Future RN Amphibious Shipping

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Engaging Strategy
Member
Posts: 775
Joined: 20 Dec 2015, 13:45
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Future RN Amphibious Shipping

Post by Engaging Strategy »

Repulse wrote:What are we planning to? Independent operation, 5,000nm+ from the UK with 2 month build up (e.g. Falklands 2?)
It has to have some degree of scalability, but at the "top end" would be a distant independent operation conducted at relatively short notice. Maybe not as extreme in terms of distance from friendly support facilities as "Falklands 2".
Blog: http://engagingstrategy.blogspot.co.uk
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Future RN Amphibious Shipping

Post by marktigger »

but a falklands 2 is a good bench mark for what should be our top end operation. One that will cause significant disslocation

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future RN Amphibious Shipping

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

marktigger wrote: so the helicopters being on the landing vessels working closer inshore is a better option
Both-and is the better option:
-hangar (and maintain) Chinooks, that will then transfer closer to shore to those helo decks that only have the size (and nothing else, exc. a refuelling hose)
- when the first wave time comes (only once, normally) you have 10 Merlins churning and burning (the guys can still get in; I wonder how many would end up "man overboard!" with the deck full of Chinooks doing the same?
- once they all go, the strike package can take off and the force protection helos (24by7, ASW & AEW) on duty can land back
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Future RN Amphibious Shipping

Post by marktigger »

LPD(a)'s I thought could support helecopter ops including refueling

Have you seen the down draft on Merlin? its impressive


Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future RN Amphibious Shipping

Post by Repulse »

Are you including the Points towards the 12,000 LIMs?
”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
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future RN Amphibious Shipping

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

P.S. (rather than edit)

I think only Apaches and liaison/ casevac Wildcats would have refuelling established on shore, as
- refuelling kit (fuel included) is a lumpy cargo
- the other helos would naturally be plying between ships and ashore anyway
- and the mentioned duties, in the early days, would involve a lot of short hops (so returning to ships would be wasteful in all imaginable ways, exc. for any maintenance required)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Future RN Amphibious Shipping

Post by marktigger »

casevac in a wildcat hope its a very "well" casualty not allot of room to work in one which is why Chinook/Merlin would need to be on standby for MERT

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future RN Amphibious Shipping

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

marktigger wrote:casevac in a wildcat hope its a very "well" casualty not allot of room to work in one which is why Chinook/Merlin would need to be on standby for MERT
Sure, I was thinking of a quick moving STOM and the Wildcat (close by) picking up the level of casualties that in a more traditional war would be attended to in a tent, erected not too far from the "front line"
- the theory of wounding anyone will take three men out of the line (countered by these means)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Future RN Amphibious Shipping

Post by marktigger »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
marktigger wrote:casevac in a wildcat hope its a very "well" casualty not allot of room to work in one which is why Chinook/Merlin would need to be on standby for MERT
Sure, I was thinking of a quick moving STOM and the Wildcat (close by) picking up the level of casualties that in a more traditional war would be attended to in a tent, erected not too far from the "front line"
- the theory of wounding anyone will take three men out of the line (countered by these means)
even on a short hop allot of things can happen very very quickly which is why you need room to work!

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future RN Amphibious Shipping

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Agreed again, but when the Apache is better at recce than the recce helo, which is also liaison (but not attack) so it - the Wildcat -can
- observe
- be a temporary command post
- drop recce or other hi-value teams to locations that would otherwise take time (that cannot be afforded) to reach

Is there really a justification to allot hangar space and spots for such a limited capability?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Future RN Amphibious Shipping

Post by marktigger »

Repulse wrote:
shark bait wrote:The 'perfect solution' is as others has suggested is a pair of multi use Canberra type LHD, primarily acting as an amphibious dock, but with the capability to act as a light carrier.
Why? It may be for other nations by why for the UK?

Putting aside the need for ship to shore connectors which I agree is urgent as is the need for better Littoral / mid shore warships, the hybrid LHD is a compromise that the UK can do better than.

Not saying that our LSDs shouldn't have a hangar, but the need for a dock and flat deck on the same ship increases costs.

If I were to specify a 2025 capability, given the requirement I'd go for:

- Both Carriers designated as Strike Carriers (secondary role as troop transports)
- 2 Auxiliary LPHs, built under commercial standards, operated by the RFA, with LCVPs and hospital facilities (and ability to transport a RM Cdo).
- 4 Bay LSDs.
- 6 Point Class.
- 2 Boat Auxiliary boat carriers (see image link below).

Image

2 ships like the HMAS Canberra instead of using the CVF's can come inshore with LCU's, LCVP's and Helicopters and they can offload them faster and probably more efficiently and rapidally. the Auxillary landingcraft carrier is a great idea for carrying additional lift. However you hit a storm and how many of those landing craft would still be on the deck of the freighter?

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Future RN Amphibious Shipping

Post by marktigger »

I notice there is allot of putting forward the idea of using the RFA to do more?

The RFA is struggling to recruit and the more they are expected to do the more they should just be disbanded and the Navy do those jobs. The RFA has become a 2nd navy and that issue will need addressing soon in terms of conditions of service, pay etc. And also their "legal" status!

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future RN Amphibious Shipping

Post by Repulse »

Good point made on the RFA and if we are to be realistic then a significant surge in RFA numbers is out of the question. Going back to my posting in June, I still like the Auxiliary boat carrier concept but agree its probably a step too far.

Also, whilst a modern day mulberry harbour is a great idea if it was ever appropriate, given the likely distance of operations (would anyone like to pull it down to the South Atlantic?) let's not put the defence of the realm on it.
”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

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future RN Amphibious Shipping

Post by Aethulwulf »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Aethulwulf wrote:How best to transport 5500 personnel plus 12,000 LIMs of vehicles, equipment and stores, with the ability to launch 2 companies ashore by air and 2 by sea in a single lift and get everyone ashore within 6 hours (i.e. one night)?
- 5500 is a red herring as many of them stay aboard the ships
Well...of the 5500 about 250 + 330 will stay aboard as they operate the landing craft and the FP Merlin HM2 fleet. Of the remaining 4920, there are about 4100 ground troops. The other 800+ are the crews for the TAG. Depending on the individual military objectives, it is likely that the Brigade will want to move inland at some point. Consequently a Forward Operating Base and a Forward Arming and Refuelling Point will be established and the TAG will move ashore as well, but quite a few days after the initial landings.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future RN Amphibious Shipping

Post by Repulse »

I'm going to put to one side the LIM requirement for 12,000 LIMs as the Point Class is capable of 2,700 LIMs each. Not saying that its not important but I think the key points for the ARG to be considered are:

- Ability to carry suffient LCU / LCM / LCVP
- Ability to carry transport upto 5,000 troops in overload (exceptional circumstances)
- Sufficient flat deck / hangar space for the CHF assests
- Ability to scale from single Cdo operation to full 3 Cdo Brigade
- Ability to operate independently forward from the CBG and CVFs (transit of the ARG would be with the CBG but then it would split off to go forward to a Littoral position)

So looking at late 2020s timeframe, I'd suggest the following:
- 1 x 50,000t auxiliary carrier (with a PCRS role), capable of transporting 1,000 troops and 30 helicopters (Chinook, Puma, Apache and Wildcat)
- 3 x 10,000 LPDs, new build based on an extended San Giorgio class with flat deck (no dedicated hangar), 3 LCMs, 4 LCVPs, Camm and 127mm NGF gun with vehicle deck and space for 500 troops.
- 3 x Bay LSDs, 2 LCVPs, vehicle deck and space for 700 troops (overload)
- 2 SSSs (in addition to 2 built for the CBG)
- 4 Points
- 12 MHPC / T31s capable of MCM, USV / UUV motheship, Camm, 114mm NGF, 2 CB90s and 30 troops

If not available a CVF could stand in for the Auxiliary carrier.
”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

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2173
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Niue

Re: Future RN Amphibious Shipping

Post by arfah »

............
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future RN Amphibious Shipping

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Repulse wrote: 3 x 10,000 LPDs, new build based on an extended San Giorgio class with flat deck (no dedicated hangar), 3 LCMs, 4 LCVPs, Camm and 127mm NGF gun with vehicle deck and space for 500 troops.
I share arfah's comment.

The above like design often appeals to me but the latest to try something like that (Russian navy) have seen the shore bombardment gun shrink twice... and now it is a mere 76mm (in effect, a self defence weapon). I'd rather put in an Israeli Jumper type of container of missiles, a carousel with plenty of those containers: they clear the ship first (you open athe deck rather than have individual VLSs and then start to home for their targets, a bit like CAMM but hot launched.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future RN Amphibious Shipping

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Aethulwulf wrote:Consequently a Forward Operating Base and a Forward Arming and Refuelling Point will be established and the TAG will move ashore as well, but quite a few days after the initial landings.
Agreed on the latter, but I doubt the former, considering the strain it would put on the ship-to-shore connectors.

The whole Arapaho project was based on maintaining an Army aviation bde from a base (modules) that would not need to, but could be selectively, off-boarded onto land
- we bought some of those, to take to Falklands; does anyone know of the use they were put to?

The project estimated huge benefits, mainly in days (30?) to full availability, compared to transporting it in bits, shipping ashore and erecting there.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Future RN Amphibious Shipping

Post by R686 »

Realistically (2030's)if you can get a couple of LHD's and replacement Bays in the same numbers you would be doing well, but in the future your not going to put that amount over the beach via air or surface, and if you needed to your talking D Day type stuff when your operational plans would include PIR and land based aircraft plus whatever STUFT shipping you can get your hands on.

If you look at a fully staffed ARG for the ADF with 2x LHD and 1x Bay we are looking at 2200 pers, the UK can do the equivalent without resorting to the CVF, but in saying that the CVF will be nearby to offer fast on call air support in effect I'd expect that the UK's primary Amphibious Warfare Ships will infact mimic a Marine Air Ground Task Forces (MAGTFs) 

But for this future of being able to move 5500 plus equipment. The  Canberra's are too small they have an overload capacity of 1600 of which I have no idea what has to be left behind to achieve this, your going to have to step up with Wasp's or have fleet of 4x CBR's depending on the building blocks of the UK Amphibious  capability starting from the lowest common denominator.

Types of shipping should be evaluated on numbers as well as need's based so the RN should have capacity  to support everything from small party raids to large scale interventions of low to high intensity combat.

It's for this reason and reading the tea leaves to what i hope could possibly transpire in the future in regards to Amphiboius warfare shipping for the RN.

I'd like to see a fleet of as part of the Amphibious warfare vessels.

Type 26, 10x units (RN) 

JSS flight I,3x units (RN)  (modified Karel Doorman minus the replenishment capability) and accommodation for 350 RM and   having the capability of either 6x medium utility helo's or 2x Chinook's to be hangerd

Wasp LHD (lean manned) 2x units (RN) up-to 1800 RM and equipment and rotary and fast jet support.

JSS Flight II,  3x units (RFA) (KD as per the Dutch design strategic)

Point class 4x units (strategic)

Possible roles, 
1x type (26,31?) Small scale raids (SFSG/SASR)with its own support can be achieved with the Type 26 with organic NGFS and possible land attack capability.

1x Type 26/1x JSS Flight I
Company plus level raids or low level security operations 

1x T26, 2x JSS flight I 
ARE Battalion level operations 

1x T26, 1x T45 2x JSS fight I, & 1x Wasp LHD
ARG  RM Battlegroup up-to 2500 pers with organic fast air and heavy equipment and land attack.

All of the above is under RN control with the ability to surge up to 3x JSS Flight I and 2x Wasp class which gives the capacity in excess of the requirements (5500)and also which leaves the RFA to support with mixed heavy/light liquids stores, or bring in the Army.

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Future RN Amphibious Shipping

Post by R686 »

A couple of Osprey inside JC1,


Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future RN Amphibious Shipping

Post by Repulse »

arfah wrote:I'd love to be an enemy sub commander. One nice big fat auxiliary aircraft carrier with a thousand combat troops on board plus air wing complement plus crew.

;)
Fair point, but its the same challenge with a CVF close to shore, except you just lost your Flagship. 2 LHDs do not solve the problem either as with you've got 2 targets close to shore, whilst under my proposal you'd have 3 smaller LPDs closer to shore with an Auxiliary Carrier further out.
”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

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Future RN Amphibious Shipping

Post by R686 »

Repulse wrote:
arfah wrote:I'd love to be an enemy sub commander. One nice big fat auxiliary aircraft carrier with a thousand combat troops on board plus air wing complement plus crew.

;)
Fair point, but its the same challenge with a CVF close to shore, except you just lost your Flagship. 2 LHDs do not solve the problem either as with you've got 2 targets close to shore, whilst under my proposal you'd have 3 smaller LPDs closer to shore with an Auxiliary Carrier further out.

Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't
Joys of having a small fleet all hull's are vulnerable, just look at the Japanese at Midway in 42

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Future RN Amphibious Shipping

Post by marktigger »

arfah wrote:I'd love to be an enemy sub commander. One nice big fat auxiliary aircraft carrier with a thousand combat troops on board plus air wing complement plus crew.

;)
Yeap putting all your eggs in one basket.....Never a good idea

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Future RN Amphibious Shipping

Post by marktigger »

Repulse wrote:
Fair point, but its the same challenge with a CVF close to shore, except you just lost your Flagship. 2 LHDs do not solve the problem either as with you've got 2 targets close to shore, whilst under my proposal you'd have 3 smaller LPDs closer to shore with an Auxiliary Carrier further out.
The 2 LHD are actually what you need to solve your problem they carry sufficient surface landing capability in form of LCU & LCVP (the lions share) plus the Beach control assets including the Leopard BARV's and C3 assets. They carry the strike and transport elements of a large chunk of the CHF thats where your apaches, wildcats and Merlins will live. and a good chunk of your landing force as they will be spread on other ships to like the (I)LPD(A) which will have some more helicopters possibly up to Chinook size. single LCU and 2 LCVP or CV90's plys carrying assets like Mexefloats.
The LHD also provide an additional deck if something does go horribly wrong and a CVF is damaged or destroyed and assets of the ship or able to get off the ship can be recovered to one of the LHD's.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Future RN Amphibious Shipping

Post by marktigger »

Repulse wrote:I'm going to put to one side the LIM requirement for 12,000 LIMs as the Point Class is capable of 2,700 LIMs each. Not saying that its not important but I think the key points for the ARG to be considered are:

- Ability to carry suffient LCU / LCM / LCVP
- Ability to carry transport upto 5,000 troops in overload (exceptional circumstances)
- Sufficient flat deck / hangar space for the CHF assests
- Ability to scale from single Cdo operation to full 3 Cdo Brigade
- Ability to operate independently forward from the CBG and CVFs (transit of the ARG would be with the CBG but then it would split off to go forward to a Littoral position)

So looking at late 2020s timeframe, I'd suggest the following:
- 1 x 50,000t auxiliary carrier (with a PCRS role), capable of transporting 1,000 troops and 30 helicopters (Chinook, Puma, Apache and Wildcat)
- 3 x 10,000 LPDs, new build based on an extended San Giorgio class with flat deck (no dedicated hangar), 3 LCMs, 4 LCVPs, Camm and 127mm NGF gun with vehicle deck and space for 500 troops.
- 3 x Bay LSDs, 2 LCVPs, vehicle deck and space for 700 troops (overload)
- 2 SSSs (in addition to 2 built for the CBG)
- 4 Points
- 12 MHPC / T31s capable of MCM, USV / UUV motheship, Camm, 114mm NGF, 2 CB90s and 30 troops

If not available a CVF could stand in for the Auxiliary carrier.
have the RAF ever operated puma from ships? I don't think they have and have no plans to however when puma is replaced its replacement should be capable of operations in all enviroments. Current helicopters I'd put forward as pum replacement NH90 or AW189.
Personally I'd try and keep the "Point" class out of lifting the ARG assets and keep them as additional capacity to lift a second Brigade I'd look at and "Improved" LPD(A) more along the lines of the rotterdam/galicia type enforcer with hangers and medical assets equiv to an RAP till they deploy ashore.

Post Reply