What should the future of British Ship-to-Shore manoeuvre look like?

The recent announcement of a mid-life service upgrade for the Royal Marines Viking BvS10 vehicles[1] is a reminder not only of these vehicles existence, but also their purpose; and more importantly their life span. When they were procured as replacements for the BV206s, the two primarily envisaged roles for the Royal Marines were fighting alongside the Norwegians to secure NATO’s northern flank and re-taking the Falkland Islands. Since then in true naval service spirit they have served worldwide, only being replaced by Warthogs in Afghanistan after the MOD was forced to admit they really were not designed for that scenario.  They have still proved use, as when they were used in Somaliland[2] - and are the basis of the Royal Marines land based manoeuvre capability.

 

A BvS10 Viking

Currently there are over 160 Viking’s in service with the Royal Marines Armoured Support Group…of which there are four variants; the Troop Carrying Variant (TCV) capable of carrying 2 crew plus 10 passengers; the Command Variant (CV), which carries 2 crew plus up to 8 passengers with the rear cab being basically a collection of radios/computer screens on tracks, the Repair and Recovery Variant (RRV), carrying 4 specialist maintenance vehicle mechanic crewmen and the Ambulance Variant (AV). The upgrade points towards the possibility of a fifth variant, being able to fire an 81mm mortar out of the rear cab.

 

These vehicles are going to have to be replaced at some point, probably sooner than the government or MOD would wish; a tender was announced and then withdrawn in 2008. However this surely the raises the question; can Britain in future afford to narrow its choices to vehicles which are excellent on snowy/mountainous or boggy terrain… or should a more general purpose vehicle, which perhaps has its own independent amphibious capability be considered? Should the Royal Marines perhaps have a vehicle with a direct fire version, or should they be limited to infantry fighting vehicles; should it come with a variant which can provide mobile air defence…these are questions must be fully considered before the choice is made.  

The current amphibious manoeuvre situation

The USMC alone is currently developing two vehicles, the Amphibious Combat Vehicle and the Marine Personnel Carrier[3], with the capability of getting from ship to shore under their own power and the proceeding into battle supporting those troops they carry; to replace their current generation of Amphibious Assault Vehicle. The Russians, have the ubiquitous PT-76 and its decedents, the Chinese the Type 63 and its decedents, even the French have a range of such vehicles, the Véhicule de l'Avant Blindé and the Véhicule Blindé Léger – which Russia has ordered 500 of along with the Mistral class LHDs. Yet, Britain has nothing.

Some say this doesn’t matter as Britain led the way at Suez in helicopter base amphibious operations, showed the utility and capability of such a system again in the Falkland’s war, and has a range of helicopters available today plus the ships to launch them. Unfortunately that’s not so, when Ocean was built a Ski Ramp wasn’t fitted, so all that was got was an LPH; when Albion and Bulwark were built, not only were they LPDs, not LHDs like the French Mistrals – the arguably sensible option for a medium power looking for maximum capability from minimum hull numbers, but they had their hangars deleted as a cost saving measure…not to mention the extended gym facilities, medical centre and extra accommodation which would have been on the same deck.

Now leaving aside the fact that having 6 ships(the three Invincible class vessels + the 3 amphibs) which could have been able to operate Harriers + AEW Sea Kings and the effect that would have had on British expeditionary capability, force protection and force projection; Britain is now heading into a new era, with a reduced number of aircraft carriers, and depending again upon a VSTOL aircraft for its organic naval fixed wing air capabilities…surely having the backup option of putting 8 on an LHD version of Albion & Bulwark must have occurred to someone as being a sensible precaution against the unknown…or had the obsession with lean manning and commercialism over ridden any strategy[4]. As it is though this is still not the biggest effect of the decision; the RMs also face a lack of helicopters.

The delays to the Ocean replacement, and lack for thought in the decisions about the concept of Albion & Bulwark means that Britain is looking at the very real possibility of being back in the Falklands War scenario when the only helicopters available to the Amphibious Task Group will be those carried on the flight decks of the LPDs, in the open exposed to the elements, and the hangars and cargo decks of Auxiliaries and Ships Taken up from Trade.  Whilst it must be acknowledged there is in theory the option of using the second Queen Elizabeth class, if one of those is out of action for any reason…and there is a choice between having a carrier to provide Combat Air Patrol/Strike/Close Air Support or an LPH; as with Hermes in 1982 the Royal Marines are going to lose. There is the probability that even if the second carrier is available, there will be the argument between carrying more strike fighters or more commando helicopters…it won’t be an easy decision, but with a reduced air defence escort force (6 rather than 14 Daring’s originally requested or the 12 originally ordered) and a currently theoretical escort based long range strike capability, the arguments for the more fighters are only reinforced. This is all before dealing with the requirements of accommodating aircraft for ASW and AEW, and of course any UAVs which might be needed for the operation.

Landing craft of all varieties are provided for as part of the British amphibious force; they can carry troops, they can carry Main Battle Tanks and of course supplies to shore, but they have a limiting factor. Landing craft can only support manoeuvre as far as the shoreline; in certain cases of course estuaries and rivers will further their level of support… but in the modern manoeuvrist orientated war fighting style this is not enough to provide the required capability profile. So this means that it’s necessary to consider the other options for ship to shore manoeuvre; but this is not the only thing to consider.

The RMs are in form an enhanced elite infantry brigade, this was fine for the world of the 1980s, it was made to work for the 1990s…but time has gone on and as more battlefield ‘hot-rods’ appear, i.e. Russian tanks upgraded with western equipment/engines/hydraulics, and there are fewer RN escorts to provide fire support in the littoral regions then the need and scope for vehicles to provide a base of fire for operations increases. Currently the RM brigade makes use of attachments of light tanks and main battle tanks from the Army, and they are very useful, but the Army (especially a slimmed down one) will always have other calls on its equipment to balance and like the RN of the 1920s, worried about RAF/Air Ministry statements over the war time uses of the FAA, the RMs must worry that they might not have this equipment at the critical juncture….not through any negligence, just through over subscription. Therefore when considering options, the range of capability that those vehicles provide the RMs cannot be only measured in the strict field of amphibious manoeuvre, but must also consider the fire power and range of firepower that range of vehicles will provide.

What would Britain need it to do?

As the operation in Somalia demonstrates, limited intervention/footprint operations are still a requirement of modern warfare; alongside this type of contingency, these vehicles would also provide enhancements for the larger amphibious demonstrations of force…such as those required to deter aggression against allies.

These vehicles though would really come into their own as a force multiplier in war time, when their landing would provide instantaneous bases of fire from which RMs could fight…RMs they have carried to the to shore inside themselves, freeing up the critical landing craft and supporting helicopters for other duties.

Amphibious vehicle/commando combinations could also be used to seize strategic points around the perimeter of the landing zone within the first wave, conceivably preventing the enemy from being able to respond or more problematically (considering the importance of them to the British amphibious capability) firing at the landing craft.

After the amphibious operational phase these vehicles would provide the RMs with manoeuvre and firepower as well as enhanced capability versus enemy armour and dug in positions.

What are the Options? How do they compare?

Well the obvious options are the three USMC systems, simply because they are the best and represent the closest fit with Britain’s view of amphibious operations and their likely scenarios…also because Britain would be jumping on the back of such large production runs it would be fairly cost effective:

The already in service AAV



The AAV, (clockwise from top), Schemativs, USMC coming ashore in Australia, a Revovery vehicle enters the water and USMC on operations.



For a 3D 360° view of it then go to www.marines.com[5], but its Specifications are:

•        Weight - 29.1 tons, Length - 7.94 m (321.3"), Width - 3.27 m (128.72"), Height - 3.26 m (130.5"), Crew - 3+25, Armour - 45 mm

•        Main armament - Mk 19 40 mm automatic grenade launcher (864 rounds) or M242 Bushmaster 25mm (900 rounds), Secondary armament - M2HB .50-caliber (12.7 mm) machine gun (1200 rounds)

•        Engine - Detroit Diesel 8V-53T (P-7), Cummins VT 400 903 (P-7A1)  400 hp (300 kW)  VTAC 525 903 525 hp(AAV-7RAM-RS), Power/weight - 18 hp/tonne, Suspension - torsion-bar-in-tube (AAV-7A1); torsion bar (AAV-7RAM-RS)

•        Operational range - 480 km (300 miles); 20 NM in water, including survival in Sea State 5, Speed - 24-32 km/h (15-20 mph) off-road, 72 km/h surfaced road, 13.2 km/h water (45 mph, 8.2 mph)

The envisaged ACV

The intended capabilities according to the US Congressional Report[6]:

•        The proposed vehicle must be able to self-deploy from amphibious shipping and deliver a reinforced Marine infantry squad (17 Marines) from a launch distance at or beyond 12 miles with a speed of not less than 8 knots in seas with 1-foot significant wave height and must be able to operate in seas up to 3-foot significant wave height.

•        The vehicle must be able to manoeuvre with the mechanized task force for sustained operations ashore in all types of terrain. The vehicle’s road and cross-country speed as well as its range should be greater than or equal to the M-1A1 Tank(about 35mph road, 25mph cross-country and 265miles).

•        The vehicle’s protection characteristics should be able to protect against direct and indirect fire and mines and improvised explosive device (IED) threats.

•        The vehicle should be able to accommodate command and control (C2) systems that permit it to operate both at sea and on land. The vehicle, at a minimum, should have a stabilized machine gun in order to engage enemy infantry and light vehicles.

The under development MPC

The baseline of the MPC contenders...(Clockwise) Terrex ICV, Patria AMV, IVECO SUPERAV

The intended capabilities according to the US Congressional Report[7]:

•        The vehicle must accommodate nine Marines and two crew members and have a “robust tactical swim capability (shore-to-shore [not designed to embark from an amphibious ship]) and be capable of operating at 6 knots in a fully developed sea.”

•        The vehicle must be able to operate on land with M-1A1 Tanks in mechanized task forces across the Marine Corps’ mission profile.

•        The vehicle shall provide protection for the occupants from the blasts, fragments, and incapacitating effects of attack from kinetic threats, indirect fire, and improvised explosive devices and mines

•        The vehicle shall be capable of firing existing Marine anti-structure and anti-armour missiles and should be able to accommodate existing command and control (C2) systems

Whilst there are four bids, there are only three main contenders for this design; the BAE/IVECO SUPERAV, the Lockheed Martin/Patria AMV and the Terrex ICV. All three have versions already in service… all three fit the profile outline in the industry day presentation[8]:

·         Personnel:(Base Vehicle)

o   Manned by a crew of three –Driver, Vehicle Commander, Gunner

o   Equipped with either a .50 cal/40mm RWS or a medium calibre cannon

o   Two MPC-P will carry a Reinforced Rifle Squad

·         Command & Control:(Mission Role Variant)

o   Two MPC-C replace communications capability of one AAVC7

·         Recovery & Maintenance:(Mission Role Variant)

o   Two MPC-R replace one AAVR7 in the T/E due to the greater quantity of MPC in the MPC company

Price / Capability Comparison

Name/Option	Maker	Country of Origin	Vital Statistics	Capability Fit
AAV	BAE; doing the upgrade	USA	Year base model first tested: ~1971[9] Range: 300miles, 20nautical miles in water Speed: 45mph on road, 20mph cross-country, 7 knots. Capacity: Sea State 5 Weapons Fit: 40mm grenade launcher or 25mm cannon & 12.7mm machine gun. Personnel Carried: Crew 3, Dismounts 25 USP[10]: Cheap…its second hand	Both these designs are too big really for British requirements… if the aim is to provide the Royal Marines with a deployable capability that maximise the small force that will be deployed then putting such large numbers into individual vehicles would be unhelpful. It is far better when deploying only one squad of troops to deploy them in two vehicles; which will provide the force with double the supporting firepower, vehicle mounted communications, increased flexibility of deployment and of course greater force resilience.
ACV	Being Put out to Tender	USA	Year base model first tested: - Range: - Speed: - Capacity: - Weapons Fit: Personnel Carried: Crew 3, Dismounts 25 (based on the AAV its replacing) USP: there is conceivably more of a chance of a ‘buy in’ enabling it to be customised to an extent to British requirements… it is also going to be a tracked vehicle.
MCP	announced options below
SUPERAV	BAE & IVECO	USA/UK/Italy	Year base model first tested: 2009 Range: 500miles on land, 40 miles in amphibious mode Speed: >60mph on road, 5.4knots in water Capacity: Sea State 2+ Weapons Fit: Personnel Carried: Crew 1-3 (depends on whether it has turret), Dismounts 8-12 USP: Built by BAE…could conceivably therefore be built in Britain…providing for perhaps a long term re-generation of British armoured vehicle manufacture.	In many ways the best fit for British requirements would be either the SuperAV or Patria AMV; fitted preferably with the sort of range of armaments seen on BAE’s CV90[11]. The SuperAV has benefited from the fact that it is the ‘newest’, not that that should detract from others, but it does mean it has be built with rather than improved with the latest thinking on dealing with the mine and IED threat. The fact is these vehicles all offer varying advantages; ultimately if Britain jumped on this program it would be dependent upon America’s choice… although there is another option; all of these options are having their development paid for to an extent by the USMC – the rest will be paid for by the company, unless the British government decide from the USMC’s most likely extensive testing that they prefer one of the others and decide to make that company an offer…
Patria AMV[12]	Lockheed Martin & Patria	USA/Finland	Year base model first tested: 2001 Range: 530miles Speed: >60mph on road, 5.3knots in water Capacity: Weapons Fit: ranges from 30mm to 105mm direct fire weapons or even 2 120mm mortars Personnel Carried: Crew 2-3, Dismounts 8-12 USP: the basic Patria is a very proven design; with range of different versions already existing. More importantly the company is establishing a very good record of delivering orders on time and on budget.
Terrex	SAIC, ST Engineering & Timoney Technology Limited	USA/ Singapore / Ireland	Year base model first tested: 2004 Range: 500miles on land Speed: >60mph, 5.4knots Capacity: Weapons Fit: 40mm grenade launcher & 7.62mm co-axial. Personnel Carried: Crew 2-3, Dismounts 8-12 USP: excellent suspension system which when coupled with other systems provides excellent manoeuvrability across soft ground.
-	General Dynamics	USA	Currently what will be offered has not been officially declared[13]

The Options available, (clockwise) the SUPERAV, the Patria, and bottom the CV90...an example of the variants it offers.

Conclusion

So what is the best fit option for Britain? Well the ideal world is not going to magically appear, and in the real world the options are limited… so to make a decision between those options, a set of criteria are needed to assess the options alongside the non-military factors which will impact it. Below are those selected for the Sea Otter (it seemed an appropriate name…for the Otter which could serve the army subtract those statements listed in blue)[14]:

1)      It needs to be able to operate in Sea State 3 or better…

2)      It needs good cross-country capability… but this should not mean tracks only; it might mean having snow tires – things which are relatively easy to adapt whilst at sea must be acceptable.

3)      It needs to come in IFV, Command, Fire Support, Air Defence and Recovery versions…this means a range of turrets need to be able to be fitted – rather like BAE has done with CV90[15].

a.       It would be good if the IFV had gun + anti-tank/anti-emplacement missile capability to provide its ‘sections’ with fire support.

4)      In IFV form it needs to be able to carry between 8 & 16 troops

5)      It needs a cross country speed of ~30mph, a road speed of around ~40mph and a water speed of 6-10knots (although of course more is always better)

6)      It must have armour capable of protecting the troops inside from IEDs/mines, heavy-machine gun fire and RPG level anti-tank weapons.

7)      It must have a range of >400miles…and be able to swim 25+nautical miles

8)      It must be relatively simple to operate and maintain…

9)      It needs to be cost effective.

In effect the description above is for an amphibious infantry fighting vehicle rather than an amphibious armoured personnel carrier. With that in mind, the MCP program is the better fit for the requirements of Britain out of the options available; however it is not that simple, the wheeled vs tracked debate is every bit as loud and present today in defence circles as it was in World War II. Then for amphibious vehicles it was a competition between the DUKWs and the LVTs; today despite the advances in suspension technology, the central tyre pressure inflation system, run-flat tyres and all the other improvements, tracks are still better cross-country than wheels. But tracks are also more expensive, more difficult to maintain, and if they get damaged immobilise the vehicle…whereas with tyres, on and 8x8 such as the vehicles put forward for the MPC loss of one or even two wheels on either side can be coped with – it will still move; and for amphibious vehicles tyres represent extra buoyancy. The Vikings are tracked; they are excellent at providing mobility for the Royal Marines in the terrain they were bought for… they are excellent for logistics support, and with the upgrade are going to be able to provide mortar support to units. To replace them properly in a perfect world, the RMs would be able to buy a version of the MPC with tracks. A more realistic option would be to just buy enough MPC units to provide the desired capability, and run them alongside the upgraded Vikings so that the Royal Marines would maintain the all-terrain support that those provide whilst gaining the amphibious assault, the fire power and the increased armoured manoeuvrability that the MPC would provide them with. This though is not where considerations will end.

It is not just tactical capabilities and strategic military requirements which will impact upon acquisition… there are other, less uniformed, factors. Which equipment will serve best to strengthen Britain’s strategic relationships, not just with other countries but with the defence companies, the recent collapse of the merger with EADS (something which could have turned into a strategic & security nightmare for the British government, in fact for all the governments involved); a show of confidence by ordering vehicles from BAE could help move that company past the event…alternatively the government might wish to establish a second ‘string’ in case of a future business occurrence, so buying the Lockheed Martin or General Dynamics options might make sense to try to build up diversity in procurement options. These are just two of the more prominent considerations that have to go into the decision making process.

In conclusion the future of British Ship to Shore manoeuvre should include a vehicle like what the USMC are proposing for the MPC to have… but whether it will be the MPC will depend upon the British government of the day – although from the consideration of the likely ally the RMs will be fighting alongside it would seem sensible. The fact is though that whatever is decided upon, an amphibious armoured vehicle is needed, the RMs cannot go on for much longer without some sort of enhanced capability over what they currently operate with. The procurement of such a vehicle could be very much a win/win for all involved, the government enhancing strategic capability in a cost effective manner in a way which improves British industry and the RMs gaining a vehicle and capability which will allow them to continue to be able to go wherever the British government needs just as they have done since their official formation in 1755.

Notes

This might have seemed a strange thing to do a post on, for some reading it will look like a piece of super-power envy, of wanting want Britain doesn’t have  - they couldn’t be further from the truth. A couple of years ago, I wrote a piece for the PTT which was supposed to start a series on conventional deterrence…instead it morphed into a starting point for an on-going study and interest which will hopefully lead to a more in depth work at some point in the future. However, one of the planned parts in the series was on equipping for deterrence, and that is where this post comes from; the equipment suggested in this is an exceedingly useful capability for a medium power that has extensive world-wide commitments, and which due to its desire to economise in face of current economic circumstances seek to do more with less.  This capability will allow for a maximisation of the three things which matter in deterrence and modern democracies; force potentiality, force presence and force protection.

I have also got in contact with some contacts in the RMs to find out their opinion, and when I there comments back I will write a follow on to this.

 

---

[1] http://www.defenceiq.com/amoured-vehicles/articles/mod-spends-37-million-to-reinstate-viking-s-amphib/&mac=DFIQ_OI_Featured_2011&utm_source=defenceiq.com&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DFIQOptIn&utm_content=10/4/12

[2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2054936/Somalia-Commandos-storm-war-zone-snatch-tribal-leader.html

[3] The BAE entrant for this design getting a rave review… http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/baes-marine-personnel-carrieran.html  & http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OC7xtklxSg

[4] http://www.defenceiq.com/naval-and-maritime-defence/articles/naval-ship-repair-ensuring-a-mean-lean-fleet/&mac=DFIQ_OI_Featured_2011&utm_source=defenceiq.com&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DFIQOptIn&utm_content=10/2/12

[5] http://www.marines.com/operating-forces/equipment/vehicles/aav-7

[6] Andrew Feickert, Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) and Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC): Background and Issues for Congress, Congressional Research Service (R42723), September 11, 2012. p2-3

[7] Andrew Feickert, Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) and Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC): Background and Issues for Congress, Congressional Research Service (R42723), September 11, 2012. p3

[8] AAV/MPC/ACV Industry Day, April 6, 2011

[9] There are a range of dates floating around for this, some say 1972…which was the year it entered service, so is unlikely, some say it was a lot earlier,

[10] Unique Selling Point from the prospective of the British Government

[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Vehicle_90, http://www.army-technology.com/projects/cv90/ & http://www.baesystems.com/product/BAES_020034/cv90---strength-in-battle

[12] Pictures mainly from http://www.army-technology.com/projects/patria/

[13] However an educated guess, postulated by Solomon (http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/general-dynamics-i-figured-out-your.html) is that it will be the LAV II… this would seem to make sense and could be a sound choice as it would presumably be a fairly easy transition – however, should the ACV program be cancelled, then it becomes more likely that the bigger vehicles being offered will have the advantage because they will have more scope to be upgraded to cover that roles capabilities. Frankly though it seems unlikely the ACV will be cut, as for the USMC the vehicle type it represents is something of a talisman of their amphibious capability…and better than that, it’s a talisman which is actually useful.

[14] Suggestions from others on this are very welcome… kind of a mini-DARPA procurement - http://defense.aol.com/2011/12/05/dod-sinks-fang-into-acquisition-process-marines-darpa-join-for/ & http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-10/03/darpa-swimming-tank-contest with no prize money.

[15] See footnote 11 for more details

Upgrade, Rebuild or New Build? For furture of Britain's escort force that really is the question...

The more that comes about the Type 26 Global Combat Ship program, the more I worry whether all the options have been considered. So that’s where this post comes from, a simple enquiry is the government making the right decision? Is the Type 26 in its current form, in any form, going to provide what Britain needs? Or is perhaps it better to follow the American example of building an improved existing design?

What Britain needs…

To start with there is the obvious, whatever vessels are built, they will be called upon to participate in a wide variety of war fighting missions – primarily as Type 23 replacements Anti-Submarine warfare is going to be a prominent function, considering the reduction in Type 45 numbers  Air Defence is also going to be a key capability, further to these support of Amphibious warfare and long range strike capability would of course provide for them to function as force multipliers in key RN missions.  But ships don’t pay for themselves in war; it’s in ‘peace time’ patrolling, policing and presence missions which justify them.

Britain maintains due to its global interests, mainly trade and legacy alliances, many patrols worldwide. Ranging from counter piracy of the coast of East Africa to South Atlantic Guard Ship, from Counter Drugs Operations in the Caribbean to NATO standing patrols… and none of this takes into account the various exercises and port visits which the fleets escorts take part in/carry out as part of Britain’s extensive diplomatic actions.

Figure 1. The original pre SDSR future fleet...

To do all these things Britain needs numbers, not World War II number but more than are currently in service. A like for like replacement on the Duke class would provide 13 vessels, and after the 2010 SDSR there is not even the prospect of the Type 27 to make up the numbers. Yet all political parties and defence experts are in pretty much agreement that there are not enough vessels to carry out all the missions that are required… so the obvious question is, are 13 enough? Would even 16, the number of Duke class originally built for RN be enough? It’s a no, there was a reason that originally the Type 45 was going to be a class of 12, the C1 was going to be a class of 10, and the C2 a class of 8; 30 escorts was the accepted minimum. Now talk is of the 2,500ton vessels of the Mine Countermeasures, Hydrography and Patrol Capability program making up the difference – and they will be able to do so in constabulary duties…the drugs patrols, but they won’t be able to South Atlantic Guardship, they won’t be able to do NATO patrols and they will not be able take a lead in more weapons intensive war fighting roles as they are simply not big enough to carry all the equipment. Therefore a criterion has to be to build as many as possible, the Type 26 is to have a unit price of around £350million pounds; but the costs don’t stop there, development, logistics, training and infrastructure are all things which have to be paid for. So out of a £10billion program, only £4.55 billon is going to go on buying the units – even when leveraging from 80% known technologies, it still costs money in development to make sure those technologies work together in the way they are planned to...after all nasty surprises are not welcomed in battle, especially when it’s something which works in theory but in practice lets the crew down. It’s the numbers which produce the question as to whether the Type 26 is the way to go for Britain and its strategic needs. 

However this is not the final requirement; whatever option is chosen it must be capable of generating export orders – i.e. it must bring in work and money for the UK. This is a bigger ask than at first glance it may look; successive governments whilst achieving sales of ‘used’ equipment, regularly ‘barely used’ equipment, sometimes to the detriment of Britain’s capabilities, have proved themselves unable to sell new equipment… or rather new pieces of large equipment. The Type 26 is also proving pretty difficult to sell, no matter how much hawking on international street corners our ministers seem to try. Which is a problem, because the reason its marketed as the ‘global combat ship’ rather than the Type 26, the reason its versatility and adaptability are being stressed, the reason the vessel being proposed is in many ways closer to being a small destroyer rather than a large frigate is to make it sell; to make it attractive to nations seeking either the modern equivalent of the American 18 pounder frigates that fought in the 1812 War, small fleet flagships, or those nations looking for an escort that can punch above its weight and give them maximum capability for minimum numbers.

Figure 2. The Type 26 as currently presented

What are the options?

So what are the options available to decision makers – the first is of course carry on build the new design, the Type 26 Global Ships. Even in this there are options, they could be built as currently planned, or they could be adapted…here are some possible mods:

·         Type 26 Mod 1 – 3 Phalanx (replacing 30mms aft), 32 cell MK41 VLS, 2x 8 cell Sylver A30 VLS forward (flanking ‘B’ position), 4x Stan Flex modules (2 amidships, and 2 aft atop hangar), 4.5in DG

·         Type 26 Mod 2 – 4 Oerlikon Millennium 35mm (replacing 30mm & Phalanx – forward flanking the ‘B’ position, replacing the 30mm), 4 StanFlex modules (2 amidships flanking Sylver A30, and 2 aft atop hangar), 32 cell Mk 41 VLS, 2x 8 cell Sylver A30 VLS forward (in ‘B’ position and amidships), 4.5in DG

·         Type 26 Mod 3 – 2 Phalanx (replacing 30mms aft), BAE MK110 57mm (‘B’ position), 32 cell MK41 VLS, 2x 8 cell Sylver A30 VLS forward (flanking ‘B’ position),  4.5in DG

The stanflex system could be a good idea, as instead of being fitted for not with, British ships could be ‘moded for not with’ – it would actually mean building a vessel closer in spirit to the C2, but with it having the ability to be rapidly turned into something more.  Plus it’s a proven, off the shelf system, which is buying in, like the MK 41 VLS to a wide range of development partnerships reducing long term costs on the British Taxpayer. Everything is still to play for with this design, because no one as yet has made any decisions about the engines baring that there will be a range of options available and they will generate enough power to get the ship to 28+ knots. However, an educated guess would assume that the British ones are most likely to be powered by the fruits of Rolls Royce… at least in part. Until the engines are selected everything else which will be put in round them (even in the days of fully electric systems, the sheer weight of the power plants still has a massive impact on how equipment is distributed around the ship) is not certain.  The Type 26 can be whatever its wanted to be; but that will cost and this will be a new system.

The other options are taking a leaf out of the USN’s book, and like they did with the Arleigh Burke / Zumwalt decision, build a modified/improved version existing, already supported and costed design. So the options are Type 23 or Type 45?

Figure 3. HMS Marlborough in Portsmouth dockyard.

The Type 23s already do the role, their design is functional and proven, the final units built cost under £100million per unit, a new upgraded version would probably be able to be brought in at £175million unit, allowing for the purchase of 26 for the same £4.55billion Unit purchase outlay as the Type 26. It won’t be as good as the Type 26 is proposed to be; but at 2 units for the price of 1 it would allow for a lot more operational flexibility. It could still carrying the new CAMM missile, a large amount of equipment is going to be transition from the Type 23s anyway – this would make the transition easier. A modified Type 23 could have CIWS fitted, all the problems/weakness in capabilities which the RN knows as fully as it can after operating the class for over 20 years; with a better power plant/drive train and improved sensors.

Figure 4. HMS Daring from every cubic angle but underneath

A more logical option perhaps, because they have finished being built would be to continue the Type 45s, and just expand there already developed/in place support systems – as well as capitalise on the logistics and training savings by using more of the money to purchase units. After all at £500million a unit (based on the AAD version), the £4.55billion could only buy 9 units, but the savings and synergies brought about by having a fleet of ‘one type’ would probably allow for an £3billion to be freed to purchasing units, allowing for a total purchase of 15 vessels and fleet which would have 21 vessels using the same engines, the same spare parts, the same systems… allowing for a far more operational productive structure than two classes of 13 and 6 vessels would. An example of this would be, an Auxiliary only has to carry one set of spare parts, so it can carry more of them, as well as components which go wrong less often, allowing for a higher level of frontline support to be achieved – maximising the force on station.

There is also the fact that the version produced to fulfil the ‘brief’ would have to be general purpose, i.e. it could have a cheaper less AAD focused radar such as the Artisan 3D radar already proposed for the Type 26, it already has space in its design for drones but if necessary an adaption to the superstructure or even a lengthening/broadening of the design could be included as the RN has done with previous designs. It’s understood from the most recent design that two types of VLS are desired, and the Type 45 does have the space for 2 8 cell A30 Sylver systems for the Sea Ceptors be put in… they could be inserted either side of the stack between the 30mm and phalanx mounts, whilst instead of just a 24 cell ‘attack’ VLS, a 48 cell system could be fitted.

Another option would be for the RN to keep to the existing radar set up, or possibly just the Sampson and use some of the ‘attack’ VLS cells to carry extra Area Air Defence weapon or even Anti-Ballistic Missile systems such as the SM-3; an option made more possible by the larger ‘attack’ VLS able to be carried by the destroyer. Its more money per unit but the program overall would not be more expensive; or it could mix and match, build some with the Sampson as ABM vessels that can also reinforce the existing AAD vessels, and build the rest with the Artisan radar… the fact is that with the same engines, layout and broadly speaking design, the changes would be relatively cosmetic in equivalence to the complexity of a modern warship.

What is the Best fit?

Well the sheer numbers offered by the Type 23 is attractive; but in reality it’s almost a 40 year old design, and its not big enough to do the mission profiles which will be expected of the future escorts. There is also the manning issue; manning 26 rather than 13 ships would be a big strain on the RN under its current size. Also whilst 3 ‘used’ units were sold to Chile, that’s not the sort of orders that would suggest more orders will be forthcoming should a new variant of the class be the decision of the British Government. This means that only two of these options are viable. A general purpose Type 45 or the Type 26?

The Type 26 represents possibility; could the RN really finally crack the formula of the perfect combination of capability and cost that will satisfy the needs of Britain’s security? It has promise; the separate/focused VLS is certainly a step in the right direction, and whilst interest has not been more than just that – it’s as yet an unknown quantity and those deciding might be waiting to see the final product before making a decision.

The Type 45, well represents a successful design, it works, it’s a known quantity, the problems and kinks have either been well documented or solved. Further to all this a general purpose version of the Type 45 would represent something that is known would attract interest+ from foreign buyers. For example the Saudis when considering the Type 45 for their navy were put off by what they felt was over specialisation for the size of the vessel; so a general purpose version especially if the mix and match approach was taken with vessels of differing levels would offer buyers the options it its believed will attract their money. Other considerations would be the fact that it be larger resulting force; which thanks to its shared logistics footprint would be far more deployable.

Conclusion: in reality…

History can only provide an idea of the future, not a definite path, and in reality it’s the type 26s which is the most likely option to be built, the general purpose Type 45s would be of great note and even greater use. An especial truth in the far reduced circumstance the RN has found itself in post successive cuts. However, a new ship, a new design is the apparent desire… so the challenge is to make that ship fit the role it’s needed to fill, and that means that real thought has to go into it. It has to be decided now, what it is wanted to do, what it is needed to do, and what it has to do… these are not the same things, what it is  wanted to do – is something that is rather liked for the sake of providing options, what its needed do – well that is the constraints of Britain’s strategic situation, what it has to do – that’s simple, it has to be able to fight...it has to be worth the cost, or else a lot of brave lives will be lost needlessly. Those decisions have to be made now, and they have to be stuck to – or all that will happen are delays and a ship that becomes a Christmas tree… with everyone hanging their pet project on it, and therefore causing the cost to keep escalating and unit numbers to be forced down by a penny conscious Treasury.

Figure  5. The Type 26 as revealed in an earlier graphic... arguably a junior Type 45 in much of its profile

A2AD / Containerised Missiles – A new dawn or old questions?

Well this is my first ‘own’ blog for a while; sorry about that, just didn’t have the time with PhD thesis, leading Seminars, the Phoenix Think Tank and my other commitments – however in the mean time I am hoping to getting back to a weekly or biweekly schedule…I still don’t have that much free time so apologies but replies to comments may be irregular. Anyway on with the blog…

Area denial

A great piece on this topic written recently which brought up some comments of Nelsons about forts[1]; a very correct quote, but Nelson himself lead a fleet successfully against the forts and ships of the Danish at Copenhagen in 1801. During this battle Nelson defeated a Danish fleet whilst it was under the protection/support of (for the time) extensive shore batteries. This is not to say the author was misquoting Nelson; but rather to say that every situation is subjective and individual…as well as it being that authors piece is rather well thought out and argued, although different conclusions can be drawn from the same situation.  

When Area Denial comes up in discussions it’s increasingly thought about in terms of weapons technology, of numbers of weapons and of specific nations. The debate often seems to ignore not only the complex strategic question of using those weapons; but also the difficulty of targeting them. For example the Anti-Ship Ballistic missile, presuming it would not be used by minor nations on each other, could even if armed with a conventional warhead cause a strategic nuclear attack just by its launching depending upon the personality of the President or Prime Minister or whoever has the nuclear codes of the country who’s naval task force is be attacked. Furthermore if it did use a nuclear war head… is it really believable this would not be an escalation? There were many scenarios in the Cold War envisaging a mass attack with nuclear weapons by Soviet Heavy Bombers/Long Range missiles or Submarines on NATO Task Forces – every single one caused a virtually unstoppable escalation. The bottom line is that the moment a ballistic missile is used, the genie is let out of the bottle and no one has any real measure of control. Having a weapon in the arsenal though, is not the same using it… in this case an argument can be made that perhaps anti-ship ballistic missile are more about diplomacy than utility, something which is backed up by the practicality of their deployment.

Moving on the Ballistic weapons also have the problems of targeting; they will be fired from so far away that the target will have moved…this is not cities or major strategic hubs, ships move. A task force, with a speed of progression (i.e. if their zigzagging) of 25knots will cover over 4.6km every 10 minutes. Therefore whilst the fireball of the largest ever nuclear bomb detonated, the Soviet Union/Russia’s 50Mt Tsar Bomba, was only 2.3km, and even though it impact was far wider than that (windows were recorded as being broken 900km away...) a problem emerges. A flight of 40 minutes will mean that the task force has had the opportunity to move 18.4km, with Aegis radar they will know the missile is coming, and where it is going – the warhead of a ballistic missile, once it goes into re-entry, cannot be changed mid-flight because it gets too hot to receive transmissions. This combined with the fact that the warhead will more than likely have a significantly smaller yield than the Tsar Bomba; a well-managed task force could therefore in theory escape serious damage altogether, even without firing any Anti-Ballistic Missile weapons it might have.

The problems above are on top of the problems of detecting the task force; relying upon satellites whilst understandable, is open to interference – the satellites could be shot down or damaged,  communications could be interfered with by jamming, the ground stations could be destroyed (all leaving to one side the options and ramifications of physical espionage or cyber espionage). UAVs and manned aircraft are also open to various forms of interdiction, destruction of fuel supplies, destruction of runways, disruption of communication/command & control and of course being shot down. Submarines whilst offering a very potent method of intelligence gathering; loose a lot of their advantages and put themselves at far greater risk as soon as they have to come up to shallower depths required for communication with their home...and again that communication can be disrupted. In the end it is all a variable, with a good deal of luck involved on both sides of the detection equation. The same principle problems apply when considering the other weapon of area denial, long range cruise missiles.

Target acquisition is a major problem; but for cruise missiles due to their different patterns of operation they have the advantage of self-acquisition because of on-board sensors and mid-flight course corrections. However, they also have the problem that since the first use of Kamikaze’s navies have been faced with the prospect of large numbers of suicidal guided bombs. There is therefore a well-practiced, well tested, well developed methodology of dealing with them;

1.  Detect early, Airborne Early Warning and good reconnaissance/intelligence are essential if this is to be achieved (long range radar on ships keeps aircraft & missiles down below the Radar Horizon where they use more fuel, AEW turns that advantage on its head and allows fighters to ponce.
2.  If possible destroy the launcher before it launches the weapons; at the very least disrupt/weaken so the attack losses co-ordination and becomes easier to deal with by the ships.
3.  Engage the weapons as far away from the ships as possible, fighters and long range AA weapons.
4.  Deploy the maximum number of distractions in order to confuse the weapons; electronic jamming, flares, chaff, decoys
5.  Have concentrated numbers of rapid firing weapons to deal with any weapons which get through the outer layers.

Believe it or not, this methodology is not that different to what was developed by John Thack under the Big Blue Blanket system. It works, although of course like any system it can be overloaded; which is of course what many of the participants are discussing. However, it is also the nature of weapons technology that there is a constant competition between offensive and defensive weapons, but offensive weaponry always gets more press than defensive. Hence the latest Chinese missiles pops up all over the discussion boards, yet what is undoubtedly the anti-dote (should the situation reach a state of) for missile saturation, the Raytheon Phalanx Laser system[2], seems in comparison to just slip along barely noticed. However, that is the system if it reaches that point… any commander will of course aim to stop it reaching that point.

A commander will wish to go on the offensive, will wish to take advantage of 1 and carry out 2; at the disposal of any US commander in the future will be such systems as the AQ-47, the F-35 and the Tomahawk replacement able to be fired from a multitude of surface/sub-surface platforms – even possibly railguns. This is the other often over looked variable, all those A2AD weapons require infrastructure, they require support and this means they will be visible, they will be findable, and that makes them destroyable. If there is one lesson from history that is taught over and over again, there is no such thing as truly one-way fight. There again if we are going on history alone, then every form of A2AD has been ultimately ineffective – mines & shore batteries were good but ultimately did not stop the Union navy of the US civil war when it set its mind to something, submarines & torpedo boats were built by the French as a counter to the British Battle fleet…the British just built torpedo boat destroyers (soon shortened to just ‘destroyers’) and it was a battle never fought, and of course aircraft and submarines were supposed to clear the seas and make it impossible for any fleet to move during the Second World War…yet convoys still went through the Mediterranean to resupply Malta, the Arctic Ocean to Russia, Atlantic to Britain…yet the RN & USN managed to get the US Army to Europe, and the Canadians, the Island hopping campaign succeeded and D-day took place, as did many raids upon occupied Europe. The lesson, losses will be taken in war, and its crushing for the families affected, but the fact is no system is absolute, no system is as good as its salesmen tell the world and for every action there is equal and opposite reaction – or more appropriately for every new technology an answering one will emerge which will change the balance of the scales once again.

Containerised Missiles

The comments on Solomon’s Blog[3] are thought provoking; it forces countries leaders to make decisions…the first being offensive or defensive? It’s not only a question for those defending against such systems to ask, but also those using them. On the balance for both sides it is probably better to be offensive. This is the reasoning:

• For those nations employing them, should they use such systems as a deterrent then they will need to keep the circling around the world constantly, they will need to find a way to maintain them, keep in constant contact with them and ensure they never get stored at the bottom of a pile of containers…or otherwise they might have trouble launching. The problem with all that though is that it will draw attention to those containers and also with their constant circulation, there come’s the problem of bad luck, the black swan, the random would be fief opening the wrong container looking for some computer chips to rob and finding a set of missiles staring them in the face. Such a system would be a nightmare to run. This means it makes far more sense to build them, store them in a warehouse near some docks and deploy them when it’s decided to make a first strike.
• For those nations defending against them; well unless it’s the size of Luxemburg or smaller it really is not achievable to build a complete air defence network – there just isn’t the national will that European countries had for it prior to World War II, just consider the outcry over the temporary deployment of air defence missiles for the London Olympics. The people don’t want such systems in every park, and they certainly would not want to pay the costs for such a system. So again that leaves the offensive; the only real counter for them is to aggressively seek them… have intelligence agencies hunt down the warehouses, monitor the factories, and if they get deployed hunt the container which has an electronic signature – as it will need some sort of power supply; it will be shielded, but no shielding is perfect. Find the weapons and deal with them before they go off; after all its far simpler to drill a hole in a fuel tank on the ground, than shoot down the missile while its flying at Mach 3.

Anyway that’s my two-pennyworth, and thankyou for reading. And sorry no pictures... am currently traveling and didn't have the time to find good ones and put this up whilst I had a decent internet connection - same reason if there's any spelling mistakes, had to trust the old spell checker and hope it was right.

 

---

[1] http://thediplomat.com/the-naval-diplomat/2012/09/10/anti-access-and-the-fortress-fleet/

[2] http://www.defencetalk.com/phalanx-sensors-used-in-laser-shoot-down-of-airborne-targets-27589/ & http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/a-laser-phalanx-03783/

[3] http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/club-k-missile-system-follow-up.html

Is there a possibility for Amphibiosity in conversion?

Concept

A good fast containership hull would be an economical starting point for a new generation aircraft carrier. The hull of a containership is open and empty, so naval architects can fit in accommodation, fuel tanks, magazines and hangar decks, and on top of it all, the flight deck needed for an aircraft carrier. For the cost of two ships now building, we could have four or more. After all, apart from planned dry-dock time, ships sometimes don’t pass in the night, but instead suffer accidents, and with just two carriers available, the danger is that one will be undergoing a refit and the other damage.

(Wragg, 2009, pp. 189-90)

This is not a new concept, the MAC ships in World War II were key to the efforts against the wolf packs, Atlantic Conveyor was at points in time the most important vessel sent to the Falklands War – and was certainly the greatest strategic loss. Full conversion is requirement of some major changes on the ships though; hence the first section of this piece focuses on practicability, and it is only after that capability will be considered.

Practicability

As Wragg makes clear these vessels are open spaces, in fact almost blank canvasses; only better. Due the fact that they are designed to be strong, even without a top deck to complete them, the addition of such a deck will only add their capability.

They are built with range; they do their journey’s with no chance of an at Replenishment At Sea, they are built with speed; time is money, and they are built big; this means it is literally a case of building a top and a hangar, with a large flex bay underneath – far larger and therefore more flexible than the ones which have shown to be off such use in the Danish Absalom class and the American LCS designs; with the freeness offered by their initial design there is no reason why, that with the provision hydraulic bomb doors, that the lifts and ramps could not service both decks – therefore providing maximum internal mobility and force capability.

It would also be a lot cheaper than building a brand new third aircraft carrier or a pair of LHDs; especially in Britain’s case, as they could all be put together in one yard. This would highlight the quality of that yard for civilian contracts, whilst also providing a very capable vessel for the RN at a cost of under £1billion per unit.

The most complicated part of the conversion will be the re-sitting of the superstructure; and the changing of the engine and power generation arrangement. The former is relatively simple due to the fact that ship is to be built up/filled in as part of the conversion any way; it depends upon the design chosen, and whether American, British or French practices are chosen. The power plant is more complicated as depending upon island position, propulsion system chosen and whether or not it requires a funnel to evacuate steam/fumes; if the American Island system is followed, with it mounted to the rear, then the power plant may have to be barely altered from its current arrangement.

Due the power, size and stability available in the design a relatively heavy weapons fit could be included for the benefit of both operational and tactical strategic capability. For example a heavy CIWS outfit of 4x SeaRam and 4x Mk110 BAE 57mm could be installed in complimentary pairs to provide defence against any missiles, small boats or aircraft which penetrate the perimeter. A perimeter which could be further enhanced by the inclusion of the Mk41 VLS loaded with SM-3 ABM, Aster 30 & 15, Tomahawk TLCM and ASROC. This along with the inclusion of the sensors and systems off the T45 destroyer; would allow the vessels to be fully multi-role and capable, as well as reducing the requirement for close escort.

Problems

The limitations are obvious; any design is being built in a confined space, an already built hull. Whilst it is a hull which is large, roomy and undeveloped; in a simple phrase, it is a ‘blank canvass’. It is still an already built hull, many will certainly contest that survivability is better included in a hull which is built for purpose – some would even contest it is cheaper to build an equivalent vessel from scratch than to convert. The other area of contention and problems will be the capability of stores/support mechanisms that can be put into such a vessel and its ability to deal with top weight for all operations. This author would contest that with all these questions and arguments they would be topics of further study, but are nothing that good Naval Architect could not overcome with a little thought.

Capability

A conversion is likely to produce a highly capable ship; but any aircraft carrying vessel (even one of an amphibious focus) is judged by its capacity for aircraft, not its capacity in any other role. This is conversion hover, is not just about producing an aircraft carrier, it is primarily envisaged as an LHA. Therefore it is fitting it should be fitted with ramp for Griffon Hovercraft; the same craft which are currently deployed upon the RN’s serving LPH, HMS Ocean, with much success. Ably bracketed by 4 LCVPs on davits; this is tradition in the commando carrier concept and is something which adds very interesting dimension into possible force multiplication.

The various roles require quite different air groups; the size and composition of which will depend upon the size of container ship converted. TEU’s are containers, and container ships are classed by how many they can carry. The specifications given at the end of this, and therefore the air groups are for the conversion of vessel that carries 6-8000 TEUs; there are larger vessels available, some carrying as many as 12000 TEUs. The important thing about the 6-8000 TEU container ships, are they represent the best balance of size, manoeuvrability and possibility if they are converted – there larger ones are really to large; the smaller ones are two small.

Ideally the smaller 6000 TEU ship could accommodate, in theory, its hangar and air group of 44 aircraft including either E-2D Hawkeye AWACs or Chinook Heavy Lift helicopters. Whilst the larger, 8000 TEU vessel, would accommodate the same air group of about 44 aircraft; such a vessel would have the advantage of developing a far more potent sortie rate. This would be down to its greater space for workshops and other support facilities required to maintain the capability of aircraft and their weapon systems.

There are constraints in any design though, Hawkeye’s & the cheaper and better F-35c JSF & the current envisage generation of UAVs all require catapults; this is something which could easily be built in (and AWACs are an aircraft carriers best force multiplier). It is though a decision which will need to be made at the design stage. Such decisions are crucial, a ship may be in service with the navy for 40 years, therefore whatever restrictions are imposed at the beginning, cannot be easily rectified (in the catapults case, without some major re-piping or re-wiring), and certainly not replaced in service for up to 4 decades.

The flex deck, is another key enabler of this container ship conversion, its ability to be re-modulated and refocused would allow 1600 personnel to be carried its assault amphibious role. Slightly less for the longer term deployment of conflict stabilisation a smaller contingent of 1000 personnel would be carried, with the space being converted to increase internal food storage and recreational facilities in line with the requirements of its longer deployments. In carrier mode, the flex deck could be converted to either stores, extra hangar space further increasing the aircraft capacity or it could be a true commando carrier and accommodate 800 personnel; to provide any battle group that it is a component of with a light strike/raiding and even emergency conflict stabilisation force.

Conclusion

When in future the British government deploys the RN, for whatever role, in its current situation it is going have to watch timing very careful, or else it will be deploying forces with no air cover. The purpose built carriers of the Queen Elizabeth class will if built number just two, and there will be periods when neither will be operational. Added to this there is proof in the success of HMS Ocean, in the necessity of an air assault component in the amphibious fleet. The answer to this question, especially in the time of financial strictures, is obvious to the mind of this author in light of what has been discovered and discussed in the course of this work.

A class of 3 (or perhaps 4...we can hope) converted container ships would fit the requirements of the possible roles very successfully and at a cost most affordable to the nation. The benefits of having vessels; which in turn could provide an alternative or supplementary carrier battle group when such is the need; the core of amphibious task group; or the keystone of any sea based conflict stabilisation and management that the British government wishes to engage in are great. Such vessels, especially armed as suggested, would provide the currently very overstretched RN with a multi-versatile core from which its other forces and capabilities could projected with the necessary levels of support and security.

Further more if they were designed to be capable (and were in fact capable of doing so) of carrying the ‘commando carrier’ load then they really would be ‘Woolworths Carriers’; a good quality vessel for all occasions, not spectacular, but not something to be discounted.

Specifications: that must be asked for (Based on the Conversion of a 6-8000 TEU container ship)

Reconfigurable air group/assault group for roles:

in LHA/Conflict stabilisation mode -

• Air Group: 8 UAV, 12 JSF, 8 Apache, 4 Chinook, 4 ASW Merlin, 8 Merlin Transports = total of 44 aircraft
• Surface Assault: 4 LCVPs on Davits, stern ramp allowing access of 4 Griffon Hovercraft
• 1000 troops carried = 1 Squadron RMC + Enhancements

in LHA/Assault mode -

• Air Group: 8 UAV, 12 Apache, 8 Chinook, 12 Merlin Transports = total of 40 aircraft
• Surface Assault: 4 LCVPs on Davits, stern ramp allowing access of 4 Griffon Hovercraft
• 1600 troops carried = 2 Squadron RMC

Depending apon the design; this might also be a possibility

In Commando Carrier mode -

• Air Group: 8 UAV, 24 JSF, 4 Hawkeye, 4 ASW Merlin, 4 Merlin transports = total of 44 aircraft
• Surface Assault: 4 LCVPs on Davits
• 400 troops carried = ½ Squadron RMC

Vital statistics (aprox):

Length of flight deck: 300m

width of flight deck: 50/75m

Speed: 27kts +

Range: 10,000nm

displacement: 40-60,000 tons

Aircraft operations

• 2 Aircraft lifts; each capable of hefting a Chinook (or Hawkeye)
• 2 Equipment lifts; each capable of moving a standard under-slung load (up to a 4x4 vehicle) or weapons
• Hangar Deck/Flex Deck underneath
• Ski Jump + a Single Catapult would be best for the development of operational capability on a budget and would have best interoperability with the currently envisaged Queen Elizabeth class; however if these are in the end not built then 2 Catapults would be needed.

Assault operations

• stern ramp allowing for the operation of 4 Griffon Hovercraft
• davits for LCVPs, the stern ramp must be able to support a Mexifloat or similar to provide for an easier operational loading/offloading.
• There will need to be spots to allow for 2 Chinook and 4 Merlin’s to be operate simultaneously in assault prep.

Weapons & sensors

• Enhanced T45 sensor suite; command and control system
• 2*32cell Mk41 VLS mounted out of standard flight parameters; combined with sensor suite should be capable of mounting SM-3 ABM, Aster 30 & 15, Tomahawk TLCM and ASROC
• 4* SeaRam & 4* BAE MK110 57mm for CIWS
• 8* Oerlikon 30 mm KCB guns on DS-30B mounts & 8 single 20mm cannon mounts, for saturation defence in confined waters
• Chaff, & flares

Power Plant

• Gas Turbines combined with Pod Propulsion would be best for all round operations of the vessel.
• A significant level of power will have to be developed in order to support Electro-Magnetic Catapults or alternatively a steam generator will need to be included to power any steam catapult.

Cost

• conversion & purchase must cost less 0.9billion per vessel, and the vessel must be serviceable for at least 25years

Bibliography

Wragg, D. (2009). Naval Aviation: 1909-2009. Barnesly: Pen & Sword Maritime.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/container-types.htm
http://www.eurans.com.ua/eng/faq/containerships/

************************************************************************************

newwars (http://newwars.wordpress.com/)

Alex, as long as they Navy is wholly focused on projecting power ashore against Third World dictators, or trying to stop China from invading Taiwan, they will have no time or money for alternatives like this. We must get spending priorities straight or we lose our edge. The West having been at the forefront of change for centuries, is now wholly committed to the declining dominance of carrier air, when there are so many other power projection alternatives, as well as needs for the small low tech warship and auxiliaries.

the trouble is this type of vessel would be perfect for those kinds of operations in those kinds of wars; although I personally think that specialised vessels for the warships will be always present. I do wonder about the non-sinking amphibs and the future aviation ships - so many large hulls already available...however, it is capacity for workshops and systems that will be key.

yours sincerly

Alex

***************************************************************************

Armchair Chinese Admiral (go easy on my landlubber's use of naval terms.)

some good points were raised, but the whole point about a more permanent conversion and the use of pod propuslion is that these ships can be 'quite' manouverable - nothing of the order of 50,000, in fact even 30,000 tons is ever going to be manouverable enough; especially when avoiding a missile comining in at Mach 3. With your idea containerised CIWS weapons could be installed, which would allow for security.

In this one, ideally it would (along with its Air Group and its supporting Escorts) have a 4 Sea RAM CIWS and 4 BAE Mk110 57mm as well as two Mk41 VLS loaded with various missiles of its own; in other words its aim is to stop the missile before it hits the ship. Added to this the open space of the hull would allow for some quite heavy levels of subdivision, stabilisation and anti sinking systems to be installed.

However; the key with these ships is the space they have to put into supporting their airgroup, supporting their troops - that is their true advantage.

yours sincerly

Alex

***************************************************************************
Armchair Chinese Admiral (go easy on my landlubber's use of naval terms.) 2nd Post

this is where we diverge; what you are talking about is cheap and quick wartime conversion; what I am talking about is full time fleet ship; a full conversion, no containers, the hull be used as blank canvass with proper decks put in a - a complete rebuild in manyways. My ship would be a non-expendable asset...well all assets are expendable but it would not be one to which this would be readily described it would be to useful.

The ship I am proposing would be a class of three vessels, to provide the RN/RM amphibious Task group with the LHA it desperately needs, as well as the core of an influence squadron and even a back up carrier when operational required - I am talking about making proper warships out of them. I am talking about this from the RN perspective - which needs ships of these capabilities.

Also Pod Propulsion is probably going to become standard on the new 8-12-???000 TEU vessels as it has been found to be far less maintenance intesive, more energy efficient as well as more able to manouver in busy ports...and shipping lanes. However, for the purposes of my design would put in as part of the rebuild.

yours sincerly

Alex

Curtesy

I was driving back from work today, the road was a little busy, at a point where due to a bus lane two lanes become one, a little jam developed. Now why is this starting this post you will ask? well I had (because I have experienced it before), gone straight into the right hand lane, but not everyone manages this of course, and when I got to the point of the conference (which is helpfully just before some traffic lights) a jam had developed with the cars from both lanes coming together. Now thanks to a bus forcing its way through the bus lane, a lady driving a small Peugeot 308 (small compared to my Vauxhall Astra) was forced up next to me, indicating to join my lane. Now when the traffic cleared a bit, she was most shocked when I waved her forward instead of charging on my own way. Partially I will admit I let her through because she looked slightly distracted, not unfocused on her driving, but as if she had something on her mind; but mainly I let her through because I could, because it was the 'right', the 'courteous' thing to do.

Now I get to the point of this blog, if I can be courteous whilst driving my car, why can senior officers and ministers in our military/government not be courteous with each other and with each other’s projects; why does every military system have to be compared to every other military system? Yes we need to get the best for our needs; but why turn the argument over whether or not the Army gets its own or RAF UAVs into whether or not the RN should be allowed new carriers, or maintain control of its own fixed wing aircraft? Why is it then when the RN offers to help out the Army by sending more of its Commando Helicopters to Afghanistan, the RAF then jumps in about this testifying to the RN not needing fixed wing aircraft, and therefore not needing to buy the JSF, therefore Britain does not need to purchase the JSF, and as the RAF's magic Eurofighter's cannot fly off carriers - they are not needed either. Apart from this argument which was put forward in a magazine being terribly convoluted - it all smacks of obsession with self. There seems to be a rash of officers, both in American and Britain more obsessed with defending their own patch, and getting their own funding than providing their nations with what they need to defend themselves and their interests.

Now before anyone gets into the various debates of: maintaining bases in Germany, and Saudi Arabia vs. building aircraft carriers; whether we should build 3 or 2; or if they should be built nuclear or not; purchasing Eurofighters or JSFs; UAVs or Manned; IFVs or MRAP; in fact any of the debates wouldn't it be good if those fighting both sides admitted that the other systems do actually have some benefits; for example the RAF admit that the RN needs carriers and organic air power of a much better standard than it currently has; that the Army allows that the RN needs escorts and subs; the RAF allows that UAVs/MAVs dropping bombs will not win the war in Afghanistan alone; the RN could admit and allow the Commander of the RM to become a fully fledged member of the Chiefs of Staffs. Accepting this, and instead of making the debate 'you have to have one or the other based on partisanship'; you transform the debate based in the merits of the various equipment. Such a debate is what Britain, in fact what every nation needs; we need politicians, ambassadors, the public and most importantly all branches of the forces to get involved, to work out what the nation's current, future and supportable defence commitments are and are most likely to be; then design a force, and force structure capable of fulfilling those needs - perhaps with a little more than required, just in case.