Future Littoral Strike Ships

[Caribbean]

Argus needs 80 RFA crew for ship, as I understand.

Two of the MRV will need 70.

And theoretically, those 70 could actually be non-RFA headcount, if the Prevail Partners option is used (though probably with some sort of reservist status).

[donald_of_tokyo]

Yes, in view of head counts. On the other hand, anyway MOD needs to pay for the crew. So budget wise almost no difference?

[Caribbean]

Yes, in view of head counts. On the other hand, anyway MOD needs to pay for the crew. So budget wise almost no difference?

Overall budget - probably not (or minimal at best). But it may well allow you to transfer the "staff" costs to a different budget line. So, for instance, the staff cost becomes wrapped up in the "rental" cost of the ship and is charged to the equipment budget, rather than headcount (which reduces future MOD pension liability etc. etc.) , allowing you to redeploy 70 RFA crewmen.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Yes I agree. But it also means, the already “4.8-14Bn short” equipment budget need further cut.

Overall, I agree RN/RFA top priority is manpower. Cutting something in equipment list (e.g. T31 build, T23GP modernization, keeping 2 escorts in extended readiness, etc) to improve manning issue is the shortest way to make RN/RFA powerful and effective.

[Caribbean]

Yes I agree. But it also means, the already “4.8-14Bn short” equipment budget need further cut.

Overall, I agree RN/RFA top priority is manpower. Cutting something in equipment list (e.g. T31 build, T23GP modernization, keeping 2 escorts in extended readiness, etc) to improve manning issue is the shortest way to make RN/RFA powerful and effective.

I think that the problem for us, as observers, is that you need to have a really detailed knowledge of the budgets involved, in order to make an accurate assessment of how they will be affected. It's entirely possible that the "equipment budget" will be completely unaffected, and that this action will utilise a portion of the budget that would have remained unspent (and thus potentially returned to the Treasury). Headcount particularly is a difficult issue in budgetary terms, primarily because of the long-term ramifications of pensions and other post-employment costs - it the long-term issues that have lead to the rise of the "service company contractor" in UK industries (of which I am now one), as it enables a company to place that burden elsewhere

[donald_of_tokyo]

..It's entirely possible that the "equipment budget" will be completely unaffected, and that this action will utilise a portion of the budget that would have remained unspent (and thus potentially returned to the Treasury).

Thanks. But, if the budget is continuous = need for decades, can this happen? Yes I lack knowledge here, but I though all such "unspent" budget is for urgent, or temporal issues. Can be used for purchase equipments or munitions, but not a long term support contract? Not sure.

Headcount particularly is a difficult issue in budgetary terms, primarily because of the long-term ramifications of pensions and other post-employment costs - it the long-term issues that have lead to the rise of the "service company contractor" in UK industries (of which I am now one), as it enables a company to place that burden elsewhere

Take care. I know those "outsourcing", which is also apparent around me. When it is a small fraction of the community, it works. But, when it became the majority? ....

[ArmChairCivvy]

for instance, the staff cost becomes wrapped up in the "rental" cost of the ship and is charged to the equipment budget, rather than headcount

Some folks here keep saying that "you can't bring future money to today" and the above example would suggest even the opposite. However, in the rental model the capital cost is spread out further into the future, and that is a bigger plus than the quoted minus. Net-net: you have just brought some of the 10-yr budget for "immediate" availability

Headcount particularly is a difficult issue

In many ways. If recruitment is lacking (RN+RM has balanced in & outflows over the last couple of years... but that is not quite enough. AND RFA has been static all through), then you can "transfer" billets to the most needed categories (and offer incentives: retention or some other sort) when 35+35 will have transferred to another cost category
- again: some money has been freed up, though in this case not in an intertemporal way, simply just between categories
- the trick of "gapping" or " holiday" has been used as a device 'once too often' and nobody believes in those anymore, having seen how often the 'gap' is then not closed

Gavin of course will not worry about the effects of a higher real interest rate and its effects on the elasticity of intertemporal substitution... because the interest rate needs (soon!) to go down (and by the time that is reversed, he will be the PM!)
- much better thinking overall than by the Financial Genius, whose PFI tricks (to "lessen" public debt) have A. cost us an arm and a leg, and B. are now being reversed in national debt statistics

[andrew98]

I'm sorry, but is it only me who hates the forward opening hangar?
Sailing along at 15+ knots, open hanger to get helo out and wind blows everything to hell?
Surely a forward superstructure with rearward hangar and flight deck would be much more practical?

[ArmChairCivvy]

A valid point, but these ships will not be doing "naval manoeuvres at speed" - that said transit speed to station is essential.
- so there is nothing to stop them from turning so that the lee "side" is used
- just like with davits, except that only one side is then usable and you need a double number installed (like 4, instead of 2). Our @P commentator, though, proposed a gantry crane running through the whole width of a vessel and thus being able to "feed" quite a few boats through (in addition to them being carried in a weather-protected way, e.g. for loading and unloading, not just servicing)

[Poiuytrewq]

just like with davits, except that only one side is then usable and you need a double number installed (like 4, instead of 2)

Still working through the plans in detail but this MRV concept appears to have a modest double gantry crane setup with two launch/recovery points. The dimensions would suggest this vessel can embark at least 4, possibly up to 6 LCVP (or CB90?) sized craft with 2 craft being able to be deployed simultaneously. It's an efficient design without being overly ambitious or expensive.

image.jpg

[Tempest414]

It all looks very nice but there are a lot of holes in this a lot

1 ) 35 crew for 300 day a year = the ability to move the ship from port to port for 300 days a year based on the how the Points are operated with 22 crew . The RN will still need to add another 120 crew to operate the ship at any real level for the said 300 days a year i.e 60 to 80 RN like so 10 Chefs , 10 flight deck crew , 10 Medics , 30 ops staff at all times

2 ) as pointed out with forward opening hangar these ship are great for HDRA but will be two parts F all use to a larger group as it will stop this group from manoeuvring if we want to use the aviation capability because if the pilot messes up the lift and transition when the ship is moving he/she will be hit by the ship.

[Lord Jim]

I have a feeling this could be another of these get up go priority programmes that gets stuck in neutral and ends up going nowhere once people really start looking into what is required and what is needed to meet these requirements.

[jedibeeftrix]

won't its greatest utility to a full atfg (rather than as the hub of a lssg) be all those thousands of LIMs on the lower decks?
with a secondary support role once the lodgement is being put in place.

[Repulse]

Excellent - that'll be two in white and two in grey, please

Between RFA Argus and RFA Victoria there are 175 RFA crew. With new rules being touted for the DFiD budget being available for HADR, then I could easily see four all grey and all RFA manned - 1 forward based in the Caribbean (paid by DFiD), 1 forward based in Singapore, 1 PCRS mode based in the UK ready to sail with the CSG or to tackle Ebola type emergencies and 1 deployed in the Med / North Atlantic.

[Lord Jim]

IF we look at getting more than two LSS, someone is going to have a bright idea that the Bays are no longer as important and look to selling one or more.

[Poiuytrewq]

IF we look at getting more than two LSS, someone is going to have a bright idea that the Bays are no longer as important and look to selling one or more.

At the present funding level I would agree.

If we can hold on to,

2x Albions
3x Bays
2x Waves
4x Points
1x Serco (aviation training)

And then get an additional 2x LSS on top it will be a mini miracle.

I would argue that if the Waves were slightly modified to more of a multipurpose LSV role and added to the wider patrol/HADR fleet along with the new LSS vessels we really don't need the T31's in a £250m patrol frigate configuration as we would be effectively adding 4 more patrol/HADR vessels to the fleet.

Three or four T31's with an upgraded escort spec or two T26's would be a more sensible way forward.

[Caribbean]

Since, in normal use, the new LSS will be SF sea bases, manned primarily by SF, SFSG (i.e. Army), RAF personnel seconded to SF support and possibly civilian contractors (and possibly paid for, in large part, out of the SF budget), I suspect that there is little likelihood of them being added to the general "patrol" strength of the RN. They will certainly carry out that role, but more likely under the control of the SF Directorate and for their purposes

[R686]

IF we look at getting more than two LSS, someone is going to have a bright idea that the Bays are no longer as important and look to selling one or more.

mmmmmmmmmmmm

[ArmChairCivvy]

possibly civilian contractors (and possibly paid for, in large part, out of the SF budget)

I agree, if you look at total running costs (hardly the purchase & conversion, though?)
- does anyone here know where the + £ 2bn extra for SF mainly went/ is going?
- one could argue that the RAF Protector purchase is somewhat akin to what we are now talking about with ships; there also seems to be a premium paid for the new Chinooks (SF config; even though they mainly will come as older fleet replacements?)

[Repulse]

IF we look at getting more than two LSS, someone is going to have a bright idea that the Bays are no longer as important and look to selling one or more.

(From DK Browns book): Back in the 1980’s when this was all being discussed last time, there were a number of options being explored. One was a combination of 2 ASS (Aviation Support Ship) plus 4 large LPD/LSL ships.

Personally, I can see 4 ships of a single design replacing the Albions and the Bays from the mid 2030s. In the short term, I think 2 FLSS + 2 LPDs + 2 LSDs will meet the requirement - the fate of the 3rd LSD should depend on what is needed in the Gulf as a mothership or what is needed for HADR in the Caribbean.

I’ve suggested that another FLSS for the Caribbean and a fourth for the Argus replacement which are just options at this stage but outsourcing to Pervail are good ones in my view, if we can couple to be paid by the DFiD budget.

Lastly, getting the 2nd LPD at high readiness should be a priority - going for a T26 + 3 new evolved Rivers (to replace the B1s) rather than 5 T31es should do it.

[Poiuytrewq]

the fate of the 3rd LSD should depend on what is needed in the Gulf as a mothership or what is needed for HADR in the Caribbean.

I am among the biggest proponents of an LSS type platform but if it is going to lead to the decommissioning of any of the Bays I would be in favour of cancelling the LSS programme immediately.

[Repulse]

Poiuytrewq, understand your point, but what the RN needs to do is end up with a balanced and affordable fleet. The world is quickly moving from a low(ish) threat to areas that will get hot quickly - the UK is poorly prepared IMO so getting the 2nd Albion back and some Littoral aviation lift capability in service ahead of the 3rd Bay is the priority.

Longer term, I’d see 2 ASS(FLSS) + 4 large LPDs (with 2+ LCU/LCAC sized well docks) as a better fit.

[Tempest414]

the UK is poorly prepared IMO so getting the 2nd Albion back and some Littoral aviation lift capability in service ahead of the 3rd Bay is the priority.

in a answer to the question ( Will we see Albion & Bulwark in service at the same time ) Commander Parkin current head of the Amphib task force said ( We have no plans to have both LPD operating at the same time however HMS Bulwark is being kept a lot warmer than Albion was with on going maintenance and upgrades plus engine tests including tuning the shafts and full system checks every few week. But she will need a refit. So come back to me in 2022 and ask again

[ArmChairCivvy]

Going from memory (dangerous, I know), this means
"

HMS Bulwark is being kept a lot warmer than Albion was with on going maintenance and upgrades plus engine tests including tuning the shafts and full system checks every few week. But she will need a refit.

that the "warmer crewing" has gone from 12 to 40
- and we are talking 35 for the new FLSS (before allowing for any rotation)

[Tempest414]

If we can hold on to,

2x Albions
3x Bays
2x Waves
4x Points
1x Serco (aviation training)

if we could look to replace this fleet in and round 2035 / 40 then I feel the best fleet would be

4 x LPD's
1 x LHD based on the hull form of the LPD's
4 x Points
2 x LSS
1 x extra Tide class