UK Defence Forum

Build some new SR-N4 Mountbatten class hovercraft in pussers grey, but without the duty free trolley.



(Stephen Hoadley) 15th August 2017

In 2000 Hoverspeed announced the end of only remaining cross-Channel hovercraft service. In the late summer of that year I went down to Dover to record something of their last few weeks in service. I could not have been made more welcome by the Hoverspeed team, as will be obvious when you watch the videos. This first video shows some of the action to be found at the Dover Hoverport.

Far from stealthy and wya too big uless it was to be the MRSS.

Lord Jim wrote: ↑20 Oct 2022, 11:10 could a T-26 embark one or more

The T32 graphics posted recently would seem to show that they could carry something of similar dimensions on the stern ramp (though it looked more like a CB90). along with four Rhibs. It would make sense to design both the MRSS and the T32 to be capable of carrying the same offboard systems

an air draft of less than 2m would be beneficial (this is the only dimensional constraint)

Very interesting. It is NOT required to be less than 11-12 m, so carriage into T26 mission bay, or comparable length to MCM USV is NOT mandatory.

How about a smaller, and stealthyer version of this ? CNIM LCX concept. (this version surely do NOT meet the < 2m height requirement though)

https://cnim-groupe.com/en/businesses/d ... x-missions#

Or wider version of this? (Finnish jurmo class, do not need 37knots speed).


Or simply a bit modified this? Dutch Damen LCVP.
https://products.damen.com/en/ranges/la ... onnel-1604

Looking around, it looks like typical LCVP, a bit smaller than current Mk.5, with enclosed top and inclined side (both for stealth).... Hmmm.

I am assuming that the Polaris MZR could be ideal for LRG(S), where it would allow RM's quick deployment inland where high mobility is more important than higher degree of protection from MRAP vehicles.

I still think there us enough scope for Viking vehicles in LRG(N), especially if RM being deployed to Scandinavia. Although I am curious how RM's mission will change after Sweden and Finland join NATO.

I like the sound of the new Landing Craft. Will they count as LST or LSU? Is that dependant on size or cargo they cen carry?

Moved across,

donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑06 Dec 2022, 06:40 .As MRSS has been postponed, NOW we can modify these LPDs.

The lack of financial prioritisation given to the MRSS programme is both a concern and an opportunity.

The Albion class was built to a very high standard and with one consistently in extended readiness they have not spent a lot of time at sea. In which case could a conversion actually be the most cost effective way to proceed if another 20 years could be squeezed out out of the hulls?

Personally I think the six MRSS would cost at least £1.5bn to construct, perhaps more if RN is insisting that they are built to higher standards than the Bays and Argus. Clearly this was too much for the current financial situation.

Expecting to replace the entire Amphib fleet for less than £1.5bn is unrealistic but perhaps a combination of conversions and replacements spread over the next 15 years could ease the in-year budgetary bottlenecks. If combined with a £500m budget to replace the waves this results a budget of around £2bn, not generous, so maintaining strict budget discipline will be vital to achieve a good result,

For example:

Albion and Bulwark converted to LHD with 4 Merlin hanger added. Cost: £250m between 2025/2027.

Two HMS Ocean style Helicopter Assault Ship constructed. Flattop design optimised for naval drone ops, ASW, Land Attack etc. Highly automated to minimise crew allocation. Cost: £750m between 2027/2031.

Build three MRSS to replace Bay/Tides optimised for LRG support, HADR and deploying USV/UUV/XLUUV etc. Possibly based on Ellida. Cost: £750m between 2031/2037.

Total cost over 12 years, £1.75bn or around £150m per annum between 2025 and 2037. Totally achievable.

This would allow RN to have FOUR Littoral Response Groups. Two based around the Albions with the FCF and the remaining two primarily focusing on HADR in the Caribbean and East/West Africa. These four groups could then form into two independent and very capable Littoral Strike Groups if required.

I would suggest this option is better than current planning.

If the Navy has that kind of money available they would be better off with a new build Bay Class 2.0.

It would be very nice to fix the LPDs biggest short coming and add a 4 aircraft hanger, but I don't know if it's worth the money when they can 'make-do' the RFA Argus. For £250 million the navy could buy lots of drone subs, or try and buy back Large Bay from the Australians.

There is only one option which is “make-do” with Argus. Even then I would look to replace Argus with another converted RFA. Let’s spend money on keeping what we have in service and look at a proper replacement programme when the money actually exists.

MRSS is a bad idea.

Furthermore the FSS really should have big hanger for a bit of sea basing too.

If we are moving away from deploying RM's at Battalion level from full ARG containing LPD + LSD + ASS (Aviation Support Ship) to deploying smaller formations from a variety of ships, it sounds like more likely to send in small raiding parties either by RIB or helicopter.

If the latter, I wonder how useful the V-22 Osprey or maybe even the V-280 Valor might be for the RN?
I am sure that Valor would be incredibly expensive as newly developed.
But I am curious how Osprey / Valor would compare price wise to the Commando Merlin HC4/4A?

wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑08 Dec 2022, 23:38 But I am curious how Osprey / Valor would compare price wise to the Commando Merlin HC4/4A?

Valor will be cheaper in every way. Will be built & supported in the thousands not dozens.

Not saying the UK should buy them. Ideally a great helo will emerge from the Pan-European project to be built in the UK.

If they did a folding one it could be very attractive.

shark bait wrote: ↑09 Dec 2022, 09:16 If they did a folding one it could be very attractive.

I’m sure they do, if I remember right part of the design requirements was for it to fit in the hanger of a AB destroyer.

The V-247 which is based of the V-280 has a fold and turn roter abd wing design like Ospray.

Does anyone know whether the Valour will have a pressurised cabin or its intended service ceiling? I have seen mention of 6,000 feet but that surely cannot be right as the maximum and I suspect instead relates to a range / speed requirement when operating at that altitude? I ask because if it has a decent service ceiling it could be a real force multiplier for the RN (and USMC) in a wide variety of potential roles (AEW, ELINT, AAR and potentially assisting with wide area ASW) in addition to being an effective, armed troop transport.

Phil Sayers wrote: ↑09 Dec 2022, 13:33 Does anyone know whether the Valour will have a pressurised cabin or its intended service ceiling? I have seen mention of 6,000 feet but that surely cannot be right as the maximum and I suspect instead relates to a range / speed requirement when operating at that altitude? I ask because if it has a decent service ceiling it could be a real force multiplier for the RN (and USMC) in a wide variety of potential roles (AEW, ELINT, AAR and potentially assisting with wide area ASW) in addition to being an effective, armed troop transport.

This artical states it’s 25,000f which matches in with the V-247 the unmanned variant of the Valor

https://aerocorner.com/aircraft/bell-v-280-valor/

https://www.bellflight.com/products/bell-v-247

Iv been saying for a long time that the RN should be looking at V-247 for AEW, EW and Reaper style strike from the carriers. The V-28 Valor being chosen by the US now just adds to this for me as it’s be great for the RM

and this is why MRSS needs to be a flattop the ability to operate 10 to 12 of these half manned the half unmanned would give the UK the ability for intervention and strike even if the CSG is somewhere else

Tempest414 wrote: ↑09 Dec 2022, 15:31 and this is why MRSS needs to be a flattop the ability to operate 10 to 12 of these half manned the half unmanned would give the UK the ability for intervention and strike even if the CSG is somewhere else

In 20 years time it’s highly likely most navies will have carriers specifically for operating drones primarily from repurposed LHDs and LPHs.

It will be interesting to see how effective the Anadolu and Bayraktar TB-3 combination really is for a fraction of the cost of a CVF or CVN.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... ea-trials/

IMO RN needs one for each of the two LRGs to act a combined Helicopter/Drone Assault Carrier .

Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑09 Dec 2022, 17:02

Tempest414 wrote: ↑09 Dec 2022, 15:31 and this is why MRSS needs to be a flattop the ability to operate 10 to 12 of these half manned the half unmanned would give the UK the ability for intervention and strike even if the CSG is somewhere else

In 20 years time it’s highly likely most navies will have carriers specifically for operating drones primarily from repurposed LHDs and LPHs.

It will be interesting to see how effective the Anadolu and Bayraktar TB-3 combination really is for a fraction of the cost of a CVF or CVN.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... ea-trials/

IMO RN needs one for each of the two LRGs to act a combined Helicopter/Drone Assault Carrier .

The Portuguese have been playing around with such an idea

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... p-project/

SW1 wrote: ↑09 Dec 2022, 17:12 The Portuguese have been playing around with such an idea

Indeed and I suspect many more will do the same as technology matures.

I really hope as part of the concept phase the T32 programme looks at all of the options due to the T32 being a groundbreaking amalgamation.

Therefore, while the ground is being broken perhaps amalgamating the multi-function and MCM capabilities with a Frigate is a step too far and it should be based more on a small LPH with a stern ramp loaded with UAVs.

It’s not beyond the realms of possibility that the T32 and MRSS programmes merge resulting in a single class of whatever is eventually developed.

Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑09 Dec 2022, 20:07

SW1 wrote: ↑09 Dec 2022, 17:12 The Portuguese have been playing around with such an idea

Indeed and I suspect many more will do the same as technology matures.

I really hope as part of the concept phase the T32 programme looks at all of the options due to the T32 being a groundbreaking amalgamation.

Therefore, while the ground is being broken perhaps amalgamating the multi-function and MCM capabilities with a Frigate is a step too far and it should be based more on a small LPH with a stern ramp loaded with UAVs.

It’s not beyond the realms of possibility that the T32 and MRSS programmes merge resulting in a single class of whatever is eventually developed.

Add some Maritime security forces and let’s just call it a bay class

SW1 wrote: ↑09 Dec 2022, 21:10

Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑09 Dec 2022, 20:07

SW1 wrote: ↑09 Dec 2022, 17:12 The Portuguese have been playing around with such an idea

Indeed and I suspect many more will do the same as technology matures.

I really hope as part of the concept phase the T32 programme looks at all of the options due to the T32 being a groundbreaking amalgamation.

Therefore, while the ground is being broken perhaps amalgamating the multi-function and MCM capabilities with a Frigate is a step too far and it should be based more on a small LPH with a stern ramp loaded with UAVs.

It’s not beyond the realms of possibility that the T32 and MRSS programmes merge resulting in a single class of whatever is eventually developed.

Add some Maritime security forces and let’s just call it a bay class

Italian San Georgeo class landing ship looks exactly what you both are talking about?

I was thinking more of mix between a Osumi & Dokdo class somewhere around the 15000 ton mark

Tempest414 wrote: ↑15 Dec 2022, 08:59 P.S I think we should take this over to the Amphib thread now

Agreed

Tempest414 wrote: ↑15 Dec 2022, 08:59 It is this kind of piss poor thinking that rips through the heart of the MOD and the Navy

We can't have LHD's or LPH's as it will put the carriers at risk

We can't arm type 31 properly as it will put type 26 at risk

And so it goes on and on as long as we set a price cap of 500 million there is no reason why we can't have 4 Dukdo type LPH and keep the carriers as they do different jobs

This “piss poor thinking” prevailed in an era when a peer on peer conflict seemed highly unlikely.

Things are different now.

Caribbean wrote: ↑15 Dec 2022, 09:28

Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑14 Dec 2022, 12:37

Caribbean wrote: ↑14 Dec 2022, 12:20 Maximise commonality with the Tides.

Or whatever the MRSS becomes?

Indeed - another possibility

A multi role BMT Ellida with the 2 LCU well dock, 2 spot flight deck and 4 medium helicopter hanger plus a liquid and solid replenishment capability would be a fantastic addition to any LRG/LSG or HADR deployment. Perfect for any Tide replacement programme. Around £350m per hull if built in the UK would seem realistic

If the Albions were extended in service for another 15 years until 2050 via an extensive refit/conversion that would retain well docking for 10 LCUs or equivalents within the fleet if the Bays/Argus were replaced by LPHs. Adding hanger space for 2-4 Merlin would not be cheap but it would unlock the potential. Spending £150m per hull to add embarked aviation, improve self defence capabilities and extend the OSD to 2050 would be money well spent IMO.

Replacing the Bays and Argus with 3 or 4 basic but capable LPHs would then proportionate and affordable.