Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

[Poiuytrewq]

Thank you. Your views are clear.

So how do you see it working?

• The T32 and MRSS remain unfunded. The steel needs to be cut if the first T32 in 2026 or the drumbeat is lost at Rosyth.

• RN has no crew for the current active LPD.

• RN has no spare crew for the 5x T32.

• The RFA have only got the crew for 4x MRSS at most.

• The RFA have no crew for the 3x FSS

• Without the T32 class RN has insufficient escorts to cover current commitments with zero chance of forming two independent CSGs even for a short period.

Current planning is a mess. Better options exist.

[sol]

Thank you. Your views are clear.

So how do you see it working?

• The T32 and MRSS remain unfunded. The steel needs to be cut if the first T32 in 2026 or the drumbeat is lost at Rosyth.

• RN has no crew for the current active LPD.

• RN has no spare crew for the 5x T32.

• The RFA have only got the crew for 4x MRSS at most.

• The RFA have no crew for the 3x FSS

• Without the T32 class RN has insufficient escorts to cover current commitments with zero chance of forming two independent CSGs even for a short period.

Current planning is a mess. Better options exist.

Honestly I don't know. Lot of these things depend on politicians as after all, they are the one who are deciding budget. UK armed force as whole have a lot of requirements but there is just not enough money for everything and either some requirements would need to be rethink/scale down or just go completely, or more money should be provided.

Manpower is another problem, which could not be just solved trough reduction of the ship crews. For example you can reduce ship crew from 150 to 50, which will help for a time, but if there are further reduction in manpower, problems in both recruiting new and keeping old hands, that problem is not solved but just moved away for couple of years. But it will help for a while.

Getting large LHD will have both issue, manpower too but primarily money. If RN has to choose between more escorts and one or two small carriers it would probably go with escorts ships as it would get more for the same value. After all one carrier should always be available for air tasks, at least air cover and support, if such is required.

I personally would like to see RN operate LHD again. All those previously operated by RN, old HMS Albion (R07) and HMS Bulwark (R08) and HMS Ocean were very useful for the RN. LSG with one LHD and one LPD would be great, but I just don't see how RN could afford this without significant increase in budget. It is oblivious that even getting those essential things like new destroyers and more frigates will be struggle so how could someone justify adding super large LHD on top of that.

But if there is a chance to get LHD, it is more probably that it would be something like Mistral class. It would be cheaper, it would require less men both sailors (160 - 180 on Mistral class) and aircrews. I don't see why it would need to operate F-35B too, yes it would be great but is it really necessary considering price needs to payed for that? Getting something like Mistral would already be a great thing for RN IMO, but I don't that even that is very likely to happen.

[Tempest414]

So in real terms we are down to replacing the 3 Bay's and Argus so we really need to thinking in these terms and so as said for me we need to be looking at a class of ships that are 200 to 210 meters by 32 to 36 meters they need to be flat tops to allow helicopters and Male drone like TB3 to operate we need to forget F-35 ops we have 2 x CV's for this they need to have a well dock for upto 2 LCU type craft plus davits for 4 CIC.

We need to be looking at a crew of 140 plus 500 pax's for air-wing and Troops

We also need to think in terms of having 2 x deployed 1 x held at 30 days and 1 in maintenance / refit

[Poiuytrewq]

…we are down to replacing the 3 Bay's and Argus….

I’m not sure it’s that simple.

Given the rest of the fleet is being shredded to operate both CVFs concurrently what is being gained by doing so?

Operating the second vessel as a LPH isn’t a rational argument so what is the second CVF actually achieving?

[sol]

... class of ships that are 200 to 210 meters by 32 to 36 meters they need to be flat tops to allow helicopters and Male drone like TB3 ...

UK is not getting TB3, and I do not understand why would any new RM ship would need to operate such drones. Again would be nice to have but to choose a ship based on could it launch male drone does not sound like priority requirement. If you can launch helicopters, why just not use AH-64 for recce and strike? If there is a risk for helicopter and recce is required, there are other drones that could provide that like Schiebel S-100 Camcopter which RN already selected. If there is chance of strong resistance than just send CV to support it.

[Repulse]

Thank you. Your views are clear.

So how do you see it working?

• The T32 and MRSS remain unfunded. The steel needs to be cut if the first T32 in 2026 or the drumbeat is lost at Rosyth.

• RN has no crew for the current active LPD.

• RN has no spare crew for the 5x T32.

• The RFA have only got the crew for 4x MRSS at most.

• The RFA have no crew for the 3x FSS

• Without the T32 class RN has insufficient escorts to cover current commitments with zero chance of forming two independent CSGs even for a short period.

Current planning is a mess. Better options exist.

Agree with all of this - something big has to change, and carrying on as-is will keep the RN in its death spiral. We need to stop talking about more ships and submarines when the RN & RFA can’t operate what we have.

The reality is however that there is zero chance of radical action before the election.

[Repulse]

I personally would like to see RN operate LHD again. All those previously operated by RN, old HMS Albion (R07) and HMS Bulwark (R08) and HMS Ocean were very useful for the RN.

Just to confirm we are talking about the same things - the RN has never operated a LHD. HMS Ocean was a LPH, the old Albion and Bulwark were light carriers that were converted to be Commando carriers (LPHs before that was a term).

[sol]

Just to confirm we are talking about the same things - the RN has never operated a LHD. HMS Ocean was a LPH, the old Albion and Bulwark were light carriers that were converted to be Commando carriers (LPHs before that was a term).

Yes I was talking about old Commando carriers. And yes you are right all those are LPH. If I am not wrong Atlantico (HMS Ocean) in the last one operational in the World. LHA and LHD are taking their roles now.

[Repulse]

Just to confirm we are talking about the same things - the RN has never operated a LHD. HMS Ocean was a LPH, the old Albion and Bulwark were light carriers that were converted to be Commando carriers (LPHs before that was a term).

Yes I was talking about old Commando carriers. And yes you are right all those are LPH. If I am not wrong Atlantico (HMS Ocean) in the last one operational in the World. LHA and LHD are taking their roles now.

Thanks - LHA is a US term, basically IMO a LPH on steroids, but without a well dock - e.g USS America or I would argue a CVF in an amphibious assault configuration. A LHD obviously has a dock but is less optimised for the aviation part of its role, typically with a shared hangar / mission deck.

[Repulse]

…we are down to replacing the 3 Bay's and Argus….

I’m not sure it’s that simple.

Given the rest of the fleet is being shredded to operate both CVFs concurrently what is being gained by doing so?

Operating the second vessel as a LPH isn’t a rational argument so what is the second CVF actually achieving?

I disagree, only operating a CVF in a LPH role isn’t rational, however this isn’t a CVFs only role, it can equally do carrier strike, sea control and a hybrid LHA (amphibious assault) role. If the shit hit the fan then both CVFs, one in carrier strike mode and the other in LPH mode is a fantastic combination.

I would say the LHA mode would be a natural default configuration for a CVF. This for me is something in the region of a sqd of 8-12 F35s, 6 AEW/ASW Merlins, 8 Commando Merlins, 3 Chinooks and 4 Wildcats, plus two companies of RMs.

[sol]

Thanks - LHA is a US term, basically IMO a LPH on steroids, but without a well dock - e.g USS America or I would argue a CVF in an amphibious assault configuration. A LHD obviously has a dock but is less optimised for the aviation part of its role, typically with a shared hangar / mission deck.

Yes, basically all those are more or less US terms. USS America and USS Tripoli are basically small aircraft carriers for US Marines, the rest of the class will get well deck. And yes, UK could use their CVs in the same role if needed.

[Tempest414]

... class of ships that are 200 to 210 meters by 32 to 36 meters they need to be flat tops to allow helicopters and Male drone like TB3 ...

UK is not getting TB3, and I do not understand why would any new RM ship would need to operate such drones. Again would be nice to have but to choose a ship based on could it launch male drone does not sound like priority requirement. If you can launch helicopters, why just not use AH-64 for recce and strike? If there is a risk for helicopter and recce is required, there are other drones that could provide that like Schiebel S-100 Camcopter which RN already selected. If there is chance of strong resistance than just send CV to support it.

I have highlighted word like but I agree Peregrine UAV is a good start and I believe should be on all Escorts and OPV's it would also be a good start on any MRSS however there endurance is 5 hours at 100km from the ship where as a Male drone like TB3 would be 20+ hours at 150km armed this said the new S-300 can do 18 hours at 100kms . Apache has its place mainly at the strike end but it would cost 3 x or more as much as a drone for recce

all this aside it dose not change the need for MRSS to be a Flat top as the need to operate upto 6 helicopters plus say 4 drones at the same time to move 4 x strike teams plus there MRZR's

[Tempest414]

Just to confirm we are talking about the same things - the RN has never operated a LHD. HMS Ocean was a LPH, the old Albion and Bulwark were light carriers that were converted to be Commando carriers (LPHs before that was a term).

Yes I was talking about old Commando carriers. And yes you are right all those are LPH. If I am not wrong Atlantico (HMS Ocean) in the last one operational in the World. LHA and LHD are taking their roles now.

No the Hyūga-class are LPH's in real terms as were the Izumo-class before they were converted into full light carriers

[SW1]

[quote=Repulse post_id=165566

I would say the LHA mode would be a natural default configuration for a CVF. This for me is something in the region of a sqd of 8-12 F35s, 6 AEW/ASW Merlins, 8 Commando Merlins, 3 Chinooks and 4 Wildcats, plus two companies of RMs.
[/quote]

The problem you have with this default position is other than the chinook that is probably very close for the rest of being the entire fleet available for deployment so it would be difficult to rotate it using a second ship or sending it again quite quickly after it came back particularly the Merlin’s.

[sol]

No the Hyūga-class are LPH's in real terms as were the Izumo-class before they were converted into full light carriers

Hmmm ... not sure about that. Yes it is helicopter carrier, but Hyuga class is primary ASW platform, and not intended as an amphibious ships, which L in LPH is suggesting. But it could support amphibious operations so you can kind of say it is. So not sure.

[Tempest414]

No the Hyūga-class are LPH's in real terms as were the Izumo-class before they were converted into full light carriers

Hmmm ... not sure about that. Yes it is helicopter carrier, but Hyuga class is primary ASW platform, and not intended as an amphibious ships, which L in LPH is suggesting. But it could support amphibious operations so you can kind of say it is. So not sure.

From what I can see the new term to cover LPH , LHA and LHD is Assault Carrier

[Repulse]

I would say the LHA mode would be a natural default configuration for a CVF. This for me is something in the region of a sqd of 8-12 F35s, 6 AEW/ASW Merlins, 8 Commando Merlins, 3 Chinooks and 4 Wildcats, plus two companies of RMs.

The problem you have with this default position is other than the chinook that is probably very close for the rest of being the entire fleet available for deployment so it would be difficult to rotate it using a second ship or sending it again quite quickly after it came back particularly the Merlin’s.

I should have put AH1 Wildcats, but you are spot on with the Merlin’s. I guess a more realistic number to be regularly deployed would be 3 AEW Merlins and 4 CHF Merlins, relying on the T23/T26 ASW Merlins, unless the focus of the CSG is sea control where a surge of ASW Merlins would be possible.

What it highlights is that there are not enough to spread to the four winds (across multiple LRGs) and the need to bring into service new unmanned platforms for ASW / AEW roles, plus a new CHF platform. I think not tying the Puma replacement to this is a mistake - we should be looking for a future platform (possibly tilt-rotor) that can operate for land or sea. I will not be popular, but why not an Army owned common pool that can be allocated to the RMs & carriers (like the F35b)?

[Poiuytrewq]

I disagree, only operating a CVF in a LPH role isn’t rational, however this isn’t a CVFs only role, it can equally do carrier strike, sea control and a hybrid LHA (amphibious assault) role. If the shit hit the fan then both CVFs, one in carrier strike mode and the other in LPH mode is a fantastic combination.

Absolutely and every navy in the world would have such a fantastic combination if it could be afforded but most don’t because it isn’t affordable.

With the hugely expensive SSN and SSBN commitments it’s becoming increasingly apparent that RN can’t afford to operate both CVFs concurrently at 2.2% GDP. The fleet balance is being obliterated to find the crews. IMO it’s starting to look a bit unsustainable and an unfriendly SDSR may swing the axe.

I would say the LHA mode would be a natural default configuration for a CVF. This for me is something in the region of a sqd of 8-12 F35s, 6 AEW/ASW Merlins, 8 Commando Merlins, 3 Chinooks and 4 Wildcats, plus two companies of RMs.

So if the LPDs are toast surely this is totally insufficient. A couple of companies of RM against a peer is not going to move the dial very much.

The ambition must be to start to revert to a pre2010 level of mass.

The LRGs operating with one or two companies from a couple of auxiliaries is a good idea as a forward based capability. What follows on to reinforce must be much larger and more capable and not necessarily a RM only group.

Re-establishing old priorities could be very embarrassing considering the direction of travel in recent years.

[SW1]

I would say the LHA mode would be a natural default configuration for a CVF. This for me is something in the region of a sqd of 8-12 F35s, 6 AEW/ASW Merlins, 8 Commando Merlins, 3 Chinooks and 4 Wildcats, plus two companies of RMs.

The problem you have with this default position is other than the chinook that is probably very close for the rest of being the entire fleet available for deployment so it would be difficult to rotate it using a second ship or sending it again quite quickly after it came back particularly the Merlin’s.

I should have put AH1 Wildcats, but you are spot on with the Merlin’s. I guess a more realistic number to be regularly deployed would be 3 AEW Merlins and 4 CHF Merlins, relying on the T23/T26 ASW Merlins, unless the focus of the CSG is sea control where a surge of ASW Merlins would be possible.

What it highlights is that there are not enough to spread to the four winds (across multiple LRGs) and the need to bring into service new unmanned platforms for ASW / AEW roles, plus a new CHF platform. I think not tying the Puma replacement to this is a mistake - we should be looking for a future platform (possibly tilt-rotor) that can operate for land or sea. I will not be popular, but why not an Army owned common pool that can be allocated to the RMs & carriers (like the F35b)?

There is not enough helicopters to go round multiple groups nor is there capacity to operate two carriers simultaneously. The problem gets worse if the carrier is separate as there is a csar requirement that draws on the same limited helicopter pool.

The problem with tiltrotor is the numbers will go down so they will be in and out not a sustained deployment.


If you look at how the marines are going to 12 man teams, then deploying them as dismounted 12 man team is a Puma esq helicopter role, deploying them as 12 man team with light tactical vehicles is a chinook job. They currently have neither.


There “new” role is best utilised in conjunction with a brigade with long range fires. I don’t see where the uk brigade comes from that supports them in the north and artic because the terrain demands a amphibious style brigade, nor in east of suez operations so I assume it’s an allied country’s formation. But what happens if there is a national requirement as 3 command brigade was that national brigade which is now gone.

[Repulse]

I disagree, only operating a CVF in a LPH role isn’t rational, however this isn’t a CVFs only role, it can equally do carrier strike, sea control and a hybrid LHA (amphibious assault) role. If the shit hit the fan then both CVFs, one in carrier strike mode and the other in LPH mode is a fantastic combination.

Absolutely and every navy in the world would have such a fantastic combination if it could be afforded but most don’t because it isn’t affordable.

With the hugely expensive SSN and SSBN commitments it’s becoming increasingly apparent that RN can’t afford to operate both CVFs concurrently at 2.2% GDP. The fleet balance is being obliterated to find the crews. IMO it’s starting to look a bit unsustainable and an unfriendly SDSR may swing the axe.

The fleet is only imbalanced if it’s not meeting its requirements. If the surface fleet focus was on ASW in the North Atlantic and supporting two globally deployable CSGs (typically one deployed / ready to deploy, but ability to surge two) with perhaps one frigate EoS, then it can be supported by 17-19 escorts, assuming they are the right ones. This is affordable, but means 2 LSGs and 24 escorts is not, which is ok.

I would say the LHA mode would be a natural default configuration for a CVF. This for me is something in the region of a sqd of 8-12 F35s, 6 AEW/ASW Merlins, 8 Commando Merlins, 3 Chinooks and 4 Wildcats, plus two companies of RMs.

So if the LPDs are toast surely this is totally insufficient. A couple of companies of RM against a peer is not going to move the dial very much.

The ambition must be to start to revert to a pre2010 level of mass.

The LRGs operating with one or two companies from a couple of auxiliaries is a good idea as a forward based capability. What follows on to reinforce must be much larger and more capable and not necessarily a RM only group.

Re-establishing old priorities could be very embarrassing considering the direction of travel in recent years.

It goes back to what is the ambition. If the UK has turned its back the ability to deploy large scale ground forces globally, which I believe it has, then there is not requirement. We are not invading a peer, nor will we be providing large scale ground forces to allies against one (perhaps with the exception of forward basing a brigade in the Nordics) - there are other regional countries better suited for this capability. However, having effectively another string to our “strike” bow of being able to deploy 500+ elite forces OTH from sea or land sovereign bases is a significant capability that is valuable both to the UK and our allies.

[Repulse]

There is not enough helicopters to go round multiple groups nor is there capacity to operate two carriers simultaneously. The problem gets worse if the carrier is separate as there is a csar requirement that draws on the same limited helicopter pool.

Would argue that yes you could operate two, but realistically only as part of a short term surge, and then only if one is in strike mode and the other is acting as a LPH.

The problem with tiltrotor is the numbers will go down so they will be in and out not a sustained deployment.

If you look at how the marines are going to 12 man teams, then deploying them as dismounted 12 man team is a Puma esq helicopter role, deploying them as 12 man team with light tactical vehicles is a chinook job. They currently have neither.

Commonality makes a lot of sense and I understand the plans to be to acquire light tactical vehicles - these have to be a priority.

There “new” role is best utilised in conjunction with a brigade with long range fires. I don’t see where the uk brigade comes from that supports them in the north and artic because the terrain demands a amphibious style brigade, nor in east of suez operations so I assume it’s an allied country’s formation. But what happens if there is a national requirement as 3 command brigade was that national brigade which is now gone.

Forget anything Brigade size outside of NATO, and even then I can only see it as part of JEF in the Nordics. I would agree with your amphibious style brigade, but only as a forward based force and as we’ve discussed previously IMO that is not the same requirement as needing to sail a force thousands of miles across the sea, and the focus should be on a fleet of smaller landing craft. I do think this is the opportunity for the Army to step up alongside a RM Cdo.

[SW1]

There is not enough helicopters to go round multiple groups nor is there capacity to operate two carriers simultaneously. The problem gets worse if the carrier is separate as there is a csar requirement that draws on the same limited helicopter pool.

Would argue that yes you could operate two, but realistically only as part of a short term surge, and then only if one is in strike mode and the other is acting as a LPH.

The problem with tiltrotor is the numbers will go down so they will be in and out not a sustained deployment.

If you look at how the marines are going to 12 man teams, then deploying them as dismounted 12 man team is a Puma esq helicopter role, deploying them as 12 man team with light tactical vehicles is a chinook job. They currently have neither.

Commonality makes a lot of sense and I understand the plans to be to acquire light tactical vehicles - these have to be a priority.

There “new” role is best utilised in conjunction with a brigade with long range fires. I don’t see where the uk brigade comes from that supports them in the north and artic because the terrain demands a amphibious style brigade, nor in east of suez operations so I assume it’s an allied country’s formation. But what happens if there is a national requirement as 3 command brigade was that national brigade which is now gone.

Forget anything Brigade size outside of NATO, and even then I can only see it as part of JEF in the Nordics. I would agree with your amphibious style brigade, but only as a forward based force and as we’ve discussed previously IMO that is not the same requirement as needing to sail a force thousands of miles across the sea, and the focus should be on a fleet of smaller landing craft. I do think this is the opportunity for the Army to step up alongside a RM Cdo.

If you want to go down the route of we don’t have a national requirement to deploy a brigade outside of nato you don’t need to deploy brigade support sized aviation outside of nato and that includes fastjets.

If you don’t need to sail a force across the sea but fwd base it instead where do u fwd base it? Say u fwd base it in Norway but the incursion comes north of Helsinki what do you do then?

[Repulse]

If you want to go down the route of we don’t have a national requirement to deploy a brigade outside of nato you don’t need to deploy brigade support sized aviation outside of nato and that includes fastjets.

Disagree, if you want to strike OTH, at speed and at a scale of @500 elite troops then the size of the aviation force needs to match. The ability to be able to strike from sea (or land) is a valuable capability, even if you have no intention to put boots on the ground for a larger engagement.

If you don’t need to sail a force across the sea but fwd base it instead where do u fwd base it? Say u fwd base it in Norway but the incursion comes north of Helsinki what do you do then?

Camp Viking is in Øverbygd in the North of Norway and whilst it has a very harsh climate it’s probably the optimal location given its is a likely area of conflict. If as you suggest the Russians attacked in Finland, the best option would be to move by land south, rather than sea.

[Poiuytrewq]

It goes back to what is the ambition. If the UK has turned its back the ability to deploy large scale ground forces globally, which I believe it has, then there is not requirement.

So following that direction of travel results in what exactly? An army specialising in small groups of elite troops and SF?

A British Army focused on training other nations armies?

Perhaps it’s now the role of the British Army to turn up in the nick of time and command other nations armies? How long will it be before other nations start to say “no thanks”?

None of that a serious strategy for a country spending over £50bn per annum on defence?

It’s sounds more like a strategy that prioritises all the sexy bits and leaves others to do the heavy lifting.

It’s unsustainable post Feb22.

[SW1]

If you want to go down the route of we don’t have a national requirement to deploy a brigade outside of nato you don’t need to deploy brigade support sized aviation outside of nato and that includes fastjets.

Disagree, if you want to strike OTH, at speed and at a scale of @500 elite troops then the size of the aviation force needs to match. The ability to be able to strike from sea (or land) is a valuable capability, even if you have no intention to put boots on the ground for a larger engagement.

If you don’t need to sail a force across the sea but fwd base it instead where do u fwd base it? Say u fwd base it in Norway but the incursion comes north of Helsinki what do you do then?

Camp Viking is in Øverbygd in the North of Norway and whilst it has a very harsh climate it’s probably the optimal location given its is a likely area of conflict. If as you suggest the Russians attacked in Finland, the best option would be to move by land south, rather than sea.

So that scale for the 500 would be what about half the size of the aviation support provided to a us marine expeditionary unit as a frame of reference?

If you’re not interested in brigade or medium scale operations outside of nato then it covers all services they don’t exist in isolation to be done properly.

Moving a fwd deployed brigade across Scandinavia from northern Norway by land would be extremely challenging and slow. With limited fighting resources you retain maximum flexibility by deploying to where is appropriate from the uk not scaling back your strategic deployment logistics capabilities.