Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

[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?

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

None of this answers why a through deck is needed, as MALE say MQ-9B STOL is too big to operate of a said design.

[Tempest414]

As said many times Drones like TB2 & TB3 could operate from these ships but the point being as Tec moves on at pace

I can also flip the question and say why not have a flat top LPD ?

[new guy]

As said many times Drones like TB2 & TB3 could operate from these ships but the point being as Tec moves on at pace

I can also flip the question and say why not have a flat top LPD ?

I agree on TB3.

Don't see how your flipping the question with flat top LPD.

[Tempest414]

As said many times Drones like TB2 & TB3 could operate from these ships but the point being as Tec moves on at pace

I can also flip the question and say why not have a flat top LPD ?

I agree on TB3.

Don't see how your flipping the question with flat top LPD.

So you asked me why I think a flat top design would work so I am flipping the question and asking you why a flat top LPD would not work and why

As a good base line both the Bay Class and Osumi class are the same size have about the same crew hold the same troops

We also know from first efforts by BMT that MRSS is looking at a 200 by 30 meter ship

[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.

Yes but a normal LPD can do that no?

As far I can see the pitched Ellida design can operate two Merlins but only one Chinook. The Bay class cannot either. Albion can do two Chinooks or Merlin’s, that’s not bad, but given the need for a larger airlift capability why not think bigger?

A QE can operate up to six Chinooks simultaneously, 10 Merlins or a mixture - perhaps like HMS Ocean was a commercial version of the Invincible class, we could build another (or two)

[SW1]

Really depends on what your priority is. If the focus is aviation and in particular helicopter operations then a flat deck is important to allow enough helicopters to be loaded without asking them to hold airborne until the assault force is formed up.

If your priority is vehicle and equipment off load then the lpd is preferred route due to 8 landing craft being carried.

And if the priority is follow on logistics then a lpd with a priority on store rather than troops.

Hence why we had ocean, and Albion and a bay. Specialist in each area.

If you read Julian thompsons book on the Falklands it’s worth nothing they needed 10 seakings for a company assualt by helicopters and it was something they practiced on Canberra on her two single spot flight deck getting them on and off the helicopter quickly enough.

And to move a light gun battery and the ammunition for a single battle by air required 85 seaking flights. Now Merlin and seaking aren’t that different lift wise.

So I would suggest unless there is huge increase in helicopter funding and numbers relying on aviation might not be the best option. But then who knows what the RM will end up looking like or be asked to do though I guarantee it won’t be what they first thought off.

[Tempest414]

This is why we need 60 NMH with folding rotors

[sol]

This is why we need 60 NMH with folding rotors

That is never going to happen, where is the budget for that. Not just more helicopters but also for naval version. And I don't think there is a need for that. 2 FAA squadrons of Merlin Mk.4 already have more helicopters than all those 6 ships that will be replace could carry. And there is no chance that UK will replace them with 6 flattops, or that all 6 of them would ever be operated at the same time.

Having Apache and some Chinooks optimized to be used from ships? Ok, I can get that. Having all new NMH optimised? It would be waste of money as they would hardly ever be used in that role. It would be nice, yes, but it is not necessary.

[Repulse]

Let’s forget about six MRSS, even if they could be afforded a single class would either result in a compromised class that can’t do everything or gaps in capability. My vote, one large flat deck LPH, an additional FSS and confirmation of replacements for the Point Class (going back up to six).

[new guy]

Let’s forget about six MRSS, even if they could be afforded a single class would either result in a compromised class that can’t do everything or gaps in capability. My vote, one large flat deck LPH, an additional FSS and confirmation of replacements for the Point Class (going back up to six).

1) Compromised how?

2) One LPH so it's only available at readiness or in operation 1/2 of the time?

3) The stores the FSS carries are quite different to those an amphibious operation would carry no?

[sol]

... one large flat deck LPH ...

One LPH would not be enough. Current plan for RM is to have 2 LRG, one in the North and one in the South (Mediterranean/Indo-Pacific). Each one is supposed to have two amphibious ships. So if RN wants/could afford LHD/LPH, it would need at least two, one for each group. But even then it would probably mean only one available at the time. Considering that LRG was supposed to have one RM company with supporting elements it is questionable does it even need LHD/LPH. Sure it would be nice to have, but is it really needed? Also which size would should they be? Something like Osumi or Sen Georgio class could be sufficient but their size might limit option for drones that could be used so ... would it be worth it if it cost more than LPD?

[Repulse]

1) Compromised how?

2) One LPH so it's only available at readiness or in operation 1/2 of the time?

3) The stores the FSS carries are quite different to those an amphibious operation would carry no?

1) 3 Merlin’s not enough for a OTH assault, 2 LCUs too few for an other beach operation. Yes you could group together, but you still got a platform that is not good at either.

2) No, QE / POW can stand-in when it’s not available.

3) in terms of munitions, food, fuel no. Vehicles, artillery, etc perhaps, but the design hasn’t been confirmed as yet.

[Repulse]

... one large flat deck LPH ...

One LPH would not be enough. Current plan for RM is to have 2 LRG, one in the North and one in the South (Mediterranean/Indo-Pacific). Each one is supposed to have two amphibious ships. So if RN wants/could afford LHD/LPH, it would need at least two, one for each group. But even then it would probably mean only one available at the time. Considering that LRG was supposed to have one RM company with supporting elements it is questionable does it even need LHD/LPH. Sure it would be nice to have, but is it really needed? Also which size would should they be? Something like Osumi or Sen Georgio class could be sufficient but their size might limit option for drones that could be used so ... would it be worth it if it cost more than LPD?

Firstly IMO forget LRG(S), stick to frequentlCSG deployments EoS. With QE/PoW + a large LPH two would be able to deployed at any time. Two RM companies on each - aim for a flight deck as large as a QE allowing a whole company to be transported in one go along with escorting Apaches.

[new guy]

1) Compromised how?

2) One LPH so it's only available at readiness or in operation 1/2 of the time?

3) The stores the FSS carries are quite different to those an amphibious operation would carry no?

1) 3 Merlin’s not enough for a OTH assault, 2 LCUs too few for an other beach operation. Yes you could group together, but you still got a platform that is not good at either.

2) No, QE / POW can stand-in when it’s not available.

3) in terms of munitions, food, fuel no. Vehicles, artillery, etc perhaps, but the design hasn’t been confirmed as yet.

1) So if in a combined group why would it matter if each individual platform is does not accel in any particular area if the total is the same?

2) We don't have enough carriers to do continuous CSG ops so your solution is to use those vessels as a back up for your fragile amphibious strategy?

3) So your answer is No, FSS isn't designed for FSS stores. WDYM FSS design hasn't been confirmed yet?? Are you serious?

[new guy]

... one large flat deck LPH ...

One LPH would not be enough. Current plan for RM is to have 2 LRG, one in the North and one in the South (Mediterranean/Indo-Pacific). Each one is supposed to have two amphibious ships. So if RN wants/could afford LHD/LPH, it would need at least two, one for each group. But even then it would probably mean only one available at the time. Considering that LRG was supposed to have one RM company with supporting elements it is questionable does it even need LHD/LPH. Sure it would be nice to have, but is it really needed? Also which size would should they be? Something like Osumi or Sen Georgio class could be sufficient but their size might limit option for drones that could be used so ... would it be worth it if it cost more than LPD?

Firstly IMO forget LRG(S), stick to frequentlCSG deployments EoS. With QE/PoW + a large LPH two would be able to deployed at any time. Two RM companies on each - aim for a flight deck as large as a QE allowing a whole company to be transported in one go along with escorting Apaches.

Ah yes 3 ships of which 2 will be deployed. Very realistic.

[Repulse]

1) So if in a combined group why would it matter if each individual platform is does not accel in any particular area if the total is the same?

2) We don't have enough carriers to do continuous CSG ops so your solution is to use those vessels as a back up for your fragile amphibious strategy?

3) So your answer is No, FSS isn't designed for FSS stores. WDYM FSS design hasn't been confirmed yet?? Are you serious?

1) Absolutely it would - there is zero chance of operating all six MRSS, and the sum of the total would still be less in aviation capabilities, and cost a hell of a lot more

2) We are lucky enough in that yes absolutely we can do continuous carrier CSG Ops, adding another flat-top makes it a realistic option to have two large flattops in a single CSG.

3) Show me the specifications that have been finalised ready for build.

[Repulse]

Ah yes 3 ships of which 2 will be deployed. Very realistic.

No LPDs and no LSDs - yes, realistic.

[Tempest414]

This is why we need 60 NMH with folding rotors

That is never going to happen, where is the budget for that. Not just more helicopters but also for naval version. And I don't think there is a need for that. 2 FAA squadrons of Merlin Mk.4 already have more helicopters than all those 6 ships that will be replace could carry. And there is no chance that UK will replace them with 6 flattops, or that all 6 of them would ever be operated at the same time.

Having Apache and some Chinooks optimized to be used from ships? Ok, I can get that. Having all new NMH optimised? It would be waste of money as they would hardly ever be used in that role. It would be nice, yes, but it is not necessary.

I agree it is not going to happen but I have said why I think we need 60 in the past plus I am not looking for NMH to be fully marinized just to have a folding rotor head so it can be used if needed the same as Apache

Yes the 23 Merlins are more than the current 6 ships can carry but if we were to get 4 x 200 by 36 meter flat tops MRSS then we could in full load out carry 3 x that

[Tempest414]

1) So if in a combined group why would it matter if each individual platform is does not accel in any particular area if the total is the same?

2) We don't have enough carriers to do continuous CSG ops so your solution is to use those vessels as a back up for your fragile amphibious strategy?

3) So your answer is No, FSS isn't designed for FSS stores. WDYM FSS design hasn't been confirmed yet?? Are you serious?

1) Absolutely it would - there is zero chance of operating all six MRSS, and the sum of the total would still be less in aviation capabilities, and cost a hell of a lot more

2) We are lucky enough in that yes absolutely we can do continuous carrier CSG Ops, adding another flat-top makes it a realistic option to have two large flattops in a single CSG.

3) Show me the specifications that have been finalised ready for build.

For me building 4 x 210 by 36 meter Flat top LPDs to HMS Ocean standards these ships would be able to launch 5 Chinooks or 8 Merlin in one effort plus operate 2 x F-LCU's and 4 CIC these paired with 6 new Point class capable of sealift and Aux sea base roles would cover most if not all roles along with the carriers

[sol]

Yes the 23 Merlins are more than the current 6 ships can carry but if we were to get 4 x 200 by 36 meter flat tops MRSS then we could in full load out carry 3 x that

I disagree that RN needs 4 LHP/LHD (of would even consider that) but nevertheless lets assume that 4 of them are ordered. It would be reasonable to assume that only two would be operational at the time, one for each LRG. So technically you would need just two air groups at the same time. As LRG does not have large manpower, basically some 250 marines, whole force could be transported by 4 to 6 Merlins in 2 to 3 flights, without using landing boats. So 24 Merlins should be more than sufficient for that, not to mention that whole force would probably not be transferred by air alone. Add to that 4 to 6 Apaches, and some Wildcats (both anti-sub and support) and you already have respectable air wing without need to any of future NMH.

Not to mention that 200 by 36 meter flattop would still have limited hangar and landing deck space, for example Mistral class which is closest to that have 6 landing spots on the deck and hangar that could operate 16 helicopters, so let say 6 Merlin HC.4. 4-6 AH-64, 4-6 Wildcats should already be optimal load.

So even in that scenario, which I don't think very likely to happen, 2 FAA squadrons should be more than enough for task and still have some helicopters for eventual third ship become active.

But again I don't think UK will order 4 LHP/LHD, even 1 would be a miracle.

[SW1]

Yes the 23 Merlins are more than the current 6 ships can carry but if we were to get 4 x 200 by 36 meter flat tops MRSS then we could in full load out carry 3 x that

I disagree that RN needs 4 LHP/LHD (of would even consider that) but nevertheless lets assume that 4 of them are ordered. It would be reasonable to assume that only two would be operational at the time, one for each LRG. So technically you would need just two air groups at the same time. As LRG does not have large manpower, basically some 250 marines, whole force could be transported by 4 to 6 Merlins in 2 to 3 flights, without using landing boats. So 24 Merlins should be more than sufficient for that, not to mention that whole force would probably not be transferred by air alone. Add to that 4 to 6 Apaches, and some Wildcats (both anti-sub and support) and you already have respectable air wing without need to any of future NMH.

Not to mention that 200 by 36 meter flattop would still have limited hangar and landing deck space, for example Mistral class which is closest to that have 6 landing spots on the deck and hangar that could operate 16 helicopters, so let say 6 Merlin HC.4. 4-6 AH-64, 4-6 Wildcats should already be optimal load.

So even in that scenario, which I don't think very likely to happen, 2 FAA squadrons should be more than enough for task and still have some helicopters for eventual third ship become active.

But again I don't think UK will order 4 LHP/LHD, even 1 would be a miracle.

The UK doesn’t have 24 commando Merlin’s available for deployment it’s about half that number at best. a single sqn.

The other sqn is effectively an ocu and uk maritime counter terrorism tasked.

[Tempest414]

Yes the 23 Merlins are more than the current 6 ships can carry but if we were to get 4 x 200 by 36 meter flat tops MRSS then we could in full load out carry 3 x that

I disagree that RN needs 4 LHP/LHD (of would even consider that) but nevertheless lets assume that 4 of them are ordered. It would be reasonable to assume that only two would be operational at the time, one for each LRG. So technically you would need just two air groups at the same time. As LRG does not have large manpower, basically some 250 marines, whole force could be transported by 4 to 6 Merlins in 2 to 3 flights, without using landing boats. So 24 Merlins should be more than sufficient for that, not to mention that whole force would probably not be transferred by air alone. Add to that 4 to 6 Apaches, and some Wildcats (both anti-sub and support) and you already have respectable air wing without need to any of future NMH.

Not to mention that 200 by 36 meter flattop would still have limited hangar and landing deck space, for example Mistral class which is closest to that have 6 landing spots on the deck and hangar that could operate 16 helicopters, so let say 6 Merlin HC.4. 4-6 AH-64, 4-6 Wildcats should already be optimal load.

So even in that scenario, which I don't think very likely to happen, 2 FAA squadrons should be more than enough for task and still have some helicopters for eventual third ship become active.

But again I don't think UK will order 4 LHP/LHD, even 1 would be a miracle.

This is the crack as I disagree and think the RN should go for 4 Flat top LPDs and that 3 could be ready at any time but I do agree that the day to day air-wing could be 4 x Merlin , 4 x AH-46 , 6 x Wildcats & 4 x TB-3

It also has been said somewhere that the RM could go with 4 x LSU's of 500 instead of 8 x 250

[jedibeeftrix]

It also has been said somewhere that the RM could go with 4 x LSU's of 500 instead of 8 x 250

can you point me to that, please? *curious*

[sol]

... 3 could be ready at any time ..

Having 3 out of 4 at any time will be really challenging. Maybe at some point could happen but on consistent rate highly unlikely.

It also has been said somewhere that the RM could go with 4 x LSU's of 500 instead of 8 x 250

Total number of personal could easily reach 500 but not from one Commando unit. Both LRU are supposed to have 250 marine from either 40 or 45 Commando on rotation, basically almost a half battalion (one commando is not able to provide two 500 strong LSU as total number of men in one if just over 600). To this base force other units could/will be attached, like detachments from The Commando Logistic Regiment, 30 Commando Information Exploitation Group, 24 Commando Royal Engineers and 29 Commando Royal Artillery. The South LRG will also have some 50 Dutch marines attached, not sure if temporary or permanently.

[Poiuytrewq]

…..I think we need 60 in the past plus I am not looking for NMH to be fully marinized just to have a folding rotor head so it can be used if needed the same as Apache…..

This is vital and the importance should not be underestimated.

IMO the wisdom of the Wildcat AH1 is now highly questionable with lessons learned and the proliferation of drones in the battle space. Serious consideration must now be given to upgrading the AH1 to support the FCF without requiring the Apache under routine circumstances.

In the fullness of time that would require increasing the NMH purchase to somewhere around 60-80.

HMG may chose not to do this due to a lack of funding but that doesn’t mean it’s the right course of action, it’s just the cheapest course of action. This is one area that could clearly benefit from extra funding and therefore becomes a tangible improvement if defence spending was to rise.