UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3394
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 04 Jun 2019, 03:19

I don't think the issue is having the replacement for the Puma and Merlin HC4 be able to fit in the hangers of existing Escorts but that it can operate form their flight decks, which should not be an issue with the T-26 at least.

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2470
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 04 Jun 2019, 08:53

Repulse wrote:
Pongoglo wrote:Not if we go for Leander they won't !


I’m no defender of the T31e, but if the RN thought it was a must-have they would have put it on the RFI?

The RFI was not designed by military needs. It was designed by the measure of "what is the minimum possible thing we can still call a frigate in PMQs".

Never forget that is the largest driving goal behind this project. Any "success" is in spite of that. It's a checkbox military project.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1643
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 04 Jun 2019, 09:22

RetroSicotte wrote:
Repulse wrote:
Pongoglo wrote:Not if we go for Leander they won't !
I’m no defender of the T31e, but if the RN thought it was a must-have they would have put it on the RFI?

The RFI was not designed by military needs. It was designed by the measure of "what is the minimum possible thing we can still call a frigate in PMQs".

Never forget that is the largest driving goal behind this project. Any "success" is in spite of that. It's a checkbox military project.
These lightly armed, forward deployed maritime security vessels have a role to play due to their cost-effective operating costs but HMG really need to stop calling them Frigates.

Once that happens RN can set about building the 12 or 13 credible Frigates that is really needed to properly align the UK's military capability with the politicians global ambitions.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3394
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 04 Jun 2019, 13:26

As far as Politicians are concerned they are always going to be Frigates or Escorts so that they can maintain the lie that the RN will still have 19 such vessels. To say otherwise would leave a hole that anyone can see in the size of the fleet and that would be a serious reduction.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1378
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 03 Jul 2019, 09:16

So now Wave Knight has joined HMS Albion , HMS Kent & RFA Lyme Bay in the Baltic quite a force up there now

SW1
Member
Posts: 927
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 30 Jul 2019, 22:14

https://warontherocks.com/2019/07/the-d ... -win-wars/

– “What does the Navy provide the Marine Corps?” is readily identifiable – operational and strategic mobility, and assured access; the same cannot be said for the follow-on question, “What does the Marine Corps provide the Navy and the Joint Force?” Traditionally, the answer has been power projection forces from the sea, and/or forces for sustained operations ashore in support of a traditional naval campaign. We should ask ourselves – what do the Fleet Commanders want from the Marine Corps, and what does the Navy need from the Marine Corps?

But the Navy’s sea-control task is hugely eased if, like the island of Malta during World War II, the Marine Corps is able to establish and defend key maritime terrain on which are emplaced fires-complexes capable of engaging ships and aircraft 500 or more miles away. Just one such location relieves the Navy of the responsibility of controlling a circle of the ocean with a diameter of 1,000 miles. Even as few as a half-dozen such locations could make large swathes of the Pacific Ocean off limits to China’s navy. As Thomas Mahnken has recently pointed out, such a specter would have a huge deterrent effect on Chinese strategic calculations. Moreover, the potential impact of EABO is not limited to the Pacific. For instance, strongly defended fires-complexes placed in Northern Europe could bottle up both Russia’s Northern and Baltic Fleets, keeping them from breaking into Atlantic shipping lanes.

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1333
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Location: Australia

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby seaspear » 31 Jul 2019, 08:08

https://breakingdefense.com/2019/07/sac ... n-amphibs/
This is an interesting article suggesting a change in the thinking on large amphibious ships due to their vulnerability , perhaps this relates to all navies .

Online
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1395
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 31 Jul 2019, 08:22

seaspear wrote:https://breakingdefense.com/2019/07/sacred-cows-die-as-marine-commandant-changes-course-on-amphibs/
This is an interesting article suggesting a change in the thinking on large amphibious ships due to their vulnerability , perhaps this relates to all navies .


He doesn’t seem to give an answer though, he states large vessels launching slow move ship to shore and helos are easy targets but doesn’t saying how to rectify it.

Do you go with much better defended vessels ? Go to a dispersed set up with loads of absalon style vessels ?is the answer in fast track new much faster ship to shore and tilt rotors ?

Identifying a problem is easy coming up with a realistic solution not so much.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1639
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 31 Jul 2019, 09:07

Well - there does seem to be a move to include EMF and mission bays into most new surface combattants for the RN - perhaps more a reflection on the fact that we see SF type raids as more important in the future than for the reasons given in that article, but possibly borne out of the same realisation of the vulnerabilities of larger ships (we will not be putting the carriers too close to shore, that's for certain). Also, taken in context with the paper noted by @SW1 on another thread - probably better suited to the concept of taking and holding small islands as forward bases for area denial
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1378
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 31 Jul 2019, 12:35

Jake1992 wrote:
seaspear wrote:https://breakingdefense.com/2019/07/sacred-cows-die-as-marine-commandant-changes-course-on-amphibs/
This is an interesting article suggesting a change in the thinking on large amphibious ships due to their vulnerability , perhaps this relates to all navies .


He doesn’t seem to give an answer though, he states large vessels launching slow move ship to shore and helos are easy targets but doesn’t saying how to rectify it.

Do you go with much better defended vessels ? Go to a dispersed set up with loads of absalon style vessels ?is the answer in fast track new much faster ship to shore and tilt rotors ?

Identifying a problem is easy coming up with a realistic solution not so much.


This is where a A140 T-31 fitted with a 76mm and 2 x 57mm plus 24 to 30 CAMM could make a good picket ship able to give NGFS with volcano rounds

Online
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1395
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 31 Jul 2019, 12:55

Tempest414 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:
seaspear wrote:https://breakingdefense.com/2019/07/sacred-cows-die-as-marine-commandant-changes-course-on-amphibs/
This is an interesting article suggesting a change in the thinking on large amphibious ships due to their vulnerability , perhaps this relates to all navies .


He doesn’t seem to give an answer though, he states large vessels launching slow move ship to shore and helos are easy targets but doesn’t saying how to rectify it.

Do you go with much better defended vessels ? Go to a dispersed set up with loads of absalon style vessels ?is the answer in fast track new much faster ship to shore and tilt rotors ?

Identifying a problem is easy coming up with a realistic solution not so much.


This is where a A140 T-31 fitted with a 76mm and 2 x 57mm plus 24 to 30 CAMM could make a good picket ship able to give NGFS with volcano rounds


But the USN has countless ships for this sort of role but he seems to imply that it’s currently not enough so change is needed but doesn’t give an answer to what type of change.

For me it’s a combination of all 3 above, the current large vessel are still needed to move mass but need better protection in there own right and from escorts.
A number of smaller vessels like the absalon would add the needed distribution that would not only the added numbers for an opponent to worries about on the sea but also allow a number of small groups to land in different areas to take areas in protection of the larger force.
What is needed most of all IMO is faster landing craft along with helos / tilt rotors to get that main force to shore as soon as possible.

All of this also applies to the RM and RN to an even greater extent.

SW1
Member
Posts: 927
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 31 Jul 2019, 22:17

You can see a number of strands of this coming together, the firing of HIMARs from ships and testing the same systems with anti ship variants on exercises with Asia Pacific allies. The introduction of sea basing concepts and expeditionary transfer dock ship almost like a return to the old depot ships.

The idea of course isn’t new was all the rage in the 18th century with outposts and forts at strategic points of interest, we still retain a few particularly at the gate way to the Mediterranean. Also perhaps a realisation we wouldn’t be doing opposed amphibious landing against a peer threat and a return to distributed operations

You could see a concept work in uk context if we joined up the concept with an army strike bridge and the replacement of pretty much all the army’s artillery being required to properly support it and moving marines to there historical maritime security role and commando operations.. alway thought we missed an opportunity not selecting the patria vehicle as it had an amphibious option that could of slotted into such a formation.

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1333
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Location: Australia

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby seaspear » 01 Aug 2019, 02:16

Large amphibious ships may be just large targets to peer adversaries equiped with hypersonic missiles ,these missiles travelling at a speed that creates a plasma bubble that interferes with radio waves making them difficult to track unless with advanced infra red detection and do not travel in predictable courses that ballistic missiles usually follow .
The U.S is spending vast amounts on catch up to defend against this threat , should,nt methods be developed to counter this threat to delivering materials ,before the building the platforms that deliver them that take into account what will work certainly what wont .

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3394
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 01 Aug 2019, 05:04

I a UK context it does point to the need for the ability to be able to ship larger formations into theatre and have smaller platforms to the conduct of offensive action from the sea. In other words we would need sufficient RFA and contracted platforms to quickly move a full brigade to say Norway in one lift. to land it in friendly facilities. This needs to be added the ability to move raiding forces up to a reinforced company strength to take offensive action, launched form the sea or by air, swiftly over greater distances, in platforms that provide protection against hostile action if required.

The former could be carried out by Bays and Points, provided with an escort, but the latter would need smaller more adaptable platforms than the current LPDs or the often desired LHDs. Having an aviation platform to help move helicopters into theatre to support the forces shipped into theatre still is desirable, but this would not required a platform able to conduct offensive air mobile operations. This could mean something like a converted container vessel, like that used post Falklands War would suffice for this role. As to the platform for conduction offensive amphibious operations, we currently have nothing in this category, but I am not sure the announced FLSS is the right option either in the form suggested.

As pointed out for the UK's Royal Marines this really points to a move back to its historical role of conducting raiding operations rather then trying to emulated larger over the beach assaults against contested coastlines. This, in my opinion, opens up a whole new conversation on this thread, especially as to what should compliments or replace the Albions.

S M H
Member
Posts: 380
Joined: 03 May 2015, 12:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby S M H » 01 Aug 2019, 18:14

Lord Jim wrote:This could mean something like a converted container vessel, like that used post Falklands War would suffice for this role. As to the platform for conduction offensive amphibious operations,
You have little practical knowledge of the problems of the Arapaho container system on Reliant. The conversion of a ship Argus style with her original configuration or the M.O.D purchasing the two points that let go under SDDR10 and converting one of them would be better.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3394
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 01 Aug 2019, 18:28

No I don't and never said I did. Reliant did what it said on the tin, providing an auxiliary aviation platform, based on years of research by the USN, and it was one of their kits form their development programme we used to convert Reliant. Was it perfect no, it was basically a wartime conversion kit so of course, Argus was the platform that evolved to meet the requirement and has done a superb job, so yes another platform like Argus would be ideal but I was suggesting a cheap and possibly not so cheerful option like Reliant, purely as a Helicopter transport, not a helicopter carrier, simple to move helicopter to the theatre and fly them of to be operated on shore.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1643
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 15 Aug 2019, 11:39

Moved across.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Point-class is very simple and cheap (to operate) cargo ship, RoRo. Flo-Flo ship is more specialist and be expensive to operate. Thus, I think Point's replacement will be just a RoRo ship of the day.
Maybe but I don't think the Points will be replaced like for like as well as adding two additional Point based FLSS vessels. The temptation to reduce Point numbers to justify the new FLSS vessels will be high.

A mixed bag of 2x FLSS, 2x Points (all RFA) and a perhaps a single PFI operated FLO-FLO is probably the top end of what we can hope for.
If littoral Fast Patrol Crafts are included in this program, it will form a flexible "littoral warfare group".
Is this the basis of the Littoral Strike Group that Gavin Williamson proposed?
Say, merging amphibious operations (1+1 LPD, 3 LSD), MCM operations (12 MCMVs), and littoral patrol (new)...

- Six 150m-class "Bay-2" like LSD (3 as Bay replacement and 3 as MCMV replacement)
The commonality would be welcome but that's a massive reduction in hull numbers, effectively 17 down to 6, seems a tad extreme although the fast patrol would undoubtedly add something that is currently lacking.

Replacing 3x 176m Bays and 2x Albions with 3x 150m Bays would be a BIG cut, regardless of what the MCMV's are replaced with.

A priority must be to increase landing spots on any future LSD's or LPD's to enhance lilly-padding efficiency when operating alongside PWLS. The Bays/Albions currently have 7 Chinook capable landing spots between them when all active. Dropping down to 3 would be difficult to justify however if the FLSS vessels are built that would maintain the number at 7 although effectively the FLSS would be replacing Argus.

LCU numbers would also be a concern but adding a double LCU well dock to the Bay Mk2's would help solve it. A PFI FLO-FLO would be a big help in this regard.

The overarching goal must to achieve a balanced fleet. Add or remove something and the knock on effect is felt elsewhere. A lot depends on if the FLSS vessels are ever built or just remain a figment of Gavin Williamson's imagination.
-- 3 amphibious teams (2x 30m-fast-LCU, 2x 15m-fast-LCVP, 2x 60m-slow-Mexefloats, and 2x 30m-Fast Patrol Crafts, each)
-- 2 logistic landing teams (2x 60m-Mexefloats, each)
(in HADR deployments, go only with reduced team size, say 1x 15m-LCVP and 2x 60m-Mexefloats, each)

-- 4 MCM teams (a full kit of UUV/USV/UAV-based MCM, each equivalent in capability to ~3 Hunts/Sandowns)

-- 2 Littoral Fast Patrol teams (4x 30m-Fast Patrol Crafts, each) to cover littoral patrol tasks, in collaboration with River B2 and escorts.
Interesting and perhaps even affordable :thumbup:
- One LPH (as the 3rd flat-top)
Can't see it if the FLSS are built but if they aren't then an Ocean Mk2 is a definite possibility.

Personally I think the best outcome would be to only build two FSS to support the CSG and transfer the remaining funds to the FLSS vessels. This would give the FLSS vessels a secondary SSS role within the LitM group and then a LPH or LHD could be funded separately to coincide with the decommissioning of the Albions in the mid 2030's.
- And no dedicated MHC-hull part (all money put on Bay-2).
This could very well be the best way forward. Early trails are showing promising results.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3394
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 15 Aug 2019, 11:51

Building two Rotterdams and three Johan de Witts to replace the Albions and Bays respectively would cover all of the above, giving greatly increased aviation capacity equal to at least one LPH, as well a extensive medical facilities and so on.

Online
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1395
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 15 Aug 2019, 12:22

Poiuytrewq wrote:Moved across.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Point-class is very simple and cheap (to operate) cargo ship, RoRo. Flo-Flo ship is more specialist and be expensive to operate. Thus, I think Point's replacement will be just a RoRo ship of the day.
Maybe but I don't think the Points will be replaced like for like as well as adding two additional Point based FLSS vessels. The temptation to reduce Point numbers to justify the new FLSS vessels will be high.

A mixed bag of 2x FLSS, 2x Points (all RFA) and a perhaps a single PFI operated FLO-FLO is probably the top end of what we can hope for.
If littoral Fast Patrol Crafts are included in this program, it will form a flexible "littoral warfare group".
Is this the basis of the Littoral Strike Group that Gavin Williamson proposed?
Say, merging amphibious operations (1+1 LPD, 3 LSD), MCM operations (12 MCMVs), and littoral patrol (new)...

- Six 150m-class "Bay-2" like LSD (3 as Bay replacement and 3 as MCMV replacement)
The commonality would be welcome but that's a massive reduction in hull numbers, effectively 17 down to 6, seems a tad extreme although the fast patrol would undoubtedly add something that is currently lacking.

Replacing 3x 176m Bays and 2x Albions with 3x 150m Bays would be a BIG cut, regardless of what the MCMV's are replaced with.

A priority must be to increase landing spots on any future LSD's or LPD's to enhance lilly-padding efficiency when operating alongside PWLS. The Bays/Albions currently have 7 Chinook capable landing spots between them when all active. Dropping down to 3 would be difficult to justify however if the FLSS vessels are built that would maintain the number at 7 although effectively the FLSS would be replacing Argus.

LCU numbers would also be a concern but adding a double LCU well dock to the Bay Mk2's would help solve it. A PFI FLO-FLO would be a big help in this regard.

The overarching goal must to achieve a balanced fleet. Add or remove something and the knock on effect is felt elsewhere. A lot depends on if the FLSS vessels are ever built or just remain a figment of Gavin Williamson's imagination.
-- 3 amphibious teams (2x 30m-fast-LCU, 2x 15m-fast-LCVP, 2x 60m-slow-Mexefloats, and 2x 30m-Fast Patrol Crafts, each)
-- 2 logistic landing teams (2x 60m-Mexefloats, each)
(in HADR deployments, go only with reduced team size, say 1x 15m-LCVP and 2x 60m-Mexefloats, each)

-- 4 MCM teams (a full kit of UUV/USV/UAV-based MCM, each equivalent in capability to ~3 Hunts/Sandowns)

-- 2 Littoral Fast Patrol teams (4x 30m-Fast Patrol Crafts, each) to cover littoral patrol tasks, in collaboration with River B2 and escorts.
Interesting and perhaps even affordable :thumbup:
- One LPH (as the 3rd flat-top)
Can't see it if the FLSS are built but if they aren't then an Ocean Mk2 is a definite possibility.

Personally I think the best outcome would be to only build two FSS to support the CSG and transfer the remaining funds to the FLSS vessels. This would give the FLSS vessels a secondary SSS role within the LitM group and then a LPH or LHD could be funded separately to coincide with the decommissioning of the Albions in the mid 2030's.
- And no dedicated MHC-hull part (all money put on Bay-2).
This could very well be the best way forward. Early trails are showing promising results.


I agree with most of your analyse here but not with the PFI, I can’t see any government of the future going down that route again not just with the disaster the MOD have had but all other departments from the NHS the schools and so on. Iv seen Johnson say a few times now that they were a big mistake with highn sight.

Lord Jim wrote:Building two Rotterdams and three Johan de Witts to replace the Albions and Bays respectively would cover all of the above, giving greatly increased aviation capacity equal to at least one LPH, as well a extensive medical facilities and so on.


This is the way I think it’d go, not only would it reduce the need for a third flat top but the whole idea of the whole amphibious group acting as one at all times meaning the LPH will do all aviation has been shown to be a falsehood. All the LPDs / LSDs need there own hangers to get the most out of them. For me though I’d wait to see what SSS design is chosen, if it’s the old BAE design that has floated about I’d go with that giving 8 vessels base on the one design.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1378
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 15 Aug 2019, 12:43

As said for me build 4 new 200 meter Enforcers and a 200 to 210 meter Enforcer LHD all operating one hull type power plant and so on

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3281
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 15 Aug 2019, 12:56

Lord Jim wrote:So I assume we would want any Bay 2.0 to have a loading dock similar in size to that of the Albions? That shouldn't be a problem as the Enforcer catalogue seems to have a design to suit all tastes and wallets. I also assume that these six platforms would replace both the Bays and the Albions. Seems to tie in with something I wrote in the Amphibious thread a while back.
Jake1992 wrote: Could that be done on only a 150m platform as Donald has put forward ? I don’t think it could when you consider they’ll have to carry similar number of troops and equipment as the Albion’s and bays, and you’d think they’d also have helo hangers to not fill in to the same mistakes as we did last time.
My basic idea comes from not making it too large, to improve number. 150m is in-between Bay and Makassar-class LSD. May be up to the size similar to Bay, 170m long, would work. But, if we make it large and versatile, we will simply lose number.
Jake1992 wrote:Donald also appeared for them to replace all mcm vessels as well, IMO 6 wouldn’t be enough to cover all current mcm, Amphibious and aid roles.
But, how about 7x 170m version? 4x for "Albion and 3x Bays replacements", and 3x for MCMVs. I hope it will be affordable.

Anyway, heart of my proposal is to mix amphibious task and MCM tasks to improve flexibility. The former is "busy only in limited case, especially in war time", and the latter is continuous, majority of tasks are in peace-time. So it is good mix, I think. By doing this, 4x for MCM can be prepared for most of the time (2 on station, 2 on training+rest), while amphibious can surge up to 6.

Also, I do think 4 for MCM is enough to replace 12 MCMVs. The MCM-team includes 6-8 USVs, 6-8 UUVs and several UAVs. It is NOT "only four".

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3281
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 15 Aug 2019, 13:17

Poiuytrewq wrote:The commonality would be welcome but that's a massive reduction in hull numbers, effectively 17 down to 6, seems a tad extreme although the fast patrol would undoubtedly add something that is currently lacking.

Replacing 3x 176m Bays and 2x Albions with 3x 150m Bays would be a BIG cut, regardless of what the MCMV's are replaced with.
Not sure. In amphibious operation, now (after PoW commission) RN can send, Prince of Wales as LPH only sometimes, in addition to 1 Albion and 2 Bays, at most.

With my plan, up to 5x 150m (or 170m) LSD (1 in long refit) on surge, in addition to one LPH or PoW will be there. Big big improvement.
A priority must be to increase landing spots on any future LSD's or LPD's to enhance lilly-padding efficiency when operating alongside PWLS.
Good point. So, 5x 170m LSD each with 2 landing spots in addition to a LPH may work well?
The Bays/Albions currently have 7 Chinook capable landing spots between them when all active.
No. My proposal includes LPH or PoW, so the total landing spot is much much higher. Also, heart of my proposal is to surge up to 5 LSDs in amphibious operations = flexibility, from the "pool" of LSDs used for MCM tasks.
- One LPH (as the 3rd flat-top)
Can't see it if the FLSS are built but if they aren't then an Ocean Mk2 is a definite possibility.
What happened to FLSS? As its requirements are vague, it can be 2x Points to slightly modified to succeed most (if not all) of the Argus tasks, I hope.
Personally I think the best outcome would be to only build two FSS to support the CSG and transfer the remaining funds to the FLSS vessels.
I think 3 SSS is critically important for RN, if RN really want to operate a CVTF.

When 1 CVTF is actively operating, the SSS need to go back and forth to replenish the TF. This means, 2 SSS are needed. If RN have only 2 SSS, this means RN cannot do this, when the 2nd SSS is in long refit.

Online
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1395
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 15 Aug 2019, 14:37

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:So I assume we would want any Bay 2.0 to have a loading dock similar in size to that of the Albions? That shouldn't be a problem as the Enforcer catalogue seems to have a design to suit all tastes and wallets. I also assume that these six platforms would replace both the Bays and the Albions. Seems to tie in with something I wrote in the Amphibious thread a while back.
Jake1992 wrote: Could that be done on only a 150m platform as Donald has put forward ? I don’t think it could when you consider they’ll have to carry similar number of troops and equipment as the Albion’s and bays, and you’d think they’d also have helo hangers to not fill in to the same mistakes as we did last time.
My basic idea comes from not making it too large, to improve number. 150m is in-between Bay and Makassar-class LSD. May be up to the size similar to Bay, 170m long, would work. But, if we make it large and versatile, we will simply lose number.
Jake1992 wrote:Donald also appeared for them to replace all mcm vessels as well, IMO 6 wouldn’t be enough to cover all current mcm, Amphibious and aid roles.
But, how about 7x 170m version? 4x for "Albion and 3x Bays replacements", and 3x for MCMVs. I hope it will be affordable.

Anyway, heart of my proposal is to mix amphibious task and MCM tasks to improve flexibility. The former is "busy only in limited case, especially in war time", and the latter is continuous, majority of tasks are in peace-time. So it is good mix, I think. By doing this, 4x for MCM can be prepared for most of the time (2 on station, 2 on training+rest), while amphibious can surge up to 6.

Also, I do think 4 for MCM is enough to replace 12 MCMVs. The MCM-team includes 6-8 USVs, 6-8 UUVs and several UAVs. It is NOT "only four".


I completely get where going with it and have no real arguments with the idea it’s self just the numbers and size of each vessel.

The size mainly due to you’d not only want them to carry a similar number of troops and equipment to what they replace but also to the face that you’d want hangers to not make the same limiting mistake of the current crop, this takes up space in if it’s self but also space for the crews.

Numbers due to the fact that you’d need 1 in the gulf at all times for mcm, 1 for NATO standing mcm and one the Caribbean for aid. That’s all before taking into account any amphibious ops or literal work. Then there’s other unmanned work that will come down the line and mcm around the UK.

SW1
Member
Posts: 927
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 15 Aug 2019, 15:40

Jake1992 wrote:Numbers due to the fact that you’d need 1 in the gulf at all times for mcm, 1 for NATO standing mcm and one the Caribbean for aid. That’s all before taking into account any amphibious ops or literal work. Then there’s other unmanned work that will come down the line and mcm around the UK.


Is this not ignoring the fundamental flexibility that comes with making such operations platform agnostic?

As I’ve mentioned many times the locations you mention is fwd presence in action we have the ships already there just not the systems. The benefits of well dock sized patrol craft and usv craft is all about flexibility. They can operate from shore, operate at sea using the ship as a modern day depot ship equivalent or deploy with the ship. You mix and match to suit.

Is the bay in the Caribbean doing disaster relief? Or mcm when the US Navy brought there systems on board? Or maritime security when US coast guard teams and helicopters came on board? Or is just a big flexible secure “hotel” who’s role varies with what’s being embarked.

You can deploy a ship for a long period to an area, now while it may leave the uk configured a certain way but should things change you can fly people, large ribs or helicopters out from the uk and change the role of the ship or if you need larger patrol vessels self deploy them like the patrol boats did to the Baltic this summer and operate them from a Albion or bay if they didn’t deploy with them.

All possible if you start with a big ship with plenty of space for people and equipment, the US navy LCS concept is a gd one they just picked the wrong sized ship.

Online
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1395
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 15 Aug 2019, 16:18

SW1 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:Numbers due to the fact that you’d need 1 in the gulf at all times for mcm, 1 for NATO standing mcm and one the Caribbean for aid. That’s all before taking into account any amphibious ops or literal work. Then there’s other unmanned work that will come down the line and mcm around the UK.


Is this not ignoring the fundamental flexibility that comes with making such operations platform agnostic?

As I’ve mentioned many times the locations you mention is fwd presence in action we have the ships already there just not the systems. The benefits of well dock sized patrol craft and usv craft is all about flexibility. They can operate from shore, operate at sea using the ship as a modern day depot ship equivalent or deploy with the ship. You mix and match to suit.

Is the bay in the Caribbean doing disaster relief? Or mcm when the US Navy brought there systems on board? Or maritime security when US coast guard teams and helicopters came on board? Or is just a big flexible secure “hotel” who’s role varies with what’s being embarked.

You can deploy a ship for a long period to an area, now while it may leave the uk configured a certain way but should things change you can fly people, large ribs or helicopters out from the uk and change the role of the ship or if you need larger patrol vessels self deploy them like the patrol boats did to the Baltic this summer and operate them from a Albion or bay if they didn’t deploy with them.

All possible if you start with a big ship with plenty of space for people and equipment, the US navy LCS concept is a gd one they just picked the wrong sized ship.


No because even through the platform it’s self will be flexibile in what it can do due to its design and off board systems it can use the initial numbers would still be needed.

In the gulf do you believe mcm can be conducted by the off board system operating from shore ? IMO I don’t think this could be done so intern you’d still need a new Bay there st all times to be the Mother Ship.

In the Caribbean it could under take all the roles you’ve mentioned but the vessel it’s self would still need to be there.

This is what I’m getting at the bay Mk2s operating as flexible mother ships for all sorts of roles is perfectly fine I am not arguing that at all. What I am arguing is the numbers required to under take all the tasks they’d be set at any one time, in this I don’t believe 6 would be enough.

1 - in the gulf mcm
1 - in the Caribbean doing a multitude of tasks
1 - part of NATO standing mcm group
1 - conducting amphibious ops ( either training or operationally )
1 - doing security roles where needed
2 - in refit / work up

This is at least 7 while ignoring a need for any round the UK.
The other thing that would need to be taken in to account when going down this route is what happens when a large scale amphibious op is needed? What vessel conduct mcm for the fleet and what vessel take over the roles that the bays would be taken away from ?

This is why for me a greater number is needed if we go down this route. That it a mix of a 2/3 tier system of bays, multi mission sloops and absalon / UVX style vessel.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ebro, Jimpa, Nimonic and 16 guests