Future RN Amphibious Shipping

[marktigger]

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)
.

R686 some nice ideas I think the wasp is to big and heavily manned I favor the Juan Carlos 1/Canberra class which have a ski ramp so bit of flexibility.

JSS based on Karel Dorman yes the design heavily remodelled taking in board what we have learnt with argus......Personally lets take Argus back to the drawing board keep her core elements as the med, hangerage and flight deck seam to be quite good and design the rest of the new ship round that. But with better infrastructure accomodation for embarked troops etc. I'm not overly worried about these vessels having a dock and beach it would ba a nice to have but the side door and ramp capable of going to sea level to allow off load would be useful With a PCRS facility on one of the 3

[shark bait]

A lot of these proposals are creating extra platforms, which I think makes them a complete none starter.

We already have a shortage of escorts, adding more 'capitol ships' is only going to stretch the escort fleet further, beyond the point of effectiveness.

Any future amphibious shipping needs to operate roughly within the footprint of our current operations, perhaps squeezing out an extra auxiliary is all that is possible. Any extra resources would be needed by the escort fleet first.

I think that means the platforms have to be multipurpose to deliver a reasonable effect from a few platforms.

We're looking at 2 large 'commando platform's' supported by 3 or 4 auxiliaries.

Considering that I think our 5500 target is unachievable within the Royal Navy alone. For larger operations we need to have a framework inplace that allows the Navy to rapidly scale is operations. This could be agreement's within NATO, or a structure to use civilian vessels without preparation.

The requirement is for continuous 'amphibious readiness' which suggests most of the time the vessels will not be in use. Is it the best use of our tight resources to have lots off expensive platforms sitting in readiness?

I don't believe it is, there are more pressing issues to address first. We should have a structure that allows us to maintain the minimum credible 'amphibious readiness', but have a well practice structure that enables us to rapidly scale up when required to deliver and sustain that 5500+ operation.

[ArmChairCivvy]

have the RAF ever operated puma from ships? I don't think they have and have no plans to

Puma is top heavy and that's a problem already on land, in hard landings... no point taking the problem to sea.

[arfah]

............

[Aethulwulf]

Here is my revised suggestion for a future amphibious task group, still based on avoiding having to use a QECV as a LPH:

1. 2 × LHD based on the Canberra class with a few modifications. Each LHD to carry 4 Chinook, 7 Merlin HC4, 4 Apache and 3 Wildcat AH1, plus 4 LCU(Future) in a well dock plus 1000 PAX and 500 LIMs (heavy vehicle deck).

2. 2 × LSD - a Bay Class Mk2. Changes to allow for carriage of many more personnel and a large hanger. Each LSD to carry 6 Merlin HM2 in hanger, with a flight deck sized for 2 merlin spots, a LCU (future) in a well dock, plus 800 PAX and 1100 LIMs.

3. 2 x LSD - a Bay Class Mk2a. As above but also with a 35 bed role 3 medical facility. A Chinook is carried in the hanger.

4. 2 × RoRo - Point Class Mk2. Modify the current Point design to include a Chinook size flight deck (no hanger) and enlarged facilities for personnel: PAX 150 and LIMs 2600.

5. 2 × RFA tankers (Wave or Tide class)

6. 2 × MARS FSS each with 1000 LIMs

7. Other escorts: 3 × T45, 2 x T26, 3 × T31. T26s to carry Merlin HM2, others to carry Wildcat.

Essentially, at its core are 2 LHDs and 4 LSD - which are an improved version of the current Bay Class. This basic structure appears to be common to a number of other suggestions.

[marktigger]

A lot of these proposals are creating extra platforms, which I think makes them a complete none starter.

We already have a shortage of escorts, adding more 'capitol ships' is only going to stretch the escort fleet further, beyond the point of effectiveness.

Any future amphibious shipping needs to operate roughly within the footprint of our current operations, perhaps squeezing out an extra auxiliary is all that is possible. Any extra resources would be needed by the escort fleet first.

I think that means the platforms have to be multipurpose to deliver a reasonable effect from a few platforms.

We're looking at 2 large 'commando platform's' supported by 3 or 4 auxiliaries.

Considering that I think our 5500 target is unachievable within the Royal Navy alone. For larger operations we need to have a framework inplace that allows the Navy to rapidly scale is operations. This could be agreement's within NATO, or a structure to use civilian vessels without preparation.

The requirement is for continuous 'amphibious readiness' which suggests most of the time the vessels will not be in use. Is it the best use of our tight resources to have lots off expensive platforms sitting in readiness?

I don't believe it is, there are more pressing issues to address first. We should have a structure that allows us to maintain the minimum credible 'amphibious readiness', but have a well practice structure that enables us to rapidly scale up when required to deliver and sustain that 5500+ operation.

I agree keeping with in the "numbers" but are we including Ocean in that?

Interesting how big a factor Argus seams to be!

[Aethulwulf]

And here is my suggestion for a future amphibious task group, which does use a QECV as a LPH:

1. 1 × LPH (QECV). To carry 10 Chinook, 14 Merlin HC4, 8 Apache and 6 Wildcat AH1, plus 1000 PAX. Flight deck organised for 6 Merlin spots and 4 Wildcat spots.

2. 2 × LPD based on the Albion class, each with a 35 bed role 3 medical facility. Each LPD to carry 4 LCU(Future) in a well dock plus 350 PAX and 500 LIMs (heavy vehicle deck). Flight deck with two Chinook spots but no hanger.

3. 4 × LSD - a Bay Class Mk2. Changes to allow for carriage of many more personnel and a large hanger. Each LSD to carry 3 Merlin HM2 in hanger, with a flight deck sized for 2 merlin spots, a LCU (future) in a well dock, plus 800 PAX and 1100 LIMs.

4. 2 × RoRo - Point Class Mk2. Modify the current Point design to include a Chinook size flight deck (no hanger) and enlarged facilities for personnel: PAX 150 and LIMs 2600.

5. 2 × RFA tankers (Wave or Tide class)

6. 2 × MARS FSS each with 200 PAX and 1000 LIMs

7. Other escorts: 3 × T45, 2 x T26, 3 × T31. T26s to carry Merlin HM2, others to carry Wildcat.

[shark bait]

but are we including Ocean in that?

I don't think we could. Isn't ocean effectively replaced by POW?

[arfah]

............

[Engaging Strategy]

I don't think we could. Isn't ocean effectively replaced by POW?

Yes, "replaced" by PoW for the foreseeable future. With Ocean I think it's quite obvious that her role would be rolled into other platforms, mostly because there's not really an especially good reason for a relatively small dedicated LPH. She worked because the CONOPS for the Albions was that they'd be cheaper and smaller because their hangar space would be provided by another (also cheap to procure) platform.

Obviously that structure works from the perspective of getting multiple, relatively cheap (£225m for the Albions and £154m for Ocean, in 1990s money), amphibious platforms. However, the through-life costs of that structure are quite high. Manning three large platforms obviously costs quite a lot, and Ocean's part-commercial construction means that while she was cheap to build she has needed quite a few expensive refits (compared with the initial price of the ship) to keep her going through her comparatively short life.

As it stands, the single role LPH never really caught on and the slightly larger, but far more versatile, LHD seems to have come out on top.

So what essentially needs to happen is that we better control through life costs of the amphibious fleet by reducing from 3 amphibious capital ships to two. However, those two should be larger and more flexible than the existing LPDs. In order to achieve this we should build two big LHDs. Yes the initial build cost will be high but, as with the carriers, fewer, bigger, flexible and highly manpower efficient platforms are exactly what the RN can afford to operate.

In sum, a willingness to pay more up front will yield dividends in the long-term through lower through-life costs.

[marktigger]

I don't think we could. Isn't ocean effectively replaced by POW?

Yes, "replaced" by PoW for the foreseeable future. With Ocean I think it's quite obvious that her role would be rolled into other platforms, mostly because there's not really an especially good reason for a relatively small dedicated LPH. She worked because the CONOPS for the Albions was that they'd be cheaper and smaller because their hangar space would be provided by another (also cheap to procure) platform.

Obviously that structure works from the perspective of getting multiple, relatively cheap (£225m for the Albions and £154m for Ocean, in 1990s money), amphibious platforms. However, the through-life costs of that structure are quite high. Manning three large platforms obviously costs quite a lot, and Ocean's part-commercial construction means that while she was cheap to build she has needed quite a few expensive refits (compared with the initial price of the ship) to keep her going through her comparatively short life.

As it stands, the single role LPH never really caught on and the slightly larger, but far more versatile, LHD seems to have come out on top.

So what essentially needs to happen is that we better control through life costs of the amphibious fleet by reducing from 3 amphibious capital ships to two. However, those two should be larger and more flexible than the existing LPDs. In order to achieve this we should build two big LHDs. Yes the initial build cost will be high but, as with the carriers, fewer, bigger, flexible and highly manpower efficient platforms are exactly what the RN can afford to operate.

In sum, a willingness to pay more up front will yield dividends in the long-term through lower through-life costs.

We were using LPH's back in the 1960's and were one of the first nations to do so. ALBION, CENTAUR, BULWARK & HERMES ring any bells! we lost them with the rundown of the carrier force. They are extremely flexible platforms as we found in Borneo, Malaysia, Dar es salam, Kuwait, Aden and numerous NATO northern and southern flank exercises. If We'd had an LPH in the falklands who knows we could have had a better task force and options. Argus was sort of ment to take on that role but never had the infrastructure to support large numbers of embarked troops. The commons select committee were so horrified at the conditions troops were living in of FRY they pused for Ocean, since then Ocean has been a very busy and useful platform when rotating with illustrious. The lack of imagination and money when albion and bulwark were built denied us the option of LHD's to replace Fearless and Intrepid there were rumblings of a bare boat purchase of an American LHD but they never came to pass and the complete like of thought in providing the LPD's with a hanger hamstrung the Amphibious fleet but then Argus was meant to provide the helicopter lift.
The thought of rolling everything Carrier airwing and one of the commando battle groups is monumentally stupid remember the old nursery adage about putting all your eggs in one basket! We have a long history of successfully operating LPH's the next logical evolution is the LHD and leave the CVF to get on with what carriers do best. To build another generation of LPD and rely on a carrier to provide helecopter lift would be very short sighted and we would be back to the scratching our heads trying to find an LPH again, an LHD not only gives landing options air and surface but also provides a place of safety if anything happens to the CVF for units that are in the air.

[Repulse]

As it stands, the single role LPH never really caught on and the slightly larger, but far more versatile, LHD seems to have come out on top.

Whilst a single LHD is cheaper, and hence more popular for smaller navies, I wouldn't say it was more capable than a LPD / LHD combo. The problem for me is that a LHD struggles to balance space / layout between the two distinct roles and also positioning (close to shore or further out).

Apart from the high crew requirements for the Albion (leading to one to always be in reserve), adding a few Camm and a medium gun to the Albion would probably help mitigate some of the issues with lack of escorts. Then a LPH replacement for Argus would give the combination, but in my view needs to be bigger than 20k. Perhaps supporting with Helicopters from the CVFs further out to sea would guard against having all one's eggs in one basket.

[R686]

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)
.

R686 some nice ideas I think the wasp is to big

In manning I agree but not so much for their flexabilty on troop/equipment and stores level.

What I out lined is not going to happen, just a theoretical fleet to move the magical 5500 troops and stores over the beach with redundancy.

Don't think you wil take an existing foriegn design, but your own in house design will crop up in about 10 years something in between JC1 and Wasp. That's my prediction

[shark bait]

In sum, a willingness to pay more up front will yield dividends in the long-term through lower through-life costs.

Yep, key to this will be rationalising capabilities into fewer hulls, ensuring we have a solution we can sustain through life. I am hopeful the renewal of our amphibious shipping can achieve that can get us out of the mess we have now.

[R686]

Second exception: The loss of the Round Table LSL's means we have no ships with the capability to beach themselves, if necessary.

I think the days of beaching your main logistic ships are over, too valuable a commodity or perhaps only in the most permisive environment. You have two options there 1, Endurance class LPD from Singapore 2, Frank S Besson class LSV ( US Army operated)

To be honest I actually like the Frank S Besson that it can do oceanic voyages with considerable weight, both bow and stern loading I think she'd be real handy with a couple of mexiflots moving stores to the beach or directly to the beach pretty much what a round table can do.

[marktigger]

dream solution

3 Canberra LHD
6 Bay class LPD(A)
2 "Argus" type ships
2 Karel Doorman type Support ships

each group of LHD & pair LPD(A) carrying a CDO battle group the rest of the force split across the other 4 vessels
25 Merlin HC4/4a
12 wildcat
6 apache
6 chinook
spread across the fleet

[arfah]

............

[shark bait]

The future of our Amphibious Shipping should consist of the following;

• 2 x super carriers
• 2 x large amphibious platforms
• 4 x auxiliary amphibious platforms
• 3 x solid support ships with RORO off
• renewal of landing craft
• Frame work and equipment for scalability

Strike carriers are clearly going to be important to our future amphibious capabilities, therefore using them as full on LPH's is a waste. Beyond inserting the first wave OTH, they should only focus on air support for the rest of the group.

There are a couple of options to work within the current footprint of amphibious shipping.

• 2 X Canberra class & 4 X Bay class 2.0;
  1. Fairly self explanatory, able to sustain our 1800 strong RM battlegroup, and surge to 3600
  2. Same well dock capacity as now
  3. Same aviation capacity as now, but rationalised onto fewer palatforms
• 2 X Ocean 2.0 & 4 X Bay class plus;
  1. Rather than trying to pack more capabilities into the LPD, would it be better to pack more capabilities into the LSD?
  2. Replace the Albions with a modern HMS ocean, no dock, just davit launched landing craft, and just focus on amphibious aviation
  3. Recover the lost well dock capacity with a much larger LSD, small hanger on top, much larger dock underneath, with space for 4 LCVP
  4. Still able to sustain our 1800 strong RM battlegroup, and surge to 3600
  5. This is a greater and more performance focused aviation capability than with an LHD
  6. Well dock capacity is increased from now, 13 x LCU now, 16 x LCU here

I haven't yet decided, which one is the better choice for long term sustainability and performance?

2 x Izumo class + 4 x Karel Doorman with well dock?
2 x Canberra class + 4 x Bay class?

The solid support ships are happening, and in the past the ambition was for a platform that can also support amphibious operations. The landing craft will need renewing at some point, it shouldn't be a big job with some excellent contenders ready and waiting. I have talked previously about a framework and equipment for scalability through commercial shipping, that will be very important for bringing and sustaining the mass after the initial manoeuvre.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Well dock capacity is increased from now, 13 x LCU now

That's the capacity, we only have ten LCUs (ship rotation idea has been institutionalised). However, if you put
- LCVPs in the dock, instead, each only has 10% of the LCU carrying capacity
- and the remaining hovercraft only have 4%

In the on-going ship-to-shore (future) connectors study everything is under consideration exc. for the LCUs which were defined as a given in the brief.

[R686]

Can't remember who posted and where about barges and radar etc, but looks like its catching on!

https://gcaptain.com/spotd-sbx-1-the-wo ... 1.facebook


Looking for more info and I found this,

http://graphics.latimes.com/missile-defense/

Apparently the LA Times don't like it, and scroll down to the 747's with lasers

[ArmChairCivvy]

See, they did the same thing I was joking about: forgot the missiles from the kill cycle, for budgetary reasons:

"The vessel was built for a recorded cost of $900 million and is crewed by 86 Civilian and Military personnel."

With the old exchange rates that is two thirds of our battle ship Galacticas (and therefore: sans missiles!).

[shark bait]

I thought I should skip to a more appropriate thread

I agree. But it do need more resources. Not equivalent to the current one RN pays for their amphibious fleet.

So, if I understand correctly, you are proposing an amphibious fleet WITHOUT using CVF as a LPH, and have a similar or even enhanced amphibious capability compared to now RN has. And it surely requires additional resource, I think.

I am proposing the simple replacement program. Using 2nd CVF as LPH, and Argus replacement to fill the gap. (I also proposed Enforcer-besed "common" hull replacement for Albions and Bays). Here I restrict myself to stay within the "same resource" as now.

If you agree to sacrifice something, such as a dozen of F35Bs or so, your idea will be realized (actually, I admit it will be better solution).

Any future amphibious shipping should be capable of an amphibious maneuver without the carriers. It is ridiculous to use CVF as LPH.

When the time comes to regenerate our amphibious shipping we must build a modern amphibious capability, which must consist of air, and sea lift. An LHD is the cheapest way to acquire that capability when through life costs are considered.

An in service Albion class has a crew of 325, and a modern LHD like the Mistral class operates with a crew of 160. It is therefore feasible to replace one of our LPD's with two new LHD's without requiring an increase in head count. The Albion's are terribly inefficient ships, and we are paying to keep one in a dry dock. Those resources would spread much further when applied to a modern lean LPH.

[donald_of_tokyo]

I thought I should skip to a more appropriate thread

thanks.

Any future amphibious shipping should be capable of an amphibious maneuver without the carriers. It is ridiculous to use CVF as LPH.

I agree here, but, in reality it is not. RN spent so much resource on its large large CVF, it drained the resources for Ocean replacement. RN must pay for that mistake/choice for a long period from now. So, 2nd CVF must be used as an LPH, or there will be no LPH at all.

Let's hope the economy is nice around 2025-30. Then, we will see 2 LHD as Albions' replacement. But, for the time being, PoW (and Argus replacement) will be the sole asset to be used for LPH role. It is the reality now. This is why I think Argus replacement as an aviation training vessel = providing extra helicopter hangar is very very important.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Any future amphibious shipping should be capable of an amphibious maneuver without the carriers. It is ridiculous to use CVF as LPH.

The first statement is true, the second isn't.
- you only do that when you need a "full package"
- a full "full package" might need the two carriers in diffrent roles (now we proceed to calculating simultaneous availability, and skip past the question whether there will be two full crews: . 70% x 2 = 140%
- .4 x 365 = on 58 days a year, and then there will be the refit years (known well in advance)

[shark bait]

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.

In a high intensity operation it would not be right to comprise the carriers performance by operating too many helicopters. An initial over the horizon lift from the carriers would likely be acceptable, but beyond that a helicopter carrier would be much more desirebale for sustaing and operation.

Of course in the mid term we will have to use the carriers an an LPH, and that's probably ok for the time being, but as look to mature our carrier strike capabilities it will become a bit of an obstacle. As long as we can acknowledge the CVF LPH is a short term bodge, and not a long term fix, it is acceptable compromise.

In the interim I'm not sure I see the value in an 'auxiliary LPH', perhaps it would be better to save the resources for a long term fix?