Ocean Class Helicopter Carrier (LPH) (1998-2018) (ex RN)

[ArmChairCivvy]

OK, thx.

That explains the tone of the document. As it is "all" about sea control and turning the tables on the adversary (trying to do sea denial).

As I see it, this is quite different from our RM (idea, if there is one).

A take away is (for me) the ability to protect logistics, and as part of that, building in selective redundancy
... not that I have seen much of that over here. Everything on a shoe string. Oh no, not quite a battle group that we can shoe-horn into the available shipping; never mind... will have to do

[Repulse]

For the last century (or longer) we've always started to rebuild when the next war is already on the horizon.

The problem I see is that we are back in the mid war years where people are war weary and are focused on domestic issues. All the major agitators are already geared or gearing up for war and we are still worried about x-factor.

The delay in the SDSR may give an option to get more funds but at the moment there are three ways this can go in my view:

A) No new funds - the MOD is told to get its house in order and prioritise.
B) Promise of a small increase to address immediate issues, but combined with need for the MOD to again get its house in order.
C) Significant increase in money, say to 3% GDP.

My view is that given the demands for money for NHS, social care etc, C will only happen when it’s too late. What needs to happen (with either A or B) is that the MOD focuses on UK/BOT defence and seed corn (primarily Army) capabilities to allow for quicker scaling up when a war comes.

This means focusing on UK/BOT air defence, BMD, some form of CASD, Sea Denial around the UK, SLOC defence to ensure we don’t starve, long range Strike / raid capability to disrupt the enemy and as large as possible but low readiness Army in the U.K.

The main difference I see between A and B is if we are able to keep an expeditionary force and how large. Going to “B” probably means we can keep the current RM and Para capabilities, “A” means very limited raiding capability primarily air based (either via airfields or OTH with LPHs / CVFs).

I personally see there being little point keeping the current RM capabilities without being able to operate an independent ARG which means more Frigates. In either case I’d still go for separate LPH and LPD ships rather than a LHD which is fine in lower level ops but will be severely compromised IMO in a hot war.

[Opinion3]

The case for a LHD rests on having all those helicopters limit the capabilities of an aircraft carrier and talk of adding troops to the carrier only works if their equipment can arrive at the same time. We talk about forced entries (not really a capability we have) then we talk about the use of ports in a permissible environment. I would suggest that being able to send troops and their equipment into an environment where we do not have a large staging base and time to regroup is a capability worth having. An Ocean replacement should help facilitate that. I'd go down a San Antonio route

[Jake1992]

The case for a LHD rests on having all those helicopters limit the capabilities of an aircraft carrier and talk of adding troops to the carrier only works if their equipment can arrive at the same time. We talk about forced entries (not really a capability we have) then we talk about the use of ports in a permissible environment. I would suggest that being able to send troops and their equipment into an environment where we do not have a large staging base and time to regroup is a capability worth having. An Ocean replacement should help facilitate that. I'd go down a San Antonio route

If your thinking of going down the San Antonio route would using a modified version of the Karl doorman work for us ?

Say put a full well dock in for 4 LCUs and maybe 4 LCVPs, get rid of the on deck replenishment equipment and extend the superstructure back to where that currently is bring back the hanger with it.
Have the flight deck certed for 2 chinook or 3 Merlin simultaneously.
Have transport 700 plus troops in overload and up to 70 odd vehicles.

[ArmChairCivvy]

I would suggest that being able to send troops and their equipment into an environment where we do not have a large staging base and time to regroup is a capability worth having. An Ocean replacement should help facilitate that. I'd go down a San Antonio route

Agreed, but in that sort of case, aren't we talking on a scale of a reinforced Cdo? Whereas in anything bigger the initial force ashore would be the RM (mainly;do they still have their own loggie rgmnt?), whereas sustaining the follow-on force falls mainly within the purview of the British Army and Royal Fleet Auxiliary. In fact TD has written a piece on the port opening (not just repairing, but also from scratch) capabilities within the RLC... a piece I did not find with a quick look, but I am not dreaming (as I have read it). Army's own website, on the topic:
"deploys regularly in support of operations and exercises around the world, including in support of the Royal Marines.
Organisation and equipment:

The Regiment has two Port Squadrons, a Port Enabling and Headquarters Squadron"
plus clearance divers, plus a mounting service (good to know what has been packed, and where )

[Tempest414]

One thing is for sure the MOD/HMG need to get there house in order when is come to planning and sending what ever happens. Having worked for both the MOD and the NHS I can tell you that works that should (and do in civve world) cost £1000 cost 4 times more when you add MOD or NHS to the quote. To many firms are riding the gravy train and it needs to stop.

[donald_of_tokyo]

On the 1st LPH (or LHD), I think it has a good rationale. But, on the 2nd LHD, I think more realistic (or pessimistic). More precisely, I have a priority list on "what RN/RFA shall have" and the 2nd LHD is far from the top requirement.

- I see "only a little" problem on using the 2nd QECV for LPH. RM accommodation can be handled with a little modification. Vehicle capability will not be supported, but anyway it is not the prime role of Ocean (and it will just strengthen the need for Bay-replacements). Shortfalls with using QECV for LPH, is much minor than the other major shortfalls RN fleet has.

- Getting 1 LHD (or LPH) as Albion replacement is OK. RN to ALWAYS support "1 flat-top ready for air strike" and "another one ready (or at least at 30 days readiness) for LPH" has a good rationale. To do this, it is 100% logical to say "we need the 3rd flat top" in long term (say, from ~2030), while we can save the day with 2 QECV "for a while".

# Note, for me, LPH (without dock) is good enough, as I mentioned in this thread many times.

- But, if it comes to the "2nd LHD", I see no good rationale for it. Why we need it? It is surely "better to have", but is it "must?". My answer is NO, clearly NO.

This is not because I do not like LHD. Actually, I just have a "higher priority wish-list" than the 2nd LHD.
1: putting Harpoon BII+ to all escorts as a stop gap (I hate "gaps" *1) (only needs ~100M GBP).
2: securing 24 CAMM for all 5 T31e (may need 30 x5 = 150M GBP or more).
3: adding CAPTAS4 sonar to 3 of the 5 T31e for TAPS (with its analysis system and data link, I think it may need ~300M GBP in total)
4: (at least) 3 Bay replacements (may need 750M GBP)
5: increase P8A from 9 to 12 (may need at least 600M GBP)
6: purchase 10 sets of MQ8C (e.g. 10 control stations, 20 airframes) (may need 400M GBP or more)
7: upgrade (at least) 4 Merlin HM1 in stock for AEW task (say HM2') (may need 100-150M GBP)
--------
Up till here, I need 2.5-2.5B GBP. And, it is only after these items, I want
--------
8: the 2nd LHD (or LPH).

I do not say LHD requirement is low. But, I am just saying other requirements are much more higher.

The only rationale for the 2nd LHD to become more higher priority is, when we consider it as "also 3 Bay replacements". They will cost the same. They will crew the same, as well. If RN says, "we will replace 1+1 Albion and 3 Bays with 2 LHDs", bean counters will say "yes". But, because I think Bay class is very important assets, I do not like this idea.

So, no 2nd LHD. This is my choice.


(*1) if anything can be gapped, it means is not "must", which means RN do NOT need it. Very easy to cut it.

[Lord Jim]

Given higher priorities I cannot see an Ocean replacement for at least 15 to 20 years. there are so many other programmes amongst the three services that it simply won't get a look in. I admit it would be nice but all the logical arguments in the world won't make it happen.

[Jake1992]

On the 1st LPH (or LHD), I think it has a good rationale. But, on the 2nd LHD, I think more realistic (or pessimistic). More precisely, I have a priority list on "what RN/RFA shall have" and the 2nd LHD is far from the top requirement.

- I see "only a little" problem on using the 2nd QECV for LPH. RM accommodation can be handled with a little modification. Vehicle capability will not be supported, but anyway it is not the prime role of Ocean (and it will just strengthen the need for Bay-replacements). Shortfalls with using QECV for LPH, is much minor than the other major shortfalls RN fleet has.

- Getting 1 LHD (or LPH) as Albion replacement is OK. RN to ALWAYS support "1 flat-top ready for air strike" and "another one ready (or at least at 30 days readiness) for LPH" has a good rationale. To do this, it is 100% logical to say "we need the 3rd flat top" in long term (say, from ~2030), while we can save the day with 2 QECV "for a while".

# Note, for me, LPH (without dock) is good enough, as I mentioned in this thread many times.

- But, if it comes to the "2nd LHD", I see no good rationale for it. Why we need it? It is surely "better to have", but is it "must?". My answer is NO, clearly NO.

This is not because I do not like LHD. Actually, I just have a "higher priority wish-list" than the 2nd LHD.
1: putting Harpoon BII+ to all escorts as a stop gap (I hate "gaps" *1) (only needs ~100M GBP).
2: securing 24 CAMM for all 5 T31e (may need 30 x5 = 150M GBP or more).
3: adding CAPTAS4 sonar to 3 of the 5 T31e for TAPS (with its analysis system and data link, I think it may need ~300M GBP in total)
4: (at least) 3 Bay replacements (may need 750M GBP)
5: increase P8A from 9 to 12 (may need at least 600M GBP)
6: purchase 10 sets of MQ8C (e.g. 10 control stations, 20 airframes) (may need 400M GBP or more)
7: upgrade (at least) 4 Merlin HM1 in stock for AEW task (say HM2') (may need 100-150M GBP)
--------
Up till here, I need 2.5-2.5B GBP. And, it is only after these items, I want
--------
8: the 2nd LHD (or LPH).

I do not say LHD requirement is low. But, I am just saying other requirements are much more higher.

The only rationale for the 2nd LHD to become more higher priority is, when we consider it as "also 3 Bay replacements". They will cost the same. They will crew the same, as well. If RN says, "we will replace 1+1 Albion and 3 Bays with 2 LHDs", bean counters will say "yes". But, because I think Bay class is very important assets, I do not like this idea.

So, no 2nd LHD. This is my choice.


(*1) if anything can be gapped, it means is not "must", which means RN do NOT need it. Very easy to cut it.

I can't argue with that list at all makes a lot of sence, the only thing I would say is if that both Albions are to be replaced with only one LHD then I'd argue that 4 bay replacements would be needed and significantly enhanced ( 2 lcu well dock, perminant hanger for 3 merlins ) this becomes even more evident when a QE is having to step in for the LHD or becomes a complete necessity if the Albions are replaced by a LPH. As the loss of 8 LCUs would be a dramatic drop in capability.

If the single LPH route is taken to replace both Albions I'd like to see it more comparable to Italy's Cavour in size and capability ( have the F35 use as a through life opinion add on ) but an over all
increase in size to something like that from an ocean sized vessel would give greater troope halo and vehicle carrieing capsblities

[donald_of_tokyo]

Thank, Jake-san. But

1: RN do not have 2 Albions now. Only 1 will be active at any time, not only because of hardware readiness, but more because of crew limit. So, yes "loss" of 4 LCUs must be compensated, but not 8.

2: I am not opting for "larger LPH", simply because it will need cost. Also, capability to operate F35B is much more low in my requirement list. 24 F35B in 2020 is much more powerful than 50 Sea Harrier FRS2 in 1990.
- F35B is top ranked fighter, SeaHarrier has never been so (it is the top-ranked STOVL fighter, I agree).
- Fighter aircrafts are getting very expensive, making the whole fighter numbers worldwide much smaller. So, relative importance of 1 fighter is higher now than how it was in 1990.

Therefore, any effort to enhance F35B capability (other than the 2 QECV) is very low in my priority list. I do not want to pay even 100M GBP for it. The 100M GBP must be used for other more precious (or urgent) items.

Sorry to say so, but I am more serious/concerned about the RN short falls.

[Jake1992]

Thank, Jake-san. But

1: RN do not have 2 Albions now. Only 1 will be active at any time, not only because of hardware readiness, but more because of crew limit. So, yes "loss" of 4 LCUs must be compensated, but not 8.

2: I am not opting for "larger LPH", simply because it will need cost. Also, capability to operate F35B is much more low in my requirement list. 24 F35B in 2020 is much more powerful than 50 Sea Harrier FRS2 in 1990.
- F35B is top ranked fighter, SeaHarrier has never been so (it is the top-ranked STOVL fighter, I agree).
- Fighter aircrafts are getting very expensive, making the whole fighter numbers worldwide much smaller. So, relative importance of 1 fighter is higher now than how it was in 1990.

Therefore, any effort to enhance F35B capability (other than the 2 QECV) is very low in my priority list. I do not want to pay even 100M GBP for it. The 100M GBP must be used for other more precious (or urgent) items.

Sorry to say so, but I am more serious/concerned about the RN short falls.

Donald I agree that we only have one Albion always avalible at the moment but we are both talking about replacements 15 years away, by then both Albions could very well be active as we've seen recently we've gone from one in deep readiness to being in a lighter readiness due to cost of bringing it in and out so we could see in 10 years it in full service again it's an unknown. But to plan to replace only "one" instead of two is poor planing in my view.

I agree that there is higher priorities than the future LPH being F35 capable that's why I said it should built as a through life add on option, you have to think that this LPH would be in operation come 2060.
My thinking behind a larger LPH was no mainly with the F35 in mind but more in the mind set of larger troop halo and vehicle carrying ability, say 1100 troops compared to 800 odd from an ocean sized vessel, 30 odd aircraft compared to 18 odd.

[abc123]

On the 1st LPH (or LHD), I think it has a good rationale. But, on the 2nd LHD, I think more realistic (or pessimistic). More precisely, I have a priority list on "what RN/RFA shall have" and the 2nd LHD is far from the top requirement.

- I see "only a little" problem on using the 2nd QECV for LPH. RM accommodation can be handled with a little modification. Vehicle capability will not be supported, but anyway it is not the prime role of Ocean (and it will just strengthen the need for Bay-replacements). Shortfalls with using QECV for LPH, is much minor than the other major shortfalls RN fleet has.

- Getting 1 LHD (or LPH) as Albion replacement is OK. RN to ALWAYS support "1 flat-top ready for air strike" and "another one ready (or at least at 30 days readiness) for LPH" has a good rationale. To do this, it is 100% logical to say "we need the 3rd flat top" in long term (say, from ~2030), while we can save the day with 2 QECV "for a while".

# Note, for me, LPH (without dock) is good enough, as I mentioned in this thread many times.

- But, if it comes to the "2nd LHD", I see no good rationale for it. Why we need it? It is surely "better to have", but is it "must?". My answer is NO, clearly NO.

This is not because I do not like LHD. Actually, I just have a "higher priority wish-list" than the 2nd LHD.
1: putting Harpoon BII+ to all escorts as a stop gap (I hate "gaps" *1) (only needs ~100M GBP).
2: securing 24 CAMM for all 5 T31e (may need 30 x5 = 150M GBP or more).
3: adding CAPTAS4 sonar to 3 of the 5 T31e for TAPS (with its analysis system and data link, I think it may need ~300M GBP in total)
4: (at least) 3 Bay replacements (may need 750M GBP)
5: increase P8A from 9 to 12 (may need at least 600M GBP)
6: purchase 10 sets of MQ8C (e.g. 10 control stations, 20 airframes) (may need 400M GBP or more)
7: upgrade (at least) 4 Merlin HM1 in stock for AEW task (say HM2') (may need 100-150M GBP)
--------
Up till here, I need 2.5-2.5B GBP. And, it is only after these items, I want
--------
8: the 2nd LHD (or LPH).

I do not say LHD requirement is low. But, I am just saying other requirements are much more higher.

The only rationale for the 2nd LHD to become more higher priority is, when we consider it as "also 3 Bay replacements". They will cost the same. They will crew the same, as well. If RN says, "we will replace 1+1 Albion and 3 Bays with 2 LHDs", bean counters will say "yes". But, because I think Bay class is very important assets, I do not like this idea.

So, no 2nd LHD. This is my choice.


(*1) if anything can be gapped, it means is not "must", which means RN do NOT need it. Very easy to cut it.

If anything, I would drop that CAPTAS on type 31. Yes, it would be nice to have, but with so many things missing in RN, I would rather sped it elsewhere. Maybe 1 or 2 Poseidons more or 4th LPD or 4+ AEW Merlins more etc. ( if the numbers are right )

[Gabriele]

1: RN do not have 2 Albions now. Only 1 will be active at any time, not only because of hardware readiness, but more because of crew limit. So, yes "loss" of 4 LCUs must be compensated, but not 8.

They did not have 2 LPD in 1982 either, but the second was urgently re-activated and the amphibious landing only progressed when they had both in theatre, because you don't want to be limited to a literal single point of failure.
And in any major operation they'd do the exact same thing they did back then.

[Lord Jim]

Given Ocean is basically gone maybe we should continue this discussion in the Current and future Amphibious thread?

[Caribbean]

The San Antonios themselves are too expensive for the RN at $1.6b each, though. Maybe something like the Johan de Witt, rather than the KD? Bay sized, but with much of the capability that you mention (Wiki claims up to 4 Chinook, but I think that must be with two carried on the deck). The design would need less modification for RN use than the KD, I suspect, and it would perhaps be an easier task to convince the Treasury to replace the Bays one-for-one with a Bay Mk2 when the time comes.
On the LHD side, I would prefer to leave QNLZ unmodified (how much will that cost?), as a pure strike carrier, with PoW in a "swing" role and a dedicated LHD. JC1/Canberra would be great, but unlikely in the near term given money and crewing issues. The Dokdo-class seem to be quite capable and relatively cheap. Two of those (or something similar) replacing both Albions might be doable in the 2030 timeframe (a third to replace Ocean would be even better). Backed by three (or four, replacing Argus?) JdW-based Bay Mk 2s would give a very flexible fleet.

[inch]

yes I think ocean thread now should be under defence elsewhere under brazil .well done brazil getting a great ship hopefully last you ages until you can get hold of a qe class carrier when the gov decides to sell one off either this gov or the next labour one for about £150-200 million

[R686]

I can't argue with that list at all makes a lot of sence, the only thing I would say is if that both Albions are to be replaced with only one LHD then I'd argue that 4 bay replacements would be needed and significantly enhanced ( 2 lcu well dock, perminant hanger for 3 merlins ) this becomes even more evident when a QE is having to step in for the LHD or becomes a complete necessity if the Albions are replaced by a LPH. As the loss of 8 LCUs would be a dramatic drop in capability.

If the single LPH route is taken to replace both Albions I'd like to see it more comparable to Italy's Cavour in size and capability ( have the F35 use as a through life opinion add on ) but an over all
increase in size to something like that from an ocean sized vessel would give greater troope halo and vehicle carrieing capabilities

Agree, I also understand where Donald is coming from defence as a whole has deficiencies within all areas. If HMG continues down this path HMG must be prepared for the increased risk that it brings to the strategic environment, the level of risk is consummate with funding the lower the funding and you increase strategic risk, higher the funding lowers the strategic risk. Reducing the funding lower to a point makes it harder to respond quickly to changes in an uncertain strategic environment, that is the current situation facing HMG.

[R686]

yes I think ocean thread now should be under defence elsewhere under brazil .well done brazil getting a great ship hopefully last you ages until you can get hold of a qe class carrier when the gov decides to sell one off either this gov or the next labour one for about £150-200 million

She's still flying the white ensign until then it should remain in the RN thread, then a new thread for her Brazilin service

[ArmChairCivvy]

Reducing the funding lower to a point makes it harder to respond quickly to changes in an uncertain strategic environment, that is the current situation facing HMG.

Excellent point... which augurs the funding for the security strand of the review getting fresh money and the defence strand staying constant, with a technical correction (injection) to compensate for the exchange rate damage (the MoD is not allowed to hedge in isolation from HM Treasury... which in turn has the freedom to offload our gold at the time when the price was the lowest in decades; pure genius).

[Opinion3]

If your thinking of going down the San Antonio route would using a modified version of the Karl doorman work for us ?

I prefer the idea of an enlarged MARS SSS. San Antonio is expensive because it does much more, it has weapons and command capabilities. Although compared to the cost of a destroyer, their price seems very reasonable. But I digress, yes it would but I would want more hangar/lanes.

[Opinion3]

Agreed, but in that sort of case, aren't we talking on a scale of a reinforced Cdo? Whereas in anything bigger the initial force ashore would be the RM (mainly;do they still have their own loggie rgmnt?), whereas sustaining the follow-on force falls mainly within the purview of the British Army and Royal Fleet Auxiliary. In fact TD has written a piece on the port opening (not just repairing, but also from scratch) capabilities within the RLC... a piece I did not find with a quick look, but I am not dreaming (as I have read it). Army's own website, on the topic:

TD's articles are second to none, always well researched and written. I hope and believe I have read them all. Yes @ACC I believe the capability to get (small?) numbers of troops and their equipment through an opening or gap in their defenses i.e. it represents a window of opportunity is a capability worth having. We have some good kit but PASCAT and a LHD are the sort of capabilities I think we would find are missing to achieve such an operation.

[ArmChairCivvy]

We have some good kit but PASCAT and...

We are in the "same place" and continuing from the quote, we seem to suffer from the inverse of NIH (not invented here). Namely, a PASCAT-derived design (for Vigor, as the local builder of it) won the US competition, over the French "equivalent" which actually is in service:

" the BMT Caiman 90 beat the L-CAT–a big surprise for anybody watching this competition. The L-CAT is a convertible catamaran, offering excellent seakeeping, self-deployment capabilities and good speed in exchange for a more complex platform. Marinette Marine grabbed the L-CAT and was an early favorite
[...]
But ultimately the L-CAT–in the size proposed–was not a viable contender for the MSV(L). The writing was on the wall–the Marines, as of 2014, seemed uncertain if the French version could support an Abrams. (Advocates kind of forget the L-CAT was built for the AMX LeClerk—one of the lightest modern MBTs in the field today at about 60 tons.) Scaling L-CAT up while incorporating the various..."
- for the dot-dot-dot insert range, berthing, all kinds of things that relate to the vast Pacific. So the base design has been chosen, but is still to be refined.

Could we buy some... when the production line becomes "hot"?
- only one snag!
- workboats are the biggest vessels ( a Mexefloat is not a "vessel" but a raft?) known to our army; and these vessels will be for the US Army (not the USMC - mentioned as evaluation experts - which is part of the Dept of Navy)

BTW: the author, Dr. Hooper seems to put out a lot of interesting stuff, a little bit in the General Patton's contrarian vein: "If everyone is thinking alike.. then someone is not thinking"):
Recent Publications

"The real game-changers of the Pacific Basin," Proceedings of the U.S. Naval Institute, April 2011; 137

"China at sea," Hoover Digest, March 2012; 2.

"'Get off the fainting couch': Stop worrying and start managing the Chinese ASBM threat," Proceedings of the U.S. Naval Institute, April 2010; 136: 42-47.

""LCS: A step, not an end - correspondence," Proceedings of the U.S. Naval Institute. February 2007; 133: 6-7.

"A Gunboat Navy for the 21st Century—correspondence," Proceedings of the U.S. Naval Institute December 2005; 131: 64-65.

"Think Small," Foreign Affairs 1998; 77 (3): 158. Letter.

[shark bait]

I agree an Auxiliary Aviation Support Ship (ASS) cannot be a full replacement for Ocean, but completely disagree if you say it has nothing to offer. My understanding is that the LPDs are geared up to operate the Merlins just not Hangar space to store them in rough seas or maintain them - this would be the primary role imo of an RFA ASS with the tempo of loading and unloading from the decks of the LPDs / LSDs.

I can follow that argument, unfortunately arguing for additional aviation platforms is going to lead to nowhere.

In the near term there will be no shortage of aviation space, at least until F35 number has been built up in the 30's, when the Albion's will retire anyway.

Another option would be to extend the design for the future SSS to have a large flight deck and be Chinook capable and buy 4.

This option makes a lot of sense in the short term.

I have also seen the suggestion of operating AEW from the stores ship (it's on Fort Victoria right now), freeing up space on QE with its lifts that can handle a Chinook plus blades.

It clear what ever happens the SSS will have an important aviation role.

[Lord Jim]

The best I think the RN and/or the RFA can hope for is that both the Bays and Albions are preplaced by a common platform, operated by a core RFA crew for non warfighting tasks and supplemented by RN and RM personnel if used in the amphibious role. We may get lucky and get 3-4 of these in the 3030s. As for an Ocean replacement, well as has been discussed at length this is QE and PoW and that is it.

We are going to have to face up to the fact that besides SF and air operations, the public and therefore voters are not interested in expeditionary warfare. they are interested in homeland security so whist this area may see growth, in fact the majority of the planned increases over the next few years, the actual defence area will probably struggle to tread water and will actually start downwards. It is going to take a threat such as Russia ramping up their level of aggression way beyond that they probably will do to change any of the above.

HMS Ocean has given great service to the RN and UK, but discussions of any replacement should move elsewhere, this thread being retained to relive the highlight of her career and so on.

[ArmChairCivvy]

that both the Bays and Albions are preplaced by a common platform, operated by a core RFA crew for non warfighting tasks and supplemented by RN and RM personnel if used in the amphibious role

While agreeing with your concluding thought (a cross-threads quote facility would help; just cutting and pasting to another thread will not help the reader to follow up with the reasoning). So my comment to the quote: there are two in-built contradictions there, in mixing Assault with Logistics (Aux)
1. the cost of full mil spec - you get less... and we are already getting less, for other reasons
2. bringing RFA crews to the frontline, full war-fighting? Have not read through their contract, but would imagine it says something about that