Lord Jim wrote:Poiuytrewq wrote:Lots of positives and few negatives as apart from the addition of the two FLSS vessels the rest of the LSG strategy could be little more than a redistribution of existing resources, either planned or already in the water.
I am starting to see where you are coming from with this but to be realised it is going to take additional resources that are not there at present and will be in demand elsewhere within the MoD. I would rather see a LSG comprising of a FLSS and a up gunned B2 River which would act as security against localised threats. When I say up gunned this would probably only entail additional HMGs and possibly stabilised pedestals for Javelin and Starstreak. I would not want to see much more other then RFA support during transit.
Firstly I have no idea if what I set out above is even remotely close to the direction the planners are proposing but I think it's at least plausible.
I have been grappling with the viability of two independent LSG's within the constraints of the current budget envelope. At first it appeared to me that whilst the FLSS concept was a practical and affordable way to introduce a littoral strike capability into the fleet, the Littoral Strike Group concept seemed like an unfunded aspiration. I no longer think the LSG is unfunded political rhetoric.
The main components of the LSG's are already in the water or are current programmes that have already been budgeted for. It also appears that the LSG's could be scalable and versatile, able to pull in additional platforms to match the threat up to the point of the full LSG listed above or even combine the LSG's and add HMS PWLS, T45's and T26's to form the LitM group. Given the scale and costs involved I wouldn't expect to see the full LitM group too often.
Most of the time the components of the LSG would conduct routine deployments. In the case of the Eastern LSG the Bay and the T31 would be forward deployed in the Gulf. Perhaps a Wave with or without a T31 could be foward deployed in Singapore. The FLSS vessel would just be wherever it needs to be, somewhere in the region. An east of Suez FSS vessel will I suspect be reliant on the budget stretching to 3 not 2 hulls. The LSG would then be formed from this list of vessels if required. It's a pretty efficient use of resources.
A point I raised above is that unless you ask the Army to commit troops to be permanently at sea or increase the Marines, where is the manpower that these platforms are to carry and deploy come from?
I don't think that there will be any more than a reinforced company on either of the FLSS vessels even when surged. Ordinarily much less. I suspect for most of the time HADR will be a big part of what the FLSS vessels do, the LSG will just be a more impressive HADR response. Where the manpower comes from for the maximum effort LitM group is a different debate.
A few observations,
The FLSS with the enhanced aviation capacity is the difference between a random group of Bays, Waves and T31's and what will form a Littoral Strike Group. I think this aviation capacity should be maximised even if it is rarely used to its full potential. For example, increasing the beam of the Prevail MRV design by 3 meters would increase the aviation capacity by 30%.
The FLSS is likely to end up being exactly what Prevail partners have called it. A Multi Role Vessel. Due to this I think ship to shore connectors should be prioritised to allow for a suitably swift and efficient HADR response. Rapid deployment of mexefloates and possibly 1 or 2 LCM's would be a great addition.
The initial MOD concept showed an aft working deck, the Prevail concept omitted this in favour of an extended superstructure. I think the MOD design is preferable in this regard especially if a stern mounted 40t crane could access the Main deck through a large deck hatch. Forward of the superstructure I think the Prevail design is better but the location of the deck crane could be improved. Maybe a hybrid of the two designs?
It would good to get some official clarity on this but overall it appears that both the FLSS and the LSG concepts are plausible and have merit. It will be interesting to see if other countries adopt a similar strategy and come up with an alternative version.