A guest post from the Mintcake Maker
After looking around for some more information, current build update about the QEC ships I came across this very interesting link: (it might have been there before now, I’ve only just noticed it though)
http://www.baesystems.com/Businesses/SurfaceShips/PlatformsandProgrammes/AmphibiousVessels/index.htm
Full data sheet:
http://www.baesystems.com/BAEProd/groups/public/documents/bae_publication/bae_pdf_lhd_datasheet.pdf
Could this be BAE preparing a pre-emptive strike, to get the RN all fired up for a replacement for Albion and Bulwark (was lucky enough to see HMS Bulwark being launched in Barrow many moons ago, okay not that many as I’m not that old but.).
Of course this does throw up several interesting thoughts. Firstly it’s the old LHD Vs. LPD & LPH comparison. The idea behind LPD & LPH is a sound one, different tools for different jobs and when not used it gives us more flexibility as we have more single ships. However given budget constraints and the fact that modern large LHD’s can do the job of and LHP & LPD very, I think that it’s possibly time for the RN to adopt the LHD.
The other factor is the fact that we have no Ocean replacement, well we do but I’m still not convinced that the QEC should be used as giant LPH’s (please for the sake of all that is holy can we not have this turn into an all mighty p*ss up about what should/should not have been bought with regards to carriers, for now I’m working on the principle that we will have bought the QEC(s) and we should now focusing on how we renew our amphibious capability with them, yes maybe we should have bought 4 small Cavour type ships but that time has passed). This gets even more interesting when you take into consideration that 10 years after the QEC’s have been in service the Albion class will need to be replaced. Could this be a chance to have a better helicopter/commando carrier and LPD rolled into 1? I think it could.
The Design
I quiet like this BAE design, however I would make a few changes to it. For starters at 23k it’s only just bigger than Ocean and for a multi-trick pony I think it’s just a bit too small for my liking especially when you compare it to the likes of Mistral and Juan Carlos I class ships.
So what would I change? Well for starters I would extend the length by 20m (making it the same length as the Juan Carlos therefore possibly allowing VTOL/STOVL jets of our allies to use it), remove the 40mm guns (I understand why they are suggested, however I don’t think we need to or have the money to introduce a new gun and ammunition) and therefore by removing the guns we can square of the flight deck making it a nice cheap rectangle. I would also change the internal layout. Instead of having a light vehicle/Hanger deck and a heavy vehicle deck, I would change it just a heavy vehicle deck and a Hanger deck that if need be can also double for light vehicles (purely because we still have the bays for addition vehicle storage.) The addition length might allow some internal re-design to allow for a maximum of 900 troops instead of the 800 currently offered.
The Idea: Amphibious Ready Group Mk 2
So thinking about what FF2020 says about command/marine forces. They want to be able to deploy 1800 RM under amphibious conditions, If we take this 1800 + the FAA air group it’s starting to sound a lot like the USMC Marine Expeditionary Unit. This is not necessarily a bad thing; of course the problem here is the air component and the joint-ness of the entire operation. This is where my slightly bonkers plan comes together.
Vessels
First of all we order 3 of BAE’s slightly improved and larger LHD’s (circa 25/26k tonnes), also we would order 6 modified Dutch JSS ships (2x deployed to forward presence squadrons, 2x ready for the ARG, 2x maintenance and training). These would be part of the MARS deal as they would be replacing the 4 Fort class ships, Argus and the Bay we lost. By modified I just mean internally (we don’t need the space for 3 Chinooks / 6 NH90’s to be carried internally, 2/3 of that amount will be fine so use the saved space to increase troop capacity to 200 instead 130 of the current design) as externally I can’t find anything really wrong with the design.
This would give us 3x LHD’s, 6x JSS and 3x LSD’s. This essentially allows us to form 3 ARG’s on a rotation basis consisting of (minus escorts)
- 1x LHD, 900 troops onboard
- 2x JSS, 400 troops total onboard
- 1x LSD, 500 troops overload
This means that we have sufficient vessels to transport our 1800 strong RM battlegroup, it also means that if we needed to we could surge the ARG that was working up, allowing us deploy 3600 RM in one larger landing or at 2 separate beaches for an operation.
Aviation
Now you’re probably wondering about the air component of this idea. Well I shall briefly discuss it here, however I am writing up the poison chalice that is my own view of airpower of HM forces and how it should be distributed.
If we take the 28 (22+6 Dutch) Merlins from the RAF + 2 HM1 Merlins from the un-upgraded FAA Merlins, this gives us 30 Merlins total (I know it’s a bit of a mix and match, but will have to do for now). Add to this 1x 12 helicopter Wildcat Squadron, 1x 12 helicopter Apache squadron and 1x 6 helicopter Wildcat SAR/Ships Flight squadron.
This allows us to form 3 Commando Helicopter Wings. Comprising of:
As you can see this allows us to deploy a full squadron of Merlins (6 on the LHD, 4 split between the 2 JSS), a flight of Apaches for ground attack, a flight of Lynx Wildcat for SF/Recon team insertion and a secondary Anti-ship/Anti-armour and 2 Lynx to provide SAR cover for the ARG (the escorts will have their own Helos).
The 10 Merlin’s and 4 Lynx’s enable us to airlift nearly 500 troops in one wave (based on standing room), this coupled with the landing craft means we could have everybody ashore in 2 to 3 waves.
By having 3 Commando Helicopter Wings, 3 RM Battlegroups and 3 ARG’s we can ensure that 1 full ARG is ready to deploy or can be deployed whenever or wherever we choose and allows us if need be surge extra men and equipment for those larger one-off moments.
The ability to provide a year round ARG ready to go and fight wherever it is needed also provides another advantage, that of the humanitarian nature. Imagine if another Japanese earthquake or another Haiti happens, then think what we could provide. The initial response by our forward deployed yet cheap C3 OPV (I’m thinking along the lines of the ICGV Þór/RR UT 512L design) and forward deployed JSS, this would allow us to provide limited help to the most affected people.
Meanwhile back in Blighty, aid agency’s can load up the ARG with supplies, we can embark the active Commando helicopter wing (less Apache’s) and vehicles like earthmovers, etc and then sail a quite considerable humanitarian package to the required disaster area to back up the local Forward Presence Squadron.
This also highlights the advantages to soft and hard power, how military assets can be used in humanitarian situations and how we need a graduated response to situations. What I am about to say, I shall say once and only once. I think the French may have got it right and I think we need to take a leaf out of their book. Have a small high-end core and a larger low-end fleet to deal with the day-to-day stuff.
As usual gentleman, your views and especially your technical insights are very much appreciated. So as they say, have at it.
Interesting post Mintcake Maker – I was just wondering how likely it would be for a squadron of Apache to be moved to the FAA on a permanent basis? Would it not be easier to convert some of the Naval Wildcat into a gunship variety by adding the BAE GMA turret (http://www.baesystems.com/ProductsServices/helicopter_gama_turret.html) and integrating CVR-7 and Brimstone?
At ~40kt a Wasp/America sized LHD could carry the full 1800 strong Marine group. So would two bigger LHD be more affordable than your three – particularly as we’ve grown our capacity to build big ships with the QE class, but aren’t likely to get a bunch of export orders once they’re completed?
Flexibility lost by operating fewer large assault ships could be mitigated by a versatile C2. A ship more able to interact with the shore than a regular frigate – able to carry a RM detachment, vehicles, LCVP etc. A modern version of the APD-LPR fast transport destroyer perhaps.
good post MM.
on the subject of what they float into the theatre on; not fussed. what matters to me is that there is enough to move the entire brigade in one heave, even if that is in overload situations.
the ambition at the moment is to have an ATG of 1800+ plus men, which is fine because you cannot have the whole brigade constantly on high-readiness, just as you cannot have a brigades worth of amphibious shipping on the quayside 24/7.
but should a situation arise, such as the islands that must not be named, with sufficient time to ready all assets we must retain the ability to put all eight battalions of 3Cdo ashore.
whether that is done with fewer (and larger) generic assets such as LHD’s supported by LSD’s, or a more specialised fleet of LPH’s/LPD’s/LSD’s as present, is another matter. not too fussed which way it goes.
i am happy to have the CVF hotel facilities count towards any overload capacity to ensure the brigade can goes places.
p.s. the ATG is penned in at 1800+ men, what is this presumed to be made up of?
One RM Commando (700)
One 1 Rifles Company (200)
One Log Company (200?)
One Eng Company (200?)
One Art Company (200?)
One Cdo Company (200?)
p.s.s. anyone have any clearer notions of how the cuts will affect 3Cdo?
p.s.s.s. what is the eight 3Cdo battalion? Is it a notional grouping of the specialist elements such as 539 Assault Squadron and 30 Commando Information Exploitation Group?
as a final note, i very much like the idea of running 3Cdo as three battlegroups (?) built around a single commando and rifles company, it seems like a very flexible arrangement.
kind regards
JBT
Re the following statement – “as a final note, i very much like the idea of running 3Cdo as three battlegroups (?) built around a single commando and rifles company, it seems like a very flexible arrangement.”
I am curious as to whether it would work for a reformed 16AAB……….?
Pull 1 Para out of the SFSG and reconfigure all as per Commando21, then pair them up with one line regiment and create the same basic structure as 3Cdo with 3 deployable battlegroups based around 1 specialist infantry battalion and one line infantry company……..
The AAC could then be pinned to the MRB’s.
Ridiculous?
Jedi, I don’t think the current organisation of 16AAB is sustainable but there is a ten million tonnes of politics around it
As much as I like to see the elimination of duplication as a means of achieving realistic cost savings I tend to think the operational benefits of keeping RM and Para separate outweighs the savings, the provide more than the sum of their parts I think
On the other hand, the combat support and combat service support aspects I am not so sure.
A good post, and I certainly agree with the formation of commando battlegroups and commando helicopter wings (Though I do wish we would stop plastering everything with commando, it’s dangerously close to Royal Corps of Tree Climbers territory.). Indeed, somewhere in the depths of this site, I suggested similar for both marine and airborne battlegroups.
The BAE design, I believe, is pants. The linked document specifies that there is/will be “A hangar to accommodate and maintain six medium helicopters” which blunts efforts at a larger, balanced air wing. The need to modify it not only indicates short-comings, but will inevitably lead to ‘fitted for but not with’ as Admirals specify the need for railguns and pens for trained, laser-armed sharks. We don’t need JSF to fly off it, we have carriers for that, we need something to put blokes in and fly them off in choppers or float them out in boats.
The LHD vs LPD/LPD proposition is interesting, but the decision would ultimately be made by cost. Would operating 3 LHDs be cheaper than operating 2 LPHs and 2 LPDs? Which would be cheaper to buy? This decision could be manipulated, should we say, if HM Government could go and order 3 Mistral class (not necessarily ideal, but better than thin air) in return for the French ordering PA2.
My own suggestion would be to attempt the above, or go for 3 BAE Juan Carlos I ships domestically produced, like the Canberra class. Add to the the three Bays and three more Bays (perhaps of an enhanced, shiny variety), and leave it at that. One LHD and 2 LSAs providing an EMF of 800 + 2 x 300, with ~2,000 surge.
@ Admin –
“Jedi, I don’t think the current organisation of 16AAB is sustainable but there is a ten million tonnes of politics around it”
Nor I, hence “reformed”, but i am waiting for both Jed and yourself to come out with suggestions for what would happen too it…………. I presume it mostly involves stripping the AAC regiments from it?
“As much as I like to see the elimination of duplication as a means of achieving realistic cost savings I tend to think the operational benefits of keeping RM and Para separate outweighs the savings, the provide more than the sum of their parts I think”
Perhaps I am misunderstood, for I am certainly not suggesting creating a Commando brigade from the paras and the marines.
What I am tendering as a suggestion is:
3Cdo
3x Commando’s
1x Infantry battalion
To create 3x battlegroups of one commando and one infantry company
16AAB (feel free to change the name)
3x Para (C21 organised)
1x Infantry battalion
To create 3x battlegroups of one para and one infantry company
The picture looks almost identical to HMS Ocean. Nice job BAE wheeling out a 1980′s design for a 2030′s warship. No doubt they will need several design studies costing several billion to finalise the design with lots of letters after the name. How about FLHDXXX007
Far too sensible an idea; it’ll never happen.
Going into force line up, I’d like to see 3 light role rapid reaction Brigades. One based around 3 Cmdo, one around the Para’s and the 3rd around the Rifles.
Based as:
3 Cmdo Brigade:
x3 Commando’s
x1 Rifle Btln (mounted in Vikings)
16 AAB (or whatever name, more akin to US Rangers)
x3 Para Btln’s
x1 Rifle Btln (mounted in Bronco)
The Rifle Brigade
x3 Rifle Btln’s (one mounted in Bronco)
x1 Gurkha Btln
That gives two top end Brigades and one slightly lesser Brigade allowing for 6 months on/6 months rest/6 months training.
Or we could do the sensible thing and instead of paying BAE to re-invent the wheel we pay the Spanish for the JC design.
(PS: For the record I don’t like the idea of line infantry in the 3Cdo orbat.)
@ X – “For the record I don’t like the idea of line infantry in the 3Cdo orbat”
the logical conclusion to that, perhaps, would be to argue for a fourth commando and para, which might be difficult?
X
Yep. Seems were paying bAE to reinvent the wheel whats wrong with 3 JC instead ???
The JSS idea sounds like a good idea.
There’s every likelihood that the Para Airborne Task Force or the RM ATG would deploy in that organisation anyway.
Why would you want The Rifles in their own Brigade? This isn’t 1808.
@ Jedibeeftrix
On the whole I am not happy about increasing the infantry battalions in brigades beyond 3 whether it is for line, commando, rifles, guards, or airborne. 3 is enough. MRB concept is stupidity beyond belief.
I would compromise on perhaps 2 & 3 Para being the extra manoeuvre elements for 3Cdo. More than attached as needed but not wholly own subsidiary.
Further I am all for trawling the line infantry for the best to establish an army commando brigade. Or just put the Parachute Reg on the same footing as the Royal Marines, anybody for a Royal Parachute Corps?
@ IXION
Yes I like the idea of JSS too. The only thing I like the BAE design is its speed. Whether that would survive MoD(N) cost pruning is debatable. I could see them chopping 2 engines to reduce unit cost. 500miles a day is what is needed. In a crisis it is time that matters. The Juan Carlos are big and have the speed.
I quite like this design – we could have a common hull for our assualt and logistics?
http://www.blohmvoss-naval.com/en/multi-role-helicopter-dockship.html
A better version might be the MESHD (page 5 onwards) which uses ISO containers to become multirole.
http://www.europeansecurityanddefence.info/Ausgaben/2008/3_2008/05_Bohlayer_Ball%E9/Bohlayer_Ball%E9_Kaeding_ESD_0308.pdf
@ Gareth J
The B&V design is interesting. 2 x of those + 1 JSS (if knt or two extra could be squeezed out of the design perhaps by possibly stretching) per mini-arg?
Personally I prefer the separate LPD and LPH for ultimate flexibility, especially when being used during “peace time” for non primary (non-Amphib) missions.
If we have to do LHD, why not the biggest version of the Damen Schelde Enforcer class, basically a bigger, full flight deck variant of the Bay class:
http://www.damennaval.com/nl/main-stream-activities_amphibious-support-ships-%2526-naval-auxiliaries_enforcer-landing-platform-dock.htm
Cut the line infantry, solidify on 3 Cdo and Paras as “Special Operations” (note NOT Special Forces) by raising 4th Commando and 4th Battalion of Parachute Regiment. Disband 16 AAB, constitute Paras as “Para-Commandos” and raise the Army Commando brigade. With 1 in 4 roulement (training, high readiness, deployed, reset) we would need absolutely maximum shipping to move the high readiness and deployed battalions (based on them NOT being deployed and so also at high readiness – replace them with line infantry if deployed) – so 4 fighting battalions, (perhaps one on RM BVS10′s as standard), engineers, artillary, CSS as required, plus 1 x Formation Recce regiment, blah blah blah
So:
2 x Albion Class LPD
2 x Enforcer Class LPH
3 x Bay
3 x Enhanced Bay (http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/12/forward-presence-and-littoral-operations-an-alternative-view/)
6 x Point Class RO-Ro
JSS as required (as replacements for 4 x Fort Class etc)
Should do nicely………
“Interesting post Mintcake Maker – I was just wondering how likely it would be for a squadron of Apache to be moved to the FAA on a permanent basis? Would it not be easier to convert some of the Naval Wildcat into a gunship variety by adding the BAE GMA turret (http://www.baesystems.com/ProductsServices/helicopter_gama_turret.html) and integrating CVR-7 and Brimstone?”
When the Apaches had to be 125, early in the Attack Helicopter programme, they had to be issued to 847 NAS Commando Helicopter Force as well, i read somewhere.
Of course this got canned when the number of helicopters was reduced down to the definitive 67.
Now 847 NAS will have 6 Army Wildcats, which should be armed with the LMM.
Brimstone could also be integrated if there was will and funding.
CVR-7 interestingly appears here and there on certain internet pieces listed as fitting for the AAC Wildcats, but i don’t know how realistic this assumption is.
It certainly COULD be used, but i don’t know if it WILL be integrated.
We should aim for an MEU sized unit with 50 days worth of stores.
if going seperate, then you know i’m going to pipe up with the new bigger jap helicopter (yes again i’m a stuck record)!! 248m and 30kts whoo yah sadly export restrictions means it’s filed under “fantasy fleet”. note they thought about future requirements before building and made sure a v-22 would fit makes a change from not offering it (á la FTSA) or charging a fortune to fit it afterwards
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/22ddh-specs.htm
@ Jed regarding a fourth Commando and Para group and how this fits with the battlegroup.
i realise it is a flexible construct, but is it normal for a battlegroup just to have the one battalion sized formation as the ‘teeth’, and is it desirable to have a supporting company of infantry in tow?
What do you mean in tow?
Good piece MM. I personally think 3 30k LHDs is unlikely due to the cost and would prefer if the money was available that both QEs are in service. I think also that 2 Wasp type vessels are beyond reach and are probably not needed in any case as the QE will be able to cover any need for VSTOL or Chinooks etc. Also, having your entire expeditionary force on a single vessel sounds dangerous to me…
JSS is an interesting concept but from what I’ve read and other forums they are a compromise too far and offer limited all round capabilities.
My main concern however is the lack of escorts to support additional ARGs. Any new vessels will need to be designed to operate in all but the hottest war zones.
Therefore, in my view we need 2 20k LHDs big enough to move a RM commando (similar to the BAE design). These would typically operate in joint task groups with the QEs. Additionally, I then think we need 6 vessels which can act more independently and are more of a cross between an assault ship and a frigate. The Absalon design is probably on most people’s minds, but actually I think that something more closer to Singapore’s Endurance class would be my ideal. They have a basic, but adequate self defence, a very good range and 350 troops and up to 20 tanks / vehicles. The only thing would be to try and extend them to carry more helicopters (say 4 Merlin and 2 Lynx). These would replace Ocean, the LPDs and the Bays.
I would then have 2 ‘Endurances’ on duty (based in Gib and Indian ocean), 2 at high readiness and 2 in refit / reserve.
just asking what is generally considered part of a useful battle-group, because they are so flexible appraently that no one feels it necessary to write down what they are constituted of…….
from the example above:
p.s. the ATG is penned in at 1800+ men, what is this presumed to be made up of?
One RM Commando (700)
One 1 Rifles Company (200)
One Log Company (200?)
One Eng Company (200?)
One Art Company (200?)
One Cdo Company (200?)
is this sensible, reasonable, ridiculous or utterly ludicrous?
Those look like standard slices of CS and CSS assets although artillery comes in a battery not a company and the engineers would likely be in troop strength and not squadron since 3 Commando has one field squadron full stop I think, or at least no more than two. Don’t know what a Cdo Company is though.
Commando 21 yes or no? Because I can’t make my mind up on that either. Sometimes I think there is merit in the US Army 3 rifle platoons & heavy weapons platoon company structure. 4 rifles companies better than 3. But all should be RM….
Having 2 or 3 different designs seems a problem to me. to many programs now end up building one off things in that they build 3 or 4 of something. To me better to pick one overall useful design even if by itself it carriers less troops than build so many different designs. Maybe this will free up so money for more F-35c as I have read that the carrier will only have a airwing of 12? I would also I think have the RAF buy the same as the navy F-35c. Even if you don’t train RAF personal to fly from the carriers would allow some replacements of airframes in case of war. I was reading the minutes from a Q&A from the MOD and they asked a question about pilots of harriers on deployment and they said that out of all the pilots on the ship only one was night qualified. Anyways seemed strange to me.
@ Phil – “Those look like standard slices of CS and CSS assets although artillery comes in a battery not a company and the engineers would likely be in troop strength and not squadron since 3 Commando has one field squadron full stop I think, or at least no more than two. Don’t know what a Cdo Company is though.”
Yes, they are just arbitrary subdivisions, my curiosity is mostly around whether a battlegroup would normally have a supporting infantry company, or if not normally; whether it would be a significant asset to the unit?
re the Cdo company – merely poor jargon for specialist elements like the guys who specialise in the landing vehicles, etc. originated by my comment:
“i very much like the idea of running 3Cdo as three battlegroups (?) built around a single commando and rifles company, it seems like a very flexible arrangement.”
cheers
Hi Repulse,
While I like the Endurance Class ( I think I contributed an updated price quote for one being built for Thailand a while ago), would not this
http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/13514
be a better match for the (valid) requirement you describe?
Hi Jedi,
RE “because they are so flexible appraently that no one feels it necessary to write down what they are constituted of”
- I have had the same feeling
- from the necessity of the Germans having BGs in WW2 because the Allied air superiority stopped them from getting e.g. full divisons onto the scene quickly enough
- thru to BAOR
- and to the present: the main word(ing) missing in the quote is the *ability to operate independently*. Obviously the CS/CSS elements will look different if the BG is operating with other units in the field for days at a time, or deployed on its own somewhere far away for 30-45 days. The latter context is closest (?) to what we are discussing and below is the make up of one of the two EU BGs stood up 1st of July for 6-month readiness:
*The (Deployable) Headquarters and its Headquarters Support unit*
The international staff composes the Headquarters and the Headquarters Support Unit (HSU) is an Italian support unit regiment size. This regiment consists one Communication and Information Systems Company and a Combat service support Company. The HSU is ready to support the deployment, operation, and maintenance of a BG size Headquarters for a period of 30 days. This unit is equipped with all shorts of material namely tends, vehicles, containers, weapons, computers, servers, generators, teleconference assets, radios, dish antennas, lightening units, and other equipment in order to allow the staff to work 24 hours a day.
*The Battle Group Core*
The Portuguese Infantry Battalion composed of three rifles units, with reconnaissance and fire support capability [also attached]. The battalion is based on wheeled 8×8 armoured personnel carrier Pandur II and 160 other vehicles. Besides, is equipped with the man-portable multi-role recoilless rifle Carl Gustaf, 84mm, and the portable medium range anti-tank missile MILAN and 120mm Mortars.
*Combat Support*
Portugal also provides the Agusta Westland AW101 Merlin as a medium-lift helicopter with MEDEVAC capacity. The Spanish field artillery unit based on 155mm calibre able to provide fire support and survey within the range of 40km – this unit is equipped with the artillery hunting radar (ARTHUR). The Spanish Reconnaissance unit is based on armored vehicles 6×6 BMR 625-VEC developed by Pegaso and the PSYOPS unit with production and dissemination capabilities. Spain also provides a CBRN unit able to deliver light decontamination assets. France will provide an air defense unit equipped with infrared homing surface-to-air missile Mistral (SAM) and radar assets together with an HUMINT unit.
Italy will contribute with a CIS unit able to provide Service support, system center and 2 networks, an Electronic Warfare (EW) Unit, and an Engineers Unit. The EW unit is bale to provide electronic support for communications and no communications, electronics attacks and electronics defense. The Engineers unit is able to deliver combat engineers, manoeuvre support, mobility, construction and EOD/IEDD capabilities.
*Combat Service Support*
France will contribute with Role 2 Light Manœuvre tailored to the mission, a Patient Evacuation Coordination Center, field ambulances and a transport unit with 30 vehicles.
Italy also contributes with a GEO unit, which is able to deliver production and analysis capability. Spain made also available a CIMIC unit and Military Police unit with marshalling, traffic Control and investigation capabilities.
Anyone for piccies of the kit:http://www.operacional.pt/eurofor-european-union-battle-group-2011-2/
The Nordic BG that just stood down had been beefed up with comms and anti-IED experts to the tune of 165 people, so even when the 3 coy infantry bn is the core, the difference between it and the BG is substantial
I’d be immensely grateful if anyone knew some about the structure of the Armoured Support Group of the Marines and the effective composition of the two Stand-Off Combat Companies of the Commando battalions, which are mounted and, i read, one tracked (Viking) and one wheeled (Land Rovers —> Jackals for the future…?).
I’ve tried hard to dig up info about it, but never had any real success…
Cheers AAC.
Seconded Gabby’s question……….
I think Mintcake is on the right path with suggesting LHD ships as the future in a cash-strapped Navy. Jed’s preference for two LPD and two LPH and half a dozen bays is great for what it offers us, but it would never happen.
Bearing in mind lost flexibility and Repulse’s comments on risk, I think fewer but larger ships is the likely future; it really is the only way to deliver a sizeable force while following the trend of reduced RN manpower and fewer ships.
It would perhaps not be the solution of choice for many folks here, but if the vessels were of a larger size, you could manage a decent amphib capability with only two LHD in the first line, and two LSD in the second (and the Points in third).
Flexibility for the humanitarian and other tasks -lost through having fewer primary landing ships- can be provided by an imaginative C2 fleet following the concept laid out in ArmChairCivvy’s (July 26, at 7:46am) link.
Gort a link for a representation for the full deck “Bay”.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&q=meko+csl&tbm=isch&tbs=simg:CAQSWhpYCxCwjKcIGjwKOggBEhS0BuAHnAbcBrIG7gf_1BbMGhQbzBxog6oarmfe7OGiajaOWecX3qJq01WsJmXK7Z4Vja4q4j3wMCxCOrv4IGgoKCAgBEgS6-56KDA&ei=S7AuTqjWG4W28QPk6rlf&ved=0CB8Qwg4&biw=1024&bih=434
Also got a PDF for the inproved and enlarged Endurance design;
http://www.stengg.com/upload/1145a3IaZEMbeFV3E5EF.pdf
RE: Replacing lost flexibility = Going further “Fantasy Fleets” I quite like this idea from Shipbucket:
http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?dir=Alternate%20Universe/I%20CVS-LHD%20DHE-7500%201%20AU.gif
http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?dir=Alternate%20Universe/I%20CVS-LHD%20DHE-7500%202%20AU.gif
http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?dir=Alternate%20Universe/I%20CVS-LHD%20DHE-7500%203%20AU.gif
It would be more like a C3+ than a C2 ship capability wise but as you can see the design is supposed to be flexible, a Jack of all trades depending on what its carrying. If we don’t add all available bells and whistles it could be kept relatively cheap and we could have a larger number of them, 4-6 maybe?
that last one:
http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?dir=Alternate%20Universe/I%20CVS-LHD%20DHE-7500%203%20AU.gif
is pretty much what i have in mind for C2, a sea-control frigate with Davits for CB90′s.
Waiting for the boss to put some mexeflotes to the design…
I’m not sure the USN acronyms we are using are right.
LSD = Landing Ship Dock; large welldeck, minor transport capacity = Albions
LPD = Landing Platform Dock; small welldeck, large transport capacity = Bay class
Ocean is a somewhat crude LKA/LPH-combo, the BAE design is a LKA/LHD-combo.
Btw, the US marines are playing with the idea of using the LCS (especially the LCS-2-design) as some sort of mini-LHD. So, it need no C2 to provide flexibility.
LSD = Landing Ship Dock; large welldeck, minor transport capacity = Albions
LPD = Landing Platform Dock; small welldeck, large transport capacity = Bay class
isn’t it the other way around?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albion_class_landing_platform_dock
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_class_landing_ship_dock
@ Jedi – I know I’ve posted this before but I like the idea so much I can’t help sounding like a broken record
http://brickmuppet.mee.nu/935293
MSO, Humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, going up to sea-control/asw escort and small LPD – would be very useful; and one of the three Italian mini-LPD’S was funded by the ministry of civil protection. Could some/all be funded by the DFID and used as Forward presence and/or disaster response?
Interesting ideas I like the LHD my self. Not overly concerned about carrying lots of helicopters as these will never be far from our cvf if anything biggish kicked off and it has plenty of capacity. So 2 would be fine with me size for the troops required to be carried. I like the Dutch jss were it fits in with the bays not sure. The ship I would like in uk service is the US jshv for a variety of roles
sounds like a thoroughly worthy idea.
A quick list of the specs of the current amphibs, top trumps style…:
Albion:
Crew: 325
Troops: 305 soldiers, 500 “wartime” accommodation, up to 710 in overload
Vehicles: 1 HIPPO BARV, 6 Challenger II, 6 L118, 67 other vehicles (Vikings and such)
Landing crafts: 4 LCVP MK5 on davits, 4 LCU MK10 in well deck
Helicopter capacity: no hangar, but after the latest refit there’s certified 2 Chinooks capability. Lately Albion trialed itself as “Aviation Base” for a TAG of 2 Sea Kings and 2 Lynx as well.
Ocean
Crew: 283 + 180 aircrew (actually very variable)
Troops: 480 (803 in overload)
Vehicles: 40 (Land Rovers) + 34 trailers, 6 L118s
Landing crafts: 4 LCVP MK5 on davits, 2 LCAC(L) on deck
Helicopters: 12 Sea King HC4 or Merlins (as long as they fold, a folded merlin has the same deck footprint of the Sea King) and 6 Lynx or Apaches (Apache has a bigger footprint than Lynx, and a slightly wider one than Merlin as well, i don’t think it can carry 12 + 6, but i have no proof to present)
Bay class
Crew: 59 (accommodation for 75 augmentees)
Troops: 356 (700 in overload)
Vehicles: 1200 linear lane meters (24 Challenger II equivalent or up to 150 light trucks)
Container space: 12 x 40′ or 24 x 20′
Landing crafts: 2 LCVP MK5 on davits, 1 LCU MK10 in well deck, 2 Mexeflotes
Helicopter capacity: 2 Merlin spots or one Chinook, no hangar
And to think that the requirement the Bays born out of was for 6 ships…! The well deck was not part of the original requirement, either, but luckily this was corrected in time.
6 Bays would have been awesome, especially since two of the proposed names were Quiberon Bay and Aboukir Bay…!
The french would not have liked it too much.
http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?dir=Alternate%20Universe/I%20CVS-LHD%20DHE-7500%201%20AU.gif
Anyway this design, the Santi (San Giorgio, San Giusto, San Marco) is in service in the italian navy, but it is not much. In a support role, it would do well, and it is an interesting concept of C2 vessel, but i hope no one here is suggesting to use the San as a design for the proper amphibious fleet! It is way too small for the role, and too limited in all ways.
The Italian Navy is aiming for 20.000 tons LHD(s?) to replace them with a proper amphibious assault capability, in fact.
“and one of the three Italian mini-LPD’S was funded by the ministry of civil protection.”
We italians are masters in this kind of fudges! Here it is normal… The Cavour was also partially financed that way.
Other money is given to the MOD programmes due to their contribute to the italian economy: the Ministry for Economic Development, for example, supplies the MOD with millions for the F35 and its Assembly plant in Cameri, and it has also helped finance the Freccia VBM.
“Could some/all be funded by the DFID and used as Forward presence and/or disaster response?”
Of course it could. I suggested that Largs Bay could have been adopted by the DFID ministry instead of being cut, but the government evidently thinks that is “not politically correct”.
It will be possible as soon as the politicians of the Uk change their minds and accept such trick.
so in overload every amphibious ship (inc CVF) can house and deploy a battalion sized unit.
if 3Cdo is composed of eight battalion sized units, roughly speaking, then we need approximately eight amphibious ships to repeat a scenario such as the island that must not be named.
come 2020 we’ll (hopefully have)
2x CVF (one in mothballs)
2x Albion (one in mothballs)
3x Bay
So, in overload situations, that is seven eights of 3Cdo.
Not ideal, but workable.
LPD some landing craft, some cargo, lots of PAX. Albion, San Antonio.
LSD lots of landing craft, big cargo, fewer PAX. Whidbey Island class, Foudre class.
Then the US has ships like the Harpers Ferry class which are LSD with only a small dock but space for lots of cargo. A bit like the Bays.
I am not being too specific because the US uses slightly different terms for landing craft.
@ACC: I do like the HMS Aboukir Bay design and can see that this would fufil the requirements also. Couldn’t see the expected tonnage, but I think that something slightly larger than an Endurance would be ideal. Alongside transporting troops as part of a task group, it should be able to do a Lebanon style evac unaided and act as a mothership for UAVs and fast attack / patrol craft.
Maybe it’s a good idea psychologically to put people into overload conditions, i don’t really know but spending lot’s of time at sea, tripping over other people and their kit would be sure to get people really frustrated and generally pissed off.
I think it’d be a good idea to get a couple of them (LHD’s), but i think i’d want both the vehicle deck and hanger deck to be able to take exactly the same type’s of vehicles for maximum flexibility.
Although on balance i think i’d rather have ships that are designed to support the Army through all the phases of an initially opposed, enduring stabilisation operation/war.
Maybe something with a vehicle deck and landing dock that can then also take and offload containerised stores. Like a Bay class but bigger.
What do ships like the Bay Class do after the first few weeks/months of an operation? If they deliver stores/equipment for the next few years to a captured port, then buy more of that type of ship.
Ideally each (mini) ARG should have enough “normal” capacity to lift 50% more than a battle group (MEU) it would carry. With enough shipping (3 groups worth) this means a brigade could be lifted with ease with no “overload.”
If MARS Fleet Solid Stores becomes an amphibious JSS, what is going to supply bombs and butter to sustain CVF operations (especially as you’ve stated that it replaces all Forts)? JSBL – or whatever the latter name for the amphibious logistics element of MARS was – has been folded into the FSS element so under current MARS plans there will be no specialist amphib sustainment logistics ships. I always thought three JSBLs was rather ambitious to replace two old Forts.
Hi x,
Was not sure where your 50% uplift was to be calculated from?
The 1500-1800 BG or the 2200 MEU, as in
“The MEU is comprised of a command element (CE); a reinforced infantry battalion as the ground combat element (GCE); a reinforced helicopter squadron as the aviation combat element (ACE); and a combat service support element (CSSE) designated the MEU Service Support Group (MSSG).”
- ACE, I think, refers to air assault (with gunships), so there would still be the Commando Helicopter force (men, machines and supplies to factor in, just like in the UK circumstances – if vertical lift is a major dimension for the Op)
In my fantasy world where we have a properly funded navy we would have 3 to 4 mini-args capable of lifting an MEU/battle group sized unit of about 1500 with ease. The shipping though would be constructed to lift say 2250 with associated equipment. But not in overload. Having 3/4 groups available would mean therefore we would have enough shipping available to lift a whole brigade without too much difficult. Steel and air are cheap. Maritime warfare is about manoeuvre; about deploying as and when needed at a point of the commander’s choosing. But if your landing force begins to suffer from the riggers of being at sea it is no good to anybody. Being in overload will only exacerbate that problem.