UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Future Littoral Strike Ships

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1455
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 15 Feb 2019, 22:55

Aethulwulf wrote:24,800 m2 equals 8850 LiM. That's more 3 Points combined. Doubt this will be a requirement for LSS.

Single shaft design would be an issue as well.
And that's just the RoRo capacity, on top of that the container capacity is listed as 364 TEU.
image.jpg
I only raise this example to show what £50m to £60m can buy new or £30m to £40m used.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 62
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Jensy » 16 Feb 2019, 02:02

Poiuytrewq wrote:I only raise this example to show what £50m to £60m can buy new or £30m to £40m used.


Knud E.Hansen have some really interesting designs, especially for Ro-Ro vessels. As you say, they're not particularly expensive, but I think most are assembled in China.

https://www.knudehansen.com/references/?subjects=new-vessel-design&vessel-type=roro-vessels

Have been looking at their modern (and bigger) Point Class-style ship used by DFDS. It is large enough you could put twin hangers forward, facing backwards, much like the USS B. Puller:

Image

Of course going in a more insane direction, I keep looking at this truck transporter and thinking of a concept something between 'Pound-Shop Mistral' and 21st Century merchant aircraft carrier. Need to paint grey, move the superstructure forward, or into an Island and fit with elevators... Ok maybe a step or two too far!

Image

Jensy

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1466
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Caribbean » 16 Feb 2019, 11:56

inch wrote:Do we think people are getting too overexcited what we might get and in reallity it's just going to be something very basic and not too large ?if you can believe anything about the mod it will probably underwhelm most people but probably be adequate

Agree about the "overexcited" bit. Considering what is available in the innovation budget (£150m this year and £300m next) and what it will likely have to cover (lots of autonomous air and ground systems also mentioned in the speech, which won't be cheap), I would think that your assessment of "underwhelming, but adequate" is right on the money.

I would expect the innovation budget to promote, among other things, ideas based on utilising existing equipment in different ways to achieve an enhanced effect, so converting a couple of Points to an auxiliary amphibious/ SF support role (while retaining a great deal of their current transport capability) would be exactly what I would expect.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1455
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 16 Feb 2019, 14:32

Caribbean wrote:...so converting a couple of Points...
Do you mean the existing Points that are in the water now or more modern commercially sourced donor hulls similar to a Point design?

If we just convert "a couple of Points" as many suggest they will be around 20 years old by the time they commission. The same age that Ocean decommissioned because 'it was built like a North Sea ferry".

I think it's highly likely that when inspected, the idea of refitting the current Points will prove to be cost prohibitive, in much same way that it was decided to build the Bay's rather than refit the Round Tables.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2962
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Lord Jim » 16 Feb 2019, 17:24

These need to be built just big enough for what is required and built as cheaply as possible.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1149
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Tempest414 » 16 Feb 2019, 17:42

I am starting to think it would be easier to fit a full width hangar capable of holding 3 Merlin's with a ops room on top to the 3 Bays and use them for the Littoral strike ships and then convert a Point or a Wave for AP-N

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1455
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 17 Feb 2019, 08:54

Jensy wrote:
Knud E.Hansen have some really interesting designs, especially for Ro-Ro vessels.
The Points could almost be described as last generation now. Some of the most up to date designs are truly impressive. This Grimaldi design is probably too big for the LSS but if shortened to 200m, something like this might be a decent option.
image.jpg
RN has a chance to really innovate with the LSS concept but will they?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1695
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Repulse » 17 Feb 2019, 08:59

Interestingly, this does seem a return to the late 1970s for the RN when similar ships were being discussed and then ditched when money was found for HMS Ocean (for which there supposed to be two).

There was discussion also around using these as RM bases in the Norwegian Fjords - was thing notes were that these were longer than the Fjords were wide so effectively it meant going in forwards and out backwards...
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 17 Feb 2019, 12:16

Repulse wrote:these were longer than the Fjords were wide so effectively it meant going in forwards and out backwards...
Can't be right; carrier battle groups in them, too ;)

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1455
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 17 Feb 2019, 12:32

Repulse wrote:Interestingly, this does seem a return to the late 1970s for the RN when similar ships were being discussed and then ditched when money was found for HMS Ocean
Could we be heading back to the future?

SW1
Member
Posts: 689
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby SW1 » 17 Feb 2019, 12:45

This is across multiple thread but I think it worth putting it here, people are getting way too ambitious about what this has to carry, some appear determined to try and replicate an helicopter assault carrier on a converted cargo vessel, it really shouldn’t be that. If you had 2 LSS each able to embark 6 merlin you have more helicopter space than helicopters that CHF can deploy. The ability to hanger operate 2 merlin or chinook(blades folded) would be adequate.

The bays are perfect for doing what there doing at present having a dock is very useful no reason why they can’t all feed into the “mothership” concept its what they carry not the ship itself. The concept I guess is are we looking to deploy the commandos in what is considered the traditional amphibious concept or is there role changing, this suggests it maybe. Between Albion, the bays or indeed the points any one or all could potientially be adapted to suit the role.

Perhaps it’s worth noting the us requirement for its conversion

“The US Navy's Request For Proposal called for a dual-screw ship capable of sustaining 20 knots speed with a range of 8000 miles, with 45 days endurance for a crew of 50 persons, augmented by a surge of up to 159 additional government personnel, and able to be refueled and re-provisioned underway for an additional 45 days' endurance for all 209 personnel. The vessel was to include capability to embark, hangar, launch and recover all rotary wing aircraft in the SOF inventory up to the size of the MH-53E, provide multiple refueling points for aircraft with a capacity for carrying 150,000 gallons of JP-5 fuel, carry and launch 4 boats of 12.3m length, two simultaneously within 20 minutes, and be able to carry, launch, and recover 8 jet skis and Zodiac inflatables. Modifications seen include a cavernous double hangar bay on the top deck forward of the bridge, and the conversion of the upper cargo deck immediately beneath the flight deck to handle the launch of boats. Unseen modifications were to include the addition of multiple dedicated maintenance and repair workshops for aircraft, UAVs, and small craft, dive lockers and service facilities for up to 60 NSWF personnel and their equipment, a 40 person SCIF, 20 person communications suite, berthing for at least 209 personnel, and emergency medical/surgical suite capable of accommodating at least 10 battle casualties. External FLIR monitoring and six 0.5inch machinegun pintle mounts for local security were also part of the upgrade. Numerous satellite antenna and communication masts are installed on the upper decks. All modifications included the requirement to operate in areas with ambient outside temperatures of 110° F and sea temps of 95° F. for extended periods in stationary location, indicating the Horn of Africa and waters contiguous to the Saudi Arabian peninsula would be the ship's primary area of deployment.”

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 17 Feb 2019, 12:58

SW1 wrote: with 45 days endurance for a crew of 50 persons, augmented by a surge of up to 159 additional government personnel, and able to be refueled and re-provisioned underway for an additional 45 days' endurance for all 209 personnel.
I see this exactly right as for capacity:
50 ship
29 helo manning, incl. ground crew
130 RM* (3 platoons, HQ/ recce, boat handling; with two Chinooks onboard 2 of those three platoons could be landed simultaneously, one for the task and one to secure the LZ)
SW1 wrote:and emergency medical/surgical suite capable of accommodating at least 10 battle casualties.
which, while sitting idle, would still need a specialist 'crew'

And, as we are talking about the same base design, this can't be too far off (if we don't end up buying something else than two of the Points)

==========
* Let's assume 90 days on ship, 90 days off ( :) like in civvystreet) and that kind of force rotating through the two ships. Further take what UK Elite Forces wrote about the new MOC:
"42 Commando's restructuring will leave only 40 Commando and 45 Commando in the traditional amphibious assault role. Currently, one commando within 3 Commando Brigade is tasked as the core of the Lead Commando Group in the high readiness role, one is in training and the other assigned to 'standing tasks', which includes providing on-ship force protection teams. The restructuring will see 42 Commando dedicated to ships force protection and other maritime tasks, while 40 and 45 Commando rotate into the Lead Commando role.

The MOC [Maritime Operations Commando] will also have a counter terrorism role. In a leaked memo, Major General Robert Magowan, Commandant General Royal Marines, says, "[the MOC] will also provide our core contribution to UK domestic operations in response to a terrorist event." Liaison officers from the SAS and SBS will be attached to the unit.[3] "
- they also (only) speculate that S Sqdrn from 43 Commando might now be tasked as part of the MOC (no announcements on that aspect?)

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1466
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Caribbean » 17 Feb 2019, 13:37

Poiuytrewq wrote:Do you mean the existing Points that are in the water now or more modern commercially sourced donor hulls similar to a Point design........I think it's highly likely that when inspected, the idea of refitting the current Points will prove to be cost prohibitive

Indeed, a major consideration - presumably that's the point (excuse the pun) of the "investigation" phase at the moment. Since the US has already done a Point conversion, and H&W built two of them, I would think that it would provide the starting point (dammit!) for any assessment. No doubt the existing ships will be prime candidates, but it may well prove that a new(er) hull is cheaper overall. Since both ro-ro ferries and tankers have been mentioned at times, I suspect that nothing has been ruled out yet.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1455
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 17 Feb 2019, 15:19

SW1 wrote:If you had 2 LSS each able to embark 6 merlin you have more helicopter space than helicopters that CHF can deploy.
You could be right but in the case of converting the Bay's its simply a case of the practicalities involved. This image clearly shows the issues that need to be resolved.
image.jpg
The red square denotes the appropriate size of a hanger capable of embarking six folded Merlin or 2 unfolded Chinooks. It's clear from the image that to create 2 Chinook capable landing spots it will require the funnel locations to move (again). They can't go aft so the only solution is to move them forward and add them into the structure of the newly formed hanger. If an amidships hanger was added to try and retain some of the working deck then the second Chinook landing spot would be lost. It's one or the other.

This hanger could in effect become a multipurpose deck garage. If a full width gantry crane was fitted it could also embark and deploy small craft up to the size of a CB90 or LCVP via side hatches. For example this deck garage could hold a mixed load of six CB90's, two Merlins and either a Wildcat or an Apache. It would be a very versatile space.

Another question arises as to what to do above the hanger? The superstructure could be extended to create more accommodation and medical facilities or a raised working deck could be created serviced by deck cranes to add a bit more space for small craft or LCAC's etc.

So bearing all that in mind what is the point of making the hanger/deck garage smaller?
SW1 wrote:Between Albion, the bays or indeed the points any one or all could potientially be adapted to suit the role.
Quite possibly but I would like to see the Bay's fully considered before ruling them out completely and buying something new.
SW1 wrote:Perhaps it’s worth noting the us requirement for its conversion
The U.S. requirement is very interesting but RN's requirements will likely be very different when all of the kinks in the LSS/LSG concept are ironed out. The investment in Amphibious/Littoral strike is very welcome as is the commitment to the Royal Marines. For now I think that's the important thing, hopefully the necessary platforms will follow in time.
Caribbean wrote:I suspect that nothing has been ruled out yet.
Agreed. I think there is high likelihood that a concept had to be found for the announcement quick sharp and a basic drawing of MV Ocean Trader was the fastest and more plausible example that could be mocked up.

One thing I would like confirmed is whether these LSS vessels are also the previously proposed HADR vessels. If they are, the LSG concept could be more PR spin than reality, if they aren't then how many Logistic/Support/Amphibious/Replenish vessels have been proposed now :wtf: It's a pretty long list and helps highlight the chronic lack of credible escorts.

As ever, lots of questions, very little clarity.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Pongoglo
Member
Posts: 217
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 10:39
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Pongoglo » 17 Feb 2019, 15:44

Caribbean wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote: Since the US has already done a Point conversion, and H&W built two of them, I would think that it would provide the starting point (dammit!) for any assessment. No doubt the existing ships will be prime candidates, but it may well prove that a new(er) hull is cheaper overall. Since both ro-ro ferries and tankers have been mentioned at times, I suspect that nothing has been ruled out yet.


Also single service planning isnt done in isolation, that's why we we have PJHQ/JFHQ, with the emphasis on Joint. The purchase of the Points was done largely at the bequest of the Army with experience from Kosovo born heavily in mind, not RN/RM. Their primary role being to move the Army's Heavy metal ' in MoD speak. This role hasn't gone away and it could be argued that with the advent of the Strike Brigade is more mission critical than even before.

Having lost two of the six it is hard enough to sustain current Ops let alone if two more are lost through conversion to LSS. Don't get me wrong I'm a big fan of the LSS concept not least because for once we seem to be seeing some innovative thinking coming out of MoD, however not if it means the loss of two more Points from their primary role.

However I'm not yet despondent as for the reasons stated above I don't think PJHQ would stomach their loss so my money is still on that in the interests of commonality we either buy back the two that we lost, still out and about plying their trade, or given as that in merchant terms these are now quite old hulls, we look for similar and take up from trade. Exactly as the US have done with MV Cragside in fact ?

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1455
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 17 Feb 2019, 15:54

Pongoglo wrote:....it could be argued that with the advent of the Strike Brigade is more mission critical than even before.
Exactly, dropping down to two Points seems very unlikely. With the emphasis on forward deployment it's difficult to see how the LSS vessels could be routinely used for sealift duties.

SW1
Member
Posts: 689
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby SW1 » 17 Feb 2019, 15:55

Poiuytrewq wrote:So bearing all that in mind what is the point of making the hanger/deck garage smaller?


Poiuytrewq

A hanger/box structure isn’t the issue it’s a covered space. That covered space needs to take into account what you want to do with the rest of deck and balanced accordingly.

If you set out to operate 6 merlins then you need refuelling points, space for spares, crew potientially weapons storage to support a said deployment size.
Then how big a space to operate 6 can they all operate together so you get to how many flight deck spots is there ect. It all starts to drives size and cost as requirements creep..

If you need that much a/c capacity then your really deploying the carrier.


I’d be looking to see what options we could do with what we currently have. What Albion has done in her Far East deployment, the assortment of craft that went with the bay to Oman in the summer or indeed the security for London Olympics.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1695
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Repulse » 17 Feb 2019, 16:58

SW1, Whilst it may rarely be used to it’s full capacity, I see no problem with aiming for similar aviation capabilities that are currently on RFA Argus (which IMO will be replaced by one of these). Yes, that includes hosting Apaches - the CVFs will be Far too valuable to sail close to shore.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1455
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 17 Feb 2019, 17:43

SW1 wrote:If you set out to operate 6 merlins then you need refuelling points, space for spares, crew potientially weapons storage to support a said deployment size.
Then how big a space to operate 6 can they all operate together so you get to how many flight deck spots is there ect. It all starts to drives size and cost as requirements creep..
Absolutely, one thing leads to another, costs rise, excess space decreases etc.

The crucial point is how do we see the LSS being used?

How many helicopters are going to be used at any one time?

How many if any in reserve?

Could an Allied nation request to use the LSS in a crisis and need to embark 2 or 3 of their helicopters at short notice? If so what happens to the embarked helicopters?

Does the hanger need to be able to take multiple Chinooks with rotors unfolded?

Is an Apache capability necessary?

Will the LSS have a secondary ASW capability, in the North Atlantic for example? Area of operations for the second LSG is the Med, Baltic and Atlantic.

Is a lift to the Flightdeck simply unaffordable?

How many landing spots are required?

Do all of the Landing Spots need to be Chinook capable?

How much space needs to be reserved for UAV's?

Is a separate UAV launch/recovery area necessary?

Lots to consider...

SW1
Member
Posts: 689
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby SW1 » 17 Feb 2019, 18:19

Poiuytrewq

And that is the problem requirements run away quickly it need to be keep simple, it’s like with repulses comments above what people seem to really want are amphibious assualt carriers, that is not this, it is perhaps what should of been built instead of cvf but that ship has well and truly sailed.

The budget here is small and that needs to be remembered we can’t get half way down the road then decide it’s gonna cost twice as much as we thought and get the begging bowl out as we so often do. It’s also not all about big helicopters hopefully things like scan eagles will feature, hopefully some unmanned surface vessels too.

As with the US requirement things should be keep modest and the only way I think we can achieve that is as the temptation to add more exotic capabilities appear is to insist on ever greater cuts elsewhere to pay for it. For example you want 6 or 8 helicopter spots I want PoW mothballed, you want helicopters and 4 or 6 landing craft I want a for sale sign on Albion and bulwark.

I think if we copied the US requirement that became mv ocean trader we would strike a good balance.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1144
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Jake1992 » 17 Feb 2019, 18:41

IMO it sounds very much like these vessels will be mobile SF bases with the added ability to conduct RM raids, the question is what is required for this ? That is what should define the ship it’s self.

This is how I see it -

Accommodation for 400-500 over all personal:
- 70-80 core crew
- helo personal for multiple helos
- boat / off board systems personal
- medical personal
- 200-250 RM / SF

Minimum top speed of 20knots

Range of 7,000-10,000nm

Endurance of 45-60 days

Able to be replenished at sea

A hanger for at least 3-4 merlins / 1 chinook blades unfolded ( personally I’d like up to 6 but only if budget allows )

Twin chinook flight deck ideally

6 boat bays for up to LCVP size boats / unmanned vehicles

RORO ramp + steal beach for loading unload vehicles / equipment / stores

5-10 bed role 2 medical

C&C set for SF ops / RM raids

40tn deck crane

Self defence set up of 2 x phalanx / SeaRAM, 2 x 30mm, hand full of GPMG and mini guns

I’d like the survivability standard to be at least matching that of the bays

I don’t think this is asking too much in all honesty

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1455
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 17 Feb 2019, 19:33

Jake1992 wrote:IMO it sounds very much like these vessels will be mobile SF bases with the added ability to conduct RM raids, the question is what is required for this ?
Maybe if everyone pitched in we could reach a consensus :D......unlikley I know.
Jake1992 wrote:That is what should define the ship it’s self.
Exactly
Jake1992 wrote:I don’t think this is asking too much in all honesty
I agree. Maybe the EMF figure is a bit high but it seems about right as a surge figure for me. The helicopter capacity is a delicate balance but there is every chance 4 helicopters would fit in MV Ocean Traders hangers anyway.
Jake1992 wrote:I’d like the survivability standard to be at least matching that of the bays
Not really been discussed yet. Putting at least 400 to 500 personnel aboard any vessel and sailing potentially into harms way requires a duty of care. It might be cheap to convert RoRo ferries with rock bottom build standards but is it wise?

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1695
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Repulse » 18 Feb 2019, 02:33

SW1 wrote:And that is the problem requirements run away quickly it need to be keep simple, it’s like with repulses comments above what people seem to really want are amphibious assualt carriers, that is not this


But I’m just asking for the aviation capabilities that Argus has today? I have no doubt Argus will be replaced by these two ships plus RFA Fort Victoria, which can operate up to 3-5 Merlins. TBH a couple of chinooks supported by a couple of Army Wildcats would be a good norm.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 18 Feb 2019, 06:46

Poiuytrewq wrote: Putting at least 400 to 500 personnel aboard any vessel and sailing potentially into harms way requires a duty of care. It might be cheap to convert RoRo ferries with rock bottom build standards but is it wise?
Build stds is one thing, but the underlying design of a flow-thru ship is challenging: a big box, within which the connectivity (both length wise and vertically, between decks) has been maximised, means that even modest damage would turn that "flow" to be water.
Repulse wrote:TBH a couple of chinooks supported by a couple of Army Wildcats would be a good norm.
That would be a good target, with the Apaches normally not carried, and perhaps one Chinook swapped for a Wildcat (they will soon get their LMMs)
- if the Chinooks get a ship-width hangar at the same level as the helopad, I wonder whether the lighter ones can be brought up by a lift when it is fully possible that a Chinook will land (weight?) on the top part of the lift cage when it is not in use?

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5712
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby shark bait » 18 Feb 2019, 07:58

inch wrote:it's just going to be something very basic and not too large

That is something worth getting excited about.

Commenters on here and various bloggers have been drawing up concepts for simple big platforms for a long time, and the benefits of these should be fairly clear by now. The frigate form factor is not ideal for hybrid / general-purpose duties, and the escort fleet is already stretched a little thin. These new ships have the potential to correct those two wrongs, and create a more effective modern Navy. That is worth getting excited about.
@LandSharkUK


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 90inFIRST and 15 guests