If we were to get a replacement for HMS Ocean, what would be the best design to get, as there seems to be a lot of country's building them at present,
South Korea, fance, Italy and even the Aussie navy is receiving 2, what tonnage and aircraft, and would it be better to have a dock well for a few combat 80s
so we don't again have Royal Navy personnel been kidnapped
The difference between a LHA and LDH
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 windsordaw |
|||
|
Posts: 59 ( 9-Jun-2008 14:59:49) |
|
||
|
hulahoop7 |
|||
|
Posts: 1130 ( 9-Jun-2008 17:53:48) |
Yeah I also heard the story that a deck was taken out - resulting in the loss of the hanger. That's why the design looks quite squat.
As long as the RN can generate an LPH as part of the active ARG, I think the current arrangement works fine. Albion and Bulwark are mean't to get relatively close in very early in any campaign. If I was the battle group commander I wouldn't want all my helicopter assets in there too. Far better and more efficient to run specialist ships. With the current cuts to escorts, if I was 1SL, I'd make damn sure that the trade off was that Ark stays active after the CVFs are built. She's had a specific LPH refit, which I've heard includes specific accomodation for Royals at hangar level???? Look to replace her in 2020, and Ocean in 2023. That would fit nicely into a 'big ship' tempo after the CVF peak. |
||
|
kev 99a |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 31 ( 9-Jun-2008 18:10:43) |
Look to replace her in 2020, and Ocean in 2023. That would fit nicely into a 'big ship' tempo after the CVF peak.Agreed. |
||
|
jemb |
nice pic | ||
|
Posts: 714 ( 9-Jun-2008 19:45:56) |
Is this due to a conclusion from recent (i.e. the past few decades') history that landing craft etc. are less useful than heloes, or even planes, in an marine assault? Since Inchon, I think the only opposed amphib landings have been the Falklands (don't think Grenada and Haiti were opposed, and the latter IIRC was mainly helo). Do they think the LPD17s should be enough for future LC needs? |
||
|
Bledlow |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 97 ( 9-Jun-2008 21:19:10) |
windsordaw wrote: You don't need a dock for CB90. They're slightly smaller than the landing craft Ocean has on davits.And
CB90 on an amphibious ship wouldn't make any difference to the risk of crew members of a frigate being kidnapped when there's no amphib in the area,
which is what happened.
|
||
|
Bledlow |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 98 ( 9-Jun-2008 21:23:57) |
kev 99a wrote: Absolutely.
|
||
|
esp49129 |
|||
|
Posts: 85 (10-Jun-2008 04:06:51) |
hulahoop7 wrote: I disagree. The time of specialist LPDs/LPHs has run its course. Although specialist ships offer the optimum solution for an amphibious assault on a
defended beach, they offer a sub-optimal solution for 95%-100% of their service life. The key in the future will be flexibility and "sea-basing".
In a seabasing context, you don't get to tailor your payload or ships to the mission before you leave your homeport. In fact, you often don't have the luxury of having more than one ship. So you want every ship in your amphibious fleet to be able to operate as an independent seabase. Depending on the mission, this seabase may require lots of helicopters (e.g. commando operation), or lots of vehicle/cargo space (e.g. deploying a battalion on a peacekeeping mission), or a dock, or mix of all 3 (e.g. disaster relief). You might even need all 3 during the same deployment. This almost happened to the French LHD Mistral, for example, which could have been involved in both the Ponant commando operation and Burmese disaster relief had it been deployed 3 weeks later. Because of their inherent flexibility, LHDs are the solution for seabasing. LPDs can also do the work quite well, as long as they have hangar facilities. LPHs are marginally useful, because they lack the flexibility to choose between vectors (helicopters vs. dock) and payload (people vs. vehicles/cargo). For any given mission LHDs will be less efficient than a specialized ship, but once you've experienced the flexibility you don't want to go back (see the French experience with their new LHDs). The Aussies and Spanish chose LHDs for the same reason. All 3 countries could have gone for a dedicated LPH to complement their LPDs/LSLs but decided not to.
Last Edited By: esp49129
10-Jun-2008 04:10:05.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
Jim WH |
|||
|
Posts: 969 (10-Jun-2008 09:47:29) |
Actually, the only real penalty that an LPH suffers is the inability to land heavy vehicles (10 ton and above) over a beach-head which isn't really a
drawback in anything other than an opposed landing. An if an opposed landing requiring vehicles greater than 10 ton is needed, then Ocean/Ark can be escorted
by one of the 6 dock equipped 'phibs available for operations. Most navies do not have this option, but the RN does.
For the RN, an LPH was the right choice when Ocean was ordered: it had two LPD and was hoping to replace them with two more major amphibious vessels. Ordering Ocean as an LPH allowed the RN to increase the size of the amphibious fleet back to what it was in 1980, and it's nowhere near clear that this would have been possible if she'd been an LHD. To the future I agree to an extent that the replacement of Ocean (and hopefully Ark Royal) should be an LHD or two. The experience of having built the two 65k ton CVF should hopefully have made government more amenable to ordering far larger (30-35k ton) replacement than the current LPH(s), and a dock can be built into the larger ships without impinging on the other positive features of the Ocean class (e.g. the assault passages). The real trick would be to order two LHD with full C4ISR facilities, and then upgrade the two LPD with the same systems, giving the RN a total of 6 'flagships' available for operations (2 CVF, 2 LHD, 2 LPD), and giving the ARG command team the option of splitting the command staffs (naval and amphibious) into two ships. |
||
|
Bledlow |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 100 (10-Jun-2008 10:53:27) |
esp49129,
this is a function of the size of the fleet. If you only have one or two amphibious ships, they should be LHDs, or LPDs with good aviation facilities. The French have replaced two old LPDs with two new LHDs, for a total force of 4 amphibious ships. The RN has 7 ships, supported by 6 lightly militarised ro-ro. Australia is building two ships, & IIRC plans a single transport ship in addition. I'd say the RNs amphibious fleet is probably at the bottom end of the range where specialised ships become worthwhile. BTW, note that the USNs future fleet is intended to consist of a mix of LPDs & LHAs, the latter without a dock. |
||
|
MSR |
|||
|
Posts: 2685 (10-Jun-2008 12:35:33) |
Bledlow wrote:
But again, we see evidence of the kind of thinking which has, arguably, impaired RN amphibious planning.
As I understand it, a part of the thinking that led to the procurement of Albion and Bulwark in their current configuration sans hangars (apart from cutting
costs) was that the RN's Cold War doctrine was based on USN thinking.
There were blithe assumptions that these ships would not operate independently and therefore would not need to embark their own aircraft. In the plans for the defence of Norway (otherwise known as the mad dash to get the Marines into Norway to fight a suicide delaying action against the Soviets) Albion and Bulwark's role would simply be to scoot across to the Norwegian coast and deposit their RMs, escorted all the way by frigates and the infamous through-deck ASW cruisers we all know and love. So, plenty of helicopters and floating hangarage would have been in attendance and for the short trip from the UK, the LPDs could have embarked a couple of Sea Kings on the flight deck to boost airlift capacity at the other end, as would the LSD(A)s and any other RFA in attendance. In the same way, Ocean was conceived as operating as part of a larger whole, in company with the ships that would provide the docks and the command
facilities (which allowed many compromises to be made, which granted permission for the cost cutting that brought down her
price, even if that price was still too low to sustain the yard that built her). The reality is far different. The RN does not tramp about the globe
as part of task groups like the USN. Task Groups are not the standard unit of deployment. The single hull is.
This is Big Navy thinking of the kind that only the USN can entertain. The RN used to be a Big Navy but has taken a long time to realise that it's not,
and unfortunately that realisation didn't really take root until the last major procurement cycle was already under way.
I'd say the RNs amphibious fleet is probably at the bottom end of the range where specialised ships become worthwhile.I'd say it's teetering on the precipice and that it wouldn't take much to push it over! Ocean was a "band aid" applied to the gaping capability wounds opened up by the Falklands. Others have already commented on Ocean's aberrant conception. But for the Falklands experiences, it is doubtful that Ocean would have come about as an LPH, and certainly not so cheap, although it was the Falklands experiences that finally taught the RN that they are not the USN. You might argue that they already knew this, not being stupid and all, but there's nothing that quite drives a lesson home as experience. So the RN has 7 grey-painted, specialist amphibious ships compared to the fleets of 2 or 4 multi-role, jack-of-all trades ships (that incorporate docks, flight decks and hangars) that other Small Navies have. Wouldn't the RN be so much better off with a fleet of 6 jack-of-all trades? Or even 5?
The aim of diplomacy is to achieve results, not win arguments
|
||
|
esp49129 |
|||
|
Posts: 86 (10-Jun-2008 14:34:14) |
Jim WH wrote: A perfect example of "Big Navy thinking"... 1. Today's RN cannot afford to escort HMS Ocean wherever she sails to compensate for her one-sided capabilities.
2. You got the drawbacks reversed IMHO. The inability to land anything heavier than a lightly amoured Land Rover is ALWAYS a drawback UNLESS you're doing an opposed landing. If you're doing an opposed landing, then HMS Ocean will almost certainly be part of a task group that includes LPDs or LSDs with docks and vehicles. In every other situation (ie.at least 95% of the time), she'll probably be alone (or she should be - see point #1 above). In which case her inability to deploy a mobile ground force or logistics train is a real drawback. Helicopters only provide a partial mobility solution - they can transport people well enough, but cannot replace armoured vehicles or flat-bed trucks if you need to secure a large area (a city for example), deliver supplies or rescue your nationals holed up in Mogadishu/Beirut/Freetown etc. 3. LPHs made sense when light infantry were still in fashion. But they don't fit so nicely in the post-Iraq and Afghanistan operational mindset. When
you see 55 ton self-propelled howitzers (PZH 2000) used in a "police war" in Afghanistan, or16 ton light tanks with 105mm guns doing peacekeeping in
Ivory Coast (AMX-10RC), an LPD starts to make a lot of sense. The next time Royal Marines land in Sierra Leone, Land Rovers might not cut it (and the other
amphibs might all be deployed somewhere else)...
|
||
|
Obi Wan Russell |
|||
|
Posts: 272 (10-Jun-2008 14:41:56) |
So the RN has 7 grey-painted, specialist amphibious ships compared to the fleets of 2 or 4 multi-role, jack-of-all trades ships (that incorporate docks, flight
decks and hangars) that other Small Navies have. Wouldn't the RN be so much better off with a fleet of 6 jack-of-all trades? Or even 5?
We wouldn't get 5 though. If we'd gone down the LHD route we'd have been lucky to get two, with the rest of any amphibious shipping made up from requisitioned Ro-Ro ferries and container ships with no self defence and civilian crews. Atlantic Conveyor al over again. Post Falklands the RN was able to successfully argue that what was needed was specialist amphibious shipping with defensive suites and trained crews to ensure survivability during the landing phases. Now although WE all know that a 30,000tonne amphib will not cost all that much more than a 16,000tonne amhib (given comparable sensor and defensive systems and an economic to run propulsion system) but the politicians wouldn't get it. They'd just see Big ship vs small ship, and they certainly wouldn't be able to grasp the difference between and LHD and a CV. We have the shipping we need to get our forces ashore just about anywhere in the world, and eight hulls are harder to sink/disable than two. |
||
|
Jim WH |
|||
|
Posts: 971 (10-Jun-2008 14:43:31) |
MSR the hole in your logic is that whilst the 'single ship' deployment may indeed ne the standard operation for the RN, the 'big fleet' is the
raison d'etre of the RN's amphibious fleet. The case for 7 amphibious ships is built on the requirement to transport and sustain a brigade,
and if the RN were to substitute this requirement with a need for 6 phibs, then you can bet your arse that they'd be far less capable as a fleet than the
current mob are. Alternately, if you substitute 7 specialised 'phibs for LHD, then you'll end up with fewer for the same budget, and (again) an
decrease in the overall capacity and in number of units too.*
Similarly, whilst I happen to agree that for single ship deployments the absence of a helicopter hanger on the LPD and LSD(A) is a drawback, the absence of a dock on Ocean isn't really a drawback. What mission, other than an opposed landing would Ocean need a dock for? Cutting that dock out of Ocean saved money at a time when the RN was under severe financial strain (the immediate post Cold War era) and if that was the price for getting the ship, then it was cheap. The same is, ultimately true of the LPD: if government could only be convinced of their need in the context of hi-tempo opposed STOM**, then skipping the helicopter hanger was the right choice. If we look into the distant (2030+) future, then I concede that helicopter hangers aboard the LPD's replacements is a good idea (the recent deployment of an LPD as a command ship in the Gulf made far too much sense to be ignored in the future), but not aboard the LSD(A)'s replacements. Single ship 'presence' missions should be a specialised mission type in it's own right (as opposed to a task shoveled on some other class), and should be in the domain of a well suited ship, the C2 for instance. *By way of comparison, the MN's purpose with the Mistral class is to deploy 450 blokes of Outer St Elsewhere's for months on end and intervene as needs be. This is all well and great if the problem you're attempting to deal with is composed primarily of tribesmen with bones through their noses, but the UK is substantially less interested in this type of operation than France, and far more interested in hi-tempo ops (peace-keeping or otherwise). About the only smaller navy with a purpose similar to the RN's is Australia. We'll be getting the 2 LHD in order to be able to put 1,200 men ashore. The RAN's ability to sustain a fight will be limited compared to the RN's (with the yet to be defined "Sea Lift Ship" being the great unknown in the equation), although this is probably less of a problem for Australia than for the UK (most of our potential problem spots do still have bones through their noses, or the local equivalent). **"Why do you need fancy C4ISR kit if you're only planning on landing against tribesmen with bones stuck through their noses?" [To all trbesmen - everywhere - with bones stuck through their noses: sorry for the bad jokes at your expense. You known I respect you guys] |
||
|
Anixtu |
|||
|
Posts: 179 (10-Jun-2008 15:29:52) |
Helicopter transports and secondary role (mini-)LPHs are more common in British service than has so far been reflected in this discussion.
Consider: RFA Argus - I forget how many Sea Kings she can carry. Quite a few. Fort Class RFAs - 3 or 5 Sea Kings. |
||
|
MSR |
|||
|
Posts: 2688 (10-Jun-2008 15:37:02) |
Jim, I take your point and actually agree that a dock is secondary to a hangar in importance. This is exactly why my principle beef with the RN's fleet is
not that it includes Ocean (because without Ocean, the fleet really would be stuffed) but that Ocean was built to provide, in one hull, the same hangar
capacity that should have been spread across the other hulls. Ocean is the amphib fleet's single point of failure for three reasons:
1. No dock 2. The only hangar 3. One ship - one place - one time I dislike the thinking behind the procurement of Ocean because it was reactionary, it wasn't forward thinking at all. It was fixing existing mistakes and as a result, we get a less than desirable solution. It didn't really pay off because to my mind, the single advantage of getting an LPH for the price of a frigate is that you can get two LPHs for hte price of one CVS or LPD (using very rough approximations!). That didn't happen. All that happened is that Swan's went bust and we got an ugly duckling, which rather unflattering name is justified by her mutated-looking island and the three reasons listed above. I wouldn't call her a white elephant because she is clearly very useful, but only when she's available, and only when she's supported. The only way this situation could have been avoided would have been to go for the more multi-role LHD approach from the start, which required ditching the Big Navy mode of thought and talking up the utility of such vessels for independent taskings from day 1. So, the core of my argument is that the RN's planning assumptions and doctrine, whilst valid in terms of achieving their main focus... ... the 'big fleet' is the raison d'etre of the RN's amphibious fleet.has hobbled them by providing a fleet with a single fatal flaw which hurts them both on single ship deployments and task force deployments. Recall my earlier mention of Norway. Well, that's no longer on the cards. We won't now be doing amphibious operations within an hours flight from the UK mainland so we become ever more reliant on Ocean to supply the air. Sink Ocean and it'd be like sinking the Atlantic Conveyor! You could say my argument is founded on 20:20 hindsight and I wouldn't disagree, but I sense all the same factors could very easily come back into play again in the near future when it comes time to think about her replacement, and we could end up with another unsatisfactory solution, whilst sacrificing the most rounded, most balanced solution. You always equip to fight the last war and that's a fact we can't change, but you can equip yourself to be as flexible as possible and that precludes the Big Navy way of thinking, which relies on entire task groups to provide capability as a collective in time of peace as well as war. Final point: let's redefine your tribesmen into more of an abstract. Let's call them the brush fire conflict, or the deterrence mission, or the failed state. Just because they've got bones through their noses doesn't mean they don't carry Stingers in their hands, or drive a flat bed with a sea skimmer loaded on the back. It's not about your personal grooming habits, it's about your supplier. If you consider that, then suddenly the French and the Australians are buying LHDs to fight in proper hot war scenarios. These scenarios may be very short-lived bursts of high intensity action, but that's only because your tribesmen don't have the logistics to maintain prolonged conflict. It would be no less intense for being short-lived and no less technologically advanced just because the enemy dresses his face with the left-overs from his chicken dinner.
The aim of diplomacy is to achieve results, not win arguments
|
||
|
Jim WH |
|||
|
Posts: 974 (10-Jun-2008 16:02:14) |
esp49129 wrote: And you've just fallen pray to the trap of viewing the 'phibs only in terms of their ability to fight! Most of the utility of a 'phib operating
on her own comes from her presence ("play nice or you're in trouble!") or her ability aid civilian authorities (cleaning up after natural
disasters and such), and the absence of a dock doesn't substantially alter either of those roles. Similarly, if you're actually expecting to get shot
at with anything much larger than a hand gun, then you probably need more men on the ground than a single 'phib can provide too*.
*Just think about you're proposition above "secure a large area (a city for example)". Securing any kind of city, against opposition, is going
to take more than 800 men. Going to take more than 5,000 if we're to be brutally honest (the realistic maximum that the UK's ARG could deliver over the
beachhead).
**There is a Warrior equipped Armoured Infantry battalion as part of Op Herric IIRC, in addition to some heavy stuff pottering around the country (a dozen Leo I/II MBT (Canadian and Danish) and some heavy artillery (3 Dutch PzH 2000 and some British MLRS), but most of the remainder are light infantry RM supplied Vikings. |
||
|
Jim WH |
|||
|
Posts: 975 (10-Jun-2008 16:34:06) |
The point that I think you're either ignoring or minimizing MSR, is that penny packet interventions (a few hundred blokes, and a couple of MBT) are of
strictly limited utility except in a very small selection number of scenarios*. If the angry natives have stingers and RPG, and are willing to actually use
them, then 800 men (Ocean maximum) isn't going to be anywhere near enough.
Put it this way, policing East Timor in 2006 (nice, friendly, East Timor) took approximately 2,000 infantry (c.1,300 Australian infantry BG, c.200+ commandos and SAS, 200 NZ infantry, 200 Malaysian Infantry) a few dozen APC and a dozen helicopters. And the entire enemy force in ET was somewhat less than 50 blokes armed with assault rifles. 2,000+ men on the ground to police one of the world's tinies nations against 50 pissed-off ex-soldiers; imagine how much worse it would be if there'd been 100 angry ex-soldiers, or if the local population were restive! Basically, if there is opposition, you need more than one ship can bring to the party, which is where 'big fleet' thinking comes into play. So, basically, the 'phibs either deploy solo for low intensity stuff (aiding civilian powers, looking threataning, or low-intensity peace support), or as part of an ARG when opposition is expected. In the latter role, the current RN ARG composition is very well suited and was delivered at the lowest possible cost, and it's still adequate for the former mission (an LCU/LCVP may be less sexy than a helicopter, but it's still a workable alternative). Now, with hindsight 2 bigger LHD may have been a better choice than 1 LPH and 2 LPD (although this still means only 1 C4ISR and 1 aviation centric ship at any one time), but given that the ships were ordered at different times it's hard to see how this could have been pulled off. For the future, I think the road ahead is to press for Ark to stay on as an LPH and then for both Ark and Ocean to be replaced by LHD early in the decade after next. But the current arrangements are adequate for the moment. *Most of those scenarios occur around the micro-nations of the Pacific rim (i.e. Australia's turf) or where you already have a garrison in situ ready to pile in (such as the French garrisons around Africa). |
||
|
hulahoop7 |
|||
|
Posts: 1132 (10-Jun-2008 16:37:55) |
While the amphibs might not toodle around the globe like their US cousins, they do exercise (as full compliment) regularly. I can think of two large exercises
in the last year, where the full compliment of LPH, LPD and LSAs were present.
Fitting a hangar to the Bays would surely fill alot of this 95%. The flight decks are huge as it is, so I'm sure 3 medium helicoters could easily be hosted. Paired with a LPD you could probably sustain a fleet of 5. |
||
|
Jim WH |
|||
|
Posts: 976 (10-Jun-2008 16:46:59) |
The difficulty with fitting the LSD(A) with a hanger is that it cuts into the deck storage space for containers. And the purpose of the LSD(A) is, more than
anything else, transporting a few men and an awful lot of supplies. Getting a couple of helicopters aboard the LSD(A) would make them more useful as
independent units, but less useful in their intended role. Now, the alternative is a demountable hanger, but it seems that this is already used (the inflatable
joby that keeps appearing aboard the LSD(A) and the LPD).
|
||
|
Dickon M |
|||
|
Posts: 354 (11-Jun-2008 11:02:03) |
Gentlemen - a quick question for you. What do marines do on board ship when they're being deployed? There's only so much running around the flight deck
and practising jumping into and out of a helicopter that one can do. What do they do the rest of the time?
Dickon M |
||
(Thanks MSR
for coining the term!)
- Battleship Vs Battleship
- Should Battleships Be Back In Service?
- The United States Navy
- The Royal Navy
- The European Navies
- The Commonwealth Navies
- The Asian Navies
- Aircraft Carriers
- Fighting Ships Of The World
- Submarines
- Designing A Navy/Ship
- The Land Forces
- The Air Forces
- The Naval Fiction Board
- The Politics Of War
- Naval Help
