Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)

[SW1]

RFA can only crew the bay and Argus by not crewing the solids stores ship and the waves.

There is much of a cepp or whatever you wish to call to it without a stores ship.

[Poiuytrewq]

RFA can only crew the bay and Argus by not crewing the solids stores ship and the waves.

There is much of a cepp or whatever you wish to call to it without a stores ship.

The crew allocations are remarkably straightforward so no need for any ambiguity.

Currently 3x Bays and Albion require roughly 210 RFA and 325 RN

Transferring the 3x Bays to RN and keeping two active with the third as an operational reserve would require 320 RN.

Reactivating both Waves would require 140 RFA.

Therefore the RN numbers are roughly equivalent and 70 RFA are made available to ease pressure on the wider fleet and to allow regular crew rotations.

Argus is unaffected.

[jedibeeftrix]

There is the issue, everyone is focused on carrier strike rather than CEPP, there’s absolutely no reason to get the CVF can’t be the number one LPH on the planet, but people are stuck in old way of thinking.

I didn’t suggest the CVF couldn’t act as a LPH, simply that most countries don’t spend over £3bn on a LPH.

I was also suggesting that most countries don’t build 65,000t LPH’s that are big enough to embark the vast majority of the nations active naval helicopters and then operate it within AShM range of a hostile coastline.

Interested to get your perspective on CEPP.

But the money wasn’t spent on a LPH it was spent on a large carrier that can act as a LPH/LHA and a strike carrier and a ASW carrier and many more things - whilst there are limits it can even do these roles at the same time.

CEPP fundamentally for me is seeing the two carriers as mobile, go anywhere, protected airfields with the opportunity for them to play almost any role as any normal land based airfield. They should be seen as the preserve of just RN/RM assets but all UK armed forces.

I understand the concern about getting these valuable ships close to shore, but I think with the current and potential future aviation assets at the UKs disposal they can easily by 50+nm out possibly operating up-to 10 landing spots. What worries me more is that the same cannot be said for traditional LPD/LHD/LSD operations.

[Poiuytrewq]

Firstly, I would like to see both CVF’s fully crewed and with 24x F35b embarked every time they put to sea. HMG is not currently resourcing that so an acceptable fleet balance must be achieved with the resources that are available.

But the money wasn’t spent on a LPH it was spent on a large carrier that can act as a LPH/LHA and a strike carrier and a ASW carrier and many more things - whilst there are limits it can even do these roles at the same time.

Thats the superficial argument on capital expenditure but dig deeper.

- What are the operational costs?

- What is the crew allocation?. QE sailed with 1500.

- What else could that crew allocation be doing in the rest of the fleet?

- What will the second CVF actually achieve?

- Does the UK have the escorts and Auxiliaries available to allow the second CVF to meaningfully achieve anything of substance?

Saying the money is already spent is only a fraction of the wider equation.

[Repulse]

Firstly, I would like to see both CVF’s fully crewed and with 24x F35b embarked every time they put to sea. HMG is not currently resourcing that so an acceptable fleet balance must be achieved with the resources that are available.

But the money wasn’t spent on a LPH it was spent on a large carrier that can act as a LPH/LHA and a strike carrier and a ASW carrier and many more things - whilst there are limits it can even do these roles at the same time.

Thats the superficial argument on capital expenditure but dig deeper.

- What are the operational costs?

- What is the crew allocation?. QE sailed with 1500.

- What else could that crew allocation be doing in the rest of the fleet?

- What will the second CVF actually achieve?

- Does the UK have the escorts and Auxiliaries available to allow the second CVF to meaningfully achieve anything of substance?

Saying the money is already spent is only a fraction of the wider equation.

I didn’t say that the argument was the money was already spent, what I said it was spent on a highly flexible platform that can fulfil more than just the strike role.

On the other points:
- the operational costs are higher than a cheaper / less flexible LHD/LPH, but so what, it’s providing a higher level of capability that is a higher priority. Separate ship classes would cost even more.
- Core crew is around 700, above that will be aircrew and RMs
- The 700 crew could probably man 6 T31s, but so what, they aren’t delivering a priority capability. You could argue you can man two HMS Oceans with that crew, but again it’s irrelevant.
- A 2nd CVF gives a high degree of certainty that one is available. It also gives the ability to operate both in different roles at the same time, either in separate task groups or in a single task group.
- Yes the UK will have the assets in the early 2030s to operate two CSGs, but in normal circumstances typically with only one deployed. My view is that this will require 6 T45s and 6 T26s , and is a better use of these assets than trying to scatter them to the four winds.

[Poiuytrewq]

- the operational costs are higher than a cheaper / less flexible LHD/LPH, but so what, it’s providing a higher level of capability that is a higher priority. Separate ship classes would cost even more.

Give me an example of how a CVF without F35 is more flexible with a higher level of capability than an Ocean LPH.

- Core crew is around 700, above that will be aircrew and RMs

So with the F35 capability removed roughly enough to crew:

- 3x HMS Oceans
- 2x HMS Oceans plus a maintenance crew on second CVF
- 7x T31’s

- The 700 crew could probably man 6 T31s, but so what, they aren’t delivering a priority capability. You could argue you can man two HMS Oceans with that crew, but again it’s irrelevant.

As said above with increased automation 700 core crew would likely operate 3x Oceans.

It’s absolutely relevant because RN are prioritising a second CVF at the detriment of many other capabilities when there isn’t enough aircraft to fill one.

Five years in and the carrier strike capability hasn’t been used on one CVF yet never mind on both concurrently.

THAT is absolutely relevant.

- A 2nd CVF gives a high degree of certainty that one is available. It also gives the ability to operate both in different roles at the same time, either in separate task groups or in a single task group.

Completely disagree.

To maintain maximum availability a one in/one out model is the most reliable way to achieve it with two hulls. RN is currently operating the CVFs like there is 3 available.

- Yes the UK will have the assets in the early 2030s to operate two CSGs, but in normal circumstances typically with only one deployed. My view is that this will require 6 T45s and 6 T26s , and is a better use of these assets than trying to scatter them to the four winds.

RN needs fleet balance but the fleet is currently very severely unbalanced due to the preoccupation with the CVFs.

Spending a virtually unescorted 65,000t CVF into North Sea or the mid Atlantic occasionally with a few helos to keep busy is not a good use of precious resources.

[shark bait]

It’s absolutely relevant because RN are prioritising a second CVF at the detriment of many other capabilities when there isn’t enough aircraft to fill one.

Bit of a moot point. I can't find any scenario where the RN only has one carrier but is a more capable naval force.

An extra helicopter carrier and a couple of extra frigates does not change the balance of power anywhere, the Royal Navy would just look more like the Marine National with a part time flagship capability.

[Repulse]

Give me an example of how a CVF without F35 is more flexible with a higher level of capability than an Ocean LPH.

10 landing spots versus 6
Ability to operate more Chinooks and properly maintain them in the hangar not exposed on deck
Ability to operate both rotary and fixed winged assets (UAVs)
Plus, whilst you’d like to you cannot ignore the F35Bs

So with the F35 capability removed roughly enough to crew:

- 3x HMS Oceans
- 2x HMS Oceans plus a maintenance crew on second CVF
- 7x T31’s

No, the base crew for Ocean was 285.

As said above with increased automation 700 core crew would likely operate 3x Oceans.

It’s absolutely relevant because RN are prioritising a second CVF at the detriment of many other capabilities when there isn’t enough aircraft to fill one.

Five years in and the carrier strike capability hasn’t been used on one CVF yet never mind on both concurrently.

THAT is absolutely relevant.

It is irrelevant if the government’s objectives are met by CEPP which is why the RN is prioritising the two carriers.

Completely disagree.

To maintain maximum availability a one in/one out model is the most reliable way to achieve it with two hulls. RN is currently operating the CVFs like there is 3 available.

Putting something in reserve is not a good what of ensuring reliability, not is leaving it alongside. We also need trained and available crew, pretending that you can have a handful of crew for the off duty carrier which can then magically form and be ready to fight is living in cuckoo land

RN needs fleet balance but the fleet is currently very severely unbalanced due to the preoccupation with the CVFs.

Spending a virtually unescorted 65,000t CVF into North Sea or the mid Atlantic occasionally with a few helos to keep busy is not a good use of precious resources.

It needs a fleet that delivers to its strategic objectives. If exerting sea control of the North Atlantic is an objective (which it is) then a CSG coupled with SSNs is exactly what is needed. LPDs/LHDs are not

[Poiuytrewq]

10 landing spots versus 6
Ability to operate more Chinooks and properly maintain them in the hangar not exposed on deck
Ability to operate both rotary and fixed winged assets (UAVs)
Plus, whilst you’d like to you cannot ignore the F35Bs

Sounds good but the CSG has the majority of the helos and escorts. There will not be the F35s and escorts for a decade to allow two concurrent groups.

My point is about the priorities in this decade. Not the jam tomorrow in the 2030’s. You can form the CSG around QE and stuff PWLS full of Chinooks and Apache but without the FSS it’s unworkable. Without the escorts it’s dangerous or even negligent.

RN will not have the resources to do it properly until 2032 at the earliest. What’s happening between now and then is the real priority.

No, the base crew for Ocean was 285.

With modern automation it’s likely 20% less so perhaps 230 core.

It is irrelevant if the government’s objectives are met by CEPP which is why the RN is prioritising the two carriers.

Which government? This one or the next one?

It is entirely plausible that a new administration will reverse the tilt to the east, prioritise the North Atlantic, put a CVF into low readiness and reduce the F35b procurement. Every 4x F35b allows another T31 to be built. Every 2x F35b allows a HADR ship to be built. Different priorities come from a different perspective.

Politically I think it’s an extremely risky strategy for RN to run down so many other capabilities to prioritise the CVFs. Time will tell.

Putting something in reserve is not a good what of ensuring reliability, not is leaving it alongside. We also need trained and available crew, pretending that you can have a handful of crew for the off duty carrier which can then magically form and be ready to fight is living in cuckoo land

Its a radically new way to operate but changing crew on identical vessels is not as difficult as you think.

Increase the headcount along with the funding and all these problem go away and the need to be creative disappears.

It needs a fleet that delivers to its strategic objectives. If exerting sea control of the North Atlantic is an objective (which it is) then a CSG coupled with SSNs is exactly what is needed. LPDs/LHDs are not

Its only one way to exert sea control in the North Atlantic but I agree it would be effective if properly funded and resourced. If you really want to exert sea control you have to really exert it. Not just for a few months of the year. All year, every year.

£15bn spent on SSNs, P8’s, T26’s and maritime ASW drones might have been a better way to exert sea control in the North Atlantic but that’s history now.

If the North Atlantic is to be prioritised is a full CSG really required on a routine basis. Against what opposition?

A lean crewed CVF embarking 6x or 8x F35 plus a mixture of Merlin HM2 and STOL Maritime MALE drones may be a better load out for patrols in the North Atlantic.

Operating both CVFs routinely in this configuration with a full global CSG every two years may be an acceptable compromise to balance the rest of the fleet and maximise availability.

It would make a lot more sense than a 65,000t LPH.

[Repulse]

I understand the desire to do more, but it’s all about the money and how far down the priority list it can cover. It’s also accepting what is the UKs priorities and that the way the UK has decided to have project military power has fundamentally changed for all three services.

Taking a short term view to nobble CEPP by putting one carrier in reserve whilst we are trying to create and scale up these new capabilities would be madness IMO. The fleet will be more than capable to support two CSGs in 10 years, but it’s going to be hard work get there.

Without more money anything beyond occasional singleton deployments or forward presence by patrol ships is a dangerous distraction from the higher priority goal IMO.

Yes, we do have too few air assets and too few trained pilots and support crews - IMO that’s why a tough decision is required to move from traditional ways of thinking about amphibious assault to something that matches the new balance of the fleet - namely don’t buy vulnerable LPDs/LSDs/LHDs and embrace the opportunities that large flat decks give. We don’t have to be just another copy of the Netherlands, Spain, Italy etc

[Poiuytrewq]

I understand the desire to do more, but it’s all about the money and how far down the priority list it can cover. It’s also accepting what is the UKs priorities and that the way the UK has decided to have project military power has fundamentally changed for all three services.

Taking a short term view to nobble CEPP by putting one carrier in reserve whilst we are trying to create and scale up these new capabilities would be madness IMO. The fleet will be more than capable to support two CSGs in 10 years, but it’s going to be hard work get there.

I am not suggesting putting a CVF into reserve.

I am suggesting that with the funding available operating one full CSG at any one time is all the UK should be aiming to achieve in the next decade.

The fleet will be radically different in ten years time but that is ten years away. What about the next ten years?

The priority is not to operate a 65,000t LPH.

Without more money anything beyond occasional singleton deployments or forward presence by patrol ships is a dangerous distraction from the higher priority goal IMO.

Vacuums are being created all over the world on land and at sea. These vacuums are now being filled by others. Will an occasional passing CSG really change that? Looks unlikely to me.

CSG23 is to be a very modest Euro-Atlantic deployment following on from the global CSG21 with another global CSG deployment not planned until CSG25. It’s a bare bones approach.

One global 5-6 month CSG deployment per year with the second CVF acting as a LHA in the North Atlantic for 4-6 months of the rest of the year should be the minimum expected from such a costly capability.

[new guy]

I am not suggesting putting a CVF into reserve.

By not manning the 2nd CVF that is exactly what you are doing.

The priority is not to operate a 65,000t LPH.

No, the priority is to get CEPP up and running and credible.

One global 5-6 month CSG deployment per year with the second CVF acting as a LHA in the North Atlantic for 4-6 months of the rest of the year should be the minimum expected from such a costly capability.

Absolutely agree, taking funds away will not achieve this.

[donald_of_tokyo]

HMS Bulwark's status. At least, I am not that pessimistic, not "years away", but at least "months away" looks like?

[wargame_insomniac]

[Tempest414]

As said Bulwark will come back on line and work up and then QE will go in for first major dry dock refit and POW will take over the strike carrier role

[mrclark303]

As said Bulwark will come back on line and work up and then QE will go in for first major dry dock refit and POW will take over the strike carrier role

I think there is a big question mark over the future of Bulwark and Albion.

Both I think are potentially tempting low hanging fruit for the next Governments first Security Review ....

[Tempest414]

As said Bulwark will come back on line and work up and then QE will go in for first major dry dock refit and POW will take over the strike carrier role

I think there is a big question mark over the future of Bulwark and Albion.

Both I think are potentially tempting low hanging fruit for the next Governments first Security Review ....

Maybe but I think Bulwark will come back online as QE goes into refit clearly Albion's crew are still undergoing training and will move to Bulwark

[Poiuytrewq]

It would be interesting to know how much this refit has cost.

[wargame_insomniac]

Further progress to reactivating Bulwark: