Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 386
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54
Has liked: 99 times
Been liked: 11 times

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by jedibeeftrix »

I still like the flexibility of a mixed fleet; available for use separately depending on what a small situation requires, but create a cohesive package when used together for bigger problems.

Even if those platforms are smaller and lighter manned than what we're used to when using labels like LPD/LSD.

A mixed fleet to me looks like:
2x converted Points - with flight-deck and designed for special operations support
4x LSD - for stores (1 dock + 1 pad)
2x LPD - for mass across the beach (2 docks + 1 pad)

But I accept that I start from 'odd' position that combined-arms maneuvre at battlegroup level is not just a thing of 3Cdo's past.

I simply think docks are too important to do without, not least in the age of large underwater unmanned platforms's, and I really don't think davits are useful substitute, nor too LST's a viable option for our IP ambitions.
These users liked the author jedibeeftrix for the post:
wargame_insomniac

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3455
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 21 times
Been liked: 122 times
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

For me the mix of

2 x Enforcer LHDs (2 docks 6 spots 16 Helicopter ) 4 x 40mm
4 x enforcer LPD's ( 2 docks 2 spots 4 helicopters ) 3 x 40mm
5 x Absalon / Type 32 ( 1 flex deck 1 spot 2 helicopters ) 1 x 127mm , 2 x 40mm 32 x Mk-41 cells

this allows

1 x Type 32 to support a Company op
2 x type 32 + 2 LPD to support a Battalion op
1 x LHD + 2 LPDs + T-32 + 2 T-31 to support a Battalion of Cdo's and a Battalion of Air Assault mixed op in over load

We could also have a spilt of

LRG-N = 1 x LHD , 3 LPD's , 3 x Type 32's
LRG-s = 1 x LHD , 1 LPD , 2 x type 32's
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
jedibeeftrix

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 3047
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 85 times
Been liked: 101 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Jake1992 wrote: 06 Apr 2022, 08:50 If your LPDs have hangers for 6 odd merlins like San Antonio or KD then why would you really need a number of Argus style vessels ?
Because with a distributed FCF strategy I believe the platforms that they are operating from need to be distributed also. This means more ships, keeping their focus to specific roles allows them to be optimised and simpler.

But to get real, I’m not saying a LPD should have a hangar for a couple of helicopters (or be supported by an existing RFA like the Wave class that can also operate 2 Merlins).

For me the RM amphibious fleet could be as simple as:

- 3 RM OTH companies operating from an Argus style ASS and the two CVFs.
- 3 RM OTB (Over The Beach) companies operating from 3 smaller LPDs (could be MRSSs).
- Troop level insertion units based on FFs/DDs, OPVs and RFAs.
Jake1992 wrote: 06 Apr 2022, 08:50 If you need more than what the LPDs can offer then the next logical step is an LPH / LHD, but I believe they would not only be cost prohibitive but also the RN would see any flat top as a potential political threat to the QEs so will stay clear of them.
Would love a third flattop, but the danger you describe is very real, and the RN has done an amazing job to get both active.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1893
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 14 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Repulse wrote: 06 Apr 2022, 10:42
Jake1992 wrote: 06 Apr 2022, 08:50 If your LPDs have hangers for 6 odd merlins like San Antonio or KD then why would you really need a number of Argus style vessels ?
Because with a distributed FCF strategy I believe the platforms that they are operating from need to be distributed also. This means more ships, keeping their focus to specific roles allows them to be optimised and simpler.

But to get real, I’m not saying a LPD should have a hangar for a couple of helicopters (or be supported by an existing RFA like the Wave class that can also operate 2 Merlins).

For me the RM amphibious fleet could be as simple as:

- 3 RM OTH companies operating from an Argus style ASS and the two CVFs.
- 3 RM OTB (Over The Beach) companies operating from 3 smaller LPDs (could be MRSSs).
- Troop level insertion units based on FFs/DDs, OPVs and RFAs.
Jake1992 wrote: 06 Apr 2022, 08:50 If you need more than what the LPDs can offer then the next logical step is an LPH / LHD, but I believe they would not only be cost prohibitive but also the RN would see any flat top as a potential political threat to the QEs so will stay clear of them.
Would love a third flattop, but the danger you describe is very real, and the RN has done an amazing job to get both active.
If you have 6 LPDs LDSs what ever they get called coming out of the MRSS each with a hanger for 6 merlin and a flight deck for 2 then you have your distributed set up each with decent avation capacity while still being able to form 2 capable ARGs if every required.

Large LPDs with large well docks will still be the best option in my opinion over just aviation platforms, as like Iv said before we don’t know if the RM set up will once again change before said vessels are replaced in 40 years odd and once again need large landing craft in numbers. This along with the fact that large well docks will be the best way to transport and operate large unmanned systems in the coming future.

These vessels will most likely be serving 30-40 years and will be seen as only second to the QEs in our fleet so they need to be flexible with the ablitly to facilitate change in doctrin over the years, not small limited vessels that could very quickly find themselves unable to provided what’s needed.
These users liked the author Jake1992 for the post (total 2):
jedibeeftrixwargame_insomniac

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 630
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18
Has liked: 79 times
Been liked: 8 times

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Dahedd »

Tempest414 wrote: 06 Apr 2022, 09:18 Given where things are going maybe the best mix we could go for would be

2 x Enforcer 18000 LHD's 200 x 35 Meters
4 x Enforcer 13000 LPD's
5 x Absalon = Type 32

I can't see a better choice for T32 than the Absalon. The commonality with the T31 & flexibility (of the vehicle/UAV deck) make it a no brainer given its planned role.
These users liked the author Dahedd for the post:
wargame_insomniac

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6974
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 201 times
Been liked: 237 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Given an Albion can already carry the troops and equipment for a LSU part of an LSG by itself, only lacking the aviation capability and capacity, a single Enforcer type LPD with its six helicopters would do the job. But the RN doesn't want one big ship for its LSGS but rather a greater number of smaller ships to be combines with an Escort. They are not to be big profile in themselves but rather it is the capability and the knowledge of others knowing the LSG in in the area, and what some of its capabilities may be, that is important.

Each of the two LSGs will have a single Company based LSU embarked. To increase this number means combining the LSGs at the most, though each of the amphibious vessels that make up each LSG will have a certain margin to surge and reinforce the existing LSU. Conducting raiding missions of a size between a Platoon and a Company will be the form of the FCF's new LSUs and this together with the number and size of its ship to shore connectors will govern the size of the ships built to replace the Albions and Bays in a single class.

The RN's amphibious shipping will not be tasked with moving the Army's planned BCTs. This will be the role of the RFA or more likely contracted civilian Ro-Ro vessels. Civilian shipping could also be used to move aviation assets such as the RAF's Chinooks or the Army's Apaches in a theatre of operations. Well at least in my opinion.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
Repulse

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 3047
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 85 times
Been liked: 101 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Lord Jim wrote: 09 Apr 2022, 01:20 Given an Albion can already carry the troops and equipment for a LSU part of an LSG by itself, only lacking the aviation capability and capacity, a single Enforcer type LPD with its six helicopters would do the job. But the RN doesn't want one big ship for its LSGS but rather a greater number of smaller ships to be combines with an Escort. They are not to be big profile in themselves but rather it is the capability and the knowledge of others knowing the LSG in in the area, and what some of its capabilities may be, that is important.
True, longer term the plan seems to be more numerous smaller ships, than a couple large LPD/LHDs. However, in the shorter term the two LPDs active at the core of each LSG is a good use of existing resources and allows time for the concept to mature. Adding a single Aviation Support Ship assigned to LRG(S) would be sufficient to have a credible force.
Lord Jim wrote: 09 Apr 2022, 01:20 Each of the two LSGs will have a single Company based LSU embarked. To increase this number means combining the LSGs at the most, though each of the amphibious vessels that make up each LSG will have a certain margin to surge and reinforce the existing LSU. Conducting raiding missions of a size between a Platoon and a Company will be the form of the FCF's new LSUs and this together with the number and size of its ship to shore connectors will govern the size of the ships built to replace the Albions and Bays in a single class.
Agree - my view is that there should be 3-4 LPD style ships, backed by 3-4 Aviation Ships (including the two CVFs) all capable of operating with a Company of RMs. This backed up by other RN platforms capable of Troop level operations.
Lord Jim wrote: 09 Apr 2022, 01:20 The RN's amphibious shipping will not be tasked with moving the Army's planned BCTs. This will be the role of the RFA or more likely contracted civilian Ro-Ro vessels. Civilian shipping could also be used to move aviation assets such as the RAF's Chinooks or the Army's Apaches in a theatre of operations. Well at least in my opinion.
Agree also - however, I would refocus the RFA once again on logistical support of the RN and RM; trying to use it as a cheap RN lite is too much a drain on its limited resources to be credible. I would move the transportation of the Army brigade to the Royal Logistic Corps.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1893
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 14 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

For me the best route is 6 large LPDs with avation facilities for 6 merlin each along with 5-6 Absalon for the T32s. This gives the flexibility to the RM to operate in a multitude of ways, if the RN go down the route of multiple small vessels what they are effectively doing is stating the RM doctrine can’t change for the next 40 years as the vessels they have to operate from won’t allow it. If that’s their mind set then it’s very short sighted and arrogant to believe no change will need to come about over such a time span.

As for the option of 4 LPDs with avation and 3-4 aviation ships, I believe this once again puts the same limiting factor we had with Ocean and the Albions being that neither can do a full job alone thuse having to work together at all times or limit what they can do.
These users liked the author Jake1992 for the post:
wargame_insomniac

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 3047
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 85 times
Been liked: 101 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

I have no problem with the LPDs having a hanger for a Merlin or two, but let’s not kid ourselves that there is any extra money to do any of this.

Flexible ship designs within limits is of course best practice, but the fantasy of multiple large LPDs or LHDs are just that, fantasy. The danger is if the RN pretends it is possible - this will just kick the can down the road with years of differ and delay, at best ending in a v.small number of these platforms (1-2) or at worst nothing.

IMO the RN needs to get momentum, this can be done by building multiple smaller/cheaper ships. Ships designed for a narrower set of roles are cheaper and more effective in these roles by their nature.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1893
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 14 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Repulse wrote: 09 Apr 2022, 09:20 I have no problem with the LPDs having a hanger for a Merlin or two, but let’s not kid ourselves that there is any extra money to do any of this.

Flexible ship designs within limits is of course best practice, but the fantasy of multiple large LPDs or LHDs are just that, fantasy. The danger is if the RN pretends it is possible - this will just kick the can down the road with years of differ and delay, at best ending in a v.small number of these platforms (1-2) or at worst nothing.

IMO the RN needs to get momentum, this can be done by building multiple smaller/cheaper ships. Ships designed for a narrower set of roles are cheaper and more effective in these roles by their nature.
What will cost more though increasing hanger size from 2 to 6 merlins on each LPD or build 2 different classes of ship 4 LPDs and 2 aviation ships.

The danger of building smaller cheaper ships in greater numbers though is you box the RMs in to what they are now for 40 plus years with no way of changing that and you also run the risk of not having vessels capable of operating large unmanned systems. So what you end up with is in 15 years time a good number of small vessels that are no longer capable of servicing your need.

We currently have 6 “large” vessels that will need replacing ( 2 albions, 3 bays, 1 Argus ) replacing these with one common class of similar sized vessels will not be seen as asking too much.

Simply put on cost grounds 6 large vessels cost X, 6 small vessles cost Y, 10 or so small vessels more than likely will cost X. So if the cost is to be X regardless then it’s what is best to spend X on.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 3227
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 81 times
Been liked: 183 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Spoiler alert they’ve already built the 2 aviation ships! And spent so much on them they won’t be building 4 lpds
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
Lord Jim

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1893
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 14 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

SW1 wrote: 09 Apr 2022, 09:47 Spoiler alert they’ve already built the 2 aviation ships! And spent so much on them they won’t be building 4 lpds
They are strike carriers, not what was mentioned up thread.
what you are saying then is all are aviation capacity should be limited to 2 strike carriers which will either take them away from the they’re meant to do or severely limit it.

The RN won’t build 4 LPDs to replace the current amphibious fleet because of the cost of the carriers but will spend similar amounts building 10 odd smaller vessels that will be limited in not only what they can do now but what change in doctrine they will allow over the next 40 years.

It makes no sence at all but I wouldn’t be shocked as we’ve sence in all public services just waste money on short term ideas with out thinking long term and the MOD is the worst offender.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3455
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 21 times
Been liked: 122 times
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

I think there are a few thing to clear up here

1 ) Given the number of times the RM have changed focus in the last 40 years it will change again
2) in the last 40 years the RM have conducted 3 large opposed over the beech combat operations in 1982 , 1991 & 2003 i.e nearly once every 10 years and in the 19 years between 2003 and today it has been fighting fall time as a brigade in Afgan
3) right up to this very month the RM have been training to carry out Battalion battle group over the beech operations in the North and EoS
4) the RN is a global global force
5) The British Army is already moved by the Royal Logistics Crop using the Point Class who's crews become sponsored reserve's in time of war It is also worth noting that the Mexeflote's are operated by the RLC and not the Navy
6 ) Everything in the RN including the Strike carriers are there to support Amphibious lands and this has been a point of fact since WW2
7) We will need be able to conduct combined Op's going forward

So with all of this said for me we still need

2 x LHD's or LPH's capable of carrying 700 troops and 18 to 20 helicopters plus 2 docks or 4 Landing craft
4 x LPD's capable of carrying 350 troops and 4 Helicopters plus 2 dock
6 x Absalon style Type 32's capable of carrying 200 troops and 2 Helicopters
4 to 6 Point class able to move a complete army BCT

This would allow anything from a Company level op supported by a single type 32 to a fully combined Operation of 1 x Air Assault battalion battle group flown from the LHD's & supported by type 31's , 1 x RM Battalion battle group launched from the LPD's and Type 32's , 1 x Army BCT delivered by Point class and all supported by a Carrier strike group
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
jedibeeftrix

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 3227
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 81 times
Been liked: 183 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Jake1992 wrote: 09 Apr 2022, 11:26
SW1 wrote: 09 Apr 2022, 09:47 Spoiler alert they’ve already built the 2 aviation ships! And spent so much on them they won’t be building 4 lpds
They are strike carriers, not what was mentioned up thread.
what you are saying then is all are aviation capacity should be limited to 2 strike carriers which will either take them away from the they’re meant to do or severely limit it.

The RN won’t build 4 LPDs to replace the current amphibious fleet because of the cost of the carriers but will spend similar amounts building 10 odd smaller vessels that will be limited in not only what they can do now but what change in doctrine they will allow over the next 40 years.

It makes no sence at all but I wouldn’t be shocked as we’ve sence in all public services just waste money on short term ideas with out thinking long term and the MOD is the worst offender.

What I’m saying is that due to the historical procurement decisions all the limited aviation capacity is in two carriers.

The replacement for what’s left of the amphib fleets is 6 multi role support ships by the sounds of it.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 3227
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 81 times
Been liked: 183 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Tempest414 wrote: 09 Apr 2022, 11:27 I think there are a few thing to clear up here

1 ) Given the number of times the RM have changed focus in the last 40 years it will change again
2) in the last 40 years the RM have conducted 3 large opposed over the beech combat operations in 1982 , 1991 & 2003 i.e nearly once every 10 years and in the 19 years between 2003 and today it has been fighting fall time as a brigade in Afgan
3) right up to this very month the RM have been training to carry out Battalion battle group over the beech operations in the North and EoS
4) the RN is a global global force
5) The British Army is already moved by the Royal Logistics Crop using the Point Class who's crews become sponsored reserve's in time of war It is also worth noting that the Mexeflote's are operated by the RLC and not the Navy
6 ) Everything in the RN including the Strike carriers are there to support Amphibious lands and this has been a point of fact since WW2
7) We will need be able to conduct combined Op's going forward

So with all of this said for me we still need

2 x LHD's or LPH's capable of carrying 700 troops and 18 to 20 helicopters plus 2 docks or 4 Landing craft
4 x LPD's capable of carrying 350 troops and 4 Helicopters plus 2 dock
6 x Absalon style Type 32's capable of carrying 200 troops and 2 Helicopters
4 to 6 Point class able to move a complete army BCT

This would allow anything from a Company level op supported by a single type 32 to a fully combined Operation of 1 x Air Assault battalion battle group flown from the LHD's & supported by type 31's , 1 x RM Battalion battle group launched from the LPD's and Type 32's , 1 x Army BCT delivered by Point class and all supported by a Carrier strike group
In 1982 the landings were against a contested air environment, certainly not an opposed ground force landing.

Not sure where the opposed over the beach landing was in 1991 or 2003?
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
jedibeeftrix

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1893
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 14 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

SW1 wrote: 09 Apr 2022, 11:56
Jake1992 wrote: 09 Apr 2022, 11:26
SW1 wrote: 09 Apr 2022, 09:47 Spoiler alert they’ve already built the 2 aviation ships! And spent so much on them they won’t be building 4 lpds
They are strike carriers, not what was mentioned up thread.
what you are saying then is all are aviation capacity should be limited to 2 strike carriers which will either take them away from the they’re meant to do or severely limit it.

The RN won’t build 4 LPDs to replace the current amphibious fleet because of the cost of the carriers but will spend similar amounts building 10 odd smaller vessels that will be limited in not only what they can do now but what change in doctrine they will allow over the next 40 years.

It makes no sence at all but I wouldn’t be shocked as we’ve sence in all public services just waste money on short term ideas with out thinking long term and the MOD is the worst offender.

What I’m saying is that due to the historical procurement decisions all the limited aviation capacity is in two carriers.

The replacement for what’s left of the amphib fleets is 6 multi role support ships by the sounds of it.
What would multi role support ships be ?
While I agree we need more RAS ships, the carriers will be taken care of out side of the MRSS and with it looking like the waves will be kept it opens up the opertunity for them to be replaced at some point.

So if a multi role support ship is something like Karel Doornan ( which is what I believe should hopefully replace the waves ) then what is the difference between 6 x 204m by 30m vessels that have a 6 merlin hanger, twin chinook flight deck and large replenishment, to 6 x 200m by 30m odd LPD/LSD with a 6 merlin hanger twin chinook fight deck and well dock instead of replenishment.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3455
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 21 times
Been liked: 122 times
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote: 09 Apr 2022, 11:58
Tempest414 wrote: 09 Apr 2022, 11:27 I think there are a few thing to clear up here

1 ) Given the number of times the RM have changed focus in the last 40 years it will change again
2) in the last 40 years the RM have conducted 3 large opposed over the beech combat operations in 1982 , 1991 & 2003 i.e nearly once every 10 years and in the 19 years between 2003 and today it has been fighting fall time as a brigade in Afgan
3) right up to this very month the RM have been training to carry out Battalion battle group over the beech operations in the North and EoS
4) the RN is a global global force
5) The British Army is already moved by the Royal Logistics Crop using the Point Class who's crews become sponsored reserve's in time of war It is also worth noting that the Mexeflote's are operated by the RLC and not the Navy
6 ) Everything in the RN including the Strike carriers are there to support Amphibious lands and this has been a point of fact since WW2
7) We will need be able to conduct combined Op's going forward

So with all of this said for me we still need

2 x LHD's or LPH's capable of carrying 700 troops and 18 to 20 helicopters plus 2 docks or 4 Landing craft
4 x LPD's capable of carrying 350 troops and 4 Helicopters plus 2 dock
6 x Absalon style Type 32's capable of carrying 200 troops and 2 Helicopters
4 to 6 Point class able to move a complete army BCT

This would allow anything from a Company level op supported by a single type 32 to a fully combined Operation of 1 x Air Assault battalion battle group flown from the LHD's & supported by type 31's , 1 x RM Battalion battle group launched from the LPD's and Type 32's , 1 x Army BCT delivered by Point class and all supported by a Carrier strike group
In 1982 the landings were against a contested air environment, certainly not an opposed ground force landing.

Not sure where the opposed over the beach landing was in 1991 or 2003?
The Falkland landings were contested even if it was just by air attack and they were landed across a beech

All three were contested operations that saw the RM deploy from ships on to land to conduct combat and I used the word contested as it was contested no matter how it was contested air sea or land and the point is the RM over the past 40 years have had to deploy large forces across a coast line and fight and there for the need for this remains
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
jedibeeftrix

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 363
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Has liked: 443 times
Been liked: 49 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Thinking about the Enforcer LPD's. I know that the Dutch built a couple of ships (Rotterdam and Johann de Witt) and two Spanish Galicia class, followed by the four Bay class.

How likely is it that we could build such ships in UK shipyards? I guess similar to what Babcock did taking the Iver Huitfeldt class as the basis for Arrowhead 140 design for T31. I would hope so given that BAE (and Swan Hunter) were able to build the Bay class.

Looking at Damen website they do seem to have a spread of different sized ships that they could build. It does look as if should be easy to get a design with two helicopter landing spots and hangar space for 6 helicopters. I guess if we want them to be able to carry larger helicopters such as Chinook as opposed to medium heliocopters like Merlin, that would rule out some of the smaller hulled options.

https://products.damen.com/-/media/prod ... e768c4778e

https://www.globalsecurity.org/jhtml/jf ... image2.jpg|||

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3455
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 21 times
Been liked: 122 times
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

If put Damen enforcer 18000 LHD in you see how this works with the enforcer concept by adding a hangar deck and flat top to a LPD hull

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 363
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Has liked: 443 times
Been liked: 49 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Tempest414 wrote: 09 Apr 2022, 16:00 If put Damen enforcer 18000 LHD in you see how this works with the enforcer concept by adding a hangar deck and flat top to a LPD hull
I have said earlier in the thread that I quite like the idea of a smaller LHD, quoting a few examples of ships in the 18,000-22,000t size. I mentioned having maybe six F35B would help provide some air cover plus fire support for RM, with rest of hangar capacity dedicated to helicopters, with a well deck for flexibility of deploying RM's by either sea/air.

But everytime I express that opinion, I get a barrage of responses that RN would never do that, as would threaten the carriers. Or I get replies that we don't have enough F35B's to fully equip the carriers let alone deploy up to six on a LHD (which is CURRENTLY true but hopefully in the future if we buy enough F35B's need not be - but this is dependant on addditional defence spending which we hope government will provide but is as yet uncertain).

So I guess would have to settle for LPD's instead.
These users liked the author wargame_insomniac for the post:
jedibeeftrix

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 3047
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 85 times
Been liked: 101 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

I would love a third CVF/LHD but it’s not going to happen, nor should it based on the current force structure where any new cash should be focused on filling gaps to ensure a balanced force.

The RM role will evolve, as it should, but we should not pretend how it should, nor straddle it with expensive platforms now that do not even match the current strategy.

Time to get real.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 3047
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 85 times
Been liked: 101 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 09 Apr 2022, 09:47 Spoiler alert they’ve already built the 2 aviation ships! And spent so much on them they won’t be building 4 lpds
Yes and no. I said 3-4, 4 aviation ships is a dream, but given recent comments by the CDS on the value of Argus, I think a reasonable hope is to keep it in the short term, and look for a replacement longer term, which with the 2 carriers will give 3.

Given that we expect the RMs to get close to the enemy, operating in Littoral Zones close to shore, we need to either go full distributed ops and use disguisable civilian ships, or we need LPDs. Do they need to be as big as the Albions? Hell no. They could be MRSS sized, BUT they need to be RN crewed and be warships not support/supply ships - it’s dangerous to look them in any other way.
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

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6974
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 201 times
Been liked: 237 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Yes teh RM have had the organisation and role changed many times over the past forty years but at each even they have gotten smaller. Afghanistan and Iraq considerably worried the RN, who began to fear the RM were going to be seen as just another Infantry Brigade able to respond rapidly, but to be used in a conventional way. This would not require the speciality training the RM prided itself on, and could have resulted in it losing its amphibious assault capability, as seen as not needed, which in turn could lead to the RN and RFA losing the majority if not all of its amphibious shipping. By developing the FCF the RN has distances the RM form being seen as just an infantry Brigade, and is planning to make its roles highly specialised.

Whilst current naval assets are sufficient to form the two LSG, they are not ideal for the role and are too big and most importantly lacking in aviation facilities. What they will hopefully et in the future are ships that will still enable to RM to conduct over the beach assaults, but on a smaller scale and with limited objectives often operating with SF. There will not be a return to Brigade or even Battalion level amphibious operations once the FCF is fully realised and its new ships are constructed.

I am pretty sure the RM will still conduct training with its long time partners the Dutch Marines, who could follow the RM in changing its operating doctrine, which could also be followed by the recently formed German amphibious Infantry. Between these forces NATO will be easily able to occupy and defend a port or harbour to enable more conventional forces to land to carry out missions further in land and continue to support them if necessary. They will also have the ability to conduct precision strike s against coastal targets both within NATO's area of operations and also outside these on either a unilateral or multilateral basis.

The route taken by the British Army's airborne force since WWII is a good case study to follow.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
Repulse

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 3047
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 85 times
Been liked: 101 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Lord Jim, I agree with a lot of what you say. The future role of the RMs is different from the one it’s had since D-Day. For me it’s the right move that makes the force relevant, avoids duplication and makes it an important long term part of the UK armed forces.

Comparison with the Parachute Regiment is a good one also. Speed, unpredictability and flexibility in response to threats has a large value to deter and counter a foe. Smaller units that cannot be easily tracked through a small number of large platforms is a key part of the strategy.

One point however is that Amphibious Operations covers a broad spectrum of scenarios from a re-run of D-Day, Falklands Mk2 and transporting an Army brigade to a secured port. The RMs/Paras can still act as door openers, but the Army needs to be configured to be able to follow.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
Lord Jim
”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: 3455
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 21 times
Been liked: 122 times
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 09 Apr 2022, 16:14
Tempest414 wrote: 09 Apr 2022, 16:00 If put Damen enforcer 18000 LHD in you see how this works with the enforcer concept by adding a hangar deck and flat top to a LPD hull
I have said earlier in the thread that I quite like the idea of a smaller LHD, quoting a few examples of ships in the 18,000-22,000t size. I mentioned having maybe six F35B would help provide some air cover plus fire support for RM, with rest of hangar capacity dedicated to helicopters, with a well deck for flexibility of deploying RM's by either sea/air.

But everytime I express that opinion, I get a barrage of responses that RN would never do that, as would threaten the carriers. Or I get replies that we don't have enough F35B's to fully equip the carriers let alone deploy up to six on a LHD (which is CURRENTLY true but hopefully in the future if we buy enough F35B's need not be - but this is dependant on addditional defence spending which we hope government will provide but is as yet uncertain).

So I guess would have to settle for LPD's instead.
having 2 x 200 x 35 meter LHD's would not threaten the Carriers if they can not operate F-35b however this would not mean they could not operate armed drones but the big thing is helicopters so having a rear lift capable of moving an unfolded Chinook is key all the of lots of smaller ships is unreal at this time we have 6 ships in the Amphib fleet and that is all we are going to get unless RN go for Absalon style but they will need to get MRSS ordered first

Post Reply