Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2807
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo, understand but if we look back before 2010 and purely at ships that could have operated (and maintained) over two helicopters we had eight:

- HMS Ark Royal
- HMS Illustrious
- HMS Ocean
- RFA Argus
- RFA Fort Victoria
- RFA Fort George
- RFA Fort Austin
- RFA Fort Rosalie

Now we have four (and soon to be three if RFA Argus is gapped).

I know people can argue that the CVFs can carry more, but maximum we can have them in two places at a time, and with one them will be RFA Fort Victoria.

In a world where there is an increase volume of low level conflicts / emergencies, putting all of out aviation support into two CSG baskets is not wise - hence the MRSS is key. The problem I see is that the MCM role will pull these ships away from providing Aviation Support, plus the ship design that will be required to support all the roles will be so expensive the numbers will be either reduced or end up in a FSSS style of delay and redesign.
”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

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Repulse wrote: Now we have four (and soon to be three if RFA Argus is gapped).

I know people can argue that the CVFs can carry more, but maximum we can have them in two places at a time, and with one them will be RFA Fort Victoria.

In a world where there is an increase volume of low level conflicts / emergencies, putting all of out aviation support into two CSG baskets is not wise - hence the MRSS is key. The problem I see is that the MCM role will pull these ships away from providing Aviation Support
I agree, but can't catch the thought from 'MRSS' onwards... what do you mean to say?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2807
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Sorry ArmChairCivvy, to be clear the more we expect from the MRSS design the more complex it will be, the more complex the fewer we will get or we will end up in a spiral like the FSSS where the budget didn’t match the requirement, so it went into a cycle of delay and restarts.
”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

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2152
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Interesting Donald, I have a different perspective, primarily due to the fact that the world now and 20 years from now is very different to what the world was like in 2010.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:- Ocean was replaced by Prince of Whales. Done.
Disagree, QE and PWLS replaced the 3 Invincibles. Ocean was cut without replacement and RN justified not cutting the second CVF by claiming PWLS was really just a slightly oversized LPH. It was nonsense then and it’s nonsense now. Luckily the politicians of the day have since moved on and RN still has two CVF’s.

Ocean needs to be replaced as a priority, ideally with a sister ship also.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Argus replacement is currently under debate.
As it should. I agree there are multiple suitable options but cutting without replacement isn’t one of them.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Only 1 of the 2 Albions are active.
Why? Rethink needed with the extended readiness cost saving measure.

Again, the world has moved on and both Albions need to be active concurrently to justify two replacements. With 2 LRG’s, justifying both Albions is now a lot easier.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Only 3 Bays are remaining.
True but cutting Largs Bay was a ridiculous decision to save a pitiful amount of money. I’m not suggesting the Amphibious fleet needs to be replaced like for like but it must be replaced with a credible force that remembers the reasons that influenced the structure of the current Amphib fleet.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:This gives 5 or 6 vessels to be replaced. Six MRSS matches here, no cuts.
Depends on the MRSS design.

6 Enforcers with fixed hangers
2 modest LPH’s
4 PSV’s

Something along these lines really should be considered the minimum.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:12 MCMV fleets are replaced with 10-15 sets of autonomous MCM kits.
- 4 of them assigned to Persian Gulf can be merged into the MCM kits operating from the Bay (already assigned there). This will be coupled with another 4 "in rotation", meaning this capability is replacing 8 MCMVs.
- A few MCMVs assigned for Clyde clearance and Port clearance can be replaced by autonomous MCM kits operated from land.
- A few (or a several) Mine Countermeasure Logistic Support Vessels are reported to be included in the modified NSbS (see Navylookout). They will do "the other jobs" well.
No argument overall but as the MCMV’s are phased out the overall fleet balance must be adequate.

Cutting the entire Amphibious and MCMV fleets and replacing with 6 cheap MRSS and a few PSV’s would be a disaster IMO.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:When we want to "increase" the asset numbers from 2020's ones back to the pre-2010 era level, yes we need more ships.
Completely agree. Reverse the cuts and build more ships. Perfect.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Personally, the 5 River B2 OPVs added to the fleet, coupled with its very high tempo of operation (longer sea-going days) is very significant, and thus there seems no cuts here in number of ships for patrol capability.
IF and it’s a big IF RN get,

8x Type 26
10x Type 31/32
6x to 8x Type 83
5x RB2

Yes I would agree this looks about right. However, it looks increasingly likely the MCMV and Amphibious fleets are going to be gutted to achieve it.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:What we need to be careful is,
- HMS Scot replacement
- need for dedicated replacement for HMS Echo and Enterprise.
- losing 3 River B1s on 2028 is a cut, I agree. But it will be well compensated by replacing the 5 T23GP (with low availability, because it is complex and old) with 5 T31 (simpler and new). Nonetheless, this is a cut.
The availability argument is well made but increased availability won’t be enough on its own.

RN is being asked to do a lot more. The tilt to the Indo-Pacific and the Global Britain government policy now means hull numbers must increase to facilitate the change of direction.

Hopefully the revised Shipbuilding strategy will leave us all pleasantly surprised.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1845
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

For me as Iv often said on here the most flexible and easiest option to sell to the politicians that won’t put either QE at risk ( I believe any flat tops will ) is 6 large San Antonio / LPX style vessels like the US has, add to this 2 Karel Doormans and it’ll fit the bill.

Look at it like this out of the 6 vessels 2 can be LPD format ( san Antonio’s ) and 4 can be LSD format ( LPX ) all based off the same hull design.

What do they replace ?
2 Albion’s
3 Bays
1 Aurgus
With the 2 KDs replacing the waves.

What could these 8 vessels offer ?
Hanger space for 33 merlin / 11 chinooks or a mix
Landing spots for 18 merlin / 11 chinooks or a mix
12 LCUs
28 LCVPs / CB90s
2600 over all troops

This would give 2 capable LSG or the flexibility for smaller ops and by only replacing 1 for 1 with similar ( but more capable ) vessel is easier to sell.



As for the mcm replscemte to me they should be looking at their own platforms for the unmanned systems. Have a small number of vessels trying to do multiple different role can become a very limiting factor.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4172
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Interesting Donald, I have a different perspective, primarily due to the fact that the world now and 20 years from now is very different to what the world was like in 2010.
No objection to your comment.

What I am pointing out is, current "6 MRSS" plan is to "keep the post-2010 level" of force, with no cut nor boost.

If we want to bring the force back to pre-2010 level, yes RN needs much more.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4172
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Jake1992 wrote:For me as Iv often said on here the most flexible and easiest option to sell to the politicians that won’t put either QE at risk ( I believe any flat tops will ) is 6 large San Antonio / LPX style vessels like the US has, add to this 2 Karel Doormans and it’ll fit the bill.

Look at it like this out of the 6 vessels 2 can be LPD format ( san Antonio’s ) and 4 can be LSD format ( LPX ) all based off the same hull design.

What do they replace ?
2 Albion’s
3 Bays
1 Aurgus
With the 2 KDs replacing the waves.
Not bad a plan, I agree.

By the way, I'm wondering if the new amphibious force may opt to smaller ships, as 8000-10000t level? Something like; Italian San Giorgio class (8000t FLD), Singapore's Endurance-class LSD (8500t FLD), or at the largest, JMSDF Osumi-class LSD (13000t FLD). In place, build them in number.

Of course, smaller ship is less efficient in carrying "mass". A 16000t LSD can carry significantly more than twice that of a 8000t LSD. At the same time, money needed for a 8000t LSD will exceed a half of that for a 16000t LSD. So, in view of mass, "larger-sized and smaller number of hulls" are much more efficient.

But, avoid losing everything from getting a single hit, and providing good support for Company-level commando operations distributed world-wide, a bit smallish amphibious force can be an option. Say, nine 10000t-level LSD in place of six 18000t-level LSD? But, RN needs a good rationale for "nine" hulls.

- If RN says "mass", Treasury will logically propose four 20000t vessels, or three 30000t vessels. So, mass is not the prime reason.
- Capable of keeping 2 commando-company at sea at any moment, able to assault independently, will require 6 hulls. Add another two tasks, with one in maintenance, will make it nine.

One at Caribbean (HADR), one at Persian Gulf (autonomous MCM mother ship), 2 for LRG north, 2 for LRG south, and 3 in maintenance/initial-training. In the case, each LRGs are made of two amphibious vessels, among which one will be always "at sea" and another will be always "ready". With "frequent port visit" of RM amphibious ship world-wide, the influence of RN/RM will get much higher?

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1845
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:For me as Iv often said on here the most flexible and easiest option to sell to the politicians that won’t put either QE at risk ( I believe any flat tops will ) is 6 large San Antonio / LPX style vessels like the US has, add to this 2 Karel Doormans and it’ll fit the bill.

Look at it like this out of the 6 vessels 2 can be LPD format ( san Antonio’s ) and 4 can be LSD format ( LPX ) all based off the same hull design.

What do they replace ?
2 Albion’s
3 Bays
1 Aurgus
With the 2 KDs replacing the waves.
Not bad a plan, I agree.

By the way, I'm wondering if the new amphibious force may opt to smaller ships, as 8000-10000t level? Something like; Italian San Giorgio class (8000t FLD), Singapore's Endurance-class LSD (8500t FLD), or at the largest, JMSDF Osumi-class LSD (13000t FLD). In place, build them in number.

Of course, smaller ship is less efficient in carrying "mass". A 16000t LSD can carry significantly more than twice that of a 8000t LSD. At the same time, money needed for a 8000t LSD will exceed a half of that for a 16000t LSD. So, in view of mass, "larger-sized and smaller number of hulls" are much more efficient.

But, avoid losing everything from getting a single hit, and providing good support for Company-level commando operations distributed world-wide, a bit smallish amphibious force can be an option. Say, nine 10000t-level LSD in place of six 18000t-level LSD? But, RN needs a good rationale for "nine" hulls.

- If RN says "mass", Treasury will logically propose four 20000t vessels, or three 30000t vessels. So, mass is not the prime reason.
- Capable of keeping 2 commando-company at sea at any moment, able to assault independently, will require 6 hulls. Add another two tasks, with one in maintenance, will make it nine.

One at Caribbean (HADR), one at Persian Gulf (autonomous MCM mother ship), 2 for LRG north, 2 for LRG south, and 3 in maintenance/initial-training. In the case, each LRGs are made of two amphibious vessels, among which one will be always "at sea" and another will be always "ready". With "frequent port visit" of RM amphibious ship world-wide, the influence of RN/RM will get much higher?

I’d stick to larger vessels around the 20-24k mark, these vessels will be in service 30 plus years the make up of the RM could change multiple times over that. It’s easy to launch a small number of RM from a 20k+ vessel not so much so the other way round.

Going for 9 10k vessels also runs the risk with the treasury of coming out with 6 10k vessel as a “like for like” where it’s anything but.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2807
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

I fear we are still trying to define an amphibious fleet based on the what has gone before rather than what would be best to maximise the potential of the FCF.

The basis of the FCF concept, as far as I understand it, is that it is distributed across multiple platforms and remains low key to enable it to more easily penetrate enemy A2AD defences. Building a small number of large ships isn’t the way to do this.

For the FCF (and to support MCM operations) I’d say a fleet of 8-10 MRSSs are required backed by a flat-top (perhaps Auxiliary Carrier) to replace RFA Argus for the LRG(S) role.

One of my favourite designs for the MRSS would be the Damien 120 LSTH design - it is low key and could more easily blend into commercial traffic, but comes with a hangar and also a large deck area with davits. It can also land directly on the beach, or in a RoRo mode, allowing easy delivery of follow supplies and vehicles.

https://res.cloudinary.com/damen-shipya ... t-120h.pdf

What is missing for me however is the UK/RN equivalent of the USN Military Sealift Command - which should provide the ability to transport globally the kit (and if needed) troops of a configurable UK Army Brigade to a secured port. I’m hoping that going for an interim RoRo solution the UK is thinking just this for the future.
”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

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1845
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Repulse wrote:I fear we are still trying to define an amphibious fleet based on the what has gone before rather than what would be best to maximise the potential of the FCF.

The basis of the FCF concept, as far as I understand it, is that it is distributed across multiple platforms and remains low key to enable it to more easily penetrate enemy A2AD defences. Building a small number of large ships isn’t the way to do this.

For the FCF (and to support MCM operations) I’d say a fleet of 8-10 MRSSs are required backed by a flat-top (perhaps Auxiliary Carrier) to replace RFA Argus for the LRG(S) role.

One of my favourite designs for the MRSS would be the Damien 120 LSTH design - it is low key and could more easily blend into commercial traffic, but comes with a hangar and also a large deck area with davits. It can also land directly on the beach, or in a RoRo mode, allowing easy delivery of follow supplies and vehicles.

https://res.cloudinary.com/damen-shipya ... t-120h.pdf

What is missing for me however is the UK/RN equivalent of the USN Military Sealift Command - which should provide the ability to transport globally the kit (and if needed) troops of a configurable UK Army Brigade to a secured port. I’m hoping that going for an interim RoRo solution the UK is thinking just this for the future.
1 - you are basing the decision on the assumption that the current plan for the RM will not only last it’s current planning phase but for the next 40 odd years. We have what we currently have ( 6 large vessels ) for the next 10 years and then the next gen for 30 years after, if over those 30 years the thinking around the RM reverts back to an ARG style we’d be screwed with 8 odd small vessel, simply put 8 small vessel limits the flexibility of how to shape the RM over 30 years while 6 large vessel allows for change in many ways.

2 - I can’t see the RN going for any new flat tops ( as much as we’d all like ), a 3rd flat top put one of the QEs at risk both by their looks ( politicians are a bit thick ) and by the fact that we don’t have enough F35s to fill both QEs so another justification is needed to keep both.

3 - how will smaller vessels truely get closer than an LPD ? The link you put up doesn’t show a “stealthy” design so will just as easily be picked up on radar.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2152
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:If RN says "mass", Treasury will logically propose four 20000t vessels, or three 30000t vessels. So, mass is not the prime reason.
- Capable of keeping 2 commando-company at sea at any moment, able to assault independently, will require 6 hulls. Add another two tasks, with one in maintenance, will make it nine.

One at Caribbean (HADR), one at Persian Gulf (autonomous MCM mother ship), 2 for LRG north, 2 for LRG south, and 3 in maintenance/initial-training. In the case, each LRGs are made of two amphibious vessels, among which one will be always "at sea" and another will be always "ready". With "frequent port visit" of RM amphibious ship world-wide, the influence of RN/RM will get much higher?
Bingo!

Very nicely articulated Donald :thumbup:

To perform the required MCM tasks and keep 2 LRG’s constantly available only 6 MRSS simply isn’t enough.

Something along these lines would achieve all the objectives but would cost at least £3bn.

6 Enforcers with fixed hangers
2 modest LPH’s
4 PSV’s

RN really need to get their ducks in a row on this as all 3 FSS should be in the water by 2028. In which case UKPLC should be cutting steel on the first Amphib replacement by 2026/2027. A pretty tight timescale in UK shipbuilding terms. No time for procrastinating.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2807
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Jake1992 wrote: 1 - you are basing the decision on the assumption that the current plan for the RM will not only last it’s current planning phase but for the next 40 odd years. We have what we currently have ( 6 large vessels ) for the next 10 years and then the next gen for 30 years after, if over those 30 years the thinking around the RM reverts back to an ARG style we’d be screwed with 8 odd small vessel, simply put 8 small vessel limits the flexibility of how to shape the RM over 30 years while 6 large vessel allows for change in many ways.
Of course anything can change, but the structure/requirement is what it is, why would the RN build a fleet to support an ARG when it’s clear there is not one. Also, I see any future structure is almost certainly nothing we’ve seen so far.
Jake1992 wrote: 2 - I can’t see the RN going for any new flat tops ( as much as we’d all like ), a 3rd flat top put one of the QEs at risk both by their looks ( politicians are a bit thick ) and by the fact that we don’t have enough F35s to fill both QEs so another justification is needed to keep both.
Disagree, Politicians aren’t as thick as they seem, an auxiliary flat-top, which at most would be a modest upgrade to Argus, has great potential for flag waving, HADR etc which gives “good news” PR. Primarily we are looking at an Helicopter Carrier, but then Argus had the ability transport Harriers.
Jake1992 wrote:3 - how will smaller vessels truely get closer than an LPD ? The link you put up doesn’t show a “stealthy” design so will just as easily be picked up on radar.
The art of not being seen is not all about stealth - even the stealthiest ship can still be seen with the naked eye and satellites - the bigger and distinctive they are the easier it is. With a more commercial type of design, and a smaller size, they can more easily blend into the background.
”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

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1845
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Repulse wrote:
Jake1992 wrote: 1 - you are basing the decision on the assumption that the current plan for the RM will not only last it’s current planning phase but for the next 40 odd years. We have what we currently have ( 6 large vessels ) for the next 10 years and then the next gen for 30 years after, if over those 30 years the thinking around the RM reverts back to an ARG style we’d be screwed with 8 odd small vessel, simply put 8 small vessel limits the flexibility of how to shape the RM over 30 years while 6 large vessel allows for change in many ways.
Of course anything can change, but the structure/requirement is what it is, why would the RN build a fleet to support an ARG when it’s clear there is not one. Also, I see any future structure is almost certainly nothing we’ve seen so far.
Jake1992 wrote: 2 - I can’t see the RN going for any new flat tops ( as much as we’d all like ), a 3rd flat top put one of the QEs at risk both by their looks ( politicians are a bit thick ) and by the fact that we don’t have enough F35s to fill both QEs so another justification is needed to keep both.
Disagree, Politicians aren’t as thick as they seem, an auxiliary flat-top, which at most would be a modest upgrade to Argus, has great potential for flag waving, HADR etc which gives “good news” PR. Primarily we are looking at an Helicopter Carrier, but then Argus had the ability transport Harriers.
Jake1992 wrote:3 - how will smaller vessels truely get closer than an LPD ? The link you put up doesn’t show a “stealthy” design so will just as easily be picked up on radar.
The art of not being seen is not all about stealth - even the stealthiest ship can still be seen with the naked eye and satellites - the bigger and distinctive they are the easier it is. With a more commercial type of design, and a smaller size, they can more easily blend into the background.
I believe the current thinking around the RM has nothing to do with desire or changes in use and all to do with justifying cost cuts. We see no others doing this and I know a few often quote the USMC looking at something similar but what they’re thinking is a add on not a replacement for the LPD / LSDs.


I do believe politicians are thick or when it comes to defence are deceitful. What could a LPH do that a QE currently couldn’t ( and I’m no fan of using a QE as an LPH ) ? How would an LPH be better at HADR work that and LPD /LSD with hanger and well docks ?


The idea of having them blend in would be all well and good if they were not massively advertised during design and build phase so anyone who wants will know exactly what they look like.


The point I’m getting at is small equals limited flexibility and limited options down the road.

KiwiMuzz
Member
Posts: 42
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 06:20
New Zealand

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by KiwiMuzz »

Jake1992 wrote:

The idea of having them blend in would be all well and good if they were not massively advertised during design and build phase so anyone who wants will know exactly what they look like.

This has always been my problem with the "we'll make it look innocent, so they won't know what it is" argument.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6209
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

I have to agree with Repulse on this on, mostly. With the FCF the Royal Marines are going to be operating in self contained company sized units, with smaller detachments like those on the B2 Rivers also being part of the new structure. Saying that the planned MRSS are not due into service until the early 2030s,and with the single Bay upgrade no longer taking place, or so I have read, like the Army's reorganisation and recapitalisation, the FCF is going to be in limbo for around ten years.

The problem is there will be two elections and two SDSRs between now and then and the MoD may see the Albions as possible targets for savings saying that their replacements are on the way, and/or we could lose one of the Commandos as it could be seen that we would still have enough for the number of embarkations we will have in future.

The future is not bright for defence unfortunately, with the budget already taking a downturn even with the new money from the four year spending review. So many things are being pushed down the road a decade or so, or are only partially funded at present with seed money, what the shape of the Royal Marines and the Royal Navy's amphibious shipping with end up looking like nobody knows. what is probably true though is 3 Commando Brigade as a fighting formation is dead and will remain as an Administrative Headquarters like many of the Army's Brigades.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2807
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Sorry if this has been discussed already, but in the "Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy: Future of the Royal Marines" article from Sept 21 on the government website it states:
Lord Burnett (Liberal Democrat): To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the cost, and over what period, for the introduction of the Royal Marines Future Commando Force.

Baroness Goldie (Conservative): A generous settlement of over £24 billion has allowed Defence to invest in amongst other things the delivery of the Future Commando Force and we will be spending in excess of an additional £200 million over ten years to support this. Other elements of the Royal Navy’s programme, such as the future landing craft project, are funded to over £50 million. The wider ship building pipeline will also support the UK’s Commando Forces.

https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/inte ... l-marines/
Is the wording on landing craft just a mistake and they are referring to the Bay conversion or is this something else? That would give budget for something in the order of 20+ CB90s for example if true.
”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

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 360
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by jedibeeftrix »

If the future landing craft project is summed up by CB90's then I will be enormously disappointed! :D

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6209
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

The follow up to the CB-90, a new design, is on the way and may dovetail into the launching of the MRSS. This is supposed to have the same speed as the CB-90 but greater firepower and protection, able to mount 120mm Mortars, and even AShMs! Such craft would add serious punch to the LSG.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2152
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Lord Jim wrote:Such craft would add serious punch to the LSG.
It would but any variant of the CB90 cannot be considered a suitable replacement for the LCU’s.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4172
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Why not BMT Caimen90? Lots of LCU's slightly larger, based on Caimen90 are now in production for US Army. It is (so so) fast, has a capacity to replace LCU Mk.10. If would be even nice to use the same design as built for US Army.

ref: https://vigor.net/projects/msvl

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2807
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Devils advocate, but if the FCF strategy is based around small units and the chances of them operating with Challenger Tanks are slim, why invest in a new LCU? For me it's not a priority and would be something that would be more focused on later stage logistical support.

Personally I would be focusing on a LCVP replacement first - something that can be easy launched via davits or well docks. Something that can land a couple of Polaris MRZR-D4s or QinetiQ TITANs, as well as the current Viking.
”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

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2807
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

With Russia threatening on multiple fronts directly or via proxies, then I think the UK needs to seriously look at three LRGs;

- LRG(N) - North - Nordics, Baltic and Artic
- LRG(S) - South - Indo Pacific Region
- LRG(M) - Middle - Mediterranean (covering also the Black Sea) and West Africa

Given the Montreux Convention restriction on total tonnage (30k tonnes in peace, max 45k in an emergency, plus a restriction of no ship larger than 10,000t) for non-Black Sea nation vessels, this is where a collection of smaller ships should be looked at, plus perhaps operating FCF from local friendly naval ships.
”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

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3022
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

We could push 3 LRG's if we could the second LPD going and use the Army

LRG North = 1 x LPD , 1 x Bay 1 x escort
LRG Centre = 1 x Bay , 1 x escort , 1 x Point ( would need to work with the army out Cyprus )
LRG South = 1 x LPD , Argus , 1 x escort , 1 x tanker

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2674
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Or you meet the threats on your door stop and stop the fluff in areas you make little difference to

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2807
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote:Or you meet the threats on your door stop and stop the fluff in areas you make little difference to
You need to be there to have a voice - and inconveniently instability in any of these regions have an impact. Having said that, you are right that beyond a (OPV / Survey ship style) low level presence which shows the UK is interested what it does needs to be relevant. I think a forward training, intel and SF style support with a CSG/SSN stick is a solid basis personally.
”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

Post Reply