Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3715
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 47 times
Been liked: 203 times
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote: 20 Jul 2022, 18:22
Tempest414 wrote: 20 Jul 2022, 10:33 We should note that all other Enforcer classes have a crew of between 140 & 190 and that a Bay class when on operations has a mixed RFA & RN crew of 150+ and the RAN Bay has a crew of 158 this dose not include a command team

Also simply moving the command team to another ship will not help manpower problems it just moves the burden to said ship
Both Albions (one active + one in reserve) already require @350 crew (325 for the active one plus a crew for maintenance etc for the one in reserve). You are right that the command team will need to be replicated, but seeing that LRG(S) is at company level then it should be a fraction. The CVF C&C facilities will need to be expanded but they are (AFAIK) already designed to take a Task Group command role.

Like the reductions in crewing we’ve seen in frigates (T26 vs T23), any new ships must have similar automation/ efficiency gains.
Any new ship in this class should be looking at a core crew of 60 to 90 and a operations crew of 100 plus space for 400 troops & aircrew

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 3190
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 139 times
Been liked: 192 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Feels about right, though I think there is the potential to reduce the ops crew further with automation / AI and also remote (UK based) teams.
”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
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16310
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 77 times
Been liked: 73 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: 19 Jul 2022, 19:35 have to start somewhere (and Argus can be part of the early journey, helping to 'mature' the concept).
Repulse wrote: 20 Jul 2022, 07:28 gap is clear - no independent “war level” amphibious operations outside of the JEF structure until the new balanced and affordable force is in place.
Repulse wrote: 20 Jul 2022, 07:28 In terms of C&C, I’d see an appropriate level of capability also being added to RFA Argus.
Oh, well, what is there to add? Just that HMS Ocean received the above, called-for kit... so some of it must be somewhere; in a 'shed' to be plugged and screwed 'in'.
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)

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 3190
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 139 times
Been liked: 192 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: 21 Jul 2022, 15:12 Oh, well, what is there to add? Just that HMS Ocean received the above, called-for kit... so some of it must be somewhere; in a 'shed' to be plugged and screwed 'in'.
It’s a good point especially as I’m sure we are doing similar sized SF + Company sized operations today as those that must be expected for LRG(S).

In some respects it might be worth focus any serious C&C capability upgrades to the two carriers. If the UK is doing anything significant from the sea, one of those will be riding shotgun.
”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
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16310
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 77 times
Been liked: 73 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Repulse wrote: 21 Jul 2022, 15:28 If the UK is doing anything significant from the sea, one of those will be riding shotgun.
Yep, but the other aspect is being in-situ and doing "something" early on (assuming the scale fits the situation developing; sometimes better to sit tight & wait).
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)

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 3190
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 139 times
Been liked: 192 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Interesting…

These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
donald_of_tokyo
”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

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4573
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 190 times
Been liked: 197 times
Japan

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Repulse wrote: 22 Jul 2022, 21:12 Interesting…

Gabrielle-san Written Answer today to House of Commons reveals a procurement effort is ongoing for a "Mine Countermeasures Support Vessel". Has anyone seen the tender? I haven't, but i assume this is the ship that, going back to another Answer, will release BAY class from Op KIPION committment
I agree MCSV (?) shall release the Bay.

Actually, capable of delivering a 12-13m long, 3.5-4m wide MCM USVs, it cal also handle most of LCVP. If RN wants to handle LVCP Mk.5, we just need to enlarge the USV handling system to be able to handle up to the size (16x4.3 m). CB-90 is also similar in its size.

I also think MCSV will be operating (upto) 4 MCM USVs, so that a single MCSV will replace all the MCM tasks in Kipion. May be a ~5000 t vessel with a helicopter/UAV hangar and flight deck. But, as it is large, the number to be built will be 3 or 4, I guess.

- In landing operations, the MCSVs can also work as a ship-to-shore connector mother ship with 4 LCVP (or 2 LCVP and 2 CB90-like).
- In HADR operation, MCSV can perfectly work well, with up to 4 LCVPs and a helicopter.
- If "patrol" is needed, CB-90s and Patrol-USVs will be carried. If more needed, call for a River B2 OPV.

Having only 3-4 hulls might look like a shrink, but I understand it is very much needed if we need T32. We need crew for them.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 3190
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 139 times
Been liked: 192 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 23 Jul 2022, 05:01 - In landing operations, the MCSVs can also work as a ship-to-shore connector mother ship with 4 LCVP (or 2 LCVP and 2 CB90-like).
- In HADR operation, MCSV can perfectly work well, with up to 4 LCVPs and a helicopter.
- If "patrol" is needed, CB-90s and Patrol-USVs will be carried. If more needed, call for a River B2 OPV.

Having only 3-4 hulls might look like a shrink, but I understand it is very much needed if we need T32. We need crew for them.
I agree that a MCSV could have a “patrol” role, but would not add the complexity of launching amphibious/HADR operations a significant requirement.

I think a similar ship design would also work for the MRoSS requirement, and would be an interesting replacement for the B1 Rivers also, giving a fleet of 5.
”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: 3715
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 47 times
Been liked: 203 times
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

At this time I see this as one off second hand buy to free up a Bay class this in turn allows both LRG N & S to have a Bay class and allows the other to take on HADR for half the year in the Caribbean

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4573
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 190 times
Been liked: 197 times
Japan

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Repulse wrote: 23 Jul 2022, 07:16
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 23 Jul 2022, 05:01 - In landing operations, the MCSVs can also work as a ship-to-shore connector mother ship with 4 LCVP (or 2 LCVP and 2 CB90-like).
- In HADR operation, MCSV can perfectly work well, with up to 4 LCVPs and a helicopter.
- If "patrol" is needed, CB-90s and Patrol-USVs will be carried. If more needed, call for a River B2 OPV.

Having only 3-4 hulls might look like a shrink, but I understand it is very much needed if we need T32. We need crew for them.
I agree that a MCSV could have a “patrol” role, but would not add the complexity of launching amphibious/HADR operations a significant requirement.
There are many LCVP designs, many of them are even smaller than MCM USVs. For example, on LCVP is carried on HMS Protector. So, adding HADR tasks to them will be very simple.
I think a similar ship design would also work for the MRoSS requirement, and would be an interesting replacement for the B1 Rivers also, giving a fleet of 5.
MRoSS nor MCSV do not need to be high speed. 14-15 knots hull is enough. And, such hull is cheap to build an cheap operate, also does not require large numbers of naval engineers (because propulsion is low power and simple). Patrol can be added to their tasks, but majority of it shall be covered by Patrol USV and or Offshore Rading Crafts (and anyway, current MCMVs are both slow, thus no problem at all).

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 3190
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 139 times
Been liked: 192 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 23 Jul 2022, 13:15 There are many LCVP designs, many of them are even smaller than MCM USVs. For example, on LCVP is carried on HMS Protector. So, adding HADR tasks to them will be very simple.
Agree - and I used the word “significant” on purpose. The B2 Rivers have already performed HADR and amphibious (transport like in the Falklands) roles - the flexibility is inherent in their design but is not a driving requirement. I just don’t want people getting carried away and asking for Bay (or bigger) sized ships - it’s not needed, HMS Protector or SD Northern River sized is fine.
”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: 3715
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 47 times
Been liked: 203 times
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

I still think the best fit is 123m x 22 Tarlac class we should be able to get 5 for 250 pounds with good automation weapons fit comes with a dock and hangar and Heli pad and 2 good size boat bays given that 4 Hunts would have a crew 180+ and 4 Sandown's have a crew of 136 then we could see a crew of 100 on a Automated Tarlac class

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4573
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 190 times
Been liked: 197 times
Japan

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Tempest414 wrote: 24 Jul 2022, 14:33 I still think the best fit is 123m x 22 Tarlac class we should be able to get 5 for 250 pounds with good automation weapons fit comes with a dock and hangar and Heli pad and 2 good size boat bays given that 4 Hunts would have a crew 180+ and 4 Sandown's have a crew of 136 then we could see a crew of 100 on a Automated Tarlac class
A simple, slow (15kt class) and rather compact LSD for all tasks, such as; HADR, MCM-USVs, and Amphibious tasks is not a bad idea, I agree.

(But, Tarlac class is cheap because if low speed = small and simple propulsion. Speeding it up to 18-20 knots will cost money, size, reduced range and crew)

By the way, I could not understand your crew argument. (180 + 135) / 5 = 63? Also, more than a half of the (180 + 135) = 315 crew shall go to the MCM-USV teams. Unmanned MCM kit does require a lot of crew, far from being "crew-less".

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3715
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 47 times
Been liked: 203 times
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 24 Jul 2022, 14:49
Tempest414 wrote: 24 Jul 2022, 14:33 I still think the best fit is 123m x 22 Tarlac class we should be able to get 5 for 250 pounds with good automation weapons fit comes with a dock and hangar and Heli pad and 2 good size boat bays given that 4 Hunts would have a crew 180+ and 4 Sandown's have a crew of 136 then we could see a crew of 100 on a Automated Tarlac class
A simple, slow (15kt class) and rather compact LSD for all tasks, such as; HADR, MCM-USVs, and Amphibious tasks is not a bad idea, I agree.

(But, Tarlac class is cheap because if low speed = small and simple propulsion. Speeding it up to 18-20 knots will cost money, size, reduced range and crew)

By the way, I could not understand your crew argument. (180 + 135) / 5 = 63? Also, more than a half of the (180 + 135) = 315 crew shall go to the MCM-USV teams. Unmanned MCM kit does require a lot of crew, far from being "crew-less".
I am happy to keep them slow at 16 knots max

The crew statement is that 4 Hunt need 180+ crew plus a Bay class with another 120 or so = 300+ the Tarlac class need 121 crew with some more automation we might be able to get the crew to sit around 200 including core crew , 4 x MCM crews and a Helicopter crew

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16310
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 77 times
Been liked: 73 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tempest414 wrote: 24 Jul 2022, 15:47 a Bay class with another 120
Years ago, when the Bays were LSA(D), they were considered wonderful as a crew of 49 could operate them.

Now (and also then) if and when we need them to do all things to all people, then the higher figure is probably right. But in the 'olden days' the difference was either RM support staff, or the Loggies making sure the cargo got over the shore line (perhaps even beyond).

Back then:
1st wave, the Albions
2nd, the LSA (D)s
3rd, the Points

Now ( I am exaggerating, of course, as we can see from the recent Argus upgrade decision);
- we want to put the Bays (or some of them) on the front line
- we want to do things that, at times, will be separated from on-the-spot aviation support (again, ref: Argus and the 1.4 available carriers)

This juggling of the roles is quite 'mind boggling'. We had 6 Points. They have all been designed with special ref. to shallow draught, ie. getting to places
... but the two we got rid of were the ones with bigger engines, ie. the ones that could get there when needed. SO, they are now just the supply trains and not really part of any early, opening-the-doors amphibious Op
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)

SomeoneAh
Member
Posts: 19
Joined: 11 Jul 2022, 21:15
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SomeoneAh »



The FSS program has received bit from team uk, and the ship they propose seems interesting which I think it can be a good platform for the future LSS ( Littoral Strike Ship), Passenger Capacity 1910 People Total Freight Capacity 42 rail wagons, 62 trucks, 170 cars Total Passenger Vehicle Capacity 652 Cars is more than enough for a LSS, but the problem i concerned is the ferry design might be to big for the role of LSS, although it can carry a lot of personal and vehicle but I believe the RN not willing to put all their resources on one ship base on their experience from the Falkland.

What do u guys think.

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2103
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Has liked: 32 times
Been liked: 45 times
Australia

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by R686 »

SomeoneAh wrote: 07 Aug 2022, 00:31

The FSS program has received bit from team uk, and the ship they propose seems interesting which I think it can be a good platform for the future LSS ( Littoral Strike Ship), Passenger Capacity 1910 People Total Freight Capacity 42 rail wagons, 62 trucks, 170 cars Total Passenger Vehicle Capacity 652 Cars is more than enough for a LSS, but the problem i concerned is the ferry design might be to big for the role of LSS, although it can carry a lot of personal and vehicle but I believe the RN not willing to put all their resources on one ship base on their experience from the Falkland.

What do u guys think.
If they are cheap enough compared to a smaller design or same sort of $$$ being larger should not be seen as a hindrance, but considering its main role is to support the CBG being larger is most likely needed


The only thing I really think that needs to be worried about is how the ship will perform lightly loaded being a inter-island designed ferry from the outset

HMNZS Canterbury was built using a ferry design and has problems when lightly loaded in high sea states

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7231
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 293 times
Been liked: 332 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

The size of any future LSS will be based around the needs of the RM LSU and any SF embarked. We are only looking at a reinforced Company sized force, self contained on each deployed LSS. Using the existing Albions, Bays and Argus should not be seen as representing the size of ship required for the LSS role. The biggest vessel I would consider would be the latest generation of small LHD developed from the Italian San Georgio class and purchased by Algeria and Qatar.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post (total 2):
Repulsewargame_insomniac

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 3190
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 139 times
Been liked: 192 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

The size of any JSBL ships would be comparable to the FSS. But I agree, future LPDs should be significantly smaller and more numerous.
”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: 3715
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 47 times
Been liked: 203 times
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

the projects talked about by the RN and HMG are

SSS
MRSS
LSS
Type 32

So if we were to try and max these out what could we have

6 x Type 32 based on a Absalon to allow the RN to use them as GP frigate or a close in LSS

4 x MRSS based on a 200 x 32 flat top LPD capable of carrying 12 helicopters each with a well dock for 2 x Caimen -90

4 x SSS
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
Dahedd

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 3190
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 139 times
Been liked: 192 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

I’d say with exception of the SSS, all these are far enough in the future to safely assume they will either be cancelled or evolved from current expectations.

I just hope with Boris gone the same focus will be given to the value of U.K. shipbuilding.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
wargame_insomniac
”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

SomeoneAh
Member
Posts: 19
Joined: 11 Jul 2022, 21:15
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SomeoneAh »

R686 wrote: 07 Aug 2022, 01:35
SomeoneAh wrote: 07 Aug 2022, 00:31

The FSS program has received bit from team uk, and the ship they propose seems interesting which I think it can be a good platform for the future LSS ( Littoral Strike Ship), Passenger Capacity 1910 People Total Freight Capacity 42 rail wagons, 62 trucks, 170 cars Total Passenger Vehicle Capacity 652 Cars is more than enough for a LSS, but the problem i concerned is the ferry design might be to big for the role of LSS, although it can carry a lot of personal and vehicle but I believe the RN not willing to put all their resources on one ship base on their experience from the Falkland.

What do u guys think.
If they are cheap enough compared to a smaller design or same sort of $$$ being larger should not be seen as a hindrance, but considering its main role is to support the CBG being larger is most likely needed


The only thing I really think that needs to be worried about is how the ship will perform lightly loaded being a inter-island designed ferry from the outset

HMNZS Canterbury was built using a ferry design and has problems when lightly loaded in high sea states
Agree if the design is cheap enough then why don’t the RN go for a bigger ship, but my concern still remains, the LSS only have a limited self defence capability, which if they got hit a large amount UK military resources will be lost. Moreover the ferry design is 50000 tons which it’s almost as heavy as the QE class aircraft carrier and basically the RN require another full task force to escort the LSS and with only very few ship the RN own, it will further stretch out the fleet or the LSS must operate alongside the QE.

Unless the design are similar to the US navy LHD which carry their own air wing to defend it self, and if the RN decided to go for that direction the ferry hull might not suitable for such role.

But, I think the escort problem at the end was not really as big as I thought, because no matter how small or how big the ship are, they still require the same amount of escort to accompany them.

RN just need the escort are capable enough to prevent the LSS getting hit.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7231
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 293 times
Been liked: 332 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

The LSS will not operate without an escort screen designed to be effective at whichever level of conflict is involved. This could be simply a single T-31 up to having a CSG available and both T-26 and T-45 in close. The size of the LSS is probably going to be less than many people think, which is why the number to be purchased is up to six. The larger the force needed to be landed the greater the number of LSS involved, but each will be carrying a reinforced company together with its ship to shore connectors. Such forces will still not be equipped for large scale over the beach assaults but could open the door for larger Army units.

How the LSS are armed could well depend on who actually operates them. Will the be part of the Royal Navy proper or part of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary? If the latter then things will probably be limited to a couple of Phalanx and bolted on GPMGs. If the former then it could be anyone's guess. Definitely a number of Phalanx, but possibly containerised additional weaponry and defensive systems dependant or a ships mission at the time.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
Repulse

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 3190
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 139 times
Been liked: 192 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

I see the LRG name as a flexible label for a scaleable force - ranging from a single LPD/LSD/ASS to a task group which includes a CBG. This I believe is in line with what the RN has presented to date.

The concept needs to be flexible in nature as it will be tailored to the operation in hand and may not even be travelling as a single group but distributed units over a wide area.

However, for any LRG of scale (in terms of size or duration) logistics remain key and they do need to be protected, whereas the fighting element may be sailing solo and under the radar. Whilst I think the LPDs/LSDs need carry with them “a few days of supplies”, larger logistical ships are required hence the need to look again at the JSBL concept/requirement.
”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: 3190
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 139 times
Been liked: 192 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

These users liked the author Repulse for the post (total 2):
wargame_insomniacserge750
”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

Post Reply