Ocean Class Helicopter Carrier (LPH) (1998-2018) (ex RN)

[rec]

Would not 3 Rottadam class be good replacements for HMS Ocean, RFA Argus, RfA Dillegence?

[rec]

Would not 3 Rottadam class be good replacements for HMS Ocean, RFA Argus, RfA Dillegence?

Meant Karel Doorman class

[Jdam]

Wouldn't an HMS Ocean class be a good replacement for HMS Ocean, I mean didn't we spend less than a Frigate on it?, 20 years of service for that seems like a good price.

[The Armchair Soldier]

Thought I'd share this for those that haven't seen it before. BAE's LHD concept:



Think Defence has a good piece on it here:
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/07/l ... -question/

[shark bait]

Thought I'd share this for those that haven't seen it before. BAE's LHD concept:
/

Surely we would be better off going for an existing design, both the mistral and Canberra look like excellent vessels.

Will be interesting to see if an LHD appears in the SDSR, but I suspect that will be a way off yet, there are plenty of other big naval programmings on the table ATM

[RetroSicotte]

I'd imagine it might look very different now, what with the introduction of twin island designs becoming ever more popular. I am not entirely opposed to the idea of replacing Ocean with Ocean though. Sometimes the simplest is best.

[shark bait]

I'd imagine it might look very different now, what with the introduction of twin island designs becoming ever more popular. I am not entirely opposed to the idea of replacing Ocean with Ocean though. Sometimes the simplest is best.

It would be nice, but do you see ocean being replaced?

[RetroSicotte]

It would be nice, but do you see ocean being replaced?

"We are always commited to our armed forces and the essential work they do in defence of our nation. Right now in Rosyth you can see two Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers being constructed to carry out carrier operations for the Royal Navy into the future."

I'd be joking if I weren't being so tragically serious.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The only rationale for manning both of the carriers is that the TWO of them can cover also the Ocean role.

Ocean was designed around delivering a Commando (where did I write that the number of 7 for the interim conversions of Merlins for the Commando helo role was determined by the need to keep her in business until at least the first of the carriers is through her sea trials... can't remember now).
- perhaps it wan't a coincidence that the number of Bays became 3. Take the other carrier (simultaneous lift of an RM Coy; and also being the base for a number of Chinooks hopping from one platform to the other), the other Albion (not in extended readiness) and the third Bay (not the one in the Gulf, and not one in deep maintenance that does happen from time to time)
- what have you got? All of what Ocean could deliver, PLUS plenty of Apaches for CAS and Merlins for AEW/ ASW cover

No, I don't think Ocean will be replaced
- manning
- the same capability w/o a single purpose piece of kit
- not 0.7 carriers, but one or two (at times)

[RetroSicotte]

QE quite factually cannot deliver what Ocean can, as it comprehensively lacks any landing craft deployment capability and has no vehicle bay or deployment ramps. (Unfortunately, you can't jump Vikings or trucks off the one at the front!)

It would also rely on both carriers being available at any given time, given one will have to carry out air control (the real job of any carrier) while the other is stripped of its role to service as a stand in assault platform. Such large and irreplaceable vessels have absolutely no right sitting close to hostile shores carrying out things a vessel a third of their size could, it's a mind boggling waste of their capability.

As has been said again and again by people, replacing Albion, Bulwark and Ocean with two modern LHD's would grant us more capability (4 decks as opposed to 2), the same deployment deck amounts (5 well decks) and crucially bring the manning under control to two vessels that are generally not manpower intensive. Look at the Mistrals, only 160 personnel to run the ship.

Retiring Ocean and saying that QE can "take its place" is political spin of the highest order. The carriers' job is to dominate the skies and launch air campaigns from far out to sea, where it's safe. We shouldn't be rushing these things into short helicopter range of shores. A 65,000 ton vessel to do that is abject lunacy, brought on by the requirements of the "checkbox military" that is crippling the capability across the services.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Ehmm, I wrote about
- the capability delivered by a 1+1+1 package (QE+A+B)

I did underline the (now increased) carrier availability as the crucial factor in making the above equation into a workable one (elsewhere I have made the point that the carrier manning level is roughly what we had on the 3 - not 2 - useless "pocket" carriers)

As things were getting hot on the RM thread, I raised the level of abstaction and brought STOM (won't work without both the vertical & across the beach components) into the picture... so won't repeat here

It is good that folks have different views; we can have a discussion! If the discussion concludes which alternative packages CAN do the job, then we can even talk about how to mix them, to achieve budgetary efficiency (no point with that if effectiveness of the force structure is in doubt)

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

QE quite factually cannot deliver what Ocean can, as it comprehensively lacks any landing craft deployment capability and has no vehicle bay or deployment ramps. (Unfortunately, you can't jump Vikings or trucks off the one at the front!)

It would also rely on both carriers being available at any given time, given one will have to carry out air control (the real job of any carrier) while the other is stripped of its role to service as a stand in assault platform. Such large and irreplaceable vessels have absolutely no right sitting close to hostile shores carrying out things a vessel a third of their size could, it's a mind boggling waste of their capability.

As has been said again and again by people, replacing Albion, Bulwark and Ocean with two modern LHD's would grant us more capability (4 decks as opposed to 2), the same deployment deck amounts (5 well decks) and crucially bring the manning under control to two vessels that are generally not manpower intensive. Look at the Mistrals, only 160 personnel to run the ship.

Retiring Ocean and saying that QE can "take its place" is political spin of the highest order. The carriers' job is to dominate the skies and launch air campaigns from far out to sea, where it's safe. We shouldn't be rushing these things into short helicopter range of shores. A 65,000 ton vessel to do that is abject lunacy, brought on by the requirements of the "checkbox military" that is crippling the capability across the services.

Quite right, mate. The great utility of a platform like Ocean is that it is purpose built to act as dedicated cog in the Amphibious landing machine, if you will. Ocean perfectly complements and Bays and Bulwark/Albion in the delivery of men from the sea to the shore. When I think of them altogether I simplify it along the lines of Ocean delivers the air mobility, the Bulwarks the seaborne mobility and the Bays sustainment and mass – all complimenting each other whilst providing some capability overlap (rotary facilities on the Bays and Bulwark/Albion, and the LCVP capability on Ocean) in order to enhance the mass factor even more.

Not only would using a CVF for this role distract from its primary, core tasking – that of providing local air superiority/air support (another vital, yet somewhat parallel, part of the amphibious operations equation) – it would also eat in to crucial operational mass. It could be used to provide ship to shore transport of Marines and their material in a literal sense, yes, but this would harm our operational mass no end. For a start it would mean one less ship in the fleet and then you have to consider all the various ways that the CVFs make for limited amphibious assets in their own right – no landing craft, limited purpose built storage for either vehicles or stores etc etc.

I’m personally positive that Ocean will require a dedicated replacement going in to the future with the CVFs, at best, acting as supplements to amphibious operations when push comes to shove and when not required to perform their primary function. I hope the MoD both sees this and acknowledges it as a priority too. If we could replace Ocean and Bulwark/Albion in the same time frame then even better as whilst it would likely mean contenting ourselves with only two such replacement vessels they would be platforms dedicated to their role – not convenient shoe-ins. Hopefully, given the designs currently floating about (no pun intended) the replacement vessels in question would be much larger to boot, mitigating to some degree the loss of a hull and preserving operational mass. It would be a win-win scenario.

The new Italian LPH design doing the rounds looks like it will be the envy of all the world's first class Navies and i would love to think we are keeping an eye on it with a mind to the future (though i would settle for less if we had to ).

[shark bait]

It is good that folks have different views; we can have a discussion! If the discussion concludes which alternative packages CAN do the job, then we can even talk about how to mix them, to achieve budgetary efficiency (no point with that if effectiveness of the force structure is in doubt)

hooray, at least someone understands in a discussion views can differ.

[shark bait]

As has been said again and again by people, replacing Albion, Bulwark and Ocean with two modern LHD's would grant us more capability (4 decks as opposed to 2), the same deployment deck amounts (5 well decks) and crucially bring the manning under control to two vessels that are generally not manpower intensive. Look at the Mistrals, only 160 personnel to run the ship.
.

I would agree with your usage of HMS Queen Elizabeth, it would be wasteful to use it as a cargo ship, and the mentioned replacement of ocean with modern LHD's would be a highly pleasing solution.

However I believe the massive power projection the carriers give us could completely change the face of amphibious landings. The carriers are there to provide complete air dominance over any part of the coastline, any where in the world. That has potential to change the STOM game significantly.

Let imagine air power has been assured through the carrier, now 250 marines could be deployed from the ccarrier to lockdown a section of the coastline. In this instance threat's are reduces enough for a roll on roll of ship to transit straight to the beach and offload, completely removing the need for landing craft or an ocean or mistral type ship.

Now that's just a concept, but I think it illustrates how massively they could change the game if new tactics are developed.

[RetroSicotte]

As has been said again and again by people, replacing Albion, Bulwark and Ocean with two modern LHD's would grant us more capability (4 decks as opposed to 2), the same deployment deck amounts (5 well decks) and crucially bring the manning under control to two vessels that are generally not manpower intensive. Look at the Mistrals, only 160 personnel to run the ship.
.

I would agree with your usage of HMS Queen Elizabeth, it would be wasteful to use it as a cargo ship, and the mentioned replacement of ocean with modern LHD's would be a highly pleasing solution.

However I believe the massive power projection the carriers give us could completely change the face of amphibious landings. The carriers are there to provide complete air dominance over any part of the coastline, any where in the world. That has potential to change the STOM game significantly.

Let imagine air power has been assured through the carrier, now 250 marines could be deployed from the ccarrier to lockdown a section of the coastline. In this instance threat's are reduces enough for a roll on roll of ship to transit straight to the beach and offload, completely removing the need for landing craft or an ocean or mistral type ship.

Now that's just a concept, but I think it illustrates how massively they could change the game if new tactics are developed.

In what way is this changing the game, though? 250 Marines is a tiny amount, and the QE would still have to close to within unacceptable distance of hostile territory for an unacceptable amount of time to deploy them. Not to mention that carrying things to support the Marines is going to cripple the QE's mass for air dominance. At maximum capacity, she has 36 F-35's and 14 helicopters. 4 of these helos are tasked to AEW. Many of the remainder will be ASW and inter-fleet logistics. Accounting for the usual "not everything is flyable at once" and you're going to have to start reducing fixed wing numbers to turn them into an amphibious assault.

Once you've done that, you are stripping a carrier of its true role and putting the entire theatre in danger.

Amphibious assaults have been done through air cover from far back carriers and deployment from closer amphibious ships for decades now. What we're bringing is nothing new, nothing revolutionary and nothing conceptual. What we're bringing is a drastically less capable version that merely fits the words a politician likes to say.

QE being used in amphibious operations is not something to be proud of. It is a failure of equipment acquirement if it ever needs to be done.

[shark bait]

In what way is this changing the game, though? 250 Marines is a tiny amount, and the QE would still have to close to within unacceptable distance of hostile territory for an unacceptable amount of time to deploy them. Not to mention that carrying things to support the Marines is going to cripple the QE's mass for air dominance. At maximum capacity, she has 36 F-35's and 14 helicopters. 4 of these helos are tasked to AEW. Many of the remainder will be ASW and inter-fleet logistics. Accounting for the usual "not everything is flyable at once" and you're going to have to start reducing fixed wing numbers to turn them into an amphibious assault.

I think the concept I described is pretty different from the current. Admittedly it would take something like a V22, then the carrier can sit hundreds of miles over the horizon.

I'm not suggesting this sort of thing should be done tomorrow, but the carriers will be with us for a long time, and probably so will the Albion's. By the time it comes to Albion's replacement I think it may be time of a rethink.

I feel that the standard landing aboard coupple of LCU may not be enough in a few yeara and it does look a bit dated. Everything is moving over the horizon, or beyon visual range these days, and it is an environment where I struggle to see landing craft thriving. Especially with the proliferation of UAV's, guided weaponry and fast atack craft the current method seems a little vulnerable to me as a quiet stretch of coastline is now even harder to guarantee.

What we will be bringing is something new, all enabled by the CVF. The new equipment is vastly superior, and we can take much more of it and sustain it for much longer, it will be different.

[Tiny Toy]

It would also rely on both carriers being available at any given time, given one will have to carry out air control (the real job of any carrier) while the other is stripped of its role to service as a stand in assault platform. Such large and irreplaceable vessels have absolutely no right sitting close to hostile shores carrying out things a vessel a third of their size could, it's a mind boggling waste of their capability.

And of the manpower required to crew them and their escorts. Because it would simply not be possible not to escort it.

As has been said again and again by people, replacing Albion, Bulwark and Ocean with two modern LHD's would grant us more capability (4 decks as opposed to 2), the same deployment deck amounts (5 well decks) and crucially bring the manning under control to two vessels that are generally not manpower intensive. Look at the Mistrals, only 160 personnel to run the ship.

Yup.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Will just share the quote around which I was writing yesterday... can't be bothered to do the argument/ context setting around it again:

"The carriers will form the centerpiece of the Responsive Force Task Group (RFTG), capable of embarking a wide variety of rotary-wing platforms as well as a squadron of the U.K.’s planned F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters. Although the last Strategic Defense and Security Review (SDSR) called for an embarked complement of 12 JSFs on the ship, Harding suggested that a new Joint Air Maneuver Package could be developed in support of amphibious operations.

A surge force of up to 24 JSFs could deploy on the ship along with what he described as a Maritime Force Protection package of nine Merlin Mk. 2 helicopters equipped for the anti-submarine warfare (ASW) mission, while a further four or five would be available to provide an airborne early warning capability. A littoral maneuver package also is envisaged, potentially using the Royal Air Force’s Chinooks, the upgraded Merlin Mk. 4, Army Apache attack helicopters and the Wildcat helicopter.

Studies are being carried out by the U.K. Defense Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) to see if the ship can operate safely with more landing spots than the six currently planned. Harding suggests that by adding a further four landing spots, the ship will be able to lift a company-sized unit of troops (up to 250 soldiers) in a single group lift using medium helicopters. “This is possible,” Harding said. “We just need to decide how we paint the lines on the flight deck.”

Significant work has gone into reducing the manpower levels of the ship. Current crew complement for the vessel alone is 679 sailors, compared to 3,200 for a Nimitz-class carrier of the U.S. Navy. Harding said such savings were possible through the use of greater automation. He described the weapon-handling system as similar to that found in an “Amazon.com warehouse.”["]

Rear Adm. R Harding spoke as the Head of the FAA, in 2013, but quite a few people here seem to be second guessing him (his views/ doctrine)?

[The Armchair Soldier]

It's been another busy week at RNAS Yeovilton, with the focus drawn towards 846 Squadron who have been conducting flying exercises with HMS Ocean off the coast of Portland.

[GibMariner]

HMS Ocean sails for Exercise Trident Juncture

HMS Ocean, the nation’s amphibious helicopter platform, has sailed from Devonport to take part in Exercise Trident Juncture, the largest NATO exercise since 2002.

Carrying Royal Marines from 45 Commando and Merlin, Apache and Chinook helicopters from the Fleet Air Arm, Army Air Corps and RAF, the ship will take her place in a task group of some 70 warships from across NATO.

The task group will be commanded by Rear Admiral Tony Radakin, whose headquarters is also embarked in HMS Ocean.

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-la ... cean-sails

[The Armchair Soldier]

HMS Ocean's flight deck is ready for ‪#‎Cougar15‬.

This is the first time Green Merlin, Wildcat, Apache and Chinook have all been on the same flight deck.

Find out more about #Cougar15: http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-la ... sea/cougar

[The Armchair Soldier]

An Osprey helicopter lands on the flight deck of HMS Ocean ahead of Exercise Trident Juncture, the largest NATO exercise of its kind since 2002.

[seaspear]

Is there a reason you could not use two carriers at once ,one carrier carrying normal surge deployment ,the othe carrying a mixture of chinooks and other helicopter support to ferry marines ashore , the carrier with the F35Bs could maintain high tempo operations which has not been revealed if it could launching chinooks at the same time .
If the R.N decides to build two lhd,s why not go for something of a size to the Wasp class lots of options on something that size

[ArmChairCivvy]

Combined rotary & fast jets ops are complicated, esp. as you would normally launch over the ski jump for full weapon/ fuel load... and would have to be prepared to clear the deck if the weapons were to be brought back (different mode of landing required).

However, with proper planning it can be done, and segregating the deck areas may have had something to do with the twin tower design. So it has been there from Day 1, but clearly maintaining the target 108 sorties rate would be a major inhibitor to extensive rotary ops (from the same vessel).

NOT SURE if I should have put this on the Ocean thread, but anyway: when she'll go that can't be the end of the capability, even though divvy up of how to deliver it may look different.

[shark bait]

If the R.N decides to build two lhd,s why not go for something of a size to the Wasp class lots of options on something that size

Cost. Wasps could cost us a fortune. If we did want new ones I would guess it would be smaller like a mistral. Canberra class could also work, and whilst the capability would be great, it would worry me that having 4 vessels capable of launching an F35. That might put the real carriers at risk.

Ocean probably won't be replaced until the Albion's are, in which case it would likely be 3 replaced with 2, but that would still be great if it ever materialises. That would them allow a helicopter carrier to work along side the carrier which would open up many more options solving issues like those armchaircivvy points out.