The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[swerve]

What I meant by the term 'reserve' is that in a protracted conflict scenario Ocean could remain in UK controlled waters on stand-by to relieve one or both of the QE's deployed. Once the high-tempo assault operations are over and the RN deems it appropriate to maintain only a command & control / hospital / technical support function, then Ocean can step up to the plate....

If all goes according to plan the RN could potentially rotate two ARG's one after another in a staggered format, and still have fat (Ocean) for extreme emergencies, as follows:

....
If one of the QE's is in refit and not on its scheduled training cycle then Ocean would have to step-up as the primary vessel in the Bravo ARG. The second QE would then be rushed back into service and travel to theatre with the extended reserve.

If you look at the plans, this will be a common occurrence, & when both CVFs are operational, Ocean often won't be. With three ships, you'll only have all three ready to go perhaps half of the time Therefore, you can't plan on the basis of two CVFs with Ocean as the backup: you have to plan on the basis of one CVF + A. N. Other flat-top.

If you're lucky, someone will attack you when all three are in service, but that has to be treated as a bonus, not your operations plan, & in that case, you'll probably take into account such things as crew readiness, maintenance state & so on when picking a ship to stay in reserve, not automatically hold back Ocean (or her replacement), although the advantages of having two CVFs would certainly be an important factor in the choice.

 

[FluffyThoughts]

Just a thought - triggered by a comment TinWing left at KP - but if PoW is to be re-designated as an LPH(R) are we sure that we have enough choppers to make this viable? Or is she to act as a storage facility as we rotate the airframes...? :wah

[Nice new emoticons by-the-by!]

 

[riksavage]

Just a thought - triggered by a comment TinWing left at KP - but if PoW is to be re-designated as an LPH(R) are we sure that we have enough choppers to make this viable? Or is she to act as a storage facility as we rotate the airframes...? :wah

[Nice new emoticons by-the-by!]

The size of the lifts and associated maintenance / storage facilities on both the QE and POW means the full range of rotary aircraft can be carried. So expect to see Chinook and Apache deployed on a more frequent basis. Remember 3 Commando Brigade has dedicated lift in the form of SeaKing, if Ocean's out, then these will be deployed aboard the designated LHP.

With the UK finally embracing the potential opportunities offered by UAV/UCAV I also anticipate both Carriers will be used to support unmanned operations. BAE and others are spending a serious amount of energy, time and money on better, faster, longer range platforms, which I believe will start to increasingly dominate both land and sea operations where long loiter times are required. I'm convinced the UK will look at the potential of deploying Watchkeeper or a similar platform for surveillance gathering in a littoral environment in support of 3 Commando Brigade. You could very easily position one of the mobile C&C units inside the QE hanger to test the viability of using a fixed wing UAV at sea. The only ? mark - is the deck long enough and what sea state limitations apply? I understand that Watchkeeper comes with an automated take off and landing function, so this might be adaptable for the maritime environment.

The QE's will cause the UK to re-write maritime doctrine, they will become all things to all men - true tri-service purple assets.

 

[riksavage]

Posted twice, thus deleted the second time around

 

[MrQuintus]

This crap about the PoW being an LPH is just that, crap. even to run at current operational tempo it would mean ordering a 3rd QE class carrier (currently running 2x Invincible class + ocean), and I really doubt that's going to happen.

The RN requirement for 2 hulls to replace ocean has been on the books for years, and while ocean has a supposed end of life date of 2018, I'm pretty sure this will be extended, 2 JCIs would cost less than a 3rd CVF hull and maintain the current capability of having both an LPH and Carrier at sea .

 

[citizen578]

This crap about the PoW being an LPH is just that, crap. even to run at current operational tempo it would mean ordering a 3rd QE class carrier (currently running 2x Invincible class + ocean), and I really doubt that's going to happen.

The RN requirement for 2 hulls to replace ocean has been on the books for years, and while ocean has a supposed end of life date of 2018, I'm pretty sure this will be extended, 2 JCIs would cost less than a 3rd CVF hull and maintain the current capability of having both an LPH and Carrier at sea .

The planned decomissioning date of Ocean is 2022, not 2018.

Nothing said in the recent flurry of articles contains anything new. It was ludicrous speculation based on thin air. Perhaps the folks on Fleet St are getting bored of writing about MP expenses...

The QEs can (as is planned) maintain a higer joint availability rate than the current ships, so building a third with availability as a rationale is a non-starter.

We're quite some time away from having to replace/augment Ocean, but I'm highly unconvinced by JCI. Ocean was one of the few happy-ending procurement stories of late. She was cheap, and is highly effective in her role. The amphib fleet is probably the only area of the naval service which is not in a depressing state.

I really think we should call an end to discussing the pathetically inaccurate ramblings of Mr Smith down at the Times, and get back to adding news and discussion of genuinely consequential and significant developments.

 

[MrQuintus]

The planned decomissioning date of Ocean is 2022, not 2018.

Nothing said in the recent flurry of articles contains anything new. It was ludicrous speculation based on thin air. Perhaps the folks on Fleet St are getting bored of writing about MP expenses...

The QEs can (as is planned) maintain a higer joint availability rate than the current ships, so building a third with availability as a rationale is a non-starter.

We're quite some time away from having to replace/augment Ocean, but I'm highly unconvinced by JCI. Ocean was one of the few happy-ending procurement stories of late. She was cheap, and is highly effective in her role. The amphib fleet is probably the only area of the naval service which is not in a depressing state.

I really think we should call an end to discussing the pathetically inaccurate ramblings of Mr Smith down at the Times, and get back to adding news and discussion of genuinely consequential and significant developments.

Higher joint availability? Sure they're conventionally powered ships and so wont have the issue of 12 month refits, but major overhauls are still going to take up to 6 months, and so to maintain the current state of having both a designated aircraft carrier and a designated LPH available to deploy at any one time a minimum of 3 hulls is needed if they are all to be of the same class, as is the situation now with Ark Royal, Illustrius and Ocean.

As for JCI, the whole point is that it would be a licensed existing design, and cheap, at lroughly £300 million per hull (perhaps more with RNs chosen fitout, the aussie versions are set to cost about £450 million as I recall), Ocean cost £150 million 15 years ago and JC I has the added gift of the well deck which while not always being used for Amphib assault can certainly be useful to mothership gun boats, which would nicely avoid any more RN RHIB debacles.

Oh, and as for quite some time, an LPH replacement program, even for an extended out of service date, will need to start shortly after (or even slightly before) PoW is commisioned for capability gap not to happen, the aussies have allowed 5 years from first cut to commision of the Canberra class, soit's not as if we'll have a long time to sit around picking the design before we need to get it built, especially if we plan to have a big chunk of the work in our own shipyards.

 

[swerve]

... Ocean cost £150 million 15 years ago....

Don't forget that we were undercharged for Ocean (IIRC the builders lost money on her) & had to spend more on her pretty soon. I believe a realistic price would have been £200 million or a little more, which is about £300 mn in todays money. Still a good buy, IMO.

BTW, I agree with you that a BPE variant would be the ideal replacement. The CVF dock would be the ideal place to build it. If there's any scheduling difficulty, we could get some blocks built elsewhere, e.g. Poland, & brought to the UK for assembly & fit out. But I'd settle for a Mistral, or for that matter, just about anything in the LPH/LHD line, just as long as she is replaced.

Nothing said in the recent flurry of articles contains anything new. It was ludicrous speculation based on thin air.

Indeed.

 

[Systems Adict]

Seeing as I've been out of the loop for the last few weeks, (due to work commitments / being on a 'cruise') I thought I'd post these links, as no-one else has....

Type 45 - BAE Systems

BAE Systems acquires VT Group?s stake in BVT - BAE Systems

HMS Diamond sets sail - The Daily Record

(Info about Type 45 & their manufacturer)

SA

 

[StingrayOZ]

As for JCI, the whole point is that it would be a licensed existing design, and cheap, at lroughly £300 million per hull (perhaps more with RNs chosen fitout, the aussie versions are set to cost about £450 million as I recall), Ocean cost £150 million 15 years ago and JC I has the added gift of the well deck which while not always being used for Amphib assault can certainly be useful to mothership gun boats, which would nicely avoid any more RN RHIB debacles.

Oh, and as for quite some time, an LPH replacement program, even for an extended out of service date, will need to start shortly after (or even slightly before) PoW is commisioned for capability gap not to happen, the aussies have allowed 5 years from first cut to commision of the Canberra class, so it's not as if we'll have a long time to sit around picking the design before we need to get it built, especially if we plan to have a big chunk of the work in our own shipyards.

So realistically you are looking at 2 CVF (QE/PoW) and 2 LHA/D. If your going to cut costs I would be cutting the costs of the the LHA/D rather than the QE/PoW with a reduced fitout.

JC1 has a great deal of capability including refuelling, fixed wing carrier, amphibious landing/assalt, humanitarian, sea lift, rotorary carrier, troop mover. To be sure it needs to be prep'd before undertanking each of these missions, but you have that potential.

Mistral doesn't have that flexability, I don't know if it can hanger a Chinook, Harrier, Osprey, definately not a F-35. And you get significantly better troop/sealift capabilities (~30% greater).

 

[riksavage]

So realistically you are looking at 2 CVF (QE/PoW) and 2 LHA/D. If your going to cut costs I would be cutting the costs of the the LHA/D rather than the QE/PoW with a reduced fitout.

JC1 has a great deal of capability including refuelling, fixed wing carrier, amphibious landing/assalt, humanitarian, sea lift, rotorary carrier, troop mover. To be sure it needs to be prep'd before undertanking each of these missions, but you have that potential.

Mistral doesn't have that flexability, I don't know if it can hanger a Chinook, Harrier, Osprey, definately not a F-35. And you get significantly better troop/sealift capabilities (~30% greater).

There is no way the RN can afford two QE's and two JC's. Not with the current pressure from the Army wanting priority on spending. So best case scenario will be 2 x QE's with enough STOVL to fully equip one, thus maintaining the planned maximum sortie rate of 110 STOVL over a 24hr period or 250 over 5 days. The second will be in maintenance / training or designated as a helo LHP.

The primary reason why the UK decided to step up from three Invinciple's to two QE's is the sortie rate issue. Crucial to this is the speed at which F35B's can be turned around (maintained, fueled and bombed-up) and put back in the air. The post Falklands RN studies and subsequent research by the USMC focused on these issues, hence the USMC ultimately settled on the Wasp Class as the minimum size of platform FFR.

Ref JC1 - Does anyone have any idea about fixed wing sortie rates? The problem with many of the newer LHP's IMHO is they are aimed at fulfilling too many roles, which means sacrifices have to be made. I'm a little sceptical that some, which claim to be STOVL capable, could realistically maintain a credible 24-7 fixed wing air-group over an extended period? Being able to host a brace of airframes is one thing, ensuring you can maintain CAP/CAS on station 24-7 is another.

 

[swerve]

There is no way the RN can afford two QE's and two JC's. Not with the current pressure from the Army wanting priority on spending. So best case scenario will be 2 x QE's with enough STOVL to fully equip one, thus maintaining the planned maximum sortie rate of 110 STOVL over a 24hr period or 250 over 5 days. The second will be in maintenance / training or designated as a helo LHP. ...

What we're officially aiming at is two QEs & an LPH, so we can have one carrier & one LPH, or two carriers of which one will be operating as an LPH, in service at any given time. That's the current situation, & what we're aiming at with QE, PoW, & Ocean until she retires, & then with her successor, for which I'll keep my fingers crossed. Let's hope public finances are a bit better in 10 years.

 

[StingrayOZ]

The primary reason why the UK decided to step up from three Invinciple's to two QE's is the sortie rate issue. Crucial to this is the speed at which F35B's can be turned around (maintained, fueled and bombed-up) and put back in the air. The post Falklands RN studies and subsequent research by the USMC focused on these issues, hence the USMC ultimately settled on the Wasp Class as the minimum size of platform FFR.

Wasp does have the ultimate compromise. Decent as a outright carrier (as in able to operate a full on station 24/7 fixed wing, huge amphibious capability. Anything else is going to be a compromise (even as a carrier the yanks know they are compromises so the new America without the dock.).

Ref JC1 - Does anyone have any idea about fixed wing sortie rates? The problem with many of the newer LHP's IMHO is they are aimed at fulfilling too many roles, which means sacrifices have to be made. I'm a little sceptical that some, which claim to be STOVL capable, could realistically maintain a credible 24-7 fixed wing air-group over an extended period? Being able to host a brace of airframes is one thing, ensuring you can maintain CAP/CAS on station 24-7 is another.

If your looking at 20-30000t Cavour is the carrier, JC1 is the compromise and Mistral is the low cost amphib.

To convert the JC1 to a carrier you really have to convert the lower area to fuel storeage as its pretty dam light. Or have a fleet oiler nearby the whole time. There are no aircraft maintence facilities as such so unless you can containerise them its only good for short jaunts or high aircraft rotation. (ie load it up with 30 and then spread the hours amoung all 30 or unload and laod).

 

[swerve]

To convert the JC1 to a carrier you really have to convert the lower area to fuel storeage as its pretty dam light. Or have a fleet oiler nearby the whole time. There are no aircraft maintence facilities as such so unless you can containerise them its only good for short jaunts or high aircraft rotation. (ie load it up with 30 and then spread the hours amoung all 30 or unload and laod).

The Armada is buying containerised maintenance facilities, & I presume some plug-in extra bunkerage & weapons storage. The changeover to carrier role involves fitting the extra kit (much of it in the vehicle deck, I assume), & sealing up the dock gate. But she'll just be an auxiliary carrier even for them, doing the carrier role only when the primary carrier is out of action.

If the RN got one, I'd not see her as ever being fitted out as a carrier. At most as an aircraft transport & back-up deck for one CVF when the other one is not in service, & for emergency landings.

 

[MrQuintus]

What we're officially aiming at is two QEs & an LPH, so we can have one carrier & one LPH, or two carriers of which one will be operating as an LPH, in service at any given time. That's the current situation, & what we're aiming at with QE, PoW, & Ocean until she retires, & then with her successor, for which I'll keep my fingers crossed. Let's hope public finances are a bit better in 10 years.

Exactly, right now nobody should even be trying to bring up our LPH situation, far more pressing is the RN need for escorts, though at least the R&D spend is done of the Type 45, so a nice excuse exists to build a stack of massive hulls as FSC1/2 and then upgrade them all at a later date to essentially a single class with the 45s (oh for the days when 36 first rate escorts across 3 classes wasn't asking too much), and then pray for as good a C3 hull as we can get.


Oh, and don't forget that the Archers are coming to the end of their lives and the Astute class needs a decision (and more hulls ordered, especially if any delays in Vanguard replacement happen), and MARS etc.

And by the time we're through with all that it'll be tme to start thinking about Albion class replacement and start the whole cycle again

Such a shame to be stuck in land war just as the Navy enters a phase of near total reprocurement, hopefully the fear of losing face on the world stage will be enough to get cameron to loosen the purse strings.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I really hope you guys get your stuff sorted. Britain has always been a major power on the waves and the world really needs a 2nd independant force regardless of any super power(s) to provide balance. The USN is powerful but its not everywhere, and US interests a not the same as UK interests. Sometimes US presence is not what is required (ecalation etc).

Atleast your carrier/LPH discussion is a positivish one. Surface escorts are looking sad indeed, I can't help but think all this european holding hands together building naval ships hasn't had the cost savings people have though it would.

Proberly a good thing Australia is getting 12 x 7,000 destroyers (hulls), 12 x supersubs (still non nuke but most likely nuke sized), 2 x LHD's and 20 x OCV's(2000t). I doubt we will be able to rely on the UK for task group leadership/coverage or major assets in the future. Things like SSN's from the UK support international security and support colonal navies who can't/don't/shouldn't have em. Destroyers to protect local international hojpoj fleets etc.

When the UK ferk up its defence spending, it does actually have larger international concequences.

India is now flat out heading towards SSN's and some sort of carrier fleet, Pakistan will most likely try to match it or counter it, Australia is announcing dramatic defence spendings. Malyasia and Singapore aren't sitting still. Half a dozen Pacific nations are less than stable. Zimbabwe is acting as hair brained as ever.

Im not saying the UK is responsible for that, but declining superpowers has opened the door to regional pressures again. The US has said its not going to fix all the worlds problems. China would welcome the opportunity to build and display power.

If the RN got one, I'd not see her as ever being fitted out as a carrier. At most as an aircraft transport & back-up deck for one CVF when the other one is not in service, & for emergency landings.

And thats exactly what it should be used for. But you do have some flexability above and beyond its impressive amphibious capability.

 

[riksavage]

I really hope you guys get your stuff sorted. Britain has always been a major power on the waves and the world really needs a 2nd independant force regardless of any super power(s) to provide balance. The USN is powerful but its not everywhere, and US interests a not the same as UK interests. Sometimes US presence is not what is required (ecalation etc).

Atleast your carrier/LPH discussion is a positivish one. Surface escorts are looking sad indeed, I can't help but think all this european holding hands together building naval ships hasn't had the cost savings people have though it would.

Proberly a good thing Australia is getting 12 x 7,000 destroyers (hulls), 12 x supersubs (still non nuke but most likely nuke sized), 2 x LHD's and 20 x OCV's(2000t). I doubt we will be able to rely on the UK for task group leadership/coverage or major assets in the future. Things like SSN's from the UK support international security and support colonal navies who can't/don't/shouldn't have em. Destroyers to protect local international hojpoj fleets etc.

When the UK ferk up its defence spending, it does actually have larger international concequences.

India is now flat out heading towards SSN's and some sort of carrier fleet, Pakistan will most likely try to match it or counter it, Australia is announcing dramatic defence spendings. Malyasia and Singapore aren't sitting still. Half a dozen Pacific nations are less than stable. Zimbabwe is acting as hair brained as ever.

Im not saying the UK is responsible for that, but declining superpowers has opened the door to regional pressures again. The US has said its not going to fix all the worlds problems. China would welcome the opportunity to build and display power.


And thats exactly what it should be used for. But you do have some flexability above and beyond its impressive amphibious capability.

We have to stop looking at each service individually. You can't make comments about the state of the RN without looking at the other services and their requirements.

IMHO Australia should have a bigger Navy (including carrier strike) than the UK when you take into consideration the size of the coastline and lack of strategic partners in the region when benchmarked against the UK's geographical and geopolitical situation within the EU (futher enhanced by the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty).

The UK needs to make a decision as to whether it will operate purely within the realms of NATO/EU or seek to maintain a fully independent expeditionary warfare capability outside that of NATO. Historically the size of the RN has been driven by Empire and the need to protect trade routes and the colonies (against fellow European Powers in most cases), this no longer applies.

The desire to beat ones chest with an overt show of strength may have to be sacrificed to fund the less cut and dry assets needed to counter the threat represented by non-state sponsored attacks against UK interests. The increasing threat of asymmetric conflict, failed states and the growing impact of climate change are all going to contribute to a seismic shift in the global population distribution, which will ultimately cause more and more Somalia / A-Stan failed states to raise their ugly heads, this type of threat can't be mitigated by large shiny Destroyer and Frigate fleets. The traditional concept of building ones military to deal with a conventional or nuclear conflict sponsored by a foreign power is no longer a priority. Remember not only does the UK have to fund the army, navy and airforce but also the increasing size of its domestic and foreign intelligence gathering capabilities from GCHQ, military satellites, Box500 right through to SIS agent networks.

The UK's overt military presence will continue to shrink, whilst it's ability to carry-out precision operations against non-state sponsored targets will increase. We will see further increases in funding and size of the UK Special Forces footprint and better strategic / operational intelligence gathering. If this means fewer regular infantry battalions and only six T45's, then so be it.

The next defence review will embrace more than just the three traditional services (Army / Navy & Airforce) and if, as I hope, we start to see an more inventive approach we might even see the creation of a fourth arm (Corp of Engineers embracing civilian and military expertise for reconstruction supplementing the toothless DFID in conflict zones). The next review will see a step change in approach, either the UK will:

1. Focus on strategic raiding - Build and maintain the RN's expeditionary ability (carrier and LHP's) at the expense of a heavy army (heavy armour, artillery etc), switching instead to a light / medium force with a high concentration of SF, light Infantry and medium tracked/wheeled vehicles. Renew SSBN fleet, or

2. Shrink the Navies surface fleet and reduce the ARG so it is only capable of operating within a NATO/EU force (cancel QE's and order JC look-alikes), build more SSN's, renew SSBN's and expand the army and associated strategic and operational lift (increased numbers of C17, Helo's, UCAV/UAV etc) to focus on the assymetrical threat at home and abroad, or

3. Reduce the military across all three services and invest heavily in intelligence gathering and the prosecution of covert operations via domestic, foreign intelligence services, advanced UAV/UCAV and increased SF capabilities. Supplement this with a smaller land army (say 20 regular Infantry battalions) plus support aimed at protecting the UK mainland and overseas interests in garrison form (Falklands) supported by strategic lift, CAP sqns (Typhoon) and new C2/C3 assets (focusing purely on sea-lane protection in support of the merchant marine). Ditch ARG and instead maintain an increased SSN fleet as the primary strategic force multiplier all capable of firing nuclear armed cruise missiles at the expense of renewing the SSBN fleet..

 

[Ananda]

Seems Two CVF on track

http://www.defencemanagement.com/new...y.asp?id=11101

Tuesday, November 03, 2009

Both the Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales aircraft carriers will be able to carry the joint strike fighter (JSF) according to defence equipment and support minister Quentin Davies. Speaking in the House of Commons he also rubbished the Gray Report's claim that there was a £2bn annual overspend in the MoD's equipment programme.

In October, it was reported that government would downgrade either the Queen Elizabeth or the Prince of Wales carrier, taking away their ability to carry the JSF. Reports stated the MoD was looking to save money on the 65,000 tonne carriers, which are already £1bn over budget.

Davies said reports the carrier plans were to be scaled down were "complete rubbish".

"There is no suggestion at all, and there has never been in our minds at all, to re-specify the two aircraft carriers," he said.

"There has been no change in that programme, and neither has there been any change in our JSF programme. We are already committed to purchasing the first three aircraft."

He also said there was "no evidential basis" to the statement in the Gray report that between £1bn and £2.2bn was being lost each year as a result of failure to control equipment spending.

"The very fact that the range is between £1bn and two point something billion shows how imprecise that statement inevitably would be," said Davies.

I got it from other forum, which I believe some of you guys also playing there (Key Publishing Forum) . So I don't think is a news any more. I'm putting her just to ask questions, where this discussions on British LPH/LHD comming from ??

Bear with me, not trying to cook up anything, just seems the UK Defense ministry does not show even a plan to replace HMS Ocean yet as sole UK's LPH.
Seems 2 full specs CVF is the best thing Royal navy could hope for capital ships in the future. Don't know if any one can provide some credible links that this suppose additional LPH/LHG after the Ocean is something that's credible, or just 'wishfull' discussions.

Appologize if my bad english can be thought as attempt on trolling, which I don't have slight inttentions.

 

[riksavage]

I got it from other forum, which I believe some of you guys also playing there (Key Publishing Forum) . So I don't think is a news any more. I'm putting her just to ask questions, where this discussions on British LPH/LHD comming from ??

Bear with me, not trying to cook up anything, just seems the UK Defense ministry does not show even a plan to replace HMS Ocean yet as sole UK's LPH.
Seems 2 full specs CVF is the best thing Royal navy could hope for capital ships in the future. Don't know if any one can provide some credible links that this suppose additional LPH/LHG after the Ocean is something that's credible, or just 'wishfull' discussions.

Appologize if my bad english can be thought as attempt on trolling, which I don't have slight inttentions.

If the UK opts for two fully spec'd QE's then there is no rush for a replacement LHP. A single QE is more capable than two Invinciples and one Ocean put together. MARS, T23 CAMM upgrade, C1 & C2 are far more important. Plus the rest of Europe are 'breeding' LHP's like rabbits, so in a major conflab I'm sure the NATO fleet will have more than enough in tow to host JHF assets. Having 2 x Albions and 4 x Bays in service means you could realistically carry Helo's aboard a single dual-role QE and then cross-deck them to the Albion/Bays when the ARG crosses the exclusion zone.

I also note the RN has just purchased new and upgraded LCAC's to compliment the MK5's and 10's. The new craft come with inproved navigation, thermal kit and enhanced protection, plus they can be shoved in the back of a 'C130' apparently, though looking at the width I doubt it, C17 maybe? The only thing missing is a remote weapons station. More toys for the SBS to play with!

All news : RN Live : News and Events : Royal Navy

 

[swerve]

If the UK opts for two fully spec'd QE's then there is no rush for a replacement LHP. A single QE is more capable than two Invinciples and one Ocean put together. MARS, T23 CAMM upgrade, C1 & C2 are far more important. Plus the rest of Europe are 'breeding' LHP's like rabbits, so in a major conflab I'm sure the NATO fleet will have more than enough in tow to host JHF assets. Having 2 x Albions and 4 x Bays in service means you could realistically carry Helo's aboard a single dual-role QE and then cross-deck them to the Albion/Bays when the ARG crosses the exclusion zone.

The problem with this is that there will often be only one QE in service, & I don't buy the dual-role thing. It can't provide fixed-wing air support & amphibious lift at the same time.

Moving the helicopters over to the LPDs & LSDs won't work either. We chose to build LPDs & LSDs without hangars or helicopter support facilities, apart from a landing deck, & the former don't have anywhere to put a hangar or anything else. The whole LPD/LSD fleet combined can hold (not support) about half as many helicopters as Ocean carries. We'd have to operate some kind of shuttle from the carrier, interfering with fixed-wing operations, at just the time when they'd be most needed.

In order to provide any kind of heliborne assault capability while providing fixed wing air cover, we need a QE for the air cover, & a second ship for the helicopter assault. It isn't just about the capabilities of individual ships, but what functions they can perform at one time.

We also need to consider how many we'll actually have available at once. With 2 x QE, 1 x LPH, & 2 x LPD, we have the following combinations -

2 x QE + 2 x LPD
1 x QE + 1 x LPH + 2 x LPD
2 x QE + 1 x LPH + 1 x LPD
The Bays will be on a cycle aimed to provide maximum numbers when only 1 LPD is available.

Makes sense, doesn't it? We always have a carrier, plus a ship available for heliborne assault. But take away the LPH, & we're sometimes lacking that. We'd be down to -
2 x QE + 1 x LPD
1 x QE + 2 x LPD

BTW, if you put a dozen assault helicopters & 6 Lynx or AW159 (i.e. what Ocean carries) on a CVF, what does it do to the fixed-wing capacity? I'm assuming you'll do without the 800 troops (i.e. more than 2 LPD or LSD loads) & landing craft which Ocean would also bring to the party, or cram them into the LPDs & LSDs, by grossly overloading them. We'd also be losing a large proportion of our helicopter landing spots, reducing the maximum uplift considerably.

You see? With both QEs in service, no problem. But as soon as we're down to one, we're facing a very big drop in capability from the 1 QE + Ocean scenario.

As for NATO - yes, but we don't only do NATO stuff. The Falklands illustrated that, & I wouldn't want to rule out other surprises in the future. Also, nobody in Europe is building LPHs (BTW, why do you call them LHPs?): they're building LHDs & LPDs - with docks.