Future Littoral Strike Ships

[Tempest414]

YES it is why

[Poiuytrewq]

Good work by the Marine National

Oh how we miss HMS Ocean when it come to these types of missions and there will be so many more to deal with

Agreed. To me this recent crisis caused by Cyclone Idai is exactly what the FLSS vessels are designed to deal with. Large areas of coastal and inland flooding has resulted in a high percentage of the local inhabitants being cut off by rising flood waters on narrow strips of higher ground or even just rooftops. Firstly they need rescued either by air or by RHIB's airlifted inland to the flooded areas and secondly, shelter, food and water purification equipment is needed to be distributed over vast distances even with most of the road network under water.

As part of working through the design phase of the FLSS vessels I think it is worth assessing how the MRV concept for example would cope as compared with a Bay, Argus, Ocean or a Mistral etc. What is the optimum mix of aviation and landing craft/mexefloates?

How much can be achieved by aviation only?

Actually, speaking in purely Chinook terms practically everything. Take these two mexefloate loads as an example,

image.jpeg

The eight IBC's in this image could be transported via Chinook in one lift.

image.jpeg

Virtually all of the vehicles on the above mexefloates are air transportable by Chinook. Trailers may need removed and transported separately, buckets, weights and pallet forks may need removed from the loaders and 4cx's but they are pretty much all air transportable although it may be wise for DIFD to procure HADR reconstruction equipment that is optimised for air transportation over the longer term.

I have been perplexed by the apparent lack of ship to shore connectors on the two FLSS concepts that we have seen, perhaps, with a capacity of 4 folded Chinooks, as far as the MRV concept is concerned, the Chinooks are the ship to shore connectors.

It would appear that an FLSS vessel with 4 embarked Chinooks, over 1000lm of humanitarian reconstruction equipment and aid supplies combined with regular RAF aid flights to local functioning airports (that can be distributed further via the Chinooks) would provide an effective initial first response for the UK.

I would prefer to see mexefloates added to the FLSS concepts but the MRV concept with 4 embarked Chinooks does have a coherent rationale of its own.

[Lord Jim]

Whilst all of the above is valid, it also is a good case of mission creep. The FLSS is supposed to be a basic vessels aimed at key role but with the limited ability to do other tasks. What is being proposed is more a replacement for he Bays.

[Poiuytrewq]

Whilst all of the above is valid, it also is a good case of mission creep. The FLSS is supposed to be a basic vessels aimed at key role but with the limited ability to do other tasks. What is being proposed is more a replacement for he Bays.

I would be grateful if you could elaborate. Are you suggesting the Prevail concept is guilty of mission creep as it has a 4 folded Chinook capacity? Or the FLSS should not have a HADR capability at all?

I really don't understand the invalid part, especially the relevance of whether the vessel is, was or would be east of suez.

I am not being argumentative but I would appreciate it if you could clarify further so I can fully understand it.

[Lord Jim]

The Prevail concept seems a very capable vessel but given we are to get two of these vessels using the Transformation budget we are looking at spending the base minimum to gain a very limited capability. This whole programme is surrounded by PR and Spin starting with its name. If we spend more than £150M for both vessels I would be surprised, so new build is probably out. I can see them with a lift capacity usually around a reinforced platoon but being able to surge to a company for a limited time. Yes they will have a contribution to make to HADR operations but will not be as effective as say an Bay class with the exception of their aviation capability.

Speaking of this, I can see them with spot for two Chinooks and the ability to house one in its hanger, but they will usually operate Merlin HC4/4As and Wildcat. Yes we are buying a dozen or so very capable SF orientated Chinooks but these are not going to be the sole mount of the SF. The Merlin is also a capable SF platform with pretty good FLIR/EO systems available and a good self defence suit. Yes if extended range is required then one or two Chinooks could be embarked, but the idea of the FLSS is to have a mobile base that can relocate to allow operations over more manageable distances whilst still remaining in friendly territory.

The platform will not be carrying a substantial amount of vehicles and so on, logistical stores yes, so it will not be able to compete with the Bay's in this area, whose ability to operate LCUs increases their advantage. Having smaller platforms or even combat boats on davits will aid it in its primary role and will give it a limited sea based ship to shore capability when it comes to alternative operations like HADR.

AS I said at the beginning starting with the name these vessels are smothered in PR/Spin, mainly to give the Government something to shout about when talking about the UK re-establishing a global presence. Changing the name to something like Mobile Support Platform or even Redeployable Operations Base may make the role and required capabilities easier to understand.

[shark bait]

Finally someone talking a little bit of sense. Those alternate names at the end sound like a much more accurate description of what likely to appear; a fat simple platform for operating a couple of helicopters and a couple of boats.

[Tempest414]

Well lets hope they have two parts of F all to do with the RN then and don't cost us the Bay class or something really useful.

[Jake1992]

I agree the name is very misleading and makes them be thought of more in the way of the carriers of s large well equipped LPD.

For me why not name them as there meant to be use a SF support vessel

[Scimitar54]

Simplistic perhaps, but how about using a Bay class as the basis with the minimum alterations required (acquiring 2 x additional "Bays" of course).

[donald_of_tokyo]

No such man power, nor operation cost. The Trasformation budget is “one shot”.

Also, it is for transformation. Then, what is changing?

We are losing yet another commando, to become a SF oriented formation? (one “real”, one SF and one fleet protection?).

Or we are losing significant fraction of MCMVs to be pertly replaced with Bay, with MCM drones?

Or, are we losing T31?

Too much speculation, I agree. But, surely SDSR 2020 will not be so promising. We will be facing cuts. The matter is, at where...

[Poiuytrewq]

But, surely SDSR 2020 will not be so promising. We will be facing cuts. The matter is, at where...

Too pessimistic for me Donald I'm afraid.

Within 6 months we could, if the paralysis at Westminster subsides, be looking at a new Prime Minister, Chancellor and Defence Secretary together with a different treasury team drawing up the Autumn spending review.

Due to the fluid nature of British politics at present I think sweeping statements about guaranteed cuts down the line are as unrealistic as sweeping statements guaranteeing future increases in UK Defence spending.

The simple truth is nobody knows what way it will go and therefore we will just have to wait and see.

[Lord Jim]

Unless something happens that dramatically changes things the next CSR is not going to dramatically increase defence spending or fill the existing hole. The Treasury like doing things on e case by case basis so if we are lucky they will keep filling the gap in the annual defence finances and with a bit of luck the existing Equipment plan will be unchanged. More like though there will still be a shortfall and additional savings/cuts will be the result. Defence is simply not that politically important.

[Poiuytrewq]

The Prevail concept seems a very capable vessel but given we are to get two of these vessels using the Transformation budget we are looking at spending the base minimum to gain a very limited capability.

Thanks, completely agree, the secret will be to squeeze out maximum capacity for a very modest budget.

Yes they will have a contribution to make to HADR operations but will not be as effective as say an Bay class with the exception of their aviation capability.

I thought that too but what cannot be put ashore in a HADR situation by a Chinook? MBT's aren't required. I think we need to start there and work back.

I can see them with spot for two Chinooks and the ability to house one in its hanger, but they will usually operate Merlin HC4/4As and Wildcat.

Agreed, 2 Merlins, 2 Wildcats max under normal circumstances, usually less. Chinooks only occasionally for specific Ops or large scale HADR emergencies.

AS I said at the beginning starting with the name these vessels are smothered in PR/Spin, mainly to give the Government something to shout about when talking about the UK re-establishing a global presence. Changing the name to something like Mobile Support Platform or even Redeployable Operations Base may make the role and required capabilities easier to understand.

The names are silly but I don't care what they are called as long as they hit the water. I could live with the Littoral Strike Ship, but if a Littoral Strike Group turns out to be a FLSS and an RB2 or a T31, even if accompanied by a Wave, it will be embarrassing.

a fat simple platform for operating a couple of helicopters and a couple of boats.

Do you mean under normal circumstances? The Prevail concept is a lot more ambitious than that when at capacity.

The plans are incomplete but from what is available, the MRV concept can embark,
Up to 4 folded Chinooks or Merlins
Up to 6 LCVP/CB90 sized craft
Up to 4 addional RHIBs
Total accommodation for 400

That's a lot of capability for a rock bottom outlay.

Well lets hope they have two parts of F all to do with the RN then and don't cost us the Bay class or something really useful.

They shouldn't do but if the Bay's are threatened the FLSS program should be cancelled immediately.

I think the recent MCM trails with Mounts Bay could be very significant. If its successful, we may even see an increase in Bay type vessels over the longer term. I have been proposing amalgamating the Bay's into the wider patrol fleet for some time to ensure they are more difficult to cut but routinely using them for MCM is better still. It makes sense to make the full use of the well dock, 30t deck cranes and large working deck when autonomous vehicles are likely to increase in both size and numbers.

Hopefully this gives the remaining three Bay's a bright future. Could Bulwark also have a similar role to play with a reduced crew allocation?

I suppose it all depends if Bulwark is planned to be part of the Eastern LSG or not. At this stage that's not clear but operating both Albions together as part of a maximum effort was mentioned by the Defence Secretary at RUSI,

"...if we ever need them to, our two Littoral Strike Ships, our two aircraft carriers, our two amphibious assault ships Albion and Bulwark, and our three Bay Class landing ships can come together in one amphibious task force."

[shark bait]

The plans are incomplete but from what is available, the MRV concept can embark,
Up to 4 folded Chinooks or Merlins

Isn't it 4 Merlin, not 4 Chinook? Also I'm not sure there is such a thing as a folded Chinook. It is actually a partially disassembled Chinook, requiring the blades to be disconnected from the swash plate, not comparable to routinely folding a proper naval helicopter.

The Prevail point class concept looks spot on as a simple base for a few helicopters and boats. I'm sure it will be useful for a few special missions as well as general maritime security tasks, whilst being far from a LPH or real assault platform, which is a good thing.

[Jake1992]

Well lets hope they have two parts of F all to do with the RN then and don't cost us the Bay class or something really useful.

They shouldn't do but if the Bay's are threatened the FLSS program should be cancelled immediately.

I think the recent MCM trails with Mounts Bay could be very significant. If its successful, we may even see an increase in Bay type vessels over the longer term. I have been proposing amalgamating the Bay's into the wider patrol fleet for some time to ensure they are more difficult to cut but routinely using them for MCM is better still. It makes sense to make the full use of the well dock, 30t deck cranes and large working deck when autonomous vehicles are likely to increase in both size and numbers.

Hopefully this gives the remaining three Bay's a bright future. Could Bulwark also have a similar role to play with a reduced crew allocation?

I suppose it all depends if Bulwark is planned to be part of the Eastern LSG or not. At this stage that's not clear but operating both Albions together as part of a maximum effort was mentioned by the Defence Secretary at RUSI,

"...if we ever need them to, our two Littoral Strike Ships, our two aircraft carriers, our two amphibious assault ships Albion and Bulwark, and our three Bay Class landing ships can come together in one amphibious task force."

The problem I have with this route is if we get rid of the MCM vessels for operating USVs out of the bays and Albion’s what happens when they are needed for amphibious ops ? They can’t do both MCM and amphibious ops at the same time but in many cases both are needed for the mission to be done safely or at all.

[SW1]

FLSS is either a SF base unlikely to be involved in disaster relief that much or it’s a clever name for DFID ships. Looking at the french lhd doesn’t look like there using many helicopters there so not sure why ocean was brought up. Ultimately unless a ship is fwd deployed in an area prone to natural disaster it is too slow to be a first responder which means you need more than 1 if that’s the primary role.


Bays and Albion’s the future multi role platforms!

Just out of interest what size of helicopter can you fit on the vehicle deck of bay class landing ship?

Jake

Well if you consider scale you don’t need 3 bays and 2 lpds to be all tasked with amphibious assault at once.

[Poiuytrewq]

Isn't it 4 Merlin, not 4 Chinook?

The plans show folded Merlins but the maintainence clearances are very generous. Four Chinooks would fit in the hanger for transportation purposes and the deck head is high enough to accommodate Chinook.

As I said previously, its the lack of powered folding blades on the Chinook that is the problem, not the size of the MRV's hanger.

The problem I have with this route is if we get rid of the MCM vessels for operating USVs out of the bays and Albion’s what happens when they are needed for amphibious ops ? They can’t do both MCM and amphibious ops at the same time but in many cases both are needed for the mission to be done safely or at all.

Easy to solve that one, just build more Bay's

Realistically though I suspect that some smaller PSV type vessels would be needed to supplement the Bay's, even if they prove to be phenomenally successful in the MCM role.

Just out of interest what size of helicopter can you fit on the vehicle deck of bay class landing ship?

I think the tank deck on the Bay's is Chinook capable but I'm not sure if the gantry crane would have the clearances necessary to conduct all maintainence required.

image.jpeg

Getting a helicopter from the tank deck up to the flight deck would be a much more complicated problem to solve.

[SW1]

Isn't it 4 Merlin, not 4 Chinook?

The plans show folded Merlins but the maintainence clearances are very generous. Four Chinooks would fit in the hanger for transportation purposes and the deck head is high enough to accommodate Chinook.

As I said previously, its the lack of powered folding blades on the Chinook that is the problem, not the size of the MRV's hanger.

The problem I have with this route is if we get rid of the MCM vessels for operating USVs out of the bays and Albion’s what happens when they are needed for amphibious ops ? They can’t do both MCM and amphibious ops at the same time but in many cases both are needed for the mission to be done safely or at all.

Easy to solve that one, just build more Bay's

Realistically though I suspect that some smaller PSV type vessels would be needed to supplement the Bay's, even if they prove to be phenomenally successful in the MCM role.

Just out of interest what size of helicopter can you fit on the vehicle deck of bay class landing ship?

I think the tank deck on the Bay's is Chinook capable but I'm not sure if the gantry crane would have the clearances necessary to conduct all maintainence required.

image.jpeg

Getting a helicopter from the tank deck up to the flight deck would be a much more complicated problem to solve.

Thanks was thinking a lift to come up to the flight deck like in invincible or ocean.

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/wp-con ... Hangar.jpg

[ArmChairCivvy]

A couple of points (thhough the ships might be bought from the trade, rather than be taken from the Points fleet):
- the current commercial design -off the same base - is built with one deck more than the Points; presumably the draught is very important (with the flat bottom) for getting to places (and so is weight) in MoD's case
- the two sold off Points had bigger engines than the 4 retained. I presume nothing to do with weight, but rather cost of operation . When you put hi-value newsprint onto them, what you shave off in the travel time (cash management) pays for the extra fuel consumption.

[Lord Jim]

There are a couple of very interesting platforms on display in the Malaysia thread in Xav's latest video, the second especially.

[donald_of_tokyo]

But, surely SDSR 2020 will not be so promising. We will be facing cuts. The matter is, at where...

Too pessimistic for me Donald I'm afraid.

I was talking about 4.8-10+B GBP black hole in equipment budget. So for me, reduction in current equipment plan is DEFAULT, no pessimism. How are we filling these short of money? It is clear and present fact, not pessimism.

But, I agree some optimism can take place with very fluid politics.

[Caribbean]

Though, in the current year, the hole appears to have been filled on an "ad hoc" basis, with further "small" sums (£1.8b? so far) being granted on a non-recurring basis. I suspect that the Treasury wants to keep it that way for now, rather than formally increase the budget, as it gives it more leeway while we are going through Brexit and it's aftermath.

[shark bait]

They can’t do both MCM and amphibious ops at the same time

Correct they can't, and the future system should be platform agnostic allowing the RN to choose what is most suitable for each use case. That could be a LSD, T26, LSS, from land, or from a contracted ship. If implemented well it really shouldn't matter.

[Jake1992]

They can’t do both MCM and amphibious ops at the same time

Correct they can't, and the future system should be platform agnostic allowing the RN to choose what is most suitable for each use case. That could be a LSD, T26, LSS, from land, or from a contracted ship. If implemented well it really shouldn't matter.

My only concern with using the bays as mother Ship with large well dock and 30tn cranes so early on in the development is that we go down route of the USVs becoming ever larger to the point that only a bay style vessel can operate them.

[Tempest414]

I was talking about 4.8-10+B GBP black hole in equipment budget. So for me, reduction in current equipment plan is DEFAULT,

What ever the size of the black hole it is across the 10 year plan and it is not black and white

Though, in the current year, the hole appears to have been filled on an "ad hoc" basis, with further "small" sums (£1.8b? so far) being granted on a non-recurring basis. I suspect that the Treasury wants to keep it that way for now, rather than formally increase the budget,

Bang on HMT have been back filling the so called black hole as needed over the past few years and you are right so far it has paid up an extra 1.8 to 2 billion pounds. Why would anyone do more than that knowing that they could be out and it becomes someone else's problem