The Point-Class are in no way amphibious, the Bay class LSL barely so with next to no well deck (single LCU) and minimal aviation facilities - the Bays are the second-line (and employed as such), the Points are not intended for combat duty, merely follow up. Ocean is a pure vertical assault and command ship with no use for most other duties levied on a amphibious assault ship (logistics transport - limited ; vehicle transport - limited ; and so on).
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
battlensign
New Member
I do not agree at all. Any likely contingency with a large amphibious force would necessarily include CVS and their supporting medium and heavy lift helos. Bay class can operate two Ch-47s simultaneously. It may not be 4 Wasp class but it is a formidable landing force. Initial infantry landed to secure the beachhead and then comes the heavy stuff. Thats 122000 tons supported by another 138000 tons. Actually, it is more than that, because the CVSs are capable of troop transport, but I am assuming that air ops and helo support limits this in practical scenarios.
Brett.
I think you are getting bogged down in semantics and terminology here. The UK has built an amphibious assault* fleet based on experience from ops like the Falklands, and has invested in the logistics side of amphib ops as well as the assault side. Whilst its nice that the MN has 2 LHDs (with more possible) I don't see much of a logistics fleet to back it up once they have kicked the door in, unless using STUFT style leasings from the French Merchant Marine.
I don't see much point in arguing about tonnages-its what the ships can do and how they are used. Evidently from the difference in ship classes between the RN and MN the two navies views on how to do Amphibious assaults differ from one another.
(*Call it what you will, to effect landings from the sea if you like! :lol)
Last edited:
The RN has built a standardized Amphibious Task Group from Falkland experiences, to be formed out of the available ships.
This ATG would include one Albion LPD, either Ocean or a CVS as LPH component, and two Bay class LSLs. The LSLs hang back during the first wave, and would be used for a second wave reinforcement of an amphibious spearhead; they're primarily there as cargo carriers, in order to get more than just two battalions ashore in an assault.
Point class and STUFT equally get involved once harbours have been secured.
That's 40 kt followed up by 32 kt followed by whatever's available.
This ATG would include one Albion LPD, either Ocean or a CVS as LPH component, and two Bay class LSLs. The LSLs hang back during the first wave, and would be used for a second wave reinforcement of an amphibious spearhead; they're primarily there as cargo carriers, in order to get more than just two battalions ashore in an assault.
Point class and STUFT equally get involved once harbours have been secured.
That's 40 kt followed up by 32 kt followed by whatever's available.
kev 99
Member
Okay since this started as a comparison between the RN and MN's assault capabilities if you want to limit RN to what its got available at a time how much could the MN have available at any one time?
Depends on how much we trust their statistics. Technical Readiness of the Mistral LHDs has been stated at 350 days per year, each of the four units. Meaning, there'd be only 60 days where one wouldn't be available for deployment. Let's give it all the benefit of doubt, and make it three Mistrals available, two at the forefront, one hanging back. That's 44 kt followed by 22 kt followed by whatever's available.
If we actually take the French stats of 350 days per year readiness seriously, we'd have to afford the RN ATG at least the use of either the second Albion or a third LSL at any time to make it "fair".
If we include a CVS group with the RN capacity (regarding troop transport), not that unlikely, we'd have to afford the MN use of CdG with its capacity for 800 vertical-insertion troops.
If we actually take the French stats of 350 days per year readiness seriously, we'd have to afford the RN ATG at least the use of either the second Albion or a third LSL at any time to make it "fair".
If we include a CVS group with the RN capacity (regarding troop transport), not that unlikely, we'd have to afford the MN use of CdG with its capacity for 800 vertical-insertion troops.
kev 99
Member
350 days per year sounds ridiculous.
So:
RN: 40KT followed by 32 followed by available Points and STUFT
MN: 44kt followed by 22kt followed by STUFT
That rather looks like the RN have the greater capacity to me at least.
Are MN definitely getting 4 Mistral's? last I've read 3rd had been ordered and they intend to order another.
Amphibious shipping.
RN:
1 LPH of 21000 tons, plus 1 of 2 CVS available for the role (one modified to increase suitability).
2 LPD of ca 19000 tons.
4 LSD of 16000 tons (aviation capability limited, but can be increased with add-on hangar).
Support & reinforcement:
6 ro-ro transports of 23000 tons. Can unload in a sheltered anchorage if no quay available.
Emergency back-up:
1 aviation training/casualty receiving ship of 28000 tons with some amphibious capability.
1 stored CVS which may be possible to reactivate.
MN:
2 LHD of 21000 tons.
2 LPD of 12000 tons.
4 LST of 1300 tons (NB. Currently used as transports in overseas territories).
Emergency back-up:
1 helicopter cruiser/training ship of 12000 tons with limited amphibious capability
Not much comparison, really, though CdG would make an opposed amphibious operation easier. 8 docks vs 4 exaggerates the margin, since the French LPDs have much larger docks than the Bay-class, but the French have far less of everything else. Note that they've rented a Point-class a few times.
RN:
1 LPH of 21000 tons, plus 1 of 2 CVS available for the role (one modified to increase suitability).
2 LPD of ca 19000 tons.
4 LSD of 16000 tons (aviation capability limited, but can be increased with add-on hangar).
Support & reinforcement:
6 ro-ro transports of 23000 tons. Can unload in a sheltered anchorage if no quay available.
Emergency back-up:
1 aviation training/casualty receiving ship of 28000 tons with some amphibious capability.
1 stored CVS which may be possible to reactivate.
MN:
2 LHD of 21000 tons.
2 LPD of 12000 tons.
4 LST of 1300 tons (NB. Currently used as transports in overseas territories).
Emergency back-up:
1 helicopter cruiser/training ship of 12000 tons with limited amphibious capability
Not much comparison, really, though CdG would make an opposed amphibious operation easier. 8 docks vs 4 exaggerates the margin, since the French LPDs have much larger docks than the Bay-class, but the French have far less of everything else. Note that they've rented a Point-class a few times.
Last edited:
Two things: 4 Mistrals? Only two now, Will there be 4 before there's a CVF in the RN? Include CdG, & you should count TWO CVS. Count on the same basis.
Build time for the first two was something like 16 months, trials time can be cut down due to class sequence. Yes, i wouldn't see it as all that unlikely until say 2014-2015, before there's a CVF. Once the orders are approved, the French build damn fast unless there's a plan to adhere to like with the Barracudas.
We were looking at next decade.
There are three ships in the RN currently to fill both the ATG LPH and CVS slot, unless someone takes Invincible out of storage. Post-2012, there are two ships. Post-2015, we'd have to count off a QE against CdG, and only have Ocean remaining for the ATGs - with hopefully a CVS remaining for a while as second LPH. Of course said QE will likely only operate Harrier GR9 until at least 2018.
CdG will technically be available throughout the next decade with half a year taken out for a minor refueling around 2015, and looking at its list of deployment time (sea days per year) over the past 10 years, it'll be a lot more available than a single CVS.
kev99:
If we really look closely at STUFT in the current situation, the RN has a nominal advantage of having two Point class RoRos available without separate charter. Everything else - up to 50 RoRos and container ships, and that includes 4 Points - is available to both navies through MCCE MSSC.
The Mistrals were bought by the French government with the requirement for a "full" availability of 210 sea days per year for its primary mission, to be extended to 350 days when necessary. That means that there would likely be at any time two Mistrals on full alert, with a third in her last third of "regular" availability which would then be extended by up to another 140 days, making 3 Mistrals available for a mission immediately.
Within the current spectrum of two units, the same works along the lines of having one on full alert and the second ready to extend - at least 11 out of 12 months in a year.
kev 99
Member
Why only 2 Points available to RN?
The idea was to keep them operational and operating, besides earning some income. As soon as a ship is laid up, much of the maintenance to keep the systems operational lay up as well. The Royal Navy doesn't lose much, if the ships were laid up, it would still take some time to get a new crew aboard her up and running efficiently. While the Royal Navy may have to wait a while for the ships to return, at least they are up and running efficiently when they arrive.
While I know ships aren't cars, think in these terms. If you laid up your car for a year, when it is time to start using your car you would need to change the oil, refill the gas tank with new gas, probably refill the air in the tires, etc., etc. Most likely your car wouldn't start either, requiring recharging of the battery if not replacement as well.
While I know ships aren't cars, think in these terms. If you laid up your car for a year, when it is time to start using your car you would need to change the oil, refill the gas tank with new gas, probably refill the air in the tires, etc., etc. Most likely your car wouldn't start either, requiring recharging of the battery if not replacement as well.
Two is the guaranteed minimum permanently available, not what the RN has a call on. The residual capacity of the remaining 4 is available for charter, i.e. whatever is left over that the RN doesn't use. In practice, the RN is usually using 4, with two on charter - and quite often, they're chartered by British government agencies, facilitating rapid recall.
The RN has first call on any Points it is not using, overriding their pooling for general STUFT use (i.e. if both the MN & RN wanted them, the RN could play its trump & take them), and the Points have modifications to make them more useful for military use than a standard commercial ro-ro. Those are advantages.
The whole purpose of having them built was to overcome the drawbacks of the arrangement everyone else is in. You appear to be saying that it was pointless, that the UK should just charter standard ro-ros.
Last edited:
Well, almost their equals. Keep in mind the US Navy has cut their carrier air group wings considerably. The British carriers will have two squadrons of Lightning IIs long before any US carrier. Most likely it will take the US Navy a longer period of time to place one squadron of Lightning IIs aboard all of their carriers, and much longer for more squadrons. Whereas the British carriers will more or less have their Lightning IIs available as soon as they are built.
And as I said before, the US Navy no longer carries 80-100 aircraft aboard their carriers anymore. There is only so much hangar and flight deck space available, Super Hornets are larger than Hornets, which are larger than either Intruders or Corsairs.
The British carriers will carry around 40 Lightning IIs, and have room aboard to carry more, possibly another 20. I doubt seriously the US carriers carry much more than 60 fighters today.
Budget considerations have affected both navies air groups.
And as I said before, the US Navy no longer carries 80-100 aircraft aboard their carriers anymore. There is only so much hangar and flight deck space available, Super Hornets are larger than Hornets, which are larger than either Intruders or Corsairs.
The British carriers will carry around 40 Lightning IIs, and have room aboard to carry more, possibly another 20. I doubt seriously the US carriers carry much more than 60 fighters today.
Budget considerations have affected both navies air groups.
Last edited:
It's not pointless. It provides both the RN and MCCE with transport assets. Whether it was really cost-effective, well... always a matter of juggling the numbers right. Iirc the cost factor between the ARK charter and building ships similar to the Points was rather close (but in favour of the charter). France afaik provides the residual capacity of 3 to 4 nationally chartered ships to MCCE - just like the UK is doing with the Point class, MCCE gets the residual capacity.
One point however would be that in either case, calling dibs on the own ships is just a small piece of the cake. MCCE has access to around 20 ships chartered by its members at all times, has call-up charter contracts on some 30-40 further ships, and there are dozens more available for spot charter contracts through MCCE offices. For either side.
Long time lurker here.. I have been following various Naval RSS feeds recently and becoming ever more interested in the state of the Royal Navy. Everywhere I look apart from the somewhat positive approach of some of this forums subscribers there is a depressing image painted of the Royal Navy´s future.
Having just read http://warisboring.com/?p=1727 I thought I would post a question to the more knowledgeable amongst you:
I probably won´t make any friends here but with the current Global Financial crisis hitting the UK more that any other country in Europe due to our reliance on the Financial sector, two wars and a bleak global outlook can we really afford to have two carrier groups or even one? With the F35s first orders being so expensive can we even afford to fund the airwing? Will the carriers really be any use to us due to the costs of maintaining a task force of that size operationally?
I personally was always in favour of the carrier groups (although with E2s and catapults rather than fuel hungry vtol aircraft) but now wonder if we can afford it or whether the (or some of the) funds could be better placed in a larger frigate, destroyer and submarine force and bettering the T45s to include ssms etc.
V
Having just read http://warisboring.com/?p=1727 I thought I would post a question to the more knowledgeable amongst you:
I probably won´t make any friends here but with the current Global Financial crisis hitting the UK more that any other country in Europe due to our reliance on the Financial sector, two wars and a bleak global outlook can we really afford to have two carrier groups or even one? With the F35s first orders being so expensive can we even afford to fund the airwing? Will the carriers really be any use to us due to the costs of maintaining a task force of that size operationally?
I personally was always in favour of the carrier groups (although with E2s and catapults rather than fuel hungry vtol aircraft) but now wonder if we can afford it or whether the (or some of the) funds could be better placed in a larger frigate, destroyer and submarine force and bettering the T45s to include ssms etc.
V
That's partly a financial question, but even more a political one.
We should have the armed forces we need to support our political and military priorities. At the moment, the emphasis is on expeditionary warfare - being able to fight in distant countries. So our amphibious capabilities are better than they have been for a long time. And carriers carrying strike/air-defence planes are extremely useful in support of such operations.
If it was decided that we could no longer afford to get involved in expeditionary warfare, then we wouldn't need the big carriers - or a lot of other ship types.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website