusional if you think we can have 2 ships of 3 constantly n deployed

3) It's not suddenly become a Ro-Ro. You are again delusional.

[new guy]

Ah yes 3 ships of which 2 will be deployed. Very realistic.

No LPDs and no LSDs - yes, realistic.

?

[Repulse]

1) Cost a hell of a lot more, but you ask for a new 1 of 1 QE class sized vessel with capacity for vehicles and marines for less than what a QE carrier cost? Not like we have enough helicopters for it anyways...

2) You are utterly delusional if you think we can have 2 ships of 3 constantly n deployed

3) It's not suddenly become a Ro-Ro. You are again delusional.

1) If you include Army helicopters there are more than enough.

2) I never said constantly did I go back and read again.

3) Glad you admit you can’t answer my question on the final FSS design even given your abuse. No it’s not a Ro-Ro but neither is a LSD, that’s what the Points are for.

[Repulse]

Ah yes 3 ships of which 2 will be deployed. Very realistic.

No LPDs and no LSDs - yes, realistic.

?

?

[new guy]

?

No LPDs and no LSDs - yes, realistic.

what are you saying here?

[new guy]

1) Cost a hell of a lot more, but you ask for a new 1 of 1 QE class sized vessel with capacity for vehicles and marines for less than what a QE carrier cost? Not like we have enough helicopters for it anyways...

2) You are utterly delusional if you think we can have 2 ships of 3 constantly n deployed

3) It's not suddenly become a Ro-Ro. You are again delusional.

1) If you include Army helicopters there are more than enough.

2) I never said constantly did I go back and read again.

3) Glad you admit you can’t answer my question on the final FSS design even given your abuse. No it’s not a Ro-Ro but neither is a LSD, that’s what the Points are for.

1) What about marines? Army helicopters that take up 3x hanger capacity? what about the fact that your vision costs more?

2) What you said:

2) We are lucky enough in that yes absolutely we can do continuous carrier CSG Ops, adding another flat-top makes it a realistic option to have two large flattops in a single CSG.

With QE/PoW + a large LPH two would be able to deployed at any time.

Sounds a hell a lot like you said constantly.
I suggest you go back and read your own writing again.

3) LSD's, LHD's, LPD's are all literally designed for vehicles. Embarking them, deploying them, accommodating them. FSS is designed for Stores. Embarking them, accommodating them, deploying them. Not Vehicles. Not marines.

BMT has created around 800 individual design artefacts so far, some developed during the competition. In July 2023 the project reached what is termed the “design chill” milestone where the ship’s general arrangement is fixed.

https://www.navylookout.com/refining-th ... ip-design/

Very early concepts for FSS included a vehicle deck, stern ramp and ‘steel beach’ for offloading cargo into landing craft which were carried in davits. Ambitious aspirations for amphibious capability disappeared from the requirement long before the first FSS competition began

https://www.navylookout.com/in-focus-th ... ip-design/

[SW1]

... 3 could be ready at any time ..

Having 3 out of 4 at any time will be really challenging. Maybe at some point could happen but on consistent rate highly unlikely.

It also has been said somewhere that the RM could go with 4 x LSU's of 500 instead of 8 x 250

Total number of personal could easily reach 500 but not from one Commando unit. Both LRU are supposed to have 250 marine from either 40 or 45 Commando on rotation, basically almost a half battalion (one commando is not able to provide two 500 strong LSU as total number of men in one if just over 600). To this base force other units could/will be attached, like detachments from The Commando Logistic Regiment, 30 Commando Information Exploitation Group, 24 Commando Royal Engineers and 29 Commando Royal Artillery. The South LRG will also have some 50 Dutch marines attached, not sure if temporary or permanently.

Yes the early thinking was that a LSU would be made up of one Company from 40 or 45 Cdo plus others form supporting units making 250 as I said I think I saw somewhere not long back this has changed to two companies plus support from other units making the LSU 500 now

It was probably from this RUSI paper

https://static.rusi.org/amphibious-futu ... n-2024.pdf

[SW1]

They should bought the Russian mistrals off the French and replaced the LPDs. In fact if they want to go that way license build 2 mistrals now.

But to resource 3 commando properly requires considerable investment Royal Navy leadership aren’t interested in doing that and I doubt any of the other commands are either.

In my opinion 3 commando and 16 air assault should be priority investment and all there enablers with them operating under a divisional command element and the special forces attached a uk equivalent to the troupes de marine.

[Repulse]

1) What about marines? Army helicopters that take up 3x hanger capacity? what about the fact that your vision costs more?

What is it not enough helicopters or that they take up more space - there is a reason why the QE class is big.

My vision costs more than what? I appreciate it is unlikely given the current lack of strategy, but if the UK wanted to be a world leader in the ability to assault over the horizon whilst accepting that the cost is traditional LPDs/LSDs/LHDs then a single commercial cut cost QE is affordable after all there is little hope that the alternative collection of vessels will be less than £2bn.

2) What you said:

2) We are lucky enough in that yes absolutely we can do continuous carrier CSG Ops, adding another flat-top makes it a realistic option to have two large flattops in a single CSG.

With QE/PoW + a large LPH two would be able to deployed at any time.

Sounds a hell a lot like you said constantly.
I suggest you go back and read your own writing again.

Ok, i missed the “be” in “able to be deployed”, able to be deployed is the ability to surge two flat-tops which is not possible 100% of the time when you’ve only got two.

3) LSD's, LHD's, LPD's are all literally designed for vehicles. Embarking them, deploying them, accommodating them. FSS is designed for Stores. Embarking them, accommodating them, deploying them. Not Vehicles. Not marines.

I never said that it would carry Vehicles, in fact I specifically pointed that out. As for Marines, how do you know? The Fort IIs carried RMs, for example in 2011 Fort Victoria carried 80 RMs off Yemen.

BMT has created around 800 individual design artefacts so far…

Thanks for confirming that the design is not yet fixed.

[sol]

But to resource 3 commando properly requires considerable investment Royal Navy leadership aren’t interested in doing ...

Interested?

New Entries into the Shipbuilding Pipeline (Royal Navy):

Projects Included: Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance ships, Type 32 Frigates, Multi-Role Support Ships, Type 83 destroyers, Future Air Dominance System.
Financial Shortfall: Costs are £5.9 billion higher than current budgets.

In-Service Extension of RFA Argus (Royal Navy):

Implementation: Extension of the primary casualty receiving ship is underway.
Budget Issue: No additional budget was received for this extension.

Mine Hunting Capability (Royal Navy):

Plan Inclusion: Second phase included in the Plan.
Funding Shortfall: No additional budget for this phase; additional funds sought for Hunt Class vessels until new capability is operational.

Future Commando (Royal Navy):

Modernisation Funding: £0.7 billion required for Royal Marines modernisation to enable operations from the sea in high-threat environments.
Budget Exclusion: This funding has not been included in the Plan.

There is just not enough money for even the basic things, not just Royal Marines.

1. Build a single large 40,000t LHD to replace the Albions. Add a 12x F35 capability to enable a LHA role and rotate with the 2x CVFs ensuring permanent F35 availability. Clearly the current setup can’t deliver that and when QE goes into deep refit it’s just going to become more obvious. Carry on with 4x MRSS as planned.

2. Build 2x Juan Carlos LHD virtually unaltered (similar principle as T31) with the Navantia/BMT/H&W consortium to replace the Albions. Add F35 capability to the LHDs. Operate 1x CVF and 1x LHD as LHA at high readiness with second hulls minimally crewed. Rotate every 4-6 months. Replace current amphibs and auxiliaries with similar vessels. The 3x Bays replaced by 3 new Enforcers and construct 2x BMT AEGIR platform joint support vessels with maximised hospital facilities to replace Argus and the Waves. IMO this is the best way for RN to retain both CVFs over the longer term. The construction costs will be high but the operating costs will be manageable over the longer term.

There is no chance for either of those options, UK simply could not currently afford one 40k or two Juan Carlos LHD large enough to operate F-35B. It does not need them as there are already two carriers to provide air cover and support. Priority would probably be to get a 3rd Squadron of F-35B so that at least one of carriers could operate at full capacity while there are some planes for the second one.

Maybe (big maybe) some "smaller" LHD like Mistral or Dokdo (well not really a small ships but still cheaper than Juan Carlos), could be considered. Still even for those I doubt there will be enough money and RN would probably have to look into some cheaper solutions. It is nice to dream what is a point arguing for things that could never be afforded.

[new guy]

What is it not enough helicopters or that they take up more space

If FAA, not enough to justify LPH.
If RAF/AAC, aircraft have to big footprint to fit many on LPH to justify size of LPH.

cost QE is affordable after all there is little hope that the alternative collection of vessels will be less than £2bn.

Your vision is at least 3bn. 6x MRSS? Probably £2-3bn

2) What you said:

2) We are lucky enough in that yes absolutely we can do continuous carrier CSG Ops, adding another flat-top makes it a realistic option to have two large flattops in a single CSG.

With QE/PoW + a large LPH two would be able to deployed at any time.

Sounds a hell a lot like you said constantly.
I suggest you go back and read your own writing again.

Ok, i missed the “be” in “able to be deployed”, able to be deployed is the ability to surge two flat-tops which is not possible 100% of the time when you’ve only got two.

Sorry, miss-bolded the text. look bellow for better clarity:

2) What you said:

2) We are lucky enough in that yes absolutely we can do continuous carrier CSG Ops, adding another flat-top makes it a realistic option to have two large flattops in a single CSG.

With QE/PoW + a large LPH two would be able to deployed at any time.

Sounds a hell a lot like you said constantly.

I never said that it would carry Vehicles

Really?

3) The stores the FSS carries are quite different to those an amphibious operation would carry no?

3) in terms of munitions, food, fuel no. Vehicles, artillery, etc perhaps, but the design hasn’t been confirmed as yet.

Seems an awful bit like you said vehicles.
Talking about the design not being confirmed yet...

BMT has created around 800 individual design artefacts so far…

Thanks for confirming that the design is not yet fixed.

If you actually bothered to read more then half a sentence, then you would see:

BMT has created around 800 individual design artefacts so far, some developed during the competition. In July 2023 the project reached what is termed the “design chill” milestone where the ship’s general arrangement is fixed.

https://www.navylookout.com/refining-th ... ip-design/

[Repulse]

If FAA, not enough to justify LPH.
If RAF/AAC, aircraft have to big footprint to fit many on LPH to justify size of LPH.
…
Your vision is at least 3bn. 6x MRSS? Probably £2-3bn

The UK needs to think about platforms to operate all of its assets, Chinooks are a large part of the country’s lift capability, why would we narrow things down to a few specialised platforms.

The costs are speculative - but both are in the same ballpark.

With QE/PoW + a large LPH two would be able to deployed at any time.

Sounds a hell a lot like you said constantly.

Yes a 100% ability to surge two in a single CSG.

I never said that it would carry Vehicles

Really?

Yes, really

3) in terms of munitions, food, fuel no. Vehicles, artillery, etc perhaps, but the design hasn’t been confirmed as yet.

If you actually bothered to read more then half a sentence, then you would see:

BMT has created around 800 individual design artefacts so far, some developed during the competition. In July 2023 the project reached what is termed the “design chill” milestone where the ship’s general arrangement is fixed.

General Arrangement is not the same as a finalised design - no well dock / steel ramp absolutely, but I’ve seen nothing in terms of heavy lift and the limitations of delivering stores by boats I’ve seen no details - have you?

[new guy]

….I don't think UK will order 4 LHP/LHD, even 1 would be a miracle.

IMO there are two ways forward here.

1. Build a single large 40,000t LHD to replace the Albions. Add a 12x F35 capability to enable a LHA role and rotate with the 2x CVFs ensuring permanent F35 availability. Clearly the current setup can’t deliver that and when QE goes into deep refit it’s just going to become more obvious. Carry on with 4x MRSS as planned.

2. Build 2x Juan Carlos LHD virtually unaltered (similar principle as T31) with the Navantia/BMT/H&W consortium to replace the Albions. Add F35 capability to the LHDs. Operate 1x CVF and 1x LHD as LHA at high readiness with second hulls minimally crewed. Rotate every 4-6 months. Replace current amphibs and auxiliaries with similar vessels. The 3x Bays replaced by 3 new Enforcers and construct 2x BMT AEGIR platform joint support vessels with maximised hospital facilities to replace Argus and the Waves. IMO this is the best way for RN to retain both CVFs over the longer term. The construction costs will be high but the operating costs will be manageable over the longer term.

Apart from securing the carriers Option 2 also gives RN the ability to upscale very rapidly to 2x CSGs and 2x independent ARGs if the security landscape ever deteriorated to the extent that it was required. A huge strategic plus for the U.K. and NATO.

Perhaps Option 1 is very crudely the 2.5% GDP version and Option 2 is the 3% GDP version. Regardless, unless a continued policy of managed decline is preferable then something along these lines is worthy of consideration IMO.

1)

Build a single large 40,000t LHD to replace the Albions.

this alone would take up the whole MRSS budget.

2)

Add a 12x F35

Like we have enough squadrons for the carriers & RAF ops as is or even with Batch 2.
Furthermore, it is to

capability to enable a LHA role and rotate with the 2x CVFs

then why do you need a new dedicated squadron for your LHD?

3) Same for Juan Carlos ; whold take up the whole MRSS budget.

4) The waves don't need to be replaced; They need to be crewed. Though after the end of MRSS if they were normally used it would be there time, they have a lot of unused life.

5) worst way to keep the carriers; You want to have two vessels that Ministers can point at as a reason to cut the CVF's.

[Poiuytrewq]

There is no chance for either of those options, UK simply could not currently afford one 40k or two Juan Carlos LHD large enough to operate F-35B. It does not need them as there are already two carriers to provide air cover and support. Priority would probably be to get a 3rd Squadron of F-35B so that at least one of carriers could operate at full capacity while there are some planes for the second one.

Maybe (big maybe) some "smaller" LHD like Mistral or Dokdo (well not really a small ships but still cheaper than Juan Carlos), could be considered. Still even for those I doubt there will be enough money and RN would probably have to look into some cheaper solutions. It is nice to dream what is a point arguing for things that could never be afforded.

Thanks.

A few things to consider.

• RN is currently trying to operate 2x CVFs and a LPD simultaneously. That is around 1800 of core crew rising to over 3500 if both CVFs are operating at a high tempo concurrently. This increasingly looks unsustainable unless both funding and the headcount is increased.

• Both CVFs are rountinely operating as LHAs with limited F35 availability. Operating 8x F35 does not require a CVF.

• Availability of operating only 2x F35 capable flattops is 30% to 65% depending on maintenance cycles. Considering the amount of funding that has been shovelled into the CSG strategy that simply isn’t good enough. Recent issues continue to prove that RN is a flattop short.

• Operating 1x CVF and 1x LHD as a LHA would save RN a huge amount over the coming decades. The core crew allocations would reduce from around 1800 core (2x CVF, 1x LPD) to around 1100 (1x CVF, 1x LHD).

• What could RN achieve with the 700 spare crew? If 300 were retained as maintenance crews on the lower readiness CVF and LHD the remaining 400 could operate 4x active T31/T32 or 3x MRSS.

Clearly the funding for any number of LHDs doesn’t exist but the funding for the MRSS and T32 doesn’t currently exist either. Although the initial procurement costs would be steep the lower operating costs thereafter would make the options worthy of consideration if 2.5% GDP or higher is eventually approved.

The 6x MRSS, FCF and LRG proposals were all formulated pre February 2022. IMO the entire strategic direction of travel now needs a complete reassessment to establish what the requirements are going to be going forward.

[Repulse]

Absolutely - I’m less fussed with a LHD, but as long as it has a large enough flight deck, and we don’t get over excited by the well dock then we are talking about minor details.

Rather than continuing to increasingly spread thin our investment in an incoherent/ ineffective capability we should double down on what we have. Yes, it means hard decisions, but if they are not made (3% GDP or not) then the forces will continue in this death spiral.

@SW1 mentioned joining up the majority of the RMs, Paras and SFs under a single structure. Focusing all this on airborne enabled operations as our core global expeditionary force, either operating from sovereign land bases or carriers makes a complete sense. Ensuring common platforms (Chinooks, Apaches, Medium Helicopters, light vehicles etc) makes it both scalable and affordable.

Having the ability to draw upon and rotate three large platforms is key to this, making the UK a lead in airborne operations. One small or even medium LHA/LHD/LPH wouldn’t support this, more than one wouldn’t be supportable.

Lastly, we have to move on from worrying about the Treasury mistaking ships - it’s never been this it’s been about saving money from unaffordable ambitions finding cracks in a coherent strategy between the three services. Make it affordable and coherent and then the rest you can’t worry about.

[sol]

• RN is currently trying to operate 2x CVFs and a LPD simultaneously. That is around 1800 of core crew rising to over 3500 if both CVFs are operating at a high tempo concurrently.

I don't think it is a plan to operate 2 x CV simultaneously, but operate one while second is in maintenance/modernization process. Thing is both ships are relatively new so both are mostly available at this time but with their age this will probably change. And of course it will operate LPD at the same time as they have different role than CVs.

This increasingly looks unsustainable unless both funding and the headcount is increased.

Which is an issue with the whole navy, not just CVs and LPDs, but also announced potential increase in escort ships to 24 in total.

Both CVFs are rountinely operating as LHAs with limited F35 availability. Operating 8x F35 does not require a CVF.

Which is understandable. UK does not have resources of the US, their ship should cover more tasks. And limited availability of F-35 is not by design, but due delays in deliveries. And insufficient order as so far only 48 are ordered. Sure there is a talk about ordering more but until that happen, 47 is what FAA will have for sure. Once all of them are delivered, CV will probably operate between 12 and 24 depending on mission. If more F-35 are ordered that we might see 24 more common but it is a long way to get there.

Operating 1x CVF and 1x LHD as a LHA would save RN a huge amount over the coming decades. The core crew allocations would reduce from around 1800 core (2x CVF, 1x LPD) to around 1100 (1x CVF, 1x LHD).

Not sure about that as UK have two LSGs not one. So it would still require amphibious ships for them. LHD could cover one group, but you still need ships for second one, so you will still need both 2 LHD (so that 1 can be always available), and at least 2 large or 3 to 4 smaller LPDs to cover both group. So where is a money for all of this. And you might argue that you would organise RM differently but again it is just wishful talking and not taking into account current situation. And current situation is that there are two LSGs are both need ships.

Clearly the funding for any number of LHDs doesn’t exist but the funding for the MRSS and T32 doesn’t currently exist either. Although the initial procurement costs would be steep the lower operating costs thereafter would make the options worthy of consideration if 2.5% GDP or higher is eventually approved.

And there you get to the main issue. Listen I am not arguing that RN could benefit from having one or two LHD, I am arguing that there is no money for that in current budget. If there is indication that budget will significantly increase than go for it, I don't mind. But until then, it is hard to how RN can afford LHD, especially one large enough to operate F-35. It is pointless do discus operating cost if there is no budget to go over the first step - getting a ship.

[Tempest414]

They should bought the Russian mistrals off the French and replaced the LPDs. In fact if they want to go that way license build 2 mistrals now.

But to resource 3 commando properly requires considerable investment Royal Navy leadership aren’t interested in doing that and I doubt any of the other commands are either.

In my opinion 3 commando and 16 air assault should be priority investment and all there enablers with them operating under a divisional command element and the special forces attached a uk equivalent to the troupes de marine.

Just to be clear on this the RM are getting new kit the list below is from late 2020 to early 24

60 new Vikings = 140 million funded
New MRZR-D4 = ? funded
Jackal ?
New KS-1 Rifles funded
New CIC = 200 million funded
ORC to CRC upgrade funded

[SW1]

They should bought the Russian mistrals off the French and replaced the LPDs. In fact if they want to go that way license build 2 mistrals now.

But to resource 3 commando properly requires considerable investment Royal Navy leadership aren’t interested in doing that and I doubt any of the other commands are either.

In my opinion 3 commando and 16 air assault should be priority investment and all there enablers with them operating under a divisional command element and the special forces attached a uk equivalent to the troupes de marine.

Just to be clear on this the RM are getting new kit the list below is from late 2020 to early 24

60 new Vikings = 140 million funded
New MRZR-D4 = ? funded
Jackal ?
New KS-1 Rifles funded
New CIC = 200 million funded
ORC to CRC upgrade funded

Just the new ships, helicopters, unmanned systems, precision deep fires and new ship to shore connectors to go then to make the whole thing work…

[SW1]

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/hms-bul ... ss-needed/

[Tempest414]

They should bought the Russian mistrals off the French and replaced the LPDs. In fact if they want to go that way license build 2 mistrals now.

But to resource 3 commando properly requires considerable investment Royal Navy leadership aren’t interested in doing that and I doubt any of the other commands are either.

In my opinion 3 commando and 16 air assault should be priority investment and all there enablers with them operating under a divisional command element and the special forces attached a uk equivalent to the troupes de marine.

Just to be clear on this the RM are getting new kit the list below is from late 2020 to early 24

60 new Vikings = 140 million funded
New MRZR-D4 = ? funded
Jackal ?
New KS-1 Rifles funded
New CIC = 200 million funded
ORC to CRC upgrade funded

Just the new ships, helicopters, unmanned systems, precision deep fires and new ship to shore connectors to go then to make the whole thing work…

Well again to be clear they have just got Merlin HC4 and Wildcat AH1 they have small UAV's and Loitor weapons , deep fires will come from the army but the navy is getting NSM and 127mm. Also as listed above CIC is funded to replace LCVP also MRSS is in the pipeline so the only thing outstanding is a new LCU replacement however PACSCAT was build and tested 10 years ago or we could go for Caimen-90 or LCAC

Also need to 22 Malloy T150 heavy lift quadcopter ordered in Feb this year

[Poiuytrewq]

…there you get to the main issue.

The funding issue is the same for all of current planning. As said, even the MRSS and T32 require an increase to 2.5% GDP to become reality.

My main point is to suggest that a complete reassessment is made (as part of SDSR25) to ensure that current planning is still relevant post Feb22. The security landscape is very different now so will the requirements change?

If the requirements change and the 2.5% becomes the new normal are the MRSS and T32 programs in conjunction with 2x active CVFs really the priority for the UK? If they are why is the rest of the world not following?

IMO the T32 and MRSS programs will cost around £5bn combined.

- 5x T32 @ £500m unit for £2.5n (including GFE)
- 6x MRSS @ £400m unit for £2.4bn

How could that funding be used to balance the fleet and alleviate the headcount crisis?

IMO much more can be achieved without stepping outside that fiscal envelope and staying inside the current headcount restrictions.

- Build 2x LHD @ £1bn unit for £2bn
- Build 4x small LPD such as Damen Enforcer 14428 @ £300m unit for £1.2bn
- Build 2x BMT AEGIR Joint Logistics Vessels @£300m unit for £600m
- Build 3x additional T31 @ £400m unit for £1.2bn

Total: £5bn.

• The Albions and Ocean are replaced by 2x LHDs
• The 3x Bays and Argus are replaced by 4x much smaller but highly capable Enforcer 14428.
• The Waves are replaced by 2x BMT AEGIR derived Joint Logistics Vessels which also take on the medical requirement from Argus.
• Another 3x T31 are added to result in 8x T31.

By moving to a one CVF and one LHD at high readiness setup RN also solves the headcount issue instantly. The released RN manpower fully crews the MRSS and extra T31s. The RFA and RN crew from Argus split equally to the AEGIR JLVs. The released RFA crews from the Bays can transfer to the FSS and Tides. Headcount problems largely solved.

The result would be a massive increase in both capability and availability. RN would have two LRGs comprised of a 14428 and AEGIR JLV. The 3rd 14428 could concentrate on the Caribbean with the 4th in reserve/refit.

The high readiness LHD could act as a UK based ARG able to support either LRG rapidly when required. The high readiness CVF could concentrate on forming a CSG as required. The 3x FSS and 4x Tides (all fully crewed with manpower moved across from the Bays) could support the CSG/ARG.

With 16x Frigates and 6x Destroyers in the water RN could move on to prioritise an increase in SSN numbers alongside the introduction of MALE STOL drones and a fully functioning RM.

[sol]

The funding issue is the same for all of current planning. As said, even the MRSS and T32 require an increase to 2.5% GDP to become reality.

So .... there is no money unless budget increase. That is a main issue with T32 or MRSS, where to get money from. This projects are far from certain and some of them could be canceled or reduced. We can't know for certain so we can't take they "budget" into consideration like it will happen for sure.

IMO the T32 and MRSS programs will cost around £5bn combined.

- 5x T32 @ £500m unit for £2.5n (including GFE)
- 6x MRSS @ £400m unit for £2.4bn


- Build 2x LHD @ £1bn unit for £2bn
- Build 4x small LPD such as Damen Enforcer 14428 @ £300m unit for £1.2bn
- Build 2x BMT AEGIR Joint Logistics Vessels @£300m unit for £600m
- Build 3x additional T31 @ £400m unit for £1.2bn

Total: £5bn.

Again these are your estimations which could be way of mark. £1bn might or might not be enough for and LHD big enough to operate F-35. IMO probably would not be. It is not easy to get correct estimation based on previous projects, as prices jumped quite drastically in last two years and would certainly grow in the future when order would be expected. Some recent like Canberra class (which can't operate F-35), Izumo class (which can operate only after upgrade which is not included in the original price) or Trieste are around £1bn or even higher, America class in almost $3.4bn. So construction of two large LHD for RN in next 5 to 10 years could easily go way over £2bn or even reach £3bn. I mean how could we know. So using simplistic estimations like this as argument is pointless.

Anyway this is just spending money which are not available, and if less is available something would need to be cut. My guess would be the most expensive ships as I don't think getting two large LHD would be priority for the RN, especially as long as there are two CVs available to provide air component of the mission.

Again I am not against LHD, but let's face it, it will be really hard to find money for those ships and all they require to operate. And unless some other orders happen, for example if more F-35B fails to materialize (again if there is no money for it), you are getting a ship which would provide significantly less value for the money spent on them and could easily be considered as a failure.

Even if RN decide that they need LHD, "smaller" options, like Mistral or Dokdo would be more affordable and more realistic options to happen.