Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6106
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Post by shark bait »

All the photos in this thread are great examples of why the RN should build more Bay Class. They're doing everything the T31 is suppose to, plus more!
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3031
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Post by Tempest414 »

The Bays are great ship and yes we could do with a few more but the T-31 and Bay class are designed for different roles

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4181
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

shark bait wrote:All the photos in this thread are great examples of why the RN should build more Bay Class. They're doing everything the T31 is suppose to, plus more!
Candidate list a T31 can do, but a Bay cannot:
- patrolling against Hoiti rebels (ASM attack)
- patrolling Strait of Hormuz
- AAW goal keeper role in CVTF and RFA logistic fleet

Candidate list a T31 can do much much better than a Bay can:
- fighting against fast incoming boats (Bays is an order of magnitude easier target than a T31)
- plane guard of CVTF

Big difference.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1233
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Post by Scimitar54 »

T31 may also with the addition of suitable kit, possess an ability (yet to be determined) to conduct ASW. :arrow:

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6106
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Post by shark bait »

That's a list you have made up. The MOD's list looks like this;

Image

Source; https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 1e_RFI.pdf

I suggest a Bay can do all of the roles described in the T31 RFI.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3031
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Post by Tempest414 »

There is no doubt the Bays have proven not only to RN but the US navy what a capable ship it is and this why I keep coming back to buying 2 160 meter Makassar class if we are stiil going for the FLSS program. As said before these ship as they are cost 45 million dollars so working with a 100 million pound ( 125 million dollars today ) budget we should be able to get 2 nice ships for 62.5 million dollars each

Now for a bit of fantasy sorry

What I would like to see going forward is a East of Suez command made up of ships forward deployed like so

2 x T-31 one in the gulf and one in Singapore
2 x MHC in the gulf
1 x Bay in the gulf
1 x FLSS in Singapore
1 x Wave in Singapore

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4181
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

I think section 6.1 of the RFI explains the requirement to T31e

6.1 Capability Context
... The T31e will carry out various maritime interdiction tasks, such as counter drugs and counter piracy. It will also carry out defence engagement activities, such as port visits and official entertainment, demonstrations of military capability and participation in allied training exercises. It must be ready to respond to emergent events, such as natural disasters or evacuation of non-combatants and will routinely carry specialist emergency relief stores in certain operating areas....
To accomplish its tasks, the T31e will depend on organic sensors as well as deployable assets; such as sea boats and organic aviation system(s). It will operate predominantly in low threat conditions but will require credible offensive and defensive capabilities to deter aggression, survive attacks and provide reassurance.
... The T31e design will need to be adaptable, providing evolution paths for future capability to enable growth of the destroyer and frigate numbers into the 2030s, and to address export customers’ needs. Adaptability may include any combination of reconfigurable flexible design (including fit-to-receive), allowance for in-life upgrades or growth through follow on- batches.

I think the underlined point cannot be met by Bay. It is a warship, build to naval standard (Bays are not). There is a reason for it.

I totally agree it is lightly armed, and is rather a long range patrol corvette (*1) than a frigate. But, corvette's tasks cannot be covered by Bay. So, T31e's tasks cannot be covered by Bay, either.


*1: Although many here insists corvette must be heavily armed and short-legged, it is not true. Origin of modern European corvette is Joao Coutinho-class corvette or Portugal Navy. Typical corvette is A69 Aviso of French navy, or Italian Minerva class (these two are short-legged, though). None of them are "heavily armed". There are a variety of "corvettes" worldwide.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2686
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Post by SW1 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:I think the underlined point cannot be met by Bay. It is a warship, build to naval standard (Bays are not). There is a reason for it.
The bit immediately before the part u highly is the important bit. The bays operate in the gulf and across many domains. The credibility of there offensive or defensive capabilities comes from what they carry or are fitted with.

For example in the gulf they have phalanx for self defence. In future possibly sea ram or a laser system could replace those mounts. You could even do a camm fit a la fort Victoria although the more you go down that route the likely you’d want to crew them with RN like what happened in Australia.

Even in list of things it can’t do, putting 4 wildcat and 12 orc boats can provide water security against small boats ect similar to roles undertake during the Olympics as an example.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4181
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

SW1 wrote:For example in the gulf they have phalanx for self defence. In future possibly sea ram or a laser system could replace those mounts. You could even do a camm fit a la fort Victoria although the more you go down that route the likely you’d want to crew them with RN like what happened in Australia.
Bays and Forts have very low level of damage control, with high level of radar (and visible) cross-section, as well as very limited mobility. Bays also have very limited situation awareness. No even carrying Scanter 4100 radar. Why you shall put them in war-fighting? They won't.

CIWS is to handle threats leaking from the primary defense barriers (other assets), and not to force them to fight.

Why escorts has naval ship standard? If only the armaments matter, just add Sea Venom on a container vessel and call it an AAW destroyer. It will be 3 times cheaper than T45. No it is not the case.
Even in list of things it can’t do, putting 4 wildcat and 12 orc boats can provide water security against small boats ect similar to roles undertake during the Olympics as an example.
No objection. This means there are something a Bay can do, but it does not change the fact that Bay cannot do what T31 can do. They simply differ.

If Bay and T31 is the same, River B2 and T26 is the same, as well. Because River B2 is a tiny version of Bay, and T31e is a tiny version of T26.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2686
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Post by SW1 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Bays and Forts have very low level of damage control, with high level of radar (and visible) cross-section, as well as very limited mobility.
The reference you used explains the environment they will operate in “they will predominantly be used in low threat conditions”. If high threat conditions exist then other warships will be used

People want these to be high end warships perhaps it’s even a ruse to get high end warships. The reality is the high end escort fleet is type 26 and type 45.

Situational awareness is again all in degrees, can a bay be fitted with a radar yes can it use offboard sensors to generate awareness yes.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4181
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

SW1 wrote:The reference you used explains the environment they will operate in “they will predominantly be used in low threat conditions”. If high threat conditions exist then other warships will be used

People want these to be high end warships perhaps it’s even a ruse to get high end warships. The reality is the high end escort fleet is type 26 and type 45.

Situational awareness is again all in degrees, can a bay be fitted with a radar yes can it use offboard sensors to generate awareness yes.
Sorry your point is all valid for me. And still my idea is not affected by it. Uhm, not sure where our mis-communication comes from. Bay do not have CMS, Bay do not carry good radar, it is a fact. Adding it will make it much more expensive and man-power intensive, killing the heart of Bay = being cheap to operate.

And, it is anyway not the key point.

Bay are
- not built to naval standard
- has an order of magnitude larger radar/visible cross-section
- is a few times "slow" in mobility
- and an order of magnitude less armed
compared to T31e. Is this clear?

T31e is NOT a high end war ship. No objection. It is low-end warship.

But, T31 is an order of magnitude "higher-end" for war-fighting than Bay.

I'm afraid you think there is "high-end warship" and "other ships", like the world is only made of black and white. In reality, there are many grays (something in-between).

Let's make it clear. I do NOT think T31e is a high-end escort like T45 and T26. But, I DO think that, modern high-end escorts are two orders of magnitudes "higher-end in war fighting" than Bay. I'm just saying T31 is in between, an order of magnitude higher than Bay, and still an order of magnitude lower than T45/26.

I hope it is clearer...

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2686
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Post by SW1 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
SW1 wrote:The reference you used explains the environment they will operate in “they will predominantly be used in low threat conditions”. If high threat conditions exist then other warships will be used

People want these to be high end warships perhaps it’s even a ruse to get high end warships. The reality is the high end escort fleet is type 26 and type 45.

Situational awareness is again all in degrees, can a bay be fitted with a radar yes can it use offboard sensors to generate awareness yes.
Sorry your point is all valid for me. And still my idea is not affected by it. Uhm, not sure where our mis-communication comes from. Bay do not have CMS, Bay do not carry good radar, it is a fact. Adding it will make it much more expensive and man-power intensive, killing the heart of Bay = being cheap to operate.

And, it is anyway not the key point.

Bay are
- not built to naval standard
- has an order of magnitude larger radar/visible cross-section
- is a few times "slow" in mobility
- and an order of magnitude less armed
compared to T31e. Is this clear?

T31e is NOT a high end war ship. No objection. It is low-end warship.

But, T31 is an order of magnitude "higher-end" for war-fighting than Bay.

I'm afraid you think there is "high-end warship" and "other ships", like the world is only made of black and white. In reality, there are many grays (something in-between).

Let's make it clear. I do NOT think T31e is a high-end escort like T45 and T26. But, I DO think that, modern high-end escorts are two orders of magnitudes "higher-end in war fighting" than Bay. I'm just saying T31 is in between, an order of magnitude higher than Bay, and still an order of magnitude lower than T45/26.

I hope it is clearer...
Donald

It’s premise of what you think a type 31 is doing against the list land shark provided as what it’s primary tasks are supposed to be that I’m disagreeing with.

The simple fact is that bays are operating in higher to low threat environments from the Baltic to the gulf to the Caribbean. Doing the very tasks highlighted as the primary ones for this requirement. They Have acted as command facilities for mcm and other things.

I do not equate bay equals cheap, i equate bay with a size and configuration of vessel better suited to the non high end warfighting roles and indeed the very grey area you talk about than trying to cram things inadequately into a vessel that looks like a traditional frigate.

The problem here is when type31 is brought up is people’s wished for preference ofweapons carried and sensors mounted on it are identical to what’s on type 26 in a preferred hull that is type 26 size but from someone other than BAE because they think we’re being hoodwinked on cost

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6241
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Post by Lord Jim »

Looking at that list the T-31e is going to have the hull of a Warship but that is about it. Its level of equipment is going to be more of a heavy OPV or light Corvette, and it ability to carry out HADR is going to be more like that of a first responder, than a platform able to deliver major relief. It should be well suited for that anti-piracy and drugs interdiction roles, and will have to have larger hospitality facilities than a platform of its size would usually have if it is to act as an ambassadorial platform for the Royal Navy and the UK.

So it may look like a Warship but it certainly will not be able to act as a real Warship. The MoD needs to come clean and adopt a name and description more suited to what its actual role will be, and accept that the Royal Navy will be reduced to fourteen vessels.

The T-31e might have growth potential but I see this aimed more at theoretical exports than the Royal Navy and I do not see them staying in Royal Navy service much beyond the ten year stated in the NSS, which gave birth to them in the first place. If these five vessels get built for the specified budget then we can say the experiment was a success, but it will not deliver the five "Escort" the Government is keen to go on about and I cannot see any additional vessels being built of this class to increase the size of the Royal Navy. That ambition should rest with the T-26 and the future T-45 replacement.

The Bay class one the other hand is a true Swiss Army Knife suitable for multiple types of operation in peace and war either operating by itself or part of a Taskforce. It can conduct anti-piracy and drug interdiction duties with the right assets embarked acting as a mothership. It can support Mine warfare assets and is a superb HADR platform. In fact there should be further investment in the platforms to actually increase their utility further, maybe by improving their aviation facilities or adding hoists to launch and recover platform large then the standard RHIB, in a timely manner. I would in fact rather see the £1.25Bn T-31e budget used to both increase the number of Bays we have available and to improve their capabilities. This would be far more beneficial to the Royal Navy than said T-31e "Corvettes".

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4181
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

I agree to your point, LJ-san. I am NOT a supporter of the T31 program. I also agree that Bays are better suited for the 6 listed tasks.

But, T31 has another item in the list, the 7th. T31 has an order of magnitude credible offensive and defensive capabilities than Bay. This is the only reason T31 is not designed like Bay.

They differ.

Then, “ if a ship like T31 is needed for RN or not”, is a completely independent question.

I totally agree that, even though T31 is an order of magnitude fighty than Bay, the final item of the requirement shall better be met by, say “one more T26”, while the 6 listed items shown by SharkBait-san shall be met by some Bay like, or a bit smaller vessels.

The reason I push “one more T26 and a few Floreal like large OPV” as T31-replacements. :D

But this fact does not conflict with the fact T31 is an order of magnitude fighty than Bay.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6241
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Post by Lord Jim »

I totally agree and that was why I said a Bay would deploy either by itself or part of a Taskforce, missing out the rest of the sentence which was "Depending on the threat level". I also agree that we would do better to order a ninth T-26 instead of the T-31e idea, but I would prefer the construction of T-26 to continue on to a tenth, eleventh and so on in a drum beat fashion as funding can be made available. I also think that when it comes time to rejuvenate the Amphibious force, it is the bays that should be replaced first, with an improved variant, but I also think the funding allocated to the daft FLSS should be used to modify at least one Bay to act as a trials vessel for ideas that could be used in their eventual replacement.

With current plans the Royal Navy will receive its Carrier Group and all the components needed. Post 2030 however it needs to move forward and use its funding to purchase additional T-26 and eventually a T-45 replacement. Between those two is when the Bay replacements should be looked at. If the right design is chosen then and order for four or five could replace not just the Bays but also the Albions. In my view the design chose should have a core capability similar to the existing Bays but have the ability to be tailored to different mission by the addition of modular mission blocks, be they increased aviation capability, or medical facilities, Mother ship for either smaller craft including mine warfare platforms and so on.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2153
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Post by Poiuytrewq »

A great shot of Mounts Bay alongside at Curacao in the Southern Caribbean
EBEJM_DXYAAJj6c.jpeg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2686
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Post by SW1 »

Xav posted on the US thread but thought While not directly related to a bay the US did conduct a similar test with one earlier this year both ships have a number of things in common and maybe an indicator of a ship configuration that enables best operations of such systems.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... ther-ship/

Spearhead sailed in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Key West, Fla., to conduct fleet experiments with multiple unmanned aerial and undersea systems. Some of the experiments conducted included testing the Knifefish UUV enables mine countermeasures missions (MCM) from an EPF as a vessel of opportunity (VOO), operating the V-BAT and Scan Eagle to provide improved detection and monitoring to support counter-narcotics missions in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific

The EPF’s large, open-mission deck and large habitability spaces provide the opportunity to conduct a wide range of missions from engagement and humanitarian assistance to disaster relief, and from maritime security support operations, to intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance.

With a draft of only 13 feet and a unique propulsion system, its ability to access austere and degraded ports with minimal external assistance provides an overabundance of options to fleet and combatant commanders these ships have the potential to support future requirements in special operations, command and control, and medical support operations.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6241
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Post by Lord Jim »

As has been mentioned before, we need to decide whether we adapt an existing platform to operated unmanned systems or develop a new platform design for the role, creating a whole new class of warship.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2686
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Post by SW1 »

Hopefully RFA mounts bay won’t be needed over the coming days with hurricane Dorian roaring toward the Bahamas but I fear she might good luck to all.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2686
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Post by SW1 »

Bahamas being absolutely smashed by hurricane Dorian hopefully contingency plans in place to reinforce mounts bay

https://news.sky.com/story/hurricane-do ... s-11799524

The Bahamas is experiencing its strongest hurricane in modern times as Hurricane Dorian makes landfall in the islands. The storm was upgraded to category five - the highest on the scale and rarely seen before.

The National Hurricane Center (NHC) said "catastrophic conditions" were being experienced on the Abacos Islands - a group in the country's north.

Dorian's maximum sustained winds have increased to 185mph, according to the NHC, up from earlier readings of 160mph.


SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2686
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Post by SW1 »


SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2686
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Post by SW1 »

A further update highlighting how flexible these fwd deployed presence vessels are.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/roya ... -hurricane

A team of 18 military medical staff will arrive in the region this evening and will provide emergency care, surgery and intensive care to those in need.

They join Royal Navy support ship RFA Mounts Bay, which is delivering aid to the Bahamas following the destruction caused by the devastating hurricane. Mounts Bay was prepositioned in the region for hurricane season, a task it fulfils each year.

Another Royal Navy ship, HMS Protector has been re-tasked to the Bahamas. It is currently in Bermuda taking onboard supplies such as food, water and clothing. On Monday it will sail to the Bahamas where it will provide further support to the disaster relief efforts.

The UK is also working with other partners in the region, including the US Coast Guard, whose helicopters have refuelled on RFA Mounts Bay.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4181
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Photo of MountsBay working at Bahama. A photo, taken a week ago, but I like it. This shows how beautiful she is.

- Very simple radar (only for navigation) and relatively simple com-link antenna.
- Very simple hull design, with big open deck. Although it was originally designed to work with LPH, and hence lacks helo-hangar, a simple plastic hangar can be easily (=cheaply) added, and make her very versatile also in singleton deployments.
- The 38.4 m longer-version of the mexefloat (*1) showcasing the well-dock size. (so-so long, I was impressed). Interestingly, in this deployment she looks like carrying only 1 mexefloat.
- She carries a few Offshore Raiding Crafts, RHIBs and work boats, but no LCVP nor LCU.

I love this simpleness, which all contributing a lot to make her cheaper to operate, needing less maintenance load and hence less manpower. No high-end warfighting capability, nor high-grade command system, both just adding cost and man-power. I think this beautiful simplicity is making UK to keep the global deployment activity as high as possible. If she need 50% more crew and 50% more operational cost (e.g. armaments maintenance and support contracts), her sea-going days will be 33% shorter than now, while additional capability for HADR will be limited. She even might not be able to be stationed there. As those systems may need so-so large space, weight and power, it will even degrade the capability for HADR.

Bay-class are the best balanced "logistic landing" ship, for me. Simple (=designed for purpose) is very beautiful. At the same time, they are very different from HMS Albion, an LPD for the 1st-day landing, which surely needs good ship-to-shore connector, as well as very good command-and-control systems supported by good data-link.

*1: ref; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexeflote
Image

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6106
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Post by shark bait »

They offer extraordinarily good value to the UK, big, simple, awesome platforms. The RN could do with a few more like that!
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3031
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Post by Tempest414 »

I can't help thinking that if the temp hangar was the flight deck side of the funnels it could make better use of the cranes and working deck

Post Reply