Future Littoral Strike Ships

[Aethulwulf]

The writing is on the RN is getting seven new simple ships (5 OPV + 2 LSS), that covers the simple tasks, now focus on making the escorts real escorts.

If we can get another vessel to cover TAPS that would be a straightforward win as well. It should be a mission for the MCM replacement vessel (hopefully the Venari 85). No need for an escort to do the role.

With the routine of the peacetime role of TAPS it is easy to forget that in times of heightened tension or conflict the TAPS vessel will become a primary target for one of the most capable of opposition forces in the world. This is an arguement for keeping TAPS within the T26 fleet.

[Timmymagic]

With the routine of the peacetime role of TAPS it is easy to forget that in times of heightened tension or conflict the TAPS vessel will become a primary target for one of the most capable of opposition forces in the world. This is an argument for keeping TAPS within the T26 fleet.

That's true to an extent. But...if its a surprise attack a T26 is every bit as vulnerable as a Venari or Tug pulling a very, very long towed array. You could argue that having one of our irreplaceable assets in a position of comparative vulnerability, due to the fact it location is generally known is a risk. By towing a far longer, more capable towed array you could reduce the vulnerability of a simpler vessel by keeping any potential opposition at a greater distance. P-8 could do the prosecution of any target detected. Stick some countermeasures aboard and a Goalkeeper/Phalanx and rely on land based air cover for protection. Would it be as rounded a capability as a T23 or T26? Probably not, but it would do the job of detection and tracking in peacetime very well. And with only 8 towed array escorts can we really afford to have a number permanently rotating through this task?

[Aethulwulf]

Can we afford to use one of our top class ships to protect CASD, the highest priority defence task, from tier 1 opposition?

I think I know the answer...

[Repulse]

That’s why we need more than 8 T26s. Even slipping one more in would help enormously with covering the necessary tier 1 roles.

[SW1]

Does the RN have enough ASW specialist to just man the type 23/26 asw vessels or an excess of crew so it can put them on other vessels without have to take them away from primary assets?

Not sure. But its a whole lot cheaper and an easy win to train some additional crew over a period of years to man a simple vessel than it would be to deploy one of our precious fleet escorts for a comparatively routine tasking. It wouldn't need to be a Venari in the short term (although that would make sense). A good example would be the US Surtass vessels. Thats all we need for TAPS...you could turn it into a permanent training asset for the ASW community, after all it's permanently engaged in actual ASW against some of the hardest targets going.

But it isn’t a routine task it’s a priority task. You don’t send people who are training to your priority task they need to be combat ready. This is all what’s wrong when these discussions start, you cover your priorities first which is CASD and the carrier group everything else is secondary and if you don’t have the ability to do anything else so be it. Same for the other two services.

[ArmChairCivvy]

cover your priorities first which is CASD and the carrier group

1.CASD
2. CTF
2.5 LitM
- this last one lives a "double life", because when it is not 'joined at the hip' with the CTF, it will be tending towards a NEO type/ scale of an Op

[Timmymagic]

But it isn’t a routine task it’s a priority task. You don’t send people who are training to your priority task they need to be combat ready.

It's a peacetime task. And an asset with trainees onboard also has the trainers on board...who tend to be the best around....

[Repulse]

Timmymagic, I see your point, but it’s still using a first class T23 (T26) asset. Now in peacetimes the asset comes from the “working up / training” pool of T23s/T26s, but in wartime when you need those assets with your CSGs then they will be pressed, hence why I think we need one more T26.

[Caribbean]

You don’t send people who are training to your priority task they need to be combat ready

Agree with covering the priority tasks first, but tell me, if the T23 currently carrying out this duty does detect a lurking Russian submarine, waiting to track the deterrent as it sails, do they immediately torpedo the sub, starting a war with Russia, or do they simply advise the Admiralty that the deterrent's exit/entry is compromised?

[SW1]

You don’t send people who are training to your priority task they need to be combat ready

Agree with covering the priority tasks first, but tell me, if the T23 currently carrying out this duty does detect a lurking Russian submarine, waiting to track the deterrent as it sails, do they immediately torpedo the sub, starting a war with Russia, or do they simply advise the Admiralty that the deterrent's exit/entry is compromised?

Let’s not get silly, we both know the answer to that. But for the same reason they don’t use a ship that hasn’t passed FOST or that you don’t use the OCU students or new squadron pilot to man QRA until they have achieved a combat ready status.

They have to be competent in the task of using the equipment tracks submarines and know how to interpret the data.

We keep getting told by seniors RN leadership about eye watering Russian sub activity as the reason for type 26, p8 ect to increased presence of nato assets in the North Atlantic. You don’t send trainees in a mcmv to monitor an eye watering threat.

[Caribbean]

Now you are being silly. Is anyone suggesting that these vessels are manned by raw recruits that have never seen a sonar before? Training is a continuous process, covering the full spectrum from basic training to upgrading the skills of experienced operators in the light of new developments (the military equivalent of CPD, I guess). Just because some of the crew are "trainees" doesn't mean that an entire ships company can't pass FOST. As it is, where do you think that ASW operators hone their skills? Basic training at a shore establishment using simulators and a shore-based 2087 (if that system still exists), then posting to a frigate to learn how to use those basic skills "for real".

[SW1]

Now you are being silly. Is anyone suggesting that these vessels are manned by raw recruits that have never seen a sonar before? Training is a continuous process, covering the full spectrum from basic training to upgrading the skills of experienced operators in the light of new developments (the military equivalent of CPD, I guess). Just because some of the crew are "trainees" doesn't mean that an entire ships company can't pass FOST. As it is, where do you think that ASW operators hone their skills? Basic training at a shore establishment using simulators and a shore-based 2087 (if that system still exists), then posting to a frigate to learn how to use those basic skills "for real".

Of course it’s a continuous process, it certainly didn’t strike me that training was implying upgrading skill sets of experienced operators.

I would of thought that asw operators would hone there skills by being sent along with the ship to exercises to test them like joint warrior or some of the nato ones prior to an operational tasking maybe they don’t.

[Lord Jim]

We need to move this train of thought in to the Escorts thread really as the FLSS is not going to be used as a ASW platform and if a variant is used as such it should be discussed there.

[shark bait]

A little bit of detail from the financial times;
https://www.ft.com/content/71211bdc-604 ... d51850994c

For years the Royal Navy has been arguing for the introduction of two littoral strike ships — amphibious landing vessels similar to boats operated by the US navy. They would host 300 Royal Marine commandos, a landing deck for four Merlin helicopters, a group of fast attack boats as well as advanced intelligence and surveillance capabilities.

Naval officials estimate buying and converting a second-hand ferry would cost less than £100m each — less than half the price of a Type 31E frigate. Detailed plans on how they might do so are expected by the end of the year.

They don't name a source, but it all sounds reasonable.

[Lord Jim]

I assume they are talking about a Cargo Ferry or Ro-Ro rather than a vessel that has retired from the Dover to Calais run.

[Poiuytrewq]

Can't get past the pay wall

For years the Royal Navy has been arguing for the introduction of two littoral strike ships

Doesn't sound like an entirely Gavin Williamson inspired idea then. Perhaps RN/RM want the capability and the DS wants to provide it but there is only enough money for 2 Point class conversions to make it happen anytime soon.

They would host 300 Royal Marine commandos

I don't think Prevail MRV concept as it stands could handle an EMF of 300 without going into overload.

amphibious landing vessels similar to boats operated by the US navy......a landing deck for four Merlin helicopters

I take it this means a 4 Merlin hanger with 2 landing spots. If we took it literally as 4 landing spots any FLSS would need a 32m+ beam like a San Antonio.

Naval officials estimate buying and converting a second-hand ferry would cost less than £100m each

Even at the upper end of that estimate it seems like good value. However I have a feeling this concept could change a lot before anything hits the water.

I think Jake raises a valid point. Could two adapted Absalon cross-over type vessels be built as part of the T31 programme? A stretched 150m Damen Crossover would give a 4 Merlin/2 Landing spot configuration, top speed of 26 knots and crew allocation of 63 to 83. The 19m stretch should increase the range and endurance and enable an EMF of around 300. Importantly it would also be built to Naval standards. https://products.damen.com/en/ranges/cr ... sover-131a

Adding the £200m conversion budget to the cost of two T31's, that's £700m. Very healthy indeed.

With a budget like that 2 extremely capable littoral combat ships could be constructed in the UK, easily meeting all the requirements and possibly allowing a basic self escorting capability. https://products.damen.com/-/media/Prod ... 2_2015.pdf

Current planning seems to be getting more and more ambitious but as there appears to little extra money forthcoming, build standards and offensive capability is being downgraded accordingly. Perhaps it's time for a reassessment of our current priorities in an effort to work some of the contradictions out of current planning.

Detailed plans on how they might do so are expected by the end of the year.

Excellent

[shark bait]

Can't get past the pay wall

There was nothing else about these ships, but if you google a section of the text and enter via google you can usually get past the FT paywall.

I was surprised to hear the RN have been exploring the idea for years, and perhaps it does corroborate an earlier comment from an official that the exact mix of support ships has not been decided yet.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Doesn't sound like an entirely Gavin Williamson inspired idea then. Perhaps RN/RM want the capability and the DS wants to provide it but there is only enough money for 2 Point class conversions to make it happen anytime soon.

They would host 300 Royal Marine commandos

I don't think Prevail MRV concept as it stands could handle an EMF of 300 without going into overload.

The MDP progress piece that received criticism for its brewity (compensated for with loadsa photos ) had an interesting leading-in part:
" a central ‘planning assumption’ for Defence, that if called upon by Government the Armed Forces should be able to deploy a highly capable expeditionary force of around 50,000, including:
 A maritime task group centred on a Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carrier with F35 Lightning aircraft
 A land division with three brigades including a new Strike Force
 An air group of combat, transport and surveillance aircraft
 A Special Forces task group.
This planning assumption remains unchanged,"
and where I read it differently in the 2015 SDSR was that a maximum effort, single force was to be behind the stated total number of bods.

Putting it the way it has now been done,
- the air group is what has covered the M. East (lately)
- the first two element may be in Europe, on its flanks ... or elsewhere
- but the Special Forces task group, for bush fires in some other spot, will need to be provided with perseverance, for a quick first reaction and an "afloat" solution is the most flexible one for that - put the two ships together to get to "300" if and when needed Over and above that it will fall into the LitM category of tasks

[SW1]

Relevant to a number of threads but

https://www.defensenews.com/interviews/ ... ral-ships/

Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson recently announced a plan to develop a new littoral fleet, but a lot of people looked at that and said it was thin on details. What’s the thinking and timetable here?


I think it will certainly be part of the debate in the spending review. At the moment, the money has been found to examine the concept and develop the concept, and I think until we have the information that that phase will bring, it’s very difficult to put a timeline or a sort of hard figure against it, and clearly that’s going to need to be weighed up against other priorities. But it’s a way of us understanding more about it. It’s a capability that is attractive, it’s a capability that we think will have relevance in the future. But until we really understand more about it, it’s difficult to weigh up against other priorities, and that’s why we’re spending a relatively small amount of money in developing the concept.

When do you think that study will be done? Do you expect you’ll need to invest in other areas, like escort or supply ships, to make this concept work?

I think a year from now.

[In terms of investments], it depends on your concept of operations. I mean, we’re investing in support ships anyway. We’ve got a brand-new class of refueler from South Korea, and we have budgeted and [are] yet to go to tender [on] solid support ships, which we think are going to be an important part of the carrier concept. So that’s where the munitions will be held, where the stores will be held. And, of course, those ships will be compatible not just with the carrier but with the other warships of the Royal Navy. So we’re investing quite a lot in support ships and then trying to work out what the best [concept of operations] is, given that we’re never going to have everything that we want because we’re simply not a nation of that sort of size.

U.K. politicians have said that post Brexit, they intend to have a greater presence abroad. Do you have enough ships to do that?

Well, we have 19 destroyers and frigates. That is stated government policy. When the Type 26s come in and the Type 31s come in, and, in fact, that remains the policy. Particularly in your maritime force structures, [you must] get that balance right between war fighting at the very highest end, and the sort of ubiquity that comes from platforms in, let’s call it the constabulary role, and we’re trying to get that balance between that Type 26-Type 31 split. But the numbers remain consistent. Then you don’t have to just think warships. We get a lot of utility out of our amphibious shipping. We have offshore patrol vessels, which are [such] capable platforms that we’re just buying new ones. So you don’t have to be out-and-out warships.

I’ll tell you another example: The [oil refueling ship], you know, has got a really capable hanger on the back. It’s got medical facilities onboard, it’s got space to carry capability that you’d want offshore. It’s got cranes onboard. It’s principal task will always be to carry fuel for warships, but nonetheless the utility you can get from that fleet is considerable. So, you know, could we do with more? Yes, but do I feel that we’re about appropriately configured for what we want to do? Probably. And the fact that we’ve been able to have an LPD — an amphibious ship — and three frigates go to the Far East in the last year and a half is an indication of our ability to veer and haul and flex availability for areas that we want to prioritize.

[ArmChairCivvy]

invest in other areas, like escort or supply ships, to make this concept work

As the plentiful text thereafter points out, we have the escorts and the supply ships (switch Ft Victoria over to this, once the SSS show is on the road?).
- what we don't have is littoral force protection craft (a bit more than the raiders with a couple of MGs)
- and the next thing is that they won't self deploy onto the scene

[ArmChairCivvy]

what we don't have is littoral force protection craft (a bit more than the raiders with a couple of MGs)

We and "Ocean Trader" are not the first at it; take a look at "Ocean Candle"
http://www.hisutton.com/Saviz.html

[Pongoglo]

Now that Gavin Williamson is 'demised' do we think that is the end of the FLSS?

[shotleylad]

I would hope so.

[Caribbean]

I think that depends on who exactly originated the idea. if it's a genuine need expressed by the RN or SF, then my guess is that it will continue in one form or another

[shark bait]

FT reported the idea came from inside the Navy so hopefully not.

Gavin's transformation fund trying to introduce quick procurement route is one of his highlights, I hope it sticks around.