Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

[SW1]

What may last post means is less tasks, less programs to free cash to invest in specialists areas.

So based on current planning what are you proposing to cut?

As I have mentioned before my choice is national requirements around air defence, maritime security and counter terrorism/eod. Beyond that our contributions to coalitions would be around submarines, strategic transport, aar, airborne ISR and special forces (under which I included the RM and paras). All the rest up for discussion based on how much budget is left.

You have generally responded this means isolationism to which I have disagreed.

I agree with everything here. What I can’t understand is why you don’t also agree that the carriers are key operating platforms for SFs and also a crucial part of ensuring sea control in the North Atlantic alongside SSN/T26/MPA assets.

I don’t want to turn this into another discussion about aircraft carriers but my answer to that is I’m not sure they are crucial it can be done without them. We spent 5 times too much with a crew requirement 4 times too much based around a fast jet sortie requirement out of all proportion to anything we are realistically going to need on a ship. As a result the rest of the navy force structure was decimated and significant infrastructure issues ignored to chase a fantasy.

If you want to do a surface ship contribution to asw sea control in the North Atlantic if you put 9 Merlin’s on HMS ocean at the centre of 4 type 23 frigates you do that job today.

If you want to support SF up close you can put chinook/pavehawk/merlin/apache/wildcat choose your combination on HMS ocean as happened off Libya and the gulf and she could does that job no problem. But it cost £300m and needed a crew of 280.

Do we have a need to put more than 4-8 fastjets at sea 99% of the time no. We should of built on the huge success we achieved with HMS Ocean and if there was a desire to keep fastjets at sea as part of the airgroup the closest thing around today I see to my idea of how an evolved HMS ocean may look is the Italian cavour. But instead we are disarming ourselves by of over specifying and over specialising equipment in to many areas and just demanding the answer is more money.

[serge750]

When designed the budget was bigger as GDP, in hindsight a couple of Cavours would of been a little more budget friendly but less able to surge aircraft & support them for a shorter time IF needed, dont get me wrong but i think 3 Cavours to replace the 3 invincible CVL may of been better fit for the RN at the moment, but we have them now - maybe till the 2060's ....... so long term they could be more cost effective than smaller carriers ? + with tech progressing 30 - 40 fixed wing aircraft ( including 20 F35 ) may be possible in the 30's....

[serge750]

I don’t want to turn this into another discussion about aircraft carriers…

Fair, and don’t want to kick off the same circular discussions either. What I would add though is that I see a CVF as “4 acres of floating sovereign territory” - it should be seen in the same way as any forward operating airbase capable of operating a multitude of assets, not just a traditional carrier and for this its size is key.

This is why the carriers are going to be a core part of the future RN amphibious assault capability.

[Tempest414]

I don’t want to turn this into another discussion about aircraft carriers…

Fair, and don’t want to kick off the same circular discussions either. What I would add though is that I see a CVF as “4 acres of floating sovereign territory” - it should be seen in the same way as any forward operating airbase capable of operating a multitude of assets, not just a traditional carrier and for this its size is key.

This is why the carriers are going to be a core part of the future RN amphibious assault capability.

And to take this one step more a 210 by 36 meter flat top LPD would be just under 2 acres of sovereign base capable of operating multiple assets

[new guy]

I don’t want to turn this into another discussion about aircraft carriers…

Fair, and don’t want to kick off the same circular discussions either. What I would add though is that I see a CVF as “4 acres of floating sovereign territory” - it should be seen in the same way as any forward operating airbase capable of operating a multitude of assets, not just a traditional carrier and for this its size is key.

This is why the carriers are going to be a core part of the future RN amphibious assault capability.

And to take this one step more a 210 by 36 meter flat top LPD would be just under 2 acres of sovereign base capable of operating multiple assets

You would be a great lobbyist considering how often you repeat your point.

[Tempest414]

I don’t want to turn this into another discussion about aircraft carriers…

Fair, and don’t want to kick off the same circular discussions either. What I would add though is that I see a CVF as “4 acres of floating sovereign territory” - it should be seen in the same way as any forward operating airbase capable of operating a multitude of assets, not just a traditional carrier and for this its size is key.

This is why the carriers are going to be a core part of the future RN amphibious assault capability.

And to take this one step more a 210 by 36 meter flat top LPD would be just under 2 acres of sovereign base capable of operating multiple assets

You would be a great lobbyist considering how often you repeat your point.

Thank you but if you remember I asked you to tell me why a Flat top LPD would not be a good move however so far you have not come back to me with anything in fact no one has come back with good reason as why a flat top LPD would be a bad move

[Poiuytrewq]

…my answer to that is I’m not sure they are crucial it can be done without them.

They can’t be excluded from the discussion, RN literally revolves around them now.

Finding an operating model that is both affordable and sustainable is crucial. If RN doesn’t do that a CVF will be in extended readiness within a decade if outcomes continue to worsen.

It’s an easy win for an incoming administration. Put PWLS into extended readiness and instantly the headcount and budget pressures disappear and the navy starts to work again.

[SW1]

…my answer to that is I’m not sure they are crucial it can be done without them.

They can’t be excluded from the discussion, RN literally revolves around them now.

It’s an easy win for an incoming administration. Put PWLS into extended readiness and instantly the headcount and budget pressures disappear and the navy starts to work again.

It depends very much how brave the politicians are in that discussion about making defence work within its current budget.


The RN cannot continue to operate both aircraft carriers at the same time so I would agree with your point.

[Tempest414]

…my answer to that is I’m not sure they are crucial it can be done without them.

They can’t be excluded from the discussion, RN literally revolves around them now.

Finding an operating model that is both affordable and sustainable is crucial. If RN doesn’t do that a CVF will be in extended readiness within a decade if outcomes continue to worsen.

It’s an easy win for an incoming administration. Put PWLS into extended readiness and instantly the headcount and budget pressures disappear and the navy starts to work again.

It is not that easy if Labour put PWLS into ER they will take a kicking as it was them who made it law to build both carriers in the first place it would be the gift that kept giving there last act in gov was to force 2 carriers on the UK there first act in gov would be to cut one the Tories would be shouting from the roof that Labour can't be trusted with defence

[new guy]

The RN cannot continue to operate both aircraft carriers at the same time so I would agree with your point.

We said we wouldn’t turn this in a carrier discussion, but I fundamentally disagree with the position that the RN cannot operate both carriers at the same time. They absolutely can, it’s a question about in what configuration would each be deployed in, how often would we expect this to be the case, and what else doesn’t the RN then do to fund it and provide the crew.

[serge750]

…my answer to that is I’m not sure they are crucial it can be done without them.

They can’t be excluded from the discussion, RN literally revolves around them now.

Finding an operating model that is both affordable and sustainable is crucial. If RN doesn’t do that a CVF will be in extended readiness within a decade if outcomes continue to worsen.

It’s an easy win for an incoming administration. Put PWLS into extended readiness and instantly the headcount and budget pressures disappear and the navy starts to work again.

It is not that easy if Labour put PWLS into ER they will take a kicking as it was them who made it law to build both carriers in the first place it would be the gift that kept giving there last act in gov was to force 2 carriers on the UK there first act in gov would be to cut one the Tories would be shouting from the roof that Labour can't be trusted with defence

It’s dumb beyond belief that selling or removing a carrier is actually a discussion, only in the UK… Delete a carrier and the UK becomes a NATO only player - we seem to be obsessed by light frigates and blind to what makes a difference.

[Repulse]

…no one has come back with good reason as why a flat top LPD would be a bad move

It’s a reasonable option as an addition to the two CVFs as is a third large carrier (LHA).

My view is that these task groups are about having floating (multi service) floating forward operating bases, and just to be clear I’m not adverse to having a dock as part of the floating base neither, just as long as it’s useful and not at the expense of operating fixed wing aircraft. I would however see that dock capability being seen as part of an ability to operate smaller ships (not just landing craft) - a “boat carrier” may be a good name for it.

[jedibeeftrix]

in fact no one has come back with good reason as why a flat top LPD would be a bad move

nothing wrong with a flattop, it is literally a zero cost option vis-a-vis any other configuiration of amphib - provided all other core tasks are accomodated.

that is not to say that you can anything useful with that big flat top, unless you are willing to also invest massively in the platform in the following areas:

> Equipped maintainance spaces
>> Plus maintenance staff
> Equipped armoury spaces
>> Plus armoury staff
> Equipped landing spaces
>> Plus landing staff
> Equipped flight-space management spaces
>> Plus flight-space management staff

there is a reason why the LPD's are enormously more expensive to operate and maintain than the LSD's: they are equipped and manned to do enormously more, and at a higher tempo.

this is where I get very suspicious of the logic behind people advocating cheap flat-top amphibs - while at the same time griping about the enormous operational and maintainance cost of the carriers. the numbers don't really add up, if what you really intend is for the 'cheap' flat-top amphib to operate as stealth America class LHD's.

the two carriers went through endless design iteration to create the most efficient use of resources to maintain a specified level of operational performance. yes, the navy does now rotate around the needs of the carrier groups, because we specified a high level of operational performance. it's called "trade-offs".

i bet if you removed maintenance, armoury, landing, and flight-space management spaces - and deleted the the posts that exist to man them - then the carriers would become pretty cheap to run!

so people, please tell me more about how tragically expensive the carriers are to run, and how the magic solution is provided by cheap flat-top amphibs...?

[Tempest414]

…my answer to that is I’m not sure they are crucial it can be done without them.

They can’t be excluded from the discussion, RN literally revolves around them now.

Finding an operating model that is both affordable and sustainable is crucial. If RN doesn’t do that a CVF will be in extended readiness within a decade if outcomes continue to worsen.

It’s an easy win for an incoming administration. Put PWLS into extended readiness and instantly the headcount and budget pressures disappear and the navy starts to work again.

It is not that easy if Labour put PWLS into ER they will take a kicking as it was them who made it law to build both carriers in the first place it would be the gift that kept giving there last act in gov was to force 2 carriers on the UK there first act in gov would be to cut one the Tories would be shouting from the roof that Labour can't be trusted with defence

It’s dumb beyond belief that selling or removing a carrier is actually a discussion, only in the UK… Delete a carrier and the UK becomes a NATO only player - we seem to be obsessed by light frigates and blind to what makes a difference.

To be clear nowhere have I said we should remove a carrier it is my view that we should add 4 x flat top MRSS which would use the vehicle deck as a hangar plus have a dock for two Fast LCU's like PACSCAT or LCAC or large drones

I also support having another 3 type 31's for the reasons I put forward many times

[Tempest414]

…my answer to that is I’m not sure they are crucial it can be done without them.

They can’t be excluded from the discussion, RN literally revolves around them now.

Finding an operating model that is both affordable and sustainable is crucial. If RN doesn’t do that a CVF will be in extended readiness within a decade if outcomes continue to worsen.

It’s an easy win for an incoming administration. Put PWLS into extended readiness and instantly the headcount and budget pressures disappear and the navy starts to work again.

It is not that easy if Labour put PWLS into ER they will take a kicking as it was them who made it law to build both carriers in the first place it would be the gift that kept giving there last act in gov was to force 2 carriers on the UK there first act in gov would be to cut one the Tories would be shouting from the roof that Labour can't be trusted with defence

It’s dumb beyond belief that selling or removing a carrier is actually a discussion, only in the UK… Delete a carrier and the UK becomes a NATO only player - we seem to be obsessed by light frigates and blind to what makes a difference.

To be clear nowhere have I said we should remove a carrier…

Sorry, I was commenting on the line of discussion, rather than individual views

[serge750]

Would love to know how much a QEC carrier costs to run compared to the old CVL invincible class & the juan carlos class excluding aircraft....anybody got any figures ?

[jedibeeftrix]

It’s dumb beyond belief that selling or removing a carrier is actually a discussion, only in the UK

Three reasons: RAF, RAF owning Naval Aviation, & Russian trolls (including those on the UK's left wing).

I find it amusing that since writing that he didn't want to turn this into an anti-carrier debate, that's exactly what he did.

[Tempest414]

in fact no one has come back with good reason as why a flat top LPD would be a bad move

nothing wrong with a flattop, it is literally a zero cost option vis-a-vis any other configuiration of amphib - provided all other core tasks are accomodated.

that is not to say that you can anything useful with that big flat top, unless you are willing to also invest massively in the platform in the following areas:

> Equipped maintainance spaces
>> Plus maintenance staff
> Equipped armoury spaces
>> Plus armoury staff
> Equipped landing spaces
>> Plus landing staff
> Equipped flight-space management spaces
>> Plus flight-space management staff

there is a reason why the LPD's are enormously more expensive to operate and maintain than the LSD's: they are equipped and manned to do enormously more, and at a higher tempo.

this is where I get very suspicious of the logic behind people advocating cheap flat-top amphibs - while at the same time griping about the enormous operational and maintainance cost of the carriers. the numbers don't really add up, if what you really intend is for the 'cheap' flat-top amphib to operate as stealth America class LHD's.

the two carriers went through endless design iteration to create the most efficient use of resources to maintain a specified level of operational performance. yes, the navy does rotate around the needs of the carrier groups, because we specified a high level of operational performance. it's called "trade-offs".

i bet if you removed maintenance, armoury, landing, and flight-space management spaces - and deleted the the posts that exist to man them - then the carriers would become pretty cheap to run!

so people, please tell me more about how tragically expensive the carriers are to run, and how the magic solution is provided by cheap flat-top amphibs...?

To be clear I am thinking more of the Osumi class as a starting point and would not be operating F-35. My thinking is that the BMT offering was a 200 by 30 meter ships so a 200 by 30 meter ship with 208 by 36 meter fight deck is not out the question I would be looking to operate Helicopters and UAV's from the flight or store containers and vehicles on it if needed when helicopters are deployed these would stored on deck or on the vehicle deck where there would be a maintenance bay.

[Poiuytrewq]

….so people, please tell me more about how tragically expensive the carriers are to run, and how the magic solution is provided by cheap flat-top amphibs...?

Before that, why does the U.K. require two active CVFs if only ~2.2% GDP is being spent on defence?

It is gradually stripping out the rest of RN to do it. Is it really the top priority? I would suggest that an increase in funding to around 3% of GDP is required to retain both carriers as active and also maintain a fully balanced fleet.

Having one high readiness and one low readiness CVF would actually increase pressure on HMG to increase funding. It’s the simplest narrative in the world to blame a low readiness carrier on lack of funding. The tabloids would never let it drop.

[jedibeeftrix]

….so people, please tell me more about how tragically expensive the carriers are to run, and how the magic solution is provided by cheap flat-top amphibs...?

Before that, why does the U.K. require two active CVFs if only ~2.2% GDP is being spent on defence?

It is gradually stripping out the rest of RN to do it. Is it really the top priority? I would suggest that an increase in funding to around 3% of GDP is required to retain both carriers as active and also maintain a fully balanced fleet.

Having one high readiness and one low readiness CVF would actually increase pressure on HMG to increase funding. It’s the simplest narrative in the world to blame a low readiness carrier on lack of funding. The tabloids would never let it drop.

Before that, why does the U.K. need to continue with the post-war/cold-war funding paridgm that treats the army as primary source of security, rather than an expeditionary adjunct to a broader maritime power projection?

Don't get me wrong, the cold war creation of the Ministry of Defence was understandable; the experience of world war on our doorstep and the immediate presence of fifteen soviet shock armies just over the horizon put us in a unipolar world and made the pre-existing seapower strategy untenable.

But that threat is gone. And the successor threat is on the far side of world not next door.

[Poiuytrewq]

The ultimate guarantor of nato is the nuclear umbrella and that will remain. The response to nibbles or testing along its border more interesting and why Baltic states in particular are extremely nervous. It’s the political leadership and command elements most missing without the US you saw that in the Libya campaign

If multiple incursions occur, some in the JEF region how does the U.K. respond? The cupboard is pretty bare at the moment and any number of CVFs won’t help much.

The U.K. needs to be able to provide a fully resourced blocking force extremely rapidly. Anything less than two Brigades would be a token gesture and a clear plan to rapidly reinforce with a heavier force would need to be in place. What kind of a force could the U.K. deploy to the Finnish/Norwegian border within 72hrs? What could follow within 7 days? I suspect the true answer would be disappointing.

With any incursion stopped and a front line established what can the U.K. deploy within 14 days to start to expel the incursion.

The simple answer is not much.

[jedibeeftrix]

Before that, why does the U.K. require two active CVFs if only ~2.2% GDP is being spent on defence? …

Sorry, but this is a completely incoherent argument - the requirement is the multitude of the requirements that we’ve discussed many many times already - they are extremely flexible floating power projection tools that can be configured in a multitude of ways. The reason for two is to ensure that this is possible 100% of the time and the ability to surge two in different configurations at the same time. Have two or none at all.

If multiple incursions occur, some in the JEF region how does the U.K. respond? The cupboard is pretty bare at the moment and any number of CVFs won’t help much.

The U.K. needs to be able to provide a fully resourced blocking force extremely rapidly. Anything less than two Brigades would be a token gesture and a clear plan to rapidly reinforce with a heavier force would need to be in place. What kind of a force could the U.K. deploy to the Finnish/Norwegian border within 72hrs? What could follow within 7 days? I suspect the true answer would be disappointing.

With any incursion stopped and a front line established what can the U.K. deploy within 14 days to start to expel the incursion.

The simple answer is not much.

The Army has the funds already to have a 5 brigade structure tailored towards JEF if it stopped pissing it up the wall on bad equipment decisions and also actually focused on a strategy. Blaming the carriers is just deflection.

[Tempest414]

The ultimate guarantor of nato is the nuclear umbrella and that will remain. The response to nibbles or testing along its border more interesting and why Baltic states in particular are extremely nervous. It’s the political leadership and command elements most missing without the US you saw that in the Libya campaign

If multiple incursions occur, some in the JEF region how does the U.K. respond? The cupboard is pretty bare at the moment and any number of CVFs won’t help much.

The U.K. needs to be able to provide a fully resourced blocking force extremely rapidly. Anything less than two Brigades would be a token gesture and a clear plan to rapidly reinforce with a heavier force would need to be in place. What kind of a force could the U.K. deploy to the Finnish/Norwegian border within 72hrs? What could follow within 7 days? I suspect the true answer would be disappointing.

With any incursion stopped and a front line established what can the U.K. deploy within 14 days to start to expel the incursion.

The simple answer is not much.

We need to be able to move mass and protect it so from this point of view we would need to get the lead elements of 3 Cdo , 16AA plus the Rangers & SF into the fight so 16AA , Rangers & SAS,SRR would go on C-17 & A400

we would then need a RN group with 1 x CSG plus a ARG of 3 x MRSS and then 4 Point class with the RM and SBS opening the door for a re-enforced armoured brigade and the Deep fires brigade all this under command of ARRC

However for this to work we will need both Carriers , 5 x MRSS , 6 x Point class , 30 x A-400M to allow 1 Carrier , 3 MRSS , 4 Point class , 20 A-400M & 5 C-17

[Tempest414]

Before that, why does the U.K. require two active CVFs if only ~2.2% GDP is being spent on defence? …

Sorry, but this is a completely incoherent argument - the requirement is the multitude of the requirements that we’ve discussed many many times already - they are extremely flexible floating power projection tools that can be configured in a multitude of ways. The reason for two is to ensure that this is possible 100% of the time and the ability to surge two in different configurations at the same time. Have two or none at all.

If multiple incursions occur, some in the JEF region how does the U.K. respond? The cupboard is pretty bare at the moment and any number of CVFs won’t help much.

The U.K. needs to be able to provide a fully resourced blocking force extremely rapidly. Anything less than two Brigades would be a token gesture and a clear plan to rapidly reinforce with a heavier force would need to be in place. What kind of a force could the U.K. deploy to the Finnish/Norwegian border within 72hrs? What could follow within 7 days? I suspect the true answer would be disappointing.

With any incursion stopped and a front line established what can the U.K. deploy within 14 days to start to expel the incursion.

The simple answer is not much.

The Army has the funds already to have a 5 brigade structure tailored towards JEF if it stopped pissing it up the wall on bad equipment decisions and also actually focused on a strategy. Blaming the carriers is just deflection.

The Army has the Funding for 7 Brigades if it sorts its self out

[SW1]

The ultimate guarantor of nato is the nuclear umbrella and that will remain. The response to nibbles or testing along its border more interesting and why Baltic states in particular are extremely nervous. It’s the political leadership and command elements most missing without the US you saw that in the Libya campaign

If multiple incursions occur, some in the JEF region how does the U.K. respond? The cupboard is pretty bare at the moment and any number of CVFs won’t help much.

The U.K. needs to be able to provide a fully resourced blocking force extremely rapidly. Anything less than two Brigades would be a token gesture and a clear plan to rapidly reinforce with a heavier force would need to be in place. What kind of a force could the U.K. deploy to the Finnish/Norwegian border within 72hrs? What could follow within 7 days? I suspect the true answer would be disappointing.

With any incursion stopped and a front line established what can the U.K. deploy within 14 days to start to expel the incursion.

The simple answer is not much.

Your asking the right question's that need answered. How do I quickly move around 2000nm to reinforce an allied country for high intensity war fighting and build enough redundancy into those constructs to maintain the readiness and not to burn them out while maintaining a 2-2.5% budget then all the other things need to go but no one wants to make those choices so we will just continue on as we are.

The response would be similar to forces rushed to Eastern Europe when Russia invaded Ukraine. The problem will be political and the will to start shooting rather than claiming its only a little bit of land let’s not escalate further ect ect