Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 18 May 2022, 10:47 But is it enormous, and is it the right ship to have it. The rate with which tech is moving suggests the boats will be longer and heavier than type 26 can accommodate before it even enters service and some of the concepts require more numerous boats than just a couple. Add to that the fact type 26 is pottering about in a larger task group and you would need to ask why your principal asw asset needs the ability to launch a couple of extra ribs?
As mentioned years ago the type 31 concept is what type 26 should of been and the bay class is what type 31 should of been.
My honest view is that the T31 should have been optimised for ASW acting as the CSG/CASD escorts, this freeing up the T26s for their “Global Combat” role.

However, it’s not to be, and I would say having a mission bay for manned / unmanned force protection boats is a requirement so I’m not overly concerned.

Equally, I would say that there still is a need for more than 14 AAW/ASW escorts for CASD, the two CBG and two LPD assets so the T31 IMO just needs to be built fully equipped.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 18 May 2022, 11:14 In short, I think it is safer now to think those drones will be delivered by a dedicated "mother ship", escorted by frigate/destroyers. Small UAVs, small USVs, and small UUV can be delivered from escorts, but not the large ones.
I agree with this, but we’ve probably with the exception of an Argus replacement with the CVFs and LPDs IMO we’ve already got sufficient platforms for ship deployed large drones given our current budgets, priorities and aspirations. What we do need though is focus on the traditional escort numbers for these HVUs.

Everything else IMO should be a platform that can act as a mothership for drones AND RMs, this was always where I saw the MHPC sloop concept going.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

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 »

jedibeeftrix wrote: 18 May 2022, 08:41
Lord Jim wrote: 17 May 2022, 22:32
jedibeeftrix wrote: 17 May 2022, 10:53 three (and a half) trimmed down Commandos is only going to be a maximum of 2000 bodies.
What are the other 2,200 personnel doing?
What is the justification for retaining them?
A rough and ready run down of Royal Marine units:

3 Commando Brigade
40 and 45 Commandos; Providing LDUs for the LSGs.
43 Commando; Fleet protection.
30 Commando IX Group; ISATR, Air Defence, Patrol, Police.
539 Assault Squadron; Landing Craft, RHIBs etc.
Commando Logistics Regiment including Armoured Support Group (Vikings).

Commando based units no part of 3 Cmdo Brigade;
42 Commando; Maritime Operations specialists.
Mountain Warfare Training Cadre.
Special Boat Service.

The last appear to have numerous homes depending on what you read. I have put it hear as the majority of its recruits are from the Royal Marines.
Do all of these sub-functions survive in a wider Commando function that has shrunk by one third?
~5,800 > ~4,000
The short answer is at present yes, with the support units reinforcing the LSU giving them more rounded capabilities for their smallish size. The Royal Engineers that wear the Green Beret will also provide support though I am not sure about the Royal Artillery Regiment as I am not sure of their usefulness with regards to Commando Raiding missions. Obviously the FCF is still forming and probably won't finish doing so until it has tried out its structure in a number of exercises. These will determine what units in addition to 40 and 45 Commando are retained in my view.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
jedibeeftrix

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by jedibeeftrix »

Thank you.

Re: "I am not sure about the Royal Artillery Regiment as I am not sure of their usefulness with regards to Commando Raiding missions"

It's worth recalling that the RUSI paper saw artillery as the core mission of future amphibious forces:
https://jedibeeftrix.wordpress.com/2019 ... ew-future/

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 18 May 2022, 00:00
wargame_insomniac wrote: 17 May 2022, 21:44 Clearly not what RN needs…
Is it clear?

Perhaps not in the Amphibious sense but modest flat tops with a modest floodable well dock could become much more common as unmanned system start to proliferate.

Although Amphibious vessels are capable of deploying these rapidly evolving autonomous systems it surely cannot be a realistic long term solution to operate unmanned ASW and MCM systems.

For example, if the future is ever larger and more complex unmanned systems are Frigates as we currently know them even going to be relevant in 20 years time? Without serious modification to launch recover a wide range of autonomous systems it is entirely possible any frigate or destroyer being built today to a conventional design will reach virtual obsolescence in a lot less than 20 years.

IMO the mission bay on the T26 has never looked smaller just as the gap between escort and Amphib has also never looked smaller. Maybe we are entering an era of Crossover and Damens radical designs were simply ahead of their time. 561F0833-C1B4-4F2F-B277-252F6F948010.jpeg
Well you just quoted one line of what I said. I used the words "clearly" as I don't believe that RN needs a LPD dedicated to anti aircraft defence!!!!

If you had looked at the rest of what I said, which you didn't quote, I did discuss a couple of smaller LPD designs, that were NOT intended for anti aircraft defence......
These users liked the author wargame_insomniac for the post:
Jimpa

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Repulse wrote: 18 May 2022, 12:13 IMO we’ve already got sufficient platforms for ship deployed large drones given our current budgets, priorities and aspirations.
Sorry but I have to disagree. The CVFs aside the UK doesn’t have a vessel with a flat top suitable for operating medium or large MALE drones. HMS Ocean fully loaded with medium MALE drones would have been a fantastic asset for the UK at a very modest cost.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... ke-island/


Very interesting article

Although not fully stealthy, the Bayraktar features a low radar cross-section (RCS). Together with its relatively low altitude and slow speed, this makes it difficult for classical radars to track. “It is a low-slow-flyer (LSF), and you know it is a challenge for classical radars to detect LSFs already. And its RCS makes it even harder.”
Could we be witnessing an inexpensive capability such as the TB2 levelling the playing field at sea in much the same way as it has on land?
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 2):
wargame_insomniacDahedd

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 18 May 2022, 17:34 Well you just quoted one line of what I said. I used the words "clearly" as I don't believe that RN needs a LPD dedicated to anti aircraft defence!!!!
No argument there.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
wargame_insomniac

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 »

An interesting paper from an author who seems to have many questions regarding the FCF and the Formation of Reinforces Company sized LSU, which would be embarked on the LSGs. You do seem to focus on a need to be able to deploy a Commando as we have historically aimed to do whilst the fact that using the FCF formula it is still possible to land a similar number of Troops though this would be through multiple LSUs via multiple MRSS if current plans reach fruition.

The indirect fire needs of SP Mortars and HIMARS is an interesting combination and one I can agree with, with the Mortars most likely being mounted on Vikings as some are now, in order to achieve the ability to "Soot and scoot". Moving six Vikings plus a number of support vehicles ashore quickly will require a Helicopter with greater lift potential than the FAA's Merlin HC4s unless the vehicles are split as has been done in the past, as our current Landing Craft would require any MRSS to approach too close to the shore. My question though is will the tried and tested 81mm Mortar be bug enough for this role.

The use of the HIMARS from the MRSS would enable a certain amount of suppression of the area targeted for the landing as could the prior deployment of SF. The US Marines have carried out trials firing the HIMARS from a moving ship and achieve excellent results, with little modification required to the ships. deck and all fire control id carried out by the individual HIMARS themselves. Also whereas the Mortar would be operated by Royal Marine Commandoes from each Commandos Support Company, any HIMARS used would be manned by the Royal Artillery and in this case would be a replacement for the existing designated Regiments 105mm Light Guns. But given the relatively few needed, I would suggest that the Army would only need a single Regiment of Himars, that would support not just the Royal Marines, but also 16AA BCT and the Light BCTs is these were deployed. This regiment would rotate its three Batteries through a cycler of Seaborne, Airmobile and austere land operation specialities, so at any given time one battery would be up to speed and in each category but all should have experience enough to operate in such a manner.

I am all in favour of this as I would prefer the Army to replace its existing M270 MLRS with HIMARS, cancelling the planned upgrade as the latter already have the required capabilities and I would equip three Regiments with the platform, instead of the existing two.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post (total 2):
jedibeeftrixDahedd

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Having been away I have just been catching up but for me the only way forward if we are going have re-enforced Companies of RM here and there is to have 6 Absalon style ships capable of carrying 2 x Merlin , 6 x OCR and armed with 1 x 127mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 Mk-41 VLS , 24 CAMM

These should backed up by 4 x MRSS capable of carrying 4 x Merlin and 2 x Wildcat , 3 or 4 Caimen-90 plus 400 troops norm and 800 in over load

This would allow a single Type 32 to support a LCU and 2 x Type 32 and a MRSS to support a Commando battalion if needed

I would still look to add two 240 x 45 meter LHD capable of carrying 12 Chinook and 6 Apache or 14 Merlin and 10 Apache , 3 Caimen 90 + 800 troops

This could allow a UK battle group of

1 x CSG = 1 x Carrier , 3 x Type 45 , 3 x type 26 , 2 x SSS , 1 x tanker

1 x LSG = 1 x LHD , 3 x Type 32 , 2 x type 31 , 2 x MRSS , 1 x Tanker
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
Dahedd

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Tempest414 wrote: 22 May 2022, 16:33 Having been away I have just been catching up but for me the only way forward if we are going have re-enforced Companies of RM here and there is to have 6 Absalon style ships capable of carrying 2 x Merlin , 6 x OCR and armed with 1 x 127mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 Mk-41 VLS , 24 CAMM

These should backed up by 4 x MRSS capable of carrying 4 x Merlin and 2 x Wildcat , 3 or 4 Caimen-90 plus 400 troops norm and 800 in over load

This would allow a single Type 32 to support a LCU and 2 x Type 32 and a MRSS to support a Commando battalion if needed

I would still look to add two 240 x 45 meter LHD capable of carrying 12 Chinook and 6 Apache or 14 Merlin and 10 Apache , 3 Caimen 90 + 800 troops

This could allow a UK battle group of

1 x CSG = 1 x Carrier , 3 x Type 45 , 3 x type 26 , 2 x SSS , 1 x tanker

1 x LSG = 1 x LHD , 3 x Type 32 , 2 x type 31 , 2 x MRSS , 1 x Tanker
The MRSS have not yet been ordered or even confirmed what sort of specifications they will have.
In the General Discussion area in the UK Shipbuilding thread this was what was suggested:
Repulse wrote: 13 Apr 2022, 08:02
Scimitar54 wrote: 13 Apr 2022, 04:56 Depends what the MRSS turns out to be. Who knows, they could even be the amphibious. equivalent of “through-deck cruisers”! :mrgreen:
More like the following (plus a small hanger) :mrgreen:

Image
Hence my suggestion that the MRSS need to be able to transirt a reinforced RM Company i.e. a full Company of RM Commandos plus support Platoons / Troops providing artillery support, logistics, signals and communications, engineering and transport etc.

The individual frigates / OPV and support ships could carry individual RM Troops.

Ocean has been already sold and Argus is due to be retired shortly. Therefore we will be lacking in an Aviation Support Ship for either LRG. I would personally love for RN to be able to purchase two such LHD's but can't see the budget for LHD anytime soon.
The most we can hope for is an LPH, i.e an LPD sized ship but optimised for aviation support.
(Ideally we would then subsequently be able to acquire 2 LPD variants to replace Albion / Bulwark down the line).

But all of that goes out of the window if the RN intends the MRSS to replace all of Ocean / Argus / Albion / Bulwark / 4 Bays....

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 »

Any MRSS is going to need greater aviation capability that the vessel above. Having six MRSS will allow the permanent deployment for an LSG at any given time with the ability to reinforce either or both with another MRSS and its RM LSU in times of crisis. I cannot any senario where the RN will gain two or even one LHD/LHA without a very substantial addition to the RN's budget. Each LSG having say four Merlins and two Wildcat would seem about right, together with water based ship top shore connectors for both the RM and SF, with the latter having access to SDVs.

Some iterations of the MRSS show it having a moveable stern ramp to allow easy unloading of vehicles etc onto an austere port. In my opinion this would actually hinder the operation of an MRSS, and would be better suited to whatever platform is used to transport Army units in future, with these becoming part of the RFA, or at least a number of them.

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Lord Jim wrote: 22 May 2022, 21:03 Any MRSS is going to need greater aviation capability that the vessel above. Having six MRSS will allow the permanent deployment for an LSG at any given time with the ability to reinforce either or both with another MRSS and its RM LSU in times of crisis. I cannot any senario where the RN will gain two or even one LHD/LHA without a very substantial addition to the RN's budget. Each LSG having say four Merlins and two Wildcat would seem about right, together with water based ship top shore connectors for both the RM and SF, with the latter having access to SDVs.

Some iterations of the MRSS show it having a moveable stern ramp to allow easy unloading of vehicles etc onto an austere port. In my opinion this would actually hinder the operation of an MRSS, and would be better suited to whatever platform is used to transport Army units in future, with these becoming part of the RFA, or at least a number of them.
What about earlier discussions of the RN acquiring a couple of larger ships (lets say LPD type) and several smaller smaller ships (maybe as small as US LAW)?

Agree that RORO ships with stern ramps would be better as eventual replacement of Point class to move the Army. So the MRSS in whatever format they end up becoming would need both a flight deck and hangar, and a well deck to have various options of deploying RM depending on the tactical situation.

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 »

For MRSS, how about Osumi-class like ship? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%8Csum ... nding_ship)

Image

(from wiki)
Displacement 13,000 t (13,000 long tons) full load
Size 178 m x 25.8 m
Speed 22 knots

The point is, she is just an LPD, not LHD, because she has no independent aircraft hangar. But, her vehicle deck has a 20t elevator with 14m x 6m size to the flight deck (visible in the photo), to move SH-60 helicopter into her vehicle deck. So, if properly designed, it is possible to accommodate a hangar which can be used EITHER as a vehicle deck or a helicopter hangar.

In addition, she has
- a well dock (I think, in MRSS, it can be smaller, 1 LCAC equivalent = 2 Caimen-90 is enough)
- a flat top. If we make the bridge much narrower and offset to starboard, maybe MALE-class UAV could also be operated.
- and can accommodate enhanced company of 330 soldiers.

In short, Osumi-class is "a bit longer sister" of Italian San Georgio class LPDs.

Little overlap with CVF, compact and hence can be built in number (say 6), can be used as UAV and USV mother ship using its flat top and well dock (with some re-design), how about this type of ships as MRSS?

PS Osumi-class well-dock is too much optimized for LCAC operation, does not fully meet the NATO standard. But. she can accommodate French EDA-R catamaran. ref https://www.defesanet.com.br/en/geopoli ... e-1st-Time
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post (total 2):
Poiuytrewqwargame_insomniac

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 23 May 2022, 04:06 For MRSS, how about Osumi-class like ship?
IMO until the FCF concept is actually explained in detail the MRSS direction of travel is highly questionable. Due to this the configuration of the MRSS is highly debatable and will be for some time.
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 23 May 2022, 04:06 Displacement 13,000 t (13,000 long tons) full load
Size 178 m x 25.8 m
Speed 22 knots
As a 21st century multi purpose low cost UAV/USV/UUV mothership this looks like the perfect formula.
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 23 May 2022, 04:06 The point is, she is just an LPD, not LHD, because she has no independent aircraft hangar. But, her vehicle deck has a 20t elevator with 14m x 6m size to the flight deck (visible in the photo), to move SH-60 helicopter into her vehicle deck. So, if properly designed, it is possible to accommodate a hangar which can be used EITHER as a vehicle deck or a helicopter hangar.
Dual use, low cost: Perfect
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 23 May 2022, 04:06 - a flat top. If we make the bridge much narrower and offset to starboard, maybe MALE-class UAV could also be operated.
Similar to Ocean but 9m narrower in the beam and a 4 spot flight deck.
12768B54-73E4-4006-9AFC-2F4ED2A16081.jpeg
If the UK gasps the nettle here and releases the potential of what the MRSS ultimately becomes these vessels could be an enormous game changer and massive force multiplier.

The key will be to build low cost highly versatile flat top vessels, with a well dock, in sufficient numbers. The high cost should be in the drone technology, not the mothership vessel themselves.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 2):
wargame_insomniacjedibeeftrix

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 23 May 2022, 04:06 For MRSS, how about Osumi-class like ship? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%8Csum ... nding_ship)

Image

(from wiki)
Displacement 13,000 t (13,000 long tons) full load
Size 178 m x 25.8 m
Speed 22 knots

The point is, she is just an LPD, not LHD, because she has no independent aircraft hangar. But, her vehicle deck has a 20t elevator with 14m x 6m size to the flight deck (visible in the photo), to move SH-60 helicopter into her vehicle deck. So, if properly designed, it is possible to accommodate a hangar which can be used EITHER as a vehicle deck or a helicopter hangar.

In addition, she has
- a well dock (I think, in MRSS, it can be smaller, 1 LCAC equivalent = 2 Caimen-90 is enough)
- a flat top. If we make the bridge much narrower and offset to starboard, maybe MALE-class UAV could also be operated.
- and can accommodate enhanced company of 330 soldiers.

In short, Osumi-class is "a bit longer sister" of Italian San Georgio class LPDs.

Little overlap with CVF, compact and hence can be built in number (say 6), can be used as UAV and USV mother ship using its flat top and well dock (with some re-design), how about this type of ships as MRSS?

PS Osumi-class well-dock is too much optimized for LCAC operation, does not fully meet the NATO standard. But. she can accommodate French EDA-R catamaran. ref https://www.defesanet.com.br/en/geopoli ... e-1st-Time
I do like the idea of this ship if we could take the fight deck right over the bow and make it 180 x 30 meters plus slim down the island it could be a winner 6 of these for the MRSS would be a dream

However with this said I still believe if type 32 goes ahead it should be a Absalon class ship and it should be a class of 6 this could allow the RN to have 6 LRG's of 1 x flattop LPD and 1 x Absalon
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
Dahedd

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 »

Tempest414 wrote: 23 May 2022, 11:57 ... I still believe if type 32 goes ahead it should be a Absalon class ship and it should be a class of 6 this could allow the RN to have 6 LRG's of 1 x flattop LPD and 1 x Absalon
Simple question. If paired with MRSS, why do we need Absalon-like T32, not simply a T31 or River B1 ?
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post (total 2):
jedibeeftrixRepulse

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

It is my view if type 32 does go ahead that it should be a Absalon class ship capable of carrying 160 troops 2 Merlin's or 4 Wildcats plus up to 6 ORC. it should be armed with 1 x 127mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 CAMM + 24 Mk-41 this paired with a remodeled Osumi class with a 180 x 30 flight deck with a slimmed down island and a side lift just forward of the island and well dock for 2 Caimen-90's would form the core of the LRG's capable of going most places this in turn would free up the type 31's to conducted singleton duties with 2 in the Atlantic and 3 in the Indo-Pacific as the RB'2 would be fixed to the UK , FIGS , AP/N
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
Dahedd

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 »

I am obviously in a minority here but why do we need large vessels with a Well Deck and the size of an LHD to carry a Company sized RM Littoral Support Unit and a SF detachment? What equipment is going to need a large landing craft to get to shore to support a Commando raid? The light weight 4x4 the RM are looking at for the LSUs can be carried inside a Merlin. Regarding Merlins, I cannot see the need for any more than four. We cannot afford to build large ships like LHDs just in case we decide to reconstitute 3 Cmdo Brigade as an Army style Light Infantry Brigade some time in the future, the thing FCF is designed to get away from. One of the requirements for the MRSS is not to overtly look like an amphibious platform, daft as that may sound. That sort of rules out anything looking vaguely like a LHD straight away as does having a Well Deck. The roles previously carried out by 3 Cmdo Brigade are by default going to be passed on to the Army, without beech landings though. The LSG will find them a nice landing zone though so they can disembark and carry out sustained operations in land whilst the LSU re embarks on teh LSG and goes to its next objective. If we are talking larger ships the Bays and Points need to be replaced by a single class of ships, manned by the RFA, to be able to effectively sea lift an Army Brigade swiftly and efficiently.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote: 23 May 2022, 17:23 It is my view if type 32 does go ahead that it should be a Absalon class ship capable of carrying 160 troops 2 Merlin's or 4 Wildcats plus up to 6 ORC. it should be armed with 1 x 127mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 CAMM + 24 Mk-41 this paired with a remodeled Osumi class with a 180 x 30 flight deck with a slimmed down island and a side lift just forward of the island and well dock for 2 Caimen-90's would form the core of the LRG's capable of going most places this in turn would free up the type 31's to conducted singleton duties with 2 in the Atlantic and 3 in the Indo-Pacific as the RB'2 would be fixed to the UK , FIGS , AP/N
Very interesting illustration of the importance of a balanced fleet.

A modified Absalon would fit in the T32 slot very nicely but as ever it will all come back to the available budget. The combined T32 and MRSS budgets are likely to be in the region of £4.5bn. It’s a substantial amount of cash.

Personally I would prefer to:

1. Allocate £500m to upgrade the five T31’s
2. Build another three T31’s @£500m per hull
3. Build five 175m flat-top MRSS @£350m per hull
4. Introduce a class of six multipurpose Patrol/MCM vessels built to OPV standard for £125m per hull or a combined £750m.

This would result in a pretty well balanced but also compact and affordable fleet by 2035.

2 CVF
5 MRSS
6 Destroyers
8 ASW Frigates
8 GP Frigates
11 OPVs
4 Tankers
3 FSS
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
wargame_insomniac

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Balance is required and you have it about right. Adequate size is also vital. A 50% increase in numbers (apart from the OPVs) should just about achieve it. :mrgreen:

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by jedibeeftrix »

Lord Jim wrote: 23 May 2022, 22:49 I am obviously in a minority here but why do we need large vessels with a Well Deck and the size of an LHD to carry a Company sized RM Littoral Support Unit and a SF detachment?
Poiuytrewq wrote: 23 May 2022, 09:12 IMO until the FCF concept is actually explained in detail the MRSS direction of travel is highly questionable. Due to this the configuration of the MRSS is highly debatable and will be for some time.
Lord Jim wrote: 23 May 2022, 22:49We cannot afford to build large ships like LHDs just in case we decide to reconstitute 3 Cmdo Brigade as an Army style Light Infantry Brigade some time in the future, the thing FCF is designed to get away from.
Has anyone suggested this? i.e. reconstituting 3 Cmdo Brigade as an Army style Light Infantry Brigade.
I, and others, have suggested battlegroup scale deployments built around a single commando.
Armoured, and capable of combined of combined-arms maneuvre. If you have a 1500-1700 strong maneuvre group with armour, artillery, engineers, loggies, you need docks.
These users liked the author jedibeeftrix for the post:
wargame_insomniac

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Lord Jim wrote: 23 May 2022, 22:49 I am obviously in a minority here but why do we need large vessels with a Well Deck and the size of an LHD to carry a Company sized RM Littoral Support Unit and a SF detachment? What equipment is going to need a large landing craft to get to shore to support a Commando raid? The light weight 4x4 the RM are looking at for the LSUs can be carried inside a Merlin. Regarding Merlins, I cannot see the need for any more than four. We cannot afford to build large ships like LHDs just in case we decide to reconstitute 3 Cmdo Brigade as an Army style Light Infantry Brigade some time in the future, the thing FCF is designed to get away from. One of the requirements for the MRSS is not to overtly look like an amphibious platform, daft as that may sound. That sort of rules out anything looking vaguely like a LHD straight away as does having a Well Deck. The roles previously carried out by 3 Cmdo Brigade are by default going to be passed on to the Army, without beech landings though. The LSG will find them a nice landing zone though so they can disembark and carry out sustained operations in land whilst the LSU re embarks on teh LSG and goes to its next objective. If we are talking larger ships the Bays and Points need to be replaced by a single class of ships, manned by the RFA, to be able to effectively sea lift an Army Brigade swiftly and efficiently.
Looks like you might be in minority the thinking that a ship can hide by looking like something else is long gone any peer or near peer will know what and where any of our ships are just as we know what and where Russian and Chinese are doing.

The thinking that the MRSS has to be dedicated to the FCF maens it is no longer a MRSS but a dedicated amphib platform

The point of a Osumi class is it is a LPD with a flat top which has a lift but no dedicated hangar as we know MRSS stands for Multi Role Support Ship and it should be just that it should be a ship that can be used to support

Future Commando force operations
ASW carrier operations
Helicopter support for Air Assault operation
Unmanned Air , Surface & sub Surface drones operations
HADR
Sea lift of a army Light battalion battle group
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post (total 2):
jedibeeftrixPoiuytrewq

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Scimitar54 wrote: 24 May 2022, 01:17 Balance is required and you have it about right. Adequate size is also vital. A 50% increase in numbers (apart from the OPVs) should just about achieve it.
Completely agree but it would also require a 50% increase in the defence budget.

That would amount to approximately 3.5% of UK GDP which even in this climate seems highly unlikely.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote: 24 May 2022, 10:53 The point of a Osumi class is it is a LPD with a flat top which has a lift but no dedicated hangar as we know MRSS stands for Multi Role Support Ship and it should be just that it should be a ship that can be used to support
Exactly. If the MRSS programme retains this as its guiding principle the end result should be highly desirable. Osumi is a great example but a modified Enforcer would be just as good and RN/RFA know the design very well already.

Future Commando force operations
ASW carrier operations
Helicopter support for Air Assault operation
Unmanned Air , Surface & sub Surface drones operations

HADR
Sea lift of a army Light battalion battle group
This looks great but I don’t think this anywhere near current planning.

Current planning looks more like ‘big cheap flexible ships that don’t look like cuts when they clearly are.’

This is the part that needs to be added to the MRSS concept:

- ASW carrier operations
- Helicopter support for Air Assault operation
- Unmanned Air , Surface & sub Surface drones operations

The Ellida which is often mentioned as a good fit for the MRSS would be a very poor design to excel at any of these requirements mainly due to the tiny hanger space. The Ellida hanger is smaller than the RUBB hanger currently fitted to the Bay Class. The stowage of the 3 additional helicopters blocks the access between the flight deck and the forward working deck. I am sure the Treasury bean counters love it but it’s a compromised design and IMO the UK could do much better and must aim higher. https://www.bmt.org/media/4197/bmt-das- ... x297mm.pdf

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 »

It is not me asking the MRSS needing to look more like a generic RFA than an amphibious platform, that is what is mentioned in the current outline for the MRSS or Son of LSS if you like. Many of the capabilities you mention would be covered by the successor to the Point class, especially the movement of Army units. I cannot see the Treasury funding two LHDs/Light Carriers through the back door by calling them MRSS. The MRSS is curranty destined to be a single class of up to six ships to allow two to be regularly deployed at any one time. Both 40 and 45 Commando will have three LSUs with these rotating the embarkation on their respective MRSS as part of a LSG, with room for expansion if the really big balloon goes up. Finally the MRSS will have aviation assets complimentary to the operations of the LSU and possible SF. UAS are likely to be involved but these will most likely be the light varieties as are being used by Infantry formations rather that the larger MALE types.

The LSG are aimed to support Commando Raids, supporting larger UK formations or those of our allies. In peacetime they will also aid allies in training and HADR operations. Being forward deployed means they can respond to situation within days.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
jedibeeftrix

Post Reply