Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

[Repulse]

Forget “full sized” LHDs, that does not seem to be the direction of travel. To match strategy what we should be looking for are probably two platforms optimised for Raiding, one company sized (@120 RMs) plus a mini Cdo sized (@400 RMs) platform. In my view the first should be an Abalson style ship (capable of independent operations) and the second a Kalaat Béni Abbès style LPD.

[SW1]

Faster, smaller, lighter, stealthier with indirect fires and information dominance is the future trend according to CDS.

[Jake1992]

Forget “full sized” LHDs, that does not seem to be the direction of travel. To match strategy what we should be looking for are probably two platforms optimised for Raiding, one company sized (@120 RMs) plus a mini Cdo sized (@400 RMs) platform. In my view the first should be an Abalson style ship (capable of independent operations) and the second a Kalaat Béni Abbès style LPD.

The problem I see here is a strategy that is relevant today maybe not be in 15 odd years time when the current amphibious fleet will be replaced so basing our speculation on today’s strategy is flawed.

Faster, smaller, lighter, stealthier with indirect fires and information dominance is the future trend according to CDS.

What I’d like to see and believe offers the greatest flexibility is what I described up thread together with a number of absalon style vessels along with the LSS and the waves replaced by a more multi role design like KD or Ellida design.

A future fleet of say -

2 x LSS
2 x LPD ( British San Antonio style )
3-4 LSD ( based on the same hull as LPD )
4-5 Absalon style vessels
2 x Multi role replenishments ( KD / Ellida style )
This would offer everything we need to go from raiding to LSGs to full ARGs. Add to these fast LCUs fast LCVPs and CB90 style connectors.

[SW1]

What I’d like to see and believe offers the greatest flexibility is what I described up thread together with a number of absalon style vessels along with the LSS and the waves replaced by a more multi role design like KD or Ellida design.

A future fleet of say -

2 x LSS
2 x LPD ( British San Antonio style )
3-4 LSD ( based on the same hull as LPD )
4-5 Absalon style vessels
2 x Multi role replenishments ( KD / Ellida style )
This would offer everything we need to go from raiding to LSGs to full ARGs. Add to these fast LCUs fast LCVPs and CB90 style connectors.

I think there is a need for what is termed it as a multi role support ship. To provide fwd presence and defence engagement. That might be what type 31 becomes, but I think a ship with better logistics capability would serve the role better. As to your list you’ll not have the budget for even half that.

[Jake1992]

What I’d like to see and believe offers the greatest flexibility is what I described up thread together with a number of absalon style vessels along with the LSS and the waves replaced by a more multi role design like KD or Ellida design.

A future fleet of say -

2 x LSS
2 x LPD ( British San Antonio style )
3-4 LSD ( based on the same hull as LPD )
4-5 Absalon style vessels
2 x Multi role replenishments ( KD / Ellida style )
This would offer everything we need to go from raiding to LSGs to full ARGs. Add to these fast LCUs fast LCVPs and CB90 style connectors.

I think there is a need for what is termed it as a multi role support ship. To provide fwd presence and defence engagement. That might be what type 31 becomes, but I think a ship with better logistics capability would serve the role better. As to your list you’ll not have the budget for even half that.

Oh I completely agree budget is the limiting factor to everything and current standing won’t allow for even a basic replacement in the amphibious force really.

The one saving grace is that it’s 10 years odd away until the main bulk amphibious replacements need to start build so hoping for hopes sake we might see an increase in budget in reaction to what is expected to be a less safe and stable world.

If budget does allow then the above is the way I believe should be taken to give a flexible force but one capable of large scale ARGs if need all while not putting the QEs at political risk.

[Repulse]

The problem I see here is a strategy that is relevant today maybe not be in 15 odd years time when the current amphibious fleet will be replaced so basing our speculation on today’s strategy is flawed

True that the strategy may change, but if it doesn’t or doesn’t back to the late 90’s / early 00’s then large LHDs will still be the wrong answer.

2 x LSS
2 x LPD ( British San Antonio style )
3-4 LSD ( based on the same hull as LPD )
4-5 Absalon style vessels
2 x Multi role replenishments ( KD / Ellida style )

Too complex, too expensive and too many classes, keep to two with the combination of perhaps a Fort II style AOR.

[SW1]

Oh I completely agree budget is the limiting factor to everything and current standing won’t allow for even a basic replacement in the amphibious force really.

The one saving grace is that it’s 10 years odd away until the main bulk amphibious replacements need

Your making a big assumption the bulk of the amphibious fleet is still around to be replaced in 10 years.

[Jake1992]

The problem I see here is a strategy that is relevant today maybe not be in 15 odd years time when the current amphibious fleet will be replaced so basing our speculation on today’s strategy is flawed

True that the strategy may change, but if it doesn’t or doesn’t back to the late 90’s / early 00’s then large LHDs will still be the wrong answer.

2 x LSS
2 x LPD ( British San Antonio style )
3-4 LSD ( based on the same hull as LPD )
4-5 Absalon style vessels
2 x Multi role replenishments ( KD / Ellida style )

Too complex, too expensive and too many classes, keep to two with the combination of perhaps a Fort II style AOR.

IMO LHDs are the wrong way to go for the RN as things stand anyways, for one they would put the QEs at risk and for two they’d eat up all of any amphibious budget leaving zero flexibility.

It’s only 1 extra class of vessels to what we have today or “soon” to have. Currently we have LPDs, LSDs, waves, and “soon” to have LSS.
My proposal above simply replaces with LPDs and LSDs on a one for one bases with both sharing a common hull, keeps the LSS were meant to be getting, replaced the waves when their time comes with more flexible multi role replacements like Fort Victoria ( but I chose KD or Ellida as the base design ) the only real difference in adding is 4-5 Absalon style vessels.

Oh I completely agree budget is the limiting factor to everything and current standing won’t allow for even a basic replacement in the amphibious force really.

The one saving grace is that it’s 10 years odd away until the main bulk amphibious replacements need

Your making a big assumption the bulk of the amphibious fleet is still around to be replaced in 10 years.

More hoping than an assumption really I’m hoping the RN can cling on to its current fleet to allow that justification of replacement.

[Jensy]

I really don't want to be that guy.

However all this talk of:

Faster, smaller, lighter, stealthier with indirect fires and information dominance is the future trend according to CDS.

Has me thinking of (something vaguely like) the UXV Combatant.



The size of a large destroyer, but with a subdued weapons fit; extensive C4; mission and boat bays; plus space for a handful of manned rotary wing and UAVs.

I don't believe the original idea had much space for embarked (human) forces but I would imagine four 10,000t 'LXVs' with capacity for 200 Royal Marines and their toys would cost considerably less than two direct Albion replacements, much less full-size LHDs.

With a smaller size and better weapons fit than traditional assault ships they would free up escorts, be more survivable and offer considerable multi-role capability in different environments.

Whether features like moon-pools and ramp launched UCAVs could be delivered at a reasonable cost is debatable but the basic platform's flexibility seems attractive when no one seems to know what shape the next conflict might take.

EDIT: Just remembered the original concept also had a stern ramp / steel beach for Vikings:

[shark bait]

Maybe a smaller LHD like the mistral could be pushed past the bean counters

LHD's are dumb.

It's well accepted that aircraft carriers don't belong close to a hostile coast.
At the same time its well accepted landing craft don't work over the horizon.

[Jake1992]

Maybe a smaller LHD like the mistral could be pushed past the bean counters

LHD's are dumb.

It's well accepted that aircraft carriers don't belong close to a hostile coast.
At the same time its well accepted landing craft don't work over the horizon.

I don’t agree here, LHDs on there own don’t make sense but as part of a well balanced force like the USN does then they slot in well.

Current landing craft don’t work OTH but I can still see the need to transport more than what a helo can move from further away than currently done, this doesn’t mean landing craft don’t have a place just that they need to be made a good deal faster.

[Repulse]

LHD's are dumb.

Or to put it another way LHDs are okay for mid sized navies who cannot afford separate carries and LPDs, and can rely on others to provide the top cover / remove the A2D threat, or happy to focus on HADR or other low threat conflicts.

[SW1]

LHD's are dumb.

Or to put it another way LHDs are okay for mid sized navies who cannot afford separate carries and LPDs, and can rely on others to provide the top cover / remove the A2D threat, or happy to focus on HADR or other low threat conflicts.

Or LHD are the ideal platform for any navy that wishes to distribute the deployment of aviation and ground forces in multiple locations to achieve sea control and stretch the offensive capabilities of a high end adversary whilst allowing sustained maritime security operations in multiple locations during peace time. Or to put it another way idea platform for any navy that can’t afford 10 carrier battle groups.

[Lord Jim]

I believe that if the UK follows the ideas being banded about regarding the shape and capabilities of our future amphibious forces, but bulk of our large platforms are going to be operated by the RFA, and aimed at conducting second and even third wave operations. The RN will concentrate in the first wave and this is where they need new platforms and small craft to facilitate the type of operations the Royal Marines are planning to re organise themselves for.

The RFA will need a successor to the Bays and the RN's Albions eventually, and ideally they should get a modular version of the Bay with integral aviation facilities that can be scaled dependant on mission, or used as a Medical evacuation platform, for HADR or aviation training. They could even have self defence weapon modules attached when threat level are at their maximum.

In the meantime under the FLSS programme the RN should lease two vessels, have one converted into a prototype LSS, having basic aviation facilities and davits for craft of various sizes up to a CB-90 sized platform. The second would be converted into an Auxiliary Helicopter platform, using modules or containers. It should be able to hanger two to three Merlin sized helicopter and have spots for two of these or one Chinook. These two vessels would be used to develop what a UK style LSG should look like, its tactics and what capabilities it needs and what should be priorities.

These vessels together with the Bay 2.0 should be ordered for delivery no later than 2030. Their construction would be a further boost to UK shipyards, and with the right design we might have a winner with the LSS when it comes to exports, as many nations are looking at this theatre of operations and new styles of amphibious warfare.

[Repulse]

Or LHD are the ideal platform for any navy that wishes to distribute the deployment of aviation and ground forces in multiple locations to achieve sea control and stretch the offensive capabilities of a high end adversary whilst allowing sustained maritime security operations in multiple locations during peace time. Or to put it another way idea platform for any navy that can’t afford 10 carrier battle groups.

Assuming that said country could not afford 10 carrier battle groups, then they are likely only to afford 2-3 LHDs and at most one real carrier.

What you suggest is probably ok against a mid nation not backed by China or Russia (who will provide A2D technology) but otherwise the force would be toast.

If said country was part of an alliance maybe, but then you are still dependent on big brother turning up with his CBGs.

I think the RNs approach of using surgical strike by LPDs backed by two CSGs is the best option by far as it gives a limited tier one capability, able to remove defences before a ground force is deployed.

[SW1]

Or LHD are the ideal platform for any navy that wishes to distribute the deployment of aviation and ground forces in multiple locations to achieve sea control and stretch the offensive capabilities of a high end adversary whilst allowing sustained maritime security operations in multiple locations during peace time. Or to put it another way idea platform for any navy that can’t afford 10 carrier battle groups.

Assuming that said country could not afford 10 carrier battle groups, then they are likely only to afford 2-3 LHDs and at most one real carrier.

What you suggest is probably ok against a mid nation not backed by China or Russia (who will provide A2D technology) but otherwise the force would be toast.

If said country was part of an alliance maybe, but then you are still dependent on big brother turning up with his CBGs.

I think the RNs approach of using surgical strike by LPDs backed by two CSGs is the best option by far as it gives a limited tier one capability, able to remove defences before a ground force is deployed.

For the avoidance of doubt only the US navy can afford to do carrier operations properly in multi locations and to operate its naval forces largely independently. For everyone else including us the LHD offers the more sensible route given limited funds, limited numbers of aircraft and a need to operate in a number of locations. We operate against russia as a total force land sea and air there not independent and as part of a large alliance.

[jedibeeftrix]

Maybe a smaller LHD like the mistral could be pushed past the bean counters

LHD's are dumb.

It's well accepted that aircraft carriers don't belong close to a hostile coast.
At the same time its well accepted landing craft don't work over the horizon.

It seems to me that there is a valuable compromise for a Seapower nation like the UK between these two positions:
1. As expressed above - LHD's using 15knot LCU/LCVP's plus a full air group operating just OTH.
2. An LPD and LSD fleet that has no ability to house and operate organic air assets.

Yes, with a smaller amphibious fleet/task we do want:
a) Cheaper assets - in both procurement terms and running costs (which includes manpower)
b) A more generic class to accomodate roles required (rather than bespoke LPD/LSD/LPH)

However, this still demands:
c) Docks capable of housing [multiple] [faster] LCU's!
> If you need to deliver mass far OTH then you need ~8x 35knot LCU's (two per LSD/LPD?)
d) The ability to land at least two Chinook sized aircraft, and hanger/support at least one!
> RUSI doc says quite clearly that heli-borne raiding is a no-no, but has a role once A2AD flipped.
e) You do [not] field 'multiple companies' with multiple artillery battery's without BG support!
> If you putting 800 bodies and heavy equip ashore, then its going with 400+ more engineers/loggies/signals (and they will be mobile)
f) When you wrap up c) d) and e) above you still need 4+ large amphibs and 8+ fast LCU's!
> Yes, above and beyond the two new LSS with FAC's hanging from davits and boatloads of war-painted commandos clinging to the gunwales with knifes clamped in their jaws.

I also rather suspect that the RN won't allow their entire CONOPS to be a political hostage to a single vessel in future. So no more singleton LPH, everything will be procured in two's:
Two carriers.
Two LPD's
Two or four LSD's
Two LSS

[Tempest414]

For me I would still go with an all Enforcer rote 4 x LSD's and 2 x LHD's with 10 x Caiman-90 , 16 x CB-90 and 30 x aircraft to replace RAF's Puma Mk2 capable of operating from said LHD's

[Jake1992]

For me I would still go with an all Enforcer rote 4 x LSD's and 2 x LHD's with 10 x Caiman-90 , 16 x CB-90 and 30 x aircraft to replace RAF's Puma Mk2 capable of operating from said LHD's

My thinking is along the same lines of 6 vessels of 2 classes based on a common hull, but I’d go with LPDs over LHDs. As much as I think they’d be good for the RN I think they’d put too much political risk on the QEs.

Will the caiman 90s be still seen as modern as we’re talking 10-15 years away, yes out of what’s available today they’re the best bet but I bet in 10-15 years they’ll be seen on the slower end and we’d be looking at LCU / LCVP that can do 30+ knots at full load.

[Scimitar54]

Politicians who are out to wreck the defence of the country will do so whenever the opportunity exists (i.e. when they get into power) they do not need any false excuses. The real question in this age of dual (or multi) purpose vessels is: Are 2 “Carriers” going to prove insufficient in practice? A good insurance policy against this is to have another vessel or 2 that can to some degree mitigate the risk in addition to performing their primary functions. An LHD itself is a dual purpose vessel, allowing insertion of amphibious forces by sea, by air, or by both. We all know about the current shortage of escorts, so the last thing we need to do is increase the number of formations that we need to escort. I believe that time will show that far from a complete re-role of the RM, what is proposed are additional roles for the RM to undertake and the “large scale” capability will need to be retained. We should acquire the vessels that we need for the full range of RM roles. However we must all realise that a significant increase in platform numbers is not a realistic prospect. For me 2+ LHDs will be indispensable.

[ArmChairCivvy]

only the US navy can afford to do carrier operations properly in multi locations and to operate its naval forces largely independently. For everyone else including us the LHD offers the more sensible route given limited funds, limited numbers of aircraft and a need to operate in a number of locations.

Yes, but: a/c are expensive, but so are docks, too

everything will be procured in two's:
Two carriers.
Two LPD's
Two or four LSD's
Two LSS

Yes, whatever class (in the mix) is decided on, should come in two's (to say the the least)

with 10 x Caiman-90 , 16 x CB-90 and 30 x aircraft to replace RAF's Puma Mk2

That's a good 'capacity' measure, but what combinations could actually deliver it? Puma's weak point ( as a design) is that it is top heavy; not bad just for 'heavy landings' but also at sea, for something that, otherwise. would count as 'normal'

I bet in 10-15 years they’ll be seen on the slower end and we’d be looking at LCU / LCVP that can do 30+ knots at full load

One thing that perhaps has not received enough attention is that, whatever the nomenclature, only so many of these 'capacious' connectors can be held on ships... docks being expensive, and anything with a resemblance to davits will have capacity limits. Hence fast in with the first load, and a bit less fast with the next, heavier loads should be accepted

[Jake1992]

Politicians who are out to wreck the defence of the country will do so whenever the opportunity exists (i.e. when they get into power) they do not need any false excuses. The real question in this age of dual (or multi) purpose vessels is: Are 2 “Carriers” going to prove insufficient in practice? A good insurance policy against this is to have another vessel or 2 that can to some degree mitigate the risk in addition to performing their primary functions. An LHD itself is a dual purpose vessel, allowing insertion of amphibious forces by sea, by air, or by both. We all know about the current shortage of escorts, so the last thing we need to do is increase the number of formations that we need to escort. I believe that time will show that far from a complete re-role of the RM, what is proposed are additional roles for the RM to undertake and the “large scale” capability will need to be retained. We should acquire the vessels that we need for the full range of RM roles. However we must all realise that a significant increase in platform numbers is not a realistic prospect. For me 2+ LHDs will be indispensable.

I agree for the most part but my fear is and believe for the foreseeable the RNs fear will be that any flat top will risk the QEs and politicians not only those that are anti armoured forces but those who just lack knowledge will see it as we promised 2 carriers these new flat tops are carriers so we cut and save money.

This becomes even more so when we look at any LHD helping mitigate the short comings of only 2 carriers, for them to do so they would ideally need to be F35B capable. Now while I’d love to see such vessels in the RN I can’t see the RN wanting to run the risk.

I completely agree with you on the RMs keeping their large scale role and raiding being an addition not a replacement. The large scale role is still needed for our main NATO role of reinforcing the norther flank.

For me we the amphibious replacement need to be able to fill the following -
1 - Large scale for NATO norther flank
2 - Raiding size ops in multiple locations
3 - organic air support ( helo / tilt rotor )
4 - HADR
5 - Not risk the QEs

The only set up I can see for filling all of the above is a group of large LPDs / LSDs based on a common hull ie a British version of the USNs San Antonio class and LPX.

[ArmChairCivvy]

A good insurance policy [against this]
is to have another vessel or 2 that can to some degree mitigate the risk in addition to performing their primary functions. An LHD itself is a dual purpose vessel, allowing insertion of amphibious forces by sea, by air, or by both. We all know about the current shortage of escorts, so the last thing we need to do is increase the number of formations that we need to escort. I believe that time will show that far from a complete re-role of the RM, what is proposed are additional roles for the RM to undertake and the “large scale” capability will need to be retained. We should acquire the vessels that we need for the full range of RM roles.

Agreed; now we will proceed to the shopping list, as in

Two carriers.
Two LPD's
Two or four LSD's
Two LSS

... take the top and bottom line as givens, and then mix, whatever that could appear on the two lines in between, to achieve what will be needed to deliver the mission(s)

[Lord Jim]

I agree with the need to retain "A large scale capability", but going forward this will be a battle group formed around either 40 or 45 Commando, supported by elements from 30 Commando and from the Army units designated to provide support. We should retain the Brigade Head Quarters (3 Commando Brigade) but its role would now be to command a multinational force made up of troops from other NATO countries starting with the Dutch Marine Force, which will, from 2020, also contain the German Army's Sea Battalion. These nations will also bring relevant naval and air assets allow the Brigade to still be an effective force for operations on NATO's northern flank.

[SW1]

It was LHDs or carriers, the RN decided carriers, all eggs now in on big basket. The escort force has been and the RM brigade will be sacrificed on the altar of carrier strike.