Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

So as a guide to current thinking in a interview to warship IFR Commodore James Parkin said

As Commander of the amphibious task group I can put 1800 RM and army commandos of the lead commando group ashore and sustain them ashore and recover them to sea again

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by R686 »

Tempest414 wrote:So as a guide to current thinking in a interview to warship IFR Commodore James Parkin said

As Commander of the amphibious task group I can put 1800 RM and army commandos of the lead commando group ashore and sustain them ashore and recover them to sea again
Id very much like to see the task group used for this, also is that is using overloaded ships and with a CV for vertical lift, if its over load HMAS Canberra can do that at 1600 troops

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by jedibeeftrix »

Tempest414 wrote:So as a guide to current thinking in a interview to warship IFR Commodore James Parkin said

As Commander of the amphibious task group I can put 1800 RM and army commandos of the lead commando group ashore and sustain them ashore and recover them to sea again
excellent.

that sounds like a useful and flexible combined arms battlegroup, able to seize a port for the follow on, and support that follow on force.

never let it be less than this.
never remove those CS and CSS elements that make this something [more] than 700 underwater knifefighters swanning around penny-packet in fast boats!

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

R686 wrote: Id very much like to see the task group used for this, also is that is using overloaded ships and with a CV for vertical lift, if its over load HMAS Canberra can do that at 1600 troops
At the 1600 overload level, how much is vehicle and aviation space reduced on HMAS Canberra?

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

R686 wrote:Id very much like to see the task group used for this, also is that is using overloaded ships and with a CV for vertical lift, if its over load HMAS Canberra can do that at 1600 troops
This was Swift sword 3 and he had

HMS Albion
HMS Dragon
2 x Bays
1 x Point
2 x MCM

to get 1800 troops is done something like so 2 x Bays with 700 troops each in overload HMS Albion with 485 troops normal load and the Point class picking up the logistics lost due to the Bays being in overload

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tempest414 wrote:2 x Bays with 700 troops each in overload
Standing room only, ie. they won't travel v far
Tempest414 wrote:HMS Dragon
This was the realistic scenario for the ARG breaking away from "a MTF" even though the latter in this case was 'fictive only'
- hi-end AAW umbrella by the RN
- protection against other threats by a local (allied) navy
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Standing room only, ie. they won't travel v far
In many ways yes but I think in some ways it gives us an idea of what we will be able to do in a Norway type deal as this is what we would have i.e 1 x Carrier , 1 x Albion , 2 maybe 3 Bays and 1 maybe 2 Point class

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by R686 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
R686 wrote: Id very much like to see the task group used for this, also is that is using overloaded ships and with a CV for vertical lift, if its over load HMAS Canberra can do that at 1600 troops
At the 1600 overload level, how much is vehicle and aviation space reduced on HMAS Canberra?
Unless they want to displace equipment and use vehicle decks as temporary accommodation, with nothing confirmed in writing on how the overloads conditions are meet, I imagine it will come down to hot bunking and stretchers were they can, it will be a very much like the Bays when going to overload conditions, its not something I don't think the ADF will practice often or if they do it will be a very short run like ET to Dili Harbour something of that nature
The LHDs will be able to transport 1,046soldiers and their equipment, and can carry 1,600 in overload conditions

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by R686 »

Tempest414 wrote:
R686 wrote:Id very much like to see the task group used for this, also is that is using overloaded ships and with a CV for vertical lift, if its over load HMAS Canberra can do that at 1600 troops
This was Swift sword 3 and he had

HMS Albion
HMS Dragon
2 x Bays
1 x Point
2 x MCM

to get 1800 troops is done something like so 2 x Bays with 700 troops each in overload HMS Albion with 485 troops normal load and the Point class picking up the logistics lost due to the Bays being in overload
It would be interesting to see the doctrine for this as in how long would the expect troops to remain in such as state and what state the would be in once they had to move onshore.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »


donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

UKDJ, "Royal Marines train for Arctic war games"
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/royal-m ... war-games/

Although small document, it is interesting in a few points.

- "six Offshore Raiding Craft, eight Inshore Raiding Craft and two Landing Craft Vehicle Personnel – having been loaded in the UK and transported by MV Hurst Point to Norway"
= A Point-class is used, not a Bay (RFA LymeBay alongside in Portland is not available?), but looks like OK.

- "These craft give 539 ASRM the capacity to deliver a company and more of Royal Marines"
= Looks like a company can be easily landed with small amount of crafts/boats. (It is not just the "seat number", a company includes many equipments + soldiers).

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by R686 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:UKDJ, "Royal Marines train for Arctic war games"
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/royal-m ... war-games/

Although small document, it is interesting in a few points.

- "six Offshore Raiding Craft, eight Inshore Raiding Craft and two Landing Craft Vehicle Personnel – having been loaded in the UK and transported by MV Hurst Point to Norway"
= A Point-class is used, not a Bay (RFA LymeBay alongside in Portland is not available?), but looks like OK.

- "These craft give 539 ASRM the capacity to deliver a company and more of Royal Marines"
= Looks like a company can be easily landed with small amount of crafts/boats. (It is not just the "seat number", a company includes many equipments + soldiers).
Reads to me that MV Hurst was just the transport to Norway and not being used as a mothership as it has no way of loading/offload without port infrastructure, alas MV Cragside could do the RHIBS but I wonder what the largest landing craft it could self deploy

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

539 ASRM
role in Norway ops would be to be Pre Landing Force (read beach recce, which could include clearance divers, BRRR!) and Force Protection (they were the ones that tested CB-90s - that we then proceeded NOT to buy; would be ideal crafts for the Norway fjords. Aren't both of the mentioned craft types totally open?)
R686 wrote:Reads to me that MV Hurst was just the transport to Norway and not being used as a mothership as it has no way of loading/offload without port infrastructure, alas MV Cragside could do the RHIBS but I wonder what the largest landing craft it could self deploy
That is what the article says, but if the two landing craft are positioned on the deck, close to the crane, I could imagine they could be lifted straight into the water?
- two is a conspicuously small number
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by R686 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: That is what the article says, but if the two landing craft are positioned on the deck, close to the crane, I could imagine they could be lifted straight into the water?
- two is a conspicuously small number
Oh, I wasn't aware the points had a active heave compensated crane available, do you know the size and placement?

Post script:
Strike that just looked at a photo all these years and I've never noticed the crane :lolno: :lolno:

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

R686 wrote:active heave compensated crane
Could well be that it is only good for loading containers on the deck onto something so that they can be driven out, passing under the superstructure?

This is the thing that has raised questions about adding any aviation capability onto the points: it would look to me that keeping that opening unobstructed is fundamental for the flow thru concept.
- the other one, further towards the bow, could perhaps be sacrificed. Still a thru-deck lift would be needed and operating helicopters off the part of the ship that has biggest movements/ momentum might also be an unduly restricting factor as to when ops could be run, and when not
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:could imagine they could be lifted straight into the water?
and there is an improvised 'steel beach' for repeatedly loading them https://u0v052dm9wl3gxo0y3lx0u44wz-wpen ... ote-01.jpg
- but in good weather only
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:in good weather only
I've heard that fjords can provide quite sheltered waters :)
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Caribbean wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:in good weather only
I've heard that fjords can provide quite sheltered waters :)
Absolutely https://assets.simpleviewcms.com/simple ... 1fab9e.jpg, but then you also limit the manoeuvre of the part of the fleet that enters.
- I had exactly the same in mind with my comment about the suitability of CB-90s
- they are not deep V, so very much for coastal use
- these https://www.naval-technology.com/projec ... ing-craft/ are similar, but assume that war goes on, rain or shine (or sea state X)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:= A Point-class is used, not a Bay (RFA LymeBay alongside in Portland is not available?), but looks like OK.
She has just returned from a Gulf deployment and is more than likely in maintenance and then work up to replace the Bay on AP-N

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Absolutely https://assets.simpleviewcms.com/simple ... 1fab9e.jpg, but then you also limit the manoeuvre of the part of the fleet that enters.
- I had exactly the same in mind with my comment about the suitability of CB-90s
- they are not deep V, so very much for coastal use
- these https://www.naval-technology.com/projec ... ing-craft/ are similar, but assume that war goes on, rain or shine (or sea state X)
Safehaven Marine do something similar. They have a "troop deployment" variant of the design that is supposedly the strong favourite for the Gibraltar Squadron replacements. Lengths between 13m and 19m

https://www.safehavenmarine.com/barracuda

Page down to the bottom on that link for some schematics
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
R686 wrote:active heave compensated crane
Could well be that it is only good for loading containers on the deck onto something so that they can be driven out, passing under the superstructure?
The deck crane on a Point would have little difficulty lifting an LCVP, or even two at a time :D
This is the thing that has raised questions about adding any aviation capability onto the points: it would look to me that keeping that opening unobstructed is fundamental for the flow thru concept.
- the other one, further towards the bow, could perhaps be sacrificed. Still a thru-deck lift would be needed and operating helicopters off the part of the ship that has biggest movements/ momentum might also be an unduly restricting factor as to when ops could be run, and when not
I can't quite follow you here, could you elaborate please?

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:- I had exactly the same in mind with my comment about the suitability of CB-90s
- they are not deep V, so very much for coastal use
- these https://www.naval-technology.com/projec ... ing-craft/ are similar, but assume that war goes on, rain or shine (or sea state X)
They look fantastically capable but are they too big? Around 20m and over 30t they could be deployed by the Points deck crane but only via the well dock on the Bay's/Albions. They are approaching LCM territory. Not necessarily a bad thing but it would limit their deployability.
Caribbean wrote:Safehaven Marine do something similar. They have a "troop deployment" variant of the design that is supposedly the strong favourite for the Gibraltar Squadron replacements. Lengths between 13m and 19m

https://www.safehavenmarine.com/barracuda
The Barracuda's really look the business and the sea keeping qualities are beyond reproach. The 13m variant should be deployable via an LCVP davit, possibly with some modifications. Just a shame they can't fit in a T26.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tempest414 wrote:She has just returned from a Gulf deployment and is more than likely in maintenance and then work up to replace the Bay on AP-N
That is exactly why I think we have a "round one" available for amphibiosity (w/o extended warning)
Caribbean wrote: is supposedly the strong favourite for the Gibraltar Squadron replacements
Have they not been ordered yet? The publicity was letting "us" understand that they would arrive this year??
Poiuytrewq wrote:I can't quite follow you here, could you elaborate please?
Don't have any graphs, but think of how the ramps (under the superstructure) connect the various decks so that everything can be "rolled on and off" through the aft
-in commercial ops any "deck" containers can be lifted by the cranes on the queue (not so in amph. ops, - or only rarely)
Poiuytrewq wrote:They look fantastically capable but are they too big?
They are too big, see below for a better fit:
Poiuytrewq wrote:The 13m variant should be deployable via an LCVP davit, possibly with some modifications.
L.O.A. 11m-13.7m
Length Moulded 11-13m
Beam Moulded 3.85m
We should do the same as the USN/ USMC: they have CB90s for "the job" and Jehu-likes to act as command boats for those others (so staying there, while "the worker ants" ply in and out... and change their "payloads" in the course of doing that
- then the "deployable only out of welldocks" would not be so restrictive
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Just out of interest, some fiords are huge, with some big enough for a USN Carrier Battle Group to operate in, seriously!

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by R686 »

Well looks like something is on the horizon,

The UK is set to acquire two Littoral Strike Ships with the ability to launch troops and their equipment via helicopters and boats.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-to-p ... al-forces/

Well there's money in the hills, I wonder what the budget is, and would it not be more feasible to use the Albion's in the role and build a couple of Jc1/CBR LHD instead of an Expeditionary Mobile Base,

I found this, what's the transformation fund?



Post Reply