Future RN Amphibious Shipping

[Engaging Strategy]

Over the last few months across quite a few other threads I've seen some very interesting thoughts on what direction the RN's amphibious shipping could take in the future. Obviously this is more an examination of trends across Europe (and the world) in this field, as the existing Albion class LPDs aren't due to end their lives until the 2030s and the Bays in the 2040s.

Obviously the general trend in Europe and elsewhere has been away from specialist "single role" amphibious ships (LPDs, LPHs and LSTs) and towards bigger multirole ships: LHDs and LHAs like the Juan Carlos I, Mistral,the new Italian LHD and the America class (to name just a few). These are sometimes supported by auxiliary amphibious ships, usually LSDs like the Bay or Rotterdam class.

Projecting global trends forwards, I can see strong arguments for a pair of large RN LHDs, built I the 2030s to replace the Albions. Personally, I prefer the idea of a dual role class that could double as a "mini carrier" with some F-35Bs embarked, similar to the Spanish Juan Carlos I or US Wasp class LHDs, rather than a simpler and less ambitious design like the French Mistral. In my view the extra cost would be relatively small when compared with the general uplift in flexibility and usefulness of having an ad-hoc small CV available for when the QEs are committed to operations or unavailable.

Oh, and one obviously needs to be called Ark Royal

[ArmChairCivvy]

a dual role class that could double as a "mini carrier" with some F-35Bs embarked, similar to the Spanish Juan Carlos I or US Wasp class LHDs, rather than a simpler and less ambitious design like the French Mistra

A good opening, and the above perspective seems to be only mentioned in passing (sure, the mentions come up under thread headings that point to topics that are only tangential to this one).

In Oz they rejected the (late) idea of modifying their Canberras to take jets (the class was in advanced stages of construction, so not sure whether the argument was unnecessary cost, or, a capability trade-off that was not a good one.

Turkey has already signed for the construction of a JC look-alike, with designed-in support for F35Bs onboard.
- have not seen any design level detail, ie. how would this eat into other capabilities

Ship-to-shore connectors seem to be a game where the Americans (with their expensive hovercrafts) and the French (with their innovative, large landing craft) are ahead of the curve. Without such (fast and with enough capacity) the OTH doctrine will remain helicopter-based only, and thus delivering a fairly light punch

[Engaging Strategy]

In Oz they rejected the (late) idea of modifying their Canberras to take jets (the class was in advanced stages of construction, so not sure whether the argument was unnecessary cost, or, a capability trade-off that was not a good one.

I was under the impression that the Canberras have all the aviation facilities for VSTOL aircraft (like the Juan Carlos class) but that they ruled out buying a tiny fleet of F-35Bs solely for flying from those ships as too expensive. Not a problem the UK would have, as the current plan is for all UK F-35s to be the B variant.

Turkey has already signed for the construction of a JC look-alike, with designed-in support for F35Bs onboard.
- have not seen any design level detail, ie. how would this eat into other capabilities

The only area I could see it effecting is the need for more magazine space, in order to support sustained air operations. If this isn't already catered for in the Juan Carlos I design.

[/quote]Ship-to-shore connectors seem to be a game where the Americans (with their expensive hovercrafts) and the French (with their innovative, large landing craft) are ahead of the curve. Without such (fast and with enough capacity) the OTH doctrine will remain helicopter-based only, and thus delivering a fairly light punch[/quote]

Absolutely a key issue, failure to move forward with PASCAT may end up biting us. If we move to a much more over the horizon approach to amphibious warfare, using LHDs, then we'll need a new generation of fast connectors.

[Repulse]

Given the fact that UK should have the largest F35B fleet outside of the US then a couple of Auxiliary Carriers make a lot of sense to me. It would also make sense to make them large enough to support other future UAV and even a modern Bronco derivative. A mixed airwing (Helos, UAVs and fixed wing) up to 12 with a maxof 8 F35Bs.

However, on the amphibious front side, we must start with the requirement and doctrine. Sure, LHDs seem to offer alot on paper, but they are pretty limited in their capability when operating as joint equipment lift and carrier. The reason why navies have gone for joint is money and status in my view rather than operational purpose. The RN has 2 v.large Carriers so the Status box is already ticked.

[Pseudo]

However, on the amphibious front side, we must start with the requirement and doctrine. Sure, LHDs seem to offer alot on paper, but they are pretty limited in their capability when operating as joint equipment lift and carrier. The reason why navies have gone for joint is money and status in my view rather than operational purpose. The RN has 2 v.large Carriers so the Status box is already ticked.

I wouldn't think that the amphibious ships would be conducting major offensive operations without carrier support, so I'd think that the amphibious ships probably only need to be able to support half-a-dozen Chinook-sized helicopters themselves because they'd be able to act as a lily pad for helicopters from the carrier.

[Repulse]

Even something of the size of the CVF would struggle to do Carrier strike and Amphibious assault at the same time. Given we've only got two that limits the options.

Also where you'd want your carrier positioned for strike vs amphibious lift are a long way apart.

Apaches and others are good aircraft to have close to your amphibious assault helos to provide escorts (with top cover from the CVF) so should be on the amphibious assault ship.

[Repulse]

I think the main requirements for the RN amphibious force are:

- Provide a platform to support enduring small scale (company to Cdo level) raiding operations (including SFs) - a.k.a. Libya and Somalia scenario.
- Provide the ability to land and support upto two brigades on a 3-6 month operation with heavy equipment - a.k.a. Falklands 2 scenario.
- Provide the ability to transport and land heavy equipment and supplies to a friendly port for the UK Army Division - a.k.a. Gulf War 3 scenario.
- Provide humanitarian support for a natural disaster or medical emergency - a.k.a. Philippines, Sierra Leone etc.

Points 1 & 4 should be available in a couple of weeks notice, points 2 & 3 would be 2-3 months throwing at it everything the RN has.

Sorry, can't see a pure fleet of LHDs fulfilling this.

[shark bait]

Amphibious capability being one of the core capabilities of the Royal Navy does need to remain strong. That might become a challenge singe we can no longer afford speciality LPD and LPH platforms like was once the assumption. The Albion's are really up to scratch without and LPH following them around, and to some extent the carriers will pick up the slack where ocean left off, but it will be far from a perfect solution. In large scale amphibious operation we will want the carriers with more F35 than Merlin.

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.

The LPH + LPD combo is the biggest bang we can get for our buck in the amphibious role, plus the extra flexibility provided by operating an additional 2 light carriers be value added, and will finally allow us to fully exploit our F35B decision.

The Bay class is great in there role, and incredibly good value platform, getting rid of one was one of the worse decisions of the 2010 SDSR. There were worse consequences, but the others were much easier to justify than flogging one of our more flexible and affordable platforms. In the future the Bays need replacing with Bays 2.0, almost the same but with a real hanger in place of the temporary one. Also a return to four LSD's should be sought.

The point class has been overlooked in our discussions, but are important for shifting the mass. With the contract running out in 2024 is there replacement will nee addressing in the next decade.

The biggest gap is with the ship to shore connectors, which is terrible because we have replacements waiting and ready to go. PASCAT and CB90 should be priorities

[cockneyjock1974]

Good thread ES, thanks for starting it.

[abc123]

I agree. 2-3 Canberra/JC-like "light carriers" as a replacement for Ocean/Albion/Bay class would be a great thing for the RN. And construction should be started ASAP, ideally with first replacing HMS Ocean and others following later. But, since both the Bays and Albions are still young ships ( about 10 years old- on average ) and will not need a replacement for at least another 10 years, HMS Ocean will have to retire without replacement and the RN will have to wait at least 10 years to get something...

[Pseudo]

Even something of the size of the CVF would struggle to do Carrier strike and Amphibious assault at the same time. Given we've only got two that limits the options.

Also where you'd want your carrier positioned for strike vs amphibious lift are a long way apart.

I can't imagine them being that far apart since you'd want the F-35's to provide support for the operation and it appears to have a relatively limited range.

Apaches and others are good aircraft to have close to your amphibious assault helos to provide escorts (with top cover from the CVF) so should be on the amphibious assault ship.

That would be ideal if we were operating unilaterally, but I don't think that unilateral capability will be the priority, it'll be (as it has been since the 80's) how our capability fits in to multilateral operations. Given the proliferation of flat-deck oriented landing platforms and dwindling number of dedicated dock platforms in NATO, I think that we'll probably look to filling that niche and let others supply the majority of the the more expensive helicopter element of lift capability.

We'll still need a capability to perform operations unilaterally, but I suspect that won't be the highest priority, so the lily padding compromise will probably be seen as acceptable particularly as it'll result in cheaper build costs and operational costs for the amphibious ships at the possible cost of higher costs in major unilateral operations, should we need to perform one during the ships lifetime.

[abc123]

A question. Somewhat off-topic, but non the less. What is your opinion about an idea that floats in my head for a long time- what if the RN simply skipped Albion class and built second Ocean-class LPH and say two Bay-class ships instead- with real hangars ( like the Rotterdam/Galicia-class )? The cost should be about the same. Capabilities?

[Repulse]

I can't imagine them being that far apart since you'd want the F-35's to provide support for the operation and it appears to have a relatively limited range.

The F35Bs range will be an issue until a good carrier based AAR solution is available, but even then you do not want the carrier within 50nm of the coast if you help it, whereas you do for OTH ops.

[RetroSicotte]

F-35B has a longer range on internal fuel alone than a Super Hornet with drop tanks. Range is not an issue. Really, the only one that definitively beats it in that regard at sea is the F-35C.

AAR would be crucial for many other purposes, but reach isn't as much of one as it has traditionally been when this aircraft is concerned. It's only "legacy belief" that has pointed that "STOVL = Short Range". Not so much any more.

[Repulse]

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).

[Pseudo]

F-35B has a longer range on internal fuel alone than a Super Hornet with drop tanks. Range is not an issue. Really, the only one that definitively beats it in that regard at sea is the F-35C.

I was under the impression that much of the F-18's suitability was somewhat dependent on it's ability to buddy-refuel, which would put a big dint in the capabilities of smaller carrier air groups.

[shark bait]

The F35Bs range will be an issue until a good carrier based AAR solution is available, but even then you do not want the carrier within 50nm of the coast if you help it, whereas you do for OTH ops.

Not really, the our F35's can be based 100 miles over the horizon, strike 100 miles in shore, and still remain on station for an hour on internal fuel alone, that is plenty for supporting an amphibious operation.

Why? It may be for other nations by why for the UK?

Because it puts a lot of capability into a single platform, helping to control head count, and therefore costs. We have singular high performance amphibious assets right now, and we cant manage to maintain all of them. I believe separating the roles into different platforms is a mistake we should not repeat.

There may be some compromise is capability, but I think that will be acceptable. We have some very high performance carriers to focus on maintaining, and a desire to increase the escort fleet, I don't believe there will be room left to increase the amphibious fleet at the same time.

For your suggestion, with only 4 Bay LSD you have just slashed our well dock capability in half, I don't think that is a good idea.

I like the Auxiliary boat carriers, I like what the US Navy is doing with their Mobile Landing Platforms, its something we should be watching closely.

[Repulse]

We have some very high performance carriers to focus on maintaining, and a desire to increase the escort fleet, I don't believe there will be room left to increase the amphibious fleet at the same time.

May be the addition of the Bay and return of the two Points can be delayed, but what I am doing is basically replacing the two LPDs and Argus with 4 new RFAs. Whilst an increase in RFA manpower is required, it would free up more RN manpower. Built to commercial standards the vessels would be cheaper which is the compromise as they would definitely need to be OTH for any hot op.

For your suggestion, with only 4 Bay LSD you have just slashed our well dock capability in half, I don't think that is a good idea.

I like the Auxiliary boat carriers, I like what the US Navy is doing with their Mobile Landing Platforms, its something we should be watching closely.

The LCMs and other small craft would be transported by the Boat Carriers, reducing the need for well docks.

[seaspear]

One of the issues with thhe Canberra class was that the use of aviation such as f35b would impact the amount of equipment that could be delivered ,the carriers if used as troop transport would possibly need heavy mobile equipment that the carriers could not deliver with the troops

[ArmChairCivvy]

[quote="Repulse"]
The LCMs and other small craft would be transported by the Boat Carriers, reducing the need for well docks.[end of quote]
- loadsa, loadsa CB90s, doing force protection, setting ashore recce and NGFS sighting parties... etc


seaspear [next quote]


One of the issues with thhe Canberra class was that the use of aviation such as f35b would impact the amount of equipment that could be delivered ,the carriers if used as troop transport would possibly need heavy mobile equipment that the carriers could not deliver with the troops [end of quote]
- exactly what I was trying to get at... what trade offs are worthwhile? Everything is possible, but...

[donald_of_tokyo]

I propose to have

<Plan-A>
- 2 CVF : as you plan it now
- 1 LPH : with a size of x2 "Ocean". No ski-jump.
- 4 mod-Bay like LSDs: with a dock with 1 LCAT/LCAC (or 2 LCUs), and with 2 mexefloats and hanger for 3 Merlins
This will provide, 1 strike CVF, 1 LPH (or 2nd CVF used for LPH), 3 LPDs on theater. 2 flat-tops with 3 LCATs (or 6 LCUs) and 6 mexefloats.

CVF and LPH will be located OTH. The 3 LPDs will get more near the shore, but not as near as Albions, thanks to LCAT. Total "LCU+Mexefloat" number is (2+2)x4 = 16, while now it is 4x2+(1+2)*3=17. --> no much different.

<Plan-B>
- 2 CVF : as you plan it now
- 2 LHD : Mistral-like. No ski-jump, and with a dock with 2 LCAT/LCAC (or 4 LCUs)
- 2 mod-Bay like LSDs: with a dock with 1 LCAT/LCAC (or 2 LCUs), and with 2 mexefloats and hanger for 3 Merlins
This will provide x1.3 strike CVFs, x1.3 LHDs, x1.3 LPDs on theater. 2-3 flat-tops with 3-5 LCATs (or 6-10 LCUs) and 2 mexefloats.

CVF will be located OTH. LHD will start at OTH, and after the 1st landing, will proceed to shore following the LPDs.
"LCU+Mexefloat" number is 4x2+(2+2)*2 = 16.

------
As you see, I made it "modest", as always I do (sorry). This way is more comfortable for me, because I can see it "will happen". I remember the plan for 2x LPH 2x LPD and 4x Bays. Now you have 1x LPH (1+1)x LPD and 3 Bays. With 2 (!) CVF with many F35B, Successor, T26/31 coming, I cannot be optimistic here. For example, I like to have LCATs not slow LCUs. V22s for AAR. ASW-SUV systems. ASROC/LAMs for T26. CAMMs/LAM/CEC/SM3 for T45. F35B armed with StormShadow or like. New AWACSs. Yes, I really need RESOURCE here.

One point surely will be criticized is, "lack of ski-jump". I propose it simply because it will eat the area for 1 landing pad. And, not considering "light carrier role" for the LPH/LHDs. In emergency, F35B can land and fly from them regardless of ski-jump. With limited number of F35B (I guess), just filling the CVF hangar will be an issue. 36 or 48 F35B (in 2030s) supported by dozens of LAMs, has much high impact than 70 or even 100 Harriers (in 1990s). But, yes it is ONLY 1 landing pad and having a ski-jump do have a small merit. I admit I am a bit neutral here. But, I think "not having a ski-jump" is "worth thinking option", because it clearly increases the precious landing pad by 1 per ship.

[Repulse]

Make the LPH / Auxiliary Carrier large enough and it doesn't need a ski-jump. I'd have no problem with a 3rd CVF or super-Auxiliary carrier

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

Not so convinced by the emphasis in here on the OTH concept. If anything, the USN is looking to dial amphibious ops back closer in to shore, reasoning that there is very little point trying to outrange guided missiles; which, to make things worse, are only being proliferated at an increasing rate. Close hugging support and speedy insertion increasingly looks to be the flavour of the day.

Airlifts are nice, but you still can’t beat the mass that seaborne solutions deliver.

[Little J]

From what I can understand we're all looking for something along the lines of the America - class (with well deck). Would local manufacture (well Scottish just to shut up Sturgeon) be an option? Would it be cheaper than designing from scratch?

I would also imagine (complete guess) that the Dave pilots would prefer a ski ramp.

[S M H]

With the America class clone F35 ops are supported The Ski jump can be fitted to any through flight deck its the number of lost helicopter spots to F35 ops requirements that mandates if you require one.( Is not as we haven't fitted one to an existing helicopter carrier) With other L.H.D platforms the Ski jump needs to be fitted to allow fixed wing ops due to deck run to allow useful ops.( Invincible class requirement) It would be interesting. If we built a R.N. clone what the U.S.N. evaluation of it would be?