UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Future Littoral Strike Ships

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1403
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Tempest414 » 07 Oct 2019, 11:03

Aethulwulf wrote:Albion class already have the Artisan radar and DNA2 CMS, as is used on the Type 23s.

tomuk wrote:Albion class is fitted with Artisan and CMS so fitting Sea Ceptor/CAMM would be very easy.


Thank you both forgot the Albion's had Artisan so CAMM could be straight forward for this class

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1976
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Repulse » 07 Oct 2019, 13:48

Not directly related to the FLSS, but is IMO related to the amphibious balance it will be part of.

What would be the estimated ballpark cost, £a upfront and ongoing maintenance + crew to stand up the 2nd LPD such that each CVF has a paired LPD with CAMM? £100m+£50mn pa?

It would in my view firstly add a significant value to the CSG to have these as permanent consorts, and would be the core of the RN/RMs kick the door in strategy against peer nations. It would also make it clearer that the FLSS are for small scale SF ops in relatively benign environments, and the LSDs for 2nd and 3rd wave amphibious operations and off-board systems.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

SW1
Member
Posts: 971
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby SW1 » 07 Oct 2019, 19:18

Repulse wrote:Not directly related to the FLSS, but is IMO related to the amphibious balance it will be part of.

What would be the estimated ballpark cost, £a upfront and ongoing maintenance + crew to stand up the 2nd LPD such that each CVF has a paired LPD with CAMM? £100m+£50mn pa?

It would in my view firstly add a significant value to the CSG to have these as permanent consorts, and would be the core of the RN/RMs kick the door in strategy against peer nations. It would also make it clearer that the FLSS are for small scale SF ops in relatively benign environments, and the LSDs for 2nd and 3rd wave amphibious operations and off-board systems.


https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... essels.pdf

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3488
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Lord Jim » 07 Oct 2019, 19:48

WE need clarification as to where the FLSS is going. My initial impression was that the FLSS was to be a mobile base that you moved around, anchored in international or friendly waters and conducted regional operations with SF and other forces as and when needed. There now seem to be a train of thought that the FLSS is going to be some sort of SF tuned mini amphibious assault vessel, going into harms way to launch commando raids on enemy territory and then retire for tea and cake. These two doctrines requires totally different platforms and to try to combine them will pull the budget way beyond what is currently allocated to the best of my knowledge.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10871
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 07 Oct 2019, 20:02

Lord Jim wrote:need clarification as to where the FLSS is going. My initial impression was that the FLSS was to be a mobile base that you moved around, anchored in international or friendly waters and conducted regional operations with SF and other forces as and when needed.

Quite right; only one word 'anchored' was wrong :D

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3608
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Ron5 » 08 Oct 2019, 07:28

Lord Jim wrote:WE need clarification as to where the FLSS is going.


Nowhere?

Not seen any mention of a funded program or a committed budget line. Maybe I missed it.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1657
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Caribbean » 08 Oct 2019, 07:42

Still in requirements assessment phase, or something like that
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5857
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby shark bait » 08 Oct 2019, 07:56

Yes is/was a study funded from the £160m Transformation Fund, but two defence secretaries later has it survived? It was a navy backed project so I hope so...
@LandSharkUK

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3488
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Lord Jim » 08 Oct 2019, 13:56

Supposedly it is being fast tracked as a high priority within the RN/MoD.

S M H
Member
Posts: 381
Joined: 03 May 2015, 12:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby S M H » 13 Oct 2019, 17:17

t
Lord Jim wrote:Supposedly it is being fast tracked as a high priority within the RN/MoD.
. The problem is that the R.N. has high end carrier acting as L.P.H. and contractor owned and operated S,D. Victoria. Our L.P.D. were built without a embarked aviation capability because the were expected to work with a dedicated L.P.H. I was told during there fitting out at Barrow in Furness that the was hangar in the original design but was removed on cost grounds. That they could be fitted but it would require significant alterations to the superstructure under the present deck had a lot of its structure strength reduced from the initial construction drawings. This despite at the time the M.O.D. / B.A.E. Vickers saying that they could be fitted later if required. This would make the purchase of the F.L.S.S. cheaper option than refitting our two L.P.D. If they had been fitted they would have been a more versatile ships. The purchase of two F.L.S.S. being the cheap option while providing some filling of the aviation assist capability gap. Caused by the withdrawal of the L.P.H. There is a requirement to use a smaller than a 70 thousand ton carrier moonlighting as a L.P.H. on cost grounds alone. This could explain why they been fast tracked even with the changes at the top since Private Pikes departure.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1651
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 25 Oct 2019, 23:04

The potential of introducing Point based FLSS's at a modest cost is obvious. Regardless of the outcome of the FLSS programme, modified or adapted next generation Points would seem like a sensible way to proceed when the current vessels decommission.


User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10871
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 26 Oct 2019, 08:47

Why offload in Emden if one is headed for Estonia?

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2264
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby abc123 » 26 Oct 2019, 11:24

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Why offload in Emden if one is headed for Estonia?


Because Baltic countries have fallen on Day 2 or 3?
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10871
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 26 Oct 2019, 11:32

abc123 wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:Why offload in Emden if one is headed for Estonia?


Because Baltic countries have fallen on Day 2 or 3?


Or may be the waters thereafter would be assumed to be full of torpedoes in wait? It was Bluecher that was sunk by antiquated Austro-Hungarian torpedoes and from the crew of 800 and the 1500 troops on board the Blucher only around 200 survived.
... What's the connection :lol: She was escorted by the lighter cruiser Emden

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3488
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Lord Jim » 26 Oct 2019, 17:23

If things did turn hot, the area denial effect of the soviet enclave of Kaliningrad or something like that would make moving troops by sea up to the Baltics very difficult. This is one of the reason the Russians are cramming this area with so much of their latest military hardware.

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1413
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Timmymagic » 26 Oct 2019, 21:21

Repulse wrote:It would in my view firstly add a significant value to the CSG to have these as permanent consorts, and would be the core of the RN/RMs kick the door in strategy against peer nations. It would also make it clearer that the FLSS are for small scale SF ops in relatively benign environments, and the LSDs for 2nd and 3rd wave amphibious operations and off-board systems.


Top speed of an Albion Class is 18 knots. The CSG could go to 32 knots....normal speed of advance of a CSG is over 20 knots. The LPD would be a chain around its ankle.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10871
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 26 Oct 2019, 22:04

Lord Jim wrote: one of the reason the Russians are cramming this area with so much of their latest military hardware.

I think the report which is being referenced here
is called myths and realities, and also Kaliningrad gets a detailed treatment as part of myths busting

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3488
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Lord Jim » 28 Oct 2019, 03:14

That is a very interesting interview, but it did raise a few issues. For one, if both the S400 and Bastion rely on ground based radar, how come the effective range, taking into account the radar horizon is double that of the former for the latter, 20km verses 40km? It also infers that aircraft would be flying at the same height or less, as a ships mast.

However looking at some maps I did realise that Kaliningrad is probably located at the widest part of the Baltic Sea, over 200km form the Swedish Coast so maybe ships and aircraft will have more room to manoeuvre, especially if the Swedes turn a blind eye to NATO assets transiting their territorial waters/airspace.

The stationing of nuclear armed short and intermediate range delivery systems within Kaliningrad will also cause NATO to think if things turn hot. An attack on the enclave would be seen as an attack on Russia itself and it is likely Russia would issue a warning that any attack on Russian soil would be meet by any and all means. It might be a bluff but many NATO nations will be deterred by such a threat.

So Kaliningrad is not the all powerful Russian Fortress the hype made it out to be, but the assets based there are still a threat and how to deal with them will be a problem for NATO. Add to that the Air and sea assets able to be deployed form the enclave and Russia itself and transiting the Baltic during a conflict with large transports, even if escorted will be a highly complicated and risky operation still. Any such Task Force will have to rely on land based air support as no one would want to operate a Carrier Group in the Baltic. Imaging the reduction in combat power the sinking of just one Point class when trying to move a reinforcing Brigade to the Baltics would cause.

At the very least the Baltic is gong to be a very contested theatre and probably devolve into attritional warfare on land sea and air. In that sort of conflict public opinion in the west is going to be a major factor, one that Russia's asymmetrical warfare capabilities will no doubt exploit.

The Baltic is certainly not a theatre the FLSS should be sent to operate in. The Norwegian Coastline quite possibly, but I see them both being EOS, maintained and supported by allied ships and port facilities and crews rotated. I can see them replacing the Bay currently in the Gulf, as the facilities in the FLSS as well as the port facilities in Bahrain and other allies should more than compensate. Even EOS though area denial activities by hostile nations will restrict how the FLSS will be able to operate. They are unlikely to stray outside friendly waters which may require then to carry larger and longer ranged platforms than the RHIB based ones currently in use. Again this points to a CB-90 type platform but with greater range, maybe through the use of auxiliary fuel tanks. It will be near impossible to hide the location of an FLSS and so it will have to rely heavily of shore based defences as well as any escort that accompanies it. If a raid is launched form the FLSS, it will be pretty obvious to those on the receiving end where it came from. The FLSS is going to need better damage control capabilities than the mercantile platform on which it may be based. It will be carrying both aviation fuel and munitions and the storage areas for these will need to have protection up to Naval standards. The FLSS will also need last ditch self defences in the form of countermeasures equal to naval vessels even if they are in port.

All of this is going to increase the cost of the FLSS, and may require them to be escorted by more than the T-31 or River currently suggested. Would we be better scrubbing the idea of the FLSS and looking to what platforms will replace the Albions and Bays after we have decided how we intend to conduct amphibious operation moving forward.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1976
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Repulse » 28 Oct 2019, 14:22

Lord Jim wrote:All of this is going to increase the cost of the FLSS, and may require them to be escorted by more than the T-31 or River currently suggested. Would we be better scrubbing the idea of the FLSS and looking to what platforms will replace the Albions and Bays after we have decided how we intend to conduct amphibious operation moving forward.


Agreed - in my book the two FLSS as envisaged are effectively RFA Argus replacements, capable of HADR and COIN/anti-terror operations in low threat permissive environments. Additionally, they can ferry in aviation assets for group forces.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill


User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10871
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 08 Nov 2019, 09:49


That sounds more like it (so far a private venture, £5 mln might be available for more detailed designs?) and the Ben Wallace "£35 mln has been spent" probably got corrected to this format in the proof reading of the Hansard "The small and medium-sized enterprises action plan was published this year, and the defence and security accelerator has allocated over £36 million to over 200 proposals." where the FLSS are just one idea among many
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2 ... Department

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1976
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Repulse » 08 Nov 2019, 10:38

This months Warship World has a few interesting articles on LSSs and the future Commando Force - nothing new but ties up whats the line of thought.

PPL (Prevail) are pushing hard in the background pitching either a charter or a rapid “wet lease” approach where they would finance, convert (a Flenaburger-Class), deliver, crew and manage.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10871
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 08 Nov 2019, 14:38

Repulse wrote:approach where they would finance, convert (a Flenaburger-Class), deliver, crew and manage.


Aren't they already doing all of that, save for "convert" ... for which they have lined up partners (at least 3, complementary, not competing)

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1976
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Repulse » 08 Nov 2019, 15:10

ArmChairCivvy, are they? Thought they were still at base one, the concept stage?
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10871
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 08 Nov 2019, 17:17

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Repulse wrote:approach where they would finance, convert (a Flenaburger-Class), deliver, crew and manage.


Aren't they already doing all of that, save for "convert" ... for which they have lined up partners (at least 3, complementary, not competing)


The ref was to Prevail credentials (with Points), not to FLSS, which as you say are at "concept stage".


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 48 guests