Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)
When would an Amphibious group split? The UK is never going to be in a position to run concurrent amphibious operations.
@LandSharkUK
Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)
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.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.
Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5629
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)
I would say at the very least we need another Ocean able to put landing craft in the water and as I said before when the bays come up for replacement we should replace them with a batch 2 Bay with a full width hangar with air crew sleeping and ops room on top and maybe 10m longer
so for me as a base line we should replace the Albions with at lest 1 Ocean (I would still prefer a LHD) and 4 B2 Bays as above
as a side should we and could have put Ocean in for a 200 million refit and let her go for a another 20 years
so for me as a base line we should replace the Albions with at lest 1 Ocean (I would still prefer a LHD) and 4 B2 Bays as above
as a side should we and could have put Ocean in for a 200 million refit and let her go for a another 20 years
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)
Yeah, it is a sorry sight to see HMS Albion sailing into Brunei with no escorts or aircraft, this should not set the precedence for the future, we need to get back to the old type of joint expeditionary force.
Suppose this comes back to the same old dilemma of distributing vs centralising a force.
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 Ocean) and the LPD would still want a small hanger (Like Galicia).
Suppose this comes back to the same old dilemma of distributing vs centralising a force.
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 Ocean) and the LPD would still want a small hanger (Like Galicia).
@LandSharkUK
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4108
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)
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.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4108
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)
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).
Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)
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.
Whilst I'm not happy with the demise of Oceans capabilty and POW can act as an interim platform for the short term, but with the RN ever shrinking they need ships that can multi task and a LHD achieves that in spades.
I'm still of the opinion that they will only ever see 1 CV operational at any one time the demands on the asset are going extreme, collective training in amphibious warfare and carrier strike operations needs to be put in place for extendard periods, which capabilty will have the priority?
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
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)
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
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)
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
I know they tested out pacscat a while back but nothing seemed to come of it
Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)
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?
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
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
”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
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4108
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)
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?
Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)
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
Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)
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
If we could also get the Albions replaced 1 for 1 seperately like you said then we could end up with 2 USN like ETFs, a more capable amphibious set up than we've had
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4108
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)
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
Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)
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
Agree, that's why 2x JC1/CBR LHD would actually increase the amphibious capabilty that the Albo's and Ocean provided leaving QECV to their core role.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)
Folks forget that the Absalons were built for quite a unique requirement: to show the flag in Greenland waters and be able to land a half of an army recce bn, to do the same on land
- the next derivation is quite good value for money, though
- we can cry into our beer later, when it becomes apparent that we could have bought two of those for each T31
- the next derivation is quite good value for money, though
- we can cry into our beer later, when it becomes apparent that we could have bought two of those for each T31
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)
Any idea how low the manning could get down too if they changed the role of the Albions to PRCS?
Whilst having a quick google search on the med capabilty of the Albo's, this poped up
https://www.baesystems.com/en/download- ... 568205.pdf
I was actually thinking the other day if Invincible/Ocean hull could be adapted to an LHD.
https://www.baesystems.com/en/download- ... 568205.pdf
Whilst having a quick google search on the med capabilty of the Albo's, this poped up
https://www.baesystems.com/en/download- ... 568205.pdf
I was actually thinking the other day if Invincible/Ocean hull could be adapted to an LHD.
https://www.baesystems.com/en/download- ... 568205.pdf
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4108
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)
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?
The Albion's could then be transferred across to the LSD(a) role and then you would need to build 2 extra LHD's to make up for the Albion's. The whole project would probably cost north of £2bn and that's probably the main reason it won't happen
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)
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
@LandSharkUK
-
Online
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5603
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)
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.
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.
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)
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.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)
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.
- get the base version from Mitsubishi
- or the one that the Army (! not the USMC) has specced with longer range and at-sea endurance
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)
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
Of course, depends on how much the extra cost is!
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5629
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)
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
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4108
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Albion Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LPD) (RN)
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