Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 15 May 2022, 12:47 Disagree - what they couldn’t afford is an amphibious force based around a brigade doing very much what the British Army was doing. Also, any talk of separate ARGs outside of a CBG is dead apart from lower end ops where ships can go relatively unescorted.

The two LPDs are paid for, and I’d argue the savings from mothballing one is probably in the order of £30mn a year. That money could be found by stopping all discussions on T32s and instead utilising the T31 and B2 River fleet to maximum effect. Babcock can be kept busy with exports and building RFAs/LAWs.

The other issue is crewing, which should be less if it’s not acting as a Brigade level HQ. By not building the T32 should mean there is more personnel available to ensure that both CVFs and both LPDs are active.
Well in 2030+ time that may have an effect on budget and crew, type 32 won’t generate any saving until them. If you want them in now give up something in service now no in a decades time.

At that stage the lpds will be 30 years old and the tech in them even older. The navy had to find near 800 extra crew to fully man the 2nd carrier( crew has already jumped from the hopes for about 650 to near 800) so the lpd stay in mothball.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

I give up the national flagship and raise you another T23. Why? Because I see the flexibility of a LPD as being more than either of these and am comfortable with the fact in the short term that the navy is structured around 2 CBGs, globally roaming B2 Rivers and a handful of frigates for CASD/North Atlantic and Kipion.
”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

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Well we currently don't have much to go on as to what the T32 will be, other intended to support the LSG and to deploy autonomous vehicles. We have speculatd that they could be the equivalent of the Absalon class, which given that the T31 were based on Iver Huitfeldt class, but that was just speculation.

But we are also assuming that the T32 will be started to be built after the T31 are finished. That could well be 2028/2030. So assuming that most ships have a working service life of up to 30 years, the LPD's would be approaching the end of the active service life by the time the T32 would be in service - maybe 5-6 years left.

So for me it should not be a choice between the Albion / Bulwark and the T32. More like a choice between their replacements and the T32. So the key is what the MRSS are going to be - yet another big unknown currently. If the MRSS are suitable for deploying UAV / USV / USuV, then we would nt need the T32 as currently announced. In which case the T32's would probably just be batch 2 of T31's. The key at that point in the early 2030's is firstly would the RN still NEED 18 frigates and secondly can they afford to CREW 18 frigates. I suspect we won't need all 5 T32's and could save money and crew by cutting the size of the batch order.

I like what you suggest above of 3 larger amphibs (2 LPD and 1 ASS), 12 smaller amphibs and 3 Logistics support ships. The fisrt priority for RN needs to be ASS, as the Argus is due to be retired soon and we have already sold the Ocean. Also as a larger ship it will take longer to complete. Then afterwards we can look at the smaller amphibs, the RN equiavalent of the LAW.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 15 May 2022, 10:03...How long will it be before a nation decides to build an assault ship optimised for operating drones rather than solely helicopters?

What would such a vessel look like?
Interesting point. How about 6 Japanese Osumi-class like ships as replacements for 1+1 LPD, 3 LSD (and Argus)?

(another idea is 8 or 9 smaller San Giorgeo-class ships).

Osumi is 180m long and 26m wide, can carry 2 LCACs. So make the well-dock shorter to be 35x15m and carry 2 Caimen-90s (or dozens of USVs) there. It has a flat top, but not a hangar. This is not a big problem; just add a elevator between the flight-deck and the vehicle-deck, and use the latter ALSO as a hangar. By doing so, the ship can be smaller than a full-fat LHD (which typically has a hangar and a vehicle-deck independently). Although smaller than Bays, the hangar/flight-deck will be able to handle helicopters AND UAVs.
A Drone Strike/Support Vessel could be procured very inexpensively if the assault forces and large numbers of helicopters were not required. A commercial conversion would be a perfectly acceptable solution.
Not sure if it will be inexpensive. At least, these drone-kits will be so-so expensive. And, if these ships do not carry RMs, where the RMs will be carried?

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Repulse wrote: 15 May 2022, 12:47 By not building the T32…
What is a T32? Could they be the same thing?

For example, most expect the T32 to be an escort with both ASW and land attack capabilities that is also capable of operating next generation UAV’s, UUV’s and USV’s plus a single helicopter. Likely budget around £500m per hull or £2.5bn for a class of 5 with construction to start in 2025/2026.

The reason drones are constantly linked with LHDs and LPHs is because they are pre-existing vessels that are currently in the water. Perhaps as unmanned technology matures their host vessel design will evolve also.

Starting with a clean sheet of paper is an adapted £500m Absalon really the best use of the money?

Is it really worth spending £80m to £100m on each Mk45 gun and auto ammo handling system to provide NGS?

Is the Frigate with 2087, SSN and P8 still the most efficient and cost effective way to conduct ASW?

Can an Absalon sized vessel actually operate the next generation of unmanned systems in all sea states without major modification and/or a well dock or flat top?

IMO adding a NGS and land attack capability to a modified T31 whilst also increasing the CAMM load out, fitting additional Mk41 cells plus maximising USV and UUV operational capability will push the budget well beyond the £500m per hull target. I expect a hull will disappear and the final price will be more than £600m or more. The cost of any unmanned systems would obviously be a further additional cost.

Whilst RN would dearly love such a vessel it really looks like a cheap copy of the T26. Simple duplication.

What if a truly radical approach was taken and the next generation of escort with land attack and ASW capabilities was designed from the beginning as an unmanned mothership with a modest flight deck and well dock but separate to the UK’s Amphibious fleet. Conflating the two requirements may be muddling the issue.

If the NGS and land attack requirement was fulfilled by STOL drones and the ASW requirement was fulfilled by a combination of STOL drones and XLUUVs then the initial procurement costs of the five vessels could be vastly reduced. The main cost would actually be in the unmanned systems which could be transferred between vessels depending on where in the world they were required at any one time.

The CAMM load out could be provided by PODS and as such could be infinitely scalable. Expensive systems such as the Mk45 and Mk41 together with a combined AShM/Land attack missile would not be required. Manpower intensive systems such as 2087 would also not be required. This would amount to very large savings both in procurement and ongoing operating costs.

https://www.flightglobal.com/military-u ... 72.article

A flight deck of around 170m would be required to safely launch a STOL drone without a catapult so a vessel with the dimensions of a Bay Class roughly 175m x 26m would seem ideal. A floodable well dock would be a prerequisite with an overhead gantry crane capable of lifting 50t to 60t also required. A large hanger with twin lifts up to the flight deck would also be required along with suitably protected magazines for munitions.

The vessels could be very lightly crewed unless large numbers of drones were embarked unlike a traditional Frigate and no allowance would would need to be made for an enlarged EMF, medical facilities or large numbers of helicopters.

Five such simple vessels could be easily procured for around £1.75bn if build standards replicated HMS Ocean. The complicated technology is in the unmanned systems, not the vessel itself.

What unmanned systems RN may ultimately chose is very difficult to predict at present but it’s clear the rest of the world is forging ahead whilst the UK dithers with seemingly endless evaluation programmes that seem to only ever result in more burned cash.

https://baykartech.com/en/bayraktar-tb3/

https://www.ga-asi.com/remotely-piloted-aircraft/mojave

https://www.ga-asi.com/remotely-piloted ... eaguardian

https://www.boeing.com/defense/autonomo ... index.page

IMO RN has a massive opportunity here to do something truly ground breaking and effective not least by procuring a game changing capability on- time and on-budget that could revolutionise how the UK’s armed forces operate going forward.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 2):
SW1jedibeeftrix

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

I completely agree the RN can and should be innovative in the area, but my view is that we need 3 times as many platforms (12+) with a 1/3 of the size and displacement (80m+ / 4,000t+). The ability to overwhelm with numbers and get closer to the shore / have more landing ground options is key 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

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Now your getting into the space of payloads not platforms they should of been there years ago. It what the bay class ships have been experimenting with the insistence of it must look like a frigate is holding development back.

I go further all the above higher end drones, you could start today with something much simpler, take one of the heavier Malloy drones there sending to Ukraine and integrate one of the sonar bouy pods ultra and leonardo developed for firescout or reaper and integrate them, you could have a simple offboard sonar boy launcher ect ect.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

With the talk up thread around T32 and or MRSS being fixated around unmanned system would it be time to look at dusting off the old UXV concept for the T32s and pair them with a number of LPDs ?
The reason I always come back to LPDs overs LPHs or LHDs is I just don’t see the RN wanting to put the political risk there for the QEs with more flat tops.

When talking about the unmanned system I think most agree well docks are the best means of deploying any surface and subsurface systems with moon pools and missions bays being second best but more realistic for smaller vessels. What interests me is the UAV side of thing, all the talk up thread is about the need for a flat top to allow STOL UAVs but why not look towards push further with the development of tilt rotor UAVs that can then operate from a wider veriarty of vessels ?

We also have to look at what price bracket we’re willing to sit in with said UAVs ( and in turn wider unmanned systems ) are we looking at price brackets from things like MQ-9B and V-247 at the £20-£25m each or are we looking at much cheaper in the £3-£5m brack and if the later then what are we really expecting ?

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

https://www.defensenews.com/news/your-m ... efensenews

The new Future Commando Force program, made up of about 4,000 personnel with the British Royal Marines, is leading the way in Arctic operations for the entire service, according to the head of the effort.
“We are the U.K.’s Arctic experts [in] regard for specialists and electronic warfare elements,” Brig. Mark Totten said at the Modern Day Marine expo on Tuesday. “And we can use ship-to-shore maneuver and maneuver at sea to support routine operations in that theater.”

For the most part, the service previously focused on the Arctic theater for “training and environmental development,” Totten said, but that’s going to shift. He added that the Future Commando Force wants to bolster its resources in the region and is ready to position other readiness forces near the Suez Canal.
The program is composed of two littoral response groups, and it aims for forces to be able to immediately deploy to complete a range of tasks, from combat operations to humanitarian missions.
These forces form a littoral strike group that works alongside a carrier strike group, designed to boost the carrier strike group’s capabilities, Totten said. “What we’re really looking at doing in this context is supporting carrier operations much more than marines previously have.”

The UK Armed Forces will be doing more with our close Arctic allies and partners, as part of NATO, bilaterally, and through other multilateral groupings such as the Joint Expeditionary Force,” Wallace said in a March statement. “The Royal Navy, including our dedicated Littoral Response Group (North), will periodically operate in the High North alongside Allies and partners, the Army will expand its cold-weather training, and the RAF will deploy P8A maritime patrol aircraft to the region and continue participating in Icelandic air policing.”
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
jedibeeftrix

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Nothing really new. LSG-North will concentrate of operations in the Arctic, co-operating and training with allied units as well as those of the British Army. The emphasis on operations with the Carrier Strike Group, there will only be one based on the RN's operating doctrine, is partly an aspiration as it will not always be available for direct support.

So we have the elite Arctic and Mountain Warfare Cadre plus an Commando LSU available at short notice for deployment up north.

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by jedibeeftrix »

Interesting to get the "around 4000 personnel" quote. chimes nicely with the 4,200 figure mentioned up thread.

Re: viewtopic.php?p=139803#p139803

What does a 4,200 strong 3Cdo look like in terms of unit/sub-unit breakdown at a guess?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Well they do not seem to have lost any cap badges, but the make up of individual Commandos has radically changed with the formation of the FCF. The two previously conventionally organised Commandoes are now organised into multiple LSUs of around Company strength, reinforced by elements for supporting Commandos when embarked on a LSG. The other Commandos cover embarked units on RN/RFA vessels and protection of off shore installations and CASD. 3 Cmdo Brigade's Headquarters is becoming more an administrative unit that a field command. At least that is what I have gathered from what I have been able to read.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
jedibeeftrix

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by jedibeeftrix »

Lord Jim wrote: 16 May 2022, 13:14 Well they do not seem to have lost any cap badges, but the make up of individual Commandos has radically changed with the formation of the FCF. The two previously conventionally organised Commandoes are now organised into multiple LSUs of around Company strength, reinforced by elements for supporting Commandos when embarked on a LSG. The other Commandos cover embarked units on RN/RFA vessels and protection of off shore installations and CASD. 3 Cmdo Brigade's Headquarters is becoming more an administrative unit that a field command. At least that is what I have gathered from what I have been able to read.
Thank you.

If the third Commando is to be a repository of penny-packet deployments aboard ship then I am a little sad, as it seems a rather thougtless waste of a highly valuable resource.
How much value is to be realised from having a dozen royal marines on a random T23, vs simply training RN personnel to provide boarding teams?

Even so, is this function really a held-at-readiness capability while the Commando holds a more unified day-to-day role?

I ask as three (and a half) trimmed down Commandos is only going to be a maximum of 2000 bodies.
What are the other 2,200 personnel doing?
What is the justification for retaining them?
These users liked the author jedibeeftrix for the post:
wargame_insomniac

GarethDavies1
Member
Posts: 86
Joined: 26 May 2021, 11:45
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by GarethDavies1 »

I don't buy this FCF rubbish. Just an excuse for a cut. I know the US Marines are looking at smaller and more numerous assault units but ours small in the first place.

leonard
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: 21 May 2016, 17:52
Italy

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by leonard »

In meantime this news and the concept of it is very interesting and it's not same uber expensive project wich will need years of R&D also the weapons systems are in Royal Navy inventory namely the Aster 15/30 missile
https://t.co/txZLh9SzzC
These users liked the author leonard for the post:
wargame_insomniac

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

leonard wrote: 17 May 2022, 19:52 In meantime this news and the concept of it is very interesting and it's not same uber expensive project wich will need years of R&D also the weapons systems are in Royal Navy inventory namely the Aster 15/30 missile
https://t.co/txZLh9SzzC

I have often wondered what benifits these offer over a more traditional LPD and also what draw backs there are ?

leonard
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: 21 May 2016, 17:52
Italy

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by leonard »

Jake1992 wrote: 17 May 2022, 20:18
leonard wrote: 17 May 2022, 19:52 In meantime this news and the concept of it is very interesting and it's not same uber expensive project wich will need years of R&D also the weapons systems are in Royal Navy inventory namely the Aster 15/30 missile
https://t.co/txZLh9SzzC

I have often wondered what benifits these offer over a more traditional LPD and also what draw backs there are ?
They offer mainly a more aviation (rotocraf ) centric types of ship with that open space of the flight deck and more advanced sensors for command and control but this can be also is draw backs in if you become to aviation centric their is les space for the amphibious elements in particular heavy equipment such tanks etc. as is the case with the ship in question wich will not have amphibious capabilities her primary role but missile defense with her Aster 30 B1 NT missile and KRONOS radar.

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

leonard wrote: 17 May 2022, 19:52 In meantime this news and the concept of it is very interesting and it's not same uber expensive project wich will need years of R&D also the weapons systems are in Royal Navy inventory namely the Aster 15/30 missile
https://t.co/txZLh9SzzC
That Fincanteri Qatari "LPD" is a curious design. It is designated an LPD with a well deck big enough for an LCM and flight deck for medium helicopter. Yet it's primary mission is air defence, as it carries an L-Band AESA radar too big to be carried on the associated 4 air defence corvettes and also carries 16 VLS for Sylver 30 medium range SAM's. All in 143m long 9000t hull.

Clearly not what RN needs. But it shows that amphibs don't need to be 45,000t or even 25,000t. The example I have used in the past are the Indonesian Makassar class / Phillipine Tarlac class also used by Peru and Myanmar - 16,000t with 2 LCU, hangar space for 5 helicopters and flight deck with two helicopter spots.

Also have several times discussed in the past Damen's range of Enforcer LPD's - they offer whole portfolion of possible ship designs from 7000t up to RFA Bay class and beyond.....

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

GarethDavies1 wrote: 17 May 2022, 16:07 I don't buy this FCF rubbish. Just an excuse for a cut. I know the US Marines are looking at smaller and more numerous assault units but ours small in the first place.
You could be right, but the Royal MArines are undergoing a significant change none the less.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

jedibeeftrix wrote: 17 May 2022, 10:53
Lord Jim wrote: 16 May 2022, 13:14 Well they do not seem to have lost any cap badges, but the make up of individual Commandos has radically changed with the formation of the FCF. The two previously conventionally organised Commandoes are now organised into multiple LSUs of around Company strength, reinforced by elements for supporting Commandos when embarked on a LSG. The other Commandos cover embarked units on RN/RFA vessels and protection of off shore installations and CASD. 3 Cmdo Brigade's Headquarters is becoming more an administrative unit that a field command. At least that is what I have gathered from what I have been able to read.
Thank you.

If the third Commando is to be a repository of penny-packet deployments aboard ship then I am a little sad, as it seems a rather thougtless waste of a highly valuable resource.
How much value is to be realised from having a dozen royal marines on a random T23, vs simply training RN personnel to provide boarding teams?

Even so, is this function really a held-at-readiness capability while the Commando holds a more unified day-to-day role?

I ask as three (and a half) trimmed down Commandos is only going to be a maximum of 2000 bodies.
What are the other 2,200 personnel doing?
What is the justification for retaining them?
A rough and ready run down of Royal Marine units:

3 Commando Brigade
40 and 45 Commandos; Providing LDUs for the LSGs.
43 Commando; Fleet protection.
30 Commando IX Group; ISATR, Air Defence, Patrol, Police.
539 Assault Squadron; Landing Craft, RHIBs etc.
Commando Logistics Regiment including Armoured Support Group (Vikings).

Commando based units no part of 3 Cmdo Brigade;
42 Commando; Maritime Operations specialists.
Mountain Warfare Training Cadre.
Special Boat Service.

The last appear to have numerous homes depending on what you read. I have put it hear as the majority of its recruits are from the Royal Marines.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post (total 2):
jedibeeftrixwargame_insomniac

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 17 May 2022, 21:44 Clearly not what RN needs…
Is it clear?

Perhaps not in the Amphibious sense but modest flat tops with a modest floodable well dock could become much more common as unmanned system start to proliferate.

Although Amphibious vessels are capable of deploying these rapidly evolving autonomous systems it surely cannot be a realistic long term solution to operate unmanned ASW and MCM systems.

For example, if the future is ever larger and more complex unmanned systems are Frigates as we currently know them even going to be relevant in 20 years time? Without serious modification to launch recover a wide range of autonomous systems it is entirely possible any frigate or destroyer being built today to a conventional design will reach virtual obsolescence in a lot less than 20 years.

IMO the mission bay on the T26 has never looked smaller just as the gap between escort and Amphib has also never looked smaller. Maybe we are entering an era of Crossover and Damens radical designs were simply ahead of their time.
561F0833-C1B4-4F2F-B277-252F6F948010.jpeg
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 2):
jedibeeftrixRepulse

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by jedibeeftrix »

Lord Jim wrote: 17 May 2022, 22:32
jedibeeftrix wrote: 17 May 2022, 10:53 three (and a half) trimmed down Commandos is only going to be a maximum of 2000 bodies.
What are the other 2,200 personnel doing?
What is the justification for retaining them?
A rough and ready run down of Royal Marine units:

3 Commando Brigade
40 and 45 Commandos; Providing LDUs for the LSGs.
43 Commando; Fleet protection.
30 Commando IX Group; ISATR, Air Defence, Patrol, Police.
539 Assault Squadron; Landing Craft, RHIBs etc.
Commando Logistics Regiment including Armoured Support Group (Vikings).

Commando based units no part of 3 Cmdo Brigade;
42 Commando; Maritime Operations specialists.
Mountain Warfare Training Cadre.
Special Boat Service.

The last appear to have numerous homes depending on what you read. I have put it hear as the majority of its recruits are from the Royal Marines.
Do all of these sub-functions survive in a wider Commando function that has shrunk by one third?
~5,800 > ~4,000

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 18 May 2022, 00:00 IMO the mission bay on the T26 has never looked smaller just as the gap between escort and Amphib has also never looked smaller. Maybe we are entering an era of Crossover and Damens radical designs were simply ahead of their time. 561F0833-C1B4-4F2F-B277-252F6F948010.jpeg
Absolutely, though I would add the T26 mission bay is enormous versus the T31’s…

As you correctly (IMO) point out the nature of frigates is changing, and so is the nature of amphibious ships. We have moved from large scale operations to numerous surgical operations backed by mass logistics. Whilst there will remain the role for tier one AAW and possibly ASW assets for escorting HVUs or having an area effect, Hybrid platforms is how we should think about everything else.
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

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 18 May 2022, 10:32
Poiuytrewq wrote: 18 May 2022, 00:00 IMO the mission bay on the T26 has never looked smaller just as the gap between escort and Amphib has also never looked smaller. Maybe we are entering an era of Crossover and Damens radical designs were simply ahead of their time. 561F0833-C1B4-4F2F-B277-252F6F948010.jpeg
Absolutely, though I would add the T26 mission bay is enormous versus the T31’s…

As you correctly (IMO) point out the nature of frigates is changing, and so is the nature of amphibious ships. We have moved from large scale operations to numerous surgical operations backed by mass logistics. Whilst there will remain the role for tier one AAW and possibly ASW assets for escorting HVUs or having an area effect, Hybrid platforms is how we should think about everything else.
But is it enormous, and is it the right ship to have it. The rate with which tech is moving suggests the boats will be longer and heavier than type 26 can accommodate before it even enters service and some of the concepts require more numerous boats than just a couple. Add to that the fact type 26 is pottering about in a larger task group and you would need to ask why your principal asw asset needs the ability to launch a couple of extra ribs?
As mentioned years ago the type 31 concept is what type 26 should of been and the bay class is what type 31 should of been.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Not convinced that escort will be drones mother ship in near future.

Currently, "drones" themselves are growing very rapidly. Also, for all UAV, USV, and UUV, how to safely deploy and recover them is a big big issue.

For UAV, VTOL type was proposed for nearly a decade, but other than MQ-8B/C, no good example is fielded. Note that Capcoptor never saw delivery in number. Its all virtually "under trial". ScanEagle is fielded, but it is very famous for high loss rate. Anyway, far from stabilized.

For USV, cradle-davits are trialed in Belgium/Dutch MCMV. USN is also trialing "soft" cradle. On the other hand, Babcock is going for stern-ramp, cousin of the technology used for "rough sea sea-boats delivery/recovery, up to sea-state 5 (and with swells)". Well dock is apparently a candidate, but I have no idea how it works with blue water swells.

For UUV, I think it is very premature. For example, people speak about XLUUV, but it is very large to deploy and too slow to follow TF (inevitable result of being long-range submersibles).

In short, I think it is safer now to think those drones will be delivered by a dedicated "mother ship", escorted by frigate/destroyers. Small UAVs, small USVs, and small UUV can be delivered from escorts, but not the large ones.

In WW2, cruisers and destroyers never became a carrier vessel. It was supplemented by "Escort Carriers" = dedicated "mother ships". But, Battle ship was replaced by fleet-CV. Modern escort is a battle ship, or a cruiser of WW2? No one knows the answer, but I guess it is a cruiser equivalent.

Post Reply