Future Littoral Strike Ships

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Repulse »

Aethulwulf, my only comment to the above is that does the LSG(W) really need an escort unless operating in the East of the Mediterranean?
”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 »

How do the USN operate their converted Points?

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Lord Jim wrote:How do the USN operate their converted Points?
Virtually invisibly.

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Aethulwulf »

Repulse wrote:Aethulwulf, my only comment to the above is that does the LSG(W) really need an escort unless operating in the East of the Mediterranean?
Who knows!

Very much depends on the capabilities of the LSS and the tasks for which it is designed. This is just speculation based on the statement by SoS that the FSG will have escorts and support ships.

The T31 could bring a lot to the party. The naval Wildcat for surveillance and ASuW, Artisan radar for situational awareness, strong comms links, EW intelligence gathering, etc. as well as a Sea Ceptor umbrella.

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Thank you, extremely helpful.
Aethulwulf wrote: LitM: 1 CVF, 1x Albion, 2x Bay, 1x Point, 1 Tide, 2x FSS, 2x T45s, 2x T23/T31s?
This is quite a force. Massively powerful and capable. If this is the intention then it's now clear why the Bay's can't be converted into the LSS vessels. It will likely take all 3 Bay's just to keep 2 available for this group when it's put together. Given its size and cost, I suspect it won't be put together all that often but from a political point of view it will be even more impressive than the CSG when it is.

A couple of observations,

Is it likely that Argus would ordinarily form part of this group? If Argus is included, that would give maximum hanger space for 16 to 20 Merlins within the wider LitM group, is it likely PoW would increase the number of F35's embarked up towards 16 to 20?

Given the scale of this Littoral Manoeuvre Group would T31's alone really be suitable? Without the accompanying SSN, ASW capability appears very low? Seems like a couple of T26's would be a better option than the T31's?

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Aethulwulf »

This LitM group is approx presently what is needed to deploy the Lead Cdo Group for amphibious assault.

The QEC within this group would be in full LPH mode. It is doubtful whether a QEC in full LPH mode would also be able to operate any F35s, but that has not been fully established yet.

The ASW escort for LitM group is provided by T23/T26, not T31 (my mistake). The group should be:
LitM: 1 CVF, 1x Albion, 2x Bay, 1x Point, 1 Tide, 2x FSS, 2x T45s, 2x T23/T26s?

In a real op, the number and type of escorts for the group would depend on the AAW, ASW and ASuW threat levels.

If role 3 medical facilities are available in a nearby friendly nation, Argus would not be part of the LitM group. If not, she would be deployed but as a R3 facility which most likely would be semi-detached from the assault group.

The proposed LSG is clearly something very different and smaller scale than the current LitM group, most likely limited to lower threat scenarios.

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Lord Jim »

Considering the Lead Commando Group is a reinforced Battalion sized formation the size of force suggested may be a bit large.

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Accepting this as a premise
Aethulwulf wrote:The proposed LSG is clearly something very different and smaller scale than the current LitM group, most likely limited to lower threat scenarios.
my first impression was the same as LJ's
Lord Jim wrote:Considering the Lead Commando Group is a reinforced Battalion sized formation the size of force suggested [ for LitM] may be a bit large.
However, Bn size is about 650, whereas the Lead Cdo Gr is 1800. Of which abt 400 "does not land" though may touch the land: air component (specific to LitM), Assault Gr (boats and landing craft), HQ element
- 1400 (residual) with all the supporting arms is two bns' worth in bods
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
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5556
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Tempest414 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:However, Bn size is about 650, whereas the Lead Cdo Gr is 1800. Of which abt 400 "does not land" though may touch the land: air component (specific to LitM), Assault Gr (boats and landing craft), HQ element
- 1400 (residual) with all the supporting arms is two bns' worth in bods
This is backed up by what Commodore Parkin the commander of UK amphib ops said last year that the lead commando group is 1800 strong and can be put ashore - sustained when ashore and recovered to sea

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Aethulwulf »

At the moment, the Lead Commando Group includes:
•A lead Cdo (e.g 40 Cdo or 45 Cdo) plus attachments
•A Logistics Task Group from Commando Logistics Regiment
•1 battery plus coord centre from 29 Cdo RA
•1 eng sqn plus planning cell from 24 Cdo RE
Approx Totals: 1200 personnel & 500 vehicles

In addition to the above land forces, they will also require an extra 500 personnel (approx) for the Helicopter force and 100 personnel for crewing the Landing Craft.

This gives you the 1800 figure. It requires the LitM group to deploy:
LitM: 1 CVF, 1x Albion, 2x Bay, 1x Point, 1 Tide, 2x FSS, 2x T45s, 2x T23/T26s?

It is possible that the future LSS will alter this. For example, if the LitM group includes two LSS, this could reduce the need for two FSS within the group down to one. This would then remove the need to acquire three FSS, and drop down to the purchase of just two FSS.

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tempest414 wrote:the lead commando group is 1800 strong and [all of it?] can be put ashore
I would v much like to agree with that interpretation (and we should work towards it) - but is it over-literal, as for now?
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)

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Pongoglo »

Aethulwulf wrote:
The T31 could bring a lot to the party. The naval Wildcat for surveillance and ASuW, Artisan radar for situational awareness, strong comms links, EW intelligence gathering, etc. as well as a Sea Ceptor umbrella.
and crucially and often forgotten.. NGFS...which is why at a minimum it needs a Mk 8 gun

In discussing the Type 21's role in the Falklands;

'As shore bombardment platforms and in lethal, accurate gunfire support for the Royal Marines and British Army landing at San Carlos, they were superb, pinning down any possibility of Argentine army counterattack,[16]'

F Southby Tailyour " Reasons in Writing, a Commando's view of the Falklands War' 1993 pp 207-208

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Mk.8 114mm gun is old, heavy, man-power intensive, and not good at AAW.

Replacing the forward 57mm 3P gun with a 114mm gun is equivalent to losing 1 CIWS. It can be supplemented by "more" CAMM, or adding another CIWS. But, this is making the ship more man-power intensive and expensive.

Adding NGFS means losing another, AAW, with fixed price.

I do not think it is worth having on T31e.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Scimitar54 »

Essential :mrgreen:

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: I do not think it is worth having on T31e.
Wider point but in that case surely it's cheaper to replace the six Mk8's on the T45's as they go in for refit? As the T26's start to take over from the T23 ASW's in the CSG, why mess around with 2 different ammo types?

I think the reality is the Mk8's will be around for a long time to come and I believe the the T31's have a better than 50/50 chance of getting the Mk8.

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote: I do not think it is worth having on T31e.
Wider point but in that case surely it's cheaper to replace the six Mk8's on the T45's as they go in for refit? As the T26's start to take over from the T23 ASW's in the CSG, why mess around with 2 different ammo types?
I agree this is a good point.

This is why the candidate is 57mm (or 76 mm), can share logistics with USN, Canada and others (57) (or France, Italy and many others (76)).
I think the reality is the Mk8's will be around for a long time to come and I believe the the T31's have a better than 50/50 chance of getting the Mk8.
Here, I agree. Pressure to use Mk8 does exist, and this may come true. My point is, it will cost a lot.

RN now is primarily man-power limited, and secondary money.

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Lord Jim »

SO why was Williamson talking about deploying two Albions together with one or more LSS plus other assets.

As for the lead Commando, this is not a assault force but a formation to be deployed by sea to fight on land. It is a light infantry force for God's sake. The Naval assets listed are to get it to where it can disembark and protect it whilst doing so. Yes it could conduct a Sierra Leone but that is far from a amphibious assault. People seem to think that we have this all powerful high readiness force that can attack from the sea against any opponent, or conduct operation like the USMC. Oh sod this for a game of soldiers.

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Poiuytrewq wrote:I think the reality is the Mk8's will be around for a long time to come and I believe the the T31's have a better than 50/50 chance of getting the Mk8.
Agree (we have up to 20 kicking around) and as 'the gun' has very little to do with an AAW ship's primary mission, there is also v little reason to update theirs
- add 15 yrs of service life to T31 launches and compare with T45 OSDs... that's when we will see Mk8 wave good bye to us
Lord Jim wrote:As for the lead Commando, this is not a assault force but a formation to be deployed by sea to fight on land.
Is it not time to move with the times and include STOMP in the terminology... rather than keep recalling Dieppe/ Normandy/ Inchon. Though the last one did take place pretty close ' to objective'.
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 »

The Royal Marines are very capable of "Stomping" on someone when conducting raiding operations, as they have done in the past and will continue to do so in the future. For this the proposed LSS will be a great asset acting as a forward deployed mobile base form which these operations can be conducted. Including them in what was the ARG seems to infer that they are to replace existing assets which have been removed, as the current formation of an Albion, two Bays, one or more Points plus an escort force is more than sufficient to move the Lead Commando Group.

Yes this is an amphibious operation, but it would be one of transport rather than assault, where they would either be securing a point of entry or then moving in land to engage the enemy. The type of operation undertaken in GWII would probably be the most hostile landing scenario, and would certainly not take place against a peer opponent. In this case it would be landed in friendly territory to then move forward to engage. In these scenarios there is no need for a LSS unless there is no alternative.

It is also interesting that we seem to be basing the operation of the two planned LSS on 100% availability, surely that will be a first for a class of naval vessel. The only way this could be achieved would be if they were tide up in port for the majority of time and only used in an emergency. This would infer that they will not be lavishly equipped platforms but rather built to the minimum spec to meet their role. And this is where we again have to discuss their name. Littoral Strike Ship implies some sort of combat role or capability, whish they will not have. At best they will be self deploying mobile bases from which SF and other raiding operation could be conducted from. They will probably move form location to location, setting up shop and then conducting operations within the range of the assets deployed on board. They will not be cruising off the coast of a hostile nation launching waves of assault troops, we have other assets that do that.

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 Royal Marines are very capable of "Stomping" on someone when conducting raiding operations, as they have done in the past and will continue to do so in the future. For this the proposed LSS will be a great asset acting as a forward deployed mobile base form which these operations can be conducted.
I must admit I was being 'very naughty' with the play on words (testing knowledge of modern day operating concepts with the same bother).
- so instead of stomping (what we ended up with in the Falklands, due to oversight of "all eggs in one basket" and the consequent loss of a critical capability - save for one, which saved many a day - let's focus on "Ship to Objective Manoeuvre (STOM) [which] can be seen as a tactical support concept that allows forces to move swiftly from shipping to inland objectives without the need to establish the traditional lodgement and built up beach logistics areas."

" OMFTS is of course nothing new, the Falkland Islands was a classic example, including what might reasonably be called Joint Sea Basing before the term was institutionalised. In that context, Sea Basing was sustaining the force ashore solely from a distributed sea base, or collection of ships"

No, I did not read through the whole Joint Doctrine and the appended part on amph. Ops, but picked up the quote from TD.
Lord Jim wrote:Yes this is an amphibious operation, but it would be one of transport rather than assault, where they would either be securing a point of entry or then moving in land to engage the enemy.
- cfr. STOM above

Regardless (of terminology) we arrive at the same place :thumbup:
Lord Jim wrote: At best they [FLSS] will be self deploying mobile bases from which SF and other raiding operation could be conducted from. They will probably move form location to location, setting up shop and then conducting operations within the range of the assets deployed on board.
- the range of those assets being a key enabler. Both Chinook and Merlin have a decent range... and then there are Chinooks and Chinooks
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
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5556
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Tempest414 »

I now think we should start with something like what Argus started out like a ship with a bridge at the bow 200 meters long and beam of 28 to 30 meters . fit a full length flight deck over same length working deck with rear deck lift like on the Mistral LHDs capable of taking a Merlin + a small lift from the deck to the role 11 medical unit. From the working deck have 2 Davits for LCVPs and 4 beam cranes for raiding craft this working deck should be able to hold up to 6 raiding craft, 2 Merlin , 2 wildcat , UAVs , and other kit as needed all decks below the working deck would be for sleeping messing , ops room, medical unit , stores

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote:I now think we should start with something like what Argus started out like a ship with a bridge at the bow 200 meters long and beam of 28 to 30 meters .
Basically start out with a donor hull like this?



https://reeferintel.com

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Tempest414 »

I think this would be a better place to start . I have all so been thinking about funding and at this time given that the SSS program has 1 billion put aside I think we should go for 2 SSS at 800 million and use the 200 left to build these new ships

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by R686 »

An interesting little read about the ADF’s future operating concept, a bit dated now but gives an overall guidance.

http://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/fi ... 009_11.pdf

http://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/fi ... s/SP10.pdf

https://www.army.gov.au/sites/default/f ... railey.pdf

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

R686 wrote: https://www.army.gov.au/sites/default/f ... railey.pdf
The installment focussing on the role of the army in a joint force strategy exhibiting a maritime leaning is interesting and this quote can be read in the context of our Strike Bdes (deploying over 2000 km and arriving in a fit state to fight):

"Naval forces can move large quantities of personnel and heavy equipment rapidly because they can move constantly with little difficulty. For example, an amphibious task force consisting of LHDs and other surface and sub-surface vessels could, at a relatively modest cruising speed of 15 knots, easily cover approximately 660 kilometres in 24 hours. By way of comparison, the highest rate of advance achieved in 24 hours by the US XXII Airborne Corps during their famous left hook manoeuvre in Iraq in 1991 was 273 kilometres. Clearly, even against a first rate, highly-mobile land force with unthreatened supply lines and major logistical backing [...]"

So here we have it: 2 Strike Bdes (on wheels, mainly) might be a good fit with the threat scenarios, but an early entry force, getting there before them, might be not a desirable but a necessary element
- all that remains for debating is the mix, in the force structure, between those early entry forces (intervention as a term easily conveys the idea of them always being headed for another continent), medium (Strike) forces and the 'heavy' backup
- FLSS in this context is a v good idea as it provides the early reaction capability while in manpower terms is not overly taxing the 3 CDO (or 16X, for that matter) being held back "at home" and not being diverted to ' some diversionary bush fire created by design'
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)

Post Reply