Status of new British amphibious ships clarified

LHDs in general are the ideal design for a small amphibious fleet, but 6 is a stretch for us, we’ve been operating 5 vessels of various types since 2010 but most of those were paid for by previous budgets.

These are intended to replace six ships – 2 Albion class (although how operational they are is a matter for debate), 3 Bay class (from an original class of 4 – all 3 are currently operationally deployed) and RFA Argus (also currently deployed).

They are intended to but costs aren’t going to nessecarily allow all 6 to be replaced, 6 is unrealistic with our current budget unless we go for something not particularly capable

I’d give the ships a combat standard radar e.g. ARTISAN and Combat Manage System. I would then fit them with pretty much as RFA currently are i.e. minimalist weapons. Then if they are required to go into a high threat area I would attach a couple of Autonomous Arsenal Ships to provide the fire power where and when it is needed.

According to a recent Navy Lookout article the NavyX is planning to fit an autonomous navigation system to their experimental trials vehicle XV Patrick Blackett next year. The aim would be to explore autonomous navigation and establish how mature the technology. From what I have read there are quite a few small craft running around with autonomous navigation systems so the main question might be how well do they work when applied to a large vessel navigating the approaches to a busy port?

The aim of a true Arsenal Ship is to do away with all the expensive bits e.g radars, people etc. cram them full of missiles and then network them with a full spec fighting ship. The arsenal ship would have to stay within the radar horizon and reaction times of the radar / command ship or it will simply be a very expensive sitting duck. Of course, you could put a radar on it but then it gets to be a very expensive un-crewed fully functioning fighting ship… So I see arsenal ships as being a flexible means of concentrating fire power where and when it is needed by bigger crewed ships.

Such an approach will reduce the costs of big ships such as RFA’s for example, increasing the chances of us actually getting them built. Also the arsenal ship being a much simplified vessel (except for the secure network infrastructure) should be relatively simple to build quickly…

They would also allow our carriers to have their own organic AAW capability without the risk of generating FOD every time you fire a missile or if a destroyer runs low on missiles rather than trying to reload at sea of run back to the nearest port, it could pull back a safe distance to hook up with an arsenal ship.

Develop the arsenal ship con-ops inline with current technology and they could come along sooner than we think.

Cheers CR

CR, great post. Just read the article over on Lookout, really interesting concept.
I always find it interesting how we picture a taskgroup operating at sea, mainly driven by nonsense PR photos that we seem to self-generate for NavyNews. The range and speed of munitions have seen the surface and sub-surface picture expand incredibly. Operating over-the-horizon i becoming an increasingly normal method of working and Arsenal Ships may have their place in systems-led offensive and defensive capability.
NavyX are doing some really good unspoken work under Admiral Parkin to develop these concepts and saving the Fleet from tedious trials work as a consequence.

Thanks. NDG

6 is unrealistic. 2-3 will be enough as an sea landing these days with 24/7 drone coverage would be insanely difficult and risky. The only reason the Falklands worked was Argentina didn’t see it coming from the specific beach, if they had it would have been a very different outcome, which they would with how drones have been used in the Ukraine war. Add another 10-20 years (likely enter service date) and networked land based surveillance drones will be cheap as chips and it will be near impossible to get the jump on anyone.

A distributed and fast helo landing backed up from f35s from the carriers is probably the only viable solution as landing crafts would just be too slow and spotted and destroyed easily.

We need to accept the drone has changed warfare. However if you accept your premise that landing craft are to slow. The same can be said for any land based vehicle. Indeed on a separate thread on here in relation to Boxer the need for a drone protection was raised. Landing craft are no different. Indeed the USMC are looking at such protection for their LCAC.
Again I still think a fleet of six would give much more flexibility. Aiming to have four in service. One being used as West Indies guard ship. In that role and providing cover in the Hurricane season. One other vessel could be rotated through the Falkland Islands perhaps with a flight of F35 onboard. The beauty of an amphibious force is you never know where it will strike. Or even if. Without Intel you never know its strength or capabilities. With landing craft you can land a main battle tank or a rifle section.
Drones are defeatable by EW or good old fashioned AD.
The last UK landing craft lost in enemy action was lost because we had crap AD. Not against drones but a fast jet.

Yep. The challenge with a landing craft is the drone doesn’t need to attack it, it just needs to identify its location for artillery / missiles to be sent it’s way. A ship providing air defence can help defend the landing craft but their slow speed gives plenty of time for saturation attacks and land forces to be moved into place.

Helicopters are hugely risky also as both Ukraine and Russia have found but probably have a better chance of getting through before significant reinforcements can be brought in by the enemy.

I suspect it will be some time before a realistic defence can be found against drones, especially ones used just for surveillance.

I fully agree that every front line military vehicle needs drone counter measures.

It’s an interesting point though about getting armour ashore. Today we could probably land maybe 10 tanks with the fleet number (but that would take up room for troops) and then would need to taxi them in, realistically any beach landing needs the fire power to not need tanks as they will take too long.

They need something like boxer or foxhound armed with brimstone or similar.

At least one will need to be in the PCRS role, so although 2-3 might be enough for doing an amphib landing, it’s not enough to also provide a floating hospital.

Part of me thinks not having a dedicated hospital ship is a mistake. The other part saws in a war would an enemy really not target it, at which point it needs defensive capabilites.

The issue is right now argue has very limited defensive capability, considering it would have to operate close to shore.

Argus is not a hospital ship though, it’s PCRS.

It’s not a Hospital Ship, it’s a Primary Casualty Receiving Ship, which means it has defensive capabilities, in line with every other RFA.

It also doesn’t need to operate close to shore, a Merlin has a range of over 1,000km. Even if you want to do a round trip without refuelling on RFA Argus, that’s still several hundred kilometers offshore.

At the end of the day you’re going to want to have a Role 3 afloat, both for supporting naval operations and for off shore support to land forces, and that means a ship to carry it, and that means that whatever is carrying it will not be carrying amphibious forces to put ashore.

It’s be realistic argus is a hospital ship it just doesn’t meet the Geneva convention definition as it is armed. It would operate in the same way as one in a war situation.

My point was when we replace argus switching it to a proper hospital ship the right way to go.

No, Steve, there are very important differences between a PCRS and a Hospital ship and just “not meeting the Geneva convention definition because it’s armed” is by far not the be all and end all of it, and if you understood that you’d understand that switching it to a proper hospital ship is NOT the right way to go.

Because: Under the terms of the international Red Cross once you put a red cross on a platform (Vehicle, Aircraft, Ship etc) that platform becomes a medical facility IN PERPETUITY. That means you can not simply scrub off the red crosses and use it as something else, you can’t change your mind and put CIWS and CAMM farms on it. It will always be a hospital ship. It’ll always have to be painted white, and always will have to have a red cross. It will never be allowed to transport ammunition, or airframes, or troops, or anything else that might be militarily useful, because doing so is a war crime.

This is why RAF Chinooks in Afghanistan, even when they where dedicated MERT assets NEVER where painted with red crosses, because one day in the future in their career they might be needed to transport a HAF, or resupply a FOB, or any number of non-medical functions.

Argus is NOT a hospital ship because it has secondary roles as an Aviation Training ship and Amphibious Assault Platform (and now has been re-rolled into a Littoral Strike Ship). These jobs would be illegal if she was a Hospital ship instead of a PCRS. (This is also why genuine hospital ships are very rare btw).

Argus remains one of the most versatile and flexible ships in the RFA’s inventory (perhaps even the Royal Navy’s as a whole), and any worthwhile replacement needs to bring the same flexibility and ability to pivot between roles as needed.

And replacing her with a “proper Hospital ship” achieves exactly what? Even with her flexibility, RFA Argus carries a Role 3 afloat hospital. If you aren’t familiar with NATO medical facility classifications, Role 3 afloat is the highest level you can achieve without being a permanent medical facility back in your home country. Asking for a Hospital Ship, painted white with big red crosses nets you 0 uplift in actual medical capability.

Dern, completely correct and really well explained. Thank you.
 
There is a really interesting example of the real-life consequences of this in Ken Privratsky’s Logistics in the Falklands (great book, would recommend to anyone who wants to understand how campaigning is actually sustained/possible.)
The intention was to use RY BRITANNIA in her secondary role as a hospital ship, which was a long-term justification for funding the hull in the first place. However, it would have meant an end to future flexibility of operations. No more RM guards; no more occasional sneaky Int tasks; no more use as a floating Royal bunker if the Russians came over the hill. There was even the question of whether the RN could continue to crew her (she also had a unique lube oil requirement that would have made sustainment difficult, but that’s too loggy-geeky even for me.)

The SS Uganda was taken up from trade and had the Red Cross painting treatment instead. The Hague Conventions meant that any personnel recovered to her were not allowed to re-enter the conflict. Numerous vignettes of fairly minor injuries resulting in significant personnel having to be returned to the UK, which can be avoided through using a PCRS. I think there was also so real hassle in ‘re-militarising HMS HECLA which has been serving as an ‘ambulance’.

The decision to maintain ARGUS consequently after the conflict was partly informed by the limitations of a dedicated ‘His Majesty’s Hospital Ship’ UGANDA.

Cheers, NDG

I will of course self-correct to Her Majesty’s… it was 1982 after all

Really informative reply. I had no idea about the rules concerning hospital ships. Thank you!!!

I thought the Dutch wanted a single class to replace their LPD and their Holland OPVs. Quite a big ask. Add in the preference for a thru’ deck design and hence the Portuguese Damen MPSS choice.
I suspect the RN would like half a dozen San Antonio class LPDs. Very expensive. Maybe we can afford 6x 2 spot Enforcers, but then you have compromised what you want for the sake of having a single class. I wonder if committing to just 3 is a way of keeping open the option of a 2 class fallback solution of some kind – 3 LPDs and 3 Bay LSD replacements?

6 through decks would be my hope, offering adaptability as drone technology improves while also adding diversification in the extreme need of ships f35s could recover too

Fantasy I know lol

Evening SB, just three of anything doesn’t seem enough. But a three of a more tier one heavier armed design (San Antonio type) and three of lighter armed (Enforcer/Ellida/Bay type) tier two might be what they go for. The two Damien designs do look pretty neat and functional and could be good for littoral/regional support. BAE had a LHD design that looked like Ocean, helo deck with dock plus 40/57mm and RAM/CIWS, if the carriers aren’t available then something this could still be very useful for force projection and insertion, supporting MRSS and even used as a mother shop for drones. Maybe we’re asking for too much… Lol 😁?

My personal preference is similar to yours, but taken to an extreme.
Firstly, three extra large LPD with full defensive fit, 5″, CAMM etc to be operated by the Navy. These form the LRGs and provide large scale raiding and commando insertion. An example would be a three-spot Enforcer.
Secondly we buy at least three ships along the lines of another Damen design called the Landing Ship Transport, LST 120A. This is a very large oceangoing landing craft with an open vehicle and working deck. It can put any size of vehicle ashore over a beach (assuming it can wade) or onto any quayside in shallow water.
The deck also carries 2 LCVP sized landing craft or CIC so it can act as a normal landing ship or carry MCM boats. There is a crane for unloading containers at the dockside.
The armament would be 1 or 2 Phalanx or demountable 40mm rotated under the current system. The A variant includes a hangar for UAVs or a medium helicopter at the expense of an extra 2 LCVP davits.
My idea is that these would be operated by the RFA as purely logistics vessels. They would be very useful for Carribbean or Baltic work where there are either limited depth or a lack of facilities.
Their other advantage is that they deliver vehicles of any size ashore without a need for a connector. Given that there is no replacement for LC(U) at present (though I think we should get the Wyvern LCAC from Griffon hoverwork as a British design for the LPDs), this capability would partially replace them.

I suspect the navy doesn’t want a LHD, because they are scared it will impact the carriers.

Evening Mr Bell! Yes, we’re the same on this. And thank you for saying LPHD too, I 💭 I had left out a letter!

You mean like the current order of warships and support ships that are already contracted for the next decade? Where is the dockyard space in the next 5 years for this new class if you think it’s needed now? Maybe deal with people so the Albions could return to service might be a more immediate solution?

I’m saying we have to think about the future as well as the present. Sorting out one at the expense of the other is a bad idea. There are multiple problems that need to be considered holistically. The Albion class is RN crewed, which won’t help the RFA situation, which is even more urgent. Then as you say, there’s the dock space problem, and I suspect, the availability of maintenance engineers. We need to do it all.

Are you asking if I think 600 crew should be assigned to the ships of the Albion class? I don’t think that’s the priority. I want to see escort availability rise first. The sale of Argyll shocked me. I hope that after PIP, destroyer availability will increase, and any increase in crew numbers should go there preferentially.

What new class? MRSS? It isn’t needed now. FSSS is needed now, and the Chancellor has just messed that up. Should we get Bulwark out of dry dock? Absolutely. And that’s with or without available crew. Air is free and steel is cheap, but dry docks come at significant cost. I’m not suggesting that Arrowhead 140 should have been thrown out because it didn’t fit in the current frigate docks in Devonport, just that the plan needs to be joined up and all costs included.