Future Littoral Strike Ships
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3247
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships
I know there's no new money...but I wonder if the MV Longstone and MV Beachy Head (the 2 Point Class that were deemed surplus to requirements) could be prised from their current owners. In civilian ship world they're 15 years old, which is long in the tooth. One in the Baltic with a Finnish shipping line and the other in the Med with a Maltese line at present...
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4098
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships
I think it's depends on how long these Littoral Strike Ships are due to be in service.Timmymagic wrote:I know there's no new money...but I wonder if the MV Longstone and MV Beachy Head (the 2 Point Class that were deemed surplus to requirements) could be prised from their current owners. In civilian ship world they're 15 years old, which is long in the tooth. One in the Baltic with a Finnish shipping line and the other in the Med with a Maltese line at present...
If they are just a stopgap until 2035 then a commercial conversion might make sense but if they are expected to hang around until around 2050 then a newly built vessel is clearly the best option.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4098
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships
Could there be a number 6 on your list? How would the recently proposed HADR/Hospital ships fit in to the mix (if at all).donald_of_tokyo wrote:Big question.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships
Once the two (of the six) were released, there were more things happening than downsizing from launching "a bde" to a Lead Cdo Group (and then a bde... in its own time). Namely:Timmymagic wrote:I know there's no new money...but I wonder if the MV Longstone and MV Beachy Head (the 2 Point Class that were deemed surplus to requirements) could be prised from their current owners. In civilian ship world they're 15 years old, which is long in the tooth. One in the Baltic with a Finnish shipping line and the other in the Med with a Maltese line at present...
1. pulling out of A-stan... the rail head, the other end of it, was in the Baltic
2. pulling out of Germany (only now, it seems, we are slowing those plans down)
That's a good many years. All through it has been stated that the remaining ships have been rather busy
- now we can pull one, at a time, for a conversion?
- end up 2 owned, two as per today's arrangement?
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships
Worth noting as well that people are assuming large ships.
For all we know it could be a 10,000 tonne converted ship that can carry a couple helos and RHIBs. Still hefty, but not the gigantic tankers that everyone has jumped to the conclusion on.
For all we know it could be a 10,000 tonne converted ship that can carry a couple helos and RHIBs. Still hefty, but not the gigantic tankers that everyone has jumped to the conclusion on.
Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships
So are these announcements being funded from the next ten year Equipment Plan or from the current one, which will mean something else will have to go.
Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships
Personally, I see this as good news. It offers up solid assets to forward base and IMO is a better use of RN funds / U.K. capabilities than forward basing paper T31 frigates. It also alleviates the pressure on the two CSGs which can only be a good thing.
I think they do allow for RFA Argus to go without direct replacement, also I don’t see the need for an immediate purchase of a 3rd FSS and keeping RFA Victoria in reserve could mitigate any risk.
I think they do allow for RFA Argus to go without direct replacement, also I don’t see the need for an immediate purchase of a 3rd FSS and keeping RFA Victoria in reserve could mitigate any risk.
”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
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5624
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships
So the key words for me are Form 2 strike groups next up are the images of a modded Point class by the RN where is this going
1 ) early retirement of the Albion's ( we can't support 2 main classes of ship to deploy RN )
2 ) These new ship are going to need a crew of 250 + to support Landing ops
3 ) for me they will need escorts in the Pacific
1 ) early retirement of the Albion's ( we can't support 2 main classes of ship to deploy RN )
2 ) These new ship are going to need a crew of 250 + to support Landing ops
3 ) for me they will need escorts in the Pacific
Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships
Poiuytrewq asked what i'm thinking here.... could these be used as Hospital ships as well?
I like the idea... but where the funding is coming from is the big question
I like the idea... but where the funding is coming from is the big question
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5624
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships
RFA Argus and the 3rd FSS are toast.Tempest414 wrote:Funding and crew ?
I’m also wondering if ultimately these will be MCM motherships also - those boats in Twitter picture look a bit like ARCIMS.
Personally would ultimately go for 4; one in the Med, one in the Gulf (to free up the Bay), one in the WIndies, and another operating out of Singapore. Maybe time will tell.
”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
Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships
without a big change in escort numbers, i can't see there being more than two TBH.
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3247
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships
No offence, but I hope we do none of those. A dedicated UK HADR ship with decent hospital capabilities should be a separate goal and funded by DFID, if it's RFA all the better, but pure civilian with DFID plastered on the side would be fine. A vessel similar to the US Expeditionary Mobile Base, a civilian conversion, but on a smaller scale would be perfect. Stick it in the Windies in hurricane season, and can be used for drug interdiction with an embarked USCG helicopter. If it was RFA it would be useful asset in amphibious warfare as well and cheap as chips. We should forget about a big dedicated hospital ship unless DFID want to fund one as well.Repulse wrote:Personally would ultimately go for 4; one in the Med, one in the Gulf (to free up the Bay), one in the WIndies, and another operating out of Singapore. Maybe time will tell.
As to the Gulf an easier solution would be to buy a second hand Oil Rig Support vessel and re-purpose. Just like Diligence did for many years. Loads laid up at present, and again cheap as chips. If we can port over some or all of the capability from Diligence great.
That would free up the 2 Bay's for their real role. As to the Littoral Strike Ships, they need to go wherever we need presence but a warship is overkill. They would have been perfect operating off Somalia on anti-piracy patrol, off Libya or off West Africa. I can't see the point of deploying them to the Gulf or Far East. In the Gulf we have assets already, in the Far East what would they be doing? It's deadly serious around those parts so we either turn up with a Frigate or Destroyer or we shouldn't bother.
Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships
I do not think these ships will threaten the Albions as they are not in the same class or have the same capabilities. The number of embarked troops will be significantly less and I can see these mainly being SF and RM raiding parties. These will not be platforms able to land significant number of troops either over the beach or disembark them in a port.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4098
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships
Agreed, we don't know the full implications yet but the thinking and ambition seems bang on to me.Repulse wrote:Personally, I see this as good news.
Maybe but where is the PCRS facility going to reside? An adapted Bay or maybe split between the proposed HADR vessels.Repulse wrote:I think they do allow for RFA Argus to go without direct replacement, also I don’t see the need for an immediate purchase of a 3rd FSS and keeping RFA Victoria in reserve could mitigate any risk.
Very hard to see how we will get 3 FSS vessels now but the 3rd could be a hybrid with the PCRS facility. I think it's unlikely.
Unless a crane or davit deployed LCU replacement is procured the Albions can't really go anywhere.Tempest414 wrote:1 ) early retirement of the Albion's ( we can't support 2 main classes of ship to deploy RN )
The strange thing about choosing the Point as the base design for these Littoral Strike Ships is that the Point is all about embarking vehicles, lots of vehicles.
These diagrams show the scale of the Points vast vehicle decks. If these LSS vessels don't really have a large vehicle requirement, exactly what is going to fill up these spaces?
A comparison between the released concept and a standard Point shows the superficial differences clearly. An extra deck has been added to form the flight deck and basis for the hanger. Three landing spots have been created but are the forward and aft hangers connected? If so the hanger space is huge. Depending on the internal configuration the hanger could be in the region of 1000sqm to 1200sqm or 6 to 8 Merlins. As a new deck has been added to facilitate this hanger space and flight decks no existing space has been lost.
The Upper deck becomes the main misson area for deploying the small craft but this deck is massive. As an example, this deck has the same amount of space as an entire Bay class so there is plenty of room to embark many dozens of CB90 sized craft, clearly something else would need to added to this deck. The possibilities are endless.
The next deck is the Main deck and it would seem sensible to retain this as a vehicle deck. This deck alone has nearly the same vehicle capacity as an entire Bay class! LCAC's could also be launched from the stern ramp.
Below the Main deck is the tank deck and this would seem like an ideal location for EMF accommodation and stores etc. Depending on the internal configuration in excess of 1000 Marines could be embarked as the tank deck could be split into 2 or 3 smaller decks. Extensive medical facilities could be easily incorporated as well as accommodation for medical and aviation personnel.
Clearly the Point class is a fantastic blank canvas for adaption but I would like to see what ship to shore connectors are being proposed. Without LCM's or mexefloates the design is compromised as a Littoral Strike Ship. The ship to shore connectors are vital.
The omission of a large deck crane also seems strange.
Agreed. For the Gulf a Wildcat and Phalanx combo is probably enough.Tempest414 wrote:....for me they will need escorts in the Pacific
All of the quotes have been carefully worded but actually talking about building new vessels has not been mentioned officially.Jdam wrote:Will these be new builds?
Very easily and they would also make great HADR platforms but the HADR role would all depend on the ship to shore connectors.SDL wrote:could these be used as Hospital ships as well?
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4098
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships
Well worth a read.
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/defenc ... n-answers/
Some great quotes, particularly enjoyed this one
Love the ambition but actions speak louder than words....
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/defenc ... n-answers/
Some great quotes, particularly enjoyed this one
Julian Lewis MP, chair of the Defence Committee noted: “It is a profoundly welcome development, and shows what can be done when Treasury-led attempts to hollow-out the armed forces are successfully resisted.”
Here's a bold statement from the Defence Secretary, “If we ever need them to, our two LSS, 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.”
How are we going to man all that Love the ambition but actions speak louder than words....
Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships
I’m sure I read somewhere in a D.K. Brown book that several configs were analysed for a auxiliary helicopter carrier and the max effective number was 6 for a “non-flattop” ship.Poiuytrewq wrote:6 to 8 Merlins
”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
Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships
All well and good, I like the concept but surely we will need some more Helicopters because there are not enough for the few ships we have.
And of course there is the matter of crew and funding, as well as funds to build them. So not expecting this to happen soon, unless DFID fund them.
And of course there is the matter of crew and funding, as well as funds to build them. So not expecting this to happen soon, unless DFID fund them.
Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships
I only hope its not smoke and mirrors by using two of our existing four point ships? If its conversion of the S.S.D.R.10 of hires or two new vessels I will be pleasantly surprised. The defence sectary may have honest intention. Beware the managed decline treasury policy turning him inti a snake oil salesman.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4098
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships
Sounds about right. Another important consideration is how many Chinooks will fit without folding rotors.Repulse wrote:I’m sure I read somewhere in a D.K. Brown book that several configs were analysed for a auxiliary helicopter carrier and the max effective number was 6 for a “non-flattop” ship.Poiuytrewq wrote:6 to 8 Merlins
The concept image with dual hanger doors would suggest none.
A Karel Doorman style door would solve this problem but with it facing forward, it may become a bit draughty. Also aft flight deck looks small. Could it be drones/UAV's only?
Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships
Why not a Karel Doorman as the base design them ?Poiuytrewq wrote:Sounds about right. Another important consideration is how many Chinooks will fit without folding rotors.Repulse wrote:I’m sure I read somewhere in a D.K. Brown book that several configs were analysed for a auxiliary helicopter carrier and the max effective number was 6 for a “non-flattop” ship.Poiuytrewq wrote:6 to 8 Merlins
The concept image with dual hanger doors would suggest none.
A Karel Doorman style door would solve this problem but with it facing forward, it may become a bit draughty. Also aft flight deck looks small. Could it be drones/UAV's only?
Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships
Timmymagic, the point really is that this is more about capabilities (off board systems, Helicopters and SFs) than platforms. If one platform can carry systems that could replace the 4 MCMs in the Gulf, why not. Similar capabilities will be of value in the Far East. You are right, having one in the WIndies may be overkill, but equally a reserve for the other 3. Better impact than a half arsed class Frigate IMO.
”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
Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships
It's smart thinking and good news in a way. Potentially 2 modified points / paid for using funds that are allegedly ring fenced / no cost for weapons / likely civilian manned or RFA / addition aviation platforms so that the elderly Argus can be withdrawn. All giving large capability boost for little cost.
All nice to have but doesn't solve any of the other issues the navy faces right now such as :
Low sub numbers
low escort numers ( T26 / T31 ) shambles
T45 weapon upgrades
Ocean / Albion / Bulwark replacements
Low numbers of Merlins
CAMM for QE
i suspect some of the above issues will be kicked into the long grass for the time being.
All nice to have but doesn't solve any of the other issues the navy faces right now such as :
Low sub numbers
low escort numers ( T26 / T31 ) shambles
T45 weapon upgrades
Ocean / Albion / Bulwark replacements
Low numbers of Merlins
CAMM for QE
i suspect some of the above issues will be kicked into the long grass for the time being.