FDR – Maritime (Amphibious and Logistics)
To set the scene for this post, our earlier suggestion of cancelling CVF and JCA was nothing short of a brutal cost saving measure. Some may argue that significant costs have already been sunk and contracts signed, to cancel now would not result in any savings. This is simply not the case, yes, there would be a great deal of waste but to continue means even more cost for both the RN and RAF because you can’t have an aircraft carrier with no aircraft. The pressure on the defence equipment budget as a whole will also inevitably mean reductions in capability elsewhere, across all three services, something has to give. It also fails to recognise the reality of the mono culture in UK military shipbuilding, cancelling would need some compensation and tough negotiating combined with a solid commitment to future business but would not be the disaster many paint it as being.
As an attempt at a more balanced fleet the suggestion on Think Defence was a slight increase in the Astute numbers to 8, keeping Type 45 at 6, a small quantity (6) fully specified C1 and a couple of novel C2/C3 concepts from a number of our contributors. Obviously with the loss of maritime fast jet aviation we would be out of the forced entry amphibious game although the combination of UAV’s, FLAADS/CAMM, Attack Helicopter and Type 45 might mitigate some of the loss of capability.
That is not to say that we could not still engage in amphibious operations because not all operations are in the teeth of advanced jet fighters so we should accept a capability reduction and recognise that future operations may have to be conducted in conjunction with allies that can provide the fast jet component.
To bring our FDR Maritime section to a close the next few posts are on amphibious/logistics capabilities and a look at a few innovative concepts.
The Royal Navy currently has 2 Landing Platform Dock (LPD), HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark and together with the Landing Platform Helicopter (HMS Ocean) form the forward element of an amphibious operation. Supporting assets are the 4 Bay class Landing Ship Dock (Auxiliary) and the RFA Point class RORO vessels (although these are not strictly amphibious in the truest sense of the word)
Bay Class LPD(A)
HMS Bulwark (Albion Class)
HMS Ocean
Hurst Point (Point Class RORO)
Taken together it is a reasonably sized and capable force although as can be expected, short in some areas.
The Albion class do not go out of service until 2033 and 2034 but HMS Ocean in 2022, acting in the auxiliary LPH role the 2 remaining CVS are also due out of service in 2012 and 2015. No plans have yet been made public for a replacement for HMS Ocean but it is widely thought that the second CVF will act in this role, although one might consider the QE class to be rather large.
If we are to cancel CVF there exists an obvious need to replace HMS Ocean.
There is an ongoing debate about the utility of specialist LPH and LPD versus the general purpose LHD. Many of the newer types of vessels coming into service with other navies seem to favour the general purpose LHD route with enhanced aviation and well decks; it is probably fair to say though that these are coming into service with navies that have smaller amphibious fleets than the RN so their vessels have to be jack of all trades. However, the RN is shrinking and these vessels will be operating alone more often than not so the flexibility offered by a LHD may well be worth accepting the inherent compromises.
With the inexorable rise in vehicle weight and volume as evidenced by the likes of FRES and PPV the specialist LPH becomes increasingly unable to support anything other than a light force. This light force would still be considered a Royal Marines area but even the Royal Marines have been subject to the weight trend. The Viking and Jackal being cases in point, both cannot be lifted by anything other than Chinook. This fact won’t change because there is a well deck, obviously, but the well deck means that a single vessel can support a more rounded and capable force alone, without the support of a Bay or Albion. The UK needs to get more out of its force so whilst the compromises imposed by having jack of all trades vessels are recognised, they are worth accepting.
The Spanish and Australian Navies have ordered similar designs in their Juan Carlos and Canberra class; at approximately 27,000 tonnes the Navantia BPE design is much larger than the Illustrious class and HMS Ocean. The design is inherently flexible and could operate F35B’s or helicopters; with hangar space for 12 aircraft, accommodation for over a 1000 troops, a well deck slightly larger than the Albion class, extensive hospital and command facilities. The design flexibility allows it to be used as an aircraft carrier although without the ability to generate sustained sortie rates or for an extended period.
Canberra Class
Juan Carlos Strategic Projection Ship LHD
If we were to replace to replace Ocean and the CVS class with a pair of these then the through life costs savings would be considerable, especially in crewing. As funds permit it might even be possible to obtain a third or fourth and operate them as a compact carrier with 6-8 F35B’s per ship, much less that the CVF of course but at least the RN could retain some fast jet aviation capability.
At a reported cost of less than 500 million Euros they would also seem excellent value for money.
The Bay class have proven to be exceedingly useful and versatile, they are relatively new so their replacement is somewhat out of scope for this post, perhaps more of the same would be useful.
Although strictly not an RFA asset the Point class, operating under a 25 year PFI, provide an excellent capability. Based on the Flensburger 2700 RORO design it has 2,700 vehicle lane metres, 10,000nm range and two access ramps. A total of 6 vessels are available for use, 4 manufactured at Flensburger and 2 at Harland and Wolff. Interestingly the project was completed 20 months ahead of schedule, the last of the class, Anvil Point, being launched in 2003.
Although the PFI concept seems to offer capability at a greater cost than outright purchase this one does show how they can be effectively operated, with little fuss or drama. The commercial charter market has seen significant shifts in the last couple of decades with the greater prevalence of the large and usually highly utilised pure car pure truck carrier, which cannot carry explosive cargoes because they do not have open decks (IMO regulations) so when the armed forces need vehicle and container shipping capacity the commercial market is less likely to be able to find suitable vessels.
As a part of this project only of 4 out of the 6 ships are used for the strategic joint rapid reaction force (JRRF) on a daily basis. The last two are chartered out on the commercial market but obviously available for MoD use when demand dictates. The Danish military have a similar concept (ARK), except they have a number of vessels on permanent charter.
The benefit of the UK approach is that the design can be dictated, for example the Point class have twin screws, rudders and bow thrusters which provide extreme manoeuvrability, have a shallow draught and reinforced and extended loading ramps for loading and unloading in a wide variety of locations. The double and strengthened hull increases build costs but given the monetary and operational value of likely cargoes mean this is a wise investment; something of note for those that seem to think that commercial off the shelf is always the answer.
As with the Bay class, their replacement is many years away.
22 comments
Post your own
jed once again thanks to this site i’ve changed my mind!!! i like the ida of the sea gripen, cheap as chips and BAe work on it therefore jobs for the boys.
Then taking your idea i would look at the japanese helicopter carrier, one already built,tested and in service at 13,000t and one in the pipeline at 19,000t both cheap and able to keep up with CVF (30+kt) plus bigger version can dual role as refueller or carry 4000 troops
Jackstaff – not an impossible dream per se, but UK defence thinking does not seem to understand the basic principal of “if your going to do it, do it properly”.
Rob peter to pay paul, apologies to the RAF but your going to have to suck it up and loose Tornado’s in order for CVF’s to have cats and traps and the Fleet Air Arm to fly Rafales (or F18′s) and E2D’s OR the CVF is a white elephant.
Multiple FDR -Air threads on this blog have discussed future RAF force structure, and I am all for a single type fast jet air force based on Typhoon, maybe 300 of them, and I am completely and totally anti-F35. So all that being said, we should indeed have 2 x Ocean replacement LHA to support CVF and then our amphib fleet and the RM’s provide our niche contribution to NATO / world coalitions and we have a strategic raison d’etre for the rest of the surface fleet ! Et voila…..
A zombie thread lives: brrraaaiiins….
With a look back to the start of the comment thread, Ocean has been a very useful engine and, if it’s at all possible, should definitely shunt sideways to the RFA and relieve Argus of her main helicopter responsibilities (there’s still quite a role to be had as a hospital ship, and for Argus’ other layers of flexibility.)
I would in a heartbeat sacrifice the current specifications and timescale of Type 26 for a pair of BPE/Canberras. By themselves the CVFs may look too much like a vanity project, or assets that will mostly spell American carriers tagging along behind the U.S.’s imperial overstretch. Two CVFs plus two of those vessels would anchor a world-class surface fleet (concentrate the Darings and Type 23s in escort groups around them and fill the bread-and-butter jobs with the C3 ideas talked over in such detail elsewhere.) They would then act, as Jedibeeftrix suggested on his blog, either as a truly independent national ability to project power or as the structural spine for a multi-national European or Commonwealth mission. Strike a construction detail not unlike the Australians’ (could Barrow pick up the British share of the work since the Albions were their handiwork, or have the jobs/skills shifted elsewhere?) It builds good relations with the Spanish especially since ASCOD may be out of the FRES scout race (which make be shut down in any case by the SDR, who knows yet) and because Britain needs to get out of the A400M (the rest of British airlift needs to be provided elsewise but that’s a topic for a different thread. It should’ve been either C-130J or Airbus for theater air, not both, and the latter’s failed on cost and timetables.) Interoperable with the Armada (strange days indeed :) and the RAN and perhaps other friendly customers. Everything that would fly off them until the last Harriers fall apart is already in service. They’re a step-change up from Ocean. And they can fly a small CAP on board, or cross-deck from the CVF flagship towards the forward edge of a bigger armada in some kind of “Falklands redux” deployment (doesn’t have to be there, just meet the general mission specs.)
What about a deployment schedule like this: three rotations in the carrier-projection role, two turns by CVF-based groups, one by a group based on an LHD plus an Albion LPD since (I’m guessing? Jed or other experienced hands?) one could load a typical EMF comfortably aboard the two of them. (Something like QE, PoW, LHD 1, then QE, PoW, LHD2, so alternating.) You have four units broadly speaking so one can come out for refit without a deadly loss of capability, and you can keep an LHD group in reserve at all times for Sierra Leone-like contingencies. To dream the impossible dream ….
I must admit I havent done any proper research to get my “garrison is cheaper” opinion.
But its 300 soldiers and crew for 8 planes, a quarter of the Carriers airgroup.
If the main cost is flying soldiers, fuel, spares ect out and home, could we not sail them?
Ex Matelot and ex PONGO if you don’t mind :-)
Thank god I am not an ex ‘Crab’ too….. !
Fight fight fight, Can’t blame them really it’s was an operation more or less solely reliant upon the Royal Navy and people died thanks again to politicians. Then in the aftermath the RAF had the cheek to try and steal the glory so I can’t blame them for being defensive when others try and stomp on them. The Royal Navy uses the Falklands as some justification for carriers and it honestly adds up in my opinion add to that Sierra Leone for Naval operations. Where do the RAF get justification for a large fleet of fighters when did they last shoot something down or use fast jets in a situation that could not have been done by something cheaper.
I am obviously a carrier supporter but if we could go back in time and make some changes in other words something smaller and more flexible such as the Spanish Juan Carlos as long as we got more hulls. However if we had done so look at the situation we would be in as the F-35B may or may not work out and thankfully the CVF gives us a credible and more capable alternative. The CVF’s will most likely be delivered as cancelling them while possibly a good idea to some would be politically damaging. To say suicidal is a bit strong as nobody really cares that much about the armed forces and the MP’s from those areas are labour and unless hell freezes over will remain labour seats. I also agree in part with the point Gabriele made that the carriers are one of the few cornerstones of a future British Defence policy. I would say current defence policy but we don’t have one and the future looks rather sketchy as well even the carriers are sketchy will they or will they not have aircraft.
Oh! and Welcome Gabriele.
**Waves** :-)
Bloody hell, mention the Falklands and the Matelots come out all punchy :D
Sorry Dominic, your way of mark: “so would company of armour, mechanised infantry and infantry backed up by a flight of Jaguars, stationed on the island.
And thats much cheaper.”
Way, way more expensive ! Do an FOI request or ten and see if you can figure out the full costs of building up Stanley airbase, the costs in jet fuel and maintenance hours of all the Tristar, VC10 and Hercules flights over the last twenty five years, the cost food and wages of keeping the infantry there (as opposed to using them somewhere else).
Really there were two choices post FI war – garrison the islands or build 3 or more ‘proper’ (40,000 tonne plus) carriers with decent numbers of Sea Harriers and AEW choppers (of course cat and trap aircraft types would have been even better). On through life costs over twenty five plus years carriers would have won hands down on cost. Of course the RAF having ‘bigged up’ its role in the war, then decided to take a controlling interest in the post war period, and no British government since WWII has grasped the idea of “spend now to save later”.
So carriers versus garrison the other side of the globe – diss carriers all you like, but don’t use costs as an excuse :-)
Hello Gabrielle
**Waves**
Just a few little points.
Although a full carrier would have prevented the Falklands War, so would company of armour, mechanised infantry and infantry backed up by a flight of Jaguars, stationed on the island.
And thats much cheaper.
Trident is to my mind none negotiable.
In the event of a Hot War, we planned to nuke every warsaw state except russia, they planned to nuke every NATO state except the UK, (France was spared too), the only common link is their own nuclear weapons.
Also, the 4 boats are cheaper to buy and operate than one of the carriers, never mind both.
Although not a big fan of carriers, I’m not against them in the context of an enlarged Navy, I simply feel we would be better off with guided missile submarines and ships (think Ocean sized ships with nothing but long range (2000km) cruise missiles, 500-1500 in a task force).
Why dogfight planes when you can bombard airfields out of action for longer than the campaign.
Under current plans, our Carriers will be cost cutted into irrelevence, and drag the rest of the Navy with them.
Gabriele – well reasoned and well presented arguments :-)
I continue to think that scrapping the CVFs would be a suicidal move. Both for workforce all around Britain and especially for the armed forces.
The carriers are the only true cornerstone or whatever defence plan you have for the future. At a time when everyone recognizes the need for the capability that aircraft carriers offer (Russia dreams to build 6, China may soon start work on her first, India is working on 2, Japan built the new though-deck cruisers in a way that makes them able to work with F35Bs, etcetera…), it is idiotic to shy away from the CVFs.
I’d rather drop Trident. Any day. In the next fifty years you are going to need aircraft carriers, many a time. And sincerely, you need them with catapults and wires, so that you can take on board French and US planes if the needs arises.
Besides, then it would be possible to lease a bunch of proven Hawkeye to have a capability that the RN lost in 1960, for a very short-sighted decision.
Had UK still had Ark Royal, with Phantoms and Buccaneers on board, no Falkland war would have been fought.
Trident is a Doomsday system. If the need to use is arises… you know what that means. We can do by teaming up with the US for the nuclear deterrence. Or with France. After all, the Trident missiles are american anyway, and UK lacks a system of airplanes capable to ensure communications with the dived SSBN, so they would arguably be deaf in the moment of the need and nearly incapable to react, since the order of launch simply would not come to the sub.
I’d rather keep it than scrap it… but if cuts can’t be avoided, i’d rather give up Trident than the carriers.
As to Ocean, yes. Her fault is that she has no well deck. And no sister ship.
Seen the current budget crisis, hopes to add a second LPH are illusions, sadly. Much as it would be needed. It could be obtained by keeping in service the younger of the Invincibles as a full-time LPH when the CVFs are in service, but it would still be too costy for governments that see defence like smoke in the eyes.
As to Argus replacement… a fifth Bay ship would be awesome. Removing the cranes and the container-area, the deck is more than wide enough.
The well deck should remain, and inside the ship should be built a large hospital.
In just one hull, there would be Argus’s replacement, a much needed hospital ship capable to support amphibious operations and a perfect ship for any kind of disaster-relief operation anywhere in the world.
Besides, the Bay class had been planned of 5 ships from the start, to be sincere.
LPH and LPD are going to be fused into LHDs when Albion and BUlwark leave service.
The plan is to build two 30.000 tons LHDs. (3 would be much better, of course, but the navy, knowing how things go, is reasoning on just 2 already).
Without carriers for planes, for protection and support, you don’t need Marines either. Where are they going to land without air support?
Remember the Falkland. The army officers said “without air support, it is impossible.”
They would be Malvinas now, had the argentinians waited a couple of months, to see Invincible and Hermes handed off to foreign nations. The contracts had already been signed, but luckily the ships were still in the UK.
Want to experience that again? It would be the greatest humiliation in UK’s history.
Unless you are willing to use Trident on Argentina, of course. Because their simple existence does not deter them at all.
Nuclear deterrence failed in 1982. It will easily fail again, because the others know that you don’t nuke Buenos Aires in answer to an agression on the Falklands.
THAT is money wasted.
Same will be if we’ll need to intervene against Iran, or whatever other nation. Probably there would be USA carriers in the area in such a case…
But what if one day they weren’t there…? What if we are alone again? I’d think thrice about it.
Hi Steve – I suggested pretty much the same in this article:
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/12/fdr-supporting-articles/
The consensus among our commentors is that we just could not play nicely enough with the French on a political level to make a go of it !
How about a crazy idea? Complete the 2 CVF’s to French specs for CATs and TRAPs exchange the second CVF for 3 MISTRAILS and a wing of RAFAEL-Ms this would allow both countries to maintain shipbuilding jobs and if the UK and France co-operated on refits would ensure that the EU would have 2 CVFs always available and allow joint carrier training between the UK and France.
Pick away please, I’m a stop learning start dieing kinda guy, I’d rather look like an idiot once than constantly, or at least not constantly for the same point…
I realise I’ve been saying Juan Carlos a lot, but I’ve also been looking at the diagram of Canberra, I’m not hugely set on a current design, its just those two carry more troops.
If the Cavour class can be modified to carry 800-1200 RM’s with the option of a little helicopterable armed (as opposed to armoured) vehicles, half a dozen F35B’s, some transport Helicopters, preferable enough for the fleet to empty itself in an afternoon, or overnight and some attack helicopters, I’m happy
Dont we use Merlins as big ASW platforms?
Lynxs are fine in that role, but Merlins are bigger, could we do without them?
You have hit upon the fundamental problem with the UK’s medium/heavy SH problems. Our equipment choice dictates TWO platforms (Merlin and Chinook) which as we know is a ‘bad thing’ exactly because one can be operated aboard ships and one can’t (at least properly)
Although I might have classed it as a ‘hair brain scheme’ at the time the more I think about the CH53X the more it makes sense from a long term investment and through life cost perspective. One common airframe for all SH taskings
Dominic, in the spirit of brainstorming, no ideas are bad, and I am certainly not picking them apart “on badness” as my boy would say !
However why spend the cash to redesign the Juan Carlos to NOT have a well deck, when the Cavour does not have one in the first place ?
On helo’s – unless the UK spends money on being the first Chinook operator to have folding blades capability, your never going to have more than a couple of them at sea whatever the platform. Even parked on the deck of the CV(F) it would take up a lot of space.
Lack of Helicopters is a problem, although we should soon have a fleet of 70 Chinooks, assuming we dont lose anymore and the current order isnt cancelled.
I would want (for plan later) 16-20
My guess for Oceans carrying capacity came from the picture above, in which it looks like there is space for two rows of six. I’d guess, “will fit on the deck” and “can be operated” are quite different things.
If you ruin my plan and say only 4 could be on deck at one time, could 4 not load, take off, 4 that are flying nearby land, load, take off, to be followed by another 4?
Or, could you launch 4 from each ship, which would land a full compliment of 800 marines, without seats during the flight.
If its just an issue of fitting Helicopters into the Ship, surely we could modify whatever light carrier design we settle on to carry the requisite number.
Its hardly an expert opinion, but if you sealed the Well deck and used it for stores/crew quarters, that would leave the top two decks as a large hanger for 8 F35′s or 16 Chinooks.
Just ideas, feel free to correct them
DominicJ said: “15 Chinooks could empty Ocean or a JC in a single flight, with 6 such ships and 30 helicopters we could have a Brigade landed in an afternoon.”
And there-in lies part of the problem, which we have discussed a great deal on this site, the lack of helicopters. However neither the Ocean nor Juan Carlos can carry 15 Chinooks ! Ocean carries 12 Sea King MK4 (Junglies) which can lift as two waves of 6 from her deck. If we replace them with AW101 and have all your Marines sat in seats for the assault, thats 6 x 24 = 144 sets of boots on the ground per wave, roughly a Company. Of course with less Lynx or Apaches onboard you could cram a couple more troop carriers ! However if its ‘critical mass’ of infantry for an assault your after, you need USMC not RN / RM, because we will never have enough decks, docks or helos. So, more limited use cases / scenarios for our capabilities I think.
I’m basing my opinion on the all mighty Wikipedia, so you’ll have to forgive me, but I dont see much difference between the two except that the Juan Carlos has a much bigger embarked marine force.
Your right we have plenty of other Well Decks for landing heavy vehicles, presumably it wouldnt be difficult to convert that to something else?
I suppose my worry is we have very little capacity for landing infantry at the moment, especialy at speed.
15 Chinooks could empty Ocean or a JC in a single flight, with 6 such ships and 30 helicopters we could have a Brigade landed in an afternoon.
With dug in ground troops and 20-25 aircraft providing air cover the vulnerable landing docks could start landing heavier equipment.
The only alternative I see is to land 800 a day and keep the rest on a requisitioned cruise ship…
While I agree in principle, I don’t see the need to add more dock and more heavy vehicle lane space. The Aussies, Spaniards (and too a lesser extent) the Italians and French don’t have the well rounded amphib force that we do. So I would like to see 4 x Cavour type ships instead, so that at any time we could have one as LPH and one as support carrier (with the remaining Harrier GR9). We are not going to kick any doors down with that force, but think Sierra Leone type ops.
Of course the other reason to properly fund logistics / amphib capabilities is soft power / diplomacy scenarios. Think of the Asian Tsunami and now Haiti. The USN has the biggest amphib / military transport force in the world by a long way, and we are never going to get anywhere near it, but if the next big natural disaster was to hit a Caribbean ex-colony, that is a member of the Commonwealth, then an ARG including an LPH, and Albion, 2 x Bay and 4 x ro-ro, a Fort (II) class and the Argus in casualty receiving mode is NOT a force to be sniffed at!
In such a scenario the Dutch JSS type ship as a replacement for the Forts, as mentioned in the next article on replenishment, would also be a very valuable asset.
So while using ‘robust’ kinetics in Helmand province is an absolutely valid operational concept, any Government which under funds these kinds of capabilities is shooting itself in the foot.
This is kind of where I’ve been heading with my thinking on a Strategic Raiding Force.
In reality, we should be able to fund four of these in place of a single CVA.
Could one of these carry 4 F35′s, 800 Royal Marines, half a dozen heavy helicopters and a couple of Apaches?
If so, those 4 could deploy 16 F35B, 3600 Royal Marines, with some helicopters for transport and a reasonable number of Apaches.
Add in the Bay and Albion Class ships, and we have a serious fighting force deployable very very quickly.
Not enough to invade anyones homeland on our own, but more than enough to win when both sides are fighting an expeditionary war.
If you can double up the airgroup at the expense of troop carrying, they make acceptable Light Carriers, and presumably ASW Helicopter Carriers.
We arent going to be able to land a force in the face of heavy, sustained resistance from fast jets and national armies alone, but thats what friends with white elephant carriers and Armoured Divisions are for.
No doubt the Ocean has “put some hours in” but when shecreaches her official retirement date, do you think she might have enough life left to be transfered to the RFA to replace the Argus ????