Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

[Tempest414]

[quote=Tempest414 post_id=165091
Firstly under CANZUK I would be looking at Canada and Australia to form an F-35b unit of 20 jets meaning that that the carrier would carry between 24 and 30 5th Gen jets however I know you don't think so but most including the USN would think a CANZUK battle group operating as the Southern battle group allowing the USN to form 4 other Battle groups along with Japan and South Korea in the centre and on the Northern flank would be a useful thing

As for the Army first of all it needs to sort its self out into working Brigades

Canada and Australia aren’t buying f35b. You are now basing a plan on other countries changing there’s to suit yours when we are a very minor player militarily in the region simply not going to happen.


There has been much talk of euro nato taking more responsibility and taking over what America currently has in Europe that we don’t. Well we don’t need to send another armoured brigade or the like there’s plenty of them in Poland Germany ect. Say the army contrition was a corp HQ and a Multi domain task force equivalent for example.
[/quote]

I am not basing my plan on others as you well know the UK could if it needed / wanted to put 30 UK F-35b on a carrier once it hits FOC in 2025

[SW1]

[quote=Tempest414 post_id=165091
Firstly under CANZUK I would be looking at Canada and Australia to form an F-35b unit of 20 jets meaning that that the carrier would carry between 24 and 30 5th Gen jets however I know you don't think so but most including the USN would think a CANZUK battle group operating as the Southern battle group allowing the USN to form 4 other Battle groups along with Japan and South Korea in the centre and on the Northern flank would be a useful thing

As for the Army first of all it needs to sort its self out into working Brigades

Canada and Australia aren’t buying f35b. You are now basing a plan on other countries changing there’s to suit yours when we are a very minor player militarily in the region simply not going to happen.


There has been much talk of euro nato taking more responsibility and taking over what America currently has in Europe that we don’t. Well we don’t need to send another armoured brigade or the like there’s plenty of them in Poland Germany ect. Say the army contrition was a corp HQ and a Multi domain task force equivalent for example.

I am not basing my plan on others as you well know the UK could if it needed / wanted to put 30 UK F-35b on a carrier once it hits FOC in 2025
[/quote]

We are going to have the ability to put 70% of our entire f35 fleet on a carrier in the Pacific one year from now? Really!

[wargame_insomniac]

When I was younger I seem to recall in those days pre-interent and pre-mobile phone that would be waiting for news from either Vatican for election of new Pope or Kremlin for choice of new Soviet Preseident by analysis of smoke signals, in the former case literal and for the latter case somewhat more tongue in cheek.

But that is what at the moment it feels like in terms of clear announcements of what is happening with UK's Future Commando Force and any resulting chanes from the fomal addition of Finland and Sweden to NATO and the 10 - nation JEF and the resulting rule for the British Army.

I am not aware of any such public announcements but I would settle for knowing that at the very least acknowledgement that these discussions were underway and that any conclusions drawn would be clearly need to be kept secret from Russians.

But these are both massive impact on UK's FCF and it's resulting future Amphibious requirements. May not have big changes for Poland and Germany given the Kalinigrad Enclave and Suwalki Gap to keep land connection to Baltic States. But would have a much bigger difference to the depth of NATO's defences in Scandinavia.

But we are trying to make guessstimates of what types of Amphibs the UK should buy without knowing much of inputs. What is going to be the required mix between new flast and stealthy CIC vs helicopter or heavier Landing Craft deployed via well deck.

What about mix between RN & RFA?? I assume that RFA's first priority has to be operating the Tides and Fort Victoria, second priority to run the new ships Proteus and Stirling Castle (with RN crew manning the actual mission bay and USV's / USuV 's, (and thirdly if any spare to man Waves to support the LRG's, at least until they are required to man the new FSS.

So given that, I cant see RN Crew can man all 6 of Argus, both Albions and 3 Bays). Maybe get away with manning either Albion or Bulwark until QNLZ near completed her first big refit.

Selling PWLS for lack of crew is madness. Beforehand we should first scrap both Albions and Argus. Just because of age for former and crew inefficiency and lack of hangar space (the two Albions).

What can we afford to build at that point? What can we afford to crew, given that all T23's would have first passed LIFEX and second have their crew moved over to more crew efficient T26& T31, whilst all T45 should have finished PIP. It might be that we have to temporarily rely on 3*Bays with their temporary hangars.

New Bays with proper mix of Well - Deck and Permanent Hangars might not be considered sexy snd they may not offer full range of VSTOL Drones, at least until a replacement for Argus and / or Ocean can be afforded (considering both build costs and crew costs). But that might be one area that RN has to compromise in, getting the it will do option rather than deluxe gold plated option.

[Tempest414]

[quote=Tempest414 post_id=165091
Firstly under CANZUK I would be looking at Canada and Australia to form an F-35b unit of 20 jets meaning that that the carrier would carry between 24 and 30 5th Gen jets however I know you don't think so but most including the USN would think a CANZUK battle group operating as the Southern battle group allowing the USN to form 4 other Battle groups along with Japan and South Korea in the centre and on the Northern flank would be a useful thing

As for the Army first of all it needs to sort its self out into working Brigades

Canada and Australia aren’t buying f35b. You are now basing a plan on other countries changing there’s to suit yours when we are a very minor player militarily in the region simply not going to happen.


There has been much talk of euro nato taking more responsibility and taking over what America currently has in Europe that we don’t. Well we don’t need to send another armoured brigade or the like there’s plenty of them in Poland Germany ect. Say the army contrition was a corp HQ and a Multi domain task force equivalent for example.

I am not basing my plan on others as you well know the UK could if it needed / wanted to put 30 UK F-35b on a carrier once it hits FOC in 2025

We are going to have the ability to put 70% of our entire f35 fleet on a carrier in the Pacific one year from now? Really!
[/quote]

If we really needed to yes we would in the same way we sent 90% of the FRS1 fleet to the Falklands

[Ron5]

If we really needed to yes we would in the same way we sent 90% of the FRS1 fleet to the Falklands

Ah but they were FAA. Fat chance with crab air running the show.

[GarethDavies1]

Not sure that's totally fair given the number of the FRS1 pilots and technicians that were seconded from the RAF!

[Ron5]

Not sure that's totally fair given the number of the FRS1 pilots and technicians that were seconded from the RAF!

It matters who was in charge

[sol]

If we really needed to yes we would in the same way we sent 90% of the FRS1 fleet to the Falklands

Just 90%? Basically any air frame that was capable flying, plus every newly built one was sent, 2 even lacking radar and there was negotiations with India to lease them from their Harriers.

Not sure that's totally fair given the number of the FRS1 pilots and technicians that were seconded from the RAF!

Not to mention 6 Harriers of 1 Squadron RAF that were sent with 809 NAS on Atlantic Conveyer, and operated from HMS Hermes.

[Tempest414]

Interesting little tip bit from the Dutch

Collaboration with British
There is also close cooperation with Great Britain. Dutch and British marines have been working together in the UK/NL Amphibious Force for over 50 years. Although both countries do not purchase identical ships, they do want to have the same subsystems. This should benefit mutual cooperation. This could include the joint acquisition of components such as cranes, hoisting installations and the dock door at the rear of the ship. The purchase also includes helicopter installations, propulsion systems and modular accommodation systems.

https://www.defensie.nl/actueel/nieuws/ ... andigheden

[serge750]

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... ssel-mrcv/

Interesting concept. Not quite an amphib, not quite an escort.

At 8,000t it's a fair bit bigger than the Absalon Class too.

- Leonardo’s 76mm naval gun in the STRALES variant;
- MBDA’s VL MICA NG and Aster B1 NT air defence missiles;
- ST Engineering / IAI Blue Spear anti-ship missiles;
- Thales’ SeaFire multifunction radar (in four fixed array configuration as aboard the FDI frigate);
- Safran’s PASEO XLR EO/IR system;
- Safran’s NGDS decoy launching system.

Based on the smaller 5,000t Vanguard 130 concept:

[Repulse]

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... ssel-mrcv/

Interesting concept. Not quite an amphib, not quite an escort.

At 8,000t it's a fair bit bigger than the Absalon Class too.

- Leonardo’s 76mm naval gun in the STRALES variant;
- MBDA’s VL MICA NG and Aster B1 NT air defence missiles;
- ST Engineering / IAI Blue Spear anti-ship missiles;
- Thales’ SeaFire multifunction radar (in four fixed array configuration as aboard the FDI frigate);
- Safran’s PASEO XLR EO/IR system;
- Safran’s NGDS decoy launching system.

Based on the smaller 5,000t Vanguard 130 concept:

Would be interesting to see how much it compares to the T26. Obviously the T26 doesn’t have rear boat ramps due to its TAS, but it has a mission bay.

[tomuk]

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... ssel-mrcv/

Interesting concept. Not quite an amphib, not quite an escort.

At 8,000t it's a fair bit bigger than the Absalon Class too.

- Leonardo’s 76mm naval gun in the STRALES variant;
- MBDA’s VL MICA NG and Aster B1 NT air defence missiles;
- ST Engineering / IAI Blue Spear anti-ship missiles;
- Thales’ SeaFire multifunction radar (in four fixed array configuration as aboard the FDI frigate);
- Safran’s PASEO XLR EO/IR system;
- Safran’s NGDS decoy launching system.

Based on the smaller 5,000t Vanguard 130 concept:

Would be interesting to see how much it compares to the T26. Obviously the T26 doesn’t have rear boat ramps due to its TAS, but it has a mission bay.

In the video the MRCV looks a lot more Absalon\IH like than the pictures shown of the smaller Vanguard 130.

[new guy]

In the video the MRCV looks a lot more Absalon\IH like than the pictures shown of the smaller Vanguard 130.

I believe it is based on the IH.

[wargame_insomniac]

Chinook capable flight deck is a must.

[Tempest414]

It is now clear that MRSS needs to be a flattop LPD design capable of operating Merlin , NMH, Apache , Wildcat and MALE drones plus operating Chinooks that would be hangared and maintained on the Carriers

[Repulse]

It is now clear that MRSS needs to be a flattop LPD design capable of operating Merlin , NMH, Apache , Wildcat and MALE drones plus operating Chinooks that would be hangared and maintained on the Carriers

A flattop yes, the question for me is what hangar space is required on the amphibious ship itself and whether it’s dedicated or part of a flexible mission / vehicle deck. Given they would operate mostly as part of a ESG alongside the carriers, I would personally say the latter with a base level of maintenance capabilities with large lifts between the flight deck and mission / vehicle deck.

[Tempest414]

It is now clear that MRSS needs to be a flattop LPD design capable of operating Merlin , NMH, Apache , Wildcat and MALE drones plus operating Chinooks that would be hangared and maintained on the Carriers

A flattop yes, the question for me is what hangar space is required on the amphibious ship itself and whether it’s dedicated or part of a flexible mission / vehicle deck. Given they would operate mostly as part of a ESG alongside the carriers, I would personally say the latter with a base level of maintenance capabilities with large lifts between the flight deck and mission / vehicle deck.

I would go with a flexible mission deck so I would be thinking that in full LPH it could carry 20 helos 12 on the mission deck and 8 on the flight deck however when in full logistics it could carry Vehicles and containers on the the flight deck

I would also be looking to have 2 x 30 ton cranes that fold way into the island on the sea side one at each end

[sol]

It is now clear that MRSS needs to be a flattop LPD design capable of operating Merlin , NMH, Apache , Wildcat and MALE drones plus operating Chinooks that would be hangared and maintained on the Carriers

Considering that MRSS is supposed to replace 6 ships (2 Albion class, 3 Bay class and RFA Argus) it is hard to expect that flattop will be chosen for this. But there are some options, like for example Damen Enforcer family with LPD and LHD variant on the same base hall





There are three versions of LHD, based on displacement, each with 6 landing spots on deck and hangar capacity between 9 and 14 helicopters. 1 or 2 LHD and 3 to 4 LPD could probably cover lot of RN needs.

But it is questionable will MRSS replace all 6 ships on 1 for 1 basis, and somehow I doubt RN will go for additional flattops beside two QE class carriers.

[new guy]

It is now clear that MRSS needs to be a flattop LPD design capable of operating Merlin , NMH, Apache , Wildcat and MALE drones plus operating Chinooks that would be hangared and maintained on the Carriers

Considering that MRSS is supposed to replace 6 ships (2 Albion class, 3 Bay class and RFA Argus) it is hard to expect that flattop will be chosen for this. But there are some options, like for example Damen Enforcer family with LPD and LHD variant on the same base hall





There are three versions of LHD, based on displacement, each with 6 landing spots on deck and hangar capacity between 9 and 14 helicopters. 1 or 2 LHD and 3 to 4 LPD could probably cover lot of RN needs.

But it is questionable will MRSS replace all 6 ships on 1 for 1 basis, and somehow I doubt RN will go for additional flattops beside two QE class carriers.

Enforcer LHD is in no measure real.

We have 2 photo's from one time period multiple years ago with no indication of it's existence other than these 2 photo's.
they ARE NOT offering it, only 2 images of it in the public domain. We saw it once then never again. As far as we know, It was very much just a concept. The text that accompanied your 2nd image literally said

Schelde "enforcer" concept

Supposedly you can just add 5,000 tonnes of superstructure onto the same hull form. The enforcer platform has gone through multiple iterations since, and damen haven't displayed it in years.
There would also be no advantage going for enforcer LPD over whatever BMT, BAE, and maybe others have e.g Navantia-Harland wolff partnership 2, as it is now stated by the that we are not going for a shared platform.

Also how are we supposedly going to afford 2 LHD's and 4 LPD's on a 6 LPD budget.

[sol]

Enforcer LHD is in no measure real.

Fair enough but I was talking more theoretically, same hull with different options. Maybe Navantia Athlas family ship would be better example.

Also how are we supposedly going to afford 2 LHD's and 4 LPD's on a 6 LPD budget.

Well I did said I don't expect to happen, did I. I can theorise but after all it is budget that will decide final choice. Who knows, maybe final procurement, when it happen, would be even less than 6 ships as lot of things could happen since then.

[Tempest414]

It is now clear that MRSS needs to be a flattop LPD design capable of operating Merlin , NMH, Apache , Wildcat and MALE drones plus operating Chinooks that would be hangared and maintained on the Carriers

Considering that MRSS is supposed to replace 6 ships (2 Albion class, 3 Bay class and RFA Argus) it is hard to expect that flattop will be chosen for this. But there are some options, like for example Damen Enforcer family with LPD and LHD variant on the same base hall





There are three versions of LHD, based on displacement, each with 6 landing spots on deck and hangar capacity between 9 and 14 helicopters. 1 or 2 LHD and 3 to 4 LPD could probably cover lot of RN needs.

But it is questionable will MRSS replace all 6 ships on 1 for 1 basis, and somehow I doubt RN will go for additional flattops beside two QE class carriers.

I have said for some years now that I like the Enforcer concept but what I am thinking of is more along the lines of a 200 by 36 meter Osumi class or San Giorgio class which are very much flattop LPD's and not full fat LHD's in that they would use there mission / Vehicle deck as a hangar space when needed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%8Csum ... mokita.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/11/42/5f ... e1e38d.png

[new guy]

It is now clear that MRSS needs to be a flattop LPD design capable of operating Merlin , NMH, Apache , Wildcat and MALE drones plus operating Chinooks that would be hangared and maintained on the Carriers

Considering that MRSS is supposed to replace 6 ships (2 Albion class, 3 Bay class and RFA Argus) it is hard to expect that flattop will be chosen for this. But there are some options, like for example Damen Enforcer family with LPD and LHD variant on the same base hall





There are three versions of LHD, based on displacement, each with 6 landing spots on deck and hangar capacity between 9 and 14 helicopters. 1 or 2 LHD and 3 to 4 LPD could probably cover lot of RN needs.

But it is questionable will MRSS replace all 6 ships on 1 for 1 basis, and somehow I doubt RN will go for additional flattops beside two QE class carriers.

I have said for some years now that I like the Enforcer concept but what I am thinking of is more along the lines of a 200 by 36 meter Osumi class or San Giorgio class which are very much flattop LPD's and not full fat LHD's in that they would use there mission / Vehicle deck as a hangar space when needed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%8Csum ... mokita.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/11/42/5f ... e1e38d.png

For what advantage?

[Repulse]

For what advantage?

To be able to simultaneously load and launch multiple large helicopters / VTOL UAVs as part of an OTH operation - same logic why the Albion class can handle two Chinooks simultaneously.

[Tempest414]

It is now clear that MRSS needs to be a flattop LPD design capable of operating Merlin , NMH, Apache , Wildcat and MALE drones plus operating Chinooks that would be hangared and maintained on the Carriers

Considering that MRSS is supposed to replace 6 ships (2 Albion class, 3 Bay class and RFA Argus) it is hard to expect that flattop will be chosen for this. But there are some options, like for example Damen Enforcer family with LPD and LHD variant on the same base hall





There are three versions of LHD, based on displacement, each with 6 landing spots on deck and hangar capacity between 9 and 14 helicopters. 1 or 2 LHD and 3 to 4 LPD could probably cover lot of RN needs.

But it is questionable will MRSS replace all 6 ships on 1 for 1 basis, and somehow I doubt RN will go for additional flattops beside two QE class carriers.

I have said for some years now that I like the Enforcer concept but what I am thinking of is more along the lines of a 200 by 36 meter Osumi class or San Giorgio class which are very much flattop LPD's and not full fat LHD's in that they would use there mission / Vehicle deck as a hangar space when needed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%8Csum ... mokita.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/11/42/5f ... e1e38d.png

For what advantage?

So this is just the way I see it a large flat top LPD would allow each ship to operate in 4 ways

1) Mixed with say 6 to 10 helicopters , vehicles and Landing craft
2) full LPH with say 16 Helicopters and 4 MALE drones using the vehicle deck as a hangar
3) full Logistics using both the vehicle deck & flight deck to carry stores and vehicles and the landing craft to move them
4) Drone mother ship operating UAV's , USV's & UUV's maybe all at the same time

Also in real terms we are now looking at replacing 1 x Albion , 3 x Bay & Argus if not just the 3 Bays and Argus

[new guy]

For what advantage?

To be able to simultaneously load and launch multiple large helicopters / VTOL UAVs as part of an OTH operation - same logic why the Albion class can handle two Chinooks simultaneously.

Yes but a normal LPD can do that no?