Future RN Amphibious Shipping

[ArmChairCivvy]

a high performance platform for the launch and recovery of strike aircraft? that is what we are spending 6 billion to achieve after all.

- add another 100%
- can't quote ships' cost without their weapon system
- OK, minimum 100% on top of the one that is acting as *the* strike carrier... you see, the second one will be half price!

[ArmChairCivvy]

n a high intensity operation it would not be right to comprise the carriers performance by operating too many helicopters

The benefits of having chosen the "B"... much easier to dove tail the two types of ops, rather than clearing most of the deck for recovery (depends, of course, on whether the weapons have been launched, or are being brought back)

[donald_of_tokyo]

As part of the amphibious maneuver wouldnt we want the carriers working as a high performance platform for the launch and recovery of strike aircraft? that is what we are spending 6 billion to achieve after all.

This is "wish" and "hope". I do not think it will be the "most possible reality", without significant sacrifice in other field (such as F35B number). RN spent to much, cost-wise and manpower-wise, to the 2 large CVFs. That's why RN is now suffering significant resource short fall. Note, F35B and Merlin with some Crowsnest ARE the main "drain hole" of resources from now. As every one knows, hull is NOT the expensive part of carrier strike group. This means, UK in near future will be paying for the largest part of the "recovery of strike aircraft", which makes me feel not easy to "significantly increasing the resources for amphibious fleet", which SharkBait-san is proposing.

Fingers crossed for good economy around 2025-2030. Expecting 2 LHDs and 4 LPD(A) replacement as a default, is only a "dream" similar to expecting 2 LPHs and 2 LPDs with 4 LPD(A)s now. The reality was/is, ... as you know know.

My point is not just saying something pessimistic. Rather I want to save RN amphibious fleet. If RN expects too high, they will lose "everything, other than the 2 LHDs". This is exactly what happened to the CVFs. If RN be "modest", they may have 4 LPDs with good helicopter facilities, supported by the 2nd CVF and Argus-replacement. This is "flexible". If economy is very nice, just make "4 LPDs" to "6".

[marktigger]

depends if we start planning properly and early why not roll the LPD replacement, LPH requirement and Argus replacement into 3 vessels 2 LHD & 1 LHD(a)

[donald_of_tokyo]

depends if we start planning properly and early why not roll the LPD replacement, LPH requirement and Argus replacement into 3 vessels 2 LHD & 1 LHD(a)

But as I've shown, LHD is much much expensive than LPD. And, operation cost saving is not coming, because we want to operate 2 LHDs by using ALL manpower now used in 1+1 LPDs.

# By killing a dozen of F35B? Yes, sure. But without such sacrifice, I cannot imagine it...

[marktigger]

problem donald is the RAF see the F35b as theirs their toy box their budget and trust me they would love to get enough ammunition to force the navy to sacrifice the Fleet Air Arm's fast jet ambitions.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Then, there will be much less F35B on the CVF? and also there will be no resources for the "enhanced amphibious fleet"? Then, using the 2nd CVF as LPH, or even using part of the 1st CVF as Chinook carrier, and forget about LHDs, will be the right answer.

[marktigger]

Then, there will be much less F35B on the CVF? and also there will be no resources for the "enhanced amphibious fleet"? Then, using the 2nd CVF as LPH, or even using part of the 1st CVF as Chinook carrier, and forget about LHDs, will be the right answer.

that remains to be seen. reallocation of funding is always an option for government!

[Engaging Strategy]

But as I've shown, LHD is much much expensive than LPD.

Albion class (a relatively "basic" LPD with very limited aviation capability) ordered in 1996 for £225m/ship. Adjusted for 20 years of inflation you get a figure that ranges from from £400-500m in 2016. The upper bound being the more accurate (imo). However, for the purposes of the discussion I'll go half way and use the average of £450m.

Convert that to 2016 Dollars (in order to compare costs with other platforms) and you've got ~$600m/ship in 2016 prices.

As of 2013 France was building Mistral class LHDs for €451m. €453m adjusted for inflation to 2016. Converted to 2016 Dollars you end up with $507m/ship.

Obviously the costs of manufacturing and labour vary between countries and therefore make direct comparisons difficult. However, it's clear that a "basic" LHD like a Mistral can be built for significantly less than an LPD. Building such a ship to "RN standards" I would expect costs similar, or only slightly higher, than what was paid for the current generation of LPDs.

And, operation cost saving is not coming, because we want to operate 2 LHDs by using ALL manpower now used in 1+1 LPDs.

Yes, but instead of having one ship laid up because of a lack of manpower we'd have two. Achieving more effect from the same manpower pool.

[shark bait]

But as I've shown, LHD is much much expensive than LPD.

You haven't shown that. That isn't true.

I also haven't suggest "significantly increasing the resources for amphibious fleet"

[donald_of_tokyo]

As of 2013 France was building Mistral class LHDs for €451m. €453m adjusted for inflation to 2016. Converted to 2016 Dollars you end up with $507m/ship.

Obviously the costs of manufacturing and labour vary between countries and therefore make direct comparisons difficult. However, it's clear that a "basic" LHD like a Mistral can be built for significantly less than an LPD. Building such a ship to "RN standards" I would expect costs similar, or only slightly higher, than what was paid for the current generation of LPDs.

Thanks, you have shown me why I better like Mistral(-like) ship than JC class. With very tight budget, there is no room to eat 1 helicopter landing spot with a ski jump (Even CVF hangar may NOT be filled with F35B, why we need additional spaces on LHDs for them? No, we don't).

But, in this case, RN should accept the "low standard", which made RAN not selecting Mistral. If in good standard, as good as Albions itself, surely LHDs will be much expensive then LPDs (with additional aviation facilities, improved automation system, surely it costs a lot). What I am afraid is that it may "eat" all the resources left aside for LPD(A). This is why I say, "building 2 LHDs will kill all LPD(A)s".

And, operation cost saving is not coming, because we want to operate 2 LHDs by using ALL manpower now used in 1+1 LPDs.

Yes, but instead of having one ship laid up because of a lack of manpower we'd have two. Achieving more effect from the same manpower pool.

Yes. So we agree that the operational cost may not be reduced, while the building cost shall be more expensive, I think. So, anyway you need "additional" resource to make it realize.

[donald_of_tokyo]

But as I've shown, LHD is much much expensive than LPD.

You haven't shown that. That isn't true.
I also haven't suggest "significantly increasing the resources for amphibious fleet"

1: Canberra is 0.9G GBP per hull. Done.
2: Since you are using all the manpower currently assigned to amphibious fleet, there is no "operation cost decrease".
Increase and no decrease --> summed up, you need increase. Am I wrong?

[shark bait]

1. That's not proof, that is the cost of a single LPD with no comparison.
   • CVF costs £40,000 per tonne, designed and built in the UK.
   • Using that as a rough indicator an Albion replacement of 20,000 tonnes would cost around £800 million +/- 20% .
   • Not a significant difference to your Canberra example.
2. It is achievable without a significant increase in resources
   • 1/3 of through life costs is Crew;
     • 2 modern LPH's could be manned with the crew of a single Albion LPD so no change here.
   • 1/3 of through life costs is maintenance and upgrades;
     • 2 modern LPH's will cost roughly the same as maintain the 2 LPD's we have now.
   • Procurement is the other 1/3 which will likley only cost marginally more
   .

[Engaging Strategy]

2: Since you are using all the manpower currently assigned to amphibious fleet, there is no "operation cost decrease".

Except modern mechanisation and lean-manning means that what currently produces one LPD plus one laid up for lack of crew would produce two next generation platforms fully manned and available. The manpower requirement is the same but the output is significantly more than at present. Also, having both manned and in service entirely removes the cost of periodiclly reactivating and rotating the mothballed ship, requiring intensive maintenance and costly refitting.

CVF costs £40,000 per tonne, designed and built in the UK.

I might add that the Bays cost £7,850/ton. Difference between 100% military and mostly civilian standards (amongst other things).

Using that as a rough indicator an Albion replacement of 20,000 tonnes would cost around £800 million +/- 20% . Not a significant difference.

And that would be buying you 20,000t worth of ship equivalent to an aircraft carrier...

[donald_of_tokyo]

We are editing on time together, I will take some time here.

[shark bait]

And that would be buying you 20,000t worth of ship equivalent to an aircraft carrier...

Not a wholly unreasonable estimation, it looses the flight deck but gain a well deck. They are complex vessels, just look how much the latest of the San Antonio class cost, and that is a paid for design.

[donald_of_tokyo]

1. That's not proof, that is the cost of a single LPD with no comparison.
   • CVF costs £40,000 per tonne, designed and built in the UK.
   • Using that as a rough indicator an Albion replacement of 20,000 tonnes would cost around £800 million +/- 20% .
   • Not a significant difference to your Canberra example.

What an optimisitic calculation. You say you need 27,000t hull for LHD. So it is at lest 35% much costy. AND you also are proposing to add significant helicopter support facility, FOR FREE? No you cannot do it for sure. At least, it shall be 50% more.
In addition, your "£800 million" is much much exceeding the Albions multiplied with inflations. So. MORE THAN 50% more. The added high cost is, as I understand,
- to handle modern standard
- to implement automation, which is pretty expensive. (in this case, we cannot enjoy "less crew", because RN is already operating only 1 LPD, only additional cost arises here).

2: It is achievable without a significant increase in resources

• Crew is 1/3 of life time costs. 2 modern LPH's could be manned with the crew of a single Albion LPD so no change here.
• Maintenance and upgrades is another 1/3 of life time costs. 2 modern LPH's will cost roughly the same as maintaint the 2 LPD's we have now.
• Procurement is the other 1/3 which will likley only cost marginally more

[/list]

Item-1 YES. No decrease (no increase) here.
Item-2, no. You are proposing significantly automated ship, 35% larger, and with significant helicopter support facility. No, "same cost" is surely impossible.
Item-3. If you say 50% is marginal, yes. But it is enough to eat all the resources left for LPD(A)-replacement (because the latter is cheap).
And what is more, as your hull cost based on CVF has shown, modern lean-manned ship IS expensive.

So, from where you are going to find those resources? I am really thinking about reduction in F35B number. It looks like it is the only place we can find something (simply because F35B is VERY expensive).

[Engaging Strategy]

Not a wholly unreasonable estimation, it looses the flight deck but gain a well deck. They are complex vessels, just look how much the latest of the San Antonio class cost, and that is a paid for design.

Jeezus wept that's a lot of money. Almost makes you wonder what wizardry is inside the Spams' ships for them to cost so much! Are the San Antonios now fitted with Mk.41 cells?

[shark bait]

So, from where you are going to find those resources?

Donnald, I'll quick fire my responses;

• Mistral class is 17,000 tonnes, a 27,000 tonne hull is not needed.

• Evidence suggests an LPH does not cost 50% more than an LPD
  • In 2007 LHD-8 cost 2.1 Bn USD
  • In 2007 LPD-20 cost 1.6 Bn USD
  • That's a 31% increase for comparable platforms, built by the same country, built at the same time.
  • Some off that cost may be off set by being able to reuse an existing design
  • There are many existing modern LPH designs, not many LPD designs
• Operations and maintenance;
  • I see nothing to suggest a modern platform costs more to maintain than legacy kit
  • Fuel is typically 12% of in service costs, quite possibly more for such a large platform
  • Clearly modern engines will lower fuel costs.
  • New kit is better designed for maintenance.
  • Automatic diagnostics lower maintenance costs.
  • I am specifically referring to gas turbines here, I assume its similar elsewhere.
  • 2 new mistrals could be maintained for the same cost as our two big old Albion's.
• That procurement increase is actually 31% of 30% of through life costs
• That means through life we're looking at roughly a 10% increase in cost
• I maintain it is all possible without a significant increase in resources

Jeezus wept that's a lot of money. Almost makes you wonder what wizardry is inside the Spams' ships for them to cost so much! Are the San Antonios now fitted with Mk.41 cells?

Would we want ours fitted with Artisan and Sea Ceptor too?

[marktigger]

HMAS Canberra cost 1.5 billion but i'd suggest not having to transport a bare ship to the other side of the world and building in 1 yard would have significant savings. but having the ramp does give the flexibility to operate the f35b. she has a naval crew of 293 so thats a reduction of 32 crew needed.

who says there needs to be reductions in anything? there may be an increase in the defence budget as the new government sort out its priorities!

[ArmChairCivvy]

I might add that the Bays cost £7,850/ton. Difference between 100% military and mostly civilian standards (amongst other things).

Unfortunately that negates the carefully worked cost comparison further upstream, as
- Albions have been built to warship stds for damage limitation
- Mistrals and HMS Ocean (the cost was not included in the comparison) haven't

[Engaging Strategy]

How many years would they be built over? The shipbuilding budget isn't a finite pot of money, but a yearly allocation of funds. Albion was built over three years, CVF over the course of ten (albeit with a deliberate extension included). Whatever the LPD replacement costs will inevitably be spread over more than one year's worth of the budget allocation for surface ships. Under those circumstances a pair of £800m ships, built and financed over three years, could cost a much more manageable £534m/yr. Sure it'd crowd out the budget for the duration of the programme, but what capital ship programme won't? After all, it's only three years; after which funds become available for other things again.

[marktigger]

how much were the 2 russian mistrals going to cost?

[R686]

That's because the design is expected to last 50 years, building to a lower standard degrees the cost

[ArmChairCivvy]

how much were the 2 russian mistrals going to cost?

The Mistrals contract, worth €1.2 billion ($1.3 billion), was signed by France’s DCNS/STX and Russia’s Rosoboronexport in 2011. The contract specified that two French helicopter carriers would be delivered to Russia, the first in 2014 and the second in 2015.
- Russia was to partly manufacture the vessel hulls and provide its own military electronic equipment for the warships
- that no doubt includes the guns/ missiles in the same way the UK gvmnt inserts items into overall contracts as gvmnt purchase (ie. supplied with the cost already paid, but to be integrated)
- Russia also got compensation for an extra e100m for planning the integration of the K52 helos into the overall solution
- so a minimum of 1.3bn/2 per ship, add max 10% for the hull parts that were to be built in St. Petersburg (there were going to be more than two vessels, the exceeding number to be built in Russia)
... so quite a bit more than e453m (coming in a tad longer and ice strengthened should go into roundation errors)