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.
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1397
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 19 Aug 2019, 21:36

This caught my interest when looking at Littoral security ops, something like this fitted with spear 3 could be a pain for others and 4 could be carried in an Albion or 2 in a Bay well-dock.

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.p ... forms.html

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10669
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 25 Aug 2019, 05:59

Sorry about the long post, had to comment on the discussion while there is still 3 more pages ahead, to catch up:
Lord Jim wrote: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.
Agreed; not just capacity, but capabilities (which will, as a mix, have to bump against the cost constraint).
Lord Jim wrote: in my opinion, opens up a whole new conversation on this thread, especially as to what should compliments or replace the Albions.
Again agreed, but that date is so far ahead that steps will need to be taken along the way. Just a quote from what triggered/ energised this discussion (sounds much like my oft-repeated "not too many eggs into one/ few basket(s)":
" the Corps must be able to quickly move and scatter forces ashore to avoid the proliferation of precision strike capabilities.

And then comes the key line.

“It would be illogical to continue to concentrate our forces on a few large ships. The adversary will quickly recognize that striking while concentrated (aboard ship) is the preferred option. We need to change this calculus with a new fleet design of smaller, more lethal, and more risk-worthy platforms.”

The decades-old idea that Marines could punch their way ashore from amphibious ships parked dozens of miles offshore..."

Lord Jim wrote: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.
Yes, offensive platforms are expensive, so separating them and the means to get them there, at the same time with the advance/ main force can make sense, within the bigger picture.
Poiuytrewq wrote:The temptation to reduce Point numbers to justify the new FLSS vessels will be high.

+
Poiuytrewq wrote: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
That's the kind of interim steps - one of them - that I was thinking could be taken. However, add the dispersed operations (requirement) and that secondary SSS role/ helicopter transport role become evidently sensible... and necessary!

SW1 wrote:the US navy LCS concept is a gd one they just picked the wrong sized ship.
Agreed. As their was no clear adversary for the operational analysis scenarios to be based on, they added some: like intercepting a hijacked ship, with a dirty bomb onboard, over the vastness of the Pacific
... so you got a frigate, powered like a cruiser - and armed like a corvette. With (!) the reaching onto land part of the armament package/ modules dropped??

Jake1992 wrote: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
A good practical point: google can measure the nmls from Bahrain to (ops to be conducted near) Hormuz, at a push of a button... the need for a mothership becomes evident

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1930
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 25 Aug 2019, 06:46

ArmChairCivvy wrote:However, add the dispersed operations (requirement) and that secondary SSS role/ helicopter transport role become evidently sensible... and necessary!


Agree on the need for the helicopter support / transport role. This is why a replacement for Argus and probably combining this to add the 3rd FSS to build two JSBL (with secondary FSS roles) is a good option for the way forward.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10669
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 25 Aug 2019, 06:52

SW1 wrote:You can operate from a port or hired vessel around the uk. If you need mcm for an amphibious operation you make allowance to carry it.
Agreed. But with one Bay away, none in refit, that leaves one (and then there will be none for the Ports Group... or is it a Rgmnt... to travel in, with their heavy gear to be taken over the beach, before they repair/ prepare a port)
- summa summarum: no troop lift, just support functions (included, so far; see below for more)

Jake1992 wrote:T-31 - all depends on design chosen to see if they’ll have the space to carry and operate the unmanned systems and on how large these system become.
RB2/Echos - so really a future multi mission sloop ?

Looks like we are headed the right way: having more platforms to distribute the supporting functions/ kit onto?

Poiuytrewq wrote:if both the CSG and LitM are ever to be surged at the same time then RN will need all 3 FSS and 2 FLSS with a secondary SSS capability would be a big help also.
The point being that the RN provides three key capabilities, or actually 2.5:
- CASD
- Carrier Group, can be surged alone
- LitM, if surged then that will be together with the above (hence the sum of 2.5); if alone, then we are talking ARG for a NEO, or something else not involving a peer or near-peer OpFor

Repulse wrote:Not having LSDs means that you are not able to provide depth in any operation. As all these ships have roles (like today + the unmanned mothership partial role) outside of an ARG the overall value to the fleet is higher.

Quite.
SW1 wrote:There is zero chance of a lhd when the two carriers have been bought and there is barely the aviation assets available to fill half of one regularly.

Defence planning assumptions for what there worth indicates a maximum effort one off where everything else stops at about or slightly smaller than operation telic.

Worthwhile to remember those assumptions every now and then, as we keep adding "nice to haves" to everyone's likes (cake'ism is speading to all walks of life? ;) )

SW1 wrote:even that maybe far in excess of what is required for the amphibious side which leads into how you secure littoral zones. I’m more convinced that ever littoral strike concept is the replacement/renewal of the amphibious fleet.
Agreed, but littoral is both the coastal waters and the land (zone), so the shipping for the follow-on element to exploit the abutment 'secured' is an essential part of the whole and cannot be just 'STUFTed'.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10669
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 25 Aug 2019, 07:19

SW1 wrote:ensure any BOST isn’t taken by force in the first place which is exactly what it’s done. Luckily none of them are in any danger what so ever in any strategic timeframe you care to think off.
We always slip away when the situation arises: Iran (THE Iran of the Shah, that is) took the islands in Hormuz three days before our obligation to defend them ended, we walked away from HK, we gave the impression of walking away from the Falklands...
Poiuytrewq wrote:Depends if the requirement is for two vessels to be in two places at once. That's the key.
Absolutely, dispersed operations! - even if I start to sound like a broken record. Not far removed from "securing the littoral" and that is a multi-dimensional challenge, so the below phrase was well coined:

SW1 wrote:Controlling or providing security in the littoral is the navy equivalent of fighting in a city.


When not as part of the above, then the below holds:
Poiuytrewq wrote:Personally I think the FLSS concept is simply the cheapest way for the MOD to give the LPD's the aviation capacity that they should of had from day one.
... assets for multiple uses; the way to go?

SW1 wrote:The amphibious ready group is a light battleground and deploys across a beach. It not fighting any serious opposition to gain territory.
Quite; it is like the AMF of the old. To be quickly where required (then it was the northern flank), but for success totally dependent (on the availability and credibility) of follow-on forces.

Lord Jim wrote:Recent Governments seem to want to reverse the East of Suez decision.
Well, yes. Let's see when we hit the next financial crisis. the pound plummets, the Gvmnt cuts everywhere
- Boris is doing all he can, for that to happen (despite 'assuring' us of the contrary :crazy: )

SW1
Member
Posts: 928
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 25 Aug 2019, 16:04

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Agreed, but littoral is both the coastal waters and the land (zone), so the shipping for the follow-on element to exploit the abutment 'secured' is an essential part of the whole and cannot be just 'STUFTed'.


It certainly is, but is that not what the point vessels are for carrying the follow on force

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3399
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 26 Aug 2019, 07:48

The lack of clarity around what form any Littoral force would take and how it would be used, all we have is basically a PR stunt to go on, is a clear example of the need for a proper review of defence requirements and resources sat against known and feasible future threats. We cannot keep having future capabilities announced on the back of a fag packet after being thought of and briefly discussed in the pub the night before. Whether it is amphibious operations or replacing the Challenger 2, the Politicians need to put up or shut up regarding defence. You cannot transport and land forces on a whim, you need the appropriate platforms to conduct such operations and just as importantly support them. We have the absolute bare minimum at present, and are even then limited as to what operation we can effectively carry out and on what scale. We need to prioritise which types of operation we aim to be able to accomplish. Do we still wish to move 3 Cmdo to Norway quickly if needed? How large a follow on force do we need sea lift for, are we going to spread the Royal Marines in penny packets all over the world to conduct operations in conjunction with Special Forces? I doubt we can afford to have all the naval assets to conduct all of the above so we need to step back and look and what we want to do regarding amphibious operations as part of a review of what shape our Armed Forces should be, how we intend to use them, against what threats, and as a result what resources do they need to conduct and sustain them.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1930
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 12 Oct 2019, 12:36

Putting aside escort, Littoral warfare, SF raids and first wave amphibious assault topics, my question is what is the UK envisaging as the requirement and capability for follow up waves.

I’m assuming (maybe incorrectly) that a key capability would be globally deploy via the sea, land (via a safe or secure landing area with limited facilities) and support/sustain an Army Strike Brigade with 90 days notice.

If that is the case, then is the following (plus STUFT) enough? If not what is missing and what should be the future evolution in the next 20 years?

- 3 Bay LSDs
- RFA Argus
- 4 Point Class
- 1-2 Wave Class
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1397
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 12 Oct 2019, 13:28

Repulse wrote:Putting aside escort, Littoral warfare, SF raids and first wave amphibious assault topics, my question is what is the UK envisaging as the requirement and capability for follow up waves.

I’m assuming (maybe incorrectly) that a key capability would be globally deploy via the sea, land (via a safe or secure landing area with limited facilities) and support/sustain an Army Strike Brigade with 90 days notice.

If that is the case, then is the following (plus STUFT) enough? If not what is missing and what should be the future evolution in the next 20 years?

- 3 Bay LSDs
- RFA Argus
- 4 Point Class
- 1-2 Wave Class


IMO it depends on a few descution that will be made before the amphibious replacement.

1 - how we conducted MCM in the future, if this is done from the existing bays and then their replacements can this be done while still offering the second wave capability needed ?

2 - Argus’s replacement, it’s expected that this will be the 2 LSS but if not then what replaces her large aviation and medical capabilities ?

3 - what will offer the solid stores replenishment to compliment the waves ? What will replace the wave or will they be at all ?

4 - numbers, will 4 points and 3 bays be enough the move the full strike brigade ?

My thinking to answer these questions is as follows -

1 - I believe a mix type of vessels is required to deliver future mcm with a bay style vessel being part of the mix, if this is the case they would need to be separate from the bay ( replacement ) as I don’t believe they could preform both roles as once.

2 - it argue is not replaced the LSS will need to have large capable aviation facilities, if they are not to be used in this role then a similar Morden version of Argus will be required.

3 - IMO the ideal route would be to replace the waves with aa pair of all in one like KD or a Morden Fort class, if not then a small SSS type will be needed.

4 - as for numbers I believe are short there was a reason we initially purchased 4 bays and 6 points, I believe one extra of each is needed for deliver a full strike brigade so 4 and 5 respectively.

Over all I believe we are short of what’s needed right now to fully deliver and maintain a strike brigade and this is with out looking at the first wave aviation needs.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1930
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 12 Oct 2019, 16:16

Jake1992, I’m not really considering MCM or other capabilities to make an area safe, but more lift and logistics into an area that hasn’t a significant port where equipment like Mexiflotes will be required.

It is true though that the LSDs Bays could have a secondary MCM mothership role, but I’d argue that if both LPDs are active then working within the CSG, then with it and the T26/T31s there is probably sufficient MCM USV “mothership” capability.

The key question is that if being able to deliver and sustain a fighting brigade globally is a UK requirement then what would be required.

My view would be the the 3 Bays are not quite sufficient and another 1-2 would be required, perhaps also replacing the PCRS capability of RFA Argus. As far as I understand the original requirement were 5 LSDs back in the mid 90s.

How important is this in the big scheme of things, I’d say it’s high up on the list, higher than having a slow deploying Army division, as it’s is a likely scenario in the next 20 years.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1397
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 12 Oct 2019, 16:35

Repulse wrote:Jake1992, I’m not really considering MCM or other capabilities to make an area safe, but more lift and logistics into an area that hasn’t a significant port where equipment like Mexiflotes will be required.

It is true though that the LSDs Bays could have a secondary MCM mothership role, but I’d argue that if both LPDs are active then working within the CSG, then with it and the T26/T31s there is probably sufficient MCM USV “mothership” capability.

The key question is that if being able to deliver and sustain a fighting brigade globally is a UK requirement then what would be required.

My view would be the the 3 Bays are not quite sufficient and another 1-2 would be required, perhaps also replacing the PCRS capability of RFA Argus. As far as I understand the original requirement were 5 LSDs back in the mid 90s.

How important is this in the big scheme of things, I’d say it’s high up on the list, higher than having a slow deploying Army division, as it’s is a likely scenario in the next 20 years.


I would agree that the T31s could act as the mcm Mother ship but it all depends on the size of the unmanned systems I’m going off that they will most likely be larger than the T31 boat bays, all other assets would most likely be busy with other roles.
This is why I take mcm in to account as if the bays are needed for this role it’ll conflict with the second wave role.

I agree that 3 bays are not enough for what would really be required, I did forget that there was original planned for 5.

I do agree for the strike brigades to have a truly global effect they need the ability to get any where they are needed to be put.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1930
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 12 Oct 2019, 16:51

Jake1992 wrote:all other assets would most likely be busy with other roles.


It’s going to be interesting to see based on the Future Commando Force. My view is whilst other’s may see the two LPDs as no longer required, I’d see them as absolutely needed to pair with the CVFs, not only to transport RMs, equipment and OTH ship-to-shore connectors, but as a large (front line) mothership for smaller craft. That’s why I would actually put getting the 2nd LPD back into service ahead of a 5th T31.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3399
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 13 Oct 2019, 00:53

Regarding MCM, the type of platform that replaces the Hunts and Sandowns is going to be important. They could be of a size and capability to be true ocean going vessels able to deploy and be supported like other major warships, and be large enough to be effective motherships to a range of unmanned platforms not just those related to MCM tasks.

As for the aspiration to be able to deploy an Army Brigade, most likely one of the Mechanised Brigades anywhere within 90 days and sustain them in the field, that will certainly require additional resources. The replacements for both the Albions and Bays must have proper aviation facilitates, to reduce the need for the CVFs to operate as LPHs. We need ship to shore connectors that can operate from OTH rapidly to make the initial landing be it onto a beach or securing a port of entry. These platforms need to be able to protect themselves and also be provided with escort craft. Once a pint of entry has been secured we need to be able to land the Brigade and its support infrastructure rapidly to allow the Brigade to be combat ready ASAP.

However the 90 day target is too conservative in my eyes. For an Armoured Infantry Brigade maybe, but we need to be able to deploy a Mechanised Brigade faster, to buy time for follow on forces to arrive. The Mechanised Brigade is an ideal formation to support our early entry forces Like 3 Commando and its allied components. It is the latter that are going to need new launch platforms, something different from the proposed FLSS. It is in this area we need to closely follow where the USMC is going in the future.

Online
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 » 13 Oct 2019, 04:51

Not clear for me.

LPDs and LSDs are for early entry force, such as RM commando and 5 Para, as I understand.

After the port is secured, Points and STUFT ships are the main tool, not Bays nor Albions.

So, these assets shall be planned with RM and Para, primarily?

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1930
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 13 Oct 2019, 08:54

Lord Jim, there is definitely is an ongoing debate on what’s needed for seizing and initially securing a landing ground - personally, I see an OTH combination of a CVF and our current LPDs with some modifications as a strong base for an entry force (though I would like a 3rd Flat top also :P). There is a similar discussion needed on MCM, but would see it part of the entry / securing force rather than the follow up.

Deploying at less than 90 days is possible, but the cost goes up, and at this stage careful thought would need to be given - 30-60 days would be ideal but what else gives?

donald_of_tokyo wrote:LPDs and LSDs are for early entry force, such as RM commando and 5 Para, as I understand.

After the port is secured, Points and STUFT ships are the main tool, not Bays nor Albions.

So, these assets shall be planned with RM and Para, primarily?


The Bay Class replaced the Round Table class which were LSLs (Landing Ship Logistics). The LSLs were originally manned by the Army.

Whilst the Bay class role has expanded to be motherships as priorities dictated they still (afaik) cover the old LSL requirements, and my view is that this should remain their primary role. The Points cannot accommodate troops, so anything out of area would require them (or STUFT) to ferry personnel to the landing zone, assuming they cannot be flown in directly.

The capability I think is needed is deploying to a secured small port / prepared landing ground which has limited access directly to large ships, as its a very likely scenario in my view.

Overall, the cheapest and more appropriate soon could be to just build a couple more Bay Class and an Argus replacement, or a couple more Bay Class with hangars - though to be clear apart from for PCRS, the primary requirement would be for ferrying helicopters / a/c not active operations.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

SW1
Member
Posts: 928
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 13 Oct 2019, 09:22

Deploying what and were at what scale will dictate a lot.

Is it to deploy 1 or at most 2 brigades within the NATO area? If so then on rail thru the tunnel then drive. Is it to the north points to Norway then drive.

Beyond the nato area what is the scale we wish to deploy at? Small or medium.

I would suggest anything beyond small needs a lot more money, to do it properly which isn’t gonna happen. Therefore a small scale sized commando force provided by commando marines or paras is our global deployable force.

If the argument is keep what we've always done the way we’ve always done it then budgets will ensure there removed. It carriers, ssbns or amphibious, you can do 1 of those at a stretch 2 but not all 3

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10669
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 13 Oct 2019, 09:30

SW1 wrote: Is it to the north points to Norway then drive.
Reminds me that we did that for the latest, large-scale NATO exercise, but v little written about it in a 'post mortem' way.
SW1 wrote:carriers, ssbns or amphibious, you can do 1 of those at a stretch 2 but not all 3
Comes close to my repeated argument of "2 and a half" as LitM without carriers would be limited to NEOs and raids.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1380
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 13 Oct 2019, 09:53

For me if we are to have a proper global amphibious capability going forward we will need to replace the current fleet like so

Albion with a LPH 240 x 40 meters capable of carrying 900 troops and operating 25 aircraft off 8 spots

Bays & Argus with 4 x new 200 meter Enforcer capable of carrying 400 troops with a full width mission bay capable of carrying 3 Merlin's off 2 spots

Add 2 x FLSS capable of carrying 350 troops plus 4 helicopters

Points with 6 new Points

we should also note that the RAF could drop 400 Paras using C-17 or A400M almost anywhere to help re-enforce as needed

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1397
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 13 Oct 2019, 10:01

Tempest414 wrote:For me if we are to have a proper global amphibious capability going forward we will need to replace the current fleet like so

Albion with a LPH 240 x 40 meters capable of carrying 900 troops and operating 25 aircraft off 8 spots

Bays & Argus with 4 x new 200 meter Enforcer capable of carrying 400 troops with a full width mission bay capable of carrying 3 Merlin's off 2 spots

Add 2 x FLSS capable of carrying 350 troops plus 4 helicopters

Points with 6 new Points

we should also note that the RAF could drop 400 Paras using C-17 or A400M almost anywhere to help re-enforce as needed


A couple of questions-

1 - are you assuming the second Albion won’t be replaced or that both will be just just 1 LPH ?

2 - would your LPH be chinook capable in its hanger and lifts or be limited how ocean was ?

3 - what size we’ll docks would your new enforces have for what number of LCUs and LCVPs ?

4 - what type of ship to shore connectors would you be looking at to replace the LCUs and LCVPs ?

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1380
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 13 Oct 2019, 11:15

Jake1992 wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:For me if we are to have a proper global amphibious capability going forward we will need to replace the current fleet like so

Albion with a LPH 240 x 40 meters capable of carrying 900 troops and operating 25 aircraft off 8 spots

Bays & Argus with 4 x new 200 meter Enforcer capable of carrying 400 troops with a full width mission bay capable of carrying 3 Merlin's off 2 spots

Add 2 x FLSS capable of carrying 350 troops plus 4 helicopters

Points with 6 new Points

we should also note that the RAF could drop 400 Paras using C-17 or A400M almost anywhere to help re-enforce as needed


A couple of questions-

1 - are you assuming the second Albion won’t be replaced or that both will be just just 1 LPH ?

2 - would your LPH be chinook capable in its hanger and lifts or be limited how ocean was ?

3 - what size we’ll docks would your new enforces have for what number of LCUs and LCVPs ?

4 - what type of ship to shore connectors would you be looking at to replace the LCUs and LCVPs ?


1 . No I don't see both Albion's being replaced so the new LPH would be there replacement

2 . Yes the new LPH would be capable of fitting Chinooks in the hangar and on side lifts

3 . I would be looking at Enforcers capable of fitting 2x LCUs in the well dock and carrying 2 x LCVP's or CB-90 on davits

4 . I would go for Caimen -90 to replace the LCU's plus a mix of updated LCVP and CB-90 plus Mexeflotes for ship to shore connectors

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1930
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 13 Oct 2019, 11:40

SW1 wrote:Deploying what and were at what scale will dictate a lot.

Is it to deploy 1 or at most 2 brigades within the NATO area? If so then on rail thru the tunnel then drive. Is it to the north points to Norway then drive.


SW1 wrote:It carriers, ssbns or amphibious, you can do 1 of those at a stretch 2 but not all 3


Both very good points.

I’m not talking about Central Europe as as you say there is existing infrastructure that is much better placed (though these assets will play a supporting role). However, South East Europe and Scandinavia yes. I am focusing on a single brigade as that is probably the level appropriate.

I do agree with the point around the choice between the three (SSBNs,CEPP,Amphibious) but I’m really not talking about amphibious assault, what I’m basically talking about is delivering an Army Brigade to a landing ground globally which is secure but with limited facilities (either they have been destroyed or were never there) whereby making docking large ships to offload in the traditional way impossible/difficult.

Jake1992 / Tempest414, appreciate the debate but I’m purposely ignoring the amphibious assault phase and more focused on the follow up delivery and logistics.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1397
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 13 Oct 2019, 11:59

Repulse wrote:
SW1 wrote:Deploying what and were at what scale will dictate a lot.

Is it to deploy 1 or at most 2 brigades within the NATO area? If so then on rail thru the tunnel then drive. Is it to the north points to Norway then drive.


SW1 wrote:It carriers, ssbns or amphibious, you can do 1 of those at a stretch 2 but not all 3


Both very good points.

I’m not talking about Central Europe as as you say there is existing infrastructure that is much better placed (though these assets will play a supporting role). However, South East Europe and Scandinavia yes. I am focusing on a single brigade as that is probably the level appropriate.

I do agree with the point around the choice between the three (SSBNs,CEPP,Amphibious) but I’m really not talking about amphibious assault, what I’m basically talking about is delivering an Army Brigade to a landing ground globally which is secure but with limited facilities (either they have been destroyed or were never there) whereby making docking large ships to offload in the traditional way impossible/difficult.

Jake1992 / Tempest414, appreciate the debate but I’m purposely ignoring the amphibious assault phase and more focused on the follow up delivery and logistics.


This is why up thread question I believe need to be answered before the number and capabilities of any second wave ( logistics wave ) can be decided on.

For me first wave ( the amphibious assault ) would be RMs by sea and 16 Para by air ( if possible ) to secure prepare and hold the landing site. Second and third waves would be the delivery of a strike brigade and its supporting elements.

The question of what replaces the bays and points and in what numbers along with their support such as waves Argus and any solid support is tied to the replacement of other assets such as mcm. If we determine that mcm and other unmanned system will be operated from the current bays ( and intern their replacements ) then numbers would need to be increased by a good amount as doing both roles at the same time couldn’t be done from the existing numbers.

serge750
Member
Posts: 378
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby serge750 » 13 Oct 2019, 12:11

Tempest414 wrote:For me if we are to have a proper global amphibious capability going forward we will need to replace the current fleet like so

Albion with a LPH 240 x 40 meters capable of carrying 900 troops and operating 25 aircraft off 8 spots

Bays & Argus with 4 x new 200 meter Enforcer capable of carrying 400 troops with a full width mission bay capable of carrying 3 Merlin's off 2 spots

Add 2 x FLSS capable of carrying 350 troops plus 4 helicopters

Points with 6 new Points

we should also note that the RAF could drop 400 Paras using C-17 or A400M almost anywhere to help re-enforce as needed


Would be good to have the enforcers, The only concern I have is that the bean counters would see the 240m/40000t ? LPH as a aircraft carrier & try to cut one of the QEC, so if going for a LPH/LPD I would go for a similar size or a wee bit bigger to a mistral,

Does anybody know if the rear lift on a mistral (as it is sort of deck edge) could take a chinnock or is the hanger to small anyway?

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1380
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 13 Oct 2019, 12:29

serge750 wrote:The only concern I have is that the bean counters would see the 240m/40000t ? LPH as a aircraft carrier & try to cut one of the QEC,


It would not be capable of F-35 operations in a effort to keep costs down plus it would be the job of the RN to high light the need for the third flat top allowing for one strike carrier and LHP at all times

SW1
Member
Posts: 928
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 13 Oct 2019, 12:36

Repulse wrote:what I’m basically talking about is delivering an Army Brigade to a landing ground globally which is secure but with limited facilities (either they have been destroyed or were never there) whereby making docking large ships to offload in the traditional way impossible/difficult.


I would agree in part, it is about delivering an army brigade but to a damaged/degraded port or a safe port.

We are not in any shape or form delivering an army brigade over a beach which is what “port facilities were never there” means.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: donald_of_tokyo and 18 guests