Future Littoral Strike Ships

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Moved across.
Repulse wrote:....the point I’m making is we already have two platforms that when combined can already do what the FLSS is expected to do (and probably more), plus are assets that add to the war fighting capability of the RN; why do we need the FLSS?
For exactly the reason that you suggest, namely in order to achieve the same capability current RN/RFA assets need to be combined. When compared to a single Point derived FLSS, a Fort Victoria & Bay combination is a very expensive alternative.

The value of the FLSS is how it could work with current RN/RFA vessels rather than compete against them. That interoperability will be crucial if the Littoral Strike Group is ever to become reality. It has to be scalable, proportionate and cost effective for limited deployments in low threat environments and I think the Prevail proposal achieves that.

The part I have always been uncomfortable with is how the FLSS then slots into a Littoral Strike Group. The whole concept of forming a group around a vessel that can only embark 4 Merlins seems flawed from the outset IMO. If the LSG is scalable up to the point were multiple FLSS are combined within the Group then the concept begins have more merit.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Tempest414 »

Not that I am a fan of FLSS but if it joined something like a 200 meter Enforcer able to operate 6 Merlin's off of 3 spots that would allow 10 Merlin's in two lifts of 5 helicopters allowing a ramping up if needed like so

1 - 1 x FLSS = 4 helos + 200 troops
2 - 1 x FLSS & 1 x Enforcer = 10 helos + 400 to 500 troops
3 - 1 x LPH & 1 x Enforcer = 26 helos + 700 to 800 troops

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Repulse »

Poiuytrewq wrote:The value of the FLSS is how it could work with current RN/RFA vessels rather than compete against them.
But unless new money is found for the RN/RFA (both for the equipment and annual running/maintenance costs) then the FLSS(s) are competing. At the moment the compromise seems to be no 3rd FSS (RFA Victoria) and no RFA Argus replacement.
Poiuytrewq wrote:The part I have always been uncomfortable with is how the FLSS then slots into a Littoral Strike Group. The whole concept of forming a group around a vessel that can only embark 4 Merlins seems flawed from the outset IMO. If the LSG is scalable up to the point were multiple FLSS are combined within the Group then the concept begins have more merit.
A scaled up LSG in my view should be based around a LPD and auxiliary carrier.
”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

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Lord Jim »

In principal, the idea of the FLSS and LSG have some merit, but they need to be funded with new money. The existing procurement plat plan is already recognised as being unaffordable, with a serious funding shortfall, and the need to make additional efficiencies/cuts, and now funding is being diverted away form core needs to fund additional capabilities. Until new money is made available on a sustained basis, programmes like the FLSS need to be put in the nice to have category rather then made a high priority for immediate funding.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Lord Jim wrote:Until new money is made available on a sustained basis, programmes like the FLSS need to be put in the nice to have category rather then made a high priority for immediate funding.
That sounds like a very sensible approach but where does it leave the Royal Marines?

For example,

- The LPD's have no aviation so the Commando Heicopter Force can't operate from them without an additional vessel in support.

- The Bays are mostly deployed to the Caribbean/Gulf and may more and more be involved insome of the MCM deployments.

- Argus is due to be retired without direct replacement.

- PWLS as the Ocean replacement is soon to be RN's only LPH. So every time the Commando Helicopter Force is to be deployed it will likley be via PWLS. How many places is PWLS likley to go without at least one T45 and one T26? That means that even minor interventions are going to require a pretty major response. Deploying PWLS into somebody's backyard will be a pretty big diplomatic statement, will HMG really want that level of potential escalation for every minor intervention? If QE is deployed with the CSG and the Royal Marines are required elsewhere, can QE and PWLS both deploy concurrently? Clearly not when one is in refit.

The FLSS in its current form may not be the answer but RN needs other aviation heavy platforms for the Royal Marines to operate from and personally I do think it is a priority for immediate funding.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by SW1 »

Maybe people just don’t want to see or just don’t like what the info is telling them but we seem to joining all the dots then completely ignore the direction.

The reason for 2 store ships, lack of aircraft ect ect is because the RN is going to a TWO task force navy centred on the two aircraft carriers one high readiness one low. There isn’t a separate amphibious one no matter how much wishing makes it so. They’ll operate like uss America not Nimitz we don’t have the force structure people aircraft to do anything else.

Littoral strike a catchy name is how you tie all the strands that give access to the littoral together, from SF activity with ISR, mines, maritime security, smuggling and ssk as they all reside in the littoral where all the civil traffic is not blue water.

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Lord Jim »

It all depends on when and where the ARG is operating. If in support of NATO then the Dutch amphibious Platforms and Marines become integral with it, providing between four and five helicopter spots and the ability to carry twice that number in helicopters up to the size of the Merlin. That almost equals the single lift ability of a QE. For out of area operation we would probably have a CSG as the prime formation with Merlin HC4s dotted around the fleet but able to be concentrated on the QE for any given amphibious lift operation. A bare bones FLSS isn't going to have much aviation capacity or capability anyway, in no way compensating for the lack of a LPH or the loss or Argus. Mind you things have gone very quiet since the initial announcement, and may have been My Williamson's pet project. The MoD may initially have seen it as a way to get a LPH like platform through the back door calling it a FLSS, but their hopes may have been dashed by his successor and so interest has waned.

Pongoglo
Member
Posts: 231
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 10:39
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Pongoglo »

Lord Jim wrote:It all depends on when and where the ARG is operating. If in support of NATO then the Dutch amphibious Platforms and Marines become integral with it, providing between four and five helicopter spots and the ability to carry twice that number in helicopters up to the size of the Merlin.
Yup,and the Italians and the Spanish and the French etc etc etc. The one thing the European component of NATO isn't short of is LPD/LPH. One of the issues I have with a lot of the commentary on here is that too many people only see it in terms of us having to go it alone, and in modern times that thankfully has been exceedingly rare.

Sure, I am a believer that if push comes to shove we need to be capable of doing another Corporate and in extremes with sovereign assets alone but given the state of the Argentine armed forces it ain't going to be down there. Reality is that in a career spanning 36 years the only operation I have taken part in that has been UK only is probably Sierra Leon, and even then the RN and the ARG had very much a secondary role. Clearly Northern Ireland didn't require an amphibious force.

I do however take Jim's point. The Dutch unlike the others are very much integral to our amphibious planning and whilst they like us have been somewhat distracted in places sandy over recent years in term of NATO the UK/NL AF is still very much a going concern, albeit with a slightly different name. Now, with the advent of the CJEF you might include the French.

Online
Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7246
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Ron5 »

Surely FLSS has been consigned to the waste bin now that Private Pike has been reassigned.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Repulse »

Going back to the RFA Mars programme, there was always going to be 2 FSSs, but in addition 3 Joint sea-based logistics ships also. Part of the role of this latter ship was to help provide forward aviation support.

In the past I think RFA Victoria has fulfilled this role with its helicopters, launching Ribs and hosting 80 RMs.

Perhaps the best thing would be to replace Victoria and Argus with two JSBLs.

I do agree though that there is close to zero chance of the RN operating two CBGs outside of the North Atlantic, maybe one enlarged group (with 2 CVFs) but never two.
”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:Perhaps the best thing would be to replace Victoria and Argus with two JSBLs.
What would you want these to be capable of ?
What sort or aviation capabilities, hanger size flight deck size ?
What sort of replenishment capabilities ?
Would you want large lane meterage like the bays or larger ?
Would it require landing craft if so what sort ?

All these questions drive the type a size of design along with cost. I bring it up a lot but the Karel Doorman is the perfect example of this. It’s large aviation capabilities, it’s very large lane meterage ( nearly double a bays ) its decent replenishment capability ( about 2/3-3/4 that of fort Victoria’s ) but all at a cost.

A vessel like Karel Doorman could do the FLSS role perfectly while adding and extra replenishment capability along with a partial sea-basing.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Repulse »

Jake1992 wrote:What would you want these to be capable of ?
What sort or aviation capabilities, hanger size flight deck size ?
What sort of replenishment capabilities ?
Would you want large lane meterage like the bays or larger ?
Would it require landing craft if so what sort ?
1) Capable of supporting operating/maintaining CHF helicopters, transporting the stores required for a RM Cdo (say one week worth) acting as part of a ship to shore connector, operating landing craft and independently hosting a SF/RM company.

2) Chinook sized flight deck capable of operating a mixture of 5 Merlins/Wildcats/Apaches or 2 Chinooks.

3) Stores (10t pallets) and fresh water

4) Good question, much smaller, I don’t see these as primarily vehicle transports, but say enough space for vehicles for a single RM company or supply vehicles.

5) Well dock for one LCU plus davits for 4 LCVPs (or equivalents)

I’d also add Artisan Radar and a 24 cell SeaCeptor capable of covering a local small task group - similar to how the Fort IIs were envisaged.

As such small ops capable of acting independently, but able to work with a LPD & LSD for a larger ARG/Littoral Group, but also a capable (but not optimal) FSS replacement.
”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:
Jake1992 wrote:What would you want these to be capable of ?
What sort or aviation capabilities, hanger size flight deck size ?
What sort of replenishment capabilities ?
Would you want large lane meterage like the bays or larger ?
Would it require landing craft if so what sort ?
1) Capable of supporting operating/maintaining CHF helicopters, transporting the stores required for a RM Cdo (say one week worth) acting as part of a ship to shore connector, operating landing craft and independently hosting a SF/RM company.

2) Chinook sized flight deck capable of operating a mixture of 5 Merlins/Wildcats/Apaches or 2 Chinooks.

3) Stores (10t pallets) and fresh water

4) Good question, much smaller, I don’t see these as primarily vehicle transports, but say enough space for vehicles for a single RM company or supply vehicles.

5) Well dock for one LCU plus davits for 4 LCVPs (or equivalents)

I’d also add Artisan Radar and a 24 cell SeaCeptor capable of covering a local small task group - similar to how the Fort IIs were envisaged.

As such small ops capable of acting independently, but able to work with a LPD & LSD for a larger ARG/Littoral Group, but also a capable (but not optimal) FSS replacement.
Besides the welldock and CAMM this is pretty much what I was thinking of in terms of a modified KarelDoorman, I’d reduced the lane meterage by 50% ( still close to a bays ) use this extra space for extra accommodation ( say for up to 250 personal instead of the current 180 odd ) and use the rest to increase the replenishment capacity closer to that of Fort Victoria and add 2 more dividends.

All this comes at a cost though, vessel as above would cost at least £400m each even with out CAMM or a well dock, but a pair of these in place of the 2 FLSS and Argus would give a real boost to not only the amphibious force but the fleet over all. One of these operating in the Far East would be a big help to our allies there.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Repulse »

Jake1992, agreed, for me it’s more about the RN having building blocks that can both (directly or indirectly) support CEPP (which is one of the three prime objectives) but also can be used on independent deployments. The FLSS does not give this in the way described.

The following quote from the SDSR 2015 docs seems to support what has been stated earlier, that there will not be a separate ARG.
Operate two aircraft carriers, with one available at all times including an amphibious capability.
My criticism of this, has been that for the carrier to act more freely as its needs further from the shore it can be closer in to optimise for Amphibious/Littoral roles. Having a JSBL in the Task Group would allow it and a LPD/LSD to move forwards with a couple of escorts and a couple of MH(P)Cs, separate from CBG.

Having a JSBL with operating with a couple of MH(P)Cs would also give an effective Littoral Strike Group for low-medium threat operations. The fact that the JSBL would have the radar and SeaCeaptor would allow for simpler MHPC “Escorts” maybe with a mission bay but no dedicated hangar and no CAMM (or just a silo of 12).
”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

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Lots of new info here,
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/a-clos ... p-concept/

The flight deck in particular appears to have a complete reconfiguration.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by SW1 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Lots of new info here,
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/a-clos ... p-concept/

The flight deck in particular appears to have a complete reconfiguration.
Not sure I’m seeing a whole lot of difference to what prevail put out in feb ship wise. Does seem to pull together some strands in terms of the concept thinking and does make a lot of sense as we transition away from traditional amphibious operations to a hybrid fwd deployed presence vessel. Not entirely convinced why we’d need a new vessel mind, you could achieve much the same by refitting the bays and or the Albion’s to get a similar configuration with the added utility of a dock.

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Lord Jim »

I am surprised at the size of the platforms being considered, but as proposed they would be a very useful addition to the UK's amphibious assets. As pointed out we could get a similar capability by refitting the Bay class, but doing so would probably take longer than building/converting two merchantmen to this role. In addition it will give the RFA possibly two additional platforms and the UK a integral helicopter capability independent of the Carriers. I would still like to see one of the Bay modified to add greater aviation and hospital capabilities, as a bridging vessels between the existing Bay and a possible successor to both them and the Albions. I see the need to be able to embark up to eight of the FAA's Merlin HM4s within the ARG independent of the Carriers, and having possibly two FLSS would reinstate the vertical lift capability of the ARG in wartime.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Tempest414 »

Also from Naval news the Victa 02 Subsea craft for SF diver insertion capable of 40 knots and 250 Nm on the surface and 8 knots underwater could be a useful bit of kit able to be carried by Chinook fits in a ISO container looks good

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 idea of the FLSS and LSG have some merit, but they need to be funded with new money
At the time of the announcement Defence Transformation Fund was mentioned (and it was topped up in the recent "spending review"
- it would not (without depleting it) stretch to new builds, but conversions are a different matter
SW1 wrote:There isn’t a separate amphibious one no matter how much wishing makes it so.
Quite, and exactly for that reason a fwrd presence type of ship - other than a patrol frigate - is needed
Pongoglo wrote:The one thing the European component of NATO isn't short of is LPD/LPH. One of the issues I have with a lot of the commentary on here is that too many people only see it in terms of us having to go it alone
Exactly, but Art V is not the only scenario that needs to be planned for (in the fleet mix)
Lord Jim wrote:I am surprised at the size of the platforms being considered
Fwrd presence requires endurance and habitability... we are not talking "overload conditions" for a short transit
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)

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Talking about transformation monies: put a few of these onboard https://www.military.com/daily-news/201 ... NDgwNzc5S0
- Merlins for the first couple of years, though
- as the fly-off is in 2023
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: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Interesting new design concept from BMT.

Could this provide another possible FLSS option to rival Prevail's MRV?

https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/ds ... ry-vessel/

The specifications aren't clear at this stage but the forward working deck, twin Merlin flight deck and floodable well dock configuration is massively versatile. The double RAS rigs are the icing on the cake.

A solid option for when the Waves are finally replaced even if the FLSS heads in a different direction.

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Jake1992 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Interesting new design concept from BMT.

Could this provide another possible FLSS option to rival Prevail's MRV?

https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/ds ... ry-vessel/

The specifications aren't clear at this stage but the forward working deck, twin Merlin flight deck and floodable well dock configuration is massively versatile. The double RAS rigs are the icing on the cake.

A solid option for when the Waves are finally replaced even if the FLSS heads in a different direction.
It’s interesting but can’t find how larger the hanger is, looks like only a single merlin size to me which if so is not very good for a FLSS but good enough for a wave replacement.

It does look like it’d be costly though, this design is comparable to the Karel Doorman design with worse aviation but a flood-able dock, and most agree on here that KD would cost around £400m a piece.

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Jake1992 wrote:not very good for a FLSS but good enough for a wave replacement.
Agreed, but 1000 LIMs, 250 troops... or a hospital! Configurable between these, and when we are not doing anything From The Sea, then they won't be idle but can be working at sea (supply)
- two of these for one (the option) of the "carrier-sized" FSS? Money talks?
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)

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Jake1992 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:not very good for a FLSS but good enough for a wave replacement.
Agreed, but 1000 LIMs, 250 troops... or a hospital! Configurable between these, and when we are not doing anything From The Sea, then they won't be idle but can be working at sea (supply)
- two of these for one (the option) of the "carrier-sized" FSS? Money talks?
- As a directed replacement for the waves these look spot on ( as long as their liquid capacity is close to that of the waves )

- As a replacement for the QEs much needed FSSS ( even 2 for 1 ) then no as the QEs need the high volume supply of the FSSS and not a piecemeal stand in.

- if we are look to combine the FLSS and wave replacement in to one class then this isn’t a bad start but it really lacks in the aviation capacity needed for FLSS. For me if this route is taken a pair of modified KDs would be better.
With the KDs massive aviation ( 6 x merlin hanger twin chinook deck ) and a replenishment capacity 2/3 to 3/4 that of Fort Victory its only modification for me would be 2-4 extra LCVP size dividend.

- IMO for FLSS portion of these vessels a well dock is a nice to have but not a necessity where a good size aviation set up is a necessity.

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 660
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Dahedd »

Rather off topic but I can't see the Waves being replaced in RN service. With all the shenanigans at Westminster I unfortunately can see another independence vote up here being won by the SNP.
I could imagine the RN ditching the Waves so they can keep the Tides. At least one of the Waves going to whatever constitutes the Scottish navy.

Post Reply