Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6431
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

Caribbean wrote: 01 Feb 2024, 17:49 Now - what was I saying about a UK Dokdo look-alike?
These smaller assault ships share vehicle and aircraft storage space so total capacity is much lower. This makes a LCAC that can interface with strategic sea lift ships important to pick up the missing capacity in a SHTF situation.
@LandSharkUK

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4776
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

shark bait wrote: 02 Feb 2024, 15:35
Caribbean wrote: 01 Feb 2024, 17:49 Now - what was I saying about a UK Dokdo look-alike?
These smaller assault ships share vehicle and aircraft storage space so total capacity is much lower. This makes a LCAC that can interface with strategic sea lift ships important to pick up the missing capacity in a SHTF situation.
Given that these ships would only ever carry aviation assets up to what Argus does now, then that is absolutely right IMO. LCAC, both new large purchases and recommissioning the four small units already owned would make a lot of sense, removing the need for a large well dock.

Outside of their nuclear deterrent role the FCF could then be structured into 6 units, each tailored for their role - 3 littoral strike units (each assigned to a flat top LPD), 2 air mobile strike/support units (each assigned to a CVF) and a littoral mobile unit based in Camp Viking.

Probably the wrong thread, but more I think about the likely confrontation coming (war or just hot), the more I am thinking about how the RN gets war ready and the nees to be absolutely focused on what needs to be in place as a fighting force in the next decade.

Three of these ships with the right level of self defence, enabling them to operate in high threat environments either with a T26 riding shotgun or as part of task group could be a key part of this if the design is focused (don’t worry about being LHDs or large well docks) and sacrifices is made elsewhere.

A major fighting fleet comprising of the following would be achievable by 2035.

- 7 SSNs supported by a fleet of XLUUVs
- 2 CVFs each with 2 Squadrons of F35Bs and long range strike UAVs
- 6 T45s with BMD and TLAM
- 9 T26s (we need to squeeze another in)
- 3 flat top (LPDs) with LCACs as described

This would support two CEPP groups (UK based), three small littoral groups (LPD + T26, one forward based in Oman with an additional T45) and a T26 permanently operating in the North Atlantic (also cover TAPS).

Also operating in UK / NATO waters would be the two MRoSSs and MCM OSV.

To support UK / BOT EEZ patrols and diplomacy would be the following fleet.

- 3 T31s current light specification only (24 CAMM and NSM no MK41 VLS) covering FIPS, Eastern Med & Africa and FRE. Each crewed x1.5 to ensure a high availability.
- 5 B2 Rivers covering WIGS, 2 UK EEZ and 2 EoS like now.
- 6 new MHPCs based on the Triton class design (basically replacing the Hunts one for one)

The UK would withdraw from Kipion (to focus on a forward base in Oman). Two T31s would be sold to allies such as NZ, providing funds and crew so that the three LPDs can be RN manned (freeing up RFA to be able to properly man the 3 FSSs, 4 Tides, MRoSS and OSV).

@SW1 will chuckle given my proposal to use a T31 in the Falklands and in an ideal world I would have kept a OPV there (perhaps even a B3), but if there is a conflict it will hit multiple regions at once and this is probably the best spread of assets we have or already planned.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
wargame_insomniac
”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

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1320
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by new guy »

1) Current hovercraft aren't decommissioned, we just literally don't have a need or usage for them RN.
2) They are irrelevant in the LCAC debate as they are troop carriers.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5660
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote: 03 Feb 2024, 14:44
shark bait wrote: 02 Feb 2024, 15:35
Caribbean wrote: 01 Feb 2024, 17:49 Now - what was I saying about a UK Dokdo look-alike?
These smaller assault ships share vehicle and aircraft storage space so total capacity is much lower. This makes a LCAC that can interface with strategic sea lift ships important to pick up the missing capacity in a SHTF situation.
Given that these ships would only ever carry aviation assets up to what Argus does now, then that is absolutely right IMO. LCAC, both new large purchases and recommissioning the four small units already owned would make a lot of sense, removing the need for a large well dock.

Outside of their nuclear deterrent role the FCF could then be structured into 6 units, each tailored for their role - 3 littoral strike units (each assigned to a flat top LPD), 2 air mobile strike/support units (each assigned to a CVF) and a littoral mobile unit based in Camp Viking.

Probably the wrong thread, but more I think about the likely confrontation coming (war or just hot), the more I am thinking about how the RN gets war ready and the nees to be absolutely focused on what needs to be in place as a fighting force in the next decade.

Three of these ships with the right level of self defence, enabling them to operate in high threat environments either with a T26 riding shotgun or as part of task group could be a key part of this if the design is focused (don’t worry about being LHDs or large well docks) and sacrifices is made elsewhere.

A major fighting fleet comprising of the following would be achievable by 2035.

- 7 SSNs supported by a fleet of XLUUVs
- 2 CVFs each with 2 Squadrons of F35Bs and long range strike UAVs
- 6 T45s with BMD and TLAM
- 9 T26s (we need to squeeze another in)
- 3 flat top (LPDs) with LCACs as described

This would support two CEPP groups (UK based), three small littoral groups (LPD + T26, one forward based in Oman with an additional T45) and a T26 permanently operating in the North Atlantic (also cover TAPS).

Also operating in UK / NATO waters would be the two MRoSSs and MCM OSV.

To support UK / BOT EEZ patrols and diplomacy would be the following fleet.

- 3 T31s current light specification only (24 CAMM and NSM no MK41 VLS) covering FIPS, Eastern Med & Africa and FRE. Each crewed x1.5 to ensure a high availability.
- 5 B2 Rivers covering WIGS, 2 UK EEZ and 2 EoS like now.
- 6 new MHPCs based on the Triton class design (basically replacing the Hunts one for one)

The UK would withdraw from Kipion (to focus on a forward base in Oman). Two T31s would be sold to allies such as NZ, providing funds and crew so that the three LPDs can be RN manned (freeing up RFA to be able to properly man the 3 FSSs, 4 Tides, MRoSS and OSV).

@SW1 will chuckle given my proposal to use a T31 in the Falklands and in an ideal world I would have kept a OPV there (perhaps even a B3), but if there is a conflict it will hit multiple regions at once and this is probably the best spread of assets we have or already planned.
I think the best we could hope for by 2035 if there was a real effort is

2 x CSG's = 1 x CVF with 16 x F-35 , 3 x AEW , 8 x ASw Merlin , MALE UAV + 2 x T45 , 2 x T26 , 1 x SSS , 1 x Tanker
1 x ARG = 1 x Flattop LPD , 2 x Bay 1 x T-45 , 1 x T-26
1 x LRG = 1 x Flattop LPD , 1 x Point class 1 x T-31 , 1 x Tanker
3 x Patrol groups = 2 x Type 31 & 2 x OPV's

Forget double or 1.5 crewing Escorts and single crew all them with the view that each patrol group will maintain 1 duty escort at all times on a 3 mouths on and 3 off rotation

Also I would forget TLAM on T-45 as T-26 could fulfill this role of surface fired deep land attack. Fitting 16 NSM to T-45 would allow coastal attack plus getting BMD up and running on T-45 must be the first thing

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1320
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by new guy »

This seems pretty big, Related to the ambiguous future RM programme.

From a UKDJ article talking about the ORC turning into CRC Revamp.
The CRC has three crew who rotate on long journeys but also space to launch drones, carry payloads and to store a smaller Inshore Raiding Craft to deploy on some landings if required. Crucially, this is a life extension and upgrade to the ORC and, although it is more than just a stop-gap, in the long run Commando Forces are developing a boat that will replace the ORC, CRC and larger Landing Craft Vehicle Personnel.
Many questions.

1) When anounced by Naval News of the new CIC programme, it was only a LCVP replacement project.
How does this affect What CIC will look like?

2) In the quote they say "in the long run". Why would the RM's use a programme starting this year to replace newly revamped CRC/ORCS? Is the CIC programme being pushed into the future?

3) On the other-hand, Using the RN website as a source is shit. It is very likely that whoever wrote this cofused CIC as a programme including CRC replacement. The RN website says we still have vessels we do not have, that T31 will get SM-2's, e.c.t e.c.t.


https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/royal-m ... ing-craft/


https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/cn ... 0detection.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5660
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

new guy wrote: 08 Feb 2024, 19:43 This seems pretty big, Related to the ambiguous future RM programme.

From a UKDJ article talking about the ORC turning into CRC Revamp.
The CRC has three crew who rotate on long journeys but also space to launch drones, carry payloads and to store a smaller Inshore Raiding Craft to deploy on some landings if required. Crucially, this is a life extension and upgrade to the ORC and, although it is more than just a stop-gap, in the long run Commando Forces are developing a boat that will replace the ORC, CRC and larger Landing Craft Vehicle Personnel.
Many questions.

1) When anounced by Naval News of the new CIC programme, it was only a LCVP replacement project.
How does this affect What CIC will look like?

2) In the quote they say "in the long run". Why would the RM's use a programme starting this year to replace newly revamped CRC/ORCS? Is the CIC programme being pushed into the future?

3) On the other-hand, Using the RN website as a source is shit. It is very likely that whoever wrote this cofused CIC as a programme including CRC replacement. The RN website says we still have vessels we do not have, that T31 will get SM-2's, e.c.t e.c.t.


https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/royal-m ... ing-craft/


https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/cn ... 0detection.
For me the RM needs both the CRC and CIC

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5614
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

ORC is just a large RHIB, simple, light weight and high-speed. CRC is a modified ORC.

CIC is much much large LCVP replacement. I see no overlap here?
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post (total 3):
jedibeeftrixnew guywargame_insomniac

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5614
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Modified ORC, CRC is.

These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
Jackstar

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1320
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by new guy »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 09 Feb 2024, 13:22 ORC is just a large RHIB, simple, light weight and high-speed. CRC is a modified ORC.

CIC is much much large LCVP replacement. I see no overlap here?
Either LVCP characteristics no longer apply or more likely the RN Press release person screwed up, which is 90% likely.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5614
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

I think this is one way of addressing the needs for MRSS.

I do think MRSS shall be split in two classes, 2 larger MRSS (20,000t class) and 3-4 smaller MRSS (8000t class). The latter can be this type of "flat-top LPD with smallish well-dock".

Basic parameter
- Well-dock for one LCU or 4 CIC is enough.
- Vehicle deck shall be separated into two to be a helicopter hangar in front, and vehicle deck in back. And, there shall be a bit enlarged lift which can carry a Merlin from the helicopter hangar/vehicle deck.
- As UK do not have so many Merlin anyway, if the hangar can accommodate (up to) 5 Merlin, it is enough. In normal operations, it shall be 4 Merlin and 10-12 UAVs.

Three or four 8000t class MRSS will be good. One for Carribbean sea tasks, another for Gib/west-Africa or at Indo-Pacific (replacing one of the River B2 there). It will be "enough" for a Company level RM operations, while small enough to be used intensively as a (large) OPV (will be replacing the 3 River B1s (?), as the Dutch version will also replace the 4 Holland class OPVs).

Option
- it will be nice to "shift" the bridge structure outward to the starboard, to enable a thorough run-way on the top flight deck, like R-11 Príncipe de Asturias or C-551 GUISEPPE GARIBALDI.
- With some overhang, a 140 m long runway is easy, which may enable MQ-9B STOL or Mojave STOL MALE drones opearation possible. If this length is enough or not is unclear. But, when used as a UAV mother ship, the ship can move at speed towards the wind to enable shorter run-length.

Option is option, but worth considering.

These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
wargame_insomniac

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1320
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by new guy »

I post this not because I believe it is a MRSS contender, but because it is cool and for those here who love the LHD Idea.

Obviously the Enforce LHD concept isn't realistic on the hull

Note, it has 1 helipad, both the 7000 tonne and the 9000 tonne version. Not a dozen, as all the rest are about 1/2 the size and are for drones.

The smaller version the Portuguese navy has selected cost cerca ~£120m

https://www.damen.com/insights-center/n ... challenges

Image

https://www.damen.com/vessels/defence-a ... port-ships
These users liked the author new guy for the post (total 5):
Ron5Repulseserge750donald_of_tokyowargame_insomniac

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7378
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Very tasty. I wonder if the larger one could operate Sea Guardian STOL as well as the carriers.

Thanks new guy, nice spot.
These users liked the author Ron5 for the post (total 2):
new guydonald_of_tokyo

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1320
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by new guy »

Ron5 wrote: 27 Feb 2024, 16:37 Very tasty. I wonder if the larger one could operate Sea Guardian STOL as well as the carriers.

Thanks new guy, nice spot.
No Possible way on earth

Image

As seen, the ship has a beam of 20m with the island taking up a good 3rd of it. So about 12m diameter which wouldn't accomidate NH90 helicopter even if it was as far off centerline as possible, let alone safely. I believe the MQ-9B STOL has a 18m wingspan, nearly double a F-35B ( Example only, nobody start suggesting launching F-35's off what is essentially just a fancy auxiliary with hella drone spots. ) and larger then the rotor blades of NH90. Those are drone pads only. Thats even before we get to the 130m length with roll e.c.t.

Even the smaller Mojave demonstrator with a small 8 hour endurance on ISR only mode, completely unburdened, couldn't take off such a length.

Still a very interesting, capable and as you put it tasty ship, but we have to be realistic of it's capabilities.

https://www.ga-asi.com/images/products/ ... 7263sm.pdf

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4776
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Good choice for an Argus replacement
”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

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 4142
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Repulse wrote: 27 Feb 2024, 17:21 Good choice for an Argus replacement
With a one helo capacity?

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1320
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by new guy »

Repulse wrote: 27 Feb 2024, 17:21 Good choice for an Argus replacement
Not really;
First depending on what role you put it; Say it be the Aviation Support Ship Role, then it only has tight hanger for 1 Medium helicopter and 1 helipad. So absolutely not.

MRSS concept makes a lot more sense.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4776
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

new guy wrote: 27 Feb 2024, 17:28
Repulse wrote: 27 Feb 2024, 17:21 Good choice for an Argus replacement
Not really;
First depending on what role you put it; Say it be the Aviation Support Ship Role, then it only has tight hanger for 1 Medium helicopter and 1 helipad. So absolutely not.

MRSS concept makes a lot more sense.
Yes in the ASS+ role (the plus being more of the original Littoral Strike Ship concept). I was looking at it as a manned helicopter / UAV mothership - probably could support three large helicopters (one on deck, two in the forward and rear hangars) or two helicopters and three large UAVs. This, plus the boat handling would allow it to operate independently EoS for low threat / HADR operations.

Appreciate it’s not as good as the six Merlin’s on Argus but possibly affordable.
”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

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1320
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by new guy »

Repulse wrote: 27 Feb 2024, 17:42
new guy wrote: 27 Feb 2024, 17:28
Repulse wrote: 27 Feb 2024, 17:21 Good choice for an Argus replacement
Not really;
First depending on what role you put it; Say it be the Aviation Support Ship Role, then it only has tight hanger for 1 Medium helicopter and 1 helipad. So absolutely not.

MRSS concept makes a lot more sense.
Yes in the ASS+ role (the plus being more of the original Littoral Strike Ship concept). I was looking at it as a manned helicopter / UAV mothership - probably could support three large helicopters (one on deck, two in the forward and rear hangars) or two helicopters and three large UAVs. This, plus the boat handling would allow it to operate independently EoS for low threat / HADR operations.

Appreciate it’s not as good as the six Merlin’s on Argus but possibly affordable.
No, one small-medium helicopter. I doubt that the hanger could accommodate a merlin.
There is only 1 hanger. There are 2 forward tiny drone lifts to bellow deck storage with minimal ceiling height.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4776
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

new guy wrote: 27 Feb 2024, 17:55
Repulse wrote: 27 Feb 2024, 17:42
new guy wrote: 27 Feb 2024, 17:28
Repulse wrote: 27 Feb 2024, 17:21 Good choice for an Argus replacement
Not really;
First depending on what role you put it; Say it be the Aviation Support Ship Role, then it only has tight hanger for 1 Medium helicopter and 1 helipad. So absolutely not.

MRSS concept makes a lot more sense.
Yes in the ASS+ role (the plus being more of the original Littoral Strike Ship concept). I was looking at it as a manned helicopter / UAV mothership - probably could support three large helicopters (one on deck, two in the forward and rear hangars) or two helicopters and three large UAVs. This, plus the boat handling would allow it to operate independently EoS for low threat / HADR operations.

Appreciate it’s not as good as the six Merlin’s on Argus but possibly affordable.
No, one small-medium helicopter. I doubt that the hanger could accommodate a merlin.
There is only 1 hanger. There are 2 forward tiny drone lifts to bellow deck storage with minimal ceiling height.
https://media.damen.com/catalogue/defen ... s-7000.pdf

I read 15t helicopter. Also am wondering if the two UAV lifts (7x6m) could be combined to carry something larger to the >1000m2 forward bay below. It would be a single point of failure of course, but Argus only has a single aircraft lift.
”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

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7378
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

new guy wrote: 27 Feb 2024, 17:18
Ron5 wrote: 27 Feb 2024, 16:37 Very tasty. I wonder if the larger one could operate Sea Guardian STOL as well as the carriers.

Thanks new guy, nice spot.
No Possible way on earth

Image

As seen, the ship has a beam of 20m with the island taking up a good 3rd of it. So about 12m diameter which wouldn't accomidate NH90 helicopter even if it was as far off centerline as possible, let alone safely. I believe the MQ-9B STOL has a 18m wingspan, nearly double a F-35B ( Example only, nobody start suggesting launching F-35's off what is essentially just a fancy auxiliary with hella drone spots. ) and larger then the rotor blades of NH90. Those are drone pads only. Thats even before we get to the 130m length with roll e.c.t.

Even the smaller Mojave demonstrator with a small 8 hour endurance on ISR only mode, completely unburdened, couldn't take off such a length.

Still a very interesting, capable and as you put it tasty ship, but we have to be realistic of it's capabilities.

https://www.ga-asi.com/images/products/ ... 7263sm.pdf
Bummer, I'll have to wait for the 3rd or 4th size up :cry:

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1320
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by new guy »

Repulse wrote: 27 Feb 2024, 19:25

https://media.damen.com/catalogue/defen ... s-7000.pdf

I read 15t helicopter. Also am wondering if the two UAV lifts (7x6m) could be combined to carry something larger to the >1000m2 forward bay below. It would be a single point of failure of course, but Argus only has a single aircraft lift.
You can't manuver the helicopter sideways even if you did convert them into one big lift + 2 drones of that size is probably max 500kg vs 15,000kg merlin. Also a merlin folded up is 2 meters longer then the combined lifts assuming that it is the two 7 metre sides that are horizontal to the centreline

Merlin is dimensionally a bit bigger than NH90. The File says:
HELICOPTER FACILITIES
Helicopter hangar Suitable for max. one NH-90 helicopter
Also the Under-deck space for the drones certainly isn't tall enough for a helicopter especially as in says 1450 sqm of storage space which would be impossible without multiple decks as that is about 72.5m long + the 1200sqm/ 60m long mission bay area on a platform that is only 130m itself. there is the bow shape to contend with and engine areas and crew areas. So there is no hanger sized space underneath.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4776
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

new guy wrote: 27 Feb 2024, 21:24
Repulse wrote: 27 Feb 2024, 19:25

https://media.damen.com/catalogue/defen ... s-7000.pdf

I read 15t helicopter. Also am wondering if the two UAV lifts (7x6m) could be combined to carry something larger to the >1000m2 forward bay below. It would be a single point of failure of course, but Argus only has a single aircraft lift.
You can't manuver the helicopter sideways even if you did convert them into one big lift + 2 drones of that size is probably max 500kg vs 15,000kg merlin. Also a merlin folded up is 2 meters longer then the combined lifts assuming that it is the two 7 metre sides that are horizontal to the centreline

Merlin is dimensionally a bit bigger than NH90. The File says:
HELICOPTER FACILITIES
Helicopter hangar Suitable for max. one NH-90 helicopter
Also the Under-deck space for the drones certainly isn't tall enough for a helicopter especially as in says 1450 sqm of storage space which would be impossible without multiple decks as that is about 72.5m long + the 1200sqm/ 60m long mission bay area on a platform that is only 130m itself. there is the bow shape to contend with and engine areas and crew areas. So there is no hanger sized space underneath.
You are probably right, shame as I think there is merit in the design and the direction of this kind of ship for the RN as an affordable realistic flattop. Let’s see how it evolves.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
new guy
”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

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1320
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by new guy »

Repulse wrote: 27 Feb 2024, 21:58

You are probably right, shame as I think there is merit in the design and the direction of this kind of ship for the RN as an affordable realistic flattop. Let’s see how it evolves.
No worry, I didn't really put it here as an amphib flattop proposal more to show it. It is still a really cool multi role platform in it's own right.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 4142
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Ron5 wrote: 27 Feb 2024, 20:02 Bummer, I'll have to wait for the 3rd or 4th size up :cry:
How much of this is overlapping into the U.K./Dutch Amphib program and the MRSS?

Also how have Damen gone from a clean sheet to a single vessel class for less than £115m?

Taking the MPSS up to an Enforcer sized beam dimension of 26m or 28m would enable a number of interesting possibilities.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
wargame_insomniac

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1320
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by new guy »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 27 Feb 2024, 23:13
Ron5 wrote: 27 Feb 2024, 20:02 Bummer, I'll have to wait for the 3rd or 4th size up :cry:
How much of this is overlapping into the U.K./Dutch Amphib program and the MRSS?

Also how have Damen gone from a clean sheet to a single vessel class for less than £115m?

Taking the MPSS up to an Enforcer sized beam dimension of 26m or 28m would enable a number of interesting possibilities.
Don't you start, you can't add 50% width onto a hull.

Post Reply