Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

[james k]

If one LPD has to go then it might be an opportunity for Canada but if both go it will be catastrophic for the UK.

[shark bait]

That US Mobile Landing Platform has to be the most pointless waste of money that any navy has indulged itself in, ever.

Really? It takes an exiting concept practiced by both the US Navy and the US Army and makes it way more effective. It enables cheap merchant vessels to deliver mass without port infrastructure, making the supporting logistics way more efficient. We see as soon as a facility that can accept merchant vessels is established the through put of an operation sky rockets. A MLP can achieve that on day 2.

What is more it doubles up as a sea base and aviation training, role that are in demand in the UK and US.

[PAUL MARSAY]

If we are unlikely to ever conduct another over the beach landing do we need over the beach landing ships ?

[shark bait]

The UK armed forces are likely to be on operations where use of a port or airfield is not immediately available. The forces need methods of projecting force on shore without established infrastructure.

It is safe to say the Marines wont be storming an occupied beach, but that's not to say they wont be operating over an empty beach.

[donald_of_tokyo]

I think you need. I can also not foresee RN need 2nd CVTF = need continuous CVTF deployed, as "less" as I can not foresee RN LPDs landing against a beach.

Having 2nd CV is "nice", but never MUST. You can collaborate with USA and French, in most cases.
Having 19 escorts is "nice", but never MUST. You can ask for NATO frigates to support you in most cases.
Lacking landing ship is "not good", because I cannot foresee NATO LPDs landing on UK territories for fight.

Here, I guess you are proposing to disband not only Albions but also Bays. "If 3 Bays is enough as the minimum landing ships fleet", is another issue.

[shark bait]

One carrier is as good as none. Two is a must, three would be nice.

[RetroSicotte]

I think you need. I can also not foresee RN need 2nd CVTF = need continuous CVTF deployed, as "less" as I can not foresee RN LPDs landing against a beach.

Having 2nd CV is "nice", but never MUST. You can collaborate with USA and French, in most cases.
Having 19 escorts is "nice", but never MUST. You can ask for NATO frigates to support you in most cases.
Lacking landing ship is "not good", because I cannot foresee NATO LPDs landing on UK territories for fight.

Here, I guess you are proposing to disband not only Albions but also Bays. "If 3 Bays is enough as the minimum landing ships fleet", is another issue.

The moment "you can ask others..." enters the discussion, then that's an outright admission that there isn't enough.

[Jake1992]

I think you need. I can also not foresee RN need 2nd CVTF = need continuous CVTF deployed, as "less" as I can not foresee RN LPDs landing against a beach.

Having 2nd CV is "nice", but never MUST. You can collaborate with USA and French, in most cases.
Having 19 escorts is "nice", but never MUST. You can ask for NATO frigates to support you in most cases.
Lacking landing ship is "not good", because I cannot foresee NATO LPDs landing on UK territories for fight.

Here, I guess you are proposing to disband not only Albions but also Bays. "If 3 Bays is enough as the minimum landing ships fleet", is another issue.

What your surgesting there then is for us to be wholly dependent on other nations. By saying we can ask the French or the US or NATO it means we vastly restict our selfs to what we can do, all it takes is for ours needs to not coincide with those that we are asking and the whole plan is off.

We need to be completly self capable and secondly interoperable with ally's.

We have 14 over sea territories and dependencies that reli on us to defend them, now we have no right to call our selfs their sovereign if we can not do that independently

[serge750]

Repulse quote

Suspect it's the usual well announce 2 to be cut and then they'll be relief when it's only one. What losses me off is the belief it's the RNs fault - it was the government pouring funds into land based forces in the early 2000s that did this mess and a complete lack of understanding how we trade and our geographical position aka Sea Blindness.[/quote]

Your probably right, I really hope that since the QEC should last 50yrs or so that when the type 26/31 production are starting to come into play that by the early 2030's that leaves room for a LHD (mistral or larger please) to be built, 2 x QEC + 1 x LHD seems good to have ...trying to be optimistic !!!

[donald_of_tokyo]

Having 2nd CV is "nice", but never MUST. You can collaborate with USA and French, in most cases.
Having 19 escorts is "nice", but never MUST. You can ask for NATO frigates to support you in most cases.
Lacking landing ship is "not good", because I cannot foresee NATO LPDs landing on UK territories for fight.
Here, I guess you are proposing to disband not only Albions but also Bays. "If 3 Bays is enough as the minimum landing ships fleet", is another issue.

The moment "you can ask others..." enters the discussion, then that's an outright admission that there isn't enough.

What your surgesting there then is for us to be wholly dependent on other nations. By saying we can ask the French or the US or NATO it means we vastly restict our selfs to what we can do, all it takes is for ours needs to not coincide with those that we are asking and the whole plan is off.
We need to be completly self capable and secondly interoperable with ally's.
We have 14 over sea territories and dependencies that reli on us to defend them, now we have no right to call our selfs their sovereign if we can not do that independently

One carrier is as good as none. Two is a must, three would be nice.

I all agree to you, but we are forced to select one of them. And that is why I think it is better to disband 10% of escort fleet (2 T23GP) than disbanding 1+1 LPDs, without replacement, which is ditching 80% of the "assault" part of the landing fleet, (while with 3 Bays and 4 Points logistic part still remains only 10-20% cut).

Disbanding 1 LPD in reserve has virtually no harm, I agree, and I think it will be disbanded. But it also contributes zero to "money for now" nor "man power in the era of 2 CVFs". So, I think it cannot be the answer = RN will forced another cut elsewhere.

As I said in the Escort thread, cutting un-modified T23GP NOW can release big modernization cost NOW, and 360 crew NOW and for ever. If what RN needs is 325 crew from Albion, remaining 35 can be used elsewhere as well (re activating other "crew-lacking" or "crew-shortage" escorts?)

[whitelancer]

@sharkbait
Up thread you posted some tables of journey times for various landing craft, I wondered where they came from because I find them totally unrealistic. The main problem being the turn round time. Allowing just 15 minutes to beach, unload then unbeach and at the other end manoeuvre into the dock of the mother ship, load and manoeuvre out of the dock just isn't credible. In my opinion an hour would be a more realistic figure and wouldn't be surprised if it was longer. The table also indicates they will be operating in waves, which implies each wave hitting the beach simultaneously which considerable complicates matters and would add more time to the whole process.

[R686]

the post's are meant to be tongue in cheeck, but for your information how could POW be integrated within the ADF

Please don't take this the wrong way as I'm a big fan of the RAN and would love to see us work more closely with them more like the US,

If you can believe what spiel comes fourth by your political master your wish make come true thru FPDA

They would need to find at least 1700 extra in man power, the extra escorts if it to operate alone and buy atleast 48 F35Bs along with the maintainence line to them and training on them as well as fix wing carrier training.

If the strategic situation changes and we require the amphibious perform in higher intensity environment a large multirole carrier is going to be a prerequisite for combined ADF operations, if the government of the day signals such an intent the ADF as a whole will need to expand.

A ANAO audit from a couple of years ago showed that the RAN had 12415 members as part of its trained force (sea duty)and 2741 being trained mot including reserves, records show a deficiency of 201 members at the time in overall number of posting available in both sea duty and shore duty, that's not to say that we don't have shortages in critical trades we do every Navy in the world has them. Records show that during the mining boom and under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments retention and funding fell and at one stage we had a critical shortage in 29 trades, as of December 2014 this has somewhat stabilised down to 13 trades in critical numbers. The 2016 DWP indicated that the authorised strength is to increase, retention numbers have stabilised as a result of a downturn in the mining industry, as pointed out by Gabe funding and morale has an enormous impact on trained members within the defence force.The RAN has an abundance of member for the non technical trades for which a majority of position are on QEC, we would fall short on a number of critical trades which could be addressed in the short term by lateral transfer from the RN and other qualified member from various armed forces such as the RCN/USN(we already do this in limited numbers) but yes if we got a QEC numbers would have to increase.

Currently the ADF is working towards an increased capability to support an Amphibious Ready Group using HMA Ships Adelaide, Canberra and Choules with Afloat support from HMA Ships Sirius and Success. The intension is to employ a Amphibious Ready Element as our primary sustainable capability and with the intention to be self supporting for up to 90 days, while expanding to an ARG within 45 days.

Currently the future force the RAN is looking at is 3x AWD and 9x future frigate and that has just been announced those future frigates will most likely have extensive ASW/AAW capability, with that in mind we will have the capacity for a Amphibious Task Group comprising of 1x LHD/LPD 1x AWD 1x ASW 1x AOR continuously in a low threat environment with an Amphibious Ready Element. What we are lacking in that picture is it will not always be able have an embarked air group to support an EM. Also having POW not only helps with the ARE but also goes towards regenerating our lost capacity of long range strike since the demise of F111

If a QEC became available it would be a buy of opportunity(2025) just like Largs Bay was, if QE was to become available when due for her first refit it could free funds for the UK government they would save on refit and mod costs for an EMF, the ADF in theory would address a capability short fall as mentioned above and increase the combat weight of an ARG, the primary role of the carrier then become force protection of the fleet with a mix of F35B and MH60R whilst at the same time may add towards the overall rotary component of the LHD's.

The 2016 integrated investment plan for the ADF calls for the replacement of HMAS Choules in the 2030 time frame with either a new strategic sealift ship or another AOR ( I personally think we need both) by grabbing a QEC if they become available means we have the bones of a balances maritime force out for another 40 years.

In conclusion an opportunity to buy would give the RAN 2x LHD 1x multi-role CEPP 1x LPD(strategic sealift) all the while having enough escorts for a continues ability to deploy an ARE in low threat environment

[Mercator]

Honestly, if we did make a bid for your CV, I reckon a few hundred of your lot might come with it – easily. (Not saying we ever would though).

We also haven't yet made a decision on the last 28 (or so) fighters to bring us up to 100. A year or two ago there was a debate about whether they should be F35B vs A. It still might happen – not because of naval air power considerations (I think that's run its course), but concerns about forward access to airbases in places like the Philippines (that are within range of theatre ballistic missiles). That said, the conventional wisdom is just more of the same: F35A.

[Repulse]

that is why I think it is better to disband 10% of escort fleet

It's politically hard, given the commitment to 1o DDs/FFs, but agree the right choose if needed. I'd say scrap 3 T23 GP frigates and the one mothballed LPD and keep the 3 B1 UK EEZ Rivers with a small investment on adding a retractable hangar to the 5 B2 Rivers.

[marktigger]

Maybe from a resources and manning point of view we looked seriously at what is tied up in the Nuclear deterrent and were realistic for the sake of the fleet and the armed forces as a whole and got rid!

[seaspear]

Maybe from a resources and manning point of view we looked seriously at what is tied up in the Nuclear deterrent and were realistic for the sake of the fleet and the armed forces as a whole and got rid!

The nuclear option is an implied deterrent that supports a meaningful conventional force ,I believe Russia made the threat to Sweden of nuclear weapons if they were to join N.A.T.O and hostilities broke out.
Its not to say I would be against a universal ban of nuclear biological and chemical weapons ,but I cant see Putin or Kim agreeing, with what they feed their masses about themselves
There are certainly other N.A.TO that don,t commit to a percentage of their GDP to defence and are quite happy for other members to shoulder the burden

[clinch]

Maybe from a resources and manning point of view we looked seriously at what is tied up in the Nuclear deterrent and were realistic for the sake of the fleet and the armed forces as a whole and got rid!

Since this Government moved the nuclear deterrent into the defence budget, it has sucked a huge amount of money away from conventional defence forces. The way our military is shrinking, we really have to re-think the nuclear deterrent.

[Lord Jim]

I have said it before and will say it again, we are heading towards a military that consists of the Nuclear Deterrent (reduced) backed by Special Forces and a Home Guard to support the Police.

[james k]

All unpaid of course.

I have said it before and will say it again, we are heading towards a military that consists of the Nuclear Deterrent (reduced) backed by Special Forces and a Home Guard to support the Police.

[marktigger]

Suspect it's the usual well announce 2 to be cut and then they'll be relief when it's only one. What losses me off is the belief it's the RNs fault - it was the government pouring funds into land based forces in the early 2000s that did this mess and a complete lack of understanding how we trade and our geographical position aka Sea Blindness.

1: To stop the embarrassing headlines about sending the army into 2 wars they weren't equipped for, prepared for or Funded for the Labour Government had to pour money into Land Forces that the Chancellor hadn't budgeted for because we weren't meant to be doing that sort of thing in his eyes and in Tony's eyes we had to play on the international stage.

2: It is the naval heirarchy's fault they wanted 2 vanity project aircraft carriers and were prepared to sacrifice the escort fleet to get them.

the combination of abymsial financial control at the MoD and poor budgeting and decision making lead to a large hole in the defence budget that had to be sorted out and the Now Chancellor with the efficiency of an accountant sorted it with little or no sentiment.........Had Labour been returned I suspect the first projects to be cancelled would have been the Carriers and F35

[R686]

.........Had Labour been returned I suspect the first projects to be cancelled would have been the Carriers and F35

the only reason the carriers survived was the Contract, I'm just surprized they have not gone on the market from the start.

[clinch]

Suspect it's the usual well announce 2 to be cut and then they'll be relief when it's only one. What losses me off is the belief it's the RNs fault - it was the government pouring funds into land based forces in the early 2000s that did this mess and a complete lack of understanding how we trade and our geographical position aka Sea Blindness.

1: To stop the embarrassing headlines about sending the army into 2 wars they weren't equipped for, prepared for or Funded for the Labour Government had to pour money into Land Forces that the Chancellor hadn't budgeted for because we weren't meant to be doing that sort of thing in his eyes and in Tony's eyes we had to play on the international stage.

2: It is the naval heirarchy's fault they wanted 2 vanity project aircraft carriers and were prepared to sacrifice the escort fleet to get them.

the combination of abymsial financial control at the MoD and poor budgeting and decision making lead to a large hole in the defence budget that had to be sorted out and the Now Chancellor with the efficiency of an accountant sorted it with little or no sentiment.........Had Labour been returned I suspect the first projects to be cancelled would have been the Carriers and F35

Haha. And the current Government sorted it by adding the cost of successor to the defence budget without moving the funding with it. Yeah, right.

[clinch]

Senior officer resigns over planned cuts.

http://www.forces.net/news/navy/senior- ... ault-ships

[Jake1992]

Senior officer resigns over planned cuts.

http://www.forces.net/news/navy/senior- ... ault-ships

Nice to see at the end that the MOD are trying to silence top officers from speaking out against bad desitions, it's the same old thing that went on with the whistle blowers in the NHS but you can bet this won't get the same uproar from the media as that did

[shark bait]

The way our military is shrinking, we really have to re-think the nuclear deterrent.

What is there to rethink? The deterrent is the bed rock that underpins all the security of the UK, remove the foundations and the conventional forces become weaker, not stronger.