Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

[shark bait]

Karel Doorman would be a good place to start.

Karel Doorman, the ship so good even the Dutch don't want it, and share it with the Germans instead. The ship looks good from the outside, but tries to do too much on the inside.

A joint ship design with the Dutch would be great. The RFA got the bay class design from the Netherland and they're the best value ships at the UKs disposal!

Something that looked like the Karel Doorman, but worked like the Bay Class would be perfect!

What mass is required if a full blown amphibious operation is required? Is 4x MRSS and 4x Points enough? How many helos, heavy lift UAVs, LCUs and mexefloats will be requited?

You go with what you've got!

Unfortunately the funding defines the mass, not the tactical requirements.

In response to that, the Navy must ensure what ever replaces HMS Albion needs to be less intensive to operate than the current LPDs. That should mean more hulls, so the force can be more distributed for routine security operations, or grouped up for an emergency intervention. That should enable the Navy to scale up or down depending on the political climate thay year.

Something that looked like the Karel Doorman, but worked like the Bay Class would be perfect!

[Repulse]

Karel Doorman, the ship so good even the Dutch don't want it share it with the Germans instead.

Got any sources to back that up? I read it was budget pressures.

[Poiuytrewq]

Something that looked like the Karel Doorman, but worked like the Bay Class would be perfect!

Im not sure the basic Enforcer design has altered that much apart from exterior aesthetics.

The LHD, LPD, LSD variants where designed years ago.

9B2BD19F-1143-4F4E-8B1A-947DEC91CA56.jpeg

If that’s not workable then BAE still has their proposed LHD design based on Ocean.

6E3FBF84-1C79-4550-B695-902F852FEDF7.jpeg

https://www.baesystems.com/en-media/upl ... 568205.pdf

An Enforcer derived LHD/LSD spilt would be a perfect outcome.

[serge750]

I always liked the mistrals as they are not to big ....

[new guy]

Thats more like it!

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain ... ault-ship/

Hopefully Enforcer based and LHD, LPD and LSD variants on the same hull.

Karel Doorman would be a good place to start.

More here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-a ... lationship

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-l ... h-50-years

Sorry, but when has there ever been a platform with a LHD version and a LPD/LSD version??? I will wait. and wait more.
as for LPD & LSD, Why spend money for 2 variants when you could just have the superior LPD???
Also, LHD, This is more of an obsession than a need, at least comparative to the need for MRSS, ALV, and additional escorts/warships.

[shark bait]

Pursuing an LHD would be unwise because it's going to end up being a very intensive ship to run and will either pull focus away from the carriers, or end up like the current LPDs.

The MRSS needs to be simpler, able to operate with less crew, and spend more time at sea doing multi mission stuff. A dock with a big hanger is a great option, it doesn't have to be a full LHD. Amphibious assaults are the exception, not the rule, and the MRSS design must consider this.

If things go well in the future, the Navy could aquire a HMS Ocean version 2, for more independence from the carrier group, but that seems way off the cards for the time being.

[Poiuytrewq]

Pursuing an LHD would be unwise…

Disagree.

RN needs LHDs to fully utilise future drone technology as it evolves. Relying on only two CVF’s to launch/recover large numbers of MALE drones to protect the FCF would be unwise. The F35s have a role to play but an additional vessel concentrating on drones and helos to assist the FCF is crucial IMO.

It needs be a LHD rather than a LPH because the floodable dock is vital. For for the same reason the America class needed to have a floodable dock but the USN deleted it, realised the mistake, and corrected it.

Ocean was/is a great design but getting the vehicles onto a mexeflote was interesting but perhaps not as efficient as it could have been.

A class of six 200m MRSS is a £3bn program. There are others ways to spend such a substantial amount of money.

[Poiuytrewq]

Sorry…

Why are you sorry?

..when has there ever been a platform with a LHD version and a LPD/LSD version??? I will wait. and wait more.

Don’t wait too long. The Enforcer class was designed with LHD and LPD variants decades ago. RN asked for a modified design for a class of 4 LSDs. Lots in the water with various navies.

as for LPD & LSD, Why spend money for 2 variants when you could just have the superior LPD???

Superior how?

Do you mean it’s got a really big hanger so it must be superior?

Also, LHD, This is more of an obsession than a need, at least comparative to the need for MRSS…

What is the need for six MRSS?

How many other navies around the world are planning to scrap their entire amphibious fleet and replace it with a single class of joint logistic vessel?

ALV, and additional escorts/warships.

What is an ALV?

Are you proposing to cut the Amphibious fleet to build more escorts in an effort to give them less to escort?

[Tempest414]

Pursuing an LHD would be unwise…

Disagree.

RN needs LHDs to fully utilise future drone technology as it evolves. Relying on only two CVF’s to launch/recover large numbers of MALE drones to protect the FCF would be unwise. The F35s have a role to play but an additional vessel concentrating on drones and helos to assist the FCF is crucial IMO.

It needs be a LHD rather than a LPH because the floodable dock is vital. For for the same reason the America class needed to have a floodable dock but the USN deleted it, realised the mistake, and corrected it.

Ocean was/is a great design but getting the vehicles onto a mexeflote was interesting but perhaps not as efficient as it could have been.

A class of six 200m MRSS is a £3bn program. There are others ways to spend such a substantial amount of money.

I agree the RN need one or two LHD's to allow troop helicopter and MALE drones operations the Carrier ( as there could only be one available) will have its hands full with fixed wing strike and rotary ASW & AEW op's

I have always liked the Enforcer LHD / LPD option for me we would need the LHD to be 200 by 36 meters this would allow MALE op's and for me if it is 200 meters no one should be temped to try and operate F-35 off it

[new guy]

Pursuing an LHD would be unwise…

Disagree.

RN needs LHDs to fully utilise future drone technology as it evolves. Relying on only two CVF’s to launch/recover large numbers of MALE drones to protect the FCF would be unwise. The F35s have a role to play but an additional vessel concentrating on drones and helos to assist the FCF is crucial IMO.

It needs be a LHD rather than a LPH because the floodable dock is vital. For for the same reason the America class needed to have a floodable dock but the USN deleted it, realised the mistake, and corrected it.

Ocean was/is a great design but getting the vehicles onto a mexeflote was interesting but perhaps not as efficient as it could have been.

A class of six 200m MRSS is a £3bn program. There are others ways to spend such a substantial amount of money.

Sorry…

Why are you sorry?

..when has there ever been a platform with a LHD version and a LPD/LSD version??? I will wait. and wait more.

Don’t wait too long. The Enforcer class was designed with LHD and LPD variants decades ago. RN asked for a modified design for a class of 4 LSDs. Lots in the water with various navies.

as for LPD & LSD, Why spend money for 2 variants when you could just have the superior LPD???

Superior how?

Do you mean it’s got a really big hanger so it must be superior?

Also, LHD, This is more of an obsession than a need, at least comparative to the need for MRSS…

What is the need for six MRSS?

How many other navies around the world are planning to scrap their entire amphibious fleet and replace it with a single class of joint logistic vessel?

ALV, and additional escorts/warships.

What is an ALV?

Are you proposing to cut the Amphibious fleet to build more escorts in an effort to give them less to escort?

Classification system:

LHD: Landing Helicopter Dock (Wasp class, mistral,Juan Carlos I class,Full length flight deck with well deck,)
LPH: Landing Platform Helicopter (HMS ocean, others Full length flight deck no well deck, a.k.a light/medium carrier)
LPD: Landing Platform Dock (Heli deck with hangar, San Antonio class)
LSD: Landing Ship Dock (Heli deck without hangar, bay class)

a) LHD's are intensive to operate and it would just reduce total fleet capacity.
b) I would rather have a ship without a well deck so it could focus on air ops rather than taking up a lot of space for a well deck.
c) Yes £3bn is a lot of money. But a worse way to spend it than on 6 MRSS is on 3 LHD.
d) As for sorry, it's a phrase you insert at the start of an objection "Sorry, but ...."
e) Those are something, called concepts, because it is nearly impossible to turn a LPD or LSD into a LHD or LPH. Or at least more practical to have a completely separate LPD&LSD design and LHD&LPD design.
f) Not a big hanger, just a hanger at all
g) What is the need for 6 MRSS? What is the need for 6 MRSS? Really? why don't you start by arguing the need for 3 LHD's instead.
h) I don't see the problem with replacing the current amphib fleet 1 to 1 with one class of equally competent vessels, do you?
i) ALV, Additional Logistic Vessel, Like the point class. These enable amphibious operations even more so than any amphib by bringing actual capacity, mass, allowing the sustainment of the operation or the start of a much larger one.
j) When did I ever say that we sould get more escorts over aphibs, I'm just saying instead of wasting money on more expensive LHD's there is a greater priority for MRSS, ALV, and additional escorts. It's me saying if there was more money suddenly I wouldn't spend it on new LHD's but additional escorts.

[wargame_insomniac]

LHDs/LPDs/LPHs/LSDs come in many different forms. What determines how complex (and therefore expensive and resource intensive) they are depends on the requirement.

I personally think it’s a mistake to go for a single MRSS class as I see there are four very distinct objectives;
- Ability to project OTH RM groups ranging from section to multiple company level operations.
- Support RM groups to enable maritime control over a Littoral area.
- Transport army units ranging from a Battlegroup to a Brigade
- Resupply for all of the above.

Each IMO require a different platform.

[Tempest414]

Yes you need to be careful LHD's are different a Wasp Class LHD has crew of 1070 where a JC-1 has a crew of 300 or 450 with the airwing

[Poiuytrewq]

a) LHD's are intensive to operate and it would just reduce total fleet capacity.

Based on what?

b) I would rather have a ship without a well deck so it could focus on air ops rather than taking up a lot of space for a well deck.

Great. So you are now proposing LPDs without floodable docks that may have to launch/recover an Amphibious Assault from 50nm miles out with no LCUs.

c) Yes £3bn is a lot of money. But a worse way to spend it than on 6 MRSS is on 3 LHD.

Every other navy in the world that operates credible Amphibious forces would disagree.

Is the budget £3bn and if it is will RN actually get 6x MRSS?

My preferred option is 3x LHDs @£800m plus 3x LSDs @£400m. Total: £3.6bn

If that isn’t affordable for budgetary reasons then 2x LHDs @£800m plus 3x LSDs @£400m. Total £2.8bn

d) As for sorry, it's a phrase you insert at the start of an objection "Sorry, but ...."

Thanks for letting me know.

e) Those are something, called concepts, because it is nearly impossible to turn a LPD or LSD into a LHD or LPH. Or at least more practical to have a completely separate LPD&LSD design and LHD&LPD design.

Send Damen an email and let them know.

f) Not a big hanger, just a hanger at all

A hanger is certainly better than no hanger.

g) What is the need for 6 MRSS? What is the need for 6 MRSS? Really? why don't you start by arguing the need for 3 LHD's instead.

No problem.

The future is drones and ever increasing numbers of drones will require larger and larger flight decks to operate them alongside the manned helos. MALE drones will need a flattop to operate them properly safely and efficiently.

LPH are effective and cheap but highly compromised when it comes to the ship to shore connector part.

Like it or not RN needs LHDs.

h) I don't see the problem with replacing the current amphib fleet 1 to 1 with one class of equally competent vessels, do you?

RN started with 2x LPDs, 1x LPH, 1x ASS, 4x LSDs plus the 6 Points. It should have been 2x LPHs but the second never happened and the embarked aviation was deleted from the LPDs.

It was a highly credible force based on lessons learned from the Falklands. Many of those lessons have now been forgotten, especially by the bean counters.

RN just retains what wasn’t cut over the years, so no, just replacing like for like is not a good idea.

- Fleet balance is a good idea.

- Matching requirements with reality is a good idea.

- Matching capability with cost is a good idea.

i) ALV, Additional Logistic Vessel, Like the point class. These enable amphibious operations even more so than any amphib by bringing actual capacity, mass, allowing the sustainment of the operation or the start of a much larger one.

Thanks.

j) When did I ever say that we sould get more escorts over aphibs, I'm just saying instead of wasting money on more expensive LHD's there is a greater priority for MRSS, ALV, and additional escorts. It's me saying if there was more money suddenly I wouldn't spend it on new LHD's but additional escorts.

As you can see from above I am proposing spending the same amount of money in a different way.

If more was to become available that becomes a totally different discussion.

[Poiuytrewq]

I personally think it’s a mistake to go for a single MRSS class…

The Dutch will not want to replace their Enforcers with 3 Joint Logistic Vessels regardless of what the HMT bean counters are pushing.

For this reason alone adding the Dutch to the Amphib replacement program is great news.

[new guy]

I personally think it’s a mistake to go for a single MRSS class…

The Dutch will not want to replace their Enforcers with 3 Joint Logistic Vessels regardless of what the HMT bean counters are pushing.

For this reason alone adding the Dutch to the Amphib replacement program is great news.

I fully acknowledge and agree with your point, but kinda ironic that the Karel Doorman is called the Joint Logistics Support Ship.
Out of interest, what are the cons of a JLV?

[Repulse]

With the defence budget highly unlikely to go above 2.2% of GDP regardless of which party gets into power next, the RN would be wise to build first an affordable balanced fleet (albeit limited) and if jam does arrive to use it to quickly acquire quick to build off the shelf units to complement.

At its core the RN needs two inservice LPDs, a multi-role support ship and six transport ships similar to the Point class. The LPDs able to operate independently or more likely as part of a ESF. The Multi-role support ship would need to have a secondary Aviation Support Ship role and would act as the unit forward based EoS. The six Points would be able to deploy the kit and supplies for an Army brigade.

If money allowed, I could see the option for a cheap LHD and an additional FSS instead of the multi-role support ship.

The Littoral Support Vessel requirement is the big unknown, and could be multiple classes ranging from commercial PSVs, OPVs and T32 frigates. This is in my view where the flex needs to be in the budget.

[SW1]

Replace all the lpds bays and points with 3 vessel’s equivalent in size and spec of the French mistral class.

[new guy]

Replace all the lpds bays and points with 3 vessel’s equivalent in size and spec of the French mistral class.

what.
You forgot to make it nuclear powered and the 10 rail-guns on each.
You completely ignore the role of the point class. Mistral has less than half the vehicle and stores capacity of the point class. The point class point (Excuse the pun) is logistical. It enables either the sustainment of an amphibious operation or the enlargement of one. Double the capacity of a bay, these are crucial as they are. If you would believe that cutting 2 LPD & 4 LSD into 3 LHD than so be it. Just don't touch the arguable more important point class in their best aspect; Capacity

[mrclark303]

Replace all the lpds bays and points with 3 vessel’s equivalent in size and spec of the French mistral class.

what.
You forgot to make it nuclear powered and the 10 rail-guns on each.
You completely ignore the role of the point class. Mistral has less than half the vehicle and stores capacity of the point class. The point class point (Excuse the pun) is logistical. It enables either the sustainment of an amphibious operation or the enlargement of one. Double the capacity of a bay, these are crucial as they are. If you would believe that cutting 2 LPD & 4 LSD into 3 LHD than so be it. Just don't touch the arguable more important point class in their best aspect; Capacity

Unfortunately the bean counters found a way around the thorny issue, they call it "Royal Marine Raider force" and at the stroke of a pen get rid of Brigade capability and a large logistics tail that entails...

So expect a future Amphibious ship capable of carrying 300 RM plus kit and some helo support, with overload up to 650 for a single Commando.

Lucky if the whole current fleet is replaced by three such ships.

I also expect them to be RFA listed too and lean manned with a small RN crew.

[new guy]

Replace all the lpds bays and points with 3 vessel’s equivalent in size and spec of the French mistral class.

what.
You forgot to make it nuclear powered and the 10 rail-guns on each.
You completely ignore the role of the point class. Mistral has less than half the vehicle and stores capacity of the point class. The point class point (Excuse the pun) is logistical. It enables either the sustainment of an amphibious operation or the enlargement of one. Double the capacity of a bay, these are crucial as they are. If you would believe that cutting 2 LPD & 4 LSD into 3 LHD than so be it. Just don't touch the arguable more important point class in their best aspect; Capacity

Unfortunately the bean counters found a way around the thorny issue, they call it "Royal Marine Raider force" and at the stroke of a pen get rid of Brigade capability and a large logistics tail that entails...

So expect a future Amphibious ship capable of carrying 300 RM plus kit and some helo support, with overload up to 650 for a single Commando.

Lucky if the whole current fleet is replaced by three such ships.

I also expect them to be RFA listed too and lean manned with a small RN crew.

That's a bit pessimistic.

[wargame_insomniac]

We currently have 2 Albion Class LPD and 3 Bay Class LSD - would be excellent vessels apart from their complete lack of helicopter hangars. Since the sale of Ocean, than leaves only Argus previously used as Aviation Support Ship, no being refitted for LRG (S).

Some people have proposed selling the Bays and replacing with newer Enforcer deisgn but with added hangar. The flaw in that argument is that I fear we won;t get enough money back on selling 3 Bays. They have proved to be very useful ships, one is serving in LRG(N) along with Albion, whilst another is in the Persian Gulf testing the autonomous MCM USV. My view is that we keep the Bays as they are the newest of the RN's current 6 Amphibs.

Argus is the oldest of these 6 Amphibs, and would normally be first one due for replacement. However it is currently being refitted to be the mainstay of LRG (S), which means it's retirement should be pushed back a few years to get the most out of the refit. Thus I don't view the MRSS as urgent, as we will have a few years before Argus / Albion / Bulwark need replacng. Thus for once I think RN has got a bit of time and therefore working in partnership with the Dutch is great if it means that RN not rushing into decision.

Both the RM Commandos and USMC are moving away from larger scale beach landings to smaller scale dispersed Over-The-Horizon missions. For UK that eans both via helicoptor (Merlin HC4) and by fast boat (the proposed acquisition of a new high-speed, low-signature Commando Insertion Craft (CIC) that was announced a month ago). So I think it is imperative that any new UK Amphib should have BOTH decent sized helicopter hangar as well as a well deckcapable of launching these new CIC.

https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/cn ... craft-cic/

Yes the USN did purchase first two America Class LHA wihout a well deck, but they recognised their mistake and switched the 3rd & following ships in the class to add the well deck back in. The thing is with the size of the USN and USMC, and the distances involved in the Pacific theatre, they can afford to hav two such sips (America and Tripoli) dedicated purely to aviation support (with the option of being run as Lighning Carriers if they want to maximise the number of F35Bs to provide air cover to the remaining Amphibious Readiness Groups with 1 LHA / LHD, 1 LPD, & 1 LSD).

The RN does nt have that flexibility. Therefore I believe its amphibs need to have both hangar and well deck to maximise flexibility of deploying the RMs. With 2 LRG's I believe the RN should be looking in th medium term at 2-3 larger amphibs to replace Argus, both Albion & Bulwark (and retrospectively the capability lost when Ocean was sold). Ideally 3 ships with the 3rd allowing for covering refits etc in rotation., but just two ships if funds are tight. I think of these as LHD's because they have both helicopter hangar and well deck. A flat top design might help with launching UAV's but for me flat top is a nice to have, not an essential. Therefore considering the current level of defence spending the flat top part might be one luxury too far unless defence spending is increased.

If the RN wants to be able deploy smaller detachments of RM's (outside of the two LRGs) in a more dispersed manner under FCF, then I do think we need some Amphibs smaller than the larger amhphibs I proposed above. Even for these smaller amphibs I think both helicopter hangar and well deck are still vital for flexibiity of missions. But they may only have 3-4 helicopters and 1 or 2 of the new CIC.

Ideally I would like the RN to buy 3-4 smaller amphibs first, and then the 2-3 larger ampibs later when Argus and both Albions need replacing. But I accept that might depend on what finances are avialable and when. Also depend on what the Dutch want for their own ships, and also whether FCF ever gets clarified.

[mrclark303]

Replace all the lpds bays and points with 3 vessel’s equivalent in size and spec of the French mistral class.

what.
You forgot to make it nuclear powered and the 10 rail-guns on each.
You completely ignore the role of the point class. Mistral has less than half the vehicle and stores capacity of the point class. The point class point (Excuse the pun) is logistical. It enables either the sustainment of an amphibious operation or the enlargement of one. Double the capacity of a bay, these are crucial as they are. If you would believe that cutting 2 LPD & 4 LSD into 3 LHD than so be it. Just don't touch the arguable more important point class in their best aspect; Capacity

Unfortunately the bean counters found a way around the thorny issue, they call it "Royal Marine Raider force" and at the stroke of a pen get rid of Brigade capability and a large logistics tail that entails...

So expect a future Amphibious ship capable of carrying 300 RM plus kit and some helo support, with overload up to 650 for a single Commando.

Lucky if the whole current fleet is replaced by three such ships.

I also expect them to be RFA listed too and lean manned with a small RN crew.

That's a bit pessimistic.

Nope, just realistic as forces continue to contract.
Manning the Carriers and Escort force will be the main priority, the Royal Marines will be increasingly margenised, that's the point of the Marine Raider concept, to cut capability and save money.

I've betting three 12,000 ton RFA ships, to replace the current RN/RFA amphibious force, I'll stick £100 on it, anyone care to place a bet?

[donald_of_tokyo]

I think MRSS shall be splitted into light and full.

For me, Light-MRSS candidate is, Vard 7 313. Recently I found another candidate from Vard.

Chiliean sea transport ship.
https://vardmarine.com/amphibious-and-m ... -contract/
Looks like significantly shortened version of Vard 7 313, from 130 long to 110m long. In place, its top speed has been reduced from 20knots to 18 knots. But this number is the same to that of Bay class LSDs.

Again, the point is, the detailed design exists, so it is NOT a power-point design anymore.





For comparison: Vard 7 313
https://vardmarine.com/gallery/vard-7-313/

[donald_of_tokyo]

I think MRSS shall be splitted into light and full.

For me, Light-MRSS candidate is, Vard 7 313. Recently I found another candidate from Vard.

Chiliean sea transport ship.

A web with better info.


https://www.infodefensa.com/texto-diari ... transporte

[new guy]

If - plan goes ahead only 1 class is gonna come out of it.