Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

[Tempest414]

Why can't we have both ATMP for the mortar teams light artillery and medivac and this new faster some 40kmh faster toy for recon maybe even anti tank teams

[J. Tattersall]

Why can't we have both ATMP for the mortar teams light artillery and medivac and this new faster some 40kmh faster toy for recon maybe even anti tank teams

Seem to recall that ATMP is a heavy blighter.

[Tempest414]

Not that bad 2 ton which would allow three to be carried by a Chinook 1 inside and 2 underslung

[Poiuytrewq]

Moved across.

RFA Argus is just out of refit maybe we should send her once the CSG leave the region she could carry say two Merlin a 3 Wildcat plus a company of RM in a LRG South type work out

Sounds good.

With a bit of reorganisation the whole LRG concept could be expanded without (initially) procuring additional assets to provide perhaps a more coherent forward based global footprint for defense engagement with allies and a credible HADR capability as well as littoral response/strike.

This would require four LRG's rather than the proposed two. For example,

Primary area of operation:
LRG North: North Atlantic, Baltic, Med
LRG South: Red Sea, East Africa, Indian Ocean
LRG East: Indo Pacific
LRG West: Caribbean, South Atlantic, West Africa

LRG composition:
LRG North: 1xBay, 1xAlbion, 1xTide
LRG South:1xBay, 1xAlbion, 1xTide
LRG East: Argus, 1x Wave, 2x RB2's
LRG West: 1x Wave, 1xRB2

Additional escorts and the second CVF could be added to each LRG if required.

This would still leave 2x Tides and Fort Victoria dedicated to the CSG.

The third Bay could still be forward based for Kipion.

If HMG are serious about giving Britain a meaningful global presence this would be a very good way of going about it IMO. It is really just using what we currently have most efficiently and all four LRG's could be operational very quickly if required.

[Repulse]

Looking through a post Afghanistan lens, the LRGs need to be more forward based presence and enablers - the core around which alliances can be formed rather than worrying about them being battle winning units in themselves.

The OPV/Sloop + RFA combination looks a good one, when backed with the stick of a CSG + SSNs.

The missing part seems to be the ability to move an Army brigade.

[Lord Jim]

Ideally I think the RFA should have one or two RO-ROs on its books (Grey) with another two or three civilian vessels available for charter on short notice or lease. If the right vessels are chosen they would be very useful platforms for moving kit around the place, possibly prepositioning kit for the LSG when needed.

[Tempest414]

This would require four LRG's rather than the proposed two. For example,

Primary area of operation:
LRG North: North Atlantic, Baltic, Med
LRG South: Red Sea, East Africa, Indian Ocean
LRG East: Indo Pacific
LRG West: Caribbean, South Atlantic, West Africa

LRG composition:
LRG North: 1xBay, 1xAlbion, 1xTide
LRG South:1xBay, 1xAlbion, 1xTide
LRG East: Argus, 1x Wave, 2x RB2's
LRG West: 1x Wave, 1xRB2

I would say lets get the LRG's for the Atlantic and Indo-Pacific running first and with what we have so

LRG Atlantic : 1 x Albion , 1 x Converted Bay , 1 x Tide

LRG Indo-Pac : 1 x Argus , 1 x Wave , 2 x B2's

[Repulse]

Moved from River OPV Thread:

Probably 3-4 RFA Aviation Support Ships (ASS) like Argus with space for 6 helicopters up to Chinook size and small boat / LCVP / LCM capable is what the RN should be fighting for.

Personally I’d see the River (Sloop) plus ASS combination as the right balance for the LRGs.

However, it also needs to be combined with a force of LSDs capable of transporting an Army Brigade.

[Poiuytrewq]

LRG Atlantic : 1 x Albion , 1 x Converted Bay , 1 x Tide

LRG Indo-Pac : 1 x Argus , 1 x Wave , 2 x B2's

Agreed, a good starting point but not ambitious enough long term IMO.

For comparison, although current planning is bit vague, this is what is being proposed.

LRG (N): Converted Bay, Albion, Tide.
LRG (S): Bay, Tide ?
APT(N): Wave, RB2
Singapore: 2x RB2's

Personally I don't think this looks like a coherent strategy for the FCF/Royal Marines. It looks much more like a force cobbled together from what was left after the cuts.

From current planning it's a small leap to this:

Primary area of operation:
LRG (N): North Atlantic, Baltic, Med
LRG (S): Red Sea, East Africa, Indian Ocean
LRG (E): Indo Pacific
LRG (W): Caribbean, South Atlantic, West Africa

LRG composition:
LRG (N): 1xBay, 1xAlbion, 1xTide
LRG (S):1xBay, 1xAlbion, 1xTide
LRG (E): Argus, 1x Wave, 2x RB2's
LRG (W): 1x Wave, 1xRB2

I think it would be well worth it both monetarily and to help elevate the UK's standing in the world as trusted partner. It would also be the best resourced, permanently globally deployed HADR capability in the world.

Something UK citizens could be justifiably proud of and a tangible way to show the benefit that defence spending and foreign aid spending can have on crisis striken areas.

[Tempest414]

I would love nothing more than to get both LPD's up and running as could lead to what I would like to see which is

2 x LRG Heavy with 1 x LHA , 1 x MRSS , 1 x Point class , 2 x type 31/32

and

2 x LRG Light with 1 x MRSS , 1 x Escort or MHPC

I would still like to see 2 x LHA's something like a 230 x 40 meters Ocean with squared off front and a large stern lift able to take a unfolded Chinook with a peace time air group of 2 x Chinook , 4 x Merlin , 4 x wildcat plus UAV's and a war time air group of 4 x Chinook , 6 x Merlin , 6 x wildcat , 4 x Apache plus UAV,s

[Poiuytrewq]

I would love nothing more than to get both LPD's up and running...

Use them or lose them.

How can RN argue for TWO LPD replacements when the second has always been in extended readiness for the previous 2 decades.

I think it is now imperative that the Royal Marines find a role for the second LPD going forward.

2 x LRG Heavy....2 x LRG Light

That is the scale of the ambition required.

One of the most attractive attributes of the LRG concept is its flexible and scalable structure. For example, the LPD's could rotate between the LRG's for 2-3 months at a time allowing a LRG to become a LSG incredibly rapidly if required.

[Repulse]

I think we need to be more aligned to a light forward based capability backed by a big stick. This for me would be multiple forward based “light LRGs” (RFA + Patrol / Surveillance ships) backed by an ARG the ability to ship an Army Brigade plus kit / supplies globally at 30 days notice under a CBG umbrella.

[Lord Jim]

While we might see a "Prototype" LSG based around the planned modernised Bay, actually building the required platforms and forming the two LSGs announced may not be a priority for the Navy even though the LRG was listed as one with much fanfare in the Command Paper earlier this year. I assume the costs for this are going to come out of the "New" money added to the Defence Budget over the next four years, but with so much needed funding to correct years of neglect across all three services creating the LSGs may end up further down the priority list that initially thought.

[Tempest414]

For the last four years the LRG has been made up of Albion , 1 Bay , 1 Escort and has from time to time been added to using Argus or a Point class for me we could get two half decent LRG's if we group them like so

LRG Atlantic = Albion , the converted Bay and a escort
LRG Indo-Pac = Augus , 1 Bay , 1 escort

This would allow both LRG's to carry up to 6 helicopters plus enough room for a re-enforced company of RM and its kit plus extra room for surge troops or visiting allied troops for joint exercises

[Scimitar54]

Just a couple of tweaks to make it what it should be:-

LRG Atlantic = Albion , the converted Bay and two escorts
LRG Indo-Pac = Bulwark , a Second converted Bay , two escorts

Albion & Bulwark, successors should ideally be LHDs, but could be LPHs.
The converted Bay successors, should be slightly larger if LPHs are chosen to permit a larger “Dock”.

[Lord Jim]

With the formations of two or more LSGs and the transformation of the way the Royal Marines are going to operate the future of the rest of the RN's and RFA's amphibious shipping could be very different from now. Their role, in my opinion will be to transport and support a battlegroup the size of a reinforced Battalion, with anything larger being moved by sea using chartered vessels as we do now with the points. I can see both the Bays and Albions being replaced by a class of between three and four vessels built along similar lines to the bays but with a larger well deck and greatly improved aviation facilities. I have actually made a similar post quite a while back suggesting our future vessels be based on either of the two amphibious ships used by the Royal Netherlands Navy. However those designs would we quite old by the time we move forward, but I am pretty sure Damen will have a number of much more recent designs we could build in this country, in a similar way to how we built the Bays.

[J. Tattersall]

Albion & Bulwark, successors should ideally be LHDs, but could be LPHs.
The converted Bay successors, should be slightly larger if LPHs are chosen to permit a larger “Dock”. :mrgreen:

Why not a common fleet of amphibs based around something like BMT's Ellida concept, a through deck not necessarily being the being all and end all? https://www.bmt.org/projects/project/33 ... atrade-200 .

[Repulse]

There seems to be lots of options out there, though I would say getting two “large” LHDs are probably the least likely.

My view is also that 2 LRGs are not going to be enough, and perhaps 4-6 deployable LRGs based on a RFA Ellida (or similar) plus a T31/River may be a sensible answer - covering more regions but able to join for a larger operation.

What I see is missing is a UK equivalent of the USN strategic sealift fleet, capable of transporting an Army brigade with a readiness of say 14 days to sailing. This is especially important given the recent lessons from Afghanistan. Sure we have 4 Points, but that’s not enough and should include troop transports and a hospital ship.

STUFT is all well and good for a follow on force, but takes time to get them ready and these are the kind of “ready enablers” the UK needs to influence and protect its interests and make a useful (global) collation partner.

[Poiuytrewq]

Albion & Bulwark, successors should ideally be LHDs, but could be LPHs.
The converted Bay successors, should be slightly larger if LPHs are chosen to permit a larger “Dock”.

Why not a common fleet of amphibs based around something like BMT's Ellida concept, a through deck not necessarily being the being all and end all? https://www.bmt.org/projects/project/33 ... atrade-200 .

If the FCF is going to be deployed primarily using helicopters what use is Ellida?

A modified Bay would be much more suitable as the central platform to form a LRG or LSG around.

IMO Ellida is the perfect example of trying to achieve too much with one hull and consequently everything becomes a compromise.

Build two Ocean-like LPH's and instantly six Ellida's make much more sense.

Without the procurement of additional LPHs, six Ellidas to replace 2x LPDs, 3x LSDs, Ocean and Argus is a massive cut in capability. It's just another cut dressed up as progress.

[Jake1992]

While 2 large LHDs would be nice I agree it is very unlikely not just from a cost point of view but the threat they could pose to the QEs.

For me I’d look to replace the 2 Albion’s, 3 Bays and Argus with a fleet of 6 vessels based on the same hull but split in to 2 class just as the USN are doing with the LPX based on the San Antio class.

I go for a hull of around 200m-210m by 30m with 2 in a full fat LPD format abd the other 4 as LSDs.

The LPDs would look to have something along the lines of this-
4 LCU well dock
4 LCVP sized dividends
Twin chinook / triple merlin flight deck
2 chinook ( blades spred ) / 6 merlin hanger
500 troop capacity standard

With the LSDs more along these lines -
2 LCU well dock ( side by side )
4 LCVP sized dividens
Single chinook / twin merlin flight deck
Single chinook ( blades spred ) / triple merlin hanger
Large mid ship reinforced open work deck with 2 60t cranes
Mexeflotes
350 troop capacity standard

I’d look to move Argues hospital set to HADR vessel that FACO were looking at if they still go ahead.

This set up offers flexibility abd a good surge capacity in all areas while not having to increase numbers on paper or threaten the QEs.

[Caribbean]

Albion & Bulwark, successors should ideally be LHDs, but could be LPHs.

There is something of a half-way house. The South Korean Dokdo-class use a stern ramp/ steel beach and carry two LCACs as their ship-to-shore connectors. The LSF-II LCACs can carry up to 55 tonnes each, so they can move large amounts of stores and vehicles, without the complexities of a dock. An LPH of similar design, with some additional davit-launched LCVPs and the ability to carry up to 15 helicopters would seem well-suited for the core of an aviation focussed "heavy" LRG. Build two, to replace Bulwark and Albion and replace the Bays and Argus with four updated Johan de Witt clones and we could also field up to four "light" LRGs as well.

[J. Tattersall]

If the FCF is going to be deployed primarily using helicopters what use is Ellida?

A modified Bay would be much more suitable as the central platform to form a LRG or LSG around.

IMO Ellida is the perfect example of trying to achieve too much with one hull and consequently everything becomes a compromise.

Build two Ocean-like LPH's and instantly six Ellida's make much more sense.

Without the procurement of additional LPHs, six Ellidas to replace 2x LPDs, 3x LSDs, Ocean and Argus is a massive cut in capability. It's just another cut dressed up as progress.

You raise some fair points to which I'd add:

1) I haven't seen anything in the defence command paper (or anywhere else) that says 'the FCF is going to be deployed primarily using helicopters'. On the matter of helicopters the Ellida design has two operating spots hangarage for a 16 tonne medium cab (Merlin size) and temporary stowage for 3 others (enclosed port waist). Now this isn't a CVF/ LPH however many will have experienced supporting/ operating aircraft from far more austere vessels for a prolonged period. The other point is that FCF is based around having smaller force levels persistently deployed, rather than a lead commando group needing simultaneous company lift.

2) 'A modified Bay would be more suitable....' Well perhaps but to me the Ellida does rather seem a generational step up from the Bays..

3) 'the perfect example of trying to achieve too much with one hull and consequently everything becomes a compromise.' In engineering design compromise is the inevitable consequence of optimising around agreed design parameters. Perhaps there's a member of the RCNC on UKDF who can enlighten us regarding the Ellida concept.

4) 'Build two Ocean-like LPH's and instantly six Ellida's make much more sense.'. Only if 2 x LPHs are really needed. They might be, but only if there would be insufficient helo lift from the Ellidas. (I should say that I'm using the Ellida concept as the proxy for a common amphib hull)

5) 'Without the procurement of additional LPHs, six Ellidas to replace 2x LPDs, 3x LSDs, Ocean and Argus is a massive cut in capability. It's just another cut dressed up as progress'. Your argument seems to be that the capability needed in the past is the capability needed in the future. If you follow that line you could argue for battleships and battlecruisers with 16" guns, and indeed sailing ships. I seem to recall that the RN was heavily criticized in the 19th century for such a practice (i.e. tardiness in abandoning wooden hulls).The LPD/LSD/LPH force was designed around a lead commando group @R scalable to brigade level @'even more R'. Keeping the FCF persistently deployed, but reinforceable, might cause one to stop and think whether we have the right type of ships. To me there's a case for a common hull design for our future amphibs to allow easier management of a more robust FOP, and through life support. It is of course but one course of action which should be examined alongside others (a differentiated amphib capability based around LPD/ LSD LPH/LHD is of course another)

[Tempest414]

To me there's a case for a common hull design for our future amphibs to allow easier management of a more robust FOP, and through life support.

The Enforcer range of ships has a common hull design which allows it to be built as a LSD , LPD or LHD and I have for some time now said that we should build 5 Enforcer LSD's for the RFA and 1 or 2 LHD's for the RN

as for the use of helicopters in the FCF and LRG if we want to strike in small groups 5 or 10 miles in land from the sea quickly then the best way is helicopter and even better by tilt rotor

Plus we may well be looking to use the FCF better in small groups around the world but that dose not mean we should give up the ability to move , deploy and support a re-enforced brigade by sea as re-enforcement of NATO's North flank is our main task

[Poiuytrewq]

1) I haven't seen anything in the defence command paper (or anywhere else) that says 'the FCF is going to be deployed primarily using helicopters'.

In which case every hostile nation on earth can move their forces slightly inland to ensure they won't contact the FCF. Without the extensive use of helicopters the FCF will not be a credible proposition.

On the matter of helicopters the Ellida design has two operating spots hangarage for a 16 tonne medium cab (Merlin size) and temporary stowage for 3 others (enclosed port waist). Now this isn't a CVF/ LPH however many will have experienced supporting/ operating aircraft from far more austere vessels for a prolonged period.

What utility would a vessel such as this have? Embarking a single Merlin with maintenance clearances is pretty routine even on a Tide/Wave but it's clearly not nearly enough for credible Littoral Assault. Having stowage space for an additional 3 Merlin is great but with Ellida the entire flight deck has to be shut down to juggle the helicopters if the one that is needed isn't immediately accessible. Stowage space within a hanger is a great use of space and can add vital additional capacity but the Ellida design is nonsensical and compromised. Why compromise with a clean sheet design?

The other point is that FCF is based around having smaller force levels persistently deployed, rather than a lead commando group needing simultaneous company lift.

So realistically what is the FCF to do?

- A single Merlin will achieve very little.

- A Merlin plus a wildcat or Apache would achieve more.

-Two Merlin plus two Wildcat or Apache would achieve a LOT more. This is the bare minimum requirement IMO.

So if a 4 helo capacity is the baseline requirement as it was on the FLSS, is a backup force also required to help extract the initial force if something goes wrong?

If so what does this backup force look like? Another 4 helicopters?

If so this 8 helicopter capacity would require a small LPH or two vessels each with a hanger of around 800sqm to 1000sqm.

Something like Ellida isn't even close. It should be noted that Ellida can have an enlarged hanger if the medical facilities is removed from the superstructure but a modernised Enforcer is still preferable IMO especially if it was built as an Ellida sized 200mX30m vessel.

2) 'A modified Bay would be more suitable....' Well perhaps but to me the Ellida does rather seem a generational step up from the Bays..

Please explain!

3) 'the perfect example of trying to achieve too much with one hull and consequently everything becomes a compromise.' In engineering design compromise is the inevitable consequence of optimising around agreed design parameters. Perhaps there's a member of the RCNC on UKDF who can enlighten us regarding the Ellida concept.

A modernised and modified Enforcer is more capable in virtually every way. I really can't see how Ellida as currently proposed is a step forward.

4) 'Build two Ocean-like LPH's and instantly six Ellida's make much more sense.'. Only if 2 x LPHs are really needed. They might be, but only if there would be insufficient helo lift from the Ellidas. (I should say that I'm using the Ellida concept as the proxy for a common amphib hull)

IMO the addition of 2 small LPHs make the LRG/LSG viable. Ocean was a fantastic asset for RN and the UK whilst also being pretty economical. It's hard to accommodate a mix of Merlin/Wildcat/Apache/Chinook in anything smaller than a modest LPH or a pair of large Karen Doorman-like LHDs.

5) 'Without the procurement of additional LPHs, six Ellidas to replace 2x LPDs, 3x LSDs, Ocean and Argus is a massive cut in capability. It's just another cut dressed up as progress'. Your argument seems to be that the capability needed in the past is the capability needed in the future.

No. My argument is based around what the FCF need to remain useful and justifiable going forward. It's got nothing to do with what was needed in 1982.

The LPD/LSD/LPH force was designed around a lead commando group @R scalable to brigade level @'even more R'. Keeping the FCF persistently deployed, but reinforceable, might cause one to stop and think whether we have the right type of ships. To me there's a case for a common hull design for our future amphibs to allow easier management of a more robust FOP, and through life support. It is of course but one course of action which should be examined alongside others (a differentiated amphib capability based around LPD/ LSD LPH/LHD is of course another)

IMO there are various different ways to proceed to achieve a suitable outcome. Unfortunately I don't believe any of those include a vessel such as Ellida (as currently configured) unless LPHs are also added to provide the aviation capacity required to ensure an adequate strength in depth.

An aim to achieve the lowest level of credible capability for the lowest possible cost appears to be the way current planning is heading.

[J. Tattersall]

Having stowage space for an additional 3 Merlin is great but with Ellida the entire flight deck has to be shut down to juggle the helicopters if the one that is needed isn't immediately accessible. Stowage space within a hanger is a great use of space and can add vital additional capacity but the Ellida design is nonsensical and compromised.

Welcome to wafu world, hangar shuffle more popular than the hokey cokey! Have to say I'd have loved that amount of flight deck spottage and real estate, coupled with hangarage, to work with.