Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

[jedibeeftrix]

"As N-a-B pointed out there is no magical ship to shore connector that can quickly transport troops over the horizon that is effective and even remotely in the UK’s budget bracket (even if we had the money to waste)."

"What is in doubt is the need for large LCU or LCM sized craft which were required to land tanks on the beach or heavy logistics for artillery etc is questionable if it’s needed."

But moving moving tonnes/day will be less expensive via H-UAV's than modern LCU's?

Colour me sceptical that docks are less efficient than helipads.

[Repulse]

But moving moving tonnes/day will be less expensive via H-UAV's than modern LCU's?

Colour me sceptical that docks are less efficient than helipads.

It’s a fair point and I think N-a-B was commenting primarily around the wishful thinking that you could transport troops and their kit via sea OTH at speed and have an effective fighting force when it arrived.

In terms of logistics, whilst it makes sense in certain circumstances, overall I think LCU sized logistics aren’t the answer:
- If the task group is operating far offshore, the LCU has a long distance to cover, probably through waters that aren’t secure.
- It will need to land at a secured landing spot, this may not be possible, or would take troops away from their primary target.
- We are talking about light company level operations that do not have heavy kit and are at a scale that would typically be 10% the size of 3Cdo the current force is designed for.

Given this, I do not see the need to spend money on specialist logistical ships with docks. I think fast LCVP sized ships can make up some of the difference as needed, but Chinooks / other heavy vertical lift capabilities is where the money needs to go.

[jedibeeftrix]

- We are talking about light company level operations that do not have heavy kit and are at a scale that would typically be 10% the size of 3Cdo the current force is designed for.

Are we?

This is the problem I have - in that I think people are making too many assumptions about the outcome of FCF.

[Scimitar54]

The FCF (LSS) proposal was actually to provide for a “Re-enforced Company”! I do not accept this growing and unfounded conjecture, that what we are looking to deploy is a Light Company.
Barking up the wrong tree springs to mind!

[Repulse]

Perhaps, and the approach is the concept evolves through exercises it seems, but the Strike Company concept is actively being looked at, and everything I read is taking us in this direction.

One of my fears is that this muddle of opposing views continues to lead to confused decisions and unaligned equipment projects, which just wastes money until the inevitable happens (but can’t be executed properly as the limited money has been spent on things that aren’t essential)

[Poiuytrewq]

The FCF (LSS) proposal was actually to provide for a “Re-enforced Company”! I do not accept this growing and unfounded conjecture, that what we are looking to deploy is a Light Company.
Barking up the wrong tree springs to mind!

IMO the soon to be deployed LRG(S) will clearly illustrate the scale of the ambition.

If it is Argus, Lyme Bay and Tidespring the ambition is clearly larger than a Light Company.

[shark bait]

It’s a fair point and I think N-a-B was commenting primarily around the wishful thinking that you could transport troops and their kit via sea OTH at speed and have an effective fighting force when it arrived.

It's reasonable to expect the bulk of the Marines to be an Air Mobile force so the initial combat insertion can be made over the horizon, but transferring Commando logistics, engineering and artillery to an airmobile force is probably out of reach for the UKs budget.

FCF should not be used as an excuse to stop taking heavy stuff from ship to shore, and the navy still needs to find an efficient way to do this.

[Jensy]

The FCF (LSS) proposal was actually to provide for a “Re-enforced Company”! I do not accept this growing and unfounded conjecture, that what we are looking to deploy is a Light Company.
Barking up the wrong tree springs to mind!

IMO the soon to be deployed LRG(S) will clearly illustrate the scale of the ambition.

If it is Argus, Lyme Bay and Tidespring the ambition is clearly larger than a Light Company.

At the risk of veering slightly off topic, do all the Bays now have a Rubb hangar on them? Or are they moved around.

[Poiuytrewq]

At the risk of veering slightly off topic, do all the Bays now have a Rubb hangar on them? Or are they moved around.

Yes the RUBB hangers are fitted to all three and appear to be semi-permanent now.

[shark bait]

This is kina wild, and relevant to the discussion we're having above;


https://www.griffonwyvern.com/

The company who built the Royal Marines Landing Craft Air Cushion are proposing a big one.

If we accept the balance of mass shifts in favour of helicopters, could it make sense to have a small number of Hovercraft that are more capable of operating over larger distances?

[Poiuytrewq]

This is kina wild, and relevant to the discussion we're having above…

A XL-LCAC has massive advantages.

- Well docks can be completely eliminated making patrol speeds plausible and lowering maintenance costs

- The hulls are large enough to fit CIWS

- Rapid transit time with long range in relative comfort

- Extra XL-LCAC can be easily transported via simple commercial vessels such as the Points to add extra ship to shore connectors to landing forces.

There are a few disadvantages as well but the concept needs real consideration before settling on the Caiman 90.

[shark bait]

Interesting thought on eliminating the well deck, not something I had previously considered.

• Would a big steel beach be a better idea for MRSS?
• Could the replacement for the point class have a massive steel beach?

[Caribbean]

Ahem - one of the reasons that I frequently mention a Dokdo-type "LHD" as a model (it doesn't actually have a dock, it carries two large LCAC and uses a steel beach). Designed around OTH landings by helicopter & LCAC. Add some davit mounted fast landing craft (CB90 etc) and you have a good raiding platform taht could scale up for larger operations

[shark bait]

I like it, removing the complexity associated with a well deck, which helps make MRSS be the simple truck it needs to be.

[jedibeeftrix]

I like it, removing the complexity associated with a well deck, which helps make MRSS be the simple truck it needs to be....

... but adds maintenance and complexity burden to the operating cost of the landing craft.

not saying it's a bad trade-off, but while i note griffyn point out the low complexity of their design i wonder how much that reduces the traditional maintenance cost of hovercraft.

[shark bait]

Yes, it's taking complexity out of the ship, and putting it into the payload, which is the better direction of travel.

[Fr0sty125]

It would be interesting to see an actual analysis of LCU v EDA-R v LCAC

With LCU and EDA-R you need a well deck/dock. LCAC only needs a steel beach.

You can fit two LCU for each LCAC or EDA-R.

LCAC has higher maintenance costs than EDA-R or LCU.

It would also be interesting to know if it is possible to get a fast LCU without it being the size of the EDA-R.

[Poiuytrewq]

Ahem - one of the reasons that I frequently mention a Dokdo-type "LHD" as a model (it doesn't actually have a dock, it carries two large LCAC and uses a steel beach). Designed around OTH landings by helicopter & LCAC. Add some davit mounted fast landing craft (CB90 etc) and you have a good raiding platform taht could scale up for larger operations

So in UK terms a HMS Ocean with a stern ramp?

It would be a £400m vessel, roughly equivalent to a BMT Ellida.

The transition from LCU to LCAC could unlock the entire MRSS conundrum.

[Fr0sty125]

The transition from LCU to LCAC could unlock the entire MRSS conundrum.

Apart from the fact you can fit a 2 LCU in a 13,000 tonne ship but 2 LCAC requires a 20,000 tonne ship.

[jedibeeftrix]

It would be interesting to see an actual analysis of LCU v EDA-R v LCAC

Or just resurrect the UK developed and trialled PACSCAT....

[Caribbean]

Apart from the fact you can fit a 2 LCU in a 13,000 tonne ship but 2 LCAC requires a 20,000 tonne ship.

Dokdo carries 2 Solgae-class LCACs - it's 14,300 tonnes(light). The LCAC has a beam of 14.6m vs Dokdos 31m, so I guess you could slim-down the ship somewhat and still carry 2

[Fr0sty125]

It would be interesting to see an actual analysis of LCU v EDA-R v LCAC

Or just resurrect the UK developed and trialled PACSCAT....

A 7m beam 36m length version would be a good fit for the British and Dutch probably the Australians and Spanish as well because they got sold a dud with the LCM-1E as it can’t take a combat weight MBT.

[serge750]

Looks good ! was there a reason ( besides money ) whey they were not adopted ??

[serge750]

Looks good ! was there a reason ( besides money ) whey they were not adopted ??

Mainly money going into operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Like a lot of good ideas at the time the money was spent elsewhere.

[Tempest414]

So LRG-S will be formed with Argus and a Bay class



The RM are loading light tac vehicles and we will see how many Merlin's they get