Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

[Repulse]

Worst of all outcomes, no clear direction for the FCF, wasting money and kicking the can another decade down the road.

[wargame_insomniac]

Worst of all outcomes, no clear direction for the FCF, wasting money and kicking the can another decade down the road.

I doubt it will be 2030's. I fully expect them to be rotated between active service annually (as per current) and then retired far earlier, maybe timed to stay in service until firstly QNLZ and then later PWLS go through their first big refit.

Either way it will be the next government's problem, as the current lot don't want to be seen as cutting Defence but won't commit to the additional funding that is increasingly clear is desperately needed.

[Fr0sty125]

The issue is the RN has the wrong ships to make LSG/LRG work effectively and efficiently. If they want to make this strategy work then Albions and bay class need replacing with the MRSS something like the Enforcer 15628 https://media.damen.com/image/upload/v1 ... 6828ed.pdf

Even the Enforcer 14428 would be a credible option.

The RN needs ships that strike the right balance in terms of dock, aviation facilities and storage.

[jedibeeftrix]

2x LCU would do it.

[tomuk]

The issue is the RN has the wrong ships to make LSG/LRG work effectively and efficiently. If they want to make this strategy work then Albions and bay class need replacing with the MRSS something like the Enforcer 15628 https://media.damen.com/image/upload/v1 ... 6828ed.pdf

Even the Enforcer 14428 would be a credible option.

The RN needs ships that strike the right balance in terms of dock, aviation facilities and storage.

Why would you replace the bays which are enforcer variants with more enforcer variants? Refit the Bays with a larger superstructure including a hangar and you've pretty much got a 15628.

[wargame_insomniac]

I’ve come to the conclusion that the Bay Class is the way to go - the problem isn’t the design as such, just that they are fundamentally logistical ships manned by the RFA. Not having a permanent hangar is only a limitation if sailing without Argus or a CVF which in most cases they will be.

I think that making the switch is on the RN and starting to look at them as RM mobile bases will be one of the things to move things forward. Whilst some adaptation/enhancements are needed they are good till the late 2030s.

[new guy]

I doubt it will be 2030's. I fully expect them to be rotated between active service annually (as per current) and then retired far earlier, maybe timed to stay in service until firstly QNLZ and then later PWLS go through their first big refit.

Either way it will be the next government's problem, as the current lot don't want to be seen as cutting Defence but won't commit to the additional funding that is increasingly clear is desperately needed.

They are rotated every 5+ years not annually.

[Fr0sty125]

The issue is the RN has the wrong ships to make LSG/LRG work effectively and efficiently. If they want to make this strategy work then Albions and bay class need replacing with the MRSS something like the Enforcer 15628 https://media.damen.com/image/upload/v1 ... 6828ed.pdf

Even the Enforcer 14428 would be a credible option.

The RN needs ships that strike the right balance in terms of dock, aviation facilities and storage.

Why would you replace the bays which are enforcer variants with more enforcer variants? Refit the Bays with a larger superstructure including a hangar and you've pretty much got a 15628.

Unfortunately not the case. Bay Class have very small docks that can only fit one 1 LCU they can’t even fit 2 Spanish style LCM-1E which would probably be too small anyway. The Bay class enforcer design went for more lane meters in exchange of dock size.

[Tempest414]

The issue is the RN has the wrong ships to make LSG/LRG work effectively and efficiently. If they want to make this strategy work then Albions and bay class need replacing with the MRSS something like the Enforcer 15628 https://media.damen.com/image/upload/v1 ... 6828ed.pdf

Even the Enforcer 14428 would be a credible option.

The RN needs ships that strike the right balance in terms of dock, aviation facilities and storage.

To make the hole thing work the RN/ RFA needs a 220 by 40 Ocean style LPH and 4 of the E 15628ed this allows two things firstly to have 2 x carriers at all times one strike and the other in LHA and second it allows the UK to have one MRSS to be deployed EoS and 2 to be at readiness with the LPH to form the ARG

Things that need to also happen

1) NMH needs to have a folding rotor to allow naval operation if needed
2) 29 RA needs to reconfigure to have one battery of M270a2's and 2 x batteries of a new field gun
3) 8 x new Caiman-90 or PASACAT for fast OTH moving of kit

[Repulse]

The issue is the RN has the wrong ships to make LSG/LRG work effectively and efficiently. If they want to make this strategy work then Albions and bay class need replacing with the MRSS something like the Enforcer 15628 https://media.damen.com/image/upload/v1 ... 6828ed.pdf

Even the Enforcer 14428 would be a credible option.

The RN needs ships that strike the right balance in terms of dock, aviation facilities and storage.

Why would you replace the bays which are enforcer variants with more enforcer variants? Refit the Bays with a larger superstructure including a hangar and you've pretty much got a 15628.

Unfortunately not the case. Bay Class have very small docks that can only fit one 1 LCU they can’t even fit 2 Spanish style LCM-1E which would probably be too small anyway. The Bay class enforcer design went for more lane meters in exchange of dock size.

Whilst the well dock size can be revisited in a future design, how big an issue is this really given that we are talking about 1-2 light RM companies deployed on ops that will not be large scale beach assaults. I’d say that adding some davits / replacing the life boats for LCVPs / Rhibs would be more important.

[Poiuytrewq]

The issue is the RN has the wrong ships to make LSG/LRG work effectively and efficiently. If they want to make this strategy work then Albions and bay class need replacing with the MRSS something like the Enforcer 15628 https://media.damen.com/image/upload/v1 ... 6828ed.pdf

Even the Enforcer 14428 would be a credible option.

The RN needs ships that strike the right balance in terms of dock, aviation facilities and storage.

Why would you replace the bays which are enforcer variants with more enforcer variants? Refit the Bays with a larger superstructure including a hangar and you've pretty much got a 15628.

Unfortunately not the case. Bay Class have very small docks that can only fit one 1 LCU they can’t even fit 2 Spanish style LCM-1E which would probably be too small anyway. The Bay class enforcer design went for more lane meters in exchange of dock size.

In comparison to what?

[Fr0sty125]

The issue is the RN has the wrong ships to make LSG/LRG work effectively and efficiently. If they want to make this strategy work then Albions and bay class need replacing with the MRSS something like the Enforcer 15628 https://media.damen.com/image/upload/v1 ... 6828ed.pdf

Even the Enforcer 14428 would be a credible option.

The RN needs ships that strike the right balance in terms of dock, aviation facilities and storage.

Why would you replace the bays which are enforcer variants with more enforcer variants? Refit the Bays with a larger superstructure including a hangar and you've pretty much got a 15628.

Unfortunately not the case. Bay Class have very small docks that can only fit one 1 LCU they can’t even fit 2 Spanish style LCM-1E which would probably be too small anyway. The Bay class enforcer design went for more lane meters in exchange of dock size.

In comparison to what?

Galicia class can dock 4 LCM compared to the Bay Class 1 LCM, Rotterdam can dock 4 LCVP compared to Bay class of 2

[donald_of_tokyo]

It is a bit tricky, that LCUs and LCMs have a variety of size.

RN Mk10 LCU. 29.8x7.7m
Dutch LCU 36.5x6.85 m
Caiman 90 30x7.7 m
US MSV(L) 35.6x8.6 m
US LCAC 26.8x14.3
LCM 1-E 23.3x6.4 m

What type of LCM/LCU will RM need, and in what number?

[Poiuytrewq]

Why would you replace the bays which are enforcer variants with more enforcer variants? Refit the Bays with a larger superstructure including a hangar and you've pretty much got a 15628.

Not really.

• Four davits would need to be added for CIC.

• The floodable dock can only embark 1x LCU.

• Reconfiguring the flight for 3 landing spots would be difficult if a four helo hanger was added to the superstructure.

There is a rational argument which suggests all three Bays should deleted within the next 2-3 years at 20yrs, similar to when HMS Ocean was sold.

Alternatively RN could have a total reassessment of current programs and choose to utilise the Bays in a different way but using them to fill the LSV requirement. The Bays are no more labour intensive than Sterling Castle or Proteus and would give RN a good decade to fully assess what is required to operate the offboard MCM kit effectively.

The T32 and MRSS programs could switch slots in the shipbuilding pipeline and work could begin on replacing the 3x Bays and Argus with 4x Damen Enforcer 15628 by 2026.

By retaining the Bays in the LSV role RN effectively receives 7x MRSS vessels whilst only procuring 4x 15628. Excellent strength in depth.

Rosyth could then use the MRSS funding to commence work around 2031/2032 to build the T32 or another batch of T31.

[Repulse]

I see no need for a rush for new ships if the FCF is structured around small highly mobile units focused on short operations, or longer duration operations from forward bases (such as camp Viking).

The fact that the strategy is kept purposefully vague for political reasons, is costing money and ultimately leading to a reduced and compromised capability.

On this basis, we have three aviation platforms, whilst it would be nice to have hangar facilities on the Bays, but it’s not essential especially given the finite amount of aviation platforms available.

Without the need for tanks or heavy logistical needs, the need for LCUs is also diminished - I’d argue the the point where do we even need them. ThinkDefence is good at documenting the options for small logistics and small boat / air mobility, have a read. I must admit I’m at the point where I question the need for LCUs at all, and would be personally looking at maximising something the use of LCVP sized craft - the Bay class could easily operate 6 or more of these from the dock, davits and craned from the deck (like Argus can) already.

[Poiuytrewq]

I must admit I’m at the point where I question the need for LCUs at all, and would be personally looking at maximising something the use of LCVP sized craft - the Bay class could easily operate 6 or more of these from the dock, davits and craned from the deck (like Argus can) already.

How many other Tier 1 navies are proposing something similar?

[Tempest414]

It is a bit tricky, that LCUs and LCMs have a variety of size.

RN Mk10 LCU. 29.8x7.7m
Dutch LCU 36.5x6.85 m
Caiman 90 30x7.7 m
US MSV(L) 35.6x8.6 m
US LCAC 26.8x14.3
LCM 1-E 23.3x6.4 m

What type of LCM/LCU will RM need, and in what number?

I would be going for PACSCAT or Caiman-90

[Tempest414]

The need to have LCU's is not to move tanks but to move up to 6 jackals or a mix of say jackals and M270a2's the ability to put fast moving mobil groups ashore from OTH at speed using say PACSCAT is for me a key part of the RM mandate

[Repulse]

I must admit I’m at the point where I question the need for LCUs at all, and would be personally looking at maximising something the use of LCVP sized craft - the Bay class could easily operate 6 or more of these from the dock, davits and craned from the deck (like Argus can) already.

How many other Tier 1 navies are proposing something similar?

Why does that matter? Which country (with perhaps the exception of the Netherlands) have similar requirements?

[Repulse]

The need to have LCU's is not to move tanks but to move up to 6 jackals or a mix of say jackals and M270a2's the ability to put fast moving mobil groups ashore from OTH at speed using say PACSCAT is for me a key part of the RM mandate

6 LCVPs could do similar, or six Chinooks - yes LCUs allow you to deliver numbers in a single place over a beach, but that is less important if the strategy are light dispersed forces.

[Tempest414]

The need to have LCU's is not to move tanks but to move up to 6 jackals or a mix of say jackals and M270a2's the ability to put fast moving mobil groups ashore from OTH at speed using say PACSCAT is for me a key part of the RM mandate

6 LCVPs could do similar, or six Chinooks - yes LCUs allow you to deliver numbers in a single place over a beach, but that is less important if the strategy are light dispersed forces.

when are we going to have 6 Chinooks to lift 6 jackals that is a little under 1/7th of the Chinook force also there will be 20 or so CIC replacing the LCVP's so over 1/4 of that force

I would say that 2 LCVPs should be able to put 4 x M-RAZ and a section ashore but once we go to Jackals we will need fast LCU's

[Poiuytrewq]

Why does that matter? Which country (with perhaps the exception of the Netherlands) have similar requirements?

It matters because this new FCF direction travel is completely untested.

If it becomes clear that the FCF concept is flawed RN needs to retain the ability to embark and deploy a more conventional amphibious force. The LCU/LCM/LCVP component is easily replaced but if the floodable docks are wrongly configured and new shipping is required it would be a disaster. Therefore the MRSS design needs to have a generous element of future proofing to cover all future requirements.

IMO if something like the CNIM LCX were embarked in a 2x craft floodable dock with 4x CIC in davits plus 4x helos it would be a great way forward for the FCF and the MRSS. Up to 35knts and operation in Sea State 5 is perfect.

Add modular accommodation and a method of launching and recovering multiple RHIBs and UAVs and they become mini sea bases for the FCF to patrol and secure the Littoral. https://cnim-groupe.com/sites/default/f ... LCX_GB.pdf

[jedibeeftrix]

It is a bit tricky, that LCUs and LCMs have a variety of size.

RN Mk10 LCU. 29.8x7.7m
Dutch LCU 36.5x6.85 m
Caiman 90 30x7.7 m
US MSV(L) 35.6x8.6 m
US LCAC 26.8x14.3
LCM 1-E 23.3x6.4 m

What type of LCM/LCU will RM need, and in what number?

12x Caiman 90 30x7.7 m
two for each future amphib.

[jedibeeftrix]

Without the need for tanks or heavy logistical needs, the need for LCUs is also diminished - I’d argue the the point where do we even need them. ThinkDefence is good at documenting the options for small logistics and small boat / air mobility, have a read. I must admit I’m at the point where I question the need for LCUs at all, and would be personally looking at maximising something the use of LCVP sized craft - the Bay class could easily operate 6 or more of these from the dock, davits and craned from the deck (like Argus can) already.

slower, less range, poorer seakeaping, less resource delivered per unit of cost to operate.

the argument should be to delete LCVP, not the other way around.
talking about tanks or heavy logistics is a canard. logistics - sustaining tonnes of material over the beach over time is the purpose, and LCU's are better at this.
and, they can outperform the logistics roles while delivering material faster and from further offshore.

[Poiuytrewq]

…sustaining tonnes of material over the beach over time is the purpose, and LCU's are better at this.

But long until heavy lift UAVs take over this role?

The MRSS will not be future proofed unless the hanger space is extremely generous to allow for a future heavy lift UAV revolution when the technology matures.