Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
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 »

SW1 wrote: 15 May 2022, 18:00 For the most part, the service previously focused on the Arctic theater for “training and environmental development,” Totten said, but that’s going to shift. He added that the Future Commando Force wants to bolster its resources in the region and is ready to position other readiness forces near the Suez Canal.
The program is composed of two littoral response groups, and it aims for forces to be able to immediately deploy to complete a range of tasks, from combat operations to humanitarian missions.
These forces form a littoral strike group that works alongside a carrier strike group, designed to boost the carrier strike group’s capabilities
leonard wrote: 17 May 2022, 21:18 as is the case with the ship in question wich will not have amphibious capabilities her primary role but missile defense with her Aster 30 B1 NT missile and KRONOS radar.
There we have it: 2+2 as in
"These forces form a littoral strike group that works alongside a carrier strike group, designed to boost the carrier strike group’s capabilities"

Qatar having to defend their gas installations on shore (against an attack from a shores not too far across) or the same for Israel (theirs offshore) really does not guide us one bit.
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: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Lord Jim wrote: 24 May 2022, 13:31 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.
But for me this is why type 32 should be a class of 6 Absalon class ships three based in the Atlantic and three EoS these would allow the RN to use them to carry a LSU and patrol there is no need to reduce the capability of the MRSS just to meet the the single need of the FCF.

Having seen the Osumi class flat top LSD I like the idea a lot with a bit of tweaking given that the MRSS is looking at a 200 x 30 meter hull we could take that hull and fit a 200 x 30 meter flat top on it with a slim island and a side lift forward the island and a 30+ ton crane at the rear of the island as said these ships would not have a dedicated hangar but could operate up to 16 helicopters with 8 tired to the deck and 8 on the vehicle deck or 8 helicopter and 8 long range strike drones as said these ships could be used for

Putting FCF or 16 AA troops ashore from OTH ( using helicopters and landing craft )
ASW carrier operations ( Capable of operating up to 8 ASW helicopters and 8 x tow array XLUUV form the well dock )
HADR
aviation training ship
Sealift ( using the flight deck as extra vehicle storage )

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

One could almost describe these as the “2022” Design Light Fleet Carriers! My earlier comment re: the MRSS possibly being “the Amphibious equivalent of the Through Deck Cruiser” would seem to apply here as well. :mrgreen:
These users liked the author Scimitar54 for the post (total 2):
jedibeeftrixLord Jim

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 »

Scimitar54 wrote: 25 May 2022, 12:16 My earlier comment re: the MRSS possibly being “the Amphibious equivalent of the Through Deck Cruiser” would seem to apply here as well.
Yes, indeed
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)

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3957
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Interesting development, up to 60knts is impressive.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... ng-trials/



A RN equivalent with Sea Spear would be a useful asset.

Also interesting that neither the T26 or T32 could. launch/recover such a vessel. It is also too large for Absalon without adaption if chosen for T32.

The only current RN/RFA vessels that could operate such a vessel would be the Albions, Bays and Points. The RB2s may also be an option if the crane could handle it in various sea states.

If USVs such as this are the future surely the T32 should be able to operate them or the MRSS is going to be very very busy.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 2):
Repulsejedibeeftrix

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

What is stopping us fitting something like this to the already proven unmanned Pacific 950 which already has a RWS with 12.7mm or 40mm GMG

This boat is 9.5 x 3 meter has a 45 knot top speed 300 nm range and a 3 ton payload

we also have the 11 x 3.5 meter MCM boats top speed 40 knots payload 4 tons and Madfox 13 meter boat which the RN has ready fired a missile from and which the RN claim can be deployed from both type 26 and 31

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

During the 2021 Ex a Puma UAV picked up a target sent the info back to a command room which sent it to a Madfox which fired a missile that destroyed the target which was a high speed USV

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3957
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote: 26 May 2022, 09:51 What is stopping us fitting something like this……9.5 x 3 meter…….11 x 3.5 meter
Good question.

This technological leap will not come cheap but RN seems caught up in endless feasibility studies which in the end result in more feasibility studies. It seems like an endless loop in which the ultimate goal is to look like something is happening whilst spending as little money as possible.

One thing that is clear is that the mission spaces on the T31 and T26 really don’t look large enough. The T32 really needs to be a radical departure from what has gone before to make the most of this exciting and rapidly evolving technology.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
Lord Jim

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

With the news that RFA Argus will be extended, I am wondering if the first formation of LRG(S) will be Argus + Cardigan Bay?
”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

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

This is what I said sometime back that Argus should be sent to the Indo-Pacific as part of the LRG-S for me I say again it is time to get serious and bring back Bulwark and reform EoS command with

Bulwark = Flagship
Argus
2 x type 23
2 x River B2's
1 x Bay class
4 x MCM
1 x Tanker

One T-23 the Bay class and 4 MCM would remain in the Gulf. Bulwark , Argus the T-23 and tanker would form LRG-S and the 2 RB-2's would carry on with there great work

I would look to deploy Argus with 3 Merlin's and 3 Wildcats with 2 more Wildcats carried on the T-23 and Tanker

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

I think we a renewed focus on NATO I’d say that any likely hood of two frigates based EoS will only come once the T31s are in the water in the late 2020s, until then one forward based T23 is the best that can be expected.

I would also add that the MCM force is likely to end up as 2 Hunts plus the Bay pretty soon. With the Bay hosting an increasing number of MCM systems. The RN is buying a MCM trials ship, and I’d argue that it should look for two so that trails can be performed in the UK and also the Gulf, freeing up the Bay capacity more towards the FCF.

In terms of the rest, perhaps an Argus and Wave combination would be a good start, focused on HADR and training, but could be used for limited SF/RM ops if required. Whilst both should probably be based in Oman, combining those two assets would allow it to reach and operate anywhere as far as the pacific, linking up of course with both Rivers.

That for me is a realistic and useful forward presence, combined with regular CSG / SSN deployments from the UK.
”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

User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jensy »

From today's Defence Select Committee hearing. Put succinctly by Navy Lookout:



Was surprised to hear that the Albions were in consideration for conversion.

The DefSec described the Royal Navy as having "shifted" their desire for an upgraded Bay Class to look at Argus filling the aviation role for one of the future amphibious groups but that the Bays and Albion Class were also in consideration for the role.
These users liked the author Jensy for the post (total 4):
donald_of_tokyoTempest414Repulsewargame_insomniac

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Jensy wrote: 05 Jul 2022, 16:07 The DefSec described the Royal Navy as having "shifted" their desire for an upgraded Bay Class to look at Argus filling the aviation role for one of the future amphibious groups but that the Bays and Albion Class were also in consideration for the role.
Thank god, sense is prevailing. Argus is there already, it is real not a fantasy diagram and is capable of operating either alongside an Albion or by itself in a low tempo / risk environment.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post (total 2):
wargame_insomniacJensy
”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

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Personally I would be cautious about relying on \ risking Argus she's a forty year old converted container ship with a key PCRS role. Her use needs to be rationed because it sounds like the MRSS or whatever her replacement is is a long way off.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

tomuk wrote: 06 Jul 2022, 02:50 Personally I would be cautious about relying on \ risking Argus she's a forty year old converted container ship with a key PCRS role. Her use needs to be rationed because it sounds like the MRSS or whatever her replacement is is a long way off.
Fair point, but given the focus on NATO and zero chance of doing any sizeable independent operations outside of Europe (bar a very slim Falklands II scenario) then I think we are over stating the need for maritime PCRS. There is a HADR dimension, but it cannot be a priority for a war fighting navy.

The key gap is now Aviation Support for amphibious operations for LRG(S) - this should be the clear focus IMO. Having her available EoS allows her to be “ready in theatre” if not at sea.
”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

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Repulse wrote: 06 Jul 2022, 10:43 but given the focus on NATO and zero chance of doing any sizeable independent operations outside of Europe......


.......The key gap is now Aviation Support for amphibious operations for LRG(S) - this should be the clear focus IMO. Having her available EoS allows her to be “ready in theatre” if not at sea.
That If the focus is NATO and europe why are we stationing an LRG(S) East of Suez?
If we are still talking about small rapid reaction\raiding force of commandos Argus is a big ship size and crew wise to support a couple of helicopters.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

tomuk wrote: 06 Jul 2022, 20:25 That If the focus is NATO and europe why are we stationing an LRG(S) East of Suez?
If we are still talking about small rapid reaction\raiding force of commandos Argus is a big ship size and crew wise to support a couple of helicopters.
NATO and Europe is the focus but is not the only commitment. By positioning Argus EoS means that the two CSGs can be deployed primarily in the Atlantic and Mediterranean.

Crewing is high, but a fraction of the CVFs and not bad for a platform capable of operating up to 6 medium helicopters. Combine those 6 with a LPD or LSD and it gives a solid capability for most peace-time operations.
”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

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

More than a couple - hangars for four (up to Merlin size), plus space to keep a couple on deck (up to Chinook size), and three landing spots. A bit limited on EMF accommodation, though - especially if the hospital facilities are staffed.
These users liked the author Caribbean for the post:
Repulse
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

The Bosnian / Kosovo conflicts showed the limitations of using RFA Argus as a LPH. I can’t find details of the problems, but have heard it’s things like width of passageways for fully loaded RMs.

However, if combined with a LPD/LSD then these issues can probably be eliminated. Though, a company level “Vanguard” force could possibly be operated for limited periods in certain circumstances.

Also, Argus is cleared to operate Apaches so gives an additional dimension.

Good summary of capabilities and history here: http://www.historicalrfa.org/archived-s ... ship-argus
”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 »

Here is the full Q&A session with the Defence Secretary.

https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Ind ... ab44b04d71

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Repulse wrote: 07 Jul 2022, 07:20 The Bosnian / Kosovo conflicts showed the limitations of using RFA Argus as a LPH. I can’t find details of the problems, but have heard it’s things like width of passageways for fully loaded RMs.
Amongst other things! IIRC, there was also an issue with not enough bunks, heads and showers. They had troops on camp beds in the hangars and long queues for the "facilities". Not ideal
These users liked the author Caribbean for the post:
Repulse
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Caribbean wrote: 07 Jul 2022, 11:30
Repulse wrote: 07 Jul 2022, 07:20 The Bosnian / Kosovo conflicts showed the limitations of using RFA Argus as a LPH. I can’t find details of the problems, but have heard it’s things like width of passageways for fully loaded RMs.
Amongst other things! IIRC, there was also an issue with not enough bunks, heads and showers. They had troops on camp beds in the hangars and long queues for the "facilities". Not ideal
I definitely agree that RFA Argus cannot operate at the RM level that was expected of HMS Ocean, but even the CVFs aren’t configured to support a RM Cdo. But that is not the requirement and I would hope, or at least looked at, what is required to host and operate a RM company.
”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

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

I thought the last time Argus was used as a helicopter ship, ocean was purchased shortly after.

This bodging just highlights how chasing the neverland dream has so wrong.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 07 Jul 2022, 13:56 I thought the last time Argus was used as a helicopter ship, ocean was purchased shortly after.

This bodging just highlights how chasing the neverland dream has so wrong.
It was, but like it or not the requirement under FCF is likely to have changed. I would have loved to have kept Ocean but the money / priority was not there and still isn’t.
”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

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 07 Jul 2022, 14:11
SW1 wrote: 07 Jul 2022, 13:56 I thought the last time Argus was used as a helicopter ship, ocean was purchased shortly after.

This bodging just highlights how chasing the neverland dream has so wrong.
It was, but like it or not the requirement under FCF is likely to have changed. I would have loved to have kept Ocean but the money / priority was not there and still isn’t.
Indeed but it shows how the decision making of 15-20 years ago was simply not thought thru

Post Reply