Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Problem is the “justification” for the carrier is it would take over the LHA role. You cant crew the amphibious ships because the carrier has taken them all. The crew requirement for the carrier has gone up. You have barely any helicopters or fixed wing to go on to the carriers.
The poor decision is the one that has lead us here.
The poor decision is the one that has lead us here.
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
I assume you mean waves because the Tides don't need replacing for ages and even when they are replaced we need the same relatively simple large fleet tankers not some jack of all trades master of nonePoiuytrewq wrote: ↑15 Dec 2022, 10:23A 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
So everything has hangar space for 2-4 merlin and we are getting LPHs presumably with more hangar space. Where are all these merlin coming from to fill these empty hangars? Or will the QECS and T26 not need any helicopters?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.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5628
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
This has long gone as there was no commander willing to put CVF anywhere near close enough to a coast line for it to be effective in the LHASW1 wrote: ↑15 Dec 2022, 10:49 Problem is the “justification” for the carrier is it would take over the LHA role. You cant crew the amphibious ships because the carrier has taken them all. The crew requirement for the carrier has gone up. You have barely any helicopters or fixed wing to go on to the carriers.
The poor decision is the one that has lead us here.
As for the helicopters this is why I have said for years that the Puma replacement need to be capable of operating at sea so needs to fold its rotors and fit on a lift as a base line
Fixed wing fast air would be limited to the carriers but a buy of Naval Mojave would give any LHD a long range over watch / strike capability
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Buts that’s what POW was exercising off Norway in the summer.Tempest414 wrote: ↑15 Dec 2022, 15:17This has long gone as there was no commander willing to put CVF anywhere near close enough to a coast line for it to be effective in the LHASW1 wrote: ↑15 Dec 2022, 10:49 Problem is the “justification” for the carrier is it would take over the LHA role. You cant crew the amphibious ships because the carrier has taken them all. The crew requirement for the carrier has gone up. You have barely any helicopters or fixed wing to go on to the carriers.
The poor decision is the one that has lead us here.
As for the helicopters this is why I have said for years that the Puma replacement need to be capable of operating at sea so needs to fold its rotors and fit on a lift as a base line
Fixed wing fast air would be limited to the carriers but a buy of Naval Mojave would give any LHD a long range over watch / strike capability
-
- Member
- Posts: 366
- Joined: 03 May 2015, 13:56
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
The V-280 Valour is aiming to have a range of 2,000 miles and a combat radius in excess of 700 miles which would dramatically change that equation if we were to purchase them for the RM as a Merlin HC4 replacement in the future.Tempest414 wrote: ↑15 Dec 2022, 15:17
This has long gone as there was no commander willing to put CVF anywhere near close enough to a coast line for it to be effective in the LHA
- These users liked the author Phil Sayers for the post (total 2):
- serge750 • wargame_insomniac
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4104
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Absolutely, my apologies for the typo.
This argument regarding a lack of helicopters has been doing the rounds for years but it makes zero sense IMO.So everything has hangar space for 2-4 merlin and we are getting LPHs presumably with more hangar space. Where are all these merlin coming from to fill these empty hangars? Or will the QECS and T26 not need any helicopters?
When a vessel is designed to embark 4 Merlin with maintenance clearances it isn’t Merlin specific, it’s simply an illustration of space and capability in a Royal Navy context.
The UK has lots of helicopters.
For example:
What if the Chinooks received folding rotor heads?
What about the Wildcats?
What about the Apaches?
As Tempest414 has submitted many times, what about the Puma replacements?
What about interoperability with Allies?
Filling two vessels with 4 Medium sized helos is not a major challenge for the UK.
Filling a LPH with a mixture of Apache, Merlin and Wildcat is perfectly feasible.
The LRG and LSG concept is based around multiple distributed components joining together to form a predetermined group which is appropriate for the tasking. Not all vessels need to embark the maximum aviation capacity at all times, just as the CVFs clearly do not and will not for the foreseeable.
Short Endurance Littoral Strike by the FCF will rely heavily on embarked aviation. It simply is not feasible without it. A mixture of Merlin, Wildcat and on occasion Apache will be required, ideally Chinook also. An element of operational aviation redundancy will also need to be considered as losses will occur eventually and enough helos will need to be embarked to ensure any extraction is completed successfully.
Drones will continue to proliferate and much hanger space will be required to embark and maintain them. What these drones look like will continue to evolve going forward.
Since their conception the LPDs have been let down by a lack of embarked aviation. The Bays have had to rely on retrofitted RUBB hangers to embark helicopters and decommissioning Ocean was a massive loss to the fleet regardless of the welcome addition of the CVFs. Argus is a massively capable platform in high demand and for good reason.
When the Amphibs were renewed in the 1990s the ideal fleet balance was for two LPHs, two LPDs with hangers, four LSDs plus Argus and the six Points. It was a good plan but losing the LPD aviation and building the Bays without a hanger was a bad decision.
Let’s not make the same mistakes this time around.
- These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 4):
- serge750 • wargame_insomniac • jedibeeftrix • Bring Deeps
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
The UK has plenty of helicopters on paper. Not in practice. Too many penny packet fleets, too few people to operate them.
The amphibious ready group was configured as it was because it was supposed to operate together not independently. Trade offs were made based on that assumption. The construct for the deployment of a marine battlegroup which could be reinforced and use mechanised forces was a gd one of the better decisions we had.
The fact we had two of them was even better, we threw it away.
The amphibious ready group was configured as it was because it was supposed to operate together not independently. Trade offs were made based on that assumption. The construct for the deployment of a marine battlegroup which could be reinforced and use mechanised forces was a gd one of the better decisions we had.
The fact we had two of them was even better, we threw it away.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5628
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
She was off Norway but not in the LHA role but in the NATO fleet command role i.e as a strike carrier and yes she did not have F-35's embarked but it was her C&C that was being exercised not her airwingSW1 wrote: ↑15 Dec 2022, 16:00Buts that’s what POW was exercising off Norway in the summer.Tempest414 wrote: ↑15 Dec 2022, 15:17This has long gone as there was no commander willing to put CVF anywhere near close enough to a coast line for it to be effective in the LHASW1 wrote: ↑15 Dec 2022, 10:49 Problem is the “justification” for the carrier is it would take over the LHA role. You cant crew the amphibious ships because the carrier has taken them all. The crew requirement for the carrier has gone up. You have barely any helicopters or fixed wing to go on to the carriers.
The poor decision is the one that has lead us here.
As for the helicopters this is why I have said for years that the Puma replacement need to be capable of operating at sea so needs to fold its rotors and fit on a lift as a base line
Fixed wing fast air would be limited to the carriers but a buy of Naval Mojave would give any LHD a long range over watch / strike capability
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
25 years into this project that about sums it’s up.Tempest414 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2022, 09:27She was off Norway but not in the LHA role but in the NATO fleet command role i.e as a strike carrier and yes she did not have F-35's embarked but it was her C&C that was being exercised not her airwingSW1 wrote: ↑15 Dec 2022, 16:00Buts that’s what POW was exercising off Norway in the summer.Tempest414 wrote: ↑15 Dec 2022, 15:17This has long gone as there was no commander willing to put CVF anywhere near close enough to a coast line for it to be effective in the LHASW1 wrote: ↑15 Dec 2022, 10:49 Problem is the “justification” for the carrier is it would take over the LHA role. You cant crew the amphibious ships because the carrier has taken them all. The crew requirement for the carrier has gone up. You have barely any helicopters or fixed wing to go on to the carriers.
The poor decision is the one that has lead us here.
As for the helicopters this is why I have said for years that the Puma replacement need to be capable of operating at sea so needs to fold its rotors and fit on a lift as a base line
Fixed wing fast air would be limited to the carriers but a buy of Naval Mojave would give any LHD a long range over watch / strike capability
She was flying marines ashore was she not
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5628
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
This is the point going forward it is not about how many aircraft we have it is about dietributed operation by sea and land. Having 2 carriers and 4 Flattop MRSS plus SSS capable of carrying 3 Merlin means we can deploy air assets were needed and operate them as needed in support of our goalsSW1 wrote: ↑15 Dec 2022, 21:04 The UK has plenty of helicopters on paper. Not in practice. Too many penny packet fleets, too few people to operate them.
The amphibious ready group was configured as it was because it was supposed to operate together not independently. Trade offs were made based on that assumption. The construct for the deployment of a marine battlegroup which could be reinforced and use mechanised forces was a gd one of the better decisions we had.
The fact we had two of them was even better, we threw it away.
Its very well having only 2 flattops but if one is in the North Atlantic and the other in a dry dock they are little use in a pop up problem in the Indian Ocean the French have 1 carrier and 3 LHD's and always have one of these 4 assets EoS
- These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post (total 2):
- serge750 • Poiuytrewq
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5628
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Yes but in the CSAR roleSW1 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2022, 09:4225 years into this project that about sums it’s up.Tempest414 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2022, 09:27She was off Norway but not in the LHA role but in the NATO fleet command role i.e as a strike carrier and yes she did not have F-35's embarked but it was her C&C that was being exercised not her airwingSW1 wrote: ↑15 Dec 2022, 16:00Buts that’s what POW was exercising off Norway in the summer.Tempest414 wrote: ↑15 Dec 2022, 15:17This has long gone as there was no commander willing to put CVF anywhere near close enough to a coast line for it to be effective in the LHASW1 wrote: ↑15 Dec 2022, 10:49 Problem is the “justification” for the carrier is it would take over the LHA role. You cant crew the amphibious ships because the carrier has taken them all. The crew requirement for the carrier has gone up. You have barely any helicopters or fixed wing to go on to the carriers.
The poor decision is the one that has lead us here.
As for the helicopters this is why I have said for years that the Puma replacement need to be capable of operating at sea so needs to fold its rotors and fit on a lift as a base line
Fixed wing fast air would be limited to the carriers but a buy of Naval Mojave would give any LHD a long range over watch / strike capability
She was flying marines ashore was she not
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
But don't the Commando force currently have rather more than 60 Vikings and BV206s?
- These users liked the author tomuk for the post:
- jedibeeftrix
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1150
- Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
That's my fear. Another stealth cut dressed up as good news as new acquisition.
It does refer to the "older BV206s" in the press release and tweet, so I am clinging to the faint hope that a significant number of newer BV206s are retained.....
- These users liked the author wargame_insomniac for the post:
- jedibeeftrix
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
60 is probably enough given the restructuring of how the RM will operate, with only one Commando allocated to Arctic warfare at any one time. What will be interesting is seeing what new vehicles could be purchased for the RM deployed as part of the Littoral Groups.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5628
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Tempest414 wrote: ↑28 Jan 2023, 12:49
My thinking is that the MRSS….
Repulse wrote: ↑28 Jan 2023, 11:47
The problem I have with the MRSS….
Poluytrewq wrote:
I don’t think the MRSS is going to happen.
If the future is heavily dependent on naval MALE drones then an MRSS like Ellida is clearly the wrong choice especially if the entire Amphibious fleet is to be replaced by a single class.
Much better to convert and retain the Albions, build a couple of Ocean Mk2’s and a couple of Karel Doorman sized Enforcers.
I really can’t see that being more expensive than six Ellidas.
The 4 ships I would like based on the Baltic Enabler you can call what you like
Multi role support ships = MRSS
Logistics Sea base ships = LSBS
The reason for 4 of these ship is that I would deploy 1 on AP/N , 1 EoS and 2 kept in the Home fleet
2 of these ships along with the Points would be able to move a re-enforced armoured brigade plus 20 helicopter off 12 spots.
These ships would capable of carrying out low level LRG , ASW carrier , sea-lift , HDAR
Now all 4 ships would be operated by the RFA and I would build 2 LHD's for the RN
My thinking is that the MRSS….
Repulse wrote: ↑28 Jan 2023, 11:47
The problem I have with the MRSS….
Poluytrewq wrote:
I don’t think the MRSS is going to happen.
If the future is heavily dependent on naval MALE drones then an MRSS like Ellida is clearly the wrong choice especially if the entire Amphibious fleet is to be replaced by a single class.
Much better to convert and retain the Albions, build a couple of Ocean Mk2’s and a couple of Karel Doorman sized Enforcers.
I really can’t see that being more expensive than six Ellidas.
The 4 ships I would like based on the Baltic Enabler you can call what you like
Multi role support ships = MRSS
Logistics Sea base ships = LSBS
The reason for 4 of these ship is that I would deploy 1 on AP/N , 1 EoS and 2 kept in the Home fleet
2 of these ships along with the Points would be able to move a re-enforced armoured brigade plus 20 helicopter off 12 spots.
These ships would capable of carrying out low level LRG , ASW carrier , sea-lift , HDAR
Now all 4 ships would be operated by the RFA and I would build 2 LHD's for the RN
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
The FCF is all based around highly distributed smaller fighting units, putting aside logistics, the ships deploying this force needs to reflect this.
If the money was there, I would personally argue for:
- 3 large RFA manned JSBLs (one LRG(N), one LRG(S) and one reserve) each with aviation support facilities for @6 Merlin sized helicopters.
- 6 RN manned smaller landing / motherships, something like the Damen Landing Ship Transport LST 120H design.
If the money was there, I would personally argue for:
- 3 large RFA manned JSBLs (one LRG(N), one LRG(S) and one reserve) each with aviation support facilities for @6 Merlin sized helicopters.
- 6 RN manned smaller landing / motherships, something like the Damen Landing Ship Transport LST 120H design.
”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
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Wouldn’t this concept be best served by not just thinking of it made up solely of the amphibious replacements but also the T32s.Repulse wrote: ↑29 Jan 2023, 10:00 The FCF is all based around highly distributed smaller fighting units, putting aside logistics, the ships deploying this force needs to reflect this.
If the money was there, I would personally argue for:
- 3 large RFA manned JSBLs (one LRG(N), one LRG(S) and one reserve) each with aviation support facilities for @6 Merlin sized helicopters.
- 6 RN manned smaller landing / motherships, something like the Damen Landing Ship Transport LST 120H design.
My thinking is if we replaced the Albions, Bays and Argus with a fleet of 6 large LPDs / LSDs based off the same hull ( like the USN is doing with LPX and San Antonio ) this would give the core for large scale ops but can also dispersed. We then replace the waves with 2 Karel Doorman JSS, these can resupply the wider fleet ( leaving sss and tides to the QEs ) while also offering additional aviation and lane meterage to larger scale ops. Finally we have the T32s, if we have them based on something like the Damen Crossover 139 or the Absalon we’d have 5 vessels that can escort the above but also conduct smaller scale ops such as raiding.
It’s about tying all these replacements together so they can not only operate in a distributed way but also come together.
2 x LPD - 200m by 30m, 6 merlin hanger, twin chinook flight deck, 4 LCU well dock
4 x LSD - based on the same hull as above, 3 merlin hanger, twin merlin/single chinook flight deck, single LCU well dock, open work deck with 2 60tn cranes
2 x Modified Karel Doorman - 6 merlin hanger, twin chinook flight deck, 2 LCVPs, 1000 lane meters, increased store in place of 1000 lane meters.
5 x T32 - 140m by 19m based on crossover 139, 2 merlin hanger, chinook fight deck, 2 LCVP sized vessels, 2 rhibs plus containerised off board systems.
To me the above sounds like something that can work in both a distributed sence or as a tradition ARG. They also have the added benifited of not being a threat to the carriers like flat tops would be.
-
Online
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5600
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Sorry I understand this discussion stands on optimistic "what should have been" viewpoint. But I cannot stop pointing out thatJake1992 wrote: ↑29 Jan 2023, 10:20Wouldn’t this concept be best served by not just thinking of it made up solely of the amphibious replacements but also the T32s.
My thinking is if we replaced the Albions, Bays and Argus with a fleet of 6 large LPDs / LSDs based off the same hull ( like the USN is doing with LPX and San Antonio ) this would give the core for large scale ops but can also dispersed. We then replace the waves with 2 Karel Doorman JSS, these can resupply the wider fleet ( leaving sss and tides to the QEs ) while also offering additional aviation and lane meterage to larger scale ops. ...
- RFA Argus's crew is needed for the 2nd FSSS. Choose which?
- Waves are gone. Anyway, there is no crew to man them. With the 3rd FSSS coming, which also does not have any crew, I think 2 Waves now in extended readiness will simply go. One vessel out of the 10-12 RFA fleet "without crew" is needed to account for long maintenance/modernization, but you do not need more than one.
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Agree Donald-san, what I’m proposing is the three LSDs (and Argus) get replaced by three (but more realistically two) JSBLs.
”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
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5628
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
It could be said that there is a plan and that plan is for the RFA to end up withdonald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑29 Jan 2023, 10:29Sorry I understand this discussion stands on optimistic "what should have been" viewpoint. But I cannot stop pointing out thatJake1992 wrote: ↑29 Jan 2023, 10:20Wouldn’t this concept be best served by not just thinking of it made up solely of the amphibious replacements but also the T32s.
My thinking is if we replaced the Albions, Bays and Argus with a fleet of 6 large LPDs / LSDs based off the same hull ( like the USN is doing with LPX and San Antonio ) this would give the core for large scale ops but can also dispersed. We then replace the waves with 2 Karel Doorman JSS, these can resupply the wider fleet ( leaving sss and tides to the QEs ) while also offering additional aviation and lane meterage to larger scale ops. ...
- RFA Argus's crew is needed for the 2nd FSSS. Choose which?
- Waves are gone. Anyway, there is no crew to man them. With the 3rd FSSS coming, which also does not have any crew, I think 2 Waves now in extended readiness will simply go. One vessel out of the 10-12 RFA fleet "without crew" is needed to account for long maintenance/modernization, but you do not need more than one.
4 x Tide class
3 x SSS
4 x MRSS
This will replace the current operational ships
4 x Tide class
3 x Bays
Fort Vic
Argus
Meaning there are crews for 3 x Tide class , 2 x SSS and 3 x MRSS allowing for one of each class to be in maintenance / refit at any one time allowing for better operational flow. Now I would like to see a 5th tanker and there is no reason why the RFA can't employ more staff to cover this
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4104
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Sounds plausible, effectively the Bays and Argus replaced by the four MRSS.Tempest414 wrote: ↑29 Jan 2023, 10:57
4 x Tide class
3 x SSS
4 x MRSS
This will replace the current operational ships
4 x Tide class
3 x Bays
Fort Vic
Argus
The big question would be what would replace the Albions and that decision would heavily influence the ultimate design of the MRSS.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5628
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
I was just taking about the RFA of course the grand plan is to replace the 2 LPDs , 3 LSD & Argus with 6 MRSS but I think this needs to change and that is why I now think we need 4 x Logistic Sea Bases - based on the Enabler class and 2 x LHD/LHA'sPoiuytrewq wrote: ↑29 Jan 2023, 11:12Sounds plausible, effectively the Bays and Argus replaced by the four MRSS.Tempest414 wrote: ↑29 Jan 2023, 10:57
4 x Tide class
3 x SSS
4 x MRSS
This will replace the current operational ships
4 x Tide class
3 x Bays
Fort Vic
Argus
The big question would be what would replace the Albions and that decision would heavily influence the ultimate design of the MRSS.
-
- Member
- Posts: 527
- Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
The word "all" is doing some heavy lifting there.
Of the three proper commandos, one has been transformed from the Commando21 model to the small-unit raiding model.
Is there indication that both the remaining two will be substantially transformed from the Commando21 model?
Regardless of whether that is to the small-unit raiding model, or something new designed for company-level operations...
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5628
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Yes it is interesting that there is a lot of talk about re-enforced company level operations yet all the current deployments are based around re-enforced Battalion operations and have been from 2016 from this date we seen the standard deployment of 1 x LPD , 1 x LSD and 1 escort this is joined by ether Argus or a Point class and sometimes bothjedibeeftrix wrote: ↑29 Jan 2023, 11:27The word "all" is doing some heavy lifting there.
Of the three proper commandos, one has been transformed from the Commando21 model to the small-unit raiding model.
Is there indication that both the remaining two will be substantially transformed from the Commando21 model?
Regardless of whether that is too the small-unit raiding model, or something new designed for company-level operations...
- These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
- jedibeeftrix