Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2818
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote: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
Agree with LRG(N) and LRG(S), however for LRG(M) you need ships below 10k tonnes. Personally, I’d be going for a couple of Endurance Class sized ships based in Gib, with enhanced dock facilities in Cyprus.
”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: 3031
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

I am just working with what we have now working along the line if it goes hot the 10k rule goes out the window

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2818
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

At the point it really goes hot then everything would be thrown at it and probably end up with nuclear conflict. However, we are still talking about Grey-Zone operations, so unlikely the agreement would be scrapped.
”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 »

Repulse wrote: 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.
The need for speed and mass - to accomodate for being pushed further off from the beach - tells me that LCVP's are a dead-end.
Just because a 70t Challenger tank can roll off the front of one onto a beach doesn't mean that is the only purpose to which an LCU can usefully be put.

User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 551
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jensy »

Repulse wrote:
Tempest414 wrote: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
Agree with LRG(N) and LRG(S), however for LRG(M) you need ships below 10k tonnes. Personally, I’d be going for a couple of Endurance Class sized ships based in Gib, with enhanced dock facilities in Cyprus.
Along similar lines, I rather like the design of the Fassmer Multipurpose Vessel 120

Image

Twin hangars, three pads, a 1000 square metre mission bay and a well dock that can take a single "heavy landing craft". All of this in a 124m, 6,000t package.

Full range and PDFs:
https://www.fassmer.de/en/defence/multirole

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3031
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Working outside what we have now yes a 9k ton ship would be good

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2818
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Jensy, can’t explain it, but I actually prefer the 100m version. Can imagine it as a RM company level platform with fast boats and a couple of Wildcats.
”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

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6241
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Why are we now looking at a 3rd LSG? WE need what we have now to ensure we can generate the two planned and given the timeframe, things could easily change before the MRSS are even ordered. Therefore we need to hope we actually get two LSGs with the kit and platforms they need otherwise the FCF as it stands won't work and somebody will have to write a FCF 2.0

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1233
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Want a 3rd LSG ? Going to need a 50% bigger Navy ………. and a 3rd Carrier ! :mrgreen:

User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 551
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jensy »

Repulse wrote:Jensy, can’t explain it, but I actually prefer the 100m version. Can imagine it as a RM company level platform with fast boats and a couple of Wildcats.
It's funny you say that. I also had a preference for the 70m and 100m variants but for less demanding roles

Think it was the larger dock and flight deck that swung it for more serious 'raiding', rather than being motherships/micro carriers.

Wonder if you could cook up something similar from a 139m Type 31 hull, with comparable beam to create a...
Tempest414 wrote:9k ton ship
A more modern and flexible approach to the Abslalon concept, without the expectations of being a frigate too

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4181
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Jensy wrote:
Repulse wrote:Jensy, can’t explain it, but I actually prefer the 100m version. Can imagine it as a RM company level platform with fast boats and a couple of Wildcats.
It's funny you say that. I also had a preference for the 70m and 100m variants but for less demanding roles
Think it was the larger dock and flight deck that swung it for more serious 'raiding', rather than being motherships/micro carriers.
Interesting. I will vote for 120m version. BMT analysis says, for efficient helicopter operation, you need a hull longer than 110m.

By all means, the design invokes many idea.
- How about making it 1 m wider, to enlarge the hanger to make it 3 Merlin capable? In place, lose the 3rd landing spot. Also accept 18+ knot speed.
- I like its smallish well-dock. But with enlarged beam, how about enlarging it to US Army MSV-L (35.6x8.6 m2) capable (https://vigor.net/projects/msvl) --> say, 40x10 m2 size?
- I do not think RAS gear is a priority. It looks like poorman's solution for Navy which does not have Oilers and which has only relatively short-legged vessels. Make it simple and cheaper.
- I am not sure how the armaments shall be. All the ship must handle in singleton will be UAV drones at most. Anything severer shall be handled with escorts, T31 in mid-level threats, and T26 in a bit severer cases, and CSG as a whole in real hot war. So, two 40mm Mk4 is more than enough?
Wonder if you could cook up something similar from a 139m Type 31 hull, ...A more modern and flexible approach to the Abslalon concept, without the expectations of being a frigate too!
I think it shall better be a clean-sheet design. Welldock is not easy to be "added later".

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 »

Our RM definitely isn't modelled as a mini-USMC, but there is no hurt in comparisons - especially of the trends that are emerging as for amphibious shipping supporting the embarked and landed force.

The Naval Ops study stated
"need 31 traditional amphibious ships in the appropriate mix, which is 10 big decks, LHA/LHD, and 21 LSD/LPD,”
" be supplemented by 35 Light Amphibious Warships"

Shipbuilding Document of June 17, 2021; I hear that we will also be getting one :!: soon
"following conclusion of the hearing [discussed above], the Biden Administration released a long-range Navy shipbuilding document that calls for a Navy with a more distributed fleet architecture, including 321 to 372 manned ships and 77 to 140 large unmanned surface and underwater UVs. Within the total of 321 to 372 manned ships, the document calls for an amphibious fleet of 48 to 63 amphibious ships,
- including 8 to 9 LHA/LHD-type ships, 16 to 19 LPD-type ships,
- and 24 to 35 LAWs."

Be it more distributed ops or affordability, the smaller end of amphibious shipping survived budgetary scrutiny best
- though the wide range in the indicated number of such ships may reflect the need to experiment with and thus confirm the new concepts
... sounds familiar ;)
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: 2818
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Scimitar54 wrote:Want a 3rd LSG ? Going to need a 50% bigger Navy ………. and a 3rd Carrier ! :mrgreen:
No complaints from me :P

Having said that, to support a third LSG(M) [Med & W Africa] I’d argue that ground based a/c from NATO or Cyprus based would mostly be sufficient - with an option to deploy a CSG in a more extreme situation (where we are probably talking about a different type of operation the FCF is being geared towards). In reality also we are probably talking about two of the ships we are discussing above.
”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: 2153
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Scimitar54 wrote:Want a 3rd LSG ?
Actually I think the UK should have 4 Littoral Response Groups.

LRG(N) should be the UK’s primary Amphibious force focusing on the high north and the Mediterranean.

LRG(S) should concentrate on East/West Africa focusing on HADR.

LRG(E) should focus on the Indo-Pacific.

LRG(W) should focus on HADR in the Caribbean.

LRG(N) LPD (Converted), T23GP, Tide
LRG(S) Bay, RB2
LRG(E) LPD (Converted), T23GP, Wave
LRG(W) Wave, RB2

Argus could be kept at Duqm at high readiness and together with the T23GP and the Bay in the Gulf could form a highly effective rapid response group to reinforce any of the LRG’s if required.

I think this would be affordable and proportionate.

Just my opinion.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2818
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Agree on LRG(W) - tbh was assuming the same without giving it the formal LRG label.

My biggest worry is LRG(N), with Russia seemingly wanting to "play" on multiple fronts, I'd say two LRGs are required (though perhaps each more limited)
”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

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6241
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

The LRGs or whatever they are called this week, are not responsible for moving troops to an area to be unloaded to fight on land. That is the role of the Points as well as RFAs to bring in the immediate stores and so on. The LRGs are there to conduct raids in wartime and help train allies and show the flag in peacetime. In the "Grey" zone they will probably do a bit of both. We have finite resources and so each LRG is based around a single Commando, that will rotate forces onto an off the LRG.

The main roles of LRG(North) are relatively obvious. LRG(South) has a larger area of responsibility, namely the Eastern Mediterranean, Gulf, and Indo-pacific Region, moving to where the highest tension is that affects the UK or its allies. Other areas such as the Caribbean and West Africa can be covered as now by either an RFA or a B2 River. In fact an argument can be made that the Royal Navy needs more of the latter as they allow the RN to have a presence in low threat areas that is effective and affordable to maintain.

It will be the Army, from now on that provides the main force for any expeditionary operation on land to defend our allies, being shipped to the nearest friendly port by the Points or their successors. Securing these sites can be done by an LRG, but it will also be a role of the Army's high readiness formations from 16 Brigade. The LRGs will obviously be able to co-operate with the Army and other services and assets, as this is going to one of their core wartime roles.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2818
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Lord Jim, no big argument to what you say with the exception that I would have a more permanent force that is specifically tailored and focused on the eastern Med and Black Sea. Again we should be talking about a couple of ships that could come in half the total price for a T31.

Completely agree West Africa could be done with a River + RFA whenever needed. I personally would have put another River based out of Gib instead of EoS. Instead I would have put an Echo class to be based out of Singapore.
”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

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6241
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

If we have the assets that can be rotated for scheduled maintenance etc. then a third LRG would be fine, but at present we really only have the assets for two. How the future MRSS programme is handled and how many are produced will determine the number of LRGs in the future, but so little is really known about this at present. Again we have that magic ten year rule that seems to be a common factor within the MoD.

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 »

Lord Jim wrote: How the future MRSS programme is handled and how many are produced will determine the number of LRGs in the future
This https://res.cloudinary.com/damen-shipya ... t-120h.pdf was proposed as a base design and for global deployments would have better endurance than the smaller but quite similar concept for the quickly landing and 'delanding' USMC littoral marine rgmnts
- btw, the Congress Research Service publication on the LAW programme found @xav's photo from that same exhibition as the best err 'exhibit' :clap: of the ship's layout and used it to inform the members of the Congress (+ anyone else interested :) )
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)

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3031
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Maybe the way forward is 5 full fat up dated Absalon's and five MRSS and a light carrier this could allow

LRG North = 1 x Absalon , 1 x MRSS , 1 x escort

LRG Centre = 2 x Absalon's , 1 x escort

LRG South = 1 x Absalon , 1 x MRSS , 1 x escort , 1 x tanker

Patrol group 1 = 1 x Absalon , 1 x escort ( Indo-Pacific )
Patrol group 2 = 1 x MRSS , 1 x escort ( AP/N )

LRG's North & south could carry 3 Merlin and 3 Wildcats and the centre group could carry 2 Merlin and 3 Wildcats

any of these groups could be joined by the light carrier with 1 x T-45 and 1 T-26 or a full CSG

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2818
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

”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 »

Thx @Repulse,
the dsei piece is informative even though it mainly contains only the opening slides of various speeches
- what an LSU is (relative to an LSG) was left as an open question with me
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)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6241
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

From What I understand (certainly room for errors there) is that the LSUs are the ground formations created from a Commando that are part of the LSG which is the total package, ships, helicopters, troops and so on. Each Commando can produce a number of LSUs and the number embarked on a given LSG will be dependant on it mission.

I believe at present 40 Commando is assigned to LSG(South) and 42 Commando to LSG(North).

I do like the models of the competitors for the USN's LAW programme. I think it gives a fairly good example of the sort of ship the RN needs for the LSGs. But there are a long list of question that go along with all of this. For example will the MRSS be crewed by RN or RFA personnel? IF that is the case can they be seen as a replacement for Bulwark and Albion, with the Bays maintaining they designed roles as logistics transports, bit the support the LSGs and any deployment by the Army. This would seem more logical that having teh MRSS replace the Bays, as the former are far more expensive to operate, and are not suited for the LSG role mainly due to their lack of aviation facilities, and their size.

The reason I would have the MRSS replace the Albions is also the level of self defence the MRSS really needs. It needs to be greater then sticking a Phalanx on the bow that is for sure. They will need a full suite of counter measures that is for sure, and the ability to fire both precision and suppression fire to support either or both the landing and extraction of one or more LSUs. GMLRS would be ideal for this and the USMC and USN have already proven that this system can hit land targets from a ship that is moving, from a HIMARS simply on the deck of a LPD.

To operate two LSGs I think we need a minimum of four MRSS, to allow both to be operational the majority of the time. LSG(South) will need an assigned Replenishment vessel given the area it has to cover, whilst LSG(North) will have access to many friendly ports. For peace time the Planned T-31 should suffice as the escort vessel with one each in the two LSGs. However in the "Grey" zone, additional more capable escorts will be needed to prevent "Accidents", from happening. During war any LSG operating in the conflict zone will need a full escort package providing ASW, ASuW and AAW. This could either be provided and integral of the LSG, though more likely the LSG will be attached to a larger Naval Task Group.

Well that is my food for thought, what do people think and please be creative rather than negative in responding.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1233
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Not bad! However I do not think that it is acceptable to dismiss the need for a replenishment vessel for LSG (North), simply because friendly ports are available (in times of peace). There are many friendly ports available to LSG (South) as well. The point is, that they may not be available when you need them (during times of high tension or during conflict). In any case, you need to have the LSG where you need it, not travelling to, and potentially bottled up in a port, no matter how “friendly” that port may seem to be.
The same also applies to the number of escorts. 1 x T31 (or T32) per LSG may be fine in peace time, but if the additional escort vessels are not available to be added when the need arises (during times of high tension or during conflict) then the credibility of the LSG itself is severely weakened in the eyes of a potential aggressor.

This is what is wrong with the tick box approach of “A little of everything means we have everything covered”. It is
nothing, but self deception and it is foolhardy in the extreme.

The Fleet (all of it) is just FAR too small ! :idea:

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 »

Lord Jim wrote:From What I understand (certainly room for errors there) is that the LSUs are the ground formations created from a Commando that are part of the LSG which is the total package, ships, helicopters, troops and so on. Each Commando can produce a number of LSUs
That's what I gathered, too, from disaggregated (LSU landed) and aggregated: all assets together, at sea
Lord Jim wrote: the number embarked on a given LSG will be dependant on it mission.
But then the carrier adorning the page onto which the header had been superimposed gave me doubts. Of course that could be a pointer to the option of deploying more than one LSU to a 'LSG'
- the piccie also seems to cofirm the operational modelling for 10 spots (the 11th being for a smaller helo, always there to pick up any who have ended up in the sea - not up in the air)

LG seems to be a confirmed support weapon - then one will have to have the means to get it (and some rounds) ashore. And also to extract, sometimes in quick order

Another interesting (albeit only suggested) detail is the force protection (fast) boat, firing missiles. In support of troops on land? Is there any missile in service that would give that functionality and be compact enough to have (in numbers) on a fast boat
- if the boat will not have a dock to operate from... then it as a platform will be fairly 'compact' too
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)

Post Reply