Future Littoral Strike Ships

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by RichardIC »

Lord Jim wrote:If they end up being "Grey" but contractor operated, then it would put the RFA on a slippery slope as you can bet someone in the Treasury will spot this and think "Well if the LSS can be Contractor operated, why not the majority of the RFA"!!!
Wouldn't be the first time.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 35048.html

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Lord Jim wrote:The design looks very promising.
It does but in my opinion some strange decisions have been made also. The cheapest way to perform the conversion is just to add a large accommodation block to the superstructure. I think this has led to compromises. The stern ramp arrangement is sub optimal, simply no need for a ramp that large unless large LCAC's are going to be deployed in the future. A Karel Doorman stern arrangement would be much better especially as the concept has no side ramps for loading/off loading.
Lord Jim wrote:Would two such vessels be affordable within the current funding level from the transitional fund?
Yes, especially if part funded by DFID. Building new in the UK would be a budget buster. This is the reason why they will probably be converted commercial donor hulls and not owned by HMG.
Repulse wrote:A MHPC Littoral escort with (limited) AAW capability:
Sounds like a Combat MCMV. It might take a while but I think we will end up with something like this in the end. Unless we get a shed load of T31's, meaning 8 to 10 plus.
Jake1992 wrote:I couple of things that jumped out at me were the mentions of HADR abd hospital ship, this dures links to what was being talked about with the aid budget.
Are we talking about the same vessels or two for Littoral Strike and two for HADR/PCRS? Not enough information yet.
Tempest414 wrote:1) ready for ops in 2020
Good :thumbup:
Tempest414 wrote:2) it looks like it will be based on a Point class ship
At this stage but we might see a few amended concepts as the process proceeds. I would still ideally like to see the Bay's getting converted into the FLSS and cheap but useful commercial vessels procured to take over APT(N) and Kipion.
Tempest414 wrote:3) 400 embarked personnel ( company of RM 200 plus crew 100 plus helicopter detachment )
Sounds almost perfect. I would like to see an additional 20% overload accommodation added to allow for a surge.
Tempest414 wrote:4) a UAV deck at the back but no garage / work shop for them?
This UAV deck area looks all wrong to me. Seems like a poor use of space.
Tempest414 wrote:5) keeping the Vehicle decks 2400 lane meters just 250 meter less than a current Point class
The Prevail MRV LM figures include the hanger/flight deck etc. Also some of the internal spaces look tight. The space will be there but probably not as user friendly as a Point. The hull has also been stretched to allow for this.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:I think 3rd SSS is needed (CV strike is very very logistic heavy).
Agreed. I think this is the reason why RN want 3 FSS vessels and therefore HMG want them built abroad. Probably South Korea would be the preferred option (I don't believe the Navantia rumour.)
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Also if there are only two of them, they will be top priority target. If one is in refit, and the other was sunk, the UK CVTF will go away.
It will and the Albion in the Amphibious Group will also be a top target. More resilience needed.
Lord Jim wrote:If they end up being "Grey" but contractor operated, then it would put the RFA on a slippery slope as you can bet someone in the Treasury will spot this and think "Well if the LSS can be Contractor operated, why not the majority of the RFA"!!!
Watch this space :D

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Jake1992 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:I couple of things that jumped out at me were the mentions of HADR abd hospital ship, this dures links to what was being talked about with the aid budget.
Are we talking about the same vessels or two for Littoral Strike and two for HADR/PCRS? Not enough information yet.
Tempest414 wrote:D
I’m on about a few months ago we were all talking about the anoucement from the DFID of funding 2 HADR / Hospital ships, we now see that those requirements could be covered by the 2 new LSS “coincidences” ? Maybe or could it be that the proposed money by DFID for 2 HADR vessels could be put towards the new LSS instead since they’ll be able to cover those roles ?

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Jake1992 wrote:could it be that the proposed money by DFID for 2 HADR vessels could be put towards the new LSS instead since they’ll be able to cover those roles ?
I agree, lots of overlap in the announcements but at present we just don't have enough information to form a view. It could go either way.

Personally I would like to see them kept separate. Two FLSS vessels as foward based vessels for the Royal Marines and two separate, dedicated HADR/PCRS vessels paid for by DFID unless the MOD need them for a major conflict. One bonus of marking all four vessels in the same manner would be to make it difficult to differentiate between the variants.

Given the scale of the UK's Foreign Aid and Defence budgets it's hardly unaffordable.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Lord Jim »

If a programme for two HADR/Hospital ships funded by DIFD did materialise, having them use the same platform as the LSS would make sense if things were co-ordinated. Having a design with a common core including medical facilities, and the ability to use ISOs or other methods to reconfigure the role quickly would provide the UK with between two and four very flexible platforms.

The helicopter capacity of the FLSS lends itself well to the HADR role as does the cargo capacity for HADR operations. Having integral ship to shore craft adds to this. Having the ISOs or whatever equipment sets for the adaptation of the core platforms in place at the planned forward basing location in the Gulf, Caribbean and Far East would allow any vessel on location to change its role to meet whatever event occurs.

If DIFD funded part of all four vessels, and the adaptation kits relevant to HADR and operations as a Hospital platform it may be possible for these vessels to be affordable. Have the core provided by a contractor as well as the core crew, with specialist crew members provided by the RFS and/or RN depending on the mission at hand.

Platforms of this type would cover a multitude number of requirements including a replacement for HMS Argus and could allow one or more of the Bays to go into reserve if the right design for these new platforms is chosen. It should also reduce the temptation to view these platforms as alternatives to the third FSS.

Key though would be an immediate change in the title of these platforms a having the word "Strike" in the name doesn't lend itself well for a vessel being used for humanitarian operations and part funded by DIFD. Something like a Forward Deployable Operations Platform or something in a similar vein maybe better.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: Having a design with a common core including medical facilities, and the ability to use ISOs or other methods to reconfigure
First of all, a key point
- second, just brings back the reminder from the NSS "build plan blueprint" that a dedicated casualties ship is only sketched in for c. 2035 (must be a note, so that the rqrmnt will not get wholly forgotten about?), and
- third, if we were to get 2 in grey and one in white that would share "some of the inners", then buying 3 identical ships (to make the conversion easy = cheap) from the trade might be tricky... and therefore 'points' to the Points
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote:keeping the Vehicle decks 2400 lane meters just 250 meter less than a current Point class
Just to play Devils advocate, if this is the case why not just upgrade all 4 Points currently under contract by the RN? Sure, we’d loose 1,000 LIM overall but would really be such an impact? Availability wise there would be an impact, but coupled with other commercial arrangements it could be managed.

Edit: This would be separate from a PCRS replacement of course :)
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Caribbean »

I think there is a tendency to expect too much of the FLSS. Much of the (early, to be fair) speculation seems to be looking for a vessel that fits somewhere between the Bays and the Albions, whereas it is clear that these new vessels will sit somewhere between the Points and the Bays (the financial logic alone indicates that).

In their primary role as an SF Sea-base, they are unlikely to be seen close-in to land. They will lay well off-shore, allowing the SF to mount their operations from OTH, using a combination of helicopters, specialist boats and even locally-acquired surface craft. I would expect, in that role, that their vehicle deck would be used for primarily for stores and equipment to allow them to operate away from land for prolonged periods, since it does not appear that they will have either LCU's or mexeflotes to allow ship-to-shore transfer (has anyone seen mention of RAS facilities?).

In their "amphibious" role (i.e. operating in conjunction with specialist amphibious forces), they will probably operate in a similar way to the Bays, being used as auxiliary transports, but without organic ship-to-shore connectors and using the aft ramp as a steel beach. Their advantage over the Points is that they can also transport personnel and helicopters and that, once they have completed the "delivery run", are capable of being used independently (with suitable escorts) for operations up to company size (or maybe two in overload). Maybe it's because of the shape, but I can't help thinking of these as being more like the old Round-table class than anything else.

As for the DfID requirement, I think that they are actually looking at two ship types - one for "over the beach" HADR operations and the other a dedicated hospital ship.

I would keep the Hospital ship completely separate (and build and operate it entirely out of DfID funds). Build it to a design that is completely focussed on medical and medevac requirements. This gives it maximum legal protection (and diverting one to support a military operation is entirely legitimate, as it's entire function remains focussed on treating the sick and injured). The MoD would only pay in the event of it being used as part of a military campaign.

The interesting part is the HADR requirement - and here is where I think commonality of design with the FLSS would give the greatest benefit. Again, these vessels could be built and operated out of the DfID budget, and would be capable of replacing both the Bays and Rivers/ T31s in the Caribbean, since they could not only cover HADR, but also host both civilian law enforcement parties, as well as RN/RM boarding parties and equipment, for the anti-smuggling roles. In this case, the MoD would only normally pay a small contribution towards the running of the vessels (and could even argue that the presence of military personnel is aid to regional law-enforcement and is a legal requirement, when the use of force may be required in international waters). Should the need arise, they could simply (following a quick paint job) assume the FLSS role, or if needed, be rapidly converted to a PCRS/ auxiliary hospital ship, through the use of a pre-fabricated/ containerised field hospital on the vehicle deck.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Caribbean wrote:has anyone seen mention of RAS facilities?
No, but the US spec - starting from a near-identical hull - had 45 days at sea and another 45 through RASsing... which to me read like some supplies being carried for 90, right from the beginning
Caribbean wrote:would keep the Hospital ship completely separate (and build and operate it entirely out of DfID funds).
The ship yes, but a hi-role medical facility, ro-ro (which you do mention) can't come cheap... and could clearly, with a bit of warning, be dual use. After a little bit of rolling off and then on
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Repulse »

Caribbean wrote:They will lay well off-shore, allowing the SF to mount their operations from OTH, using a combination of helicopters, specialist boats and even locally-acquired surface craft.
True, in most cases but would be a damn sight closer than a CVF, which is the gap they are filling IMO. I would also see that in some environments such as the Norwegian Fjords, they could and should be very close to shore.
Caribbean wrote:these new vessels will sit somewhere between the Points and the Bays
Agree, though why not “replace” the Points with this upgraded single class of the Lift Capability is not significantly impacted (as suggested by the published info) and in some cases improved (e.g. increased ability to transport troops and helicopters).
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Repulse wrote:in some environments such as the Norwegian Fjords, they could and should be very close to shore.
Funnily enough, during the latest NATO exercise that Serco SV Something was amongst the Lofoten Islands, probably having some fast insertation boats for practising putting tactical air control parties ashore, ina clandestine way
- though a big 'box' what a ro-ro ship basically is would not be the least survivable in a 'peer-enemy' environment
Repulse wrote: why not “replace” the Points with this upgraded single class
Careful what you wish for :)
- though with the A-stan drawdown done and the one from Germany slowing down, the 4 ships might present some overcapacity. Any conversions would conveniently cut it by 25% (and bring it back, minus 10%, in the not too distant future)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Very interesting post.
Caribbean wrote:I think there is a tendency to expect too much of the FLSS.
Absolutely, the temptation for mission creep is high.

Just to be clear, are you proposing 4 virtually identical vessels to specified individually to match the deployment?
Caribbean wrote:I would expect, in that role, that their vehicle deck would be used for primarily for stores and equipment to allow them to operate away from land for prolonged periods....
The Prevail concept shows that much of the upper deck is taken up with boat handling areas, ramps and an ammunition magazine. It stands to reason that the rest of the upper deck would normally be used to house stores EMF supplies and specialist kit. Large areas of the tank deck is taken up as well with water/fuel tanks, a gym and machinery spaces. This remaining area on the tank deck looks to be ideal for surge EMF accommodation. The Main deck with its 960 LM looks like the main vehicle deck when in FLSS mode.
.... since it does not appear that they will have either LCU's or mexeflotes to allow ship-to-shore transfer....
This seems like a strange omission to me. In HADR situations can we really rely on a suitable undamaged port being available at all times. LCU's aren't going to happen but mexefloates seem like a sensible and cost effective alternative (LCM's might be a better compromise). It's hard to claim that the MRV concept is a well rounded HADR platform without clear ship to shore connectors. Lots ways to do this but a decent sized aft working deck with a 30/40t stern mounted crane would be one possible option.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5556
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Tempest414 »

My biggest problem I am having right now is if we have such a man power problem how is a contracted ship with 36 crew going to help. The ship is to come with 36 crew and is to be available 300 days a year meaning the ship will be operated by 24 crew with 12 on leave at anyone time on a 1.5 system . This in turn means the RN , RFA ,RM will still need to find some 160 crew working on the same 1.5 system plus 150 to 200 RM plus 40 to 60 helicopter crews & staff . this core crew I see is needed to support 200 RM and flight ops ready to act at anyone time 300 days a year

20 chefs / mess staff
10 Medics
2 Crane operators
20 Engineers
15 Flight deck crew
30 operations / Logistics staff
20 Boat crew
I am sure there are more

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Repulse »

ArmChairCivvy, if we don’t use (the Point class) it, we lose it :)
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Caribbean »

Poiuytrewq wrote:are you proposing 4 virtually identical vessels to specified individually to match the deployment
Almost. I would see the HADR variant being a little less specialised (I.e. more open space that could be filled with containers - either HADR supplies or more specialised units, such as armouries, workshops etc. when when co-opted as an auxiliary FLSS or PCRS). For the FLSS variants, these could be "permanent" fittings.
Repulse wrote:in most cases but would be a damn sight closer than a CVF
Yes - I would think so, too.
Poiuytrewq wrote:This seems like a strange omission to me.
I can see that strapping mexeflotes to the side might be a bit of a give-away when in SF support mode, but I agree that they would make a very logical addition to the HADR variant (or when used as part of an amphibious operation). Still, early days - maybe these will be added as the concept develops.
Repulse wrote:why not “replace” the Points with this upgraded single class
A fair point. I'm somewhat undecided myself. I would like to see two additional hulls at a minimum. Perhaps the two oldest could be sold off to form the HADR fleet (since they will probably have a lower operational tempo than the FLSS).
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Caribbean wrote:would like to see two additional hulls at a minimum. Perhaps the two oldest could be sold off to form the HADR fleet (since they will probably have a lower operational tempo than the FLSS).
Talking to those in the trade, all four Points will come together soon. Whether that is to do a physical inspection (as to the remaining life of each), talk to the crews (currently sponsored reserves, doing a normal job as opposed to bobbing up and down off someone's coast for a prolonged period)
- would think that the ones with least life left will get no conversion
- how many will, and what kind?
Could imagine that there would be a consultation who wants what kind of periods away from home port, and possible the crews be redivided (all very experienced, so losing any would not be a good idea).
- 2020 could be just sales talk, but if it isn't, metal could/ should be cut soon and rust brushed off in the same process
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Online
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Caribbean wrote:
Repulse wrote:why not “replace” the Points with this upgraded single class
A fair point. I'm somewhat undecided myself. I would like to see two additional hulls at a minimum. Perhaps the two oldest could be sold off to form the HADR fleet (since they will probably have a lower operational tempo than the FLSS).
For me, it is clearly different class of ships. Point class needs 18-22 crews. LSS is said to need 36 crew (I understand it is the onboard crew, not including the rotation), nearly twice larger. So, for sea lift, Points are much cheaper to operate = efficient than LSS. This means, the "PFI" cost of 2 LSS will be similar to that for 4 Points (excluding fuel cost).

I think, operating cost for RFA Argus could be used here, if RN can "give away" the hospital ship issue to independent organization based on DfID budget organization. But, DfID issue is not coming so early? Then, it will be a big problem.

By adding two LCVPs, or mexefloats with steel beach, LSS-hull1 can replace the Bay in Caribbean. If it is really "300 operational days a year", it can also replace the Wave in winter season. Good because operation cost of LSS will be significantly smaller than that of Bay and Wave. A "2 months visit" of a River B2 can fill the gap. While the LSS-hull2 will be somewhere around Singapore, the faith of this "1 surplus Bay" must be carefully considered. If not, she will just be disbanded. With 2 LSS coming, RM commando will be using them, meaning the "surplus Bay's" amphibious task become even less. Yes we need her in emergency, but it does not solve the "fear" of losing her.

UK might be using the Bay for (long abandoned) APT-S? Or, Indian ocean anti-pirates task? Or, ... what else?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:For me, it is clearly different class of ships.
Question for me is if the FLSS has roughly the same lift capacity, do we need both class types?
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Online
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Repulse wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:For me, it is clearly different class of ships.
Question for me is if the FLSS has roughly the same lift capacity, do we need both class types?
But the Points are used for daily transport tasks (mostly Army?) and LSS stationed forward for SF operation. I think it is two different tasks?

I agree there are similarity on their hull capability, but Point do not need helicopters nor boats. Just a waste of resource to have such assets onboard Points.

LSS has more overlap with Bays than with Points, for me...

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Lord Jim »

This thread is getting a lot like that discussing future escorts, mainly the T-31e. There are lots of very valid points, no pun intended, but until we get more actual details on the two vessels announced, speculating about four and whether they will/could replace the Points is probably a leap too far.

I think one thing is certain though, regardless of how or who operates them, they are going to be as cheap as is possible whilst meeting the minimum mission requirements at least to begin with. Once the first two are delivered and being put through their paces they might prove to be a good choice to replace one or more type of existing platform or they might not, being too focused or their original role.

If the same hull design could be used for a new hospital ship, probably operated and with a core crew in a similar way to the initial two LSS there would be some advantages of the provider and also the customer, and we all know how the treasury likes these sort of solutions. You never know, if a commercial hovercraft able to lift one or more Army AFVs were available and the same platform could have a larger dry cargo bay at the rear able to hold one or more of these craft this modified design could be a possible future replacement for the Bays.

But all of this beyond the first two is pure speculation based on zero factual foundation. I think we should stick to discussing the planned two and what they might realistically bring to the table within the existing fleet structure that avoids duplicating the capabilities of existing platforms.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by shark bait »

Tempest414 wrote:This in turn means the RN , RFA ,RM will still need to find some 160 crew
Or it may be a contracted crew.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5556
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Tempest414 »

and where will all these contracted crew come from ? probably stolen from the RN & RFA

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by shark bait »

I assume they will be civilians employed by a private company who take sponsored reserve status as an employment condition, that's the model used on Point class.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5556
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Tempest414 »

and if it is more than the 36 crew talked about them more than likely a good number will leave the RN / RFA on Friday and start on Monday I saw in happen loads of times in the RAF when firms took over roles they stole crews and staff to fill the contract because it was easier to pay mod people a little bit than they are getting with the mod over recruiting and training people to fill the contract leave the RAF/ MOD with the task of recruiting and training new people

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Poiuytrewq »

If only spreadsheet Phil could find a few pounds down the back of the Treasury sofa as the addition of one these on the FLSS vessels would make a massive difference :thumbup:

Dream on I know....... :D

Post Reply