Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
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 »

Jensy wrote: 05 Jul 2022, 16:07 Was surprised to hear that the Albions were in consideration for conversion.
As per the 3rd quote, below, as these ships were sized for a full Cdo for short hops - like to the High North - then the jump to supporting a Coy over a much longer period should be doable with manageable conversions... talking about the money aspect.

That does leave the aviation support, other than landing, loading and refuelling, as per the quote below. But there has been a lot of good comments about that; And I guess the idea is to get the concept realised and 2030 onwards new ships fitted into the 'pipeline'?
Repulse wrote: 06 Jul 2022, 10:43 The key gap is now Aviation Support for amphibious operations for LRG(S)
Repulse wrote: 07 Jul 2022, 12:58 what is required to host and operate a RM company.
These users liked the author ArmChairCivvy for the post:
Jensy
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: 4585
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Would say adding Aviation Support facilities to one of the Albions would both be costly but also significantly impact the capabilities of the platform; at the very least it would reduce the flight deck (and landing tempo) and restrict the number of RMs that can be accommodated.

An Albion + Argus + Bay would give a significant capability IMO able to still operate at a Cdo level.
”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: 5556
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote: 09 Jul 2022, 10:10 Would say adding Aviation Support facilities to one of the Albions would both be costly but also significantly impact the capabilities of the platform; at the very least it would reduce the flight deck (and landing tempo) and restrict the number of RMs that can be accommodated.

An Albion + Argus + Bay would give a significant capability IMO able to still operate at a Cdo level.
As said a number of times what we see with LRG(N) is 1 x LPD , 1x Bay , 1 x Escort this is joined buy a Dutch LPD which can carry 6 helicopters so for me we should be looking to form LRG(S) around 1 x LPD , Argus , 1 x Escort & 1 tanker plus if needed the Bay out of the Gulf or a Point class

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 »

Repulse wrote: 09 Jul 2022, 10:10 Would say adding Aviation Support facilities to one of the Albions would both be costly but also significantly impact the capabilities of the platform; at the very least it would reduce the flight deck (and landing tempo) and restrict the number of RMs that can be accommodated.

An Albion + Argus + Bay would give a significant capability IMO able to still operate at a Cdo level.
I would love LRG(N) to still be able to transport a complete RM Commando (i.e. Battalion sized RM fighting force plus all the necessary RM support platoons / troops) to be able to be deployed to Norway etc.
And yes - having our allied Dutch Marines in support with their own LPD would be great.

If so then I would be ok with LRG(S) to be able to deploy a RM Company (including all RM support formations). Together with say a British Army Light Infantry Battalion with sufficient strategic airlift capacity, this would give the UK a decent rapid reaction force to deploy EoS.

But the former does appear likely unless the Future Commando Force plans are altered. Obviously I hope that will happen but will need (as is the case with so many programmes) additional Defence spending which we don't know if would be forthcoming in the near future.
These users liked the author wargame_insomniac for the post:
jedibeeftrix

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 »

Repulse wrote: 09 Jul 2022, 10:10 Would say adding Aviation Support facilities to one of the Albions would both be costly but also significantly impact the capabilities of the platform; at the very least it would reduce the flight deck (and landing tempo) and restrict the number of RMs that can be accommodated.
A Cdo; 4 Coys
... in this instant, all light and w/o vehicles. Hence a Bay to get the vehicles for the two that would have them "into play"

So We are playing here with a stretch factor from 4 to 1 (to accommodate living stds over a much longer 'stay'); should be doable?
- flight deck: no probs
- services for the helos: only where they stand.... and a "garage" of 7 sq.m for the the stuff that needs to be got close to them (rolling on wheels, I presume)

There's the dilemma: put all of this onto (the proposed) ro-ro frame with enough space and services for bot men and (rotary) machines
= a lot of new CAPEX,
or
find a way to bring the helos to near vicinity of (one of the activated) Albions
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: 4585
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Pulling a few thread together, but if the RFA is realistically limited to a fleet of 9 ships, then alongside the 4 Tide Tankers + 3 Solid Support Ships for supporting the two CSGs, I would add 2 Joint Support Ships.

These JSSs would be designed along the lines of the Canadian Protecteur class, similar to Fort Victoria in term of being able to be a Tanker / Solid Support Ship, but with the ability to transport RM vehicles and stores, and an enlarged hangar / flight deck to operate in the Aviation Support role. Additionally, it could have space to accommodate a RM company, and space for a modular hospital as required.

This would leave how to replace the two LPDs, but that could be late 2030s.
”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

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 »

Repulse wrote: 10 Jul 2022, 07:46 Pulling a few thread together, but if the RFA is realistically limited to a fleet of 9 ships, then alongside the 4 Tide Tankers + 3 Solid Support Ships for supporting the two CSGs, I would add 2 Joint Support Ships.

These JSSs would be designed along the lines of the Canadian Protecteur class, similar to Fort Victoria in term of being able to be a Tanker / Solid Support Ship, but with the ability to transport RM vehicles and stores, and an enlarged hangar / flight deck to operate in the Aviation Support role. Additionally, it could have space to accommodate a RM company, and space for a modular hospital as required.

This would leave how to replace the two LPDs, but that could be late 2030s.
Because of its tight man-power, I guess only 2 of the 3 FSSS will be manned (from Argus and Fort Vic.). Then, the RFA crew of 3 Bays will be filling the 4 MRSS. I also think here, 3 will be active and 1 will be in long-maintenance. Another 2 MRSS will be manned by RN (using Albion's crew).

In RFA, 9 ships are active. And, if we want one to be in modernization/long maintenance, RFA currently lack a vessel (Re-activating Waves costs a bit, but surely it is an option.) This situation makes me feel that one of the 3 FSSS and one of the 5-6 MRSS could be in long-maintenance/extended readiness, which will eventually contribute to improve the availability of RFA vessels.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5556
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 09 Jul 2022, 16:06
Repulse wrote: 09 Jul 2022, 10:10 Would say adding Aviation Support facilities to one of the Albions would both be costly but also significantly impact the capabilities of the platform; at the very least it would reduce the flight deck (and landing tempo) and restrict the number of RMs that can be accommodated.

An Albion + Argus + Bay would give a significant capability IMO able to still operate at a Cdo level.
I would love LRG(N) to still be able to transport a complete RM Commando (i.e. Battalion sized RM fighting force plus all the necessary RM support platoons / troops) to be able to be deployed to Norway etc.
And yes - having our allied Dutch Marines in support with their own LPD would be great.

If so then I would be ok with LRG(S) to be able to deploy a RM Company (including all RM support formations). Together with say a British Army Light Infantry Battalion with sufficient strategic airlift capacity, this would give the UK a decent rapid reaction force to deploy EoS.

But the former does appear likely unless the Future Commando Force plans are altered. Obviously I hope that will happen but will need (as is the case with so many programmes) additional Defence spending which we don't know if would be forthcoming in the near future.
I feel the level of UK commitment EoS going forward should be

Gulf = 1 x Bay , 1 x Escort , MCM

Indo Pacific = 1 x LPD , Argus , 1 x Escorts , 1 x tanker , 1 x RM Commando ( 1 Company held at high readiness ) & 2 RB2's

Army EoS = 1 x full Gurkha battalion battle group , 1 x Security force Assistance Battalion , 1 x Ranger Battalion

RAF = 1 x P-8 in Oman

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4585
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote: 11 Jul 2022, 13:27 I feel the level of UK commitment EoS going forward should be

Gulf = 1 x Bay , 1 x Escort , MCM

Indo Pacific = 1 x LPD , Argus , 1 x Escorts , 1 x tanker , 1 x RM Commando ( 1 Company held at high readiness ) & 2 RB2's

Army EoS = 1 x full Gurkha battalion battle group , 1 x Security force Assistance Battalion , 1 x Ranger Battalion

RAF = 1 x P-8 in Oman
The RAF also has joint training squadrons with Qatar.

Whilst I like the ambition, the permanent presence probably goes too far given the priorities and funds/kit, especially with regular CSG/SSN visits.

I’d say Argus + Wave + 2 B2 Rivers + RM Cdo company (on rotation from the UK) is sufficient outside of the Gulf, at least in the near term.
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

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5556
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote: 11 Jul 2022, 14:33
Tempest414 wrote: 11 Jul 2022, 13:27 I feel the level of UK commitment EoS going forward should be

Gulf = 1 x Bay , 1 x Escort , MCM

Indo Pacific = 1 x LPD , Argus , 1 x Escorts , 1 x tanker , 1 x RM Commando ( 1 Company held at high readiness ) & 2 RB2's

Army EoS = 1 x full Gurkha battalion battle group , 1 x Security force Assistance Battalion , 1 x Ranger Battalion

RAF = 1 x P-8 in Oman
The RAF also has joint training squadrons with Qatar.

Whilst I like the ambition, the permanent presence probably goes too far given the priorities and funds/kit, especially with regular CSG/SSN visits.

I’d say Argus + Wave + 2 B2 Rivers + RM Cdo company (on rotation from the UK) is sufficient outside of the Gulf, at least in the near term.
Yes we are not likely to see the second LPD returned to service along side the 1st but I really think we need to push to a second frigate to make the LRG Argus + 1 frigate + 1 Wave even if this means dropping out of the SNMG's for a few years this gives the LRG the real cover it needs

User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jensy »

There was a throwaway line from the DefSec in the recent defence select committee hearing, which I posted above, that mentioned the possibility of alignment with an ally for replacing the Albions, Bays and Argus:
Come 2030, we may be working with another country to see if we can share a cycle of design for the next generation.
Picked up by George at UKDJ:

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-cons ... r-country/

Which of our allies is looking to replace amphibious shipping in the same timescale?

The Mistrals will be approaching 25 years old by 2030.

Italy has a requirement to build at least 2-3 flattop replacements for the San Giorgio class, over the next decade. Judging by the Trieste programme, they could well end up as sizeable LHDs.

The Dutch Enforcers are older than their Bay half sisters, so something might be in the pipeline.

The Juan Carlos is still a little on the young side for replacement by 2030. Their own Enforcer derivatives are also older than ours.
These users liked the author Jensy 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 »

Jensy wrote: 11 Jul 2022, 17:08 There was a throwaway line from the DefSec in the recent defence select committee hearing, which I posted above, that mentioned the possibility of alignment with an ally for replacing the Albions, Bays and Argus:
Come 2030, we may be working with another country to see if we can share a cycle of design for the next generation.
Picked up by George at UKDJ:

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-cons ... r-country/

Which of our allies is looking to replace amphibious shipping in the same timescale?

The Mistrals will be approaching 25 years old by 2030.

Italy has a requirement to build at least 2-3 flattop replacements for the San Giorgio class, over the next decade. Judging by the Trieste programme, they could well end up as sizeable LHDs.

The Dutch Enforcers are older than their Bay half sisters, so something might be in the pipeline.

The Juan Carlos is still a little on the young side for replacement by 2030. Their own Enforcer derivatives are also older than ours.
Why just look at our European allies, what of those further afield ? Japan ? Australia ? Even the US ? All of these will have amphibs coming up for replacement.

Japan will have the Oswin class along with the 2 Hyuga class

Australia will have their own Bay class

The US will have the older San Antonio class coming up to 30 years old.

Even Brazil will have to look a replacing ex HMS Ocean and surely want to start building up there own ship build capacity.

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 »

Jensy wrote: 11 Jul 2022, 17:08 The Juan Carlos is still a little on the young side for replacement by 2030. Their own Enforcer derivatives are also older than ours.
Belfast calling? For more work... we will soon see what happens with the carrier-support ships contract. (small) Stepping stones and all that
These users liked the author ArmChairCivvy for the post:
Jensy
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
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tempest414 wrote: 11 Jul 2022, 16:44 Army EoS = 1 x full Gurkha battalion battle group , 1 x Security force Assistance Battalion , 1 x Ranger Battalion

RAF = 1 x P-8 in Oman
Building on Repulse's response:

1. The RAF also has joint training squadrons with Qatar.
- yes, and the expeditionary airwing, from the Med outwards is HQ'ed there

2. Whilst I like the ambition, the permanent presence probably goes too far given the priorities and funds/kit, especially with regular CSG/SSN visits.
- about right

3.I’d say Argus + Wave + 2 B2 Rivers + RM Cdo company (on rotation from the UK) is sufficient outside of the Gulf, at least in the near term.
Two points on this one:
3a. Looking further East, yes (not forgetting the acclimatised 'theatre reserve' bn in Brunei)
3b. Working on from the comment by @Tempest, yes, rumblings about the Rangers' first destination being N. Mozambique; and
Kenya has been elevated from a training camp to be an army Hub, on par with Germany, so would not be surprised if a Sec. Ass. Bn... lazy typing on my part, I notice now, would take up camp there longer term and 'trainees' then arriving from other countries than just the UK
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)

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 »

Jensy wrote: 11 Jul 2022, 17:08 There was a throwaway line from the DefSec in the recent defence select committee hearing, which I posted above, that mentioned the possibility of alignment with an ally for replacing the Albions, Bays and Argus:
Come 2030, we may be working with another country to see if we can share a cycle of design for the next generation.
Picked up by George at UKDJ:

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-cons ... r-country/

Which of our allies is looking to replace amphibious shipping in the same timescale?

The Mistrals will be approaching 25 years old by 2030.

Italy has a requirement to build at least 2-3 flattop replacements for the San Giorgio class, over the next decade. Judging by the Trieste programme, they could well end up as sizeable LHDs.

The Dutch Enforcers are older than their Bay half sisters, so something might be in the pipeline.

The Juan Carlos is still a little on the young side for replacement by 2030. Their own Enforcer derivatives are also older than ours.
Over the weekend I watched a Naval News video where Xavier was interviewing a Dutch defence journalist about future Dutch Naval procurement.

It covered their diesel submarine replacement, the Belgo-Dutch joint Frigate and also the Dutch amphibs. It sounded like they are well underway in terms of planning their amphib replacement but not yet placed an order.

So that could fit well. Have spoken before if Damen's portfolio of amphib designs from frigate sized to Bays right up to different sizes of LHD's. i believe that the Bays designs was based on Damen's Enforcer LPD's. So that could work out great for a joint replacement programme.
These users liked the author wargame_insomniac for the post:
Jensy

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 »

Jake1992 wrote: 11 Jul 2022, 17:23
Jensy wrote: 11 Jul 2022, 17:08 There was a throwaway line from the DefSec in the recent defence select committee hearing, which I posted above, that mentioned the possibility of alignment with an ally for replacing the Albions, Bays and Argus:
Come 2030, we may be working with another country to see if we can share a cycle of design for the next generation.
Picked up by George at UKDJ:

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-cons ... r-country/

Which of our allies is looking to replace amphibious shipping in the same timescale?

The Mistrals will be approaching 25 years old by 2030.

Italy has a requirement to build at least 2-3 flattop replacements for the San Giorgio class, over the next decade. Judging by the Trieste programme, they could well end up as sizeable LHDs.

The Dutch Enforcers are older than their Bay half sisters, so something might be in the pipeline.

The Juan Carlos is still a little on the young side for replacement by 2030. Their own Enforcer derivatives are also older than ours.
Why just look at our European allies, what of those further afield ? Japan ? Australia ? Even the US ? All of these will have amphibs coming up for replacement.

Japan will have the Oswin class along with the 2 Hyuga class

Australia will have their own Bay class

The US will have the older San Antonio class coming up to 30 years old.

Even Brazil will have to look a replacing ex HMS Ocean and surely want to start building up there own ship build capacity.
Well USN was replacing their Whidbey Island / Harpers Ferry LSD's with Flight II San Antonio class - using base Flight I San Antonio design but cheaper sensor masts rather than more expensive stealth enclosed sensors, and also no hangar.

Most of the San Antonio flight I's are still fairly new.

But yes - the more allies we could share the costs of the amphib upgrade programme with, the cheaper it shoulö be plus benefits of interoperability.

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

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 11 Jul 2022, 18:33
Jake1992 wrote: 11 Jul 2022, 17:23
Jensy wrote: 11 Jul 2022, 17:08 There was a throwaway line from the DefSec in the recent defence select committee hearing, which I posted above, that mentioned the possibility of alignment with an ally for replacing the Albions, Bays and Argus:
Come 2030, we may be working with another country to see if we can share a cycle of design for the next generation.
Picked up by George at UKDJ:

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-cons ... r-country/

Which of our allies is looking to replace amphibious shipping in the same timescale?

The Mistrals will be approaching 25 years old by 2030.

Italy has a requirement to build at least 2-3 flattop replacements for the San Giorgio class, over the next decade. Judging by the Trieste programme, they could well end up as sizeable LHDs.

The Dutch Enforcers are older than their Bay half sisters, so something might be in the pipeline.

The Juan Carlos is still a little on the young side for replacement by 2030. Their own Enforcer derivatives are also older than ours.
Why just look at our European allies, what of those further afield ? Japan ? Australia ? Even the US ? All of these will have amphibs coming up for replacement.

Japan will have the Oswin class along with the 2 Hyuga class

Australia will have their own Bay class

The US will have the older San Antonio class coming up to 30 years old.

Even Brazil will have to look a replacing ex HMS Ocean and surely want to start building up there own ship build capacity.
Well USN was replacing their Whidbey Island / Harpers Ferry LSD's with Flight II San Antonio class - using base Flight I San Antonio design but cheaper sensor masts rather than more expensive stealth enclosed sensors, and also no hangar.

Most of the San Antonio flight I's are still fairly new.

But yes - the more allies we could share the costs of the amphib upgrade programme with, the cheaper it shoulö be plus benefits of interoperability.
The first San Antonio was built in 2000 so will be 30 years old come 2030 and we know the US like to keep a constant drill beat unlike ourselves often leaving large gaps in between builds.

But my larger point was that there are more allies out there to team up with on this sort of project than a Europe than has often been hostile towards us on such things.

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 »

Sure. But first Flight I wasn't launched until 2003 and commissioned in 2006. And last Flight I has been launched but not yet commissioned.

First Flight II has nt even been launched yet.

Understand your point but I doubt USN would join with RN- we would have to take theirs.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4585
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Given we are talking primarily about LPDs my vote on likely amphibious ship partners are Netherlands, Spain and Australia. New Zealand could be possible, but probably beyond their budget.
”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: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 11 Jul 2022, 18:58 Sure. But first Flight I wasn't launched until 2003 and commissioned in 2006. And last Flight I has been launched but not yet commissioned.

First Flight II has nt even been launched yet.

Understand your point but I doubt USN would join with RN- we would have to take theirs.
So the first of class would of been in the water through testing and so on for 27 years by the time comes. I think the USN learnt a hard lesson in design with the continued production of the ABs that been design skills can whiver and die that way.

In the past I would of agreed we’d just have to tag on to what ever they choose but I’m not so sure now granted they’d be the senior partner.

Like I say my point was more that there are other allies out there to partner with the USN being a potential one. Personal I think Japan would be a good partner to go with but it all depends on what we both want.

User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Jensy »

Jake1992 wrote: 11 Jul 2022, 17:23 Why just look at our European allies, what of those further afield ? Japan ? Australia ? Even the US ? All of these will have amphibs coming up for replacement.

Japan will have the Oswin class along with the 2 Hyuga class

Australia will have their own Bay class

The US will have the older San Antonio class coming up to 30 years old.

Even Brazil will have to look a replacing ex HMS Ocean and surely want to start building up there own ship build capacity.
There's no shortage of potential navies to coordinate with. You've given some great examples.

My starting point, looking at the success of the Bay Class, would be trying not to reinvent the wheel. So Spain and the Netherlands who use derivatives of the same base design seem the best place to look at common requirements (even with the usual Gibraltar sabre-rattling).

If we were looking to go beyond the capability of say a theoretical Bay Mk.II, with hangar space for four Merlin and two landing spots, then other partners might be better suited.

It's been a while since we've built a small flat-top and we've never built an LHD. If we were to pursue one, even a modestly sized one, then Japan and RoK definitely would offer strong recent experience.
wargame_insomniac wrote: 11 Jul 2022, 18:58 First Flight II has nt even been launched yet.

Understand your point but I doubt USN would join with RN- we would have to take theirs.
Agreed. That's before considering the price, crew and operating costs of any likely US LPD

Whatever form this programme takes it will be competing with Type 83 and eventually Future SSN for budget. Keeping costs down will be key to getting decent numbers of platforms.

Lastly, I may yet be proven wrong but I suspect Brazil will be front of the queue when Albion and Bulwark are decommissioned. With the state of their economy post-Covid I don't see them building naval ships of that size in the medium term.

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by jonas »

These users liked the author jonas for the post (total 3):
Repulsedonald_of_tokyowargame_insomniac

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4585
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Great news - seems to confirm RFA Argus will be a key part of LRG(S)
”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 »

Interesting that the Littorial strike is now a bay and Argus. Are the LPDs to decommission?

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 »

SW1 wrote: 12 Jul 2022, 11:17 Interesting that the Littorial strike is now a bay and Argus. Are the LPDs to decommission?
LPDs are for LRG North, I guess?

Post Reply