Fair point, but don't "design out" the ability to carry LCUs (or even something larger, like an LCAC), because there will be situations where they are needed
Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
But equally don’t stick with the traditional designs either as they will not necessarily support a large number of small boats.
How about an extended floodable ship transport ship design with a large flight deck amidships - https://www.superyachtnews.com/technolo ... rspective-
Combine this with other aviation / solid support ships as part of a task group then it’s a interesting and solid capability IMO.
”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
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Are you drunk? A loaded Typhoon is 30 to 40 times the weight of a Camel and at least 6 times the footprint.
Regarding UAVs, you aint seen nothing yet.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4312
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Totally predictable and a sign of things to come.
RN has a once in a generation chance to stay at the bleeding edge with the MRSS and MALE STOL drones. It must not be missed due to penny pinching by bean counters or nervousness about additional flatops endangering the carriers.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... e-carrier/
As said previously, if RN builds 6x updated Bay Class they will be obsolescent even before the last one is commissioned. Possibly sooner.
RN has a once in a generation chance to stay at the bleeding edge with the MRSS and MALE STOL drones. It must not be missed due to penny pinching by bean counters or nervousness about additional flatops endangering the carriers.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... e-carrier/
As said previously, if RN builds 6x updated Bay Class they will be obsolescent even before the last one is commissioned. Possibly sooner.
- These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 3):
- Caribbean • Ron5 • Jensy
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Both Bae and BMT have a lot of history in designing flat tops. I remember LPH & LHD from not long ago. Bit big for MRSS but the right shapes.Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑18 May 2024, 14:27 Totally predictable and a sign of things to come.
RN has a once in a generation chance to stay at the bleeding edge with the MRSS and MALE STOL drones. It must not be missed due to penny pinching by bean counters or nervousness about additional flatops endangering the carriers.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... e-carrier/
As said previously, if RN builds 6x updated Bay Class they will be obsolescent even before the last one is commissioned. Possibly sooner.
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
16mx40m dock is roughly what is needed. Big enough for a couple of LCU/Caiman 90 or a single LCAC or EDA-R or 4 LCVP sized craft.
Then 4 davits for LCVP.
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
can be wider considering a beam of ~30m can be expected.
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
No I'm not drunk. Lets take a look
Weight - 24x
Length - 2.7x
Width - 1.2x
Height - 2.03x
How much bigger would all of those dimensions be if you wanted to provide the same effect as Eurofighter but using Sopwith Camel age technology?
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
The 214m Yacht Servant well dock is 6380m2 more than enough for 50 CIC/USV craft - that’s a game changer, not upto 8. We need to look differently at this IMO.
”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
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
how smart of you, show me where the marines, stores, aviation, and why we need 50 CIC on one ship.Repulse wrote: ↑18 May 2024, 22:52The 214m Yacht Servant well dock is 6380m2 more than enough for 50 CIC/USV craft - that’s a game changer, not upto 8. We need to look differently at this IMO.
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
I suggest you read my comment up thread, if you can read that is.new guy wrote: ↑18 May 2024, 23:04how smart of you, show me where the marines, stores, aviation, and why we need 50 CIC on one ship.Repulse wrote: ↑18 May 2024, 22:52The 214m Yacht Servant well dock is 6380m2 more than enough for 50 CIC/USV craft - that’s a game changer, not upto 8. We need to look differently at this IMO.
- These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
- wargame_insomniac
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston
-
- Member
- Posts: 257
- Joined: 13 Nov 2023, 20:12
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Innovative but an "all eggs in one basket" target, IMO.Repulse wrote:The 214m Yacht Servant well dock is 6380m2 more than enough for 50 CIC/USV craft - that’s a game changer, not upto 8. We need to look differently at this IMO.
FCF/raiding is smaller, dispersed and therefore should be intrinsically more 'stealthy' and self-supporting.
A flotilla of 3-6 MRSSs might coalesce within a larger CSG enabled 'flotilla'/ARG to provide Commando level insertions, if need be, but shouldn't be a Point Class for CICS/LCVPs/USVs etc...
Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Not only can I read, I can also think.Repulse wrote: ↑18 May 2024, 23:10I suggest you read my comment up thread, if you can read that is.new guy wrote: ↑18 May 2024, 23:04how smart of you, show me where the marines, stores, aviation, and why we need 50 CIC on one ship.Repulse wrote: ↑18 May 2024, 22:52The 214m Yacht Servant well dock is 6380m2 more than enough for 50 CIC/USV craft - that’s a game changer, not upto 8. We need to look differently at this IMO.
Why would we need 50 CIC?
How would we transfer the marines onto it?
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Fundamentally IMO we need to look at this as delivering ships that are relevant in the 2050’s not designed for the 1990’s. Therefore, innovation is a must.Pte. James Frazer wrote: ↑18 May 2024, 23:28]Innovative but an "all eggs in one basket" target, IMO.
FCF/raiding is smaller, dispersed and therefore should be intrinsically more 'stealthy' and self-supporting.
A flotilla of 3-6 MRSSs might coalesce within a larger CSG enabled 'flotilla'/ARG to provide Commando level insertions, if need be, but shouldn't be a Point Class for CICS/LCVPs/USVs etc...
Dispersion should be about having multiple ship-to-shore connectors (boats & aircraft, manned & unmanned) operating from a smaller number of large ships that are inside a protective bubble (a task group), not have a few more ships with few connectors per ship. It’s the same argument for the CVFs, why more mini carriers? Reality is that they get too small to be efficient and become vulnerable as it is impossible to provide the same level of protection.
We should see the carrier group as the ability to sail an airport and port globally - the same aircraft and boats could equally operate from land bases where available (like in the Nordics).
”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
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
You referred to me as “dumb” in your comment last night - I see that someone has updated this wording, both in the original reply and it seems in the version I replied to.
Regardless, who said 50 CICs? I didn’t - I said 50 CIC/USVs. On the assumption that you’d want the ability to land a company (and their vehicles / supplies) by sea and a company via vertical lift in the first wave, we are talking about easily a dozen CICs, probably as many as 20. Add to this SF fast craft and manned / unmanned boats for fire support, force protection and even things like MCM / decoy capabilities ahead of an attacking force, you can easily get to 50.
Three MRSSs of a traditional design don’t even get close.
These ships would be part of the carrier group, all the aviation and logistical capabilities are part of that group - it’s the benefit of a single hub.
In terms of getting troops / additional kit / supplies onto the ship, I’ve already suggested that a large flight deck amidships would be required, I’d add to that additional accommodation / mission space as part of this additional block.
More of the same is not an answer. Three (maybe six) MRSS is a joke if we are talking about scale and dispersed operations in the 21st century and trying to deliver it using designs envisaged 50 years ago.
”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
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
I haven't changed or edited anything.Repulse wrote: ↑19 May 2024, 09:45You referred to me as “dumb” in your comment last night - I see that someone has updated this wording, both in the original reply and it seems in the version I replied to.
Regardless, who said 50 CICs? I didn’t - I said 50 CIC/USVs. On the assumption that you’d want the ability to land a company (and their vehicles / supplies) by sea and a company via vertical lift in the first wave, we are talking about easily a dozen CICs, probably as many as 20. Add to this SF fast craft and manned / unmanned boats for fire support, force protection and even things like MCM / decoy capabilities ahead of an attacking force, you can easily get to 50.
Three MRSSs of a traditional design don’t even get close.
These ships would be part of the carrier group, all the aviation and logistical capabilities are part of that group - it’s the benefit of a single hub.
In terms of getting troops / additional kit / supplies onto the ship, I’ve already suggested that a large flight deck amidships would be required, I’d add to that additional accommodation / mission space as part of this additional block.
More of the same is not an answer. Three (maybe six) MRSS is a joke if we are talking about scale and dispersed operations in the 21st century and trying to deliver it using designs envisaged 50 years ago.
20 CIC? that's every single one of them
You are simply envisioning a different type of operations to the Navy and it's requirements.
this is not LRG sized.
There is still dictation for a more traditional form for MRSS.
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
In terms of scale the doctrine is for LRG on reinforced company level so approximately 350 and LSG at up to battalion level so 1000-1200.
So in reality a MRSS with the capability of 6 medium lift helicopters, 4 CIC and 2 Caiman 90 appears to fit that doctrine well.
Some comments from the Dutch indicate that they might have more significant defensive capabilities than past vessels. Which makes sense given the pressure on the escort fleet and the proliferation of certain threats.
So in reality a MRSS with the capability of 6 medium lift helicopters, 4 CIC and 2 Caiman 90 appears to fit that doctrine well.
Some comments from the Dutch indicate that they might have more significant defensive capabilities than past vessels. Which makes sense given the pressure on the escort fleet and the proliferation of certain threats.
- These users liked the author Fr0sty125 for the post (total 2):
- new guy • jedibeeftrix
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
*Equals approx 6x the footprint. Just like I said. And comparing dry weights is a bit daft. Load them up with fuel, weapons and a pilot. That makes 30-40x.tomuk wrote: ↑18 May 2024, 22:32No I'm not drunk. Lets take a look
Weight - 24x
Length - 2.7x
Width - 1.2x
Height - 2.03x
How much bigger would all of those dimensions be if you wanted to provide the same effect as Eurofighter but using Sopwith Camel age technology?
But that gets away from the fundamental point you are missing. If the next generation of kit is designed to provide exactly the same capability, it could in most cases be made smaller. But when in the whole history of warfare is the next gen of anything not built to provide greater capability? Which drives size increases. Hence Typhoon is a shitload bigger than the Camel. And why future UAV's will increase in size and capability.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4312
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Interesting that no other blue water navy is following RN’s lead with the one size fits all MRSS program.
https://x.com/tshugart3/status/1792169486193218034
https://x.com/tshugart3/status/1792169486193218034
- These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
- Repulse
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Boy oh boy, I wonder why the largest navy in the world can afford more role focused platforms.Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑19 May 2024, 14:57 Interesting that no other blue water navy is following RN’s lead with the one size fits all MRSS program.
https://x.com/tshugart3/status/1792169486193218034
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Accommodation block, interesting…
”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
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
I didn't compare dry weights.Ron5 wrote: ↑19 May 2024, 14:06*Equals approx 6x the footprint. Just like I said. And comparing dry weights is a bit daft. Load them up with fuel, weapons and a pilot. That makes 30-40x.tomuk wrote: ↑18 May 2024, 22:32No I'm not drunk. Lets take a look
Weight - 24x
Length - 2.7x
Width - 1.2x
Height - 2.03x
How much bigger would all of those dimensions be if you wanted to provide the same effect as Eurofighter but using Sopwith Camel age technology?
But that gets away from the fundamental point you are missing. If the next generation of kit is designed to provide exactly the same capability, it could in most cases be made smaller. But when in the whole history of warfare is the next gen of anything not built to provide greater capability? Which drives size increases. Hence Typhoon is a shitload bigger than the Camel. And why future UAV's will increase in size and capability.
And I'm not missing any fundamental point you are. Future UAVs won't be any bigger than current aircraft in fact due to developments in technology they will be smaller as you won't need either the equipment to support a pilot or the space taken up on current drones for the remote control comms kit as they will be autonomous and be able to process the sensor data on board too.
Typhoon isn't a shitload bigger, larger yes but its capability is multiple shitloads more, as you put it, than just its increase in size.
-
- Member
- Posts: 565
- Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
When we had an ambition to deploy a brigade we had a differentiated fleets, and it made sense. Because there we enough hulls to justify the specialisation that would be suit the requirement to surge and then support.Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑19 May 2024, 14:57 Interesting that no other blue water navy is following RN’s lead with the one size fits all MRSS program.
https://x.com/tshugart3/status/1792169486193218034
We don't have that ambition anymore, nor too the number of hulls to enable it. At which point differentiation is more a vulnerability, because we would have only one of everything.
I'm not sure that comparing the amphbious ambition of the chinese navy (or the USN), is very helpful in the genereic vs differentiated debate.
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
The other change to doctrine is the requirement to be operating at least two LRG continuously. This makes generic/combined capability a stronger fit.jedibeeftrix wrote: ↑20 May 2024, 09:19When we had an ambition to deploy a brigade we had a differentiated fleets, and it made sense. Because there we enough hulls to justify the specialisation that would be suit the requirement to surge and then support.Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑19 May 2024, 14:57 Interesting that no other blue water navy is following RN’s lead with the one size fits all MRSS program.
https://x.com/tshugart3/status/1792169486193218034
We don't have that ambition anymore, nor too the number of hulls to enable it. At which point differentiation is more a vulnerability, because we would have only one of everything.
I'm not sure that comparing the amphbious ambition of the chinese navy (or the USN), is very helpful in the genereic vs differentiated debate.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4312
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
What other country in the world is currently reducing such a capability in the same way?jedibeeftrix wrote: ↑20 May 2024, 09:19 When we had an ambition to deploy a brigade we had a differentiated fleets, and it made sense. Because there we enough hulls to justify the specialisation that would be suit the requirement to surge and then support.
With recent lessons learned is this new doctrinal swift still credible or is the UK just reducing a capability that was previously strategically significant to one that is strategically insignificant in a clash with a peer?We don't have that ambition anymore, nor too the number of hulls to enable it. At which point differentiation is more a vulnerability, because we would have only one of everything.
I suggested blue water navies and therefore it’s a fair comparison IMO.I'm not sure that comparing the amphbious ambition of the chinese navy (or the USN), is very helpful in the genereic vs differentiated debate.
Why are most major navies building flatop LHDs for their marines, helicopters and drones if the U.K. has found the holy grail in inexpensive vessels that look like cheap LPDs from 30 years ago?
- These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
- wargame_insomniac