WI: "Tarawa" class LPH's used in the Falklands

WILDGEESE · May 22, 2015

In the 1982 conflict, the British amphibious forces had just 2 LPD's, Fearless & Intrepid with just 8 LCU's and 6 "Round Table" class LSL's, with the shortage of logistics made up of "STUFT" (Ships Taken Up From Trade) vessels

What if in the 70's, with a better financial situation and more backing for the Royal Marines and amphibious operations in regard to NATO from the government, Fearless & Intrepid where replaced post '75 by US designed "Tarawa" class LPH's.

Not only that but "Tarawa" class vessels where built in the late 70's instead of the LSL's.

How would these 6 vessels these perform in Operation Corporate, in regards to Helicopter carrying capacity, quickness of delivery of troops on to the beachhead, especially with 24 LCU's.

How or would they relieve the logistics bottleneck from the "STUFT" vessels?

With their beam, length and draught would they be able to moor up in San Carlos?

Regards filers

NOMISYRRUC · May 22, 2015

WILDGEESE99 said:
In the 1982 conflict, the British amphibious forces had just 2 LPD's, Fearless & Intrepid with just 8 LCU's and 6 "Round Table" class LSL's, with the shortage of logistics made up of "STUFT" (Ships Taken Up From Trade) vessels

What if in the 70's, with a better financial situation and more backing for the Royal Marines and amphibious operations in regard to NATO from the government, Fearless & Intrepid where replaced post '75 by US designed "Tarawa" class LPH's.

Not only that but "Tarawa" class vessels where built in the late 70's instead of the LSL's.

How would these 6 vessels these perform in Operation Corporate, in regards to Helicopter carrying capacity, quickness of delivery of troops on to the beachhead, especially with 24 LCU's.

How or would they relieve the logistics bottleneck from the "STUFT" vessels?

With their beam, length and draught would they be able to moor up in San Carlos?

Regards filers

The British would still build the LSLs because they were built to support the British Army, mainly in Germany, not the Royal Marines in the "East of Suez" role which is what the Fearless and Intrepid were built for.

However, I have toyed with the idea of building a class of 3 LHD type vessels in the 1960s instead of the LPDs and to replace the Commando Carriers. I thought 3 LHD might have the same capability of 2 LPH and 2 LPD for the same and preferably a smaller crew and be more flexible.

That is a scenario where more Centaurs are built in place of the Colossus and Majestic classes. Theseus, Ocean and I think it was Warrior have to be retained as Commando Carriers after Suez because Centaur, Albion, Bulwark and Hermes weren't laid down. As they are commissioned in the middle 1940s they need to be replaced in the second half of the 1960s on 20-25 year life-spans.

The commando carriers and LPHs survived the East of Suez cuts in the 1960s because they were redirected to taking reinforcements to Norway. However, the 1974 Defence Revew cut 2 commando carriers completely (although they did get a reprieve), one LPDs became the Dartmouth training ship and the other went into reserve.

Here the 1974 Review reduces 2 LHDs to the Standby Squadron and the third to Dartmouth training ship. However, that doesn't mean the other two are run on as ASW carriers until the Invincible class is ready, because there are butterfiles. However, it does mean that both are in reserve in 1982 and one of them is reactivated in time to join the Task Force. What effect that would have on the war, I don't know.

KillerT · May 22, 2015

The LHD/A concept was a very new one in the 1970s and the Uk despite being the one country where all the modern carrier innovations came from such as the angled deck, LDS, arrester cables through to the ski jump was quite conservative and parsimonious on the amphib front. The Fearless class were based on the Raleigh and Austin class LPD, any new commando carrier design would have been more Iwo Jima style than Tarawa. The Tarawa concept was actually seriously considered but far more later and that was with a view to what eventually became HMS Ocean. Sadly the Tarawa was considered to be too expensive and too big for UK needs. Oh and the Round Table class were designed in the late 1950s early sixties and initially were civilian ships chartered by the War Office for the RASC later RCT. Its in the mid seventies that they finally get sent to the RFA.

Riain · May 22, 2015

The Tarawa class was designed for USMC doctrine of opposed landings right into the teeth of the defence rather than RM doctrine of unopposed landings to effect a build up in order to prosecute a land campaign.

However if the RN/RM did have a Tarawa class ship complete with AAVT7s, MBTs, 155mm artillery and the like there would have been no landing at San Carlos. Rather the RM would have landed on the beaches near Stanley and the initial assault would have carried them through/over the Argentine defenders and onto virtually immediate victory.

WILDGEESE · May 23, 2015

I'm liking that idea, "Get in,Get the job done,Go home" or as the US says "Cutting the head off the chicken"

According to Salamander books, a "Tarawa" class can carry up to 2000 troops, giving a total troop move of 12,000, so I was thinking of an order of battle something like this. Based on 1980 figures.

Entire RM 7,200
Entire Para's 1,800
Gurkha's 1 Battalion 600-700
Scots Guards 1 Btn 600-700
Irish Guards 1 Btn 600-700
Welsh Guards 1 Btn 600-700

plus an aircraft complement of each LPD as follows

6-8 Chinooks
20 or so SeaKing/Puma/Wessex
6-8 Gazelle/Lynx
6-8 Harrier GR-3

I personally don't think we could get any more helicopters on board due to the fact of the limited size of the RAF's rotary fleet.

Plus with each LPH carrying 2 x 5 inch guns (possibly replaced on RN vessels by 4.5 inch) it would increase the RN's NGS (Naval Gunfire Support) for the landings which we seemed to be short of in 1982.

Another bonus point for landing at Stanley would be that although air cover would still be limited, it would help the SHAR's in that they would save a good 70 or so miles transit time to the beechhead thus allowing greater loiter time to engage the Argie's

My only concern would be that having all those ships in the same area and in open waters unlike San Carlos would allow a more concentrated attack by Exocet carrying aircraft plus attack by the Exocets carried on the "trash trailor" on the harbour, although no doubt SAS/SBS would sort this out.

Plus with the lesser need for "STUFT" vessels, a cold sweat breaks out thinking that on the 25th of May, on of the LPH's get struck instead of the MV Atlantic Conveyer.

Regards filers

JamesHunter · May 23, 2015

Tarawa's can carry harriers so it would also add another flight deck. Agree with the above poster that they might be able to just storm stanley. Probably a lower death toll on both sides and the Argentines are even more humiliated. Still an RN that can afford more decks may butterfly the war, a better budgeted RN may not have the ice patrol ship withdrawn and so Argentina doesn't try its luck. Instead they probably go west and a nasty border war with chile developes.

Riain · May 23, 2015

The RN could not do an assault on Stanley without a fuckload more combat power than they possessed in OTL 1982. At a minimum the Ark Royal's Buccaneer and Phantom squadrons and the 6" guns of both the Tiger and Blake would be needed to attrite: 7 artillery batteries, an exocet trailer, 24 20-35mm AA weapons used in the ground role, 7 infantry battalions and a squadron of 90mm gun armoured cars, all of which will be fighting the landing before it even hits the beach.

Umm, no.

Cryhavoc101 · May 23, 2015

An assault Landing is a risk - an unopposed landing is risk adverse.

Hence why the British landed at San Carlos

The only difference to the campaign would be a possible greater use of Helicopters and this might remove the need for transport ships to move troops around the coast resulting in fewer chances of a bluff cove style disaster.

Riain · May 23, 2015

Opposed amphibious landings are fine if you have the doctrine and equipment to execute them, which the USN/MC did but the RN/M did not.

Zheng He · May 23, 2015

Riain said:
Opposed amphibious landings are fine if you have the doctrine and equipment to execute them, which the USN/MC did but the RN/M did not.

And even if you have the training, doctrine, and equipment for it they are still risky. That's why they didn't do it in Desert Storm and used it as a deception operation instead.

For the record, I was a junior in college at the time and I predicted we wouldn't do an amphibious assault but would use the threat of one to tie down Iraqi forces. I was pretty proud of myself for getting that right.

jsb · May 23, 2015

Riain said:
The RN could not do an assault on Stanley without a fuckload more combat power than they possessed in OTL 1982. At a minimum the Ark Royal's Buccaneer and Phantom squadrons and the 6" guns of both the Tiger and Blake would be needed to attrite: 7 artillery batteries, an exocet trailer, 24 20-35mm AA weapons used in the ground role, 7 infantry battalions and a squadron of 90mm gun armoured cars, all of which will be fighting the landing before it even hits the beach.

Umm, no.

Riain said:
Opposed amphibious landings are fine if you have the doctrine and equipment to execute them, which the USN/MC did but the RN/M did not.

Not sure it's really the RM that doesn't have the equipment rather you don't have a massive number of CVNs (+B52) to help.

Its not the Tarawa class that lets you do opposed landing its the Nimitz class sitting behind it (and the USAF) without them you will take a huge number of casualties do to the inability to suppress the defences. (and GB didn't have the CVNs or B52 so having a LPH will not change the plan just make it a bit easier to land at San Carlos)

NOMISYRRUC · May 23, 2015

Super Fearless class LHA

The Escort Cruiser was being designed at about the same time as the Fearless class. When the Staff Requirement was changed from 6 helicopters to 9 the designers had to change it from a helicopter carrying cruiser into a small aircraft carrier with the flight deck above the hangar instead of a "garage" type hangar adjacent to the flight deck. This is because it is too difficult to move more than 6 helicopters around a "garage" type hangar. A through deck design also allows rolling take-offs.

IIRC the Fearless class was designed to carry 5 Wessex helicopters, but there was no hangar. What if the Staff Requirement specified that 6 Sea King size helicopters had to be carried in a fixed hangar? The designers would have to make the ship longer and wider. They did not enlarge the dry dock longer so all the extra space below the hangar and enlarged flight deck could be used for more cargo, vehicles or troops. When they see the revised design the Naval Staff realises that if the hull was stretched further it would be large enough to accommodate a full commando and its support troops. More troops need more helicopters to carry them and the Naval Staff asks the designers to at least double the flight deck area and hangar space. This would force the designers to adopt the same solution as they did with the Escort Cruiser.

Therefore the Admiralty Board decides to order 3 Super Fearless class in place of the real Fearless, Intrepid and RFA Engadine. This was because 2 ships were needed as backing to maintain one ship East of Suez. I don't know, but suspect that the requirement was for 3 Fearless class vessels so that one would be East of Suez at all times. I have also read that the requirement was for 3 commando carriers, presumably so one would be East of Suez at all times. It was planned that Centaur or one of the Majestic class in reserve would be converted into the third commando carrier. I don't know why neither was converted, but suspect it was lack of money. ITTL the Admiralty Board and Naval Staff decided that it would be easier to keep one commando afloat East of Suez with 3 LHA than it was with 2 LPH, 2 LPD and Engadine.

The Royal Navy was able to persuade the Treasury to let it buy 3 LHA ITTL, when it failed to get 3 LPH and 3 LPD IOTL, because they would be cheaper to build, cheaper to run and require a smaller crew.

A Super Fearless LHA would be smaller than the Tarawa and be less capable. It would carry fewer troops, at most 1,300 the combined capacity of Fearless and Albion. It would carry fewer aircraft, at most the hangar and flight deck would be the same size as Hermes, but the hangar and lifts be able to accommodate Super Stallion and Chinook size helicopters if they weren't already. Its vehicle and cargo carrying capacity would be smaller.

In the real world it was possible to send Fearless, Intrepid and Engadine to the Falklands. One LHA would be refitting ITTL but the other 2 would join the Task Force. They could carry more troops and helicopters than the ships of the 3 ships of the real world.

I cannot assume that Hermes would still be in service in 1982 if LHA type vessels were built instead of the Fearless class. My whole argument is that one LHA is better than one LPH and one LPD. Therefore Albion and Bulwark would have been decommissioned when the Super Fearless class was completed. Hermes would have been paid off in 1971 and sold to Australia or a Latin American country instead of replacing Albion.

As the Invincible class was built to replace the Tiger class cruisers it is likely that Tiger and Blake would have been kept in service longer in place of Bulwark and Hermes.

Furthermore if she had still been in service in 1982 the commandos and troop carrying helicopters she had aboard would have been transferred to the LHAs. On the other hand that would make space on Hermes for more RAF Harriers.

Cryhavoc101 · May 23, 2015

Riain said:
Opposed amphibious landings are fine if you have the doctrine and equipment to execute them, which the USN/MC did but the RN/M did not.

An opposed landing is only fine if there is not another option

IE WW2 Pacific Island scenario and Normandy as well as Port Said - Which the RM did carry out being the first to use the USMC's doctrine of 'Vertical Envelopment' i.e. the use of helicopters to land assault troops - when 45 Commando Battalions combat Companies landed in Egypt.

When there is another option then an opposed assault is not necessary

Just because you can conduct an opposed landing does not mean you should

Had you 'Hypothetically' replaced the British task force with a USN/USMC style force then they too would have landed in San Carlos and not conducted an opposed landing.

And anyway when was the last time anyone made an opposed landing?

Riain · May 23, 2015

jsb said:
Not sure it's really the RM that doesn't have the equipment rather you don't have a massive number of CVNs (+B52) to help.

Its not the Tarawa class that lets you do opposed landing its the Nimitz class sitting behind it (and the USAF) without them you will take a huge number of casualties do to the inability to suppress the defences. (and GB didn't have the CVNs or B52 so having a LPH will not change the plan just make it a bit easier to land at San Carlos)

It is the carriers and other things that make opposed landings possible, however an MEB has its own CAS harriers and cobra gunships as well as Abrams mbts, LAVs and aav7s that the royal Marines only dream of.

Simon · May 23, 2015

Riain said:
It is the carriers and other things that make opposed landings possible, however an MEB has its own CAS Harriers and Cobra gunships as well as Abrams MBTs, LAVs and AAV7s that the Royal Marines only dream of.

Not really that surprising when you consider that IIRC the US Marine Corps is equal in size to the entire British Army, and that their Air Wing might even rival or exceed the Royal Air Force as well.

KillerT · May 23, 2015

Yes the USMC does exceed the RAF in sheer air power numbers but certainly not in flexibility as they don't have any C17s, or much in the way of surveillance other than a few UAVs (all that's provided by the USAF instead). The RAF currently has 16 Diamond standard Tornado aircraft...yup that's all of 16 ready to go and hit someone hard. Rather sad come down for a nation that could once threaten a thousand bomber raid AND chuck several corps, aircraft carriers and so on...

I was born in 1968, then the UK still had a shipbuilding industry and could also still (just about) make its own aircraft, the forces toted 5 fleet carriers (Ark, Eagle, Vic, Hermes and Centaur), 2 LPH (Bulwark and Albion), 2 LPDs, over 90 frigates and destroyers, several cruisers, well over 40 submarines, over 300 naval fixed wing aircraft and 300 helicopters, 5 RM Commandos, the RAF had 80 odd Vulcans, plus over 500 other combat aircraft, near 200 transports, the Army still had 230k personnel. Quite a change in less than 50 years to now...

So much spilt milk....

Riain · May 23, 2015

NOMISYRRUC said:
The Escort Cruiser was being designed at about the same time as the Fearless class. When the Staff Requirement was changed from 6 helicopters to 9 the designers had to change it from a helicopter carrying cruiser into a small aircraft carrier with the flight deck above the hangar instead of a "garage" type hangar adjacent to the flight deck. This is because it is too difficult to move more than 6 helicopters around a "garage" type hangar. A through deck design also allows rolling take-offs.

IIRC the Fearless class was designed to carry 5 Wessex helicopters, but there was no hangar. What if the Staff Requirement specified that 6 Sea King size helicopters had to be carried in a fixed hangar? The designers would have to make the ship longer and wider. They did not enlarge the dry dock longer so all the extra space below the hangar and enlarged flight deck could be used for more cargo, vehicles or troops. When they see the revised design the Naval Staff realises that if the hull was stretched further it would be large enough to accommodate a full commando and its support troops. More troops need more helicopters to carry them and the Naval Staff asks the designers to at least double the flight deck area and hangar space. This would force the designers to adopt the same solution as they did with the Escort Cruiser.

Therefore the Admiralty Board decides to order 3 Super Fearless class in place of the real Fearless, Intrepid and RFA Engadine. This was because 2 ships were needed as backing to maintain one ship East of Suez. I don't know, but suspect that the requirement was for 3 Fearless class vessels so that one would be East of Suez at all times. I have also read that the requirement was for 3 commando carriers, presumably so one would be East of Suez at all times. It was planned that Centaur or one of the Majestic class in reserve would be converted into the third commando carrier. I don't know why neither was converted, but suspect it was lack of money. ITTL the Admiralty Board and Naval Staff decided that it would be easier to keep one commando afloat East of Suez with 3 LHA than it was with 2 LPH, 2 LPD and Engadine.

The Royal Navy was able to persuade the Treasury to let it buy 3 LHA ITTL, when it failed to get 3 LPH and 3 LPD IOTL, because they would be cheaper to build, cheaper to run and require a smaller crew.

A Super Fearless LHA would be smaller than the Tarawa and be less capable. It would carry fewer troops, at most 1,300 the combined capacity of Fearless and Albion. It would carry fewer aircraft, at most the hangar and flight deck would be the same size as Hermes, but the hangar and lifts be able to accommodate Super Stallion and Chinook size helicopters if they weren't already. Its vehicle and cargo carrying capacity would be smaller.

In the real world it was possible to send Fearless, Intrepid and Engadine to the Falklands. One LHA would be refitting ITTL but the other 2 would join the Task Force. They could carry more troops and helicopters than the ships of the 3 ships of the real world.

I cannot assume that Hermes would still be in service in 1982 if LHA type vessels were built instead of the Fearless class. My whole argument is that one LHA is better than one LPH and one LPD. Therefore Albion and Bulwark would have been decommissioned when the Super Fearless class was completed. Hermes would have been paid off in 1971 and sold to Australia or a Latin American country instead of replacing Albion.

As the Invincible class was built to replace the Tiger class cruisers it is likely that Tiger and Blake would have been kept in service longer in place of Bulwark and Hermes.

Furthermore if she had still been in service in 1982 the commandos and troop carrying helicopters she had aboard would have been transferred to the LHAs. On the other hand that would make space on Hermes for more RAF Harriers.

The USN/USMC doesn't use the likes of a Tarawa by itself, it teams them up with an LPD, LSD and back in the 80s a pair of 20kt LSTs. This is pretty much how the RN/RM operated up until the 70s, with Fearless/Intrepid teaming up Albion/Bulwark/Hermes and an LSL or two if they were available(notice that this is considerably less than the 5 or 6 ships USN ARG). So if the RN got a Tarawa type ship it would replace Albion/Bulwark/Hermes rather than Fearless/Intrepid.

pdf27 · May 23, 2015

KillerT said:
I was born in 1968, then the UK still had a shipbuilding industry and could also still (just about) make its own aircraft, the forces toted 5 fleet carriers (Ark, Eagle, Vic, Hermes and Centaur), 2 LPH (Bulwark and Albion), 2 LPDs, over 90 frigates and destroyers, several cruisers, well over 40 submarines, over 300 naval fixed wing aircraft and 300 helicopters, 5 RM Commandos, the RAF had 80 odd Vulcans, plus over 500 other combat aircraft, near 200 transports, the Army still had 230k personnel. Quite a change in less than 50 years to now...

So much spilt milk....

You think that's bad, you should see what happened to the other guy!

(Soviet Union)

marathag · May 23, 2015

WILDGEESE99 said:
I
How would these 6 vessels these perform in Operation Corporate, in regards to Helicopter carrying capacity, quickness of delivery of troops on to the beachhead, especially with 24 LCU's.

Can do Fixed Wing
OV-10_Broncos on USS Saipan

640px-OV-10_Broncos_of_VMO-1_on_USS_Saipan_%28LHA-2%29_1987.JPEG

They would also be very handy

jsb · May 23, 2015

Would OV-10_Broncos really be kept rather than more harriers ?

Would a Tarawa not end up as just another deck for more Shar or GRs (not that that's a bad thing)