Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)
Posted: 30 Apr 2018, 10:41
When would an Amphibious group split? The UK is never going to be in a position to run concurrent amphibious operations.
News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.
https://ukdefenceforum.net/
Of course no. But their LHD + LPD + LSD could well be LHD + Bay / Bay successor for the Royal Navy.But, USN is not banning LSD/LPD.
But under current doctrine, the UK Special Purpose group is most frequently a single ship deployment, as already done in the Med, or with Albion now in the Pacific, or Lyme Bay right now on Joint Warrior.When would an Amphibious group split? The UK is never going to be in a position to run concurrent amphibious operations.
Sounds like the perfect deployment for an Absalon derived T31Gabriele wrote:But under current doctrine, the UK Special Purpose group is most frequently a single ship deployment, as already done in the Med, or with Albion now in the Pacific, or Lyme Bay right now on Joint Warrior.
If configured similar to the original concepts, a MARS FSS and Albion combination would be pretty effective. Lack of Chinook capacity would be the only downside.shark bait wrote:I'll suggest for some added resilience and to keep the each platform simpler, an LPH accompanied by an LPD is a better solution. The LPH would still need a few landing craft (like Ccean) and the LPD would still want a small hanger (Like Galicia).
Really, the USN/USMC deploy for upto 6 mths at a time, LSD/LPD are there to support the LHD as an independant Expeditionary strike group, HADR is a secondary capabilty that all surface vessels can undertake if available.donald_of_tokyo wrote:I totally agree LHD is good asset, but ONLY for peaceful landing. And, most of their operation is HADR or landing in uncontested beach = peaceful landing. No surprise many navy is using LHD.
But, USN is not banning LSD/LPD. They are the major assets and not going to be replaced with LHD. This is what I mean.
Also I agree LPD with no helicopter asset is a stupid idea. Most of HADR operations are done by single asset. So, having a hanger on LPD and having a steel beach on LPH is good.
There is a study on-going about ship-to-shore connectors, but nothing heard since the brief for it was publishedR686 wrote:As Gabe point out it the ship to shore connectors that let down a RN amphibious task group, something the RAN recognizes as the weakest link in our conops for which a replacement program is looking into replacing the LCM-1E
I do wonder what they'll go for, will it be a fast LCU like pacscat or will the RN change it up and go for large LCACs like the USN use ?ArmChairCivvy wrote:There is a study on-going about ship-to-shore connectors, but nothing heard since the brief for it was publishedR686 wrote:As Gabe point out it the ship to shore connectors that let down a RN amphibious task group, something the RAN recognizes as the weakest link in our conops for which a replacement program is looking into replacing the LCM-1E
... probably to inform ship designs for the 2030s
No need if you go for an Absalon derived T31Repulse wrote:Honest question, how difficult would it be to fit a helicopter lift to the Bays to allow helicopters to be carried on the vehicle deck?
The Bay's are crying out for organic rotary support, in regards to the lift do they have an internal crane gantry can't remember.Repulse wrote: Honest question, how difficult would it be to fit a helicopter lift to the Bays to allow helicopters to be carried on the vehicle deck?
I like the idea of a third QECV, but manpower issues aside if the Albions are being replaced 1-1 with a seperate budget and if the budget became available for a 3rd QECV pending how much a 3rd carrier would cost 3b? You could most likely pick up 2 extra LHD's giving more options on employment of fast keys or rotary aircraft, plus troop movements.Repulse wrote: More broadly, whilst I can see LHDs as useful for some navies, I’d rather the LPH + LPD combo for the RN, and withoutwinning any supporters here I’d personally go for a third CVF above it all
A 3rd QE would most likely come in at around £2.5bn for that we could Defo get 2 large LHDs. The Italians are building there new one for around €1.1bn ( £900m-£1bn ) so we could get 2 very large very caplable LHDs for the price of s 3rd QE.R686 wrote:The Bay's are crying out for organic rotary support, in regards to the lift do they have an internal crane gantry can't remember.Repulse wrote: Honest question, how difficult would it be to fit a helicopter lift to the Bays to allow helicopters to be carried on the vehicle deck?
If so I'd be more inclined to put a full width hanger were the portable hanger goes CH-47 comparable if it can.
I like the idea of a third QECV, but manpower issues aside if the Albions are being replaced 1-1 with a seperate budget and if the budget became available for a 3rd QECV pending how much a 3rd carrier would cost 3b? You could most likely pick up 2 extra LHD's giving more options on employment of fast keys or rotary aircraft, plus troop movements.Repulse wrote: More broadly, whilst I can see LHDs as useful for some navies, I’d rather the LPH + LPD combo for the RN, and withoutwinning any supporters here I’d personally go for a third CVF above it all
Just looked at my previous posting's iPhone auto correct is a pain in the arse, how could it auto adjust from jets to keys?Poiuytrewq wrote:Might I humbly suggest that you have as much chance of getting a 3rd QE carrier as I have of getting my through deck Absalon inspired T31
It's a bit drastic but it would probably be cheaper to convert the Bays by adding additional superstructure for the PCRS role. A decent sized hanger could probably be created under the extra superstructure.R686 wrote:Any idea how low the manning could get down too if they changed the role of the Albions to PRCS?
It wont be LCACs, too expensive and guzzle fuel. Pacscat had a lot of promise, but I don't expect we'll get anything that exotic.Jake1992 wrote:I do wonder what they'll go for, will it be a fast LCU like pacscat or will the RN change it up and go for large LCACs like the USN use ?
If it could be done on Argus it could be done on the bays, but what would be the point?Repulse wrote:Honest question, how difficult would it be to fit a helicopter lift to the Bays to allow helicopters to be carried on the vehicle deck?
Where have you got that image from, the fex deck on an Absalon is not big enough to fit a Merlin.Poiuytrewq wrote:No need if you go for an Absalon derived T31
Very much in agreement. Supporting an existing export line, good design, known designer, needs bought anyway.donald_of_tokyo wrote:Why not Caimen 90 LCU of BMT?
http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/1056784/B ... asheet.pdf
It has been ordered from United States Army. We will see how it works within short period. It is much more simple ship than PASCAT, and has similar capability (on paper). In a few years, their performance will be "proven". Good candidate, I think.
Simple is always a beauty.
We would even have two options:RetroSicotte wrote:Very much in agreement. Supporting an existing export line, good design, known designer, needs bought anyway.donald_of_tokyo wrote:Why not Caimen 90 LCU of BMT?
http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/1056784/B ... asheet.pdf
It has been ordered from United States Army. We will see how it works within short period. It is much more simple ship than PASCAT, and has similar capability (on paper). In a few years, their performance will be "proven". Good candidate, I think.
Simple is always a beauty.
Get a solid 10 of them at the same time the US is to supplement/replace the LCU Mk10 and they're golden, it's the ideal option.
Not certain that'd be necessary, the US Army has differing requirements for such vessels that required that. The USMC/USN/Royal Marines less so as they're mostly just ship to shore and back.ArmChairCivvy wrote: - or the one that the Army (! not the USMC) has specced with longer range and at-sea endurance
I think the Bays just need the full width hangar it would fit 2 Merlins easy and maybe 3 at a push as said put air wing sleeping and ops room on top of the Hangar and you would have a very capable ship. As for a 3rd QECV for the same money we could have 2 F-35 capable LHDs plus the QECV are not built to have troops moving around the ship with kit on Ocean and the Albions are built to allow 2 Marines to pass in kit when moving around the key parts of the shipR686 wrote:The Bay's are crying out for organic rotary support, in regards to the lift do they have an internal crane gantry can't remember.Repulse wrote: Honest question, how difficult would it be to fit a helicopter lift to the Bays to allow helicopters to be carried on the vehicle deck?
If so I'd be more inclined to put a full width hanger were the portable hanger goes CH-47 comparable if it can.
I like the idea of a third QECV, but manpower issues aside if the Albions are being replaced 1-1 with a seperate budget and if the budget became available for a 3rd QECV pending how much a 3rd carrier would cost 3b? You could most likely pick up 2 extra LHD's giving more options on employment of fast keys or rotary aircraft, plus troop movements.Repulse wrote: More broadly, whilst I can see LHDs as useful for some navies, I’d rather the LPH + LPD combo for the RN, and withoutwinning any supporters here I’d personally go for a third CVF above it all
They are capable ships now, but with a large permanent hanger they would be even betterTempest414 wrote:I think the Bays just need the full width hangar it would fit 2 Merlins easy and maybe 3 at a push as said put air wing sleeping and ops room on top of the Hangar and you would have a very capable ship