Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

[Repulse]

If - plan goes ahead only 1 class is gonna come out of it.

Why?

Both the RN and KM have different classes today.

The obsession of a common platform is wrong, it compromises everything and introduces significant operational restrictions. It will also be more expensive overall.

A CVF + LPD + FSS is a better answer than 2 MRSSs and it will be cheaper. A LHD + FSS is also a superior option than 2 MRSSs.

The whole point is that what the RN / KM will end up with isn’t in the catalogue today, but 2 LPDs, a simple LHD and a FSS/JSBL, plus Point replacements is a good answer for the RN.

Littoral Ops would need to be from existing Frigates / OPVs and future LSVs.

[Tempest414]

If - plan goes ahead only 1 class is gonna come out of it.

Maybe the Dutch want a LHD and LPD to go with the Combat support ship they now building

[Poiuytrewq]

….what are the cons of a JLV?

In their place, nothing.

In an effort to move the debate on a little.

A few simple questions.

1. How many other nations are considering deleting their full Amphibious fleets to replace them with a class of joint logistics vessels?

2. If funding was more generous what would RN ideally like to replace the Amphibs with?

3. If the T32 is now deemed too expensive is that now resulting in a shift away from the Ellida style MRSS direction of travel to a more capable multi-role vessel? Or is RN gradually moving HMT to a split build?

4. Does it make more financial and strategic sense to split the roughly £2.5bn T32 funding between the LSV program, the Amphib replacement programme and the T31 program?

- £1.3bn for an extra three T31s
- £600m for the Amphib program
- £600m for the LSV program

If this results in:

- 3x LHDs for £2.4bn
- 3x LSDs for £1.2in
- 5+3 T31GPs for an extra £1.3bn
- 3+3 Hi-Cap OPVs as LSVs for an extra £600m

That would give RN an excellent balance without increasing spending above current planning:

2x CVFs
22x Escorts
3x LHDs
3x LSDs
3x FSS
4x Tides
5x OPVs
6x LSVs
2x MROSS

The Wave, Point, SSN replacements and survey/Ice Patrol vessels would require additional investment.

This would allow RN to have;

- One CSG permanently available.
- Two LRGs (1x LHD & 1x LSD) permanently available with the remaining LHD/LSD in maintenance/reserve.
- Four RB2’s retained in UK EEZ, 1x in Falklands
- Forward deployed Hi-Cap OPVs in Caribbean, Gibraltar, Gulf, Duqm and Singapore for maritime security, SF and HADR. Three reserved for MCM.
- All T26 retained in UK for CSG, TAPS and North Atlantic ASW.
- Three T31’s forward deployed EOS. Five retained in UK for FRE & NATO commitments etc.

IMO this is the type of fleet balance RN needs to achieve. An impressive amount of strength in depth and enough hulls to allow for a credible rate of attrition. All within current budgets/planning.

[Poiuytrewq]

I think MRSS shall be splitted into light and full.

I agree that the MRSS will be split but into Assault & Logistics rather than light and full.

I also think the T32 should be split into more T31s plus an enlarged LSV program based on a Vard 7 313 type hull.

Trying to force two requirements into one hull is sub optimal unless the hulls are supersized which isn’t cheap.

[Poiuytrewq]

If - plan goes ahead only 1 class is gonna come out of it.

Maybe the Dutch want a LHD and LPD to go with the Combat support ship they now building

That would be a fantastic capability for the Korps Mariniers.

Also a fantastic capability for NATO in the Baltic.

[Poiuytrewq]

A flat top design might help with launching UAV's but for me flat top is a nice to have, not an essential.

Once those maritime MALE drones start operating from the LHD flight decks of smaller navies everything will change overnight. Especially if stealth technology is incorporated.

Those navies that invested in LHDs will rapidly adapt. Those navies that invested in LPDs will need to find new solutions.

[SW1]

….what are the cons of a JLV?

In their place, nothing.

In an effort to move the debate on a little.

A few simple questions.

1. How many other nations are considering deleting their full Amphibious fleets to replace them with a class of joint logistics vessels?

2. If funding was more generous what would RN ideally like to replace the Amphibs with?

3. If the T32 is now deemed too expensive is that now resulting in a shift away from the Ellida style MRSS direction of travel to a more capable multi-role vessel? Or is RN gradually moving HMT to a split build?

4. Does it make more financial and strategic sense to split the roughly £2.5bn T32 funding between the LSV program, the Amphib replacement programme and the T31 program?

1. The one with its head in the sand chasing a super carrier dream on a non super budget

2. Who knows they don’t consider the amphibious forces a priority

3. Who knows it’s has had issues in the past coming to a conclusion on the direction of
Frigate replacement travel

4. Does it make more strategic and financial sense to bias funding away from the surface fleet to the submarine fleet?


For every pound you wish to spend adding ships to the current numbers the RN operate they need to spend 3 on manpower, maintenance facilities and weapons to crew, operate and arm them. If you want a bigger navy where in the mod budget is the costs coming from to do it?

[Tempest414]

If we say the RN were looking at 5 Type 32 with a crew of 120 per ship = 600 crew we could have 3 Type 31's = 360 and 4 105m OPV's with 60 crew = 240 crew there by giving the RN 7 hulls in the water for the same money and crew as 5

[Tempest414]

For me the Amphib fleet needs to be capable of global operations and with the speed at which UAV's , USV's and UUV's are growing and coming on line the LHD is becoming more and more in to focus

1) large flight deck and hangar capable of operating MALE drones , heavy lift drones and helicopters
2) well dock capable of operating Land craft , xuuv , usv's
3) Large vehicle deck capable of carrying lot of kit
4 ) good troop numbers

[Repulse]

For every pound you wish to spend adding ships to the current numbers the RN operate they need to spend 3 on manpower, maintenance facilities and weapons to crew, operate and arm them. If you want a bigger navy where in the mod budget is the costs coming from to do it?

This is a key point and my view is that the RN and RFA will not get significant increases in manpower given the expected budget levels and the need to increase pay, conditions and things like housing standards. Any plans should assume probably a fair (but not easy to achieve) assumption that numbers will remain as is.

Given the pressures on the RFA, I think it’s highly likely that the crew from the three Bays will need to go on running the second and third FSS (let alone the 2nd MROSS). The crew assigned to RFA Argus is probably the limit.

Equally, aside from the crew from the active LPD and skeleton crew (@60?) from the inactive LPD then I can’t see any additional crew coming from the RN either given the objective to crew both CVFs, escorts (though 24 does seem a pipe dream) and other OPV/LSV etc assets.

That in my book makes it @400 RN and @120 RFA

[Repulse]

That in my book makes it @400 RN and @120 RFA

Ignoring the FAA for now:

Rotterdam LPD: 130 crew
Mistral LHD: 160 crew
Combat Support Ship Den Helder: 75 crew

So probably at a stretch a LHD, 2 LPDs and a Support Ship is a reasonable fit.

[Scimitar54]

[/quote]

1. The one with its head in the sand chasing a super carrier dream on a non super budget

4. Does it make more strategic and financial sense to bias funding away from the surface fleet to the submarine fleet?

Silly little RAF man, no one but no one in UK defense has ever claimed the QE's are equivalent to the US carriers.

And the UK is already spending more on submarines than the rest of the fleet.

Your idea of a frigate navy with a slack handful of submarines is totally deluded and runs contrary to very other major navy in the world. Grow up.

[wargame_insomniac]

If - plan goes ahead only 1 class is gonna come out of it.

And that is a mistake given that RN have two completely separate requirements:
1) Large amphib for LRG (N) and LRG (S) to eventually replace Argus and the Albions.
2) Small amphib for rest of FCF with smaller scale dispersed RM Commando raiding parties.

[wargame_insomniac]

A flat top design might help with launching UAV's but for me flat top is a nice to have, not an essential.

Once those maritime MALE drones start operating from the LHD flight decks of smaller navies everything will change overnight. Especially if stealth technology is incorporated.

Those navies that invested in LHDs will rapidly adapt. Those navies that invested in LPDs will need to find new solutions.

How long a flight deck do we need for the type of UAV's that we are talking about?
Are we expecting said UAV's to take off unassisted, with a ski-ramp or with the dreaded phrase Cats and Traps? I say dreaded because there will be some that will NOT read that we are talking about UAVs and starting going on and on at length about not needing mini carriers!!

The point I am trying to make is that a flat top purely for UAVs is probably going to be way smaller than say a Wasp Class or even an America Class LHA.

[wargame_insomniac]

If we say the RN were looking at 5 Type 32 with a crew of 120 per ship = 600 crew we could have 3 Type 31's = 360 and 4 105m OPV's with 60 crew = 240 crew there by giving the RN 7 hulls in the water for the same money and crew as 5

NOT relevant to the Amphib thread!!

[Tempest414]

If we say the RN were looking at 5 Type 32 with a crew of 120 per ship = 600 crew we could have 3 Type 31's = 360 and 4 105m OPV's with 60 crew = 240 crew there by giving the RN 7 hulls in the water for the same money and crew as 5

NOT relevant to the Amphib thread!!

You are not a MOD if you don't like report it or just skip over it and move on there is loads I don't like

[Poiuytrewq]

For every pound you wish to spend adding ships to the current numbers the RN operate they need to spend 3 on manpower, maintenance facilities and weapons to crew, operate and arm them. If you want a bigger navy where in the mod budget is the costs coming from to do it?

What am I proposing that RN isn’t currently aiming towards?

1. RN is planning two active CVFs - I am proposing one active CVF at any one time.

2. RN is planning 18x Frigates - I am proposing 16x Frigates.

3. RN is planning 6x active MRSS - I am proposing 3x LHD & 3x LSD with 2x LHD and 2x LSD active at any one time.

4. RN has or is planning 11x OPVs/LSVs - I am proposing 11x OPVs/LSVs.

What I am proposing is not more expensive, it does not require a vast increase in headcount and the maintenance will be ballpark similar. What it would be is more lethal and much harder to defeat. It would also allow RN to surge to a much larger, more capable force if required.

RN needs to invest further in SSNs, Auxiliaries and Ice Patrol vessels and the RAF need to double their P8 numbers but that is where any extra funding should be directed rather than deleting core requirements to achieve it.

[SW1]

For every pound you wish to spend adding ships to the current numbers the RN operate they need to spend 3 on manpower, maintenance facilities and weapons to crew, operate and arm them. If you want a bigger navy where in the mod budget is the costs coming from to do it?

What am I proposing that RN isn’t currently aiming towards?

1. RN is planning two active CVFs - I am proposing one active CVF at any one time.

2. RN is planning 18x Frigates - I am proposing 16x Frigates.

3. RN is planning 6x active MRSS - I am proposing 3x LHD & 3x LSD with 2x LHD and 2x LSD active at any one time.

4. RN has or is planning 11x OPVs/LSVs - I am proposing 11x OPVs/LSVs.

What I am proposing is not more expensive, it does not require a vast increase in headcount and the maintenance will be ballpark similar. What it would be is more lethal and much harder to defeat. It would also allow RN to surge to a much larger, more capable force if required.

RN needs to invest further in SSNs, Auxiliaries and Ice Patrol vessels and the RAF need to double their P8 numbers but that is where any extra funding should be directed rather than deleting core requirements to achieve it.

Where you not proposed this?


That would give RN an excellent balance without increasing spending above current planning:

2x CVFs
22x Escorts
3x LHDs
3x LSDs
3x FSS
4x Tides
5x OPVs
6x LSVs
2x MROSS

The RN has yet been unable to crew 2 active carriers 4 years after introducing them, the RN has been unable to crew 14 escort for the past decade, it has been unable to run 2 lpds for nearly two decades. The RFA is unable to crew 4 tankers and a single stores vessel at present.

It is losing people faster than it can recruit them at an accelerating rate and it has cut RM headcount.

It has not proposed LHDs or LSDs and is talking about some sort of multi role ship it has yet to define. It has left the silos of its current vessels empty and procrastinated to initiate an anti ship missile replacement program for over 6 years preferring instead to gap the capability. Base and training facilities are antiquated and in need of modernisation.

If you’re now proposing 1 carrier and one mothballed and 16 escorts is that the 8 type 26 and 5 type 31 in that number or different and 3 type 45? If that’s the trade off for you 3 LHDs ok.

I don’t see how you crew the lsds along with 3 stores ships without diverting money from equipment to personnel.

I would make submarines priority 1 above all else especially if we are planning a more defined posture in the pacific but I understand that’s a choice I would make rather than others.

[serge750]

1. RN is planning two active CVFs - I am proposing one active CVF at any one time.

Why would they do this? Put a LPD against each and you have something better and we’d be saving money.

Having a CVF deployable at short notice has to be a cornerstone of making UKs conventional forces credible, both need to be active, we just need to be clever.

As I said above if money allows a cheap French style LHD for EoS makes sense, but that’s it.

[new guy]

6 LPD. Argue with me.

[Poiuytrewq]

How long a flight deck do we need for the type of UAV's that we are talking about?

I would keep them in 200m class like the proposed MRSS. As a very basic outline something along the lines of a Juan Carlos/Canberra style design reduced to 200m by shrinking the floodable dock 30m making it capable of embarking 2x LCUs rather than 4x LCUs. The result would be a vessel similar in dimensions to Ocean but with a small floodable dock. It may however just be cheaper to keep the Navantia/H&W partnership going and build two basic Canberra class. As the design is fully mature and in the water it could be a very cost effective option.

I would build the LSD as a 200m bridge forward Enforcer much like the original FSS concept but optimised for logistics. Effectively a modernised Bay class.

Are we expecting said UAV's to take off unassisted, with a ski-ramp or with the dreaded phrase Cats and Traps?

Completely unassisted but a ski ramp won’t change the cost much one way or the other.

I say dreaded because there will be some that will NOT read that we are talking about UAVs and starting going on and on at length about not needing mini carriers!!

The future is flat tops so there is going to be a lot of mini carriers eventually. The difference with the next-gen Amphibs is they should not be designed to operate F35. That’s were the cost would double overnight.

The point I am trying to make is that a flat top purely for UAVs is probably going to be way smaller than say a Wasp Class or even an America Class LHA.

Its a totally different class of vessel. The LOA or displacement are not the determining factors.

Comparing an America Class LHA with a drone optimised LHD (DO-LHD) is like comparing a patrol Frigate with a Type 26. It’s not a serious comparison.

The costs involved are also totally different but none of these vessels are cheap to operate or maintain. Exactly the reason one of the Albions was mothballed to save cash and why the LPDs are always on the chopping block. They are very expensive to operate but they also do things nothing else can.

The DO-LHD will be able to do things LPDs can’t and that is the reason RN need to be forward thinking here. LRG(N) could just as easily hunt submarines in the North Atlantic or the Med with helos and MALE drones as part of a NATO group as it can host the FCF doing what RM do best on the Norwegian coast or in the Baltic.

A multipurpose design is crucial whereby spaces can be utilised in different ways depending on the requirements of the deployment. In this regard the Juan Carlos class is superior to the Mistral which is a design I can’t get excited about.

Just my opinion.

[Poiuytrewq]

If you’re now proposing 1 carrier and one mothballed and 16 escorts is that the 8 type 26 and 5 type 31 in that number or different and 3 type 45? If that’s the trade off for you 3 LHDs ok.

I am not proposing mothballing anything.

Having one CVF available at any one time is a reasonable strategy for the UK to pursue. Having both at sea only for short periods or in a maximum effort scenario is just being realistic. Look at the activity levels over the last two years and more extensive refits are now going to start happening on a regular basis in the not too distant future.

The crewing model on the escorts needs to be as flexible as possible especially when the maintenance cycles start kicking in. Moving entire crews from vessel to vessel as necessary should be normal. RN is going to have to get as much as possible from the limited headcount.

Why would they do this? Put a LPD against each and you have something better and we’d be saving money.

Do you mean a CVF/LPD rather than LHD/LSD?

The idea the PWLS can be operated as a LPH and save money is completely bonkers. I know it’s been used as a justification for years but it’s just not credible. Even as an LHA it’s a stretch. The UK just doesn’t have the F35s without compromising the CSG which must be the absolute priority.

The crew allocation alone for PWLS and Albion is over 1100. A LHD/LSD would be less than 400 plus the FCF. That a massive difference.

The CVFs should be operated as a credible CSG and operate where needed to make a real difference. Many countries would like a CSG capability and we have one but expecting PWLS to masquerade as an LPH to keep the crew busy is a colossal waste of precious resources.

….we just need to be clever.

That is exactly what I am proposing. The most efficient use of resources to achieve the highest possible outcome.

[Repulse]

Do you mean a CVF/LPD rather than LHD/LSD?

The idea the PWLS can be operated as a LPH and save money is completely bonkers. I know it’s been used as a justification for years but it’s just not credible. Even as an LHA it’s a stretch. The UK just doesn’t have the F35s without compromising the CSG which must be the absolute priority.

The crew allocation alone for PWLS and Albion is over 1100. A LHD/LSD would be less than 400 plus the FCF. That a massive difference.

The CVFs should be operated as a credible CSG and operate where needed to make a real difference. Many countries would like a CSG capability and we have one but expecting PWLS to masquerade as an LPH to keep the crew busy is a colossal waste of precious resources.

CVF + LPD as part of a ESF. LSDs are irrelevant to the RMs given the expected new FCF raid focus, more important for the Army, but even the doesn’t seem a priority.

The CVF is capable of operating a Cdo Company probably two without modification.

Yes a CVF + LPD are more manpower intensive, but putting aside HADR and COIN which are less of a priority for the RN, real power projection is needed.

To ensure that CEPP is a reality both CVFs need to be active, moving resources to resource hungry is both unnecessary and risking this priority capability. Combined CSG and Amphibious Ops is a keep string to CEPPs bow.

[Poiuytrewq]

CVF + LPD as part of a ESF. LSDs are irrelevant to the RMs given the expected new FCF raid focus,

That is the exact definition of using PWLS as an LPH.

The FCF was going to be deployed by a £150m FLSS commercial conversion only a couple of years ago and now a 65,000t £3bn CVF plus LPD is required. There is also zero chance PWLS will be unescorted and a Tide plus FSS may also be required if it is operating EoS.

How can RN possibly justify the use of such resources for a FCF raid?

[new guy]

CVF + LPD as part of a ESF. LSDs are irrelevant to the RMs given the expected new FCF raid focus,

That is the exact definition of using PWLS as an LPH.

The FCF was going to be deployed by a £150m FLSS commercial conversion only a couple of years ago and now a 65,000t £3bn CVF plus LPD is required. There is also zero chance PWLS will be unescorted and a Tide plus FSS may also be required if it is operating EoS.

How can RN possibly justify the use of such resources for a FCF raid?

Exactly. ESG is CSG+LSG, not the usage of a carrier as an LPD. It provides air-cover.
The Royal Navy plans 2 LRG / 1 LSG.
Per each that is 2 amphibious assets + 2 escorts + 2 ALV.
6 of each.
So the focus should be of 6 LPD before 3 LHD.