Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

[Poiuytrewq]

230 by 40 meter LPH

LPH for LSG(N)

If defence spending rises to 3% GDP then 1 or possibly 2 LPHs is perfectly affordable but F35 capable might be a stretch. I am expecting a complete reassessment of the UK armed forces before the Autumn budget as the MoD will need to show in detail where any further uplift in the budget will be spent. No guarantees but a further funding lift is virtually inevitable to offset inflation or the chopping block will be out again.

In general I would expect the UK’s ASW and BMD capabilities to get strengthened, the Royal Marines/FCF and Royal Artillery strength in depth enhanced and F35 and Protector numbers to increase further.

However, a complete rethink of the British Army’s Challenger 3, Boxer, Ajax direction of travel may now be warranted even if further delays are highly unpalatable. It is becoming increasingly apparent that drones verses heavy armour is becoming the equivalent of battleships verses aircraft carriers in WW2. Drones are the future and MBT’s are the past.

If I am correct how does this alter Amphibious ops?

What drones are now required to achieve tactical superiority for the FCF?

Do the LCU replacements even need to accommodate 60t-80t MBT’s anymore?

Are high speed and long endurance LCU’s now essential to allow a OTH capability for the FCF?

Are future Amphibious landing operations now going to have to be conducted under the umbrella of Sky Sabre ashore or CAMM on a T31/32?

Given the very real dangers of long range artillery, precision strikes and loitering suicide drones, even unloading at a ‘safe’ port is still highly risky and relying on a payload of only 12 CAMM for protection is laughable.

I suspect the future of reconnaissance is drone based both on land and in the air which will require large numbers of drones launched with the Amphibious force. Relying on Protector seems unwise due to increased drone attrition as countermeasures improve.

Given all these considerations I suspect a drone optimised MRSS based on a mini LHD design is plausible albeit virtually unique when compared with anything afloat today. Adapting the design of the MRSS to launch/recover simple drones with a 200kg to 300kg payload really shouldn’t be that expensive or complicated.

[jedibeeftrix]

Do the LCU replacements even need to accommodate 60t-80t MBT’s anymore?

Are high speed and long endurance LCU’s now essential to allow a OTH capability for the FCF?

Aren't they one and the same thing?

In that the success of amphibious operations seems to rest on the ability to sustain lane metres over the beach, and bigger craft have an easier job of reaching an efficient top speed.

i.e. whether or not you put a 70t MBT on an LCU, having LCU's capable of 70t is a useful feature.

[Jake1992]

For me as Iv said before when it comes to the amphibious replacements I’d go for 6 San Antonio style vessel over a small number of larger vessels or a large number of smaller ones. 6 of these could operate together to form to very capable ARGs or on their own for raiding and littoral control ops, they over all give the greatest flexibility while being no threat to the carriers.

[Poiuytrewq]

Aren't they one and the same thing?

Not necessarily.

For example, if MBT’s really are obsolescent what will replace them? Will the replacements be lighter or heavier? Surely not heavier.

An LCU designed to carry two 75t MBTs won’t necessarily be able to carry three 35t vehicles and three 25t vehicles when it’s perhaps a mix of 25t/35t vehicles that is required going forward. Adding more and more armour making vehicles ever heavier and reducing speed, endurance and mobility is not the answer IMO.

By reducing the weight of the armoured vehicles, battlefield recovery and traversing obstacles is also easier and faster. This results in less logistical vehicles to bring ashore and support/maintain. This is important and will become more so.

Basically what I am proposing is a fast and agile landing force using the FCF to kick the door off the hinges followed by a rapid strike force of armoured vehicles in the Boxer weight class of around 35t coming ashore at high speed from the MRSS(s) which remains OTH and protected by CAMM/Aster30. Eight such landing craft from two MRSS could put 48 vehicles ashore in the first wave. A considerable force.

These 35t class vehicles could rapidly push inshore under a protective umbrella of Sky Sabre and inexpensive utility drones with a 200kg payload of 4 Brimstone to remove any unfriendly heavy armour. These inexpensive dual purpose utility drones could and should be launched from the MRSS to allow the CVFs to stay well offshore. The F35’s and Protectors could conduct deep strike and remove any long range artillery threats and hostile air defence systems to allow the Apache, Wildcat, Merlin and Chinook to operate in relative safety.

The FCF concept is definitely on the right track but the lack of generous numbers of dual purpose utility drones (recon/strike) is apparent and should be rectified as a matter of urgency.

The wisdom in spending so much on Ajax and Challenger 3 is a case not yet proven IMO and until that is sorted once and for all the next generation Amphibious fleet is destined to stay firmly on the drawing board.

[Tempest414]

we have to be careful if drones and loiter weapons can take out MBT's they can take out landing craft and a host of other kit it is down to the Army and Navy to defend against these attacks so for the navy the 40mm and 57mm are good for this the 30mm not so for the army Stormer HVM is a good start

With this being said what is interesting is what a Commando team could do with a drone some loiter weapons and some 60mm mortars

[Poiuytrewq]

we have to be careful if drones and loiter weapons can take out MBT's they can take out landing craft

Completely agree but also worth considering the Implications of the loss of a fully loaded Point, Bay or Albion when unloading in a ‘safe’ port. Keeping everything offshore in a sterile bubble would seem much more sensible given todays threats.

Losing a landing craft is many orders of magnitude less serious than losing a fully loaded Point for example.

[SW1]

Do you not just put the sterile bubble round the safe port then?

I think this is where we may see the use of ugv providing nlos overwatch in the surface and shord environments as troops move out to secure an areas. They can then be moved about by controlling teams to better protect as they go.

[Lord Jim]

We need to be very careful when saying the days of the MBT are over because of UAS. Remember 1973 when, after seeing how the AT-3 Sagger inflicted casualties on Israeli Armour in the Sinai and Golan Heights, many highly paid experts were saying the MBT was finished. APS can already target top attack ATGW, how long will it be before they can effectively engage weapons launched form a UAS and even provide a direction, distance and height of the launching platform? Enter networked formations and before you know it a SAM is on a return trajectory. Or a lightweight CIWS using a 35-40mm autocannon with sensor fused ammunition is able to engage both incoming munitions and the launch platform.

However, it can also be seen as likely we will not need an LSU of any real size except to mover two or three Viking ashore. We will not be landing an Army BCT over any beach, as disembarking in a friendly or occupied port will be the way in future, and then from leased vessels like the current Points.

Remember the FCF will be operating as Company sized units in each of the two LSGs, and will be equipped as such. Each of the two LSGs are likely to contain less than twenty Viking, more likely half that, and the use of the Viking will not be necessary on all missions, as many of these could be as small as Platoon strength. In fact the FCF might actually get more use out of a number of Foxhounds, passed from the Army when they receive their planned MRV(P).

[Phil Sayers]

We need to be very careful when saying the days of the MBT are over because of UAS.

I am no military expert but to my mind a combination of drones and ATGMs does seem to have rendered a tank a very dangerous place to be. In Syria rebel ATGMs have destroyed thousands of armoured vehicles and even older types seem to have little trouble in penetrating MBT armour or getting past APS, later the Turkish Airforce used drones to massacre SAA armour in Idlib. Turkish drones did much the same in Libya (although not many actual tanks) and then again in the service of Azerbaijan. Now both ATGMS and drones (and artillery for that matter) are leaving smouldering wreckage everywhere in this latest episode in what seems a steadily more violent age.

[Poiuytrewq]

We need to be very careful when saying the days of the MBT are over because of UAS

Absolutely, care must be taken but I would counter by saying what is the capability provided by the MBT that no other vehicle on the modern battlefield can provide? It has always been said that the best way to destroy a tank is with another tank - this is no longer the case. The MBT has been a war winner for decades but times are changing rapidly.

However, it can also be seen as likely we will not need an LSU of any real size except to mover two or three Viking ashore. We will not be landing an Army BCT over any beach, as disembarking in a friendly or occupied port will be the way in future, and then from leased vessels like the current Points.

This has been the perceived wisdom for many years but does it still hold true?

How many safe ports are in the world that are not surrounded by densely packed urban areas? How many ports do not have choke points in their estuary environments that simply cannot be effectively secured to guarantee safe passage due to unhelpful topography? Very, very few. Relying on a completely safe environment to offload is fine when fighting poorly equipped insurgents but what about when facing an adversary with a full spectrum of offensive weapons?

It’s worth remembering that the tactic of denying an enemy the use of ports by scuttling ships in harbour entrances is just about as old as naval warfare itself. Going forward, landing troops and equipment on a secured beach, well away from any Urban environment may be the safest option if no international sized airport is available.

[Tempest414]

For me it will be about ship to shore connectors we have good landing craft and we can build new faster ones but for me we need a LPH capable of carrying and hangaring 8 Chinooks plus carrying 12 other helicopters on the deck

[SW1]

We need to be very careful when saying the days of the MBT are over because of UAS

Absolutely, care must be taken but I would counter by saying what is the capability provided by the MBT that no other vehicle on the modern battlefield can provide? It has always been said that the best way to destroy a tank is with another tank - this is no longer the case. The MBT has been a war winner for decades but times are changing rapidly.

However, it can also be seen as likely we will not need an LSU of any real size except to mover two or three Viking ashore. We will not be landing an Army BCT over any beach, as disembarking in a friendly or occupied port will be the way in future, and then from leased vessels like the current Points.

This has been the perceived wisdom for many years but does it still hold true?

How many safe ports are in the world that are not surrounded by densely packed urban areas? How many ports do not have choke points in their estuary environments that simply cannot be effectively secured to guarantee safe passage due to unhelpful topography? Very, very few. Relying on a completely safe environment to offload is fine when fighting poorly equipped insurgents but what about when facing an adversary with a full spectrum of offensive weapons?

It’s worth remembering that the tactic of denying an enemy the use of ports by scuttling ships in harbour entrances is just about as old as naval warfare itself. Going forward, landing troops and equipment on a secured beach, well away from any Urban environment may be the safest option if no international sized airport is available.

How many countries are you planning on invading? Our experience and russias is it doesn’t go well

[Jake1992]

For me it will be about ship to shore connectors we have good landing craft and we can build new faster ones but for me we need a LPH capable of carrying and hangaring 8 Chinooks plus carrying 12 other helicopters on the deck

But this limits you to being only able to operate helos of any number from one vessel limiting what you can do, we made this mistake when cancelling the hangers on the albions and cancelling the second Ocean class.
This is the reason I think we’d be better off having 6 San Antonio style vessels each with a hanger capable of between 4-6 merlin or 2-3 chinooks such set up would allow a good number of helos and spots when coming together but still operate individually, it allows the best flexibility we can get.

If it was down to me we’d have a fleet of 6 of these vessels split between LPD and LSD form in similar fashion to the San Antonio class abd the LPX class. If the 2 different version are no viable then I’d go for one hybrid style class something that gives more than a current bay but less than an Albion in terms of connectors and troops.

In either case I’d also try to push for the waves to eventually be replaced by 2 Karldoormans as replenishment will be needed out side of the SSS and Tides since the will be stuck with the carriers. Such vessels would give an extra 12 merlin / 6 chinooks along with the replenishment need.

[Tempest414]

For me it will be about ship to shore connectors we have good landing craft and we can build new faster ones but for me we need a LPH capable of carrying and hangaring 8 Chinooks plus carrying 12 other helicopters on the deck

But this limits you to being only able to operate helos of any number from one vessel limiting what you can do, we made this mistake when cancelling the hangers on the albions and cancelling the second Ocean class.
This is the reason I think we’d be better off having 6 San Antonio style vessels each with a hanger capable of between 4-6 merlin or 2-3 chinooks such set up would allow a good number of helos and spots when coming together but still operate individually, it allows the best flexibility we can get.

If it was down to me we’d have a fleet of 6 of these vessels split between LPD and LSD form in similar fashion to the San Antonio class abd the LPX class. If the 2 different version are no viable then I’d go for one hybrid style class something that gives more than a current bay but less than an Albion in terms of connectors and troops.

In either case I’d also try to push for the waves to eventually be replaced by 2 Karldoormans as replenishment will be needed out side of the SSS and Tides since the will be stuck with the carriers. Such vessels would give an extra 12 merlin / 6 chinooks along with the replenishment need.

My dream would be 2 x LPH's 230 x 45 meters and 4 x Enforcer LPD's 170 x 28 meters

[Repulse]

I’ve a got a very radical/controversial proposal. Given that there is a real gap in terms of the ability to deploy the Army (and an expeditionary brigade) why not give the both Albions, the three Bays and Point replacements to the Royal Logistic Corps. They are relatively young ships, and changing their role to a less intensive one would allow them to be operate for a couple more decades.

The opportunity then is to have a platform mix tailored to the exact needs for the FCF, which could include a couple of small LHDs (or simpler Aviation Support Ships) and additional capabilities on patrol ships / frigates.

It would also free up RFA crew to ensure all Tankers / FSSs are operational.

[Lord Jim]

It would be better to retire the five ships mentioned and bring the Points into RFA /Army service, with joint crews and improved comms and other systems including self defence capabilities. This could be funded by the sale of the aforementioned vessels, with the balance being used as part payment for the fabled MRSS. WE would need enough points to move an entire Heavy Brigade with its tail plus one additional ship to alloe a refit cycle. They could even be adapted to be able to unload using the wonderful Mexi Floats (have I got the name right?), when port facilities are somewhat lacking. Finding a suitable port should not be an issue though. For up north for example the Brigade would be unload somewhere like Trondheim, and then moving up to the theatre by road. If it is decided to move the Brigade before things kick off them it could be unloaded further north. All of this is about maintaining a certain level of Sea Lift, not Amphibious Assault. Both are part of Amphibious Operations but the requirements differ considerably and the former required resources that are significantly cheaper to realise.

[Tempest414]

It would be better to retire the five ships mentioned and bring the Points into RFA /Army service, with joint crews and improved comms and other systems including self defence capabilities. This could be funded by the sale of the aforementioned vessels, with the balance being used as part payment for the fabled MRSS. WE would need enough points to move an entire Heavy Brigade with its tail plus one additional ship to alloe a refit cycle. They could even be adapted to be able to unload using the wonderful Mexi Floats (have I got the name right?), when port facilities are somewhat lacking. Finding a suitable port should not be an issue though. For up north for example the Brigade would be unload somewhere like Trondheim, and then moving up to the theatre by road. If it is decided to move the Brigade before things kick off them it could be unloaded further north. All of this is about maintaining a certain level of Sea Lift, not Amphibious Assault. Both are part of Amphibious Operations but the requirements differ considerably and the former required resources that are significantly cheaper to realise.

Points already off load using Mexi floats and LCU's in fact it is common training . I have in the past seen a Point class off loading on a mexi float pier also in many ways the Sealift capability is apart from the amphib and is there to move the army

My thinking is if we have 2 LPH's we could move an Air assault Battle group anywhere we needed. As I have said in the past for me 1 new Enforcer LPD able to carry 3 helicopters and 350 troops with a Escort and tanker could support a company size LRG anywhere two of these groups with a tanker could support a Battalion LRG and 2 LPDs and a LPH in over load could support two Battalions one Air Assault and one Commando

the way I see it if we had 2 LPH's and 4 Enforcer LPDs plus the 4 Points we could move 1 x Commando Battle group , 1 x Air Assault battle group and one Army BCT in one go

[Poiuytrewq]

2 LPH's and 4 Enforcer LPDs

All bases covered with the above. Definitely the way forward if affordable.

[Jake1992]

2 LPH's and 4 Enforcer LPDs

All bases covered with the above. Definitely the way forward if affordable.

I agree with that I can’t see it being likely not only due to cost but also due the threats the RN might see the LPHs posing to the QEs, that’s why I’d see 6 San Antonio style vessels being a better option.

With we got 6 of these with 4-6 merlin hangers along with 2 Karel Doorman’s to replace the waves we could form 2 ARGs each capable of between 18-24 merlins while also being able to operate individually with decent helo capability and be no threat to the QEs.

[Scimitar54]

Would need a sizeable order of new Merlins!

[wargame_insomniac]

I’ve a got a very radical/controversial proposal. Given that there is a real gap in terms of the ability to deploy the Army (and an expeditionary brigade) why not give the both Albions, the three Bays and Point replacements to the Royal Logistic Corps. They are relatively young ships, and changing their role to a less intensive one would allow them to be operate for a couple more decades.

The opportunity then is to have a platform mix tailored to the exact needs for the FCF, which could include a couple of small LHDs (or simpler Aviation Support Ships) and additional capabilities on patrol ships / frigates.

It would also free up RFA crew to ensure all Tankers / FSSs are operational.

My concern with that is it feels very much like the promise of "jam tomorrow" which IMO categorises too much of the current Future Soldier Programme. Too much having a current or imminent capability gap offset by the promise of future investment.

I can't see the UK having sufficent shipbuilding capacity to build that given that currently have eight T26, five T31, five T32 and hopefully three FSS to be built plus a Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance ship. The only way we would get new LHD's in the next few years is if they were to be built abroad, which would be counter to UK shipbuilding strategy.

I would not want the RN / RM to be without amphibious capability, above all now of all times. I did say it would be great if the RN could get an Ocean replacement - forget the US America Class. Thinking more of French Mistral, Japanese Hyuga, Korean Dokdo Classes (all around 19,500-21,500t).

But IMO the priority needs to be maximising the capabilities over the next 4-5 years until any new ships can be built. Hence reactivating Bulwark and keeping Argus active for longer.

What would we need to transport an entire LSG(N) with RM Commando Battlegroup (i.e. fighting Battalion plus logistics and support services) to Scandinavia / Poland / Blatic States? This probably would nt be an opposed beach landing, more of a rapid reinforcement of an ally, potentially having to land away from any harbours. I figured 1 Albion + 1 Bay, maybe 1 Point to carry supplies etc. Maybe Argus or the 2nd carrier (i.e. assuming 1 carrier is with CSG potentially elsewhere) to provide additional helicopter support?

What would we need to transport LSG(S) with RM Commando Company? Would just 1 Bay be sufficient to transport one Company plus logistics support etc?

The remaining RM Commandos would be deployed as individual Troops spread out over various frigates, OPV and RFA vessels.

[Scimitar54]

A “Strike Carrier” should NEVER be risked in this way and particularly so, without any defensive/offensive/early warning aircraft on board. Remember we have only two expensive and irreplaceable QEC Aircraft Carriers. There is a fair chance that the “Second Carrier” would not be available either. To ensure that two are always available, we would have needed to have built three.
We need to think in joined up ways of how to strengthen the “weakest capability links” in ALL of our “chains” and not rob Peter to pay Paul.
The truth is, we are not in a great position. The position we are now in should never have ended up becoming a reality, but unfortunately it has.
Many things would be affordable if we were allocated the funding needed for “Defence”. I am not really so interested in percentages, but more so in what “teeth” and “tail”:we have as a result.
I am beginning to believe that the possibilities of us being able to transport any sizeable Land Force by Sea, whether to a beach or to a so called friendly port are no longer there. The rest of the RN Fleet has become too small to support it.
Of course, I would like to see irreplaceable capabilities retained, together with sensible plugging of capability gaps (and capability holidays), but first there has to be the determination to do it.
The IR pointed us in a certain direction. Fine as far as it goes, but what it does not deliver are forces of an adequate deterrent “size”. It must not be seen as a universal panacea, but merely as the first step on a hard road towards a more secure future.

[Repulse]

I agree with a lot of what has been said, though for me the Future Amphibious Capability is really the same things as the UK’s Expeditionary Capability. I see the Gulf wars as the last major offensive Western Land operations, the world has moved on and the appetite is not there from the US (nor others). People will argue that NATO requires amphibious capabilities and it does, but very different in approach and scale, as given its defensive nature we are really talking about reinforcing, the bulk of the land forces for this will come from Germany, Poland and France.

If the UK’s expeditionary capabilities is focused around our maritime amphibious force (supported by air transport, which has its limitations), then it has to be seen through the Purple lens of all three services not just the RN and RM.

Whilst we should plan to fight yesterday’s wars, I actually think the Falklands is a good yard stick. Our ambition should be able to deploy globally a large force of RMs/Paras/SFs backed by a flexibly configured Army Brigade with associated air, air defence, land strike and sea control assets. My view is that with 2 CSGs we aren’t far off from this.

[SW1]

If the UK’s expeditionary capabilities is focused around our maritime amphibious force (supported by air transport, which has its limitations), then it has to be seen through the Purple lens of all three services not just the RN and RM.

Such a shame then the RN refused to listen and sacrificed the RM on the alter of carrier strike.

[Tempest414]

For me we hit the sweet spot in 2007 when we had

1 x LPH
2 x LPD's
4 x LSD's
RAF Argus
4 x Points

these where covered by two Carriers capable of carrying up to 40 Harriers between them and 25 escorts

However for me now we should be looking at recalling Bulwark and keeping Argus plus adding a LPH to form two groups

group 1 (LRG-N) = Albion , 2 x Bay , 2 x T-31

group 2 (LRG-S) = Bulwark , Argus , 1 x Bay , 2 x T-31 ( The Bay class would remain in the Gulf and join the LRG if needed

The LPH could join ether LRG as needed. this could also allow a CSG to enter the Indo -Pacific and join the LRG to form a battle group so we could see

year 1 LRG-S only
year 2 LRG -S joined by the LPH to form a LRG+
year 3 LRG-S joined by the CSG