Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5619
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
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
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
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
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 troopsTempest414 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
-
- Member
- Posts: 525
- Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
excellent.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
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!
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4094
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
At the 1600 overload level, how much is vehicle and aviation space reduced on HMAS Canberra?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
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5619
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
This was Swift sword 3 and he hadR686 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
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
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Standing room only, ie. they won't travel v farTempest414 wrote:2 x Bays with 700 troops each in overload
This was the realistic scenario for the ARG breaking away from "a MTF" even though the latter in this case was 'fictive only'Tempest414 wrote:HMS Dragon
- 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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5619
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
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 classArmChairCivvy wrote:Standing room only, ie. they won't travel v far
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
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 naturePoiuytrewq wrote:At the 1600 overload level, how much is vehicle and aviation space reduced on HMAS Canberra?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
The LHDs will be able to transport 1,046soldiers and their equipment, and can carry 1,600 in overload conditions
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
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.Tempest414 wrote:This was Swift sword 3 and he hadR686 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
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
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5593
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
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).
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).
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
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 deploydonald_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).
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
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?)539 ASRM
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?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
- 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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Oh, I wasn't aware the points had a active heave compensated crane available, do you know the size and placement?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
Post script:
Strike that just looked at a photo all these years and I've never noticed the crane
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
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?R686 wrote:active heave compensated crane
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
and there is an improvised 'steel beach' for repeatedly loading them https://u0v052dm9wl3gxo0y3lx0u44wz-wpen ... ote-01.jpgArmChairCivvy wrote:could imagine they could be lifted straight into the water?
- 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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
I've heard that fjords can provide quite sheltered watersArmChairCivvy wrote:in good weather only
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Absolutely https://assets.simpleviewcms.com/simple ... 1fab9e.jpg, but then you also limit the manoeuvre of the part of the fleet that enters.Caribbean wrote:I've heard that fjords can provide quite sheltered watersArmChairCivvy wrote:in good weather only
- 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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5619
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
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-Ndonald_of_tokyo wrote:= A Point-class is used, not a Bay (RFA LymeBay alongside in Portland is not available?), but looks like OK.
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
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 19mArmChairCivvy 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)
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
Winston Churchill
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4094
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
The deck crane on a Point would have little difficulty lifting an LCVP, or even two at a timeArmChairCivvy wrote: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?R686 wrote:active heave compensated crane
I can't quite follow you here, could you elaborate please?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
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4094
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
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.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)
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.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
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
That is exactly why I think we have a "round one" available for amphibiosity (w/o extended warning)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
Have they not been ordered yet? The publicity was letting "us" understand that they would arrive this year??Caribbean wrote: is supposedly the strong favourite for the Gibraltar Squadron replacements
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 aftPoiuytrewq wrote:I can't quite follow you here, could you elaborate please?
-in commercial ops any "deck" containers can be lifted by the cranes on the queue (not so in amph. ops, - or only rarely)
They are too big, see below for a better fit:Poiuytrewq wrote:They look fantastically capable but are they too big?
L.O.A. 11m-13.7mPoiuytrewq wrote:The 13m variant should be deployable via an LCVP davit, possibly with some modifications.
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Just out of interest, some fiords are huge, with some big enough for a USN Carrier Battle Group to operate in, seriously!
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
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?
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?