Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

[jedibeeftrix]

Question on terminology if I may:

What is this "battalion battlegroup" people speak of, and how is it different from the plain-jane "battlegroup" in more common parlance?

My understanding - and quite possibly my misunderstanding - is that a 'battlegroup' is a formation built around a battalion as the principle fighting unit, reinforced with smaller units (company or smaller), that provide it CS and CSS support.

The intent - to make a combined arms maneuvre unit at a smaller scale than a brigade...
... in which case are we only discussing a semantic difference here, and they are in fact the same thing?

My question seems germane to the discussion topic at hand - given we're wondering what you get when you merge LRG's together to make an LSG:
i.e. is the LSG merely a 'bunch of companies' or is it a combined arms maneuvre (battle)group?

[Tempest414]

Question on terminology if I may:

What is this "battalion battlegroup" people speak of, and how is it different from the plain-jane "battlegroup" in more common parlance?

My understanding - and quite possibly my misunderstanding - is that a 'battlegroup' is a formation built around a battalion as the principle fighting unit, reinforced with smaller units (company or smaller), that provide it CS and CSS support.

The intent - to make a combined arms maneuvre unit at a smaller scale than a brigade...
... in which case are we only discussing a semantic difference here, and they are in fact the same thing?

My question seems germane to the discussion topic at hand - given we're wondering what you get when you merge LRG's together to make an LSG:
i.e. is the LSG merely a 'bunch of companies' or is it a combined arms maneuvre (battle)group?

Yes it is a battalion with enablers so something like 1 x Recce Company , 1 x infantry Battalion , 1 x Logistics company & 1 x Artillery battery say about 1100 to 1300 strong

In the case of the RM we would be looking at about 1400 strong i.e 5 x LSU's of 250 plus extra enablers

Adding the battalion in front of the term battlegroup just makes the size clear

[Poiuytrewq]

…the chance of getting both in service are close to zero.

…you cannot have both…

Why?

If a FSS costs £600m then an Ellida will cost £400m minimum so 6x MRSS will cost ballpark £2.5bn

A UK Trieste LHD would likely cost ballpark £1.2bn (€1.1bn + 30%) plus £800m for 2x Enforcer based LPD’s. Total £2bn. A huge saving of around £500m.

Core crew allocation for the LHD would be similar to Albion but RN would have to find the crews for the LPDs. Damen suggests around 100 crew.

Clearly RN couldn’t operate all three flattops concurrently outside of a maximum effort but either one CSG or two operating as LHA’s looks possible if the 750 crew surge on the CVF for a CSG is split between the CVF and LPD.

So if the money and crew can found and the maintenance and operating costs are lower than six MRSS why can’t it be done?

[SW1]

we need is the third flattop and 4 large MRSS

If RN decides to build a single LHA to replace the Albions how does that reduce the scale or effectiveness of anything?

The Navy will not get a new large flat top and new LPDs. They could make the argument for either, both options could work, but the chance of getting both in service are close to zero.

• With the LHA option the Marines are a light airmobile force.
• With the LPD option the Marines are medium amphibious force

Either is a reasonable approach.

Agree that you cannot have both - but IMO having the assets to be able to operate LPDs close to shore safely with the necessary cover against a peer or near-peer nation is also unaffordable.

They don’t have the resources either cash or manpower to do either. They don’t have the resources to do what they currently do properly if you want that to change things need scaled back radically.

that’s not the lpds role in a peer conflict. Their role in a peer conflict against Russia is to operate on Norways costal flank to reinforce and deny that route to the Russian. They aren’t closing a hostile coast. You may also argue possibly now in the Baltic too that nato has expanded

[Tempest414]

…the chance of getting both in service are close to zero.

…you cannot have both…

Why?

If a FSS costs £600m then an Ellida will cost £400m minimum so 6x MRSS will cost ballpark £2.5bn

A UK Trieste LHD would likely cost ballpark £1.2bn (€1.1bn + 30%) plus £800m for 2x Enforcer based LPD’s. Total £2bn. A huge saving of around £500m.

Core crew allocation for the LHD would be similar to Albion but RN would have to find the crews for the LPDs. Damen suggests around 100 crew.

Clearly RN couldn’t operate all three flattops concurrently outside of a maximum effort but either one CSG or two operating as LHA’s looks possible if the 750 crew surge on the CVF for a CSG is split between the CVF and LPD.

So if the money and crew can found and the maintenance and operating costs are lower than six MRSS why can’t it be done?

I was think more of a Ocean 2 230 by 40 meters at the flight deck as said a rear lift capable of moving a Chinook unfolded maybe the same lift as on the QE class plus a steel beech 4 davits for CIC capable of carrying 600 troops crew 260 ( based on Oceans crew of 285 ) price 600 million if we add to this 3 x BMT MRSS at 400 million each it would cost 1.8 billion with 4 MRSS 2.2 billion I think this is more than doable in terms of cash and crew

[Repulse]

They don’t have the resources either cash or manpower to do either. They don’t have the resources to do what they currently do properly if you want that to change things need scaled back radically.

Absolutely, it’s not just about the MRSS / LPDs it’s the ships and other capabilities requires to make it effective and more than just a token.

If by “scale back” you mean stop wasting money on things that just impact the effectiveness of higher priority capabilities, I agree.

that’s not the lpds role in a peer conflict. Their role in a peer conflict against Russia is to operate on Norways costal flank to reinforce and deny that route to the Russian. They aren’t closing a hostile coast. You may also argue possibly now in the Baltic too that nato has expanded

Why do you need LPDs to do this? The forward operating base in Norway is a good example of an alternative. I think also that a mobile Forward Operating Base for the RMs (troops, kit and supplies) delivered via a Point class or similar could be an effective way of providing that capability.

[Poiuytrewq]

I was think more of a Ocean 2 230 by 40 meters at the flight deck as said a rear lift capable of moving a Chinook unfolded maybe the same lift as on the QE class plus a steel beech 4 davits for CIC capable of carrying 600 troops crew 260 ( based on Oceans crew of 285 ) price 600 million if we add to this 3 x BMT MRSS at 400 million each it would cost 1.8 billion with 4 MRSS 2.2 billion I think this is more than doable in terms of cash and crew

Your proposal makes a lot of sense.

My perspective is a bit different. IMO the use of naval maritime drones is going to revolutionise warfare in the littoral and at sea within a decade. Whatever RN decide to replace the Albions with will be in commission from the early 2030’s to the 2060’s. By then the technological landscape will be very different. So what does future proofing actually look like for the MRSS?

IMO traditional LPDs with small hangers could be virtually obsolescent when the MRSS begin commissioning in the mid 2030s.

There is a rational argument to say that all MRSS should be flattop drone carriers to ensure they aren’t obsolete by the first major refit around 2045. That would effectively result in 4x Mistral LHDs or 3x Juan Carlos/Canberra LHDs or 2x Trieste LHDs if the MRSS budget is around £2.5bn.

IMO the next-gen Amphibs need to be optimised for naval maritime drones with the ability in the future to easily and cost effectively add a F35 capability if required in the future. The EMF capacity need not be more than 500 but a floodable well dock and large hanger is essential.

Incidentally I agree with the 230mx40m flight although what does a flight deck optimised for naval drone and amphibious assault look like. It’s completely novel so nobody knows.

One thing is for sure. When Mojave lands on PWLS successfully everything will change. Old assumptions will be history and new possibilities will become obvious.

[SW1]

They don’t have the resources either cash or manpower to do either. They don’t have the resources to do what they currently do properly if you want that to change things need scaled back radically.

Absolutely, it’s not just about the MRSS / LPDs it’s the ships and other capabilities requires to make it effective and more than just a token.

If by “scale back” you mean stop wasting money on things that just impact the effectiveness of higher priority capabilities, I agree.

that’s not the lpds role in a peer conflict. Their role in a peer conflict against Russia is to operate on Norways costal flank to reinforce and deny that route to the Russian. They aren’t closing a hostile coast. You may also argue possibly now in the Baltic too that nato has expanded

Why do you need LPDs to do this? The forward operating base in Norway is a good example of an alternative. I think also that a mobile Forward Operating Base for the RMs (troops, kit and supplies) delivered via a Point class or similar could be an effective way of providing that capability.

The Norwegians coast line is not that easy to move around and along while there is a number of small harbours transport is difficult it is easier to use the capabilities and shelter offered by the dock to host and deploy small craft. Some forget how long a coast Norway is. If you overlaid Norway on a map it would reach from Portugal to Black Sea.

Even in the Cold War the plan for US carriers was to sail into a Norwegian fjord and use it like an airfield with natural cover. So while things have moved on the ruggedness of the land is hard to overcome.

[Tempest414]

here we go gearing up for LRG-S

[shark bait]

IMO the next-gen Amphibs need to be optimised for naval maritime drones with the ability in the future to easily and cost effectively add a F35 capability if required in the future.

The drone thing is reasonable, but the F35 thing is truly outrageous. That makes it a multi billion pound ship to buy, and incredibly intensive to operate. Prices for low cost Asian, or subsidised European yards can't be used to justify a UK build. A UK designed and built LHA will be at least half the cost of QE.

We all recognise it's a huge effort for the navy to operate two carriers, it's impossible they could operate four.

Operating the carrier groups is such a huge effort for the Navy and RAF. The amphibious groups have to be simpler otherwise everything breaks under the already massive strain.

[donald_of_tokyo]

I was think more of a Ocean 2 230 by 40 meters at the flight deck as said a rear lift capable of moving a Chinook unfolded maybe the same lift as on the QE class plus a steel beech 4 davits for CIC capable of carrying 600 troops crew 260 ( based on Oceans crew of 285 ) price 600 million if we add to this 3 x BMT MRSS at 400 million each it would cost 1.8 billion with 4 MRSS 2.2 billion I think this is more than doable in terms of cash and crew

Your proposal makes a lot of sense.

My perspective is a bit different. IMO the use of naval maritime drones is going to revolutionise warfare in the littoral and at sea within a decade. Whatever RN decide to replace the Albions with will be in commission from the early 2030’s to the 2060’s. By then the technological landscape will be very different. So what does future proofing actually look like for the MRSS?

IMO traditional LPDs with small hangers could be virtually obsolescent when the MRSS begin commissioning in the mid 2030s.

There is a rational argument to say that all MRSS should be flattop drone carriers to ensure they aren’t obsolete by the first major refit around 2045.

Agree.

That would effectively result in 4x Mistral LHDs or 3x Juan Carlos/Canberra LHDs or 2x Trieste LHDs if the MRSS budget is around £2.5bn.

I think, San Giorgio-like 5500-6000 tonnish vessels are better.

- One 20000t LPH as the 3rd flattop.
- 4 “son of San Giorgio class” MRSS
- 2 75m class (Vard 7 like) simple OPVs
to replace current Argus, Albions, Bays and even the 3 River B1 OPVs.

Here I mixed River B1 replacements, because my 5500-6000t MRSS will also replace Caribbean guard ship and maybe even Gibraltar guard ship.

[Poiuytrewq]

The drone thing is reasonable, but the F35 thing is truly outrageous. That makes it a multi billion pound ship to buy, and incredibly intensive to operate. Prices for low cost Asian, or subsidised European yards can't be used to justify a UK build. A UK designed and built LHA will be at least half the cost of QE.

Two different things there.

A pair of £900m Canberra LHDs could operate F35 in the future if required but would be used primarily for naval maritime drones and amphibious assault. Really don’t see anything outrageous about that. Perfectly reasonable for RN to replace the two Albions, Ocean and Argus with such a capability.

A 40,000t LHA would effectively be RN joining the funding for two LHD’s together to fund a single LHA. Operating 6x F35, 8x Merlin, 4x Chinook, 4x Apache and 4x Wildcat and embarking up to 800 RM (plus 4x Merlin and 600 RM In accompanying LPD) would be a world class capability.

Clearly RN could not operate both CVF’s and a LHA concurrently but CVFs break down and also require time consuming refits, as we have seen with PWLS and are soon to see with QE.

If RN decide to replace the amphibs with a single LHA (primarily operating helos and MALE drones unless a CVF is in refit) and two Enforcer LPDs it would be perfectly affordable and far from outrageous.

Six MRSS would not be the cheapest option to operate, crew or maintain.

RN need to decide either way but of all the available options the 6x MRSS option looks the least credible or optimal IMO.

[shark bait]

Those numbers are outrageously optimistic. Even taking the Wikipedia figures at face value a Canberra class costs £1.2 billion today. Furthermore that's designed and built by a Spanish state owned enterprise, so it's an unreasonable assumption to apply for a private company in the UK.

We know exactly what a 65,000 tonne UK designed and built F35 capable flat top costs, now extrapolate that to a 40,000 tonne UK designed and built F35 capable flat top = £2.7 billion each.

[Repulse]

We know exactly what a 65,000 tonne UK designed and built F35 capable flat top costs, now extrapolate that to a 40,000 tonne UK designed and built F35 capable flat top = £2.7 billion each.

We know the price if we delay, spread work for political reasons, flip-flop over STOL vs cats-n-traps you mean.

[Repulse]

The Norwegians coast line is not that easy to move around and along while there is a number of small harbours transport is difficult it is easier to use the capabilities and shelter offered by the dock to host and deploy small craft. Some forget how long a coast Norway is. If you overlaid Norway on a map it would reach from Portugal to Black Sea.

Even in the Cold War the plan for US carriers was to sail into a Norwegian fjord and use it like an airfield with natural cover. So while things have moved on the ruggedness of the land is hard to overcome.

Are large LPDs/LSDs/MRSSs the answer though? If it was, why doesn’t the Norwegian navy have any? They have historically had small and medium landing ships.

[Repulse]

Operating the carrier groups is such a huge effort for the Navy and RAF. The amphibious groups have to be simpler otherwise everything breaks under the already massive strain.

Or putting it in a different way - the amphibious capability needs to be an integral part of CEPP. Whilst there is an argument for an ASS/Multi-role support ship EoS and possibly a OPV/MRSS hybrid class for forward based low level policing / HADR that could contribute to CEPP, there is no scope / money to operate separate amphibious groups.

[SW1]

The Norwegians coast line is not that easy to move around and along while there is a number of small harbours transport is difficult it is easier to use the capabilities and shelter offered by the dock to host and deploy small craft. Some forget how long a coast Norway is. If you overlaid Norway on a map it would reach from Portugal to Black Sea.

Even in the Cold War the plan for US carriers was to sail into a Norwegian fjord and use it like an airfield with natural cover. So while things have moved on the ruggedness of the land is hard to overcome.

Are large LPDs/LSDs/MRSSs the answer though? If it was, why doesn’t the Norwegian navy have any? They have historically had small and medium landing ships.

Because it’s there country and they have lots of small craft all along their coast.

We have to bring ours with us. The best way currently to do that is in a dock as they don’t have the range to move from the U.K. on their own.

Though if your talking about looking at fast patrol boats with range it could be interesting

[Poiuytrewq]

Those numbers are outrageously optimistic. Even taking the Wikipedia figures at face value a Canberra class costs £1.2 billion today. Furthermore that's designed and built by a Spanish state owned enterprise, so it's an unreasonable assumption to apply for a private company in the UK.

The Canberra class hulls were built in Spain and then floated to Australia where the superstructure and fitting out was completed by BAE systems Australia. Shipbuilding in Australia is even more inefficient than the U.K.

The original Juan Carlos adjusted for inflation cost around £620m. Add a 40% inefficiency for a UK build with Navantia/H&W and that becomes £868m. Hardly outrageous to budget £900m.

We know exactly what a 65,000 tonne UK designed and built F35 capable flat top costs, now extrapolate that to a 40,000 tonne UK designed and built F35 capable flat top = £2.7 billion each.

Thats a totally different proposition. The CVFs have a 50 year hull life, most LHDs are around 30 years.

The 40,000t CVF derived design doesn’t exist, just like the QE design didn’t exist. A new design would cost a lot but BAE already have a UK LHD design so could be a starting point. https://www.baesystems.com/en-media/upl ... 568205.pdf

The Aircraft alliance was not the most efficient shipbuilding method but it was necessary at the time and worked well. The political delays cost hundreds of millions of pounds so big savings could be made if a third hull was attempted however I really don’t think a baby CVF is a realistic proposition.

If RN want one LHA rather than 2x LHD or 4x MRSS then it’s perfectly achievable. The costs are the same. It’s for RN to decide.

[jedibeeftrix]

The Norwegians coast line is not that easy to move around and along while there is a number of small harbours transport is difficult it is easier to use the capabilities and shelter offered by the dock to host and deploy small craft. Some forget how long a coast Norway is. If you overlaid Norway on a map it would reach from Portugal to Black Sea.

Even in the Cold War the plan for US carriers was to sail into a Norwegian fjord and use it like an airfield with natural cover. So while things have moved on the ruggedness of the land is hard to overcome.

Are large LPDs/LSDs/MRSSs the answer though? If it was, why doesn’t the Norwegian navy have any? They have historically had small and medium landing ships.

because they don't have an expeditionary defence posture in response to an activist global foriegn policy...?

[shark bait]

BAE already have a UK LHD design

That's only true if we accept a ridiculously low bar for the word 'design'. At best its a concept image.

There's no point denying the UK is a high cost country, every ship built in the last 20 years proved this. At the same time there no point pretending a LHA is going to be special or different, especially if fast jets are included in the scope.

[Repulse]

The Norwegians coast line is not that easy to move around and along while there is a number of small harbours transport is difficult it is easier to use the capabilities and shelter offered by the dock to host and deploy small craft. Some forget how long a coast Norway is. If you overlaid Norway on a map it would reach from Portugal to Black Sea.

Even in the Cold War the plan for US carriers was to sail into a Norwegian fjord and use it like an airfield with natural cover. So while things have moved on the ruggedness of the land is hard to overcome.

Are large LPDs/LSDs/MRSSs the answer though? If it was, why doesn’t the Norwegian navy have any? They have historically had small and medium landing ships.

Because it’s there country and they have lots of small craft all along their coast.

We have to bring ours with us. The best way currently to do that is in a dock as they don’t have the range to move from the U.K. on their own.

Though if your talking about looking at fast patrol boats with range it could be interesting

That and also forward basing, removing the need to get from the UK in the traditional sense.

[jedibeeftrix]

because they don't have an expeditionary defence posture in response to an activist global foriegn policy...?

True, but also because they don’t see a need for them to defend their coastline - which was where I was going to understand what is needed for the requirement

[Tempest414]

BAE already have a UK LHD design

That's only true if we accept a ridiculously low bar for the word 'design'. At best its a concept image.

There's no point denying the UK is a high cost country, every ship built in the last 20 years proved this. At the same time there no point pretending a LHA is going to be special or different, especially if fast jets are included in the scope.

Maybe but I still think a Ocean 2 at 220 by 40 meters at the flight deck with a steel beech could be built for 600 million given Oceans adjusted cost in 2021 was 350 million

[Tempest414]

because they don't have an expeditionary defence posture in response to an activist global foriegn policy...?

True, but also because they don’t see a need for them to defend their coastline - which was where I was going to understand what is needed for the requirement

The real need lays with the term global we need to take our kit anywhere we think we need it not just across the North sea and support it with CEPP

[Poiuytrewq]

BAE already have a UK LHD design

That's only true if we accept a ridiculously low bar for the word 'design'. At best its a concept image.

Nope, it’s heavily based on Ocean which had lots of lineage from the Invincibles.

There's no point denying the UK is a high cost country….

I have never suggested the UK isn’t a high cost country.

That’s why all the figures previously posted are adjusted for inflation with the BoE inflation calculator then adjusted for UK inefficiency. Eg, in the UK it is 30% more expensive to build ships than Italy and 40% more expensive than Spain. Perfectly reasonable.

…every ship built in the last 20 years proved this.

Is that including or excluding the T31?

Comparing the cost of producing at Rosyth vs the Polish shipyards is going to extremely illuminating.

One of the reasons why UK shipbuilding has been so inefficient in recent years is chopping and changing requirements and artificially slow build schedules.

The T31 has purposefully negated those hurdles, Babcock have invested in the infrastructure and the results may surprise everyone.

~£270m for a T31 plus GFE is not expensive anywhere in the world. It’s a real success story.

At the same time there no point pretending a LHA is going to be special or different, especially if fast jets are included in the scope.

The point is it can be done if RN want to do it. The money is available, the F35s will already have been procured and the crew already exist.

If 4x MRSS budgets were combined to procure a £1.6bn UK LHA it would be potentially much more capable than Trieste and perhaps the most capable LHD outside the US. It would be a credible 3rd flattop for RN but only used as a LHA when one or both of the CVFs were in deep refit or broken. If that is the case then many of the crew could transfer across until the CVF was operational again.

It’s worth considering that CSG23 could be performed just as well by a LHA. When QE goes into major refit next year a backup LHD that could rapidly surge to a LHA would be gold dust to RN.

RN needs to decide where the UK priorities are now. These are indicative options for a £2.5bn budget.

- One 40,000t LHD/LHA plus 2x Enforcer LPDs
- 2x 25,000t LHDs plus 2x MRSS
- 6x MRSS

Although the procurement costs are the same IMO the 6x MRSS option would be the most expensive to operate and maintain.