Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6431
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

I like it! While there not too much detail, the rough form factor looks good. Six of those would do nicely!

My only criticism is the hangar being too small, especially when ships like the Karel Doorman show what's possible, on similar ships, even housing chinook with blades unfolded!
These users liked the author shark bait for the post:
Jensy
@LandSharkUK

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5804
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 15 Sep 2023, 09:43
jedibeeftrix wrote: 15 Sep 2023, 08:53
Well said, the problem IMO is that a number of people are stuck trying to rebuild the fleet of the late 90’s, what we will have will be better for our budget and more suitable for a country that is less gung-ho on large scale nation building that was the Blaire dream. The world has grown up, so must we.
The very definition of large scale intervention and nation building is why you build 65k tonne aircraft carriers for they aren’t much use for much else we unfortunately are having to put up with Blair’s dream.

The problem the navy and defence has got itself into is wanting to be a mini me US military and in this particular case a mini me U.S. navy.

In general I assume this journey to “fix” defence is code for must spend lots more money on equipment.

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1370
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by new guy »

We don't need enough RN jets to fill 2 carriers we need enough to fill one. Why do you think that we need 2 when the carriers won't do CSG's at the same time but in rotation?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4823
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 15 Sep 2023, 16:06 The very definition of large scale intervention and nation building is why you build 65k tonne aircraft carriers for they aren’t much use for much else we unfortunately are having to put up with Blair’s dream.

The problem the navy and defence has got itself into is wanting to be a mini me US military and in this particular case a mini me U.S. navy.

In general I assume this journey to “fix” defence is code for must spend lots more money on equipment.
Nation building is only one flavour of intervention/power projection - the former definitely needs boots on the ground the latter does not depending on your goals - that’s why we have two big carriers and not LHDs.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
Jensy
”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: 5804
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 15 Sep 2023, 16:26
SW1 wrote: 15 Sep 2023, 16:06 The very definition of large scale intervention and nation building is why you build 65k tonne aircraft carriers for they aren’t much use for much else we unfortunately are having to put up with Blair’s dream.

The problem the navy and defence has got itself into is wanting to be a mini me US military and in this particular case a mini me U.S. navy.

In general I assume this journey to “fix” defence is code for must spend lots more money on equipment.
Nation building is only one flavour of intervention/power projection - the former definitely needs boots on the ground the latter does not depending on your goals - that’s why we have two big carriers and not LHDs.
You break it you own it, it you don’t want to own it, you don’t break it and you don’t need a strike carrier it really is that simple.

Boots on the ground in the 10s of thousands is what nation building is about not several hundred at sea for crisis response extraction or littoral security. I’m sure you understand the difference.

Nor is having frigate deployments in protection of our oversea territory and security of maritime trade choke points got anything to do with nation building it is the exact opposite to the creation of mini me us navy carrier group.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
new guy

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4823
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Jensy wrote: 15 Sep 2023, 14:55The growing ELLIDA family, …
Interesting that their graphics focus on unmanned vessels and LCVPs.
”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: 4823
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 15 Sep 2023, 16:35
Repulse wrote: 15 Sep 2023, 16:26
SW1 wrote: 15 Sep 2023, 16:06 The very definition of large scale intervention and nation building is why you build 65k tonne aircraft carriers for they aren’t much use for much else we unfortunately are having to put up with Blair’s dream.

The problem the navy and defence has got itself into is wanting to be a mini me US military and in this particular case a mini me U.S. navy.

In general I assume this journey to “fix” defence is code for must spend lots more money on equipment.
Nation building is only one flavour of intervention/power projection - the former definitely needs boots on the ground the latter does not depending on your goals - that’s why we have two big carriers and not LHDs.
You break it you own it, it you don’t want to own it, you don’t break it and you don’t need a strike carrier it really is that simple.

Boots on the ground in the 10s of thousands is what nation building is about not several hundred at sea for crisis response extraction or littoral security. I’m sure you understand the difference.

Nor is having frigate deployments in protection of our oversea territory and security of maritime trade choke points got anything to do with nation building it is the exact opposite to the creation of mini me us navy carrier group.
Absolutely I understand the difference- no nation building, no need to put more than a several hundred marines on the ground which means you don’t need LHDs/LPDs/LSDs - a CVF is fine. No requirement, nothing broken.

Nothing better to protect BOTs than OPVs, CSGs, SSNs, Air defence, MPAs and A2AD capabilities. Frigates fine, but name me one BOT where this is a real need currently? As for sailing around the world protecting UK trade, how very 18th century.
”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

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1370
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by new guy »

Interesting that damen updated the enforcers,
BMT updated ellida,
and BAE showed a ampib,
all in the same week.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 4176
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

shark bait wrote: 15 Sep 2023, 16:02 I like it! While there not too much detail, the rough form factor looks good. Six of those would do nicely!
What are they adding, in terms of capability, to what is already in the water?
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
SW1

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 4176
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Repulse wrote: 15 Sep 2023, 12:27 By not manning the 2nd CVF that is exactly what you are doing.
I am not suggesting not ‘manning’ it. I am suggesting that the UK should only be operating one CVF at a time considering available funding and the state of the rest of the fleet.
No, the priority is to get CEPP up and running and credible.
To achieve what? Describe what that would look like.
Absolutely agree, taking funds away will not achieve this.
No idea who is suggesting taking funds away.

I am suggesting that by using the CVFs in a smarter way more could be achieved.

At present LRG(N) has been dissolved to allow both CVFs to operate concurrently. Will Bulwark make an appearance when QE goes in for refit after CSG23?

If so it’s clear that there just isn’t enough resources to make current planning actually work.

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1370
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by new guy »

new guy wrote: 15 Sep 2023, 16:57 Interesting that damen updated the enforcers,
BMT updated ellida,
and BAE showed a ampib,
all in the same week.
https://www.bmt.org/news/2023/bmt-unvei ... et-design/
https://www.damen.com/vessels/defence-a ... -enforcers



User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6431
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 15 Sep 2023, 16:58 What are they adding, in terms of capability, to what is already in the water?
More space for helicopters, and six of them versus the three at the moment.

This concept only really works if the navy can built lots of them, so that's why it's important to I keep it simple.
@LandSharkUK

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 4176
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

shark bait wrote: 15 Sep 2023, 17:33
More space for helicopters, and six of them versus the three at the moment.
Unless the design has changed the hanger is smaller than the RUBB hanger on the Bays and can fit only one Merlin.

The extra helo stowage is in a passage between the foredeck and flightdeck without maintenance clearances.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4823
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 15 Sep 2023, 17:25I am not suggesting not ‘manning’ it. I am suggesting that the UK should only be operating one CVF at a time considering available funding and the state of the rest of the fleet.
I’m confused - you’ve mentioned about using the crew elsewhere?
To achieve what? Describe what that would look like.
CEPP is about moving to flexible task groups based around a carrier, moving away from singleton deployments. The configuration of the task group will depend on its objective ranging from HADR to carrier strike - each configuration needs to be proved and practiced. Having two carriers allows for one to be deployed / ready to be deployed, whilst the other in training / refit with the option to surge both independently or in a single group.
No idea who is suggesting taking funds away.

I am suggesting that by using the CVFs in a smarter way more could be achieved.

At present LRG(N) has been dissolved to allow both CVFs to operate concurrently. Will Bulwark make an appearance when QE goes in for refit after CSG23?

If so it’s clear that there just isn’t enough resources to make current planning actually work.
As I’ve said previously, tough decisions are required and they are required now. Sitting on the fence talking about running on the LPDs and buying six MRSSs take funds away.

I’ve said that perhaps (if money allowed) keeping the 3 LSDs under RN crews and replacing them one for one with more modern ships would be nice but it unaffordable then the FSS will have to take the strain. An aviation support ship (Argus) replacement is higher up the priority list for me however.
”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
Moderator
Posts: 1116
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jensy »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 15 Sep 2023, 18:06 Unless the design has changed the hanger is smaller than the RUBB hanger on the Bays and can fit only one Merlin.

The extra helo stowage is in a passage between the foredeck and flightdeck without maintenance clearances.
It has, as well as being offered in a variety of sizes.

Take a look at the rear view. There appears to be two Merlin sized hangar doors. Though not certain what lies on the other side (space for two or more).

Image
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" - Dr. Strangelove (1964)

Fr0sty125
Member
Posts: 74
Joined: 09 Feb 2023, 17:18
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Fr0sty125 »

The new enforcer 28m beam options look interesting. 15628

2x LCU
4x LCVP
Hangar for 4 medium helicopters and a 3 spot flight deck
UAV hangar and flight deck on top for 8 medium UAV

https://media.damen.com/image/upload/v1 ... y41Ny4wLjA.
These users liked the author Fr0sty125 for the post:
jedibeeftrix

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6431
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

Would like to see a Karel Doorman style hanger on there. 1 Chinook or 4 Merlin would be the sweet spot for this form factor.

Any more and it need to be a through deck design because there will be more helicopters stored than can be reliably launched and recovered.
@LandSharkUK

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5804
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Don’t see how we can claim sweet spots or the like without saying what you want these ships to achieve.

Ocean for example was configured with her 6 medium helicopter spots and 4 landing craft to simultaneously deliver one company by air and one by sea.

If you planing on landing a company by air with these ships they will need 6 Merlin or 4 chinook spots minimum. If it’s a full reinforced company by air it’s likely 6 chinook or 10 Merlin. Add in a few wildcat to ride shotgun. These don’t work.

If it’s a log requirement to support a reinforced company then it will need landing craft and you’re looking at something like Albions dry dock to get the vehicles/stores and the like ashore quickly.

Its really how many need moved over what distance in one go until that is known then the rest is pointless that’s before decided where you are getting the crew from to actually use them because that’s the real reason the current lot are tied up along with lack of funds to put them to sea.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6431
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

I would propose a slightly different approach. Design the simplest most cost effective assault ship possible, and build lots of them.

During peace time these ships are distributed around the world for engagement, training and supporting other operations. During spicier times, or for big exercises, these ships form groups that can be scaled up or down to meet the requirement of the day.

The approach above outlined by SW1 sounds more mature, but it's more difficult to deliver for 30 years of changing priorities. It's the approach thay delivered the LPDs and fell apart less than half way through their life, which is why the distributed and scalable approach seems attractive.
@LandSharkUK

Fr0sty125
Member
Posts: 74
Joined: 09 Feb 2023, 17:18
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Fr0sty125 »

SW1 wrote: 15 Sep 2023, 22:35 Don’t see how we can claim sweet spots or the like without saying what you want these ships to achieve.

Ocean for example was configured with her 6 medium helicopter spots and 4 landing craft to simultaneously deliver one company by air and one by sea.

If you planing on landing a company by air with these ships they will need 6 Merlin or 4 chinook spots minimum. If it’s a full reinforced company by air it’s likely 6 chinook or 10 Merlin. Add in a few wildcat to ride shotgun. These don’t work.

If it’s a log requirement to support a reinforced company then it will need landing craft and you’re looking at something like Albions dry dock to get the vehicles/stores and the like ashore quickly.

Its really how many need moved over what distance in one go until that is known then the rest is pointless that’s before decided where you are getting the crew from to actually use them because that’s the real reason the current lot are tied up along with lack of funds to put them to sea.
You are right there must be clarity on the doctrine which then leads to the requirements.

The doctrine is Litoral Response Group North - up to 1 reinforced company and Litoral Response Group South up to 1 reinforced company. Litoral Strike Group - LRGN and LRGS combined - up to 2 reinforced companies.

For example, the enforcer 15628ED design provides the capacity for 4 Merlin + 2 LCU or 4 LCM + 4 LCVP/CIC which means that a single one of these ships could provide the lift capability for a light company as part of a LRG and two of them would be able to lift a reinforced company.

In terms of future-proofing, the RN specialising its amphibious fleet has been a disaster in the long run. It needs platforms with combined air and sea lift.
These users liked the author Fr0sty125 for the post:
wargame_insomniac

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4823
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

new guy wrote: 15 Sep 2023, 16:57 Interesting that damen updated the enforcers,
BMT updated ellida,
and BAE showed a ampib,
all in the same week.
Interesting that they both now have 130m versions also - could be that the Netherlands plan to replace their OPVs is gaining traction.

Whilst I do believe that the funds (if real) targeted for the MRSS need to be prioritised towards an Aviation Support Ship replacement and more vertical lift capability, there are other requirements where funds could come from.

The 3-4 x LSV requirement is still open, and the 3 B1 Rivers need to be replaced, Perhaps a stretch, but four 130m vessels could allow for one to pick up as the MCM mothership in the Gulf, another to operate in the IndoPacific region for low level ops with Argus (or replacement) releasing Spey and Tamar to come back to the UK. The other two can then be based in the UK in support for JEF operating with the CSGs for high threat ops.

Edit: I name it now, a merge of the LSV, Global OPV and MRSS requirement into a new MRLSV (Multi-Role Littoral Support Vessel) class. Perhaps buying all from adapted Damen designs that would be 4 MRLSVs (Enforcer 13266ED LPDs) - add on a Karel Doorman variant to replace Argus and that would be a good outcome IMO.
”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: 5670
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

shark bait wrote: 16 Sep 2023, 08:38 I would propose a slightly different approach. Design the simplest most cost effective assault ship possible, and build lots of them.

During peace time these ships are distributed around the world for engagement, training and supporting other operations. During spicier times, or for big exercises, these ships form groups that can be scaled up or down to meet the requirement of the day.

The approach above outlined by SW1 sounds more mature, but it's more difficult to deliver for 30 years of changing priorities. It's the approach thay delivered the LPDs and fell apart less than half way through their life, which is why the distributed and scalable approach seems attractive.
First thing I would say is more ships more crew the next thing would be group scalability for me a third flattop would allow 2 to be available at all times I am thinking Ocean 2 210 x 40 meters with a steel beech plus a rear lift the same size and make as on the QE class to allow unfolded Chinook's to be carried

Next build 4 simple cost effective assult ships which have full width hangars for 3 Merlin's

Out side of this we need to make sure that our 8 LSU's of 250 troops each are properly kited out and able to conduct tasks from one LSU acting alone up to a Battalion battle group with 5 LSU's and the full set of enablers needed
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
Dahedd

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 4176
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Jensy wrote: 15 Sep 2023, 18:43 Take a look at the rear view. There appears to be two Merlin sized hangar doors. Though not certain what lies on the other side (space for two or more).
Thanks.

It is interesting that Damen and BMT have updated their offerings in the same week, perhaps the LSV/MRSS/T32 options combined with the chance to delete the resource hungry Albions is proving tempting enough to progress a programme.

The Ellida Mk2 looks interesting but the foredeck is still the weak point IMO due to the access required between flight deck and the foredeck. It’s fine for an Auxiliary but too much hanger space is wasted on a vessel at least partially involved in Amphibious Assault.

On a sub 170m LOA vessel the standard Enforcer configuration is optimal but at around 200m LOA a bridge forward design with an amidships working deck and a 6x Merlin hanger with a twin Chinook capable flight deck is the perfect configuration, IF RN wants more LPDs.

The Ellida design isn’t as capable as an Enforcer LPD but is virtually perfect as a Joint Logistics Vessel designed to support a LRG with:

- Solid and liquid replacement with RAS rigs
- Modest RoRo
- Generous TEU capacity
- Twin Chinook flight deck
- Twin LCU well dock
- Role 2 medical facility
- EMF of 350+
- Davits for 2x 15m CIC plus 2x RHIBs

Ideally I would modify the design to add a single 50t crane on the foredeck plus mexeflotes like the Bays. Basically, if properly optimised the Ellida could be be the perfect Bay/Wave hybrid to support the LRGs.

IMO the Amphib replacement programme is a £3bn, 10yr project to produce 2x LHDs and 3x MRSS. A £300m annual spend from a £53bn defence budget seems eminently possible.

Just my opinion.

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1370
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by new guy »

Repulse wrote: 16 Sep 2023, 09:16
new guy wrote: 15 Sep 2023, 16:57 Interesting that damen updated the enforcers,
BMT updated ellida,
and BAE showed a ampib,
all in the same week.
Interesting that they both now have 130m versions also - could be that the Netherlands plan to replace their OPVs is gaining traction.

Whilst I do believe that the funds (if real) targeted for the MRSS need to be prioritised towards an Aviation Support Ship replacement and more vertical lift capability, there are other requirements where funds could come from.

The 3-4 x LSV requirement is still open, and the 3 B1 Rivers need to be replaced, Perhaps a stretch, but four 130m vessels could allow for one to pick up as the MCM mothership in the Gulf, another to operate in the IndoPacific region for low level ops with Argus (or replacement) releasing Spey and Tamar to come back to the UK. The other two can then be based in the UK in support for JEF operating with the CSGs for high threat ops.

Edit: I name it now, a merge of the LSV, Global OPV and MRSS requirement into a new MRLSV (Multi-Role Littoral Support Vessel) class. Perhaps buying all from adapted Damen designs that would be 4 MRLSVs (Enforcer 13266ED LPDs) - add on a Karel Doorman variant to replace Argus and that would be a good outcome IMO.
Well we don't know the sizing of the BAE amphib, so can't be too sure.
could equally be said that all have a 180 or 200m version.

ASS in what way?

combining amphibs with the OPV's and LSV's requirements IMHO is putting too much onto one platform.
but that isn't the only problem.
You propose 4 ships instead of 12.
all you did was get rid of RB1,LSV, and 2 MRSS.
Do these 4 hulls have constant availability?
the 2 RB2's in the indo pacific are in addition to LSG(S).
6 hulls is what is needed for the 2 LRG's.
LSV's takeover the bays roles as MCM kipon
I would argue that considering the black sea, the baltics, kipon, home, NATOMCMG1&2 and elsewhere we need at least 12 LSV's.
the only thing you propose here is cuts.
horrible outcome.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4823
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

new guy wrote: 16 Sep 2023, 13:05 Well we don't know the sizing of the BAE amphib, so can't be too sure.
could equally be said that all have a 180 or 200m version.

ASS in what way?

combining amphibs with the OPV's and LSV's requirements IMHO is putting too much onto one platform.
but that isn't the only problem.
You propose 4 ships instead of 12.
all you did was get rid of RB1,LSV, and 2 MRSS.
Do these 4 hulls have constant availability?
the 2 RB2's in the indo pacific are in addition to LSG(S).
6 hulls is what is needed for the 2 LRG's.
LSV's takeover the bays roles as MCM kipon
I would argue that considering the black sea, the baltics, kipon, home, NATOMCMG1&2 and elsewhere we need at least 12 LSV's.
the only thing you propose here is cuts.
horrible outcome.
I was referring specifically to the BMT and Damen designs - 130m vessels would sit well within the OPV/LSV plans.

Your 12 vessels are a dream, sorry. The LSV is already rumoured to be 3, the MRSS is up to six with means four, and there is no money currently allocated for a OPV B1 replacement - so my five would be instead of a probable seven ships.

What it does do however is probably fall within the range that is affordable and can actually be crewed. It also, hopefully allows for funds to be used to move the Wildcats from the Army to the RM.

Btw - apart from the occasional T26/T45 nothing else is going to venture into the Black Sea anytime soon.
”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