Future Littoral Strike Ships

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by RetroSicotte »

Ron5 wrote:
SW1 wrote:If the NAO report didn’t wake people up to how overspent the budget is nothing will. I’m amazed people still think the lpds survive that long if the two carrier do come on stream. At best both are mothballed. Would suspect the bays are being relieved from there presence duties to either be scrapped or used in littoral role one hopes it’s the latter.
Surely the best answer would be to cancel Tempest and just buy more F-35B's?

Budget instantly balanced.
And murder the British military aerospace industry? No thanks.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Repulse »

It seems bonkers that we have two very flexible ships, which are optimised for Littoral Operations and hosting off board systems, that a lot of people want to get rid of. What’s more, as they have been laid up for long periods I see no reason why the two LPDs cannot run till the end of 2030s.

Much better to get both LPDs in service and forward basing one. Spend a few million of a flexible hangar, and run as SF / unmanned platforms and save the £600mn set aside for the FLSS.
”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

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Jake1992 »

Repulse wrote:It seems bonkers that we have two very flexible ships, which are optimised for Littoral Operations and hosting off board systems, that a lot of people want to get rid of. What’s more, as they have been laid up for long periods I see no reason why the two LPDs cannot run till the end of 2030s.

Much better to get both LPDs in service and forward basing one. Spend a few million of a flexible hangar, and run as SF / unmanned platforms and save the £600mn set aside for the FLSS.
I do wonder how much it’d cost to get both in service and look to put a 2/3 merlin hanger on each.
If it’s less than £600m then it’s make much more sense to go that way, the one thing I can think of that goes against them though is their large man power needs.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote:and save the £600mn set aside for the FLSS.
This is the point they only had money to look at the requirement, it was deemed it would cost 600m to fill there was zero, nothingt at all within the equipment budget allocated to this, it would off been in addition to budget.

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

SW1 wrote:
Repulse wrote:and save the £600mn set aside for the FLSS.
This is the point they only had money to look at the requirement, it was deemed it would cost 600m to fill there was zero, nothingt at all within the equipment budget allocated to this, it would off been in addition to budget.
This is why I understand FLSS is dead. MOD need additional money if they want FLSS, even though they confront 6B GBP shortfall in coming 5 years

NAO report is very worth reading, at least the summary page. For example, 2.9B GBP shortfall is "6B GBP shortfall in 5 years, and 3B GBP surplus in years 6-10". Apparently, the problem is shifting/slowing down everything. Anyway, money within 5 years is what MOD needs to cut.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Repulse »

I don’t believe the Albion Class could be converted into a mini LHD, it is optimised for sea operations (fast craft, landing craft and unmanned assets). What I am proposing is a larger Bay style temporary hangar that could shelter a Merlin, or a couple of Wildcats / UAVs.
”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
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote:I don’t believe the Albion Class could be converted into a mini LHD,
Where did this come from ?. the best we could hope for is both LPD's back in service as are. A LPD based EoS is still a big statement

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

The Albions are equipped with mini-mini hangars... all of 7 sq.m of area :) . Presumably to quickly roll out some helicopter-related kit on wheels
... I wonder if a maintenance "tent" would encounter any of the same kind of problems as on Bays, where the use of the crane becomes restricted etc ?
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: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote:
Repulse wrote:I don’t believe the Albion Class could be converted into a mini LHD,
Where did this come from ?. the best we could hope for is both LPD's back in service as are. A LPD based EoS is still a big statement
We are discussing adding aviation assets to a LPD and comparing to Dutch ships - we need to be clear on what we are taking about. For me it’s supporting aviation assets (surveillance or surface attack, like the Wildcat) not the ability to transport a RM company (or even platoon) over the horizon.
”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
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Tempest414 »

I may be wrong but if you fitted a 20 meter by full width hangar on a Albion class you would still have a 45 x 28.9 meter flight deck big enough to land a Chinook and with a bit of clever parking enough for two Merlin's to lift off

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Ron5 »

RetroSicotte wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
SW1 wrote:If the NAO report didn’t wake people up to how overspent the budget is nothing will. I’m amazed people still think the lpds survive that long if the two carrier do come on stream. At best both are mothballed. Would suspect the bays are being relieved from there presence duties to either be scrapped or used in littoral role one hopes it’s the latter.
Surely the best answer would be to cancel Tempest and just buy more F-35B's?

Budget instantly balanced.
And murder the British military aerospace industry? No thanks.
I think I was being a little too subtle with Mr RAF. I was challenging his unwritten assumption that the MoD budget issues should have to be solved by the Navy alone.

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Lord Jim »

From experience, I always thought the drive for in year accounts was driven by the Treasury, especially Gordon Brown, who wanted everything micro managed. This saw the introduction of RAB, Resource Account Budgeting, that in turn massively increased the amount of paperwork required to get anything done. Our day to day work was driven by spread sheets which were collated and passed up the Command Chain. It also saw a trebling of the number of personnel in the Financial Departments.

As for Littoral strike, if it is still alive, albeit on life support, the best near to medium solution I believe would be to take one of the Bay and turn it into a experimental LSS, using modular components and ISO containers to identify what capabilities are actually needed so that the results can be taken unto account when we look at replacing the Albions, and probably the Bay in the late 2030 or more likely early 2040s. We will need a modular approach a I don't believe we will be able to afford more specialised platforms. What we should end up with is a platform that can be easily and readily transformed in port to carry out the following tasks.
Amphibious Assault.
Littoral Warfare.
Logistical support.
HADR.
Casualty evacuation.
Aviation Training/Transport.
Modules etc. should be able to be easily transported by RFA or Point, and the latter should be equipped with at least one heavy lift crane to allow the installation and removal of modules. As such this requirement should be part of the FSSS design and may require the modification of a number of the Points, ideally when they are also modified to be able to take a temporary Flight Deck similar to that installed on the Canberra and QE2 for their service in the Falklands war, but again more modular so they can be installed and removed as required. There needs to be joined up thinking here, working our for example how many helicopter spots need to be made available and at what capacity across multiple platforms rather than looking to build a flat top.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by RetroSicotte »

Ron5 wrote:I think I was being a little too subtle with Mr RAF. I was challenging his unwritten assumption that the MoD budget issues should have to be solved by the Navy alone.
Fair, but I think the issue is that there's simply nothing left TO cut. We already saw 2010 drop the forces to below safe minimum.

So any thought on what should or shouldn't get cut is pointless. There is nothing left to cut that isn't dangerously irresponsible and foolish.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by SW1 »

Ron5 wrote:
RetroSicotte wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
SW1 wrote:If the NAO report didn’t wake people up to how overspent the budget is nothing will. I’m amazed people still think the lpds survive that long if the two carrier do come on stream. At best both are mothballed. Would suspect the bays are being relieved from there presence duties to either be scrapped or used in littoral role one hopes it’s the latter.
Surely the best answer would be to cancel Tempest and just buy more F-35B's?

Budget instantly balanced.
And murder the British military aerospace industry? No thanks.
I think I was being a little too subtle with Mr RAF. I was challenging his unwritten assumption that the MoD budget issues should have to be solved by the Navy alone.
Great post shows exactly how ignorant you really are and that your assumptions are nearly as good as the governments.

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Lord Jim »

RetroSicotte wrote:So any thought on what should or shouldn't get cut is pointless. There is nothing left to cut that isn't dangerously irresponsible and foolish.
When has that ever stopped the Politicians. The simple fact that Defence doesn't win votes, or related problems cause a drop in votes means that unless we have another conflict involving a BOT that requires the commitment of a large number of our Armed Forces, they are simply number on a spread sheet for the Treasury.

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: The simple fact that Defence doesn't win votes, or related problems cause a drop in votes means that unless
I am not quite so sure that within the "related problems" internal security/ counter-terrorism would rate that low?
- perhaps Boris, from his London Mayor years and the close liaison with the Met who are the national lead on c-terrorism, has some genuine input on how to balance the priorities and then investment into capabilities across the broad field (multiple uses and so forth...)
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)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Ron5 »

RetroSicotte wrote:
Ron5 wrote:I think I was being a little too subtle with Mr RAF. I was challenging his unwritten assumption that the MoD budget issues should have to be solved by the Navy alone.
Fair, but I think the issue is that there's simply nothing left TO cut. We already saw 2010 drop the forces to below safe minimum.

So any thought on what should or shouldn't get cut is pointless. There is nothing left to cut that isn't dangerously irresponsible and foolish.
I personally would cut programs that start to drift way over contracted budget and schedule before gazillions are wasted. Warrior WSCP springs to mind.

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ron5 wrote:
I personally would cut programs that start to drift way over contracted budget and schedule before gazillions are wasted. Warrior WSCP springs to mind.
It does. Perhaps the army will be let off the hook as the SDSR (again!) was launched with "who needs tanks in day and age".
- if we don't need tanks :roll: then we won't need Warriors, either
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)

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Lord Jim »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:I am not quite so sure that within the "related problems" internal security/ counter-terrorism would rate that low?
I agree, but including those in the review allows the Government to increase the funding for areas such as these as well as Cyber, whilst the Armed Forces end up having to make cuts. AS far as the voters are concerned, the Government is spending more on defence but it won't stop the decline of our Military even as they want to have a greater global presence. As far as politicians are concerned it is as near to having your cake and eating it as it gets.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Interesting article in the Telegraph this morning.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/0 ... t-threats/

Confirmation that 2 LRG's (not LSG's?) are to be be formed either side of Suez and at least initially using the Bays.

Text:

UK's Future Commando Force: a radical and 'lethal' new unit to fight threats across the globe
Two new Littoral Response Groups - one east of Suez, one in the High North - will hold hundreds of Commandos at immediate notice to move

By
Dominic Nicholls,
DEFENCE AND SECURITY CORRESPONDENT
26 June 2020 • 11:00pm

Britain’s Commando forces are to undergo a radical transformation to face future threats across the globe, the Royal Navy has announced.

The days of British troops charging across enemy held beaches are, hopefully, over. However, complex and technically advanced threats from adversaries have demanded a new way of projecting force.

As modern weapon systems can hit ships hundreds of miles out from an objective, just getting to the fight is now a problem in itself.

Major General Matthew Holmes, the Commandant General of the Royal Marines (CGRM), says the Future Commando Force will be a more “lethal, survivable and sustained” amphibious capability.

A persistent forward presence based on ships seeks to offer global access and “pose greater dilemmas to our adversaries,” General Holmes says.

The new 'tactical' White ensign, to be worn on the left shoulder, reaffirming that the Royal Marines are part of the Royal Navy. The new uniform will be the first time the ensign has been worn by Royal Marines since they were formed in 1664.
The new "tactical" white ensign, to be worn on the left shoulder, reaffirming that the Royal Marines are part of the Royal Navy.

Two Littoral Response Groups (LRG), each of a few hundred commandos and supporting elements, will deploy on roughly six-month cycles to respond to crises ranging from humanitarian disaster to conventional warfare.

It is envisaged one LRG will be permanently east of Suez, with the Royal Navy facility in Bahrain acting as a staging post.

The second Group will focus on Nato’s northern flank, working closely with Norwegian amphibious forces, and the Mediterranean.

The three Bay-Class Landing Ship Dock Auxiliary ships, crewed by the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, will be the likely hosts, initially at least, with additional medical and aviation facilities developed in the near future.

General Holmes says there will be “tangible differences” in how Britain’s commando forces operate from next year.

Initial developmental work will take place through 40 Commando, based in Taunton, Somerset.

Royal Marines want to be forward deployed on operations, General Holmes says, “unequivocally”.

The Future Commando Force concept is being developed just as the US Marine Corps wrestles with similar ideas.

In ‘Force Design 2030’, released in March this year, the Commandant of the US Marine Corps is similarly seeking to adapt his force for future threats with an emphasis on the Indo-Pacific region; longhand for China.

Introducing the work, General David Berger said “modest and incremental improvements to our existing force structure and legacy capabilities [will] be insufficient to overcome evolving threat capabilities”.

He has directed that: “The Marine Corps must be able to fight at sea, from the sea, and from the land to the sea; operate and persist within range of adversary long-range fires... Achieving this end state requires a force that can create the virtues of mass without the vulnerabilities of concentration, thanks to mobile and low-signature sensors and weapons.”

Greater use of armed unmanned surveillance systems, long-range precision weapons and ‘bubbles’ of secure communications are expected to be at the core of the force.

One of the first actions was for the USMC to get rid of its seven squadrons of main battle tanks, deemed too cumbersome and logistically demanding for the lighter and more agile force General Berger demands.

The Future Commando Force concept does not seek to copy the USMC model, but respond to the shared vision of the threat through an appropriately British financial and political lens.

Colonel Mark Totten, Programme Director of the Future Commando Force, said the programme had two main drivers.

The first is the increased conventional threat posed by technically sophisticated weapons, particularly when matched with artificial intelligence.

Advances in defensive systems mean it is now easier to find, identify and engage military forces with much greater lethality and at much greater range. These so-called Anti-Access/Area Denial capabilities (known as A2AD in military jargon) will make it much harder to get into an area of operations, let alone operate in comparative safety once there. As theatre-entry troops, Commando forces need to address this threat.

The unit will get a brand new uniform

“If we don’t, the conventional aspect of our deterrence model will probably be less effective,” Colonel Totten says.

The threat to maritime forces has increased significantly in recent years.

States such as China have made technological and operational advances in areas such as long range precision missiles that can pose unprecedented threats to ships hundreds of miles away from their objectives.

Even non-state actors with reasonably low grade coastal defence munitions can pose maritime task groups problems.

One such place is the Bab al-Mandab strait between Yemen and the Horn of Africa, a vital choke point through which 4.8 million barrels of oil passed every day in 2016. “It’s a widespread problem,” Colonel Totten says. “If we are to make a contribution to Nato we will have to address it.”

The second driver for the Future Commando Force is the more aggressive use of difficult to identify military forces, combined with economic and diplomatic activity and disinformation: commonly referred to as sub-threshold (of war), hybrid or ‘grey zone’ activities.

This area between declared warfare and state competition is a sophisticated and complex operating environment. It is important for political decision makers to have a broad range of military options to complement actions by the intelligence agencies and special forces. The Future Commando Force is billed as a possible high-end conventional contribution to this demand.

The unit will provide support to Nato operations

The Royal Marines hope the Future Commando Force will also break the “get ready to be ready” model of force generation.

Colonel Totten says Commando forces cannot just “wait for something to happen” before deploying. The aim is to get troops forward where they’re needed, working alongside partner nations.

“We can provide more problem sets to an adversary as a crisis builds,” he says.

He eschews the suggestion such a posture would, in itself, be a provocative act.

The forward deployed Littoral Response Groups, numbering in the low hundreds of Royal Marines and supporting elements, would fit into an already existing network of forward defence presence, he says.

“It would not be introducing a totally new dynamic, which could be escalatory.

“It means an adversary has to track something more than it does today. It’s very easy to track a Task Group deploying from Devonport.”

A persistent presence forward provides an additional surveillance problem for any would-be enemy, he says. It would also focus attention in a way talk of preparing forces in the UK might not.


The new Royal Marines Commando badge – known as a flash – is inspired by Second World War insignia and returns to the original red text on navy blue background. It is worn on both shoulders and is removable as the tactical scenario demands.
Colonel Totten held out the prospect of legacy platforms being retired to enable new capabilities to be brought in. Such wider discussions will be included in the government’s Integrated Review of Foreign, Defence and Security policy, due to start later this year.

Nick Childs of the International Institute for Strategic Studies says developing the Future Commando Force is a recognition that Britain’s amphibious capability needed updating. “The status quo was not going to be the answer to the future,” he says.

Repeated Defence cuts over the last decade have hit maritime forces hard and have left Britain’s amphibious capabilities vulnerable against the opposition they are likely to face in the future, Mr Childs believes.

He says the USMC work is leading the way for Western militaries in general when it comes to “sacrificing sacred cows” (such as their tanks) so as to adapt to modern threats.


The patch of 3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines now features the first pattern FairbairnSykes fighting knife, designed in 1940. Parachute wings are now in black with a green background. Both are worn on the right shoulder
“The Commandant of the US Marine Corps has grabbed a lot of attention and won a lot of plaudits for being prepared to be radical,” he says.

The ambition for the Future Commando Force to be more flexible, dispersed and available is probably right, he believes, although some - hinting at China - “will take a less beneficial view of it”.

However, he questions whether the plan will work without more investment in maritime capabilities.

“My concerns are that in order to deliver the kind of effects [CGRM] is talking about, there is going to have to be quite a lot of investment in new capabilities.

“It’s not going to be the classic assault across the beach anymore, it’s going to be from more stand-off ranges around 150 nautical miles, delivered onto land. In order to be able to be really effective [they] will have to invest in more capabilities.”

From the Crye
Precision fourth
generation field
and combat range:
high-strength
utility belt;
lightweight;
knee protection;
fast drying;
highly breathable;
windproof and
water-resistant
jacket; high tear
strength

Mr Childs questions whether the Future Commando Force will have enough resources to be able to operate assault forces at a scale over and above traditional raiding parties without additional investment. Using existing capabilities might take them away from other tasks, adding to the resource burden.

“How do you balance using the aircraft carriers for the Carrier Strike capability but also for operating in an amphibious role?” he wonders.

“There are only three Landing Ship Dock Auxiliary and they are probably the most in-demand platforms in the naval service at the moment. What is going to happen to the Landing Platform Docks (HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark), only one of which is running at any one time? Where are we with the Littoral Strike Ship idea?”

The USMC and US Navy are considering getting rid of some of their classic naval platforms in favour of smaller, faster and more agile vessels for the amphibious role.

General Holmes was unable to discuss future investments ahead of the Integrated Review.

However, he said: “We’ve got what we need at the moment in order to demonstrate the concept.

"I’m confident that by demonstrating what the new concept offers to Defence it will get the requisite support.”

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by SD67 »

Ron5 wrote:
RetroSicotte wrote:
Ron5 wrote:I think I was being a little too subtle with Mr RAF. I was challenging his unwritten assumption that the MoD budget issues should have to be solved by the Navy alone.
Fair, but I think the issue is that there's simply nothing left TO cut. We already saw 2010 drop the forces to below safe minimum.

So any thought on what should or shouldn't get cut is pointless. There is nothing left to cut that isn't dangerously irresponsible and foolish.
I personally would cut programs that start to drift way over contracted budget and schedule before gazillions are wasted. Warrior WSCP springs to mind.
IMHO you could have a hard look at -
Army : Warrior WSCP and Ajax. Compensate with more Boxer modules outside the 5 year horizon.

RAF : Protector

RN : Type 23 lifex. Just be honest and accept the short term drop in escort numbers

MOD : the 10,000 heads that have been added in the last few years.

That should close the short term gap. But the elephant in the room is Successor

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Repulse »

Poiuytrewq wrote: Confirmation that 2 LRG's (not LSG's?) are to be be formed either side of Suez and at least initially using the Bays.
Interesting change of name, especially as the broader wording suggests the units primary purpose is to tackle A2/AD. I read the Bays comment as speculation rather than a certainty - though if they are trailing the concept then I’m sure they will be used alongside other RFAs like Argus.

What isn’t clear is the future of the Amphibious Strike Group concept - if that is still on the table (with a requirement to carry @400 RMs) then the LPDs (or similar) are still needed.

It could be the ASG will be dropped on the basis that multiple LRGs can come together to deliver the capability- will be interesting to see.
”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
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by shark bait »

That sounds like a positive development to me, the Royal Marines may be on the path towards a more modern and more usable commando force.

Also it sounds like the LPD's days are numbered.
@LandSharkUK

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Repulse wrote:Interesting change of name
Much better IMO :thumbup:
Repulse wrote:I read the Bays comment as speculation rather than a certainty - though if they are trailing the concept then I’m sure they will be used alongside other RFAs like Argus.
If this LRG concept is to become a reality in the next few years then the Bays, Points and Argus is all there is to work with.
Repulse wrote:What isn’t clear is the future of the Amphibious Strike Group concept - if that is still on the table (with a requirement to carry @400 RMs) then the LPDs (or similar) are still needed.
It's starting to look like a more modest force is now being proposed. This seems sensible, at least initially. Correspondingly any vessel procured to facilitate a LRG will be much more modest. The Prevail concept would now easily accommodate the revised requirements.
Repulse wrote:It could be the ASG will be dropped on the basis that multiple LRGs can come together to deliver the capability- will be interesting to see.
An adaptable and flexible force that can be scaled up and down to meet requirements and instantly react to events appears to be the objective. Joining multiple ARG's to form part of the LitM group would seem like a natural progression.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by SW1 »

Using the bays always seemed sensible to me as they have been doing the fwd engagement, logistical and security roles for quite some time both in the gulf and Caribbean and in Norway last year. Having a large flexible space with good hotel facilities at an appropriate scale future proofs changing requirements without blowing the budget is what needs to happen so in that I hope there is truth to it. Often made the case here for this direction for where “type 31” requirements should of headed

Going fwd personally prefer the bmt ellida concept as it enhances the logistics side to the prevail one, with direction of travel it would appear moving toward a more specialist force which I think is a gd one.

Post Reply