Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by R686 »

@Donald

Have I read that right, you want 3x LPD plus the LHA?

4 ships to replace 3 meaning extra manning, thru life support cost etc etc

Has the ADF got it wrong with 2x LHD's and a Bay, or should we have used the Singaporeans as a template with 4x Endurance class LPD?

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 »

R686 wrote:Have I read that right, you want 3x LPD plus the LHA?
4 ships to replace 3 meaning extra manning, thru life support cost etc etc
My proposal is a fleet with 1 LPH(A) and 4 LPD(A)s. Now RN/RFA has 1 Argus, 1 LPD active, 1 LPD reserve, 3 LPD(A) active. I guess the manning and operation cost can be kept neutral.
Has the ADF got it wrong with 2x LHD's and a Bay, or should we have used the Singaporeans as a template with 4x Endurance class LPD?
ADF do not have 2 CVF. 2 vessels with Helicopter capability is critical for ADF. Much important than getting resilience, I agree.

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by R686 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: My proposal is a fleet with 1 LPH(A) and 4 LPD(A)s. Now RN/RFA has 1 Argus, 1 LPD active, 1 LPD reserve, 3 LPD(A) active. I guess the manning and operation cost can be kept neutral.


Ah I see where the confusion lies, I avoid lumping both RN and RFA ships together.
donald_of_tokyo wrote: ADF do not have 2 CVF. 2 vessels with Helicopter capability is critical for ADF. Much important than getting resilience, I agree.
Then why the need for the smaller LPH when the UK have CVF?

So really if not for multirole (LHD)shipping then the RN should buy a third CVF optimized for vertical lift of 1800 RM's (with secondary strike role)and RFA the heavy lift mixed LPD's and ro-ro's.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

R686 wrote:the RN should buy a third CVF optimized for vertical lift of 1800 RM's (with secondary strike role)and RFA the heavy lift mixed LPD's and ro-ro's.
Interesting landed force:
- one BG (built around a Cdo) wholly vertically lifted (and thefore light)
- another one from the current fleet, with the Armoured Support Group and a Chally sqdrn in tow
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: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
R686 wrote:the RN should buy a third CVF optimized for vertical lift of 1800 RM's (with secondary strike role)and RFA the heavy lift mixed LPD's and ro-ro's.
Interesting landed force:
- one BG (built around a Cdo) wholly vertically lifted (and thefore light)
- another one from the current fleet, with the Armoured Support Group and a Chally sqdrn in tow
I'm definitely on board with a split capability. A RM "kick the door in" Cdo based on OTH CVFs and Frigates, and a parallel Army Commando (Medium Armoured Strike) Brigade based on RFA vessels.The RFA force would need one or two aviation support ships (LHAs) for transport and Apache attack helicopters.

Both units would be part of a joint Army/RM Commando division.
”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
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

That's a reasonable suggestion Donald, a LPH to guarantee 2 flat tops always available, like it. The Japanese do have a few nice designs....

However that would have to come at the expense of both the Albion's, there simply isn't the manpower to keep an Albion and a LPH in service. The Albion's are very manpower intensive for what they are.

The RN or RFA would then need to find a means to make up for the lost well dock capacity. Perhaps that could be done with a commercial FOFO vessel? or utilising self deploying vehicles reducing the need for as many well docks?

Maybe ring up our friends down under and ask to swap back that bay class for an Albion :)
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

shark bait wrote:The Albion's are very manpower intensive for what they are.
Command ships; hence having one available (and lift by other means) has been judged the best balance.
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
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

A more generic follow up on using commercial FOFO vessel's, I think there is some real value in the concept. Some simple commercial hulls, with specialist models floated onto the back, basically treating them as pick up trucks and sticking different things in the back.

Modules could include
  • A flight deck for aviation training
  • A logistics hub
  • A forward repair facility
  • A role 3 hospital
  • A vehicle deck and well dock
@LandSharkUK

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 »

shark bait wrote:That's a reasonable suggestion Donald, a LPH to guarantee 2 flat tops always available, like it. The Japanese do have a few nice designs....

However that would have to come at the expense of both the Albion's, there simply isn't the manpower to keep an Albion and a LPH in service. The Albion's are very manpower intensive for what they are.
Argus has 80 RFA and 50 RN crew. I propose to use that man power. Also, my proposed LPH(A) shall work as LPH only when any of the 2 CVF is in refit.
- When active as LPH, enhance ~100 crew (to make it ~250). Not much different from 285 of Ocean. I suppose this period will be about a half of LPH(A)'s life.
- When both CVF is ready, operated her as LPH(A), rather a Argus replacements, with Medical facilities and flight training.
The RN or RFA would then need to find a means to make up for the lost well dock capacity. Perhaps that could be done with a commercial FOFO vessel? or utilising self deploying vehicles reducing the need for as many well docks?

Maybe ring up our friends down under and ask to swap back that bay class for an Albion :)
FOFO may be, but only if it is cheap. My point is, sacrificing well-dock capability a little (but keep it with some level), to handle LPH(A). I think "rapid" LCU landing from OTH is difficult without large and expensive LCAC. And, RN will not have it. Thus, in my idea, completely forget about it, and locating the LPD(A)s near the shore, so that many mexefloats can work along with LCU/LCVPs.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

Argus doesn't routinely have a crew of 130 assigned to her though, I believe most are 'borrowed' when needed, which is why she doesn't deploy often these days. I'm not convinced its feasible replacing an old cheap simple platform witch a much more complex helicopter platform. Like for like is all that could reasonably be considered.

Replacing the Albion's with an Ocean 2 is a closer match, and more feasible to me.

Not bad guaranteeing to flat tops available, especially considering vertical lift is one area where the UK is very well equipped, with lots of commando Merlin and Chinook, the latter is about the only thing to receive a boost in numbers! I would suggest a bunch of Chinook operating from the carrier and a bunch of Merlin and Apache operating from an LPH, it would be a significant vertical lift capacity, perhaps the greatest outside the US with their V-22?

A question is would 10 Chinooks on the carrier hinder F35 operations too much?

With the above the RN could lift a lot of marines, directly to where they are needed. Sustaining them will be more challenging, especially with the loss of some well dock capacity. The Solid Support Ship should answer that in part, its suppose to also act as a sea base for organising and distributing stores direct to the point of use. I'm assuming that's also going to be done vertically, which is why their expected to come with significant aviation facilities.

The Bays can provide plenty of stores, either via the shore, or direct to the objective through vertical lift. I joked about it earlier, but if the Albion's did go in place of Ocean 2 getting that other Bay back in RFA hands would be very welcome.

Even with the 4th bay and the Solid support ships their may be some shortfall in capacity, perhaps look to merchant shipping for this.
  • Standard cargo ships to an existing small port, plenty of these dotted around now?
  • Standard cargo ships to a deployable pier?
  • FOFO ship with landing craft?
  • Barge carrier ship?
  • tank landing ship, but for tractors?
A few options that could perhaps carry one once the specialist craft have done their bit.
@LandSharkUK

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by seaspear »

If the P.O.W was to be used in amphib. operations isnt it likely that the Q.E.C would be used to supply a full complement of F35B for air operations ,

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

shark bait wrote:with lots of commando Merlin [THE FUTURE] and Chinook, the latter[THE PAST, IE. THE OUTCRY ABOUT THE LACK OF HELOS IN A-STAN] is about the only thing to receive a boost in numbers[I THOUGHT ALL THAT IS COMING IS A NEW ROUND OF UPGRADES, AFTER JULIUS COMPLETING?]!
shark bait wrote:I'm assuming that's also going to be done vertically, which is why their expected to come with significant aviation facilities.
- I am hoping so, on tankers there is more available clear space (and they got the facility) whereas on an SSS there are more "competing" functions
- so I am only hoping, not assuming... could still turn into "a wish"
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
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

@Seaspear, the RN can't guarantee both POW and QE will be available at the same time, to fix that I was working off @Donald's suggestion of a 3rd flattop, in the form of a LPH, to guarantee 2 flattops available at any time.

With that I was assuming cramming Apache, Merlin and Chinook on an Ocean sized platform is possibly a stretch too far, and considered offloading the Chinook to the carrier, if it could be integrated with F35 ops.


@ArmChairCivvy, we took deliveries of new Chinook. Its complete now, but the Chinook fleet has actually expanded, where all others have shrank.

I was expecting the SSS to replicate and possibly expand the aviation facilities found on Fort Victoria, that should provide a good platform for vertical replenishment after the initial maneuver.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

shark bait wrote:Its complete now, but the Chinook fleet has actually expanded, where all others have shrank.
True, and the Pumas will be the first to go, leaving a gaping whole ("medium") in an already unbalanced helo fleet. The the Merlins, marinised at a high cost, will probably spend a lot of time on land... until a new medium chopper will be chosen
- well, Pumas have such a high COG that they are useless at sea, but everything relates to everything - especially when you are overall short of a type of asset
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
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

shark bait wrote:Never proposed getting rid of the landing craft, its the only way to move vehicles that cant self deploy.

Accepting that, it becomes a reasonable suggestion.
Aethulwulf wrote:You said the LPH would come at the expense of the LPDs. Without the LPDs, how are the LCUs going to available?
I thought we should swap threads;

The Bays still exist, and in this instance would need to see their availability increased to cover for the loss LPS. On top of that it may be necessary to explore additional shipping, or self deploying vehicles.

This is stemming from the idea the amphibious set up needs to change, the RN is struggling to support core assets, and the UK has substantial vertical lift capabilities. I'm investigating how feasible it is to structure the marines around vertical lift and increased merchant shipping.

The hollowing out of the RN needs to stop, something needs be chopped off to save the rest.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Hence we are back to the same place where we have been many times before: to get anywhere near the French Ops Concept we will need the active Albion and both of those Bays not in the Gulf on MCM support duty.
- 250 plus 305 plus 2 x 365 (voila! 4 companies, with supporting services, ie. those going ashore)
How do the french differ? and where are those numbers coming from?
@LandSharkUK

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Aethulwulf »

shark bait wrote:The hollowing out of the RN needs to stop, something needs be chopped off to save the rest.
The UK amphibious capability is already down to a force of 1800 that can only deploy in benign conditions. If you want to reduce the capability further I think it will be a case of getting rid of it completely.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

Don't have to reduce the force, just change it's method of deployment away from bespoke platforms.

As you say they will only deploy in benign conditions, so are big bespoke platforms the correct choice?
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

shark bait wrote:where are those numbers coming from?
http://www.armedforces.co.uk/navy/listings/l0029.html as I tried to avoid using the listings based on initial "press releases " that are typically placing the emphasis on overload (for short duration) conditions... to avoid having to do "a Canberra" again.
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
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

The numbers seemed at little high to me. What is the most that can be expected to deploy?

3 deployable Comandos's off 700 all ranks, rotating through very high readiness, force generating, and general duties. In surge conditions 2 of the 3 Comandos's could be called upon, making a max effort 1400? but standard would be 700?
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

The numbers seemed at little high to me. What is the most that can be expected to deploy?

3 deployable Comandos's off 700 all ranks, rotating through very high readiness, force generating, and general duties. In surge conditions 2 of the 3 Comandos's could be called upon, making a max effort 1400? but standard would be 700?
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

shark bait wrote:250 plus 305 plus 2 x 365
- the 305 for Albion(s) seems low as the design is for a full cdo bn
- with a QE in presence the Command facilities (and related bunks) could be diverted to other use
- 365 for A bay sounds a bit high, in comparison, when they have been designed mainly as logistics ships

My take on it is that
- the two Coys on QE woud be RM recce echelons and an air assaut Coy
- a full cdo bn and supporting units (Chally sqdrn, arty incl. AD & targeting drones, Armoured support group, engineers, field hospital) would fully load the other three vessels
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)

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Aethulwulf »

The figures for EMF PAX capacity for Ocean, Albions and Bays varies according to different sources. Much of this confusion centers around whether the EMF PAX capacity includes bunk spaces for Aviation Group personnel and landing craft crews or if these are included within the figures for the ship's crew. For RFA vessels this is further confused by figures for RFA crew and RN augmentees.

In simple round numbers, the EMF PAX capacity for each ship is:
•Ocean - 700
•Albion - 300
•Bay - 400
Hence, the current deployable amphibious force is 1800 (using 2 Bays).
In all case the numbers above for the EMF PAX capacity include bunks for Aviation Group personnel and landing craft crew.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

But their aren't 1800 marines to deploy.

The 700 held at very high readiness could be lifted by 1 CVF and 2 Bays.
@LandSharkUK

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Aethulwulf »

Do some reading about 3 Commando Brigade! The lead commando unit of 700 will not be deployed without various commando sub-units (RA, RE, Log, HQ, etc.). All this, plus the Aviation Group personnel plus the landing craft crews, comes to a total of 1800.

Post Reply